There is simply no way to top this Bulwer-Lytton-quality line from Mark Steyn:

The State Department really ought to issue travel advisories warning visitors to the United Kingdom about cage-fighting transvestites and poisoned curries from gay tripedal-catnappers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

While there isn't a smoking gun as of yet, it is very hard to see where else this might lead.

I tend to like what I've seen of Sarah Palin as a person even if I've not agreed with every position she's held. Quite frankly, I don't understand why so many progressives (including most of the media) and RINOs attack her like she's such a threat to all they hold dear. If she really is the ditzy Caribou Barbie they constantly make her out to be, then why are they even bothering discussing her?

The fact that they treat her like a lethal threat does more for her mystique than anything she's actually done, and I suspect it is going to eventually backfire and give her some sort of underdog status if they don't learn to control their attacks a bit better. I don't think that she's a great politician, but I do love the way she's a catalyst to bring out the crazies.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

...please at least let it be memorable copy.

Don't let it be the pedestrian regurgitation of a shallow political talking point.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Treacher and Hot Air have caught the face of the liberal blogosphere with a bad case of foot-in-mouth, and a serious case of amnesia.

First, the cringeworthy tweet:

When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparent, prefer to talk "revolution" and kill cops.

Last I checked, radical neo-Nazi conspiracy theorists aren't exactly in the conservative mainstream.

Kos' amnesia?

Left-wing progressive and Indymedia contributor Andrew Mickel is currently on death row for his 2002 assassination of Red Bluff Police Officer David Mobilio.

But unlike yesterday's reactionary murder of three Pittsburgh, PA policemen who responded to a domestic violence call that escalated into an ambush, Mickel purposefully planned his murder in advance, picking the time, the place, and the victim.

He was caught for the murder because of his desire to promote his crime in hopes of starting a violent revolution against the government.

Six days after the shooting, a manifesto appeared on more than a dozen Web sites operated by the left-leaning Independent Media Center.

It began: "Hello Everyone, my name's Andy. I killed a Police Officer in Red Bluff, California in a motion to bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I'm coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility."

Mickel, whom his parents compared him the Unabomber according to Wikipedia went to school at Evergreen State College, the same radical leftist institution that produced Rachel Corrie, an International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist. The ISM works closely with terrorist organizations in Gaza, and Corrie was killed while apparently defending a terrorist smuggling tunnel.

Kos can make sweeping condemnations based upon alleged ties between his political opponents and criminals, but conveniently forgets the blood his direct peers spill.

I guess we should just be thankful Kos didn't tweet that he felt the same way about Pittsburgh police officers as he did contractors in Fallujah.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:56 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 3 kb.

Ironically, both the number of people who will vote for Barack Obama if this stimulus bill passes, and the number of people who have now visited this blog.

And guess who Mr. Four Million was?

I'm also pretty sure he was a significant number of those other 3,999,999, but hey, who's counting?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Confederate Yankee, I don't agree. Everything that Obama does has an unintended consequence. People are falsely assuming that Obama is successfully buying votes. Not true. He's going to bring this economy crashing down to national devastation by borrowing and spending when we are already precariously over the edge of the cliff, overextended, and hanging onto a bush. We're going to fall. So, if there was "room" for him to buy votes - he'd succeed. But there isn't. He's borrowing beyond our ability to repay. Many negative consequences will result. This will blow up in his face. Hyperinflation will "wipe out" the gains he gave to some. Everything will crash under this weight that the system cannot support. We're less structurally strong as a nation in business and infrastrucure than we were in 1929. He's literally lighting the match that's going to burn down our "Rome". He's not going to be re-elected. In fact, I doubt sincerely that our current political system and national unity will withstand what's about to hit. He's thrown the USA into her death throes - the moment this "porkulus package" is passed. I don't think people who anticipate that he's "buying votes" really see the big picture of the calamity he's setting in motion with this plan. Put a fork in her. America's done the moment this bill is signed. It's a death warrant on a democracy that remained intact over 200 years. It will result in the dissolution of the USA. We're in that bad of shape. They think we can always "afford more". Wrong. The Government itself is going to fail - like Wall Street collapsed. Mark my words. A super-tsunami is what Obama will set in motion with this bill.

Posted by: l at February 05, 2009 12:50 AM (KquNY)

2 It will result in the dissolution of the USA. We're in that bad of shape. You must be young. This isn't even close to the great depression...or even the Carter years of double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Did you ever sit in an odd/even gas line?

Posted by: PA at February 06, 2009 09:31 AM (Ygf78)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bill Faith of Old War Dogs and Small Town Veteran passed yesterday, apparently due to a heart attack. He was a kind soul, and the world is a poorer place for his loss. I'm simply glad that God, in his kindness, allowed Bill to meet his new granddaughter and visit with her awhile before he passed on.

Michelle Malkin has published a wonderful tribute to Bill. Please leave your blessings and prayers there.

I'd write more, but I've got a little some thing in my eye.

God bless you, Bill.

RIP

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, I've been a slack blogger lately, but I'm merely resting up for four years of pure comedy gold that the Obama Administration promises to be.

Panetta? Really? I guess was Stephanopoulos too busy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:05 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

As I mentioned briefly a little earlier, Confederate Yankee sprang to life four years ago today. It was never really intended as anything more than a one-off response to an angry elitist, but as responses to that post came rolling in, I got hooked.

Blogging has been very good to me. I've met some truly brilliant people as a result of blogging, both online and in person. Some of these people are bloggers and media personalities and politicians you may have heard of, and many more are commenters and those who actually do the things I write about, including soldiers, journalists, professors, and other hard-working Americans.

Those of you who do are are an inspiration to me, and keep me humble as I should be. Mostly, I write and reflect and pontificate. You make America—and other countries—work. I just hope that in some way I can contribute to furthering your far more important work, popularize those things you believe, and occasionally shine sunlight into those areas that need to be disinfected.

Thanks for the ride so far, folks.

I can only imagine what we'll do next.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Please vote in our poll: In light of Sarah Palin's phenomenal popularity and potential to be an agent of change on a national level, what do you think she should do in the immediate future? http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com

Posted by: History Chasers at November 05, 2008 01:19 PM (z2gwW)

2 You'll likely continue to suck. Enjoy your 40 years in the wilderness. Oh, and how'd that mistress smear work out for ya?

Posted by: Dave at November 05, 2008 01:24 PM (foLN0)

3 Congratulations, CY. Here's hoping that you turn 4 years into 40 more. Cheers!

Posted by: W-K-B at November 05, 2008 03:22 PM (2sAX0)

4 Congrats! You are on our RSS feed.

Posted by: Marc Boyd at November 05, 2008 04:00 PM (Zoziv)

5 Well! Only four years? Seems longer than that.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at November 05, 2008 04:03 PM (O9Cc8)

6 Thank You CY! You asked "What will we do next?" Well, I know from experience that a true unrestricted Combat War Correspondent (as in Ernie Pyle) is almost impossible to find these days. Michael Yon comes very close, but he's freelance. "Embedded Jouranlists" were neither, and were a joke, staying behind walls and paying locals for "reports" that naturally were false, they learn fast, and only bring back what the biased media wants to print, beneath a real name. I believe intereted bloggers should convene (As in Convention) and petition the U.S. Armed Forces to provide a real soldier correspondents to send their stories to interested blogs. With todays "lap-top" technology it's an easy task. Yes, their scoops would be censored, but I KNOW that the reality is that the Army WANTS this kind of news to go out, they just don't like it going out to, and being twisted to schreds by, the biased Mainstream Media. In contrast, PJM style blogs would offer the Armed Forces BOTH an opportunity to "kind'a" tweak the story, get the finished story out, and trust that there would be a SOURCE that the MSM would have to go through (like a firewall) to try and spin it. An added bonus is of course; REVENGE and PAYBACK by throwing the MSM out of the loop ant replacing it with bloggers dedicated to reporting the truth. PLEASE think about it, pass it along. It's a great Idea, and would make national stars out of all of you who participated. (Not that 'cha aren't already).

Posted by: Nostradamus at November 05, 2008 04:56 PM (6XCLG)

7 CY, it's been a lot of fun hanging out here with ya. I plan on sticking around for at least 4 more years, if you'll have me.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 05, 2008 07:13 PM (PnuiE)

8 Happy Anniversary!

Posted by: Robert at November 05, 2008 11:24 PM (zya/z)

9 Bob, you've done a hell of a job with this thing, going beyond blogging and into serious, substantive citizen journalism. Do carry on, and thank you.

