Don't shoot the messenger for the choice of words, guys...

I would have simply called him "reality-based," whereas his prosecution seemed retarded.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

The words "honesty" and "Hollywood" don't belong in the same sentence for a very good reason. Sally Field, bungling her Emmy acceptance speech and being played off-stage as she went over her allotted time, had her closing comment cut off when she utter "g-d d-mn" on tape-delayed "live" television.

Normally, this would be hardly worth mentioning, as profanity is routinely edited out on these kinds of shows (as it was on at least two other occasions last night) and babbling stars are often played off the stage (as also occurred last night) as they prattle on past their allotted time.

Field, professional that she is, timed a mild anti-war comment to come out prefaced by profanity as she was being played off the stage. According to a quite dishonest L.A. Times Tom O'Neil:

Producers of Sunday's Emmy telecast bleeped best drama actress winner Sally Field in the midst of a controversial acceptance speech attacking U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god -" she said when the sound went dead and the camera suddenly turned away from the stage so viewers would be distracted. Chopped off were the words "god-damned wars in the first place."

Filed was not "in the midst" as O'Neil reported, but already over her allotted time as the music came up and she was being played off the stage. Likewise, as Don Surber notes, she was far from being the only celebrity to have their profanity edited out of the show.

Predictably, blogs in the community-based reality such as Think Progress and the aptly-named Crooks and Liars are quick to make the unsupported accusation that this was the result of "censorship" by Fox , and left out the pertinent details that Field was using profanity and already over time when she made her rote comment.

Obviously, these troubling facts aren't relevant to the story they would prefer to tell.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:21 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Former Hollywood agent, Pat Dollard gets to the bottom line.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Brian De Palma is tediously consistent if nothing else.

His Vietnam war fiction "Casualties of War" portrayed American soldiers as rapist thugs merely bidding their time for the opportunity to commit inhuman acts against a bucolic population.

Unlike "Casualties," which was filmed decades after the war in Southeast Asia, De Palma's new film, "Redacted" is an admitted attempt by De Palma to sway world opinion against Americans soldiers while they are actively engaged in combat.

A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears.

"Redacted," by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice's main competition.

Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across.

De Palma, 66, whose "Casualties of War" in 1989 told a similar tale of abuse by American soldiers in Vietnam, makes no secret of the goal he is hoping to achieve with the film's images, all based on real material he found on the Internet.

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

As noted above, De Palma's film is propaganda to which he proudly admits:

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

I wonder how this country would have responded if Director John Ford had released a film showing American servicemen raping and killing an innocent Japanese girl in 1943 and murdering her family, instead of the propaganda film December 7.

In 1944, Ford was a commander in the USNR, and watched the June 6, 1944 invasion of Normandy from the USS Plunkett as the destroyer screened troop transports off Omaha Beach, and later landed on sands tinged red with the blood of American soldiers. To this day, most of the film Ford's team of combat cameramen shot on "Bloody Omaha" has never been seen. One may wonder how De Palma would have reacted in such a setting. Would his reaction have been to have noted the sacrifice of America's soldiers, or to vilify them for shooting fair-haired soldiers of the Wehrmacht as their lines collapsed and were overrun?

It seems almost certain that if De Palma covered the battle for Okinawa in 1945, his predilection for vilifying the American military would no doubt have led him to tell the story of the noble schoolteacher who led her classroom of children over the cliffs to their deaths at Humeyuri-no-to, and the bloodthirsty Marines they escaped from into death.

Of course, De Palma isn't making movies during World War Two vilifying AmericaÂ’s soldiers; he's making movies during a current war vilifying Americans soldiers.

What would once have been quickly identified as treasonous or seditious in past conflicts is now something that appears to be quite fashionable among certain aspects of our society.

De Palma and like-minded souls in Venice, Cannes, and Santa Barbara, of course, feel brave for making a film that portrays the young Midwestern privates and southern specialists and street-smart second lieutenants from Jersey on the frontlines as savages, capable and yearning to unleash unbearable cruelty.

