April 30, 2007
Redstate Conspiracy Theorizing Conclusively Debunked
Last week I confronted RedState blog for a post by "streiff"
attempting to say that they had a photo of an American GI "flipping off" an Associated Press photojournalist by the name of Maya Alleruzzo. Another Redstate contributor, "Thomas," went on further to claim that the picture in question was PhotoShopped.
Neither claim was true.
This is the photo in question:
The caption that ran with the photo at the time stated:
Staff Sgt Patrick Lockett 25, of Huntsville Alabama of Alpha Troop, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division patrols in Al Kargoulia, 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of Baghdad, Iraq, Fri., April 20, 2007. The 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division is back in Iraq for the third time since rolling into Baghdad in 2003. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
The caption incorrectly cites Lockett as a Staff Sgt, when he is actually a SFC, but that is a much more trivial matter. What does matter is that Redstate never issued a correction for their false claim, even when I sent them an email alerting them to my previous post, which clearly shows an CY-enhanced photo showing that the finger shown is actually SFC Lockett's trigger or index finger.
Clearly, Lockett was not "flipping off" the AP photographer.
Over the weekend I got in touch with MAJ Joseph (Joe) R. Sowers, 3rd HBCT/3rd ID Public Affairs Officer, who contacted the soldier in the picture, Lockett, directly.
Lockett clearly states:
In the picture, it is my trigger finger outside of my trigger well. I would never give a reporter, nor any Iraqi citizen, a middle finger. I am more professional than that. I am a SFC in the United States Army and proud of what I do.
Now that SFC Lockett himself unequivocally supported what the enhanced photo clearly shows, will "streiff" and "Thomas" at Redstate have the common decency to apologize for their incorrect claims and issue either a correction or a retraction? I certainly hope so. Their credibility hangs in the balance.
As for the Associated Press photojournalist, Lockett's commanding officer, COL Wayne Grigsby, had this to say:
In my opinion, Maya Alleruzzo is an excellent photojournalist who accurately portrayed the Sledgehammer Soldier executing his duties to standard, to include, his weapon on safe and his finger outside the trigger well.
Maya Alleruzzo is an excellent representation of the media. Her efforts allowed us to showcase the outstanding work of our great young Soldiers that we would otherwise have not been able to do. We consider her an honorary member of the Sledgehammer Team. We would welcome her back in the brigade at any time.
Journalists make mistakes. So do bloggers. The only way for any of us to maintain our credibility is to admit those mistakes, and attempt to correct the record.
I hope that Redstate will therefore correct their claims regarding SFC Lockett and photographer Maya Alleruzzo. They unfairly attacked the professionalism of SFC Lockett, and misrepresented the esteem with which the 3rd Heavy holds Alleruzzo, apparently for their own amusement.
Faced with the facts, Redstate should do the right thing and correct their inaccurate, defamatory post.
Update Mike Krempasky just discovered that the general comments form at Redstate has apparently been down for at least a week, which is why no one there got or responded to my messages.
Erick's response, on Redstate, however, is sad; a non-apology apology, blaming everyone else.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:06 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Yawn. Bummer. I would have totally flipped the photographer off.
Posted by: The Fastest Squirrel at April 30, 2007 02:00 PM (z62e3)
2
Yep. Come clean, take your lumps.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 30, 2007 03:39 PM (ivi7/)
3
Good trigger discipline and good muzzle discipline. Well trained soldier.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at April 30, 2007 04:03 PM (lb5ht)
4
CY - I've been looking through my email from a note from you, my apologies, but I haven't followed this at all.
Posted by: Krempasky at April 30, 2007 04:28 PM (iOKnX)
5
"Well trained soldier"
He's an E-7, a senior non-commissioned officer in the top three. He's a professional leader of men (and women) He's concentrating on what his troops are doing and his mission and trying to keep everyone alive. He probably didn't even give the photographer a second glance after he determined he posed no (immediate) threat
Posted by: E9 RET at April 30, 2007 04:31 PM (pR1iW)
6
I'm in the school photo business, and we see this kind of stuff all the time. Sometimes what you think you see ain't at all what you see.
Posted by: dkbaby at April 30, 2007 04:41 PM (XvWBq)
7
"Thomas," went on further to claim that the picture in question was PhotoShopped
No, I did not. I'm not going to apologize for something I didn't say. What I
did say was,
Greetings to our lurking moonbats! For your information, this highly photoshopped photo is directly courtesy of the Associated Press. That's right: You caught us. We put a deep mole into the AP so we could arrange to have a photo altered to show some kid flipping the photographer off -- and then our second mole passed it along to the wire service. Great, great, great is our power.