Posted by: Pablo at November 06, 2008 12:00 AM (yTndK)

10 Don't sell yourself short - and I mean many of "you" - bloggers and commenters alike. I agree with all you said, but I think one thing this election cycle has shown us -- the internet is becoming an important part of our democracy. Of course, it, and specifically "blogging" can do harm - wild rumors and smears and lies and even fake sites set up to discredit the opposition or individuals.... ....it is much harder for readers to police/sift the internet.....but it is a rising form of valuable mass communication - at a time when our traditional means --- is failing horribly ---- our mainstream media... If it were not for certain talk radio shows, especially the investigative work Sean Hannity did, or for some well known conservative blogs, like this one, ---- how much more of our voting masses would have been completely in the dark about Obama's past before he began running for president - when he does not have an extensive history in government for us to learn from??? And talk radio's days are numbered..... Reputable blogs --- and I'd say reputable on the left or right or center ---- will become even more important once the federal government makes the move against talk radio. And blogs can build a reputation over time. And become known. And gain in credibility and influence. The comments sections also allow for a sometimes too spirited discussion - but a discussion you can't get most other places. And that can be a small positive in our democracy as well. You are not a soldier fighting a war or a policeman on the thin blue line.....but you are offering something valuable (and new)..... ....and deserve thanks for that.....

Posted by: usinkorea at November 06, 2008 02:58 AM (vDCL4)

11 CY, Keep up the great work. I felt I had to do something more as I watched the election returns and started my own conservative blog here http://www.survivingsocialism.com/ Hopefully I can follow in your footsteps. Garet

Posted by: garetjax at November 06, 2008 11:44 AM (iH8I8)

12 Congrats, Bob, and well done; here's to many happy returns. Lord knows we're all going to have plenty of material to work with in the coming months and years.

Posted by: Mike at November 06, 2008 01:28 PM (fVWhk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dr. David Perlmutter, author of Blog Wars: The New Political Battleground and a really neat educator I've worked with in the past, asked me to mention the Citizen Journalism Workshop being held this year at Blogworld in Las Vegas.

Consider this a PSA for an excellent idea:

Citizen Journalism Workshop
An Exclusive Event at BlogWorld & New Media Expo 2008
Date: Sept. 19, 2008 – 10:00AM – 4:45PM
Location: Las Vegas Convention Ctr., Upper South Hall Conference Rooms; Room 221

PROGRAM OVERVIEW:

As blogs take their place as legitimate and respected sources for news, information and analysis, BLOGWORLD & NEW MEDIA EXPO 2008 introduces a new Citizen Journalism Workshop.

There are about 112 millions weblogs worldwide, and while many are blogging for casual reasons or for just a short time, others, especially news and information bloggers, are serious about their blogs' success in the greater marketplace of ideas.

How can someone "break in" as a news, politics or current events blogger and build a readership, get attention from major bloggers and mass media, and more important perhaps, affect or influence the traditional press agenda, politics, and public opinion?

Traditional news media outlets and bloggers have not always had the best relationship. And yet traditional media has tried to learn from the blogs. In 2008 most mainstream media outlets have blogs, or have their journalists blogging independently.

Now it's time for the bloggers and other new media journalists to mine the history, tradition and most importantly, the knowledge base of traditional journalists.

In 2008 BLOGWORLD & NEW MEDIA EXPO 2008 is introducing a journalism training certificate workshop for bloggers seeking to deepen and broaden their skills. This workshop focuses on tools and skills news and information bloggers can use to improve the quality, and impact of their blogs.

Bloggers will learn techniques of traditional journalists, including styles of opinion writing, investigative reporting techniques and fact-sourcing, avoiding legal pitfalls, and tips on what makes a post most likely to get one quoted or cited by larger blogs and even the mainstream media.

The instructors for the sessions are accomplished news & information practitioners and educators who have established skills in practical and applied areas of professional journalism training. Participants will receive a Citizen Journalism Certificate and Web icon that will allow them to display their dedication to improving their journalistic skills, and providing them with a distinct brand differentiation from the millions of other news and information bloggers.

WORKSHOP SESSION DESCRIPTIONS:

10:00AM - 11:15AM
Journalism Content & Style: How to Write & Sound for Impact (CJ1)
[Professor Steve Berry, U. Iowa]
You'll learn why substance and clarity trump flash and flair in the battle for readers. This session will teach you how to give your writing the power, lively freshness, style and needed to win hearts and minds. We'll talk about how you can focus your writing to a specific audience, how broadcast, print and website writing differ and why; and how you can use this knowledge to better target specific groups. We'll also examine the rhythms, structure, and succinctness of superior writing and provide you with examples of how the best writers make people see instead of just read.

11:30AM - 12:45PM
Finding What's Out There: Searching, Sifting, and Selecting the Best Information Online (CJ2)
[Professor Jay Perkins, LSU]
Finding information isn't a problem anymore, but avoiding suffocating under all that information can be. Investigative journalists know that government collects a ton of information that most people never find and that Google and Wikipedia can't touch. This session will look at some of the free, hidden treasure chests of information. You'll learn how to assemble a background profile on someone from public records, how to trace property, cars, boats and other transactions, and where to go to find people who can help you find these items. You also will learn how to obtain information from local and national federal agencies through the Freedom of Information Act and how to get around the bureaucrats when they bar the front door and refuse to hand over the key. We'll also talk about fact-checking and source-credibility strategies that will keep you on the path of accuracy--and hopefully, out of someone else's blog.

2:00PM - 3:15PM
Top 10 Ways to Blog Your Way Into a Lawsuit (CJ3)
[Nina Yablok, Law Office of Nina Yablok]
A fast paced romp through the biggest legal risks that both individual and group bloggers face. Emphasis will be on recognizing problems early, assessing risks, self-help measures to minimize risk, when not to call an attorney, and when to make the call and how to use attorneys efficiently. Detailed legal analysis will not be provided. This is very much a "how to reduce risk in the real world" program.

3:30PM - 4:45PM
Getting Mainstream Media Attention: How to Reach Out to Journalists (CJ4)
[Professor David Perlmutter, U. Kansas]
In a crowded online world, how does an independent blogger stand out and be heard? Being cited, quoted, published or used as a source by mainstream media is a significant way to build a larger and wider audience. We will review the basic selection techniques of how journalists deem someone an "approved source" or expert; we discuss how bloggers can enter the Rolodex of reliable sources for major media. Second, we show ways to have blog content picked up by traditional media, from blasting out a press release to writing and submitting an op-ed to contacting and working with mainstream reporters on stories. Finally, we will look at the ethical issues that affect how your blog is perceived by mainstream media.

PRESENTER BIOS:

STEPHEN J. BERRY, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter, is an associate professor of journalism at the University of Iowa, where he specializes in investigative reporting. He recently completed a stint as coordinator of the basic journalistic reporting program and taught a section in it for four years. His book, Watchdog Journalism: The Art of Investigative Reporting [Oxford University Press], was released July 2008. Before entering academia in 2003, Berry was a journalist for 33 years, having worked last at the Los Angeles Times. While at The Orlando Sentinel, he and a colleague won the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. He has won numerous other honors for investigative and daily reporting, including the Associated Press Newspaper Executive Council Award for public service; the Benjamin Fine award for education reporting; the Los Angeles Times' Top of the Times Award, one of its Pulitzer nominations and its Editor and Publisher Prize; Society of Professional Journalists Award [Atlanta Chapter]; and others. His projects have examined race relations, the criminal justice system, police abuse of power, school district merger, medical malpractice, stock-car racing safety, guns, government and illegal drugs. More recently he has published "Reclaiming Objectivity" and "CBS News Lets the Pentagon Taint its News Process" in Nieman Reports. He holds an M.A. in American history from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

JAY PERKINS is an associate professor at the Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University. He specializes in teaching students how to find and use governmental documents and how to cross-check Internet sources. He has taught investigative, governmental and computer-assisted reporting classes at LSU for the past 25 years. He also teaches classes in the summer in the United Kingdom, has conducted seminars for reporters in Zambia twice, and frequently lectures on using Internet databases and sources to foreign journalists who are visiting the States on sponsored tours. Prior to coming to LSU, he was a political reporter in Washington, D.C., for the Associated Press.

DAVID D. PERLMUTTER is a professor at the William Allen White School of Journalism & Mass Communications, University of Kansas. He received his BA and MA from the University of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. He has served as a Board member of the American Association of Political Consultants and now sits on the National Law Enforcement Museum Advisory Committee for its Media Exhibit. A documentary photographer, he is the author or editor of seven books on political communication and persuasion: Photojournalism and Foreign Policy: Framing Icons of Outrage in International Crises (Praeger, 199 ; Visions of War: Picturing Warfare from the Stone Age to the Cyberage (St. Martin's, 1999); (ed.) The Manship School Guide to Political Communication (LSU Press, 1999); Policing the Media: Street Cops and Public Perceptions of Law Enforcement (Sage, 2000); Picturing China in the American Press: The Visual Portrayal of Sino-American Relations in Time Magazine, 1949-1973 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007); (ed., with John Hamilton) From Pigeons to News Portals: Foreign Reporting and the Challenge of New Technology (LSU Press, 2007) , and Blogwars: The New Political Battleground (Oxford, 200 . He has also written several dozen research articles for academic journals as well as over 150 essays for U.S. and international newspapers and magazines. He writes a regular column, "P&T Confidential," for the Chronicle of Higher Education. He has been interviewed by most major news networks and newspapers, from the New York Times to CNN and ABC and, most recently, The Daily Show. He is editor of the blog of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas (http://www.doleinstituteblog.org/) and his own blog about online politics, http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/.