As sweat drips in the eyes of soldiers and Marines as they attempt to bring peace to a land that has rarely known it, their enemies will be watching pirated and crudely-dubbed bootlegs of Redacted in training camps in Syria, in mosques in Saudi Arabia, and in homes throughout the Arab world, who already take a suspicious view of the American soldier in Iraq.

We will not see the pictures that would actually win the war, of an Iraqi father wrapping his arms around a suicide bomber to keep him from entering a mosque, or of the Iraqi interpreter who proudly dreams of becoming an American Marine. We won't see American ssaving Iraqi lives, or Iraqis saving American lives, or the brutality of those we fight.

Those, you see, are the pictures that Brian de Palma has redacted.

Blast From the Past: I'd almost forgotten. Venice was a pretty smart choice for De Palma, as the Italians have quite the fetish for dishonest anti-war propaganda.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:20 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess this answers the question of what happens "When the Sun Goes Down."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday, while scanning Memeorandum.com to see what other bloggers were discussing, I was amused to find a post called "Starting a War" that shows the vast disconnect between reality and fantasy as it relates to ever-changing situation in the Middle East, and with Iran in particular.

Let's see what Cernig has to say:

In an email this morning, Mr M at Comments From Left Field asked me "What happens if Iran DOES make an overt war act on the US?" Of course, the rightwing meme is that Iran has been carrying out both covert and overt acts of war for some time now - but any time someone who doesn't really want a war with iran looks at their evidence it ends up looking contrived, conspiratorial and, in essence, fabricated.

I know a "little something" about debunking questionable claims of Iranian involvement, having (as thoroughly as one can) debunked a claim by the U.K. Sun tabloid yesterday that Iranian Revolutionary Guards were helicoptering into Iraq to kill British soldiers. This was not the first claim of Iranian interference I debunked either; just 11 days ago, I proved that a February 12 claim made in the U.K. Telegraph that "more than 100" precision long-range .50 BMG rifles purchased by the Iranian government had been captured in Iraq by American forces, was unsubstantiated.

A liberal blogger acquaintance of mine, upon reading the second post, quipped to me via email, "Is George Soros sending you checks? I need to now if Soros is paying you more than he pays me."

I am an "honest dealer" on the subject of Iran.

Cernig, in my opinion, is not correct in implying that all the evidence "ends up looking contrived, conspiratorial and, in essence, fabricated."

It is true that many are ideologically opposed to accepting charges that Iran is involved in supplying ordnance, training, and even personnel to anti-government forces within Iraq.

The claims made, however, are as solid as one could possibly make without actually capturing uniformed Iranian soldiers firing weapons at American forces within Iraq.

We know, for example, that Iran has been supplying EFPs--explosively-formed penetrators--to Shia militias. EFPs are not a new technology, having been used for decades by militaries around the world. These are not, in theory, difficult weapons to build, and we have indeed captured indigenously-made EFPs and even captured facilities within Iraq where EFPs were being assembled. Making them effective against heavily-armored vehicles, however, is not a skill Iraqi machinists have the capability to replicate.

Iraqi fighters have been making their own versions of the weapons, but so far none has been effective against U.S. forces, Odierno said. The Iraqi-made projectiles, using brass and copper melted on stoves, have failed to fully penetrate U.S. armor and are more likely to be used against Iraqi forces, whose vehicles often have thinner armored protection than U.S. vehicles, U.S. military officials said.

"We have not seen a homemade one yet that's executed properly," Odierno said, adding that such weapons are not a major concern "as of yet."

Correctly machining to precise tolerances the copper disk that becomes the projectile is not a skill Iraqi elements have, and recovered projectiles--and in many instances, captured intact EFPs that failed to go off--have provided strong, finger-print-like clues as to the kind of machinery used to produce the more effective copper disks. The machining marks are said to indicate Iranian manufacture, as does chemical analysis of the C4 explosives used to form the projectile, and the specific construction of the passive infrared (IR) electronic triggers that detonate the weapons.

In addition to EFPs, Iranian-manufactured mortar shells of recent manufacture have been recovered, as well as Fajr-3 medium-range rockets, developed in and manufactured exclusively by Iran, that have been fired into Baghdad's Green Zone. Some even bear markings of the Iranian military:

In Iraq, Iranian 240mm rockets, which have a range of up to 30 miles and could significantly change the battlefield, have been used recently by Shiite extremists against U.S. and British targets in Basra and Baghdad, the officials said. Three of the rockets have targeted U.S. facilities in Baghdad's Green Zone, and one came very close to hitting the U.S. Embassy in the Iraqi capital, according to the U.S. officials.

The 240mm rocket is the biggest and longest-range weapon in the hands of Shiite extremist groups, U.S. officials said. Remnants of the rockets bear the markings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and are dated 2007, those sources said. The Tehran government has supplied the same weapon, known as the Fajr-3, to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia.

We also know Iran has been training anti-government insurgent groups in Iraq, as captured Shia militiamen have readily confessed, and as have their commanders, who freely confirmed that information to the Associated Press:

Commanders of a group inside the Shiite Mahdi Army militia told the Associated Press that there are as many as 4,000 members of their militia who were trained in Iran and they have stockpiles of EFPs. The commanders spoke to AP on the condition of anonymity because the U.S. military considers their group illegal and giving their names would likely lead to their arrest and imprisonment.

Further, we have captured Iranian military personnel in Iraq, including senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officer Mohsen Chizari in Baghdad on December 21, 2006. Also captured in Iraq--and still in U.S. custody, along with four other Iranian operatives--was Baqer Qabshavi, a colonel in the IRGC.

Contrived? Conspiratorial? Fabricated?

To someone with an apparent interest in denial at almost any cost, certainly, but not to anyone who retains objectivity, especially at a time when Iranian weapons shipments and training are not only on-going, but apparently increasing.

But Cernig's disconnect goes beyond questioning Iranian ordnance, training, and personnel, to an almost delusional of view of life within Iraq that echoes communist claims of just how great life was inside the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

My first reaction was "why the f**k would the do that? They may be theocrats but mostly they have a rational wish to keep their good lives intact and ongoing." Its undoubtably true that a war on Iran would be a disaster for the U.S. and its allies - it would accomplish none of the warmongers objectives except revenge for a decades-old insult at an embassy and would be highly counter-productive to U.S. and allied interests globally.

"Good lives?"

Somehow, I think their rioters may disagree:

Motorists set fire to petrol stations in Tehran today in an angry backlash against the Iranian government's decision to impose rationing.
One station in Pounak, a poor area of the capital, was set alight while another in eastern Tehran was partially burnt and two of its pumps were completely destroyed.

"Last night, there were a lot of fights, people were furious due to the sudden decision," a 55-year-old pump attendant told Reuters.

[snip]

The scenes of disorder put further political pressure on the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is already under fire for failing to deliver on promises to improve the economy after his election in 2005.

In May, the government reduced subsidies for petrol, causing a 25% jump in prices.

The government had been planning to implement rationing for weeks. It was supposed to begin on May 21 but was repeatedly put off amid fears that Iranians would react badly as they are used to cheap and plentiful petrol.

"This man, Ahmadinejad, has damaged all things. The timing of the rationing is just one case," said Reza Khorrami, a 27-year-old teacher who was queuing at one Tehran petrol station last night.

You'll note that the rioting was proximately caused by government-imposed mandatory fuel rationing, but an underlying cause of this rationing is Iran's stagnating economy, and no doubt the massive crackdown against anti-regime groups:

Iran is in the throes of one of its most ferocious crackdowns on dissent in years, analysts say. with the government focusing on labor leaders, universities, the press, women's rights advocates, a former nuclear negotiator and Iranian-Americans, three of whom have been in prison for more than six weeks.

[snip]

The hard-line administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the analysts said, faces rising pressure for failing to deliver on promises of greater prosperity from soaring oil revenue. It has been using U.S. support for a change in government as well as a possible military attack as the pretext to hound his opposition and its sympathizers.

If this is the "good life," I'll pass.

But the blissfully unaware description of Iran's domestic situation is no more disconnected than are Cernig's thoughts on why the United States may have cause to take action against Iran:

Its undoubtably true that a war on Iran would be a disaster for the U.S. and its allies - it would accomplish none of the warmongers objectives except revenge for a decades-old insult at an embassy and would be highly counter-productive to U.S. and allied interests globally.

Unless Cernig can compose a hasty rationalization to explain away these sentiments, it appears that he or she is firmly convinced that our current crisis with Iran is based solely upon "revenge" for the 1979-81 hostage crisis.

What?

The fact that Iran is supplying weaponry and training that the U.S. military claims has killed more than 170 American soldiers, and seems to be escalating their pace of doing so, might just be seen as more proximate cause to most rational people, as would Iran's continued eliminationist rhetoric toward the United States and U.S allies.

The continuing development of a suspected nuclear weapons program, and the proven and even bragged about development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and MIRV warheads is also a very real concern. While technically being capable of launching conventional warheads, in practice, almost all MIRVs mounted on ICBMs in the world's arsenal are nuclear in nature, and so it is irrational to assume Iran has developed these weapons systems for any other purpose.

While no doubt comforting to Cernig, these rationalizations fail to address either actual present reality or the concerns of the immediate and near-term future.

I'll skip past Cernig's next paragraph, which merely reiterates the laughable Iranian "good life" claim, and studiously seeks to deny any possible Iranian nuclear threat... actually, I'll skip the rest of the post entirely (though you might find Cernig's explanation of how we economically forced the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor somewhat amusing).

The rest of the post merely continues down a path built upon a shoddy foundation.

Sadly, we knew Cernig is probably not alone on the left or right, in attempting to create a docile, "artificial reality" Iran to ignore. Sadly, the inabilty of some to deal with actual reality versus a preferred reality may yet lead us into a far more lethal future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1795 words, total size 13 kb.

"No War For Beer!"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

(click image for larger picture)

Because you never want to offend anyone before you kill them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:43 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Perhaps its just my perception, but perhaps the reason that there are so few men taking wine-tasting and tennis classes in New York City is not that they are uninterested in the subject, but that the men who have these interests are already dating each other.

I'm kidding. Mostly.

Ann Althouse takes another stab at answering the question:

Men prefer to look at something they have decided to do and figure it out on their own. They like to observe, analyze, and discover. They accept the risks and enjoy the excitement of trial and error. They don't like sitting around having someone tell them what to do, and they aren't intrigued by the prospect of meeting women who spend so much time doing something they loathe.

Now, I just made that up, but it was no more made up than the explanation in the article.

Althouse is a lot closer to reality than the loopy NY Times reporter.

I don't know any of my male friends who would sign up for a class to learn how to do anything; typically if they're interested in a subject, they'll ask a buddy for pointers or just dive right in. The trial and error is part of what makes new experiences worthwhile.

Of course, the choice of activity matters a great deal as well.

Look at the list of classes chosen by these desperate women: "tennis, running, sailing, horseback riding, fitness boot camp and scuba diving classes" and "golf, cooking or music class," and "Thai kickboxing or jazz appreciation."

Now honestly... how men of these activities are of interest to most single straight men in the age groups these women are targeting? Cooking and music classes? Thai kickboxing and jazz appreciation? These might appeal to men when they get older, but most younger single men have very little interest in these subjects, and even if they did, as Althouse correctly observed, they'd just do it.

If these women wanted to meet men, they'll find out what men like and where they hang out, and go there.

Somehow, I doubt that advice will lead them back to a jazz appreciation class.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I feel no sympathy whatsoever for any single person in NYC who is incapable of finding a mate. Having lived the the same neighborhood as she did, let me confirm what every single man already knows. GO TO A BAR FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! IF YOU WANT TO MEET A GUY GO TO A BAR, ORDER A DRINK, COUNT TO 10. Here's are three places to start. Molly's on 3rd Ave, Telephone Bar & Grill on 2nd Ave M J Armstrongs on 1st Ave.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 18, 2007 12:39 PM (oC8nQ)

2 I don't know any older men either who are interested in those subjects. When I was interested in meeting men, I started a Monday Night Football Party at my house. Started with 3 guys who I already knew and were good friends and over the next three years the group grew to anywhere from 10 to 30 guys on any given night. As the group grew, I even made it "bring your own beer" but I always had the snacks and comfy chairs or big pillows to lounge on on the floor. At first I felt like I had to play hostess and would jump up and wait on the guys, but as the weeks went on they started treating me like their mascot and began to cater to my needs. Many of these Monday Night Football parties extended over to weekend BBQ's and other casual activities. A girlfriend who stopped by unexpectedly said the next day, "how does a middle age average looking woman get some of the best looking guys in town to hang out with her?" My answer, "become one of the guys." I'm happy to say that most of those guys are still good friends of mine and always invite me to any parties they have and this is 20 years later.

Posted by: Pal2Pal at May 18, 2007 01:11 PM (hGL+y)

3 There's only one activity in that list that require classes and that's scuba, otherwise you won't get certified. Maybe sailing because it's not an intuitive activity. But jazz appreciation? You go, you listen, you appreciate. Or not. Running? You put one foot in front of the other at a quicker pace than walking. That is called running. Class dismissed. Horseback riding? There's a reason women enjoy this more than men. The big problem is the women themselves. They get interested in something because they think men are interested? No. You get interested in something that interests you and then you meet people with the same interests. Sweet Jeebus, how hard a concept is that to grasp?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 18, 2007 01:20 PM (kxecL)

4 Well that explains why these women are looking for men instead of men looking for them.

Posted by: 1sttofight at May 18, 2007 02:31 PM (51r8a)

5 What the hell do these women want to meet men for in the first place? They claim not to need them; have no respect for them; have made beatin' up on men, particularly white men, the national pasttime; and wouldn't know a real man - the kind worth having - if they fell over one. Which they probably have. Reap = sow.

Posted by: Cindi at May 18, 2007 02:43 PM (asVsU)

6 Cindi!?!? They're going to pull your card.

Posted by: CoRev at May 18, 2007 03:08 PM (0U8Ob)

7 Nope, CoRev, they can bring it on but it's not gonna happen. I'm a firm believer and practioner of our 2A. Heh. I calls 'em as I sees 'em; that's what a REAL WOMAN does.

Posted by: Cindi at May 18, 2007 03:50 PM (asVsU)

8 After 12 years in the Marines I have an intense distrust of anyone that goes running with nobody making them. Do people really take classes to learn how? Just move to a bad neighborhood. It worked for me.

Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 18, 2007 04:35 PM (mYHGQ)

9 Ever since Rudy cleaned up Times Square it's been hard to find a bunch of available guys in one place.

Posted by: Tim at May 18, 2007 08:14 PM (WiHUE)

10 I was living in NYC in the '80s when that guy's parents got tired of paying for a professional student, so he went and started "The Learning Annex" distributed free on the street. You could sign up for courses in basket-weaving, wine and cheese tasting, how to lose a Brooklyn accent, how to get one for an acting job, etc.etc. We would read these at the pubs and wait till the gals came out to party. Never took one of those courses; if I want learn something, I just read blueprints and manuals, or find an expert on my own.

Posted by: Tom TB at May 19, 2007 05:08 AM (h/YdH)

11 "Now honestly... how men of these activities are of interest to most single straight men in the age groups these women are targeting?" Hey! HEY! Scuba diving and golf - not activities straight men are interested in? Wrongo, bub. As someone else on this thread mentioned, classes are mandatory in scuba unless you're not looking to get certified. And, as someone who's enjoyed the sport since 18 years of age, I can tell you that anyone who doesn't feel they need the instruction is playing with his life. As for golf: well, let's just say that 1) Tiger Woods still signs up for instruction and 2) I don't want to spend 10 years trying to figure it out on my own enough to not be the worst golfer within 50 miles! I'm 100% with you on the jazz appreciation.

Posted by: Ric James at May 19, 2007 07:16 AM (AS/pd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Take this for what it's worth:

In a collision of 21st-century science and decades-old conspiracy theories, a research team that includes a former top FBI scientist is challenging the bullet analysis used by the government to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot the two bullets that struck and killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics written by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James.

The researchers' re-analysis involved new statistical calculations and a modern chemical analysis of bullets from the same batch Oswald is purported to have used. They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved, but urged that authorities conduct a new and complete forensic re-analysis of the five bullet fragments left from the assassination in Dallas.

[snip]

Tobin, Spiegelman and James said they bought the same brand and lot of bullets used by Oswald and analyzed their lead using the new standards. The bullets from that batch are still on the market as collectors' items.

They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely," the researchers said. If the five fragments came from three or more bullets, that would mean a second gunman's bullet would have had to strike the president, the researchers explained.

If I'm reading this right, there is no new evidence of a second shooter, just a criticism of the bullet analysis used at the time.

How they can jump from questioning the methodology, to postulating that there may have been three or more bullets and a second gunman, should be a red flag. They have no data to support their third bullet/second gunman theories.

Retro-Trutherism. How chic.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:47 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.

A question for parents: how would you feel if your child's teacher terrorized your child?

Staff members of an elementary school staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables.

The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.

"We got together and discussed what we would have done in a real situation," he said.

But parents of the sixth-grade students were outraged.

"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," said Brandy Cole, whose son went on the trip.

The children in this incident emerged physically unscathed, but that outcome was not guaranteed. The students could have just as easily panicked and attempted to escape, at which point the 69 student could have trampled one another, causing serious injuries.

The school principal, Catherine Stephens, in a hidious understatement, said that the staff members involved exhibited "poor judgment." The school Web site says the teachers involved considered the act of edu-terrorism a "prank."

Poor judgement? A prank? A teacher berating a child in front of their class for getting an answer wrong exhibits poor judgment. A camp prank is "short-sheeting" a bed.

The staff and teachers of Scales Elementary School premeditated and carried out a plot in which almost six dozen children were purposefully convinced they might die. In any other situation, such a threat, serious or not, would and should be viewed as a criminal act.

A real example of poor judgment in this instance would be the continued employment of these sadists as teachers. I hope that Murfreesboro City Schools has better judgement than that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Rueters:

On the last day of official campaigning, opinion polls showed Sarkozy enjoyed a commanding lead over Royal, who accused the former interior minister of lying and polarizing France.

"Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told RTL radio.

"It is my responsibility today to alert people to the risk of (his) candidature with regards to the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country (if he won)," she said.

Pressed on whether there would be actual violence, Royal said: "I think so, I think so," referring specifically to France's volatile suburbs hit by widespread rioting in 2005.

[snip]

At the start of her campaign, Royal refused to refer to her opponent, but with time running against her she has changed tactics and has relentlessly lambasted him this past week.

On Friday she said he had exacerbated social tensions during his time as interior minister and added that he was unable to enter some neighborhoods for fear of provoking violence. The suburbs were hit by widespread riots in 2005.

Wouldn't it help if we knew which groups Royal thought might riot, and the nature of the social tensions that would cause them to do so?

If they can't confront the problem enough to even mention who was rioting (primarily poorly assimilated North African Muslim youths) and why (economic hopelessness, cultural divides, among others), then they will never solve the underlying problems leading to this kind of behavior.

Get used to the idea of vague people starting riots for vague reasons in France for many years to come.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:20 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

As many of you know, I work part-time at a sporting goods store behind the gun counter. This past Saturday, a rather frail couple I'd estimate to be in their early fifties--a local man, and his sister visiting from Florida, they said--stopped me to ask where they could find a whistle.

An orange whistle; they were very adamant about that.

We didn't happen to have any orange whistles in stock, and I inquired as to why they were so intent on getting a whistle in that particular color. The brother informed me that they had had a rash of recent muggings in the community in Florida where the sister lived, and they thought that whistle was the best way to protect her against a possible mugging.

My eyebrows went up with that. I asked where she intended to keep the whistle, and she stated quickly, as if I was daft, that she'd keep it in her purse.

I just looked at them for a few seconds, hoping they'd make the connection.

They didn't.

"You mean the same purse that a mugger would likely grab?" I offered, trying to point out their obviously flawed logic. Instead of realizing their Carlos Mencia "dee dee dee!" moment, they shifted gears.

"What about pepper spray?"

"And where would you keep that?"

She started to answer, "In my pu-"

The brother, starting to get agitated, cut her off.

"Do you have it, or not?" he said tersely.

I replied that we didn't, and then I took the conversation where they didn't want to go.

"Ma'am, you live in Florida, correct?"

She did.

"You are aware that Florida have one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the United States?"

I may as well have suggested raping a chicken. The looks of horror and disgust should have been comical, but all I felt was sad.

At that point I gave up and directed them to the closest place that I was aware of that had pepper spray for sale. They left, very quickly. I never did find out why they were so adamant about having an orange whistle. Perhaps they thought muggers were afraid of that particular color.

A whistle has not, as far as I am aware, stopped a determined assailant, as often as I've heard them recommended as a form of self defense by one un-serious group or another. All an assailant has to do it pluck it from your lips, or more likely, attempt to use his fist to smash it down your throat.

Whistles only provide the illusion of safety, which is all these people and others like them actually want. They want to think they're taking steps to protect themselves or others, even when they aren't.

I almost never have to time to take these customers down the logical path, as they typically eject themselves from the conversation once their illusion is challenged.

I'd love to ask them what they expect to happen if they are able to actually blow their whistle, but rarely get the chance.

Do they expect that a police officer will just happen to be within the hundred-yard or so range of such a whistle, with his radio off and his squad car windows down so that he can hear their single, brief bleat?

Do they expect other citizens to come running to their rescue and potentially place their lives in jeopardy, when the victims themselves would not?

Whistlers, however you cut it, are sheep... and self-important, arrogant sheep at that.

Whatever their physical gifts, they are psychologically unwilling to defend themselves, and yet expect others to come running to their rescue when things get predatory. They don't want the responsibility of protecting their own lives, and expect others to do it for them.

Bring on more unarmed victim zones. Buy more whistles. Expect others to come to your defense, even though you wouldn't come to theirs.

Baaaaa...

I hope orange whistle lady wises up, but I'm rather sadly confident that she won't. Some illusions are just too comforting for some people to let go of them, not matter how useless and stupid they are.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:16 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

Terry Moran is sure to be creamed for this contrarian opinion, but I tend to think he's right:

So as we rightly cover the vindication of these young men and focus on the genuine ordeal they have endured, let us also remember a few other things:

They were part of a team that collected $800 to purchase the time of two strippers.

Their team specifically requested at least one white stripper.

During the incident, racial epithets were hurled at the strippers.

Colin Finnerty was charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005.

The "Duke Three" are without a doubt innocent of the crimes of rape and kidnapping levied by a mentally-disturbed stripper and a dishonest district attorney, but they are not innocents. There is a huge distinction between being innocent of a crime, and some of the comments made during the defense lawyer's press conference that painted these three young men as almost being ripe for canonization.

They are part of a group that deserves criticism for their actions. These three young men are not criminals, but nor should they or their teammates be made into heroes. We should be able to redress the travesty of justice committed against them without making them into idols or figureheads of purity, when they clearly are not.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:34 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Ah, leftists in action.

On the show she apparently creamed him, according to Don Surber:

You could almost feel the delight in her as she knew she had him. She stuck to her guns while he sputtered and locked into the name-calling mode. He is so stuck in the '60s (although he is far too young to have lived much then) that he could not understand that women really are the equal of men and that they can think for themselves — and mature into the same conservatives that educated men become.

Malkin's response to Malik Shabazz's name-calling is here.

It's rather sad in this day and age that women and minorities, especially women who are minorities, are treated so horribly if they have political opinions that stray from what some people think that their skin color should believe.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

One day after normally cautious North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper blasted the handling of the Duke Lacrosse rape case and took the extraordinary step of declaring the charged players innocent of all counts, disgraced Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has issued a trite semi-apology:

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong acknowledged today that three former Duke University lacrosse players were "wrongfully accused" of sexual assault.

Nifong released a statement one day after N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed the charges against the lacrosse players and declared them "innocent" and the victims of an "unchecked" prosecutor who rushed to judgment.

"It is and has always been the goal of our criminal justice system to see that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are set free," Nifong wrote. "No system based on human judgment can ever work perfectly.

"Those of us who work within that system can only make the best judgments we can," Nifong continued. "To the extent that I made judgments that utimately [sic] proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three suspects that were wrongly accused. ... It is my sincere desire that the actions of Attorney General Cooper will serve to remedy any remaining injury that has resulted from these cases."

But Nifong disputed Cooper's assessment of him as a "rogue" prosecutor.

"The fact that I instead chose to seek that review should in and of itself call into question the characterizations of this prosecution as 'rogue' and 'unchecked,'" he wrote.

Shorter Mike Nifong: "I'll accept that charges shouldn't have been brought, but don't call me a "rogue" just because I conspired to hide evidence that would have exonerated the accused and used a mentally-disturbed girl's inconsistent stories as a battering ram to bludgeon my way into an elected office I promised to the governor himself I would not run for.

"Why, it is horrible to stigmatize someone with an inaccurate description.

'Cause that would, you know, be wrong."

Nifong faces a hearing at the North Carolina State Bar's Disciplinary Hearing Committee tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 PM, which will determine if he will be stripped of his law license.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:37 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

I've admired the job former N.C. State star Sidney Lowe has done as the coach of State's basketball team in his first year. He's simply a classy person.

His son, apparently is not.

The 21-year-old son of North Carolina State basketball coach Sidney Lowe faces charges in two armed incidents, including one in which a UNC-Greensboro student from Raleigh was shot in the back.

Police at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro said Sidney R. Lowe II surrendered to authorities Tuesday and was charged with eight counts, including felony aiding and abetting attempted armed robbery, in connection with Saturday's shooting and attempted robbery inside Weil Residence Hall.

Greensboro city police filed 14 additonal charges, including felony assault, in connection with a home invasion that took place on March 16.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

The editor of a French satire magazine has been acquitted of insulting Muslims by re-publishing cartoons of Mohammed.

Paris will begin burning this evening.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Abortion e-cards. Great.

Allah asked a good question... What about all the upbeat cards?

My contribution:

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

It appears that James Cameron's claim to have found the tomb and ossuaries of Jesus Christ and his family, which were never taken seriously by biblical scholars, may have resulted from an inabilty to properly read and translate the Greek writing on at least one ossuary.

The film and book suggest that a first-century ossuary found in a south Jerusalem cave in 1980 contained the remains of Jesus, contradicting the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. Ossuaries are stone boxes used at the time to store the bones of the dead.

The filmmakers also suggest that Mary Magdalene was buried in the tomb, that she and Jesus were married, and that an ossuary labeled "Judah son of Jesus" belonged to their son.

The scholars who analyzed the Greek inscription on one of the ossuaries after its discovery read it as "Mariamene e Mara," meaning "Mary the teacher" or "Mary the master."

Before the movie was screened, Jacobovici said that particular inscription provided crucial support for his claim. The name Mariamene is rare, and in some early Christian texts it is believed to refer to Mary Magdalene.

But having analyzed the inscription, Pfann published a detailed article on his university's Web site asserting that it doesn't read "Mariamene" at all.

The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame," was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara," meaning "and Mara." Mara is a different form of the name Martha.

According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher," but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha."

"In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary ... to Mary Magdalene or any other person in biblical, non-biblical or church tradition," Pfann wrote.

In the interest of telling a good story, Pfann said, the documentary engaged in some "fudging" of the facts.

Okay, an inability to read and an apparent willingness to deceive.

Somehow, I doubt anyone is all that surprised.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:03 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

1 There is no historical evidence that Jesus and the two Maries continued living in Palestine while there is convincing evidence that they traveled to India. The fist detailed research was published a hundred years ago by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-190 in his book Jesus in India (www.alislam.org, www.tombofjesus dot com) referring to many ancient sources. Graves of Jesus is well known in Srinagar India and that of one Mary in Murree in Pakistan.

Posted by: Syed Sajid Ahmad at March 14, 2007 11:43 AM (j+83b)

2 CY, I agree completely with two posts in a row! (Pace "don't ask/don't tell" and now this about bonehead Cameron). What's the world coming to?

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 14, 2007 12:24 PM (7IB7k)

Hide Comments | Add Comment