Now, I suppose this might mean that I literally meant that the photo was photoshopped; or, in the alternative -- and I think anyone who reads this carefully, especially the sentences that follow, would think this -- I was being sarcastic (hence, the "deep mole" at the AP).
However, I'm into conciliation, so: I apologize if I was too dry.
NB: I'm a Director at RedState. I never received any email from you, through the Contact Form or through my personal email address.
Posted by: Thomas at April 30, 2007 04:51 PM (7Lp4v)
8
Sometimes people get too invested in their words. You both write good stuff and it's time to move on...
Posted by: E9 RET at April 30, 2007 05:22 PM (pR1iW)
9
Sometimes people get too invested in their words. You both write good stuff and it's time to move on..Yeah, yeah, blah, blah. It's time to move on after the Redstate folks acknowledge the error that CY pointed out.
He's not "invested in his words." Would I be "invested in my words" for pointing out the sun sets in the west to somebody broadcasting that it sets in the east?
Are you "too invested in your words" when you start blabbering on about people being "invested in their words?"
There is accuracy, and there is error. I certainly do hope those who believe in the first remain invested in that belief, as well as remaining invested in the notion that accuracy is more to be valued than error, and that the two are not equivalent.
Posted by: Bill Quick at April 30, 2007 05:50 PM (0vVG5)
Posted by: ScoutAZ at April 30, 2007 07:11 PM (h90k6)
11
Thomas, perhaps someone else is deleting these comments, both of which have been forwarded to Krempasky (I'd checked the "send me a copy" option).
Erick's
non-apology apolgy is nice. Very John Kerry.
The "he did it first!" excuse doesn't work past first grade. It's called "accountability," kids.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 30, 2007 07:53 PM (HcgFD)
12
The point is not "he did it first," the point is that we posted a photograph which was provided by two presumably reliable sources. Upon viewing the same photograph, literally everyone who saw it assumed that it showed a soldier flipping off a cameraman - in fact, the initial reaction was not that the picture did *not* show the Hawaiian good luck sign, the accusation was that we photoshopped it.
So, yeah, we passed along a photo, which we got from someone else (in this case, directly from the AP), and *invited people to draw inferences* from it. It turns out that those inferences were incorrect, and we've indicated that on the front page. But I frankly don't see why an *apology* would be in order for passing along a photograph which by all concessions was accurate and inviting people to draw a reasonable inference from it (which was indeed the near universal inference to everyone who saw the photo, even without our prompting, which is why the AP yanked the photo shortly after posting it - the reasonable assumption here is that even *they* assumed that it contained an obscene gesture).
In other words, you couldn't make out a basic case of negligence here, which is the lowest level of culpability. Therefore, an apology would not be warranted. A correction is, and that's been provided. Why this is "John Kerry" is beyond me.
Posted by: Leon Wolf at April 30, 2007 08:23 PM (49Cjo)
13
P.S. I am *very* offended that vanderbilt dot edu is in your site's spam filter. :-)
Posted by: Leon Wolf at April 30, 2007 08:24 PM (49Cjo)
14
Thomas, perhaps someone else is deleting these comments, both of which have been forwarded to Krempasky (I'd checked the "send me a copy" option).
I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean emails you sent? Erick is lead dog over there these days; direct any concerns to him. If you mean "Contact Form" submissions, they don't get deleted before hitting our collective inboxes. Erick informs me that we've had problems with that lately; maybe they were lost in queue.
As to the rest:
(1) I accept your apology for misconstruing my words.
(2) I'm so glad you like Erick's work. Perhaps you might consider that
He did it first! has a specific meaning, outside the scope of that you seem to give it.
Posted by: Thomas at April 30, 2007 08:25 PM (7Lp4v)
15
As a Huntsville Resident raised in NYC, I was hoping he was flipping off the AP on behalf of all Americans. It is a universal sign of disgust of a failed news reporting agency. AP is just the brainwashing arm of the DNC.
Posted by: Karen at May 01, 2007 09:00 AM (KcGC/)
16
AP deserves more than just the finger. Perhaps leaving them alone in the desert. They wouldn't truth if it hit them in the face.
Posted by: Joe Pane at May 01, 2007 10:41 AM (sxhvh)
17
Jesus, Bob, take a breather! You got housed by RedState. Time to move on and find another obsession. Hey, that lady wants to buy an orange whistle...