NINA YABLOK is an attorney in private practice. Her firm provides a full range of legal and related services to privately held businesses in a wide range of fields. Areas of advice include, but are not limited to, business development, merger and acquisition consulting, licensing, labor, contract, business entity choice, independent contractor and intellectual property law. Nina has been general counsel to Pajamas Media since it was a twinkle in Charles Johnson's and Roger Simon's eyes. She still represents PJM as well as several other well-known blogs. Nina's first online client was one of the largest and busiest forums on Compuserve. There, she dealt with legal issues on message boards, file libraries, chat rooms and IMs before the term "Social Networking" had been invented, and 11 years before Facebook was launched. She received her law degree from St. John's University, School of Law. Her own blog is at http://www.bizblawg.com/.

It certainly sounds like something worth checking out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1678 words, total size 12 kb.

At great risk to their "street cred" as milbloggers, Blake "Laughing Wolf" Powers and Jim " Uncle Jimbo" Hanson are trying out for hosting duties of a new Discovery Channel show, Blow Crap Up.

Actually, the show is titled Super Testing, but I think my description is more accurate.

Anyway, this is what they're looking for:

WeÂ’re looking for someone who is:

* In his late 30s to early 40s.

* Smart – he needs to be credible in his interactions with scientists and engineers. Science, stuntman, or engineering background is a strong plus. He does not have to be an "expert" in science or engineering per se, but should grasp the science or engineering concepts at least well enough to ask the kind of intelligent questions that our intelligent viewers appreciate.

* Tough, but an "Everyman" – He should be credible dealing with military officials, mechanics, pilots, test subjects – the whole range of folks who build things and sometimes blow things up all in the name of progress. Military, construction, or mechanical engineering background is a strong plus. He should come off as knowledgeable but likeable – and definitely a man's man.

* Charismatic, but not too "hosty" – He should be able to explain the who-what-where-when-how of the testing in a clear, direct, and always conversational way. We need someone who seems comfortable in his own skin and comfortable on camera. But he should also be comfortable letting the light shine on the real stars of the show – the people who he encounters, who make "super testing" a reality.

Do either of these guys fit the bill? If you think they do, you can vote for Laughing Wolf here, or Uncle Jimbo here.

Have at it, kids.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:36 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Why, I agree with every word.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:43 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

First Dan Rather, Now Iran.

Nicely done, Charles.

Update: You Dishonest Hacks

Early this morning, I left a comment at the Lede noting that Charles was not only the person who exposed this fraud, but Dan Rather's faked TANG documents as well.

Nine hours later, the comment has yet to clear moderation. Mike Nizza and Patrick Witty apparently don't feel like sharing their stolen credit with the person who actually exposed this fraud.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand made her progressive "bones" June 30 (if she didn't have then already)in a post that for some reason is just getting some attention from the blogosphere for her mis-characterization of Colonel Bud Day (USAF-Ret.) in this CNN blog post.

Here is Sinderbrand's description of Day in her lede:

One of the members of John McCain's new Truth Squad — which his campaign says was launched to respond to unfair attacks on his record of military service –- was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and appeared in an attack ad for the group in 2004.

Sinderbrand is displaying one of two things here, either profound ignorance, or a level of political bias that undermines her professional credibility. Michelle Malkin, active duty soldier Greyhawk, and Scott Johnson among those hoping to raise some issue here, with Malkin asking her readers to ask for a correction in the comments to Sinderbrand's blog entry, which is now closed.

Progressive blogger Jesse Taylor at Pandagon seems to think Sinderbrand's description of Day was "accurate."

As I responded in the comments:

The reason Greyhawk and other servicemen are angry at CNN's description of Col. Day is that it does not accurately describe who he is. They aren't asking for his bio to be read, but for an accurate description of who he is and what he has accomplished.

Day is not a Swift Boat vet (Navy) but an Air Force vet. His involvement with SBVFT had nothing to do with Kerry's service in Vietnam, and Day never commented on Kerry's service in Vietnam. He testified only against Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony (made in front of Congress), which Day felt was biased and dishonest in itÂ’s characterization of American servicemen in that conflict.

Is he not entitled to his freedom of speech?

Day is not primarily known as a member of SBVFT, but as one of America's most celebrated and decorated war heroes, in a very rare class reserved for men such as Audie Murphy or Alvin York. He would next be known as John McCain's cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton. After that, he is most famous for filing a class-action lawsuit against the Clinton-era Air Force for stripping veterans of their medical care. Limiting his description to merely being "a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is to ignore the vast majority of his accomplishments in order to attempt to undermine his credibility for things he never said or did.

CNN avoided Day's life's work and his most famous accomplishment in order to dismiss him for being part of a group that merged with SBVFT.

Apply a simple test to see if this is fair.

Imagine a media organization took one of your heroes, ignored his most notable 3-4 top accomplishments, and attempted to undercut his credibility by only mentioning that he made remarks or shared his opinion in front of a group your political opponents find loathsome.

Would a news story remembering Martin Luther King for his association with openly gay Communist Party member USA Bayard Rustin at the exclusion of everything else he accomplished in his life be "fair?"

King is of course far more famous for all the other things he did with his life, but according to Jesse, that is apparently all just irrelevant biographical information. Simply calling King an associate of a gay Communist, and giving him no credit for the things he is best remembered for, would be "accurate."

King of course, is known far better for his other more notable accomplishments. So is Col. Day.

He responded:

See, heres the problem with that.

Suppose you were doing a story about Bayard Rustin. As a part of it, you mentioned that he was friends with MLK. By this standard, we must include all biographical information about King for it to be "fair", which makes no sense.

If I mention that Matt Damon was at an Arby's, do I need to include both the entire plot synopsis of the Bourne Trilogy and the history of roast beef?

Taylor's response was tellingly illogical and weak.

Day, of course, was the explicit focus of Sinderbrand's blog entry.

To use Taylor's own examples correctly (he did not, or could not, I'm not sure which), if we were reading an article about Rustin or Damon, we would expect the author to get the key details of their lives correct. We would not expect the author to delve into the details of King's life in an article where Bayard Rustin is the subject because—and see if you can follow along—Bayard Rustin is the subject. He (Rustin), is the focal point of the article. Likewise, an article that has Matt Damon as the subject should focus on the key details about Damon, not a character he has played, nor the history of a menu item at a restaurant. This is simple enough of a concept that my eight-year-old understands it, but apparently Jesse's education is such that he or she is having trouble following along.

Rebecca Sinderbrand may no effort at all to accurately describe the man who was the subject of this blog entry, and instead chose the route of a cheap smear. The sad thing is that her bosses at CNN have a history of allowing such behavior, and that there are people out there like Jesse that will defend such obvious dishonestly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:20 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 906 words, total size 6 kb.

1 CY, have you fogotten about all the "studies" that have shown that progressives are smarter, more logical, and just more downright wonderful than we conservatives are? (Okay, with the trivial exceptions of actually giving to charity, and actually freeing people from tyranny, instead of talking about it.) Just because Taylor tried to slip past you a false logical comparison that would not fool a grade-schooler, don't assume he is ignorant, like he evidently must assume you to be. He is just dissembling, which sadly is just one more thing that liberals are so much better at than we are.

Posted by: sherlock at July 07, 2008 01:20 PM (ojW85)

2 This is fully and squarely McCain's fault. He backed Kerry's anti-SBV4T pushback without any hesitation or thought. Anyone saying bad things about a vet is to be ignored and vilified, even if they are vets themselves... That is one tricky policy. McCain backed Kerry for this moronic and anti-American blather called Senate Colleagality. He was more loyal to a fellow Senator than to the truth or the interests of the nation which, regardless of what one thinks of Kerry's time in uniform, were attacked mendaciously by Kerry and his band of phony vets. Couldn't McCain 'gin up a little anger about that? Apparently not. So McCain deserves a good hard slap for that although Day, of course, does not. Maybe Day can talk sense to McC on Kerry but it seems like that train has sailed. The great mistake in politics of the last fifty years is that Americans at large have allowed the Left to use their good nature against them. This must stop. Kerry is a liar, a traitor and a fraud from top to bottom. This must be said whenever and wherever he rears his empty head. McCain let us down hard in '04 on this. I hope he can see it has brought him to this pass.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 07, 2008 05:14 PM (LF+qW)

3 "Anyone saying bad things about a vet is to be ignored and vilified, even if they are vets themselves" - Like Wesley Clark? Hahahahaha. Yeh right.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 07, 2008 07:08 PM (VNM5w)

4 Oops sorry - McCain's problem is his military sense of honor and loyalty is extended to Kerry (and Obazama), but it is something they have proven is beyond their reach and of which they are unworthy.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 07, 2008 07:11 PM (VNM5w)

5 John Kerry perjured himself before Congress. Every man in the SBVFT was and is more senior to him, more decorated than him, had more months in combat than him, and none of them had their picture hanging in a goddam North Vietnamese war museum as a hero. John Kerry is a piece of shit.

Posted by: sherlock at July 07, 2008 11:25 PM (ojW85)

6 LCDR Zavadil, the SBVFT crowd threw a lot of mud about Kerry having received a dishonorable discharge, but never produced a shred of proof. In fact, I've read more than a few anti-Kerry veterans at anti-Kerry blogs suggest that the whole dishonorable-discharge controversy be dropped precisely because there was no smoking gun to back up all the rumor and innuendo. I believe the SBVFT actually dropped the issue at their website. It makes you look bad when you hurl a charge that you cannot prove. In any event, Kerry wasn't the only former combat officer who became an anti-war activist, circa 1970-72. Some of those former combat officers did more than meet with enemy officials in Paris (as did Kerry), but actually conducted "fact-finding" missions to Hanoi, and made public statements decrying the bombing of North Vietnam. Hell, one of those former combat officers, Barry Romo (Platoon Leader, Americal Division, RVN, 1967-6 was almost blown up by U.S. B52s during Nixon's Christmas '72 bombing of Hanoi. Am I to believe that all of these combat-officers-turned-anti-war-activists were punished with dishonorable discharges? Is that really how the U.S. government deals with dissenters? Of course not. This is a free country. Anyway, why would Kerry have been singled out for a dishonorable discharge when so many other anti-war veterans were so much more radical and pro-active? John Kerry isn't exactly my favorite guy (I mean, he's stiff, arrogant, tone deaf, too liberal for my tastes, and talks about Vietnam so much as to be embarrassing), but I know enough about Vietnam to know B.S. when I hear it, and, sorry, but Bud Day and the SBVFT were literally swimming in B.S. back in 2004. Best, Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 07, 2008 11:29 PM (vTJkv)

7 Hey there, Sherlock. Let's review your comment: "John Kerry perjured himself before Congress...." You are obviously referring to Kerry's statements about war crimes, but: what perjury? The U.S. infantrymen sent to Vietnam found themselves in a frustrating guerrilla war in which those the Americans had come to save were often in league with those they had come to fight. In such an environment, it is invevitable that atrocities took place. See: My Lai, My Khe, Son Thang, etc., etc., etc. None of Kerry's comments about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam constituted perjery. His statements might have been overheated and one-sided, but were actually accurate as far as they went. I know, I know, the claim has been made since Kerry opened his mouth in 1971 that all the veterans who spoke to him about war crimes, and on whose accounts he based some of his Senate testimony, were all fakes and liars and blah, blah, blah. Not true. I could cite chapter and verse on those veterans, and which ones whose atrocity stories have been verified, but that would take a lot of verbiage--and I doubt you'd be convinced, or even listen. You continue: "... Every man in the SBVFT was and is more senior to him, more decorated than him, had more months in combat than him...." That's just ridiculously untrue. Anyway, most of the guys in the SBVFT didn't even lay eyes on Kerry in Vietnam. Their main gripe was his anti-war activism after he returned to the United States. You continue: "... and none of them had their picture hanging in a goddam North Vietnamese war museum as a hero...." Neither does Kerry. You conclude: "...John Kerry is a piece of shit." What can I say?! He's not my favorite guy, either, but if you're going to spit on a veteran's Silver Star (as the SBVFT spit on Kerry's), you better have a rock-solid case.... and the SBVFT case was anything but. Hell, just look at what Bill Rood had to say about the Silver Star incident in The Chicago Tribune. Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 07, 2008 11:44 PM (vTJkv)

8 Neither does Kerry. When solidly documented and time stamped (by a framing a copy of a local paper in the shot) pictures of said picture exist, to make such a statement completely undercuts anything else you say. The picture has since been removed from the museum of course, so you can always fall back on that to save face.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 07, 2008 11:59 PM (Hxw+V)

9 Hey there, Purple Avenger. Sure, Kerry once had his photo hanging in a museum in Hanoi--just like lots of U.S. politicians had their photos hung for working to establish diplomatic ties between Vietnam and the United States. Anyway, I don't care whose portraits the commies hang up in Hanoi. Hell, given all the anti-war statements made by General David Shoup, who earned the Medal of Honor in WWII, the North Vietnamese might have once hung his picture up for all I know. Don't know. Don't care. We're Americans. We're free to speak our mind. If repressive governments like Hanoi want to make hay of our rights and freedoms, and select "heroes" among our dissenters, that's their business. Anyway, care to address the meat of my comments? Best, Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 08, 2008 01:15 AM (vTJkv)

10 Let me be more clear regarding that portrait, Purple Avenger. I'm saying that Hanoi hung Kerry's portrait, and that of other U.S. politicians, for their work in establishing diplomatic ties, not as a "hero" of the anti-war movement.... though they certainly could have, had they so chosen. But, like I said, they could have hung General Shoup's portrait, too, or that of Pete McCloskey (holder of the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and Purple Heart as a Marine lieutenant in Korea), who (like Shoup) aligned himself with Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971, and who made anti-war statements almost identical to Kerry's. Anyway, Kerry got his portrait hung up in Hanoi for diplomatic work, not for his anti-war activism. Which makes me scratch my head about the intelligence of the commies. Personally, I'd have hung up a portrait of Kerry throwing his medals back next to a portrait of Kerry in his senatorial suit and tie! Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 08, 2008 01:33 AM (vTJkv)

11 Of course, what Mr. Nolan doesn't see, because of his ideological blinders, is that his very argument is itself confirming the original author's central thesis. As one of the most famous bloggers would say, "Heh."

Posted by: Occam's Razor at July 08, 2008 07:41 AM (lus7y)

12 LCDR Zavadil, the SBVFT crowd threw a lot of mud about Kerry having received a dishonorable discharge, but never produced a shred of proof. The shred of proof was available on Kerry's own website. http://www.nysun.com/national/mystery-surrounds-kerrys-navy-discharge/3107/ To disprove the notion, Kerry would only have had to release his 1978 DD214, and explain why he had a 1978 DD214 and not a 1972 one. Why do you suppose he didn't do that?

Posted by: Pablo at July 08, 2008 09:36 AM (yTndK)

13 "However, despite decades of diggging by various right-wing organizations, not a single Winter Soldier who gave testimony was ever shown to be a fake veteran." That is not so at all. Look up Al Hubbard, #2 to Kerry. I'm not sure what you mean by "gave testimony", as I recall NO Winter Soldier was ever put onduer oath. I would be interested in that testimony if it exists. As for the allegations of perjury; the reason Kerry testified before Congress, even though he was telling the same tales of electric shocks and ear-takings is that he claimed to have seen all this personally and was willing to testify to particulars. Oops, wrong again. Within the week he had climbed down from that and said the stories were not his but those of others. What atrocity claimed by Kerry that has been confirmed is mysterious to me and I read the book and the contemporaneous rebuttals. I would think if there were an incident of torture/brutality confirmed by evidence and sworn testimony we would have seen that but who knows? Maybe Keith Nolan does since he CLAIMS he does but also that it is too tiresome a chore to declaim it. Kerry is and was a fraud and a traitor. And it was General Vo Ngyuen Giap, Ike to Minh's FDR who said publicly that the war was won in the streets of America, not the paddys of VN and singled out John Kerry for especial notice. Was he lying to, what? Protect Kerry from calmnies? And of course it goes without saying that anyone doing anything remotely similar in the hellhole Kerry did so much to protect would have suffered a summary fate that would not have allowed that person a long political career. This is what the Fondas, the Kerrys and the Haydens of this nation fought for. Miserable scum they are. As far as the Shoups and others, as far as I know of those events, those people neither lied, nor slandered their own nation or comrades or aided the Commies in prosecuting their war. Kerry... not so much.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 08, 2008 12:31 PM (LF+qW)

14 Oops, left out one crucial element; Kerry claimed that all these vicious atrocities being inflicted on random passersby were a matter of policy, carried out routinely and with full knowledge of superiors AT EVERY LEVEL OF COMMAND, as opposed to crimes that were punished severely when discovered. There are still men in prison for crimes committed in VN. That fact is the clay molded into the lie of Kerry's fantasies. This, of course, is the slander that angered the vets so much. What was Kerry's proof? He had none and said so publicly in short order on the Dick Cavett show. Predictably, these sorts of torurous maimings and killings WERE explicitly a tool of statecraft for the Commies. Summary executions and public degredations including torture and rape WERE employed by our adversaries and the notion that it was the US so engaged was the principle thrust of the anti-American propaganda of that day. And this one as well. Some things are evergreen.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 08, 2008 12:46 PM (LF+qW)