Posted by: ts at May 01, 2007 03:20 PM (ILyRW)
18
What amuses me is no one tried this on their own weapons to see if it could be done.
I did and it can't.
Posted by: austin at May 01, 2007 06:38 PM (2AzGS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 24, 2007
Not As It Appears
Redstate is currently running a post by "streiff" called
AP is Popular with the Troops that claims to show an American soldier on patrol in Iraq "flipping off" the Associated Press photographer, Maya Alleruzzo.
Blackfive provides a link to the original caption that IDs the soldier as:
Staff Sgt Patrick Lockett 25, of Huntsville Alabama of Alpha Troop, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division patrols in Al Kargoulia, 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of Baghdad, Iraq, Fri., April 20, 2007. The 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division is back in Iraq for the third time since rolling into Baghdad in 2003. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
On first blush, it appears to be exactly what RedState and Blackfive describe. But sometimes, even pictures can tell less than the whole story.
I got an email from Michael Yon this morning that including the following:
Bob,
You are the man for this. Maya Alleruzzo, currently a photographer for AP, is getting flack. I know Maya and she is very pro troopÂ…
I would email to Redstate directly but their email address is on my laptop (somewhere else). I think it's just a mistake because the people at Redstate have their hearts in the right place. Maya is out here in the worst parts of Iraq and she's a treasure -- though I know her association with AP puts her into harm's way.
I'm trying to run down Staff Sgt Lockett, who would be the ultimate authority on what was occurring in this picture. If I get a response, I'll be sure to post it. In the meantime, I trust Yon, who seems to know Alleruzzo, and the work of Alleruzzo herself. In addition to taking photos for the Associated Press, Alleruzzo occasionally writes.
Does this author of this article strike you as the kind of person our soldiers would flip off? How about this one, detailing the courage of a paralyzed Iraqi officer?
I don't think so. This sounds like the kind of photographer/journalist that soldiers would love to have around.
Of course, a closer look at the image may tell the story on its own.
I've cropped and enlarged the photo, and done some extremely high-tech phalanges modeling. Count the fingers, folks.
Unless Staff Sgt. Lockett is related to the Six-Fingered Man from The Princess Bride, the photo itself seems to provide the debunking. The bones extending from the wrist (crude gray lines) through the pinky finger define the outside shape of Lockett's glove and the hand it contains, and from there it is a simple matter to merely count the remaining knuckle impressions (shown with white dots) on the glove itself to account for the ring, middle, and index fingers.
It is the index finger you see alongside the M4 receiver, with the other three fingers (middle finger included) curled around the pistol grip of the carbine.
It seems a blogosphere retraction is in order.
Update: I'm very disappointed with Redstate at the moment. I sent them an email alerting them to the apparent fact that their claims were false, and to date, they've refused to issue a correction.
Apparently, they're either not monitoring their email, or are possessed by their own brand of "truthiness."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:36 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.
1
It looks like he has what ever finger he desires on the safety. Some put an index, others the middle. Big deal.
Posted by: David Caskey at April 24, 2007 08:48 AM (G5i3t)
2
much ado about nothing....
Posted by: jon at April 24, 2007 08:51 AM (5/OOn)
3
The safety's actually on the other side, and is flipped with the thumb.
One of the safety rules is to keep your finger straight and off the trigger, as seen in the pic. When you're rolling with a condition 1 weapon, that's how your finger always is.
Good catch CY, and nice high-tech phalange modeling. Did you do that in a CSI lab?
Posted by: paully at April 24, 2007 08:58 AM (/7U2B)
4
And you felt you needed to call the other blogs on it why? I suspect you think you are doing the right thing however it didn't advance anything and alot of us enjoyed the thought of the soldier flipping off the AP as they and Al Reuters have photoshopped so much and been so critical of our military men and women, so thanks for taking away the illusion.
Posted by: Rightmom at April 24, 2007 09:07 AM (0lpqx)
5
I think it was a two-fold purpose:
a) To protect and recognize journalists who are on our side
b) To show the left that a widely read rightwing blog isn't afraid to call bullshit and will strive to maintain integrity, even if something happens to agree with what lots of us would really like to see
Posted by: paully at April 24, 2007 09:33 AM (/7U2B)
6
And you felt you needed to call the other blogs on it why? I suspect you think you are doing the right thing however it didn't advance anything and alot of us enjoyed the thought of the soldier flipping off the AP as they and Al Reuters have photoshopped so much and been so critical of our military men and women, so thanks for taking away the illusion.