15 Hey there, Megapotamus. Okay, if interested, I'll try to offer some counterpoints to what I think are your terribily misinformed comments. To begin with, when I noted that "despite decades of diggging by various right-wing organizations, not a single Winter Soldier who gave testimony was ever shown to be a fake veteran." You replied, "That is not so at all. Look up Al Hubbard, #2 to Kerry." Ah, Al Hubbard, the achilles heel of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War--the guy who most definitely lied about his military service, exaggerating his rank, exaggerating the extent of his service in Vietnam, ad naseum. Al Hubbard was a disgrace, BUT he never made any atrocity claims, and he never gave testimony at the Winter Soldier Investigation. You continue: "As for the allegations of perjury; the reason Kerry testified before Congress, even though he was telling the same tales of electric shocks and ear-takings[,] is that he claimed to have seen all this personally and was willing to testify to particulars. Oops, wrong again. Within the week he had climbed down from that and said the stories were not his but those of others." This is where I believe you have been seriously misinformed. At no point did John Kerry ever say that he personally saw any one-on-one atrocities (executed prisoners, ears removed, that sort of stuff); rather, Kerry always said that his unit played too rough in a heavily-populated area (firing H&I missions all over the map, shooting up hamlets from the river without knowing exactly what they were shooting at, burning down hootches, slaughtering livestock, etc.). Many other Swiftees have noted the same thing, you can find photos of burning villages at different Swiftee websites. That other officers besides Kerry were disturbed by these rough tactics is noted in an official navy history titled BROWN WATER, BLACK BERETS by Tom Cutler. Kerry was always clear, especially in his Senate testimony, that the more gruesome war crimes he was addressing were described to him by other veterans at the Winter Soldier Investigation. You, of course, doubt the veracity of the Winter Soldiers (that has been the official GOP line since 1971), and write "What atrocity claimed by Kerry that has been confirmed is mysterious to me and I read the book and the contemporaneous rebuttals. I would think if there were an incident of torture/brutality confirmed by evidence and sworn testimony we would have seen that but who knows? Maybe Keith Nolan does since he CLAIMS he does but also that it is too tiresome a chore to declaim it." Okay, here goes. Scott Moore, formerly a platoon leader in the 9th Division, spoke at the Winter Soldier Investigation about fake body counts. In fact, the 9th Division under General Ewell was infamous for fake body counts. (See ABOUT FACE by Colonel Hackworth.) Robert Kruch, formerly a grunt with the Americal Division, spoke at the Winter Soldier Investigation about a hyper-aggressive battalion commander who ordered his unit not to take prisoners so to boost the body count, and also about a combat refusal that took place near FSB Center, I Corps, RVN, in August 1969. Well, the combat refusal was covered extensively by the press at the time, and I tracked down Kruch's former company commander who confirmed that, yes, their battalion commander was a little nuts, and did, in fact, put out the word that he didn't want prisoners. Mike McCusker spoke at the Winter Soldier Investigation of a rape-and-murder incident committed by B/1/5 Marines in 1966. That incident was confirmed in the official marine history of court-martials in Vietnam by LtCol Gary Solis, USMC. Another Winter Soldier spoke of a company commander in the 9th Marines being assassinated (fragged) by his own men in 1969. Again, that murder was confirmed in LtCol Solis's official history. Then there's Jamie Henry, formerly a Medic with B/1-35th Infantry, 4th Division, RVN, 1967-68. Henry testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation of a long string of rapes and murders committed by Bravo Company, to include the slaughter of a dozen villagers at the behest of a platoon leader while their West Point company commander turned a blind eye. Henry cooperated fully with the CID, which found other Bravo Company veterans who testified that, one, Henry had been a great medic under fire, and, two, that the massacre of the villagers had indeed taken place. The CID then swept the whole mess under the rug, just as they had swept under the rug the more infamous Tiger Force atrocities. Finally, as a researcher/writer with an interest in establishing the veracity of the Winter Soldier Investigation, I began tracking down veterans as of 2004 who might confirm or deny what was said in Detroit in 1971. Numerous veterans provided me old letters and diary entries that confirmed the atrocity tales told by the Winter Soldiers. Some of those same veterans also provided me with old photos of hamlets being burned down, villagers toyed with at gun and bayonet point, prisoners being brutally beaten, and GIs holding up heads hacked from dead Viet Cong. I could go on and on. In any event, history might chalk such atrocities up as "isolated incidents"--but confirmation of such incidents makes a lie of the SBVFT claim that Kerry's Winter Soldiers were a pack of frauds. Regarding the issue of war crimes, you note that the U.S. command made sure they were "punished severely when discovered. There are still men in prison for crimes committed in VN." Surely, you jest! Men still in prison! Who?! The military pardoned most of those convicted of war crimes within a matter of years. Hell, even infamous Lieutenant Calley just did a couple years of house arrest without ever seeing the inside of Fort Leavenworth. More to the point, though most unit leaders were upset when they discovered war crimes being committed by stressed-out platoon leaders and grunts, their first instict was to play cover-up, lest court-martials and scandal derail their careers. See: My Lai, My Khe, Son Thang, the Tiger Force, the incident reported by Jamie Henry, the incident behind the book Casualties of War, etc., etc., etc. As a point of fact, U.S. war crimes in Vietnam pale beside those committed by the ARVN, the ROKs, the VC, and the NVA. Kerry might have been good enough to say as much during his overheated and one-sided testimony to the Senate.... but to pretend that stressed-out American Boys didn't kill their share of innocents in Vietnam, or that their officers were vigiliant about prosecuting the offenders, is to turn history on its head. Please recall that at certain places and certain times during the war (especially southern I Corps, RVN, 1967-69) it was official policy to burn all hamlets, destroy all rice, and slaughter all livestock in enemy-controlled territory--and to hell with the villagers caught in the middle. Recall, too, that the U.S. strategy in Vietnam was premised on body count, body count, body count, and the pressure on unit commanders to produce bodies sometimes gave way to a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later attitude. More later...... Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 08, 2008 01:33 PM (vTJkv)

16 To continue, Megapotamus: You write, "And it was General Vo Ngyuen Giap, Ike to Minh's FDR who said publicly that the war was won in the streets of America, not the paddys of VN and singled out John Kerry for especial notice. Was he lying to, what? Protect Kerry from calmnies?" This claim has been floating around the internet for years, but I've never seen an actual source. Personally, I don't believe the quote. Sure, General Giap probably did praise the anti-war movement for their assistance.... but why would he have singled out Kerry? You guys act like Kerry was the single most important anti-war activist of the Vietnam era, when he was just another voice among hundreds of articulate dissenters. Again, why single out Kerry? Giap would have been much more impressed with the anti-war statements of General Shoup and Represenative McCloskey, guys much higher up the food chain in terms of military creds and positions in the U.S. government. In any event, whatever praise Giap might have offered the anti-war movement, he would surely have praised all the more highly the bravery and discipline of his own troops for winning the war, as well as his own (supposed) tactical and stategic brilliance. You don't think Hanoi was proud of its tough, never-say-die troops? You don't think the NVA were pretty damn good soldiers who loved their country, and would have fought and died for their country whatever was being said by dissenters on the American homefront? You continue, "As far as the Shoups and others [McCloskey], as far as I know of those events, those people neither lied, nor slandered their own nation or comrades or aided the Commies in prosecuting their war. Kerry... not so much." Again, you seem to be misinformed. General Shoup (Medal of Honor, WWII) and Represenative McCloskey (Navy Cross, Korea) were vocal supporters of Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971. Both stood behind the Winter Soldiers as real veterans telling true stories, and McCloskey's comments about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam were just as scathing as Kerry's. Shoup, McCloskey, and Kerry were all pretty much saying the same thing in 1971. If you consider Kerry a liar and a traitor, you need to expand your anger to take in Shoup and McCloskey, too.... which would mean you're not only accusing a Silver Star winner of treason, but also the holder of the Medal of Honor, and the holder of the Navy Cross. Course, I thought we were all Americans, who are allowed to dissent against government policies. You.... not so much. Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 08, 2008 01:46 PM (vTJkv)

17 Swiftboating: To tell the truth about a democrat candidate, usually by using his or her own words.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 08, 2008 03:01 PM (kNqJV)

18 Back to the point of the post. To describe Jimmy Carter, for instance, only as an anti-Israeli author, would be literally true, but dishonest. I once heard St. Thomas Aquinas described as merely a "medieval philosopher" on Pat Robertson's show - also dishonest. Not adding a phrase or two to put Bud Day's life in context is no different than the examples above.

Posted by: Dan at July 08, 2008 04:56 PM (CQ/+f)

19 Mr. Nolan: I note that you are quite diligent in defending Senator Kerry against attacks regarding his military service. You are to be commended for your tenacity. However, I have an honest question: Would you also be as diligent in defending Senator McCain against the numerous attacks based on his military service, from Senator Rockefeller's comment about McCain dropping "laser-guided missiles" (despite the fact that laser munitions didn't exist during the Vietnam war) to General Clark's latest attack? If you are as diligent in defending all service members against attacks on their service record, would you please provide evidence of such defense? If not, would you please explain why you are so diligent in defending Senator Kerry but not in defending Senator McCain? I eagerly await your reasoned, polite reply, sir.

Posted by: C-C-G at July 08, 2008 06:07 PM (n8vfc)

20 Keith, I have to hand it to you, I learned something there and have been relying on erroneous info for some years. Indeed, Giap did not single out Kerry for special endorsement but rather the media and leftwing groups generally. Does this let Kerry off the hook? Was he not the foremost and most public activist? Were his objections to the effects of the war on the ground and domestically not exactly the same and mendacious on the same points as the NVN line? If one wants to say the war was lost by the US rather than won by NVN, okay. The foremost antagonist to our will to win, and therefore the greatest advocate for Hanoi was Kerry. This was coincidental I guess and he only echoed the Commie line serendipitously. On other points, I protest. First off, Kerry did say in his testimony that these atrocities were pursued as a matter of policy and with the full knowledge all along the chain of command. If that is so why were there prosecutions? So, you admit Al Hubbard was a fraud though that is tough on your arrogant challenge to point to a fraud in the VVAW. We can dissagree as to whether Kerry was a fraud. That's the one and two guys. The balance... the remainder you are saying were bona fide veterans and had been where and when they claimed? Well, if you are engaged in book research as you say you could perform a real service. The Winter Soldier pamphlet is hard to come by these days. If all these claims are legit, let's see them again in their totality. Kerry was never interested in that during the election nor since. I wonder why? No one is claiming that NO crimes were committed during that war or any other. Were there coverups? Again, certainly. But what Kerry claimed is that the American presence was NO MORE than a horde of Mongols sweeping in. That these were practices of statecraft like Saddams rape rooms. And from this morass of savages marched, finally, a hero. John Kerry. In that role, of course, Kerry takes on himself the burdens of counseling our enemies in the field on their best course in dealing with the US. The perpetual Kerry response that he met with "both sides" is the lie that gives it all away. Of course he did NOT meet with any western representative in Paris but with both our antagonists; the NVN and VC. I guess that is "diversity" of a sort. As for the gentlemen you mention as alternates to Kerry; if they endorsed VVAW on the same "evidence" as Kerry they were fools. I'm not familiar enough with those events or personalities to say more. But many people fell for Kerry's shtick, sadly. Well, as you say, it is not always productive to attempt persuasion. I have rebuttals to most of the above but, like you, I weary. But I'll say it one more time. Kerry is a liar a traitor and a coward. He did all an individual could possibly do to end the war in a defeat not for America merely but for masses of people who were foolish enough to ally themselves with us, in opposition to the Communist invasion. Now, it's all over and we're downplaying the Commie angle. We want trade now. Whoops! But that doesn't let Kerry off the hook.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 09, 2008 12:24 PM (LF+qW)

21 I find Keith's Nolan's comments to be highly objectionavle because he tells me black is white and that solids and liquids are the same. Such de rigueur lying , for no intelligent person could make such assertions about Kerry or veterans without a repugnant intent. Kerry served less than four months in Vietnam, a total exceeded by all of his critics. Kerry left Vietnam because he exploited a loophole stating anyone wounded three times could get a transfer. He did this, explaining his valor in battle. How many others used this route to leave an early tour? Kerry managed in three months to get three purple hearts, though he spent not one day in hospital. I believe this indicates the nature ad severity of his injuries and the sort of man who would seek a medal for the equivalent of cutting himself while shaving. As to Mr. Nolan's assertions regarding the Swift Boat veterans not having served with him, in a tank or infantry company I may not served with someone in another platoon but I do work and know his performance. As such Mr. Nolans braying is just that, the craven droning of someone who has neither served nor has any understanding of how the military functions. It seems that most of the people who have been exposed to his impertinent and incoherent caterwauling have made similiar observations about the accuracy and intent of his toxcity. PoorMr. Nolan cannot bother himself to research Gen. Giap's statements regarding the aid and assistance that people like Kerry and the antiwar crowd provided to Hqanoi. I suggest Mr. Nolan visit the War Museum in Hanoi to see Kerry's picture in a place of honor there. No doubt because of his extreme American patritoism. Of course the Winter Soldier's weren't frauds, even if they never served in Vietnam nor were capable of anything other than indescriminate lying. When the Swiftboat head was in a debate with one of the lefties, Al Franken on live tv, Franken made similar claims and was shown to be a clueless liar. Now we all realize you have mountains of evidence to the contrary so do inform us when you collect the million dollar bet made to anyone who could discredit the Swift Boat charges. Which in two years no one has attempted. We'd all like to ee you a rich man. But it is more likely that like most Leftists we will continue to see if there is a bottom to your inspid lying. McCloskey was a nutter much like Murtha. To mention Shoup in the same breath as Kerry is an insult to any semi intelligent person who realizes that Shoup never shared nor would stoop to the craven methods of Kerry. Perhaps Mr. Nolan didn't realize that LBJ won the Navy Cross but this never stopped the left from describing him as a traitor nor does it stop them from describing their betters with these terms today. A medal doesn't provide a shield for subsequent treason nor constitute a free pass for actions against other soldiers, their families and the nation, unless you inhabit the echo chamber that Mr. Nolan does.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 09, 2008 01:03 PM (LHaZf)

22 Thomas, the left have been defending those who have committed treason for decades. Remember Alger Hiss? Some are still trying to defend him even after the Venona papers have been declassified. So it doesn't surprise me that the America hating left supports and defends Kerry's lies in front of congress and his treasonous behaviour when he met with the enemy in France

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 09, 2008 06:08 PM (kNqJV)

23 Keith, why do you call telling the truth about a democrat candidate a "smear?" That's always intrigued me.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 10, 2008 07:14 AM (kNqJV)

24 Yeah, "the truth," Capitalist Infidel. That's what the SBVFT was dispensing back in 2004: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You know, true stuff about how Kerry didn't deserve his Silver Star (because all he did was shoot a mortally-wounded teenager wearing a loincloth in the back, don'tcha know)... and even more true stuff about how Kerry's compatriots in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (guys like Jamie Henry, Robert Kruch, Scott Moore, Jim Umenhofer, Barry Romo, Mike McCusker, etc., etc., etc.) weren't really Vietnam veterans, and never mind their discharge papers and photos of themselves in Vietnam. Yeah, the SBVFT was just swimming in "the truth." Cheers, Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 10, 2008 04:30 PM (vTJkv)

25 Hey, Mark. Yes, some few former Winter Soldiers (McCusker, Beitzel, Umenhofer, Campbell, Camil, Henry, Bangert, etc.) did emerge from the woodwork in 2004 to defend themselves as real veterans who were telling the truth back in 1971. Saw Campbell on HARDBALL, and saw an LA TIMES story about Henry. And that's about it. The MSM had no real interest in 2004 with doing serious investigations into the Winter Soldiers. The SBVFT laid down the serious charge in 2004 that Kerry knowingly associated himself with fake veterans (the Winter Soldiers) and spread their lies to the U.S. Senate. Of course, the Winter Soldiers weren't fakes (if you've got proof that they were, please let me know), and many of their stories have been verified over the years.... but I really don't remember hearing any of those realities on the news, as the whole issue devolved into a he-said-she-said debate between John Kerry and John O'Neill. I also know a few Winter Soldiers (Barry Romo, for example), who were so embittered about being called liars and phonies for so many years that they just didn't give a damn anymore. Want me to send you a photo of Lieutenant Barry Romo standing at attention at a firebase in I Corps, RVN, and being pinned with the Bronze Star by his division commander, General Koster, back in '68? Would that finally get you to acknowledge that those Winter Soldiers really did serve in Vietnam? Would that be enough to knock off all the happy B.S. about the Winter Soldiers being fakes? The easy argument could always have been made by the right-wing that the testimony of the Winter Soldiers (and thank you for your service, young men) involved the worst U.S. conduct in Vietnam, and should be taken in that context. Instead, the right-wing took the low road, and claimed that guys with medals for valor, and Purple Hearts for wounds, had never served in Vietnam. Disgusting. That's the kind of B.S. I'd expect out of Michael Moore, not the Grand Old Party. Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 10, 2008 04:43 PM (vTJkv)

26 Mark, sorry to hear that you really don't care about the Winter Soldier controversy, and are willing to throw those guys in the discard pile because of their political stance--and who cares if they were bonafide vets telling the truth about things they had seen in Vietnam? At least, however, you seem willing to accept that, yeah, they might have been for real, and, yeah, given man's inhumanity to man, some of their atrocity stories probably were for real. That's something at least. Speaking of books, if you want to know where the Winter Soldiers were coming from back in 1971, I'd suggest reading A RUMOR OF WAR, THE MILITARY HALF, SON THANG, CASUALTIES OF WAR, BRENNAN'S WAR, FOUR HOURS IN MY LAI, COVER UP, THE EDUCATION OF LIEUTENANT KERREY, and the official USMC history of court-martials in Vietnam by LtCol Gary Solis, U.S. Marine Corps. Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 10, 2008 06:35 PM (vTJkv)