I can't actually beleive you feel this way.
I am doing the right thing by reporting the
facts, no matter where those facts lead us.
This AP photographer was
not being flipped off. If you read the two links to articles she has written, she seems to have a deep respect for both American troops and our coalition allies, and the sacrifices they have made. We don't have enough honest journalists out there, and I'll do my damndest to defend the good ones against obviously wrong attacks.
Publishing this post "advances" the truth, the very thing we hammer the media the most to provide. Instead, you advocate nothing less than the flip side of trutherism. Your basic message is
"Screw the facts. This is what I want to believe." This is warped, wrong, and dishonorable.
I will not apologize for attempting to publish the truth and correct inaccurate information, no matter who issues it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 24, 2007 09:46 AM (9y6qg)
7
Nice job CY. I bet we would never see a post like this at DU, FDL or KOS.
Posted by: Specter at April 24, 2007 10:05 AM (ybfXM)
8
Posts like this are what make me respect this blog, even though we're on opposite sides of the political aisle.
And Pally is right. My weapons instructor would have smaked me upside the head if I ever placed my finger on the trigger unless I was ready to fire.
Hoo-uh, Bob, for keeping things straight.
On a side note, if I was on my third tour, I would be tempted to give someone the finger, but the photographer would be way down on the list.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 24, 2007 10:53 AM (kxecL)
9
I think he is flipping the bird but he is doing it to keep his photo out of the press and thus himself and family more secure, a common tactic. He probably doesn't know or care who the photog is or works for. Just a thought
Posted by: Ray Robison at April 24, 2007 01:45 PM (z62e3)
10
alot of us enjoyed the thought of the soldier flipping off the AP as they and Al Reuters have photoshopped so much and been so critical of our military men and women, so thanks for taking away the illusion.
Please tell me that Rightmom is a parody. I know people deceive themselves in order to remain happy, but very few will
actually admit it. From there it's a short trip to the padded room...
Posted by: scarshapedstar at April 24, 2007 03:24 PM (glUhi)
11
Well....it was fun while it lasted. Until I saw the photo enlarged I figured that he was doing what all of us thought he was doing! Michael Yon's email put everything into it's proper perspective regarding Maya Alleruzzo.
Posted by: lib_NOT at April 24, 2007 04:05 PM (WKFlK)
12
Good catch CY. Keep up the truth instead of the "truth".
Posted by: Justin at April 24, 2007 04:10 PM (NiTuu)
13
Rightmom couldn't be more WRONG.
Keeping the media honest is a noble cause, and one that bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum, embraced with zeal, and as such it is imperative that we keep our own backyard clean.
Not sure if this came from Mike or Bob - but it is spot on:
“If we’re going to hammer the media for corrections and retractions when they blow a story, we should do the same with ourselves,”
Bob - you did the right thing, and I hope Matt and Redstate step up like you did.
Rightmom --- shame on you!
Posted by: Huntress at April 24, 2007 04:16 PM (Dqxeq)
14
I know it's been a bunch of years but the M16s I carried had the safety/selector switch on the left side of the receiver (as does the civilian version I own)...or have the years fogged my memory? He would appear to be right handed and the 101 patch from a previous tour is on his right shoulder so the picture hasn't been "flipped" (is that even possible with digital cameras and printing these days?).
Side note - what are those red "tubes" on his right chest. Look like shotgun shells to me but ...?
Posted by: Piper 17 at April 24, 2007 06:52 PM (fCKeb)
15
Rightmom, if CY is right, I completely agree with you. My son is in Charlie troop of that Squadron, and I sent him the picture and article from "Blackfive".
I read CY every day and agree with most of his thoughts. But, I am like you, what is the purpose or victory in finger f**king my dreams. It is a harmless gesture that for all intents and purposes brings a cheer to those with blood in this game.
Defiance is only one ingredient that makes up the spirit of the American fighting man. I believe that this soldier is letting everyone at home know that all is well and under control. I sleep better knowing that troopers like him are there.
I don't buy what CY is selling.
Posted by: DickB at April 25, 2007 01:45 AM (MQjIE)
16
I've sent this link to Snopes.com. They are great at tracking down this sort of thing, and seem to play right down the line, politically.
Posted by: Ian at April 25, 2007 01:17 PM (RVKqG)
17
Kudos for your correction, and shame on Redstate! Having read those articles by the AP reporter/photog in question, I cannot imagine that rightmom could have such a cavalier attitude about getting the record straight! Good for you, CY.