27 Keith, Atrocities happen, as I've already said. Shall we discuss Kerry's "burning of villages...like Genghis Khan" as defacto military policy in Vietnam? Genghis didn't do much of that...until he didn't get his tribute or the city he was attacking peeved him off sufficiently. Incidentally, he was one of the foremost administrators of an Empire who understood the value of Freedom of Religion and a certain measure of Freedom of Speech. If Kerry would have claimed the US Military presence in Vietnam resembled Genghis' administrative policies, I would have taken that as a compliment. How about one of my heroes of WWII, Gen. Geo. Patton who famously said something along the lines of “I don’t want to see my troops take any prisoners.” We could debate this atrocity angle for the next few millennia and point fingers at each other as we do. I say again, atrocities happen in war – get over it. I have actually read several of the books you listed, not for the purpose of learning about the Winter Soldiers per se, but to learn about the war my father fought in. You miss-read the reason I am “willing to throw those guys in the discard pile”. I could care less about their ‘politics’. The true reason is they bad-mouthed their nation and their foremost spokesman did it for PERSONAL GAIN. They had other remedies at hand to deliver their ‘testimony’. They chose poorly in almost every case. The United States military did not lose the war in Vietnam; the politicians and anti-war schmucks like Kerry, the Winter Soldiers, Jane (I’m not) Fonda, MSM of the time (Walter Cronkite especially) did. The Tet Offensive, militarily, was a disaster for the NVN. However, with the willing participants listed above, it became a HUGE PR win. That is what turned the tide in that war to the Communists’ favor. The same thing is being done today wrt Iraq. Why has Iraq coverage has dropped to a pittance? Could it be because the tide there has changed in our favor? Could it be that Iraq is now a loser for the Democrats and liberals in general? Is it at all possible our military and our President have succeeded in snatching Victory from the jaws of their desired Defeat (albeit with many missteps in prior years)? You seem to be reasonable enough to accept the fact the MSM is in the tank for someone or some demographic. We both know who that would be. By all means continue defending a group of men I hold in contempt – not for their message but for their method –, Sen. Kerry in particular.

Posted by: Mark at July 10, 2008 08:08 PM (w/olL)

28 "about how Kerry's compatriots in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (guys like Jamie Henry, Robert Kruch, Scott Moore, Jim Umenhofer, Barry Romo, Mike McCusker, etc., etc., etc.) weren't really Vietnam veterans, and never mind their discharge papers and photos of themselves in Vietnam." That's a flat out lie, as I'm sure you know. You have now lost all credibility. The way you just smeared 254 highly decorated military veterans is what's disgusting! You're nothing but a fraud.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 10, 2008 08:21 PM (kNqJV)

29 I think, Cap, that you just successfully nailed Mr. Nolan's hide to the wall. I'm ashamed that I hadn't noticed that particular phrase you caught, as well. A wonderful catch, my friend. You should feel proud.

Posted by: C-C-G at July 10, 2008 08:56 PM (n8vfc)

30 Capitalist Infidel, you lost me. What was a flat-out lie? What 254 veterans did I smear? I truly don't know what you're talking about, let alone how you nailed my hide to the wall. Please explain! Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 10, 2008 11:46 PM (vTJkv)

31 Okay, Capitalist Infidel, if you aren't up for the challenge of explaining my "flat-out lie" to me, will somebody (ANYBODY!) out there explain what Capitalist Infidel is talking about? Thanks, Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 11, 2008 05:33 PM (vTJkv)

32 Keith, being a good capitalist, I'd imagine he is, you know, working. Not everyone can have the freedom to sit around home all day and post comments on blogs.

Posted by: C-C-G at July 11, 2008 05:40 PM (n8vfc)

33 Hey, CCG, since you seconded and applauded CI's charge that he caught me in a "flat-out lie," go ahead and explain the lie, please. Nice crack, by the way, about how I'm not "working," but instead enjoying "the freedom to sit around home all day and post comments on blogs." Sometimes people let their snark run away with them, CCG, and say things about people that they would regret if they knew the details. Cheers, Keith

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 11, 2008 05:52 PM (vTJkv)

34 Actually, Nolan, I didn't say that YOU had that freedom, just that some people do. Are you affiliated with the Obama campaign? They had the same response after President Bush commented on appeasers, though Obama's name didn't appear at all in that speech. Methinks someone is a mite overly sensitive.

Posted by: C-C-G at July 11, 2008 06:06 PM (n8vfc)

35 Enough with the B.S., CCG. You agreed with CI that I'm a "flat-out liar," and howled about "nailing my hide to the wall." Please elaborate. In other words, what was my "flat-out lie"? Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 11, 2008 06:14 PM (vTJkv)

36 Capitalist Infidel and CCG: two days ago, you guys declared victory in this discussion, and ran off whooping about "nailing my hide to the wall." You guys also called me a "flat-out liar." You guys also accused me of "smearing" several hundred unnamed veterans. You've yet to offer any explanations. Was all that just a bunch of hot air?

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 12, 2008 01:11 PM (vTJkv)

37 When will those who disparage SBVFT ask John Kerry to explain why his Honorable Discharge required "review by a Board of Officers" and approval by the Secretary of the Navy. None of mine did! Les Zavadil, LCDR USN (Ret) posted by LesZavadil at July 7, 2008 10:55 PM ---------------------------------- Really, you're a retired naval officer and you didn't know this? Navy documents show that in 1978, he received an "honorable discharge certificate" after a board of officers convened and reviewed his record. Navy officials say today that the board was standard operating procedure at that time for all reservists and does not indicate Mr. Kerry did anything wrong. Washington Times

Posted by: skylark at July 13, 2008 02:54 AM (u0lvj)

38 CCG and Capitalist Infidel, it's been THREE days since you guys charged me with lying, smearing veterans, etc.... and you still haven't explained what the heck you're talking about. Okay, at this point, I'm chalking you guys up as nothing but hot-air balloonists. Cheers, Keith Nolan

Posted by: KeithNolan at July 13, 2008 04:46 PM (vTJkv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The story of the misleading DC Metro memo issued by the Department of Defense continues as Michael Yon digs into the authenticity of the memo's origins and skewers a critic in the process.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

They can't be bothered to post a simple tribute to fallen servicemen who fought for the freedoms they enjoy, but find the time to post about a rather pointless accomplishment by a mountaineering New Zealander and his Sherpa guide.

If they find out that Hillary didn't dodge conscription and was a RNZAF navigator during World War II, will they end his tribute as well?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:20 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

...is that so few people read it that you're unlikely to see enough web traffic from them to know they've even brought up your name.

That they got the facts wrong is almost irrelevant, but amusing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Blogwars: The New Political Battleground is out if you guys are interested in reading about the roll blogs play in politics. I don't have a copy yet, but do know that I'm mentioned in it favorably, as I can tell by his recent Washington Post interview.

If the author, David Perlmutter, sounds vaguely familiar to CY readers, it is because we've linked to his work before, and he had some nice words to say about some of my work covering media claims in the Hezbollah/Israeli War of 2006.

He'll also be on The Daily Show Thursday to talk about political blogging and his book. I might just have to DVR that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

...due to Chinese spammers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Eric Boehlert starts off his article cracking on warbloggers for the "Jamil Hussein" fiasco, claiming that it imploded. Well, he's half-right: Jamil Gulaim Innad al-Jashami embarrassed the Associated Press when I outed him as a man hiding behind a pseudonym when they swore his "Hussein" identity was real. AP has refused to discuss "Hussein" since I published that story.

Boehlert also wants to attack some bloggers for not covering Bilal Hussein and his release under Iraq's new amnesty law, but isn't it Boehlert himself being deceptive when he "forgets" to mention that 300 other suspected insurgents were given amnesty that exact same day, undermining his thesis that it was Bilal Hussein's innocence, not amnesty, that set him free?

"Imploded."

I think he understands what that word means, but not to whom it applies.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Recently, Brian Ledbetter's photojournalism criticism blog Snapped Shot came under fire from the Associated Press for allegedly infringing on AP's copyrights, causing Ledbetter to take his site offline.

Snapped Shot came back online several days later, sans images, with many bloggers only a little less confused about what constitutes the "fair use" of agency images.

I sent a request to AP Director of Media Relations Paul Colford this past Friday for a statement clarifying their view of what constitutes fair use, and the Associated Press provided the following response via email:

AP licenses its works (photos, news stories, video and so on) to newspapers, Web sites and broadcasters for the purpose of showing news events and to illustrate news stories or commentary on the news events.

If the entirety of the work is used (such as when a whole photo is reproduced), that is considered a substantial "taking" under fair use law. If there are many photos used, that is a substantial taking of AP's photo library.

In the case of criticism, the commentary or criticism has to be about the protected work, not commentary or criticism in general – not using, as in the case of Snappedshot.com, protected photos to illustrate something on which the blogger was commenting. One cannot post a copyrighted photo of President Bush to illustrate commentary criticizing the policies of his administration, for example.

Fair use does not give others the right to use AP content without paying for it, especially when the costs -- and risks -- of gathering news around the world continue to rise. As a result, the AP has been increasingly vigilant in protecting its intellectual property.