Advice to rightmom, go read those articles, then tell CY you're sorry.
Posted by: DagneyT at April 25, 2007 04:26 PM (AAEEI)
18
Well I tried with both hands and when the bird
comes up you still have part of the index
showing...When you use the index they all fold
to the inside from middle to little and can't
be seen...
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at April 25, 2007 05:36 PM (L4HGI)
19
Good job. Thanks for posting the truth.
Posted by: sj at April 25, 2007 10:32 PM (vvodJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2007
tbogg: Imus wannabe
"Nappy-headed ho's" had been overused, so he went with the
next best thing.
Sure, tbogg's a hypocritical racist, but making a racist attack on a conservative black woman is perfectly acceptable behavior for liberals.
Anticipate other liberal bloggers coming to his defense by sundown.
Update: tbogg's comments echo those of Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau from April 7, 2004, which prompted this response:
Recently, TrudeauÂ’s political observations ran a red light in referring to the nationÂ’s National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, a black woman, as "brown sugar." Frankly, the political satire in the April 7, 2004 Doonesbury escapes me and most women I know, black or white, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It draws on centuries of deep-rooted, wicked and indefensible portrayals of black women. In doing so, it is decidedly unfunny. The only purpose served by this cartoon strip is that it proved one sad fact: despite the contentions of many, in 21st century America, race and gender still matter.
[snip]
The fact is that black women at the apex of power have struggled long and hard for respect. The struggle still continues. This is why in this context, references to black women as brown sugar are not funny. It reminds us of the historical exploitation of black women in America. It reminds us that there are those who believe that no matter how accomplished we may become, no matter how educated we are, and no matter how many books we read, black women should remain in "their place," figuratively or literally. This place is one that is out of public view.
tbogg joins a long list of liberals that feel it is their right to use racial slurs against black conservatives.
Some of these past racial attacks on Secretary Rice included Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" comic strip having President Bush refer to her as "Brown Sugar," Ted Rall's cartoon suggesting she was a "house nigga" needing "racial re-education" and Jeff Danziger depicting her a the slave "Prissy" from the movie "Gone With the Wind." Additionally, former entertainer Harry Belafonte referred to Secretary Rice as a "house slave" and "sell-out," while NAACP chairman Julian Bond called her a "shield" used by the Bush Administration to deflect racial criticism.
And lest we forget, liberal Steve Gilliard's Sambo smear against another black conservative, Michael Steele.
Tolerance. It's a liberal value.
Except when they don't feel like it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:39 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Liberals know how to bring the hate in a really professional manner.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 10, 2007 04:39 PM (yHGOW)
2
Shouldn't that be 'whateveh'?
I'm done caring about who says what about whom. Really. It's gossip. We've got far more important things to mull over.
Posted by: Cindi at April 11, 2007 12:51 AM (asVsU)
3
Um, "brown sugar" = "nappy head hos"? Really?
Seems like a bit of a reach to me...
Posted by: Kodos423 at April 11, 2007 04:11 AM (U3VUB)
4
Anticipate other liberal bloggers coming to his defense by sundown.
Why? It's not like he's being attacked by anyone who really matters.
Posted by: Realist at April 11, 2007 06:43 AM (0wTC3)
5
Kodos423, "brown sugar" is a racist sexual reference. If you don't believe me, look up the lyrics to the Rolling Stones song "Brown Sugar".
Posted by: MikeM at April 11, 2007 07:42 AM (myTC8)
6
How exactly does "Brown Sugar" equate to "nappy-headed hos"?
Hey, at least you're not just pointing out this insignificant statement by a blogger to score some cheap points.
BTW, I think the fact that he capitalized "Brown Sugar" is an obvious reference to the Stones song and its ilk. I suppose you find Mick and Keith "intolerant" too.
Another BTW, "Confederate" is a term which "draws on centuries of deep-rooted, wicked and indefensible portrayals of black women" too.
Hackneyed and obtuse - must be a republican.
Posted by: jlo at April 11, 2007 07:49 AM (yfw+T)
7
I see the Defender Corps has arrived!
I like the logic - since ours is "small 'r' racist stereotyping, and we think yours is "big 'R' racist, we get a pass.
To use the reductio in absurdum filter... oh, never mind, people usually don't get the 'absurdum' part when applied to their POV.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 08:59 AM (HgYAW)
Posted by: David M at April 11, 2007 09:39 AM (6+obf)
9
Really? The satire in Doonesbury escapes you? It's not that complicated. Perhaps Family Circus is more your speed. Don't even begin to take on Tbogg. He is way out of your league.
EL
Posted by: dre at April 11, 2007 09:39 AM (iD7Q5)
10
Dre - satire makes it all okay, then. Oddly, I don't often see that defense as being deemed acceptable when it's the right being satirical.
You personally (whatever your political persuasion) may not suffer that peculiar myopia, but it's at the heart of the Bob's point.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 10:16 AM (HgYAW)
11
Actually, dre is right John. You're not in remotely the same league as racist, sexist bloggers.
Curious that anybody is.
Posted by: lex at April 11, 2007 11:22 AM (/A3c5)
12
"I see the Defender Corps has arrived!
I like the logic - since ours is "small 'r' racist stereotyping, and we think yours is "big 'R' racist, we get a pass.
To use the reductio in absurdum filter... oh, never mind, people usually don't get the 'absurdum' part when applied to their POV.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 08:59 AM"
---------------------------------------------
John: I'll see your fallacy in logic charge and raise you one more:
STRAW MAN
Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.
I never said that CY is a racist because he uses "confederate" in his blog handle, but instead sought to point out the weak position of someone who argues that another blogger they don't like is a racist because he called a black woman "brown sugar" when he happily employs an online identifier that is (at least in this country) explicitly associated with the cause of maintaining slavery by both law and custom.
Now, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency there, not actually accusing CY of being racist or having a sub-consicous racist intent in choosing to use the term confederate. I don't regularly read this blog, much less know anything about its author, so I would never dare to spread such scurrilous charges without a lot more evidence.
I am a regular reader of Tbogg though and find his insights often biting and hilarious. Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me, but I would guess the twin pop icons of the Rolling Stones and Doonesbury are the likely antecedents. Does that make what he did right? I would posit the more pressing question is: "was it wrong"? It certainly doesn't make him racist without anymore evidence.
Lastly, your plea to except the cases of satire from knee-jerk cries of "racism", "sexism", etc. is right and should be obvious (but sadly is not to many), which is exactly my point in distinguishing Tbogg (who is making a political point) from the likes of that mean-spirited hag Imus (who made his statement rashly and insensitively with no intent to do anything other than hurt someone).
However, what example of right-wing satire do you specifically refer to? I don't remeber any right-wingers attempting to satirize something that left-wingers attacked as being racist in intent when the opposite was clear to any objective viewer.
I'm sure someone as astute about logical fallacies as yourself wouldn't be introducing a classic red herring in your response to Dre.
Posted by: jlo at April 11, 2007 01:10 PM (yfw+T)
13
Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me
What does Occam's Razor suggest? He's simply a racist.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 11, 2007 04:41 PM (yHGOW)
14
jlo: maybe you can kid yourself, but do not try and kid everyone else, tbogg's caption is clearly racist (negative comment based on color of skin); you can continue to defend tbogg, but read over caption and ask yourself, is this how I would want to be portrayed if that were me (caption is based on color of skin rather than merits of acccomplishment); the answer is NO, whether you will admit it or not.
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 12, 2007 07:22 PM (zu8Ks)
15
And I am loving the idea that Imus insulting a female basketball team was "satire". What exactly was he satirising?
Posted by: Dr Zen at April 13, 2007 05:12 AM (OWLWF)
16
Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me
What does Occam's Razor suggest? He's simply a racist.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 11, 2007 04:41 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Purple - Occam's Razor could also suggest that you're simply a disingenuous authoritarian who loves to declare someone a racist upon the most paper-thin evidence, particularly when you disagree with his political stance. I'm sure if Imus was Rush, you would be on the other side arguing against "pc culture" run amok.
Maybe not, but Occam's Razor analysis does concern itself with nuance, does it?
----------------------------------------------
jlo: maybe you can kid yourself, but do not try and kid everyone else, tbogg's caption is clearly racist (negative comment based on color of skin); you can continue to defend tbogg, but read over caption and ask yourself, is this how I would want to be portrayed if that were me (caption is based on color of skin rather than merits of acccomplishment); the answer is NO, whether you will admit it or not.
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 12, 2007 07:22 PM
---------------------------------------------
Bored - Is this site always so supercilious? How is it "clearly racist" to point out that someone is black? By that standard, anyone who remarks that Barack is a "black candidate" running for Prez in '08 is a racist? And clearly, by your standard, Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb were "clearly racist" as he was basing his criticisms of the media on his perception that McNabb's celebrity was based almost exclusively upon his skin color. Race is a social construct we are forced to live with until our society does a lot more growing up. Until then, toughen up or stay home.
As to the "caption" you refer to, it's a snippet from a larger post about Wolfowitz's possible corruption problems at the World Bank. So, yes the issue is the "merits of her accomplishments", the quality of which reasonable men can differ about.
-----------------------------------------------
And I am loving the idea that Imus insulting a female basketball team was "satire". What exactly was he satirising?
Posted by: Dr Zen at April 13, 2007 05:12 AM
------------------------------------------------
Dr - I don't know if you were directly responding to my comment, but if so - I have to wonder if you somehow missed the part where I said this:
"which is exactly my point in distinguishing Tbogg (who is making a political point) from the likes of that mean-spirited hag Imus (who made his statement rashly and insensitively with no intent to do anything other than hurt someone)."
Where I come from, when someone makes the point of "distinguishing" two elements under examination, he or she is not equating the two.
A powerful undercurrent of good satire is anger, which can be expressed in terms that others who don't share that anger find bewildering and offensive. What Tbogg was attempting to do was satirize the atmosphere of corruption that clouds the current administration. On the other hand, Imus was just be an old white asshole with no substantive point at all.
You can disagree with Tbogg, but calling him a racist for what is an ambiguous (at best) statement is just a cheap diversion from meeting his political points head-on.
Posted by: jlo at April 13, 2007 09:20 AM (yfw+T)
17
jlo:
Is asking you to read something over and think about it actually haughty or treating you or subject matter with disdain, I do not buy it. Try this, forget context and who said what (your original point was comparing caption to Imus comments), or switch them; are you saying that if Imus used some expression equating Rutgers team or certain members as "brown sugar", that would be acceptable to you? It may not have caused the same hue and cry, but is it really acceptable?
In any event, learn to read, or read it again, caption does not point out C. Rice is "black" it labels her "Brown Sugar" (if you refuse to concede that connotative meaning of "Brown Sugar" is racist and replete with negative racial overtones (and the SOLE reason that tbogg used that expression) - it makes it pretty hard to take you seriously). With that in mind, I am not sure who or what you were actually responding to in first paragraph addressed to me.
One final note, I do note beleive that caption has anything to do with rest of tbogg entry (I beleive that first paragraph relates to Wolfowitz and current ethics problems and second paragraph refers to C. Rice and G. Bush), consequently, label says nothing or portrays nothing or is not even remotely about, C. Rice's "accomplishments".
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 13, 2007 03:03 PM (zu8Ks)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 06, 2007
Nice Story. Now Comes the SAPI Truth
Via
Instapundit, I ran into
this article on Gizmodo, where they claim an Apple Ipod saved the life of a soldier by slowing a bullet that hit him in the chest:
He was on patrol in Iraq when he met an armed insurgent carrying an AK-47. Both opened fire, and the bullet heading toward Kevin hit his chest right where his iPod was, which was enough to slow down the bullet to not pierce entirely through the body armor.
It's a great story, and one that is great word-of-mouth marketing for Apple. Too bad it probably isn't true.
Our soldiers wear Interceptor body armor manufactured by a company called Point Blank. Interceptor armor used by our troops in Iraq is composed of an outer tactical vest (OTV) that will stop 9mm bullets, and small arms protective inserts (SAPI) plates made of boron carbide ceramic and backed with bullet-resistant liner that cover the chest, back and sides. These SAPI plates are designed to stop three 7.62 bullets.
An Ipod? Not so much.
If the soldier was shot in a head-on confrontation as the story seems to describe, the SAPI plate on his chest is responsible for saving his life, not a piece of fruity electronic equipment.
Update: Is this story merely an urban legend? I just got a response back from JOC PAO (Joint Operations, Public Affairs in Iraq) suggesting that may be the case:
Hi Bob,
We got another query in on this story yesterday, and have sent it out to
3rd IDs units to see if this guy exists. We have not yet heard anything
back.
I suspect this is one of life's Urban Myths....
However if we get an answer back from the division I'll forward it on to
you!
Regards
Tracy Peyman
Lt Cdr RN
JOC PAO OIC
MNC-I
Something tells me this is likely going to end up on Snopes as a hoax.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:40 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
1
While I agree it was probably the Interceptor BA that saved his life, if the bullet was going fast enough to trash through the IPOD like that, the IPOD probably did save him from injury.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at April 06, 2007 10:58 AM (yiMNP)
2
I disagree,
The ipod is soft plastic (thin) and backed by very thin aluminum. Looking at the picture shows that the bullet went through the upper corner, missing the harder internal parts. While I agree that it slowed the bullet some, The vest probably would have absorbed that much more impact without problem.
Of course we'll never know for sure will we.
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 06, 2007 11:14 AM (0EcTE)
3
It's also very reminiscent of the story that the late James Doohan of "Star Trek" fame told of being saved on D-Day when he was a Canadian soldier, by a metal cigarette case he was carrying, which stopped the bullet. If this new story is indeed a hoax, I wonder if Scotty was indeed the inspiration.
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at April 06, 2007 01:25 PM (W0Vxv)
4
An iPod couldn't stop a .25 Who are these people kidding?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 06, 2007 06:33 PM (22lCG)
5
Heh. CNN contacted me about this, wanting my opinion.
If it's true, it's a great *story* regardless of the absolute truths in the issue of what saved who's life.
If it's faked, well, shame on 'em.
But that iPod didn't bleed off enough energy to make a significant difference in the penetrative ability of a standard military ball round, especially at the asserted ranges.
That said - if it happened as described, the soldier may well believe it, or see it as SGT Jeff does.
I do think, based on my email, that there's a lot of electrons being expended on the subject.
Want to get better protection than that iPod? I'll
suggest one of these. At least the plate there is hardened steel, imbued by a higher power. 8^)
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 07, 2007 09:51 AM (9FPYz)
6
Who knows how fast the bullet was moving when it hit? From far enough away, the kinetic energy could have been so reduced that even a matchbook might have substantially slowed it further.
I'm put it in the 'possible, but there's a lot of missing info' category.
Posted by: John at April 07, 2007 04:33 PM (T84VL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2007
Ware Outburst Apology
As noted in an update to
this post, Matt Drudge apparently got
April-fooled when he posted a "Drudge Exclusive" that CNN reporter Michael Ware heckled John McCain during a press conference in Baghdad.
Video of the press conference shows that Ware did not say or do anything unprofessional
during the press conference.
I typically do "that journalistic thing" and try to find a corroborating source for any news article I write about, but that isn't always easy to get, especially in the case of exclusives. As a result, when I run across an exclusive, I try to judge the credibility of the source, and the apparent validity of the information based on surrounding events.
In this particular case I had to consider the source, Matt Drudge. Drudge does occasionally screw up on his exclusives, but typically, as a news aggregator, his site turns out to be more often than not accurate. I'm sure that there are those of you who will dispute this, but don't confuse the accuracy of what he typically features on his site with the apparent bias he harbors in deciding which stories to promote.
Michael Ware had just spoken derisively of John McCain, and so it seemed possible that the events could occur. It seemed that the story could be accurate, based upon Ware's recent outburst and a pattern of reporting that betrays his biases.
Those of us who linked the Drudge account, including myself, screwed up and linked to an inaccurate story. I apologize to my readers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:07 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Thanks, CY. This is much better than the "UPDATE" other sites append to the very bottom of the offending post.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 03, 2007 08:51 AM (a2v8j)
2
If you can just get to about a 90% error rate and offer no apologies or corrections, you will qualify as Main Stream Media.
Posted by: old_dawg at April 03, 2007 11:01 AM (7nc0l)
3
Thanks for clearing that up, CY.
To show Ware's bias or unreasonableness you quoted him as saying: “I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.” It has since emerged that McCain assembled a small army to escort him on his stroll through Baghdad. McCain's hypocrisy exonerates Ware's comment, right?
FWIW I don't know anything about Ware. All I'm addressing is the one remark.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 03, 2007 11:34 AM (xRKGN)
4
The pro victory senator and presidential candidate had an appropriate security detail. No it is not hypocrisy and does not exonerate Ware's comment.
Posted by: Eddie Colletta at April 03, 2007 02:33 PM (9UEu0)
5
Eddie,
You believe that McCain requires 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, 2 Apaches and a bulletproof vest for a stroll through a safe neighborhood. What do you suppose he would require in an unsafe neighborhood?
You may as well argue that the earth is flat.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 03, 2007 03:27 PM (xRKGN)
6
Lex, he wasn't wearing a helmet. Maybe he was saving that for Detroit.
Not only did he take extraordinary measures for his own safety he put everyone in the markets lives at even more risk than usual in an attempt to try prove his boneheaded statement correct.
And the next day 22 people from that market were murdered.
Posted by: esther at April 06, 2007 08:35 PM (EC4Yg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
70kb generated in CPU 0.0632, elapsed 0.1138 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.0978 seconds, 211 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