I agree unreservedly with the Associated Press that using an image merely for purposes of illustration is outside of fair use, and will seek to go through my 2,700+ post archive and remove images that violate this of my own accord in coming weeks.

According to the AP's response posted above, however, it does appear—and tell me if I'm wrong—that it is still acceptable to reproduce images that are the direct subject of criticism, or as the AP states it "the commentary or criticism has to be about the protected work."

In other words, the context of the blog post the image is presented in matters.

For example, merely posting the below Reuters image of their press vehicle hit by Israeli fire in 2006 in a general blog entry about media casualties in war would be unacceptable under "fair use" guidelines.

If, however, the photo in question is the subject of criticism, then you have a case of "fair use."

Hopefully, this clears things up.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:53 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Thanks for getting that pretty unequivocal statement from the AP, CY. Your interpretation of "fair use" jives completely with what my handful of private IP experts have been telling me, and that's precisely why I've ended up doing things exactly the way I have. (Y'all are welcome to e-mail me—remove the dashes from the URL—if you want any specifics, of course...) I'm currently in the process of going through and reviewing my archive, separating the photo-criticism from the general tomfoolery in my content as a result of the AP's warning, which is a long and painstaking (remove the dashes from the URL) task, but one that will hopefully allow me to bring back most (if not all) of the AP content that I've found specific problems with. I can't recommend enough that all bloggers need to read Gabriel Malor's excellent explanation of "Fair Use" in the blogosphere—While nothing's guaranteed to keep us out of the courtroom, following his advice would certainly help towards that end. Most Respectfully, Brian

Posted by: Brian L. at March 10, 2008 12:05 PM (GzvlQ)

2 As an aside, there are still ways of having fun with the wire services that don't involve raising the ire of the wire service lawyers, at the expense of anyone browsing Snapped Shot a month or so from now. It's worth it for me, so long as the aforementioned lawyers remain happy. Regards, Brian

Posted by: Brian L. at March 10, 2008 12:11 PM (GzvlQ)

3 It still doesn't clear it up for me, dummy that I am. Most photos are used to illustrate/enhance a linked story and are not used to write a story about the photo itself. A photo helps put the content of a story in context, but that would seem to be a violation. Right? Wrong? Huh? I said this in regard to Gabriel's explanation and I'll say it here, the copyright laws are terribly arcane and need to be updated to cover electronic publishing and blogs who give full credit and links to the originals. I was called a bad parent and a thief for voicing that opinion, so I take a risk repeating it here.

Posted by: Sara at March 10, 2008 01:58 PM (Wi/N0)

4 Sara, The basic problem is this: The wire services don't actually "publish" any of the photographs that you see out on the internet. As a result, these photographs remain the private, copyrighted property of the wire service that created it. The way that websites "legally" obtain the rights to "publish" these photographs, is to obtain a license from one or more of the wire services that provide photographic services. (It's essentially the same process that newspapers have to go through in order to run wire photos, except the fees are a *lot* higher for our dead-tree friends.) I was going to go through and write up an example of what it would take to legally license AFP photos from Getty Images as a followup to Gabe's article, but I gave up once I saw the costs involved. For example, to legally license a 300-pixel-wide photograph for a duration of two years would cost $495 per picture; a lower-resolution 198-pixel-wide photograph could be licensed for a maximum of 2 months at $49. This would add up pretty quickly if you were to do so for each individual photograph (and recall, I'm only using AFP price quotes here), so there is a way to license the "entire" wire service feed for your website. This comes at the low, low rate of $60,000 per year, give or take a few ten-grand or so. These fees are obviously too high for hobbyist bloggers to pay. So what's the solution? Well, until the wire services decide to join the 21st century, and come up with a low-cost way for individuals to syndicate their legally-protected content, the only solution you have is to not use wire photos. I'd personally love to see someone (if you're a big-pocket investor out there looking for a project, I'm speaking directly to you right now) sit down with the wire service lawyers and hammer out a way by which a third party could offer syndicated access to wire service photos, at a hobbyist price point. Anyway, I can't stress enough from my recent experience—If you don't know if you have the right to use a photograph or not (see the letter from the AP above for a general guideline), it's safer to not use it. That's definitely going to be my modus operandi going forward... Regards, Brian

Posted by: Brian L. at March 10, 2008 02:15 PM (GzvlQ)

5 By the way, photographers are not exactly happy with the current status quo of the industry, either. Someone with really deep pockets might just figure out a way to "poach" some good photojournalists from some of the existing wire services, and come up with a much more efficient direct-to-market photo syndication service, if someone with really deep pockets were so inclined. Again, with my warmest regards to all of you out there who have said deep pockets. Regards, Brian

Posted by: Brian L. at March 10, 2008 02:17 PM (GzvlQ)

6 http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 USC 107 - 118, fyi, are the Fair Use provisions of the Copyright Act. A good attorney could turn the AP into a pretzel over this. Section 107: Fair Use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Posted by: Steffan at March 10, 2008 02:21 PM (hDY55)

7 See this is why it is so confusing to us little guys/gals. Read what Steffan posted and it seems that covers the use of a single photo to accompany a blog post regarding the subject the photo documents. But, it also seems in direct contravention of what the AP writes above.

Posted by: Sara at March 10, 2008 02:38 PM (Wi/N0)

8 Notice that Section 107 does not convey you the right to use the photograph for "illustrative" purposes? That's what the AP is specifically selling a license to do, it's not something that "fair use" allows, except under an extremely limited set of circumstances (criticism of the work, parody, and "educational" -- as in "classroom" -- use). The court's interpretation of "news reporting," by the way, is strictly limited to the reproduction of copyrighted works in the process of recording the news. I.e., an AP photograph that has a copyrighted object in it would fall under this category. The AP photograph itself does not. Which provides no exemption to independent bloggers, as we don't generate a whole lot of "original" photographic content. "Comment" is an interesting item—and perhaps I could have skated on that, as I was merely reproducing their works for "commentary" purposes—but again, this would have to be done in the venue of a court of law. With a high probability of epic failure. Yeesh. The law is definitely not clear on this, and as nearly everyone that has written to me has said, the interpretation of "fair use" is something that individual judges are likely to interpret differently. At the cost of full legal proceedings, of course. "Criticism" is something that definitely provides "fair use" protection to the blogger, so if you're like me, and you enjoy finding flaws, mistakes, and misrepresentations in wire photographs, there's definitely some wiggle room there. "Parody" is something that is commonly cited as a "fair use" of copyrighted work; the law is less clear on "satire." (And I can't personally tell the distinction between the two...) As always, taking a "conservative" approach is a prudent thing to do. And the next time someone hassles you, be sure to ping your nearest internet superhero. Regards, Brian

Posted by: Brian L. at March 10, 2008 02:53 PM (GzvlQ)

9 It is interesting to note what and why the copyright laws came to be in the US and what has become of them today. I fully understand and concur that producers of IP should reap the rewards, but I also know that control of IP initially was limited in time. This limiting of control of IP was to quickly add IP to the Public Domain so that new inventions and ideas could take place quickly in a new government.

Posted by: Mekan at March 10, 2008 04:32 PM (hm8tW)

10 There's another element of AP's position that hasn't been discussed. The question is, what is a "substantial" reproduction of the work for the purposes of the fair-use defense to copyright infringement. AP says that reproducing a complete photograph is "substantial" in relation to their copyright on that photograph, which I think is evidently correct. But what if a site (like Snapped Shot) reproduces many photographs and has a fair-use defense in each individual case? AP's response is that this would be "a substantial taking of AP's photo library". In other words, they claim copyright in their library as a whole as well as the photographs which compose it. And from my knowledge of case law, they have some basis for this. So if you reproduce a whole lot of photographs, even a whole lot of results from a particular search (everything tagged as "insurgent", for example) you have arguably infringed their copyright in their collection, and you had better be able to provide a fair-use defense for using their copyrighted collection as well as your defense on each photograph used.

Posted by: Joe in Australia at March 10, 2008 07:13 PM (fKxiV)

11 Seems to be that illustrating their propensity for accepting enemy propaganda on face value in order to comment on and criticize the AP itself for editorial malfeasance would constitute fair use. However, IANAL, and I'm no more than a kibitzer in this.

Posted by: Steffan at March 10, 2008 10:52 PM (Kijs8)

12 Incidentally, I was just checking out the Thomas database at the Library of Congress, and happened upon some historical and revision notes comprising House Report 94-1475 on the subject: 17 USC 107 (scroll 'way down) Money quote: When a copyrighted work contains unfair, inaccurate, or derogatory information concerning an individual or institution, the individual or institution may copy and reproduce such parts of the work as are necessary to permit understandable comment on the statements made in the work. Think that might include friends and allies of either the State of Israel or the US? If so, AP is SOL. Incidentally, I had to change the link because for some reason "h****e.gov" is considered questionable content. Gee, I wonder why?

Posted by: Steffan at March 10, 2008 11:45 PM (Kijs8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment