November 12, 2009
Are Iranian Weapons Flowing Through Your Country's Ports?
The 500 tons of Iranian rockets, grenades, ammunition and mortar shells that Israel intercepted on the
MV Francop was destined for Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, a fact that
Iran's friends in the Obama White House will not doubt seek to downplay if not outright ignore. That means that a media largely compliant to the Administration's wishes will fail to pick up on the alarm sounded by Israel, which noted the weapons they intercepted had first been shipped into an unsuspecting third country, unloaded, transferred, and shipped out again without anyone in that nation knowing.
The weapons were not segregated or controlled, were not properly stored or packed, and highly explosive.
And it could happen any any port at any nation on earth.
"When you deal with those containers without any precautions at all, they can explode almost anywhere. And any one of your ships could carry one of those containers one day, and any one of your ports could deal with those explosives."
This isn't a secret.
So why isn't anything being done about it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Start with the lack of security in most ports and add the tendency of most third-world customs inspectors to take bribes. Mix in total indifference to what is being shipped as long as the customs duties are paid. Top it off with traditional third-world indifference to the consequences of a container exploding and you have your answer.
Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2009 09:47 AM (7nc0l)
2
Lockheed Martin was working on a system dealing with container tracking and security for our ports, but I'm not sure of the status of the project. I also wasn't involved with it so I don't know the details of what exactly the system entailed.
However that doesn't help with 3rd world ports. The real scary thing is them getting a nuclear device on one of those ships and detonating it in one of our major ports.
Posted by: Scott at November 12, 2009 11:20 AM (6yHgW)
3
The casualness in which TCNs (third country nationals) handle high eplosives is enough to make any sane man run for cover. Even when they are TRAINED they're dangerous. I've personally seen TCNs throwing LIVE 120mm mortar rounds into a pile like so many logs. "InSh'Allah" is their watchword meaning "It's Gods Will" or "In Gods Hands" IF the stuff blows up.
Case in point: its symptomatic of Islam, this personal abrogation of personal responsibility. By claiming that everything is in "God Hands/Will" the individual in question never need feel, nor respect anyone, anything, or do anything other than what they themselves wish to do or impose on others because it's all up to God. This is why they run red lights in Kuwait (causing me a permanant limp) and don't strap their small children in car seats, or even throw load high explosives around with impunity. If God wants them to live, they will, InSh'Allah.
Posted by: Big Country at November 12, 2009 04:09 PM (H/RUP)
4
RE: Scott
It is not a matter of "getting a nuke on ONE" in a cargo container.
It's simply a matter of time, sufficient stockpile to detonate a half dozen with sufficient reserve stockpile to be credible with issuing threats and edicts, it will happen. 3-5 years.
Once they have accumulated sufficient stockpile to getting 5 or 6 in separate U.S. ports, stored say for a couple weeks to coordinate a simultaneous blast, plus another 5 or 6 in financial city centers, plus likely a couple on missiles aimed at Israel, the U.K. France and Germany,
Kaboom.
Visit the port of Long Beach sometime, the port of Oakland, the port of Houston and Baltimore.
Five years ago they Mullah thugocracy had their Pasdaran practice launching long range missiles from the holds of junk frieght ships in the Caspian. Guess what ? It works.
http://politicscentral.com/2006/10/24/ten_kilotons_and_the_port_of_l.php
Posted by: Econ_Scott at November 12, 2009 07:17 PM (kP2Fw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 10, 2009
November 09, 2009
Iranian Rockets Captured by Israel Identical to Rockets Fired At U.S. Bases in Iraq
107mm rockets of recent Iranian manufacture are among the 500 tons of ordnance recovered by the Israeli Navy, and the rockets they recovered precisely matched those captured outside of U.S FOB Hammer in
July of 2007.
And in case you are wondering, yes, those same rockets are still being used, and are still killing American soldiers today.
An American logistics contractor known to readers of this blog as "Big Country" says via email that those same rockets are still being used against American bases:
...between the hours of 2000 and 2200 (8pm to 10pm) drop, yep you guessed it, 107mm rockets on us. Some days they don't drop at all, which is even worse. The waiting ya know? The largest number was 6 in short order, and the lowest was a single one. Guess it depends on how confident they are about getting caught. One of them KIA'd a guy on the pad across from me a few weeks backÂ… 4 WIA, 1 KIA. (That one made FOXnews and CNN) I'm getting my intel firsthand on this, (it's pretty common knowledge on post) and the Army is fully aware of the whole thing, but whether or not it helps, I dunno... wheels within wheels as they say. I hope they put the zap these jokers soon.
Will President Obama man-up and stop Iran from supplying weapons being used against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and against our allies and national interests? Or will he continue to pretend these weapons are not being used against Americans, so he can play at gutless diplomacy?
Somehow, I think we all know the answer.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:16 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I remember when Jack Cafferty on CNN said that he sees no problem with this.
Posted by: brando at November 09, 2009 03:48 PM (IPGju)
2
Seems to me that we did the same thing when the USSR had their Afghani misadventure. Soviets couldn't do anything about it then and I'm not sure there's much that we can do now, even if we did have something more substantial than the current Pretender-in-Chief in the Oval Office. Certainly the Iranians have shown little fear of us and next to none for D'Ohbama...
Posted by: Diogenes Online at November 09, 2009 04:01 PM (2MrBP)
3
CY - What an incredible coincidence!
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 09, 2009 06:22 PM (3O5/e)
4
If I were in charge, I would send boomer to that part of the world, Let the Iranians know it was there and then give them an ultimatum. Desist or ceast to exist.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at November 09, 2009 06:25 PM (EqMUb)
5
I know we dont like it when they are aimed at us. Fact is Iran has just joined the arms game. US, China, Russia, France, Iran and others make weapons for export. There has been times when our soldiers were being shot at with US made arms.
Posted by: capt26thga at November 09, 2009 07:42 PM (h7WK1)
6
The point is, whether it is Iranian Shia or Al Queda Sunni or Syrian Baathists or Palestinian anti-zionists or Paki talibanophiles... all these distinctions give way to their common aim to wage what we may properly call Jihad. Sure, if they didn't have us or the Brits around to shoot at they would turn on each other; each claiming the next to be kaffir, they WILL work in common cause to blow up american GIs or civilians. The Lockerbie bomber is as much a hero to our domestic jihadists as he is to Bashar Assad, the Saddam-style secularist. This is the Unified Field Theory of Jihad and is what Bush Meant To Say when he coined the less inflammatory and less accurate GWOT.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 10, 2009 06:00 AM (wJMs3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Thank Goodness fo "Cop-Killer" Weapons
For once, an anti-gun organization's spurious claims may have saved lives.
My latest article is up at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
November 06, 2009
October 09, 2009
April 23, 2009
Cartel "Anti-aircraft Machine Guns" Neither Anti-aircraft, Nor Machine Guns
And please,
don't blame me for the title.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:21 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh Mexico...do they think we find their misrepresentation of the truth cute?
~T the D
Posted by: T the D at April 23, 2009 09:52 AM (fEh7/)
2
Um, did you look at all the pictures? In addition to the various rifle and tons of rifle magazines, there was the M1919A4. The statement made no reference as to whether it was automatic or not. I would go with the presumption that it was. But the statement about the .50 is confusing, because in addition to the M2 mounted on the pickup, there was a .50 sniper rifle shown on the table. That was likely the unmodified semi-auto weapon they were talking about. Again, I would go with the presumption that the M2 on the pickup was indeed an automatic weapon.
As to whether the M2 is an anti-aircraft gun, sure it is, or at the very least, can be used in that role. When M2s were mounted on tanks and other armored vehicles and trucks in WW2, the Army's then current doctrine said they were for anti-aircraft use. That they were certainly useful in engaging ground targets was just a bonus.
Posted by: XBradTC at April 23, 2009 11:27 PM (BF7KV)
3
Seriously, Brad... did you even read the article?
I clearly stated the firearm on the table was a 1919A4 (and even linked to it), and proved that that M2 was semi-auto by the BATF's own declaration of who the manufacturer was, a company that makes only semi-autos out of parts kits.
You also completely fail to take into account the configuration of the weapons, and how that affects theri ability to perform certain roles.
the M1919A4 is a low-mount tripod cannot be used effectively as an anti aircraft weapon, which I clearly noted. Likewise, while the M2 in various guises was used as both an anti-aircraft gun and an on-aircraft (offensive and defensive) weapon, THIS infantry-vehicle configuration of a semi-auto M2 hidden behind a welded shield that limits vision and may well indeed be semi-rigid or fixed mount precludes use as an AA weapon.
As for the designation of the M2 as an AA weapon on WWII, the "doctrine" was a bit of in-service propaganda to keep soldiers from feeling so vulnerable. True AA versions of the M2 had very different sighting system. Using standard vehicle sights against fighters was pretty much an exercise in futility, but was necessary for morale.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 24, 2009 08:53 AM (gAi9Z)
4
To use an analogy that Brad might possibly understand (but probably won't): the German 88mm gun was one of the finer anti-aircraft weapons of WWII. It was also used as the main cannon on the Tiger tank. However, it would have been fatuous to claim that the Tiger I was an "anti-aircraft tank" because it mounted an 88.
Similarly, while the .50 cal could be used an an anti-aircraft gun, while on a low-mount tripod it was incapable of being employed in that capacity.
Posted by: Mark L at April 24, 2009 09:11 AM (2X4q0)
5
Of course there may be (not sure if it's possible with their copies) the possibility that the TNW M2 copy was modified after delivery to be capable of full automatic.
Of course neither weapon may or may not have come directly from the USA to Mexico, I doubt the Mexican federales found receipts for delivery to prove their assertion of that.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at April 24, 2009 11:15 AM (hrLyN)
6
I don't know why you are hitting this story so hard. The Mexican government and the MSM put forth a factually weak story, with headlines designed to instill fear. Nothing new. However, by criticizing their characterizations of these weapons you are marginalizing the what should be the real story; these drug cartels have some seriously heavy weapons.
It is a sad statement when I believe the BATF's characterization of the M2 as a semi-auto version as little as I believe the Mexican governments story. Its an easy mistake to make, I was a .50 cal gunner overseas, and taught classes on the weapon, but I'm not sure if I would recognize a semi-auto replica from a full-auto without dissassembly. I wouldn't expect mexican law enforcement who have never seen a .50 cal to do much better.
As far as the argument that its not an anti-aircraft gun, thats just symantics and downright silly. A M2, semi-auto or not, is more than capable of shooting down helicopters and light aircraft- the types used by the Mexican LE/Military. A M1919, mounted differently, also poses a threat to these types of aircraft. Arguing that these are not anti-aircraft guns is similar to the classification of the M82 Barret as and Anti-Material rifle. It doesn't mean that its not effective against human targets.
The MSM is bad at its job, nothing new there. There is no need to let new-media get dragged down to their standards.
Posted by: LM at April 24, 2009 01:42 PM (wPKFQ)
7
MarkL,
Maybe, just maybe in the 12 years I used M2s and worked around armored vehicles, I gleaned just a bit of knowledge and an appreciation for the nuances between anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. I didn't claim the M1919 was an anti-aircraft weapon. I'm quite familiar with it's low profile tripod mount, and very familiar with it's close cousin, the M-60 when used on the M122 tripod mount.
As to the M2, I'll confess I was a bit of a bonehead there. I had bad connection to PJM and it wouldn't load the second page. Guilty as charged Bob, on the auto vs. semi-auto part.
But, given that the M2 was in fact originally designed as an anti-aircraft weapon for the Army at the tail end of WW1; and given that I live fired trained with them as late as 1991 on RCAT targets with the regular low profile sights on a regular cupola mount on the M113, I'd say, yeah, it's still a pretty formidable AA weapon. The mount on the pickup may or may not be able to elevate to or near the zenith. MarkL note4s that on a low-profile mount it wouldn't be very useful as an AA weapon. True, but it isn't on a low-profile mount, now is it?
Posted by: XBradTC at April 24, 2009 05:37 PM (/swLh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 06, 2009
FBI Lab Raises More Questions Than Answers About Nisoor Square Shooting
Frankly, it sounds like
crap science geared towards a predetermined political verdict.
I think both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration would consider a show trial that results in across-the-board convictions to be in their best diplomatic interests in dealing with the Iraqi government, who have rather foolishly (IMHO) decided to push the issue as a matter of national pride.
It takes only a layman's understanding of ballistics and metallurgy to see the obvious questions that the FBI laboratory seems to have failed to adequately answer.
I'm not giving Blackwater blanket immunity for their actions in Iraq by any stretch of the imagination, but there are certainly enough questions about the quality of the investigation and the forensic research thus far released, the forensic evidence being withheld under the rubric of religious customs, the chain of evidence, and prosecutorial political influence to cast serious doubt on whether there can be a fair trail for the accused.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:14 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If you want to see what's going on, rent a copy of Breaker Morant.
Posted by: Joe Hooker at April 07, 2009 10:46 AM (Qw6g3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2009
A Call to Arms in Mexico
The solution to the expanding drug cartel violence in Mexico isn't for our anti-gun President and Attorney General to pass even more restrictive gun laws in the United States, but instead change Mexican laws to
increase the flow of guns into the right hands in Mexico, paralleling the success of the
Sawa or "Awakening" movement in Iraq that drove a similarly violent Sunni insurgency out of al-Anbar.
Read my latest, A Call to Arms in Mexico, at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
March 17, 2009
March 14, 2009
February 25, 2009
What's The Matter with Illinois?
And why do they keep freedom-hating urban Democrats?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:29 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The one-party Democrat rule of Illinois is quite possibly at an end - but the Republicans have a remarkably thin bench, and were all but put out of the game by that previous crooked governor George Ryan (R.-Jail).
Asking Illinoians who to vote for is like asking them which would they rather be shot by: a Smith & Wesson, or a Glock?
Posted by: Ken McCracken at February 25, 2009 11:26 PM (AMvip)
2
Be real. Illinois is controlled by Chicago. Who controls Chicago? The mob, by whatever name. One could say the Daily machine but I consider that a distinction w/o a difference.
When personal freedom is restricted, it creates opportunities for corruption. Hence personal freedom is not in the interests of the people who run Illinois.
Posted by: Unnamed Coward at February 26, 2009 11:19 AM (q6tuN)
3
The Daley Machine is not the Mafia. It is an old-school feudal aristocracy. Daley is a Duke of Chicago, with his own set of courtiers. The elections only matter for Aldermen, and even then they are often unfair.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at March 01, 2009 06:17 PM (U/ACJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 18, 2009
Political Cartoons and Race-Baiting Goons
When your standards are
this low to start with, the
lying comes easy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:09 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Others believe it compares the president to a rabid chimp.
Now where would anybody get an idea like that ?
Posted by: Neo at February 18, 2009 08:37 PM (Yozw9)
Posted by: Dude at February 19, 2009 08:45 AM (byA+E)
3
Oddly enough, this cartoon has absolutly nothing to do with B.H. Obama. He did not write the stimulus package. I was the chimp like Nancy (the monkey)Pelosi. There is no reason to believe Obama has any idea what is contained in that package as no one of import has read it.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at February 19, 2009 06:13 PM (J5AYY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 31, 2009
Why Stupid People Shouldn't Blog
Let me type this s l o w l y so that
certain people who don't seem to be
able to read with any level of detail can follow along.
The Pajamas Media advertising network—responsible for those ads you generally ignore see in the sidebar over there to your right—is going the way of the digital dodo on March 31. Pajamas Media, the portal site that features news and opinion, is not closing. The blogfather, Glenn Reynolds, will still be found at http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/
Only the advertising network, which never made any money, is going away. Pajamas Media and PJTV.com live on, and are in an apparent expansion phase.
The network going down to hurt some good bloggers who depended upon the network as their primary sources of income. They have my sympathy and sincere prayers. As someone who worked in web development contracting for many years, I know the fears of suddenly becoming jobless with a family to support as well or better than many, and the stress that can cause.
But I'm equally confident that those bloggers who were drawing enough traffic to draw significant income from their advertising, like Ace and Jeff and Rusty, have the kind of unique voices and talent that may fair well on their own or other blog advertising networks. They, like the cheesy song says, will survive.
And while we get along on almost nothing, I think John Cole over at Ballon Juice strikes just the right tone.
So I donÂ’t have to keep answering this repeatedly in the comments, yes, I will no longer be with the PJ Media network starting 1 April. They are apparently moving on/the business model didn't work/whatever. Life goes on.
I understand there is an inordinate amount of bad feelings and some hostility being chucked around, and I want no part in it. Roger Simon and the others at PJ always kept their word to me. From where I sit, PJ Media was an ad portal that provided advertising content for this site, and that was about it. I never understood claims at the beginning of this several years ago that somehow I was "losing my independence" or the rest of the nonsense for signing up with them. As I have stated repeatedly, maybe others had different experiences, but the company was great to me. They always kept their word, their staff was top-notch and great to work with (and I really hope they find jobs quickly/keep their jobs), and Roger Simon was a great person to do business with the past couple years. I signed a contract through the end of March, PJ Media and I are both honoring it, and they are moving on to something different. This sort of thing happens hundreds of thousands of times every day all over the world, and is really rather unremarkable.
Life goes on, indeed.
As you might guess, the dissolution of the Pajamas advertising network will not disrupt things greatly here at CY. I'll still write feature stories for Pajamas Media published at the still very active (And judging by the growing comments sections, more active) pajamasmedia.com portal, and I'm already in discussion with another exciting potential partner who may be rolling some advertising and writing opportunities my way.
We encounter, we adapt, and overcome.
So let's move forward, shall we?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:25 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Don't forget to bury the dead..
Posted by: lasertex at January 31, 2009 06:30 PM (GUp/q)
2
From a blogger who was recently begging for a new bbq?
Posted by: It Burns at January 31, 2009 09:09 PM (6oxG5)
3
Your snarling, sarcastic tone aimed at critics of PJM and its recent dissolution (call it whatever you want, the core behind its founding was the ad network) is not, perhaps, the best way to "move forward." It makes you sound petty. If you want to defend Simon and the other founders of PJM, you could do so without insulting the intelligence of other (now-former) PJM bloggers.
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 09:51 AM (4NZ8H)
4
Pat, I'm aiming my post DIRECTLY at those bloggers too lazy or stupid to do a minimal level of research or basic fact-checking before publishing their rants.
I didn't aim criticism at so much as a single critic that had their facts straight, or even a plausible opinion. I struck specifically at those who had their
facts wrong about what took place. Nor did I in any way defend Simon or PJM in the least.
I'm castigating those who half-read things (and linked three examples), fill in the blanks with what they want to hear, and then go on a fact-free, self-important bender.
Kinda. Like. You. Just. Did.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2009 10:19 AM (HcgFD)
5
Well, considering that Roger Simon's own letter said "we have decided to wind down the Pajamas Media Blogger
and advertising network," I really don't see what, exactly, the folks you lambasted got wrong. Culture 11 said: "Now it looks like Pajamas Media network is shutting down." I likewise see nothing erroneous in anything Pamela or Ann Althouse said. It looks to me like you're pissed at them because they're adopting a critical tone against PJM, not because they lack basic reading comprehension. Perhaps you think they lack the ability to read because they didn't bother to note that the portal would remain. On the other hand, perhaps they felt that the portal is a relatively insignificant part of PJM as a whole. PJM did not sell itself on "hey, we're creating a kick-ass portal, guys!"
So what, exactly, did they get wrong? What exactly is "Pajamas Media" without the "Pajamas Media Blogger and advertising network"?
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 10:36 AM (4NZ8H)
6
The "Pajamas Media Blogger and advertising network" is the little "Pajamas Media Network blogger" tag and three ads on individual blogs, and the larger collective network of blogs that featured those ads. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The portal, PajamasMedia.com, is a destination site featuring news and opinion features (and yes its creation was a key part of selling the original business plan, and the pitch to bloggers).
Pajamas Media is the company that ran both the ads and the portal.
These critics thought Pajamas Media the company was shutting down completely--a neat trick, considering they haven't laid off a single full-time employee that I'm aware of.
Atlas thought the company was going away. I know this for a fact, because we exchanged emails. The smug poster at culture 11 thought the same thing, because he griped about the aggregation and portal content, not just the ad network. The same with Althouse who declared in her headline that the entire enterprise has collapsed.
They got wrong, well,
just about everything of substance. That you can't seem to grasp how far off they were even after having it explained to you for now the third time, you're obviously more confused than even they were.
The company is expanding, and chopped off part of the entity that was not working in order to streamline ops. That is the polar opposite of the story these and several other ignorant bloggers told, and is a fiction you apparently still believe.
Pajamas Media is a new media company, not an advertising company. It always has been. Advertising was just one part of the business, and it happened not to work out even as the portal worked and forays into video on the portal led the management to believe, for whatever reason, that the PJTV spin-off was worth pursuing.
I could care less that people are mad at PJM, and I haven't said word one against other bloggers that were critical of it, from those that always hoped it would fail, to those who feel they got screwed. The only bloggers I've gone after are those sloppy hacks who lack reading comprehension and went on the offensive without even understanding what they were talking about.
Any perception that I'm defending Pajamas or broadly attacking critics is a flight a fancy coming from your own imagination, not the result of anything I've written.
Like those I linked, you let your misperceptions get the better of you, and spouted off without knowing the facts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2009 11:14 AM (HcgFD)
7
Well, I don't see any of that in the posts to which you linked. All Culture 11 said in the post to which you linked was: "Now it looks like Pajamas Media network is shutting down (they're going to go into vlogging fulltime?)."
I can't speak to what AtlasShrugged said to you in her e-mails, of course, but the post to which you linked said only: "Pajama media is shutting down the blog." That to me doesn't seem like an unfair interpretation of Simon's notice that the PJM Blogger and Ad Network were shutting down.
So the
company may be expanding, but it is doing something very different from what it did before. It began as a network of bloggers, and it does not appear it will be that any more.
Perhaps you would have preferred them to focus on what remains rather than what is disappearing. But given that what is folding was a huge portion of the core of PJM from its beginning, I don't see how it demonstrates "stupidity" to write about the part that's disappearing without tossing in umpteen caveats and fine print. Heck, AtlasShrugged posted the entire Roger Simon letter.
You keep saying it's just the advertising network that's disappearing. But Simon's letter says that it's the Pajamas Media Blogger
and advertising network which is disappearing. Got it, Mr. Reading-Challenged? AND. Two things going away. The blogger network AND the advertising network.
Here's PJM's own "
about us story:
"Pajamas Media began in 2005 as an affiliation of 90 of the most influential weblogs on the Internet. They were linked together as an advertising network, but the intention was to provide a significant alternative to mainstream media. Two years later PJM has expanded its reach.
Besides adding to its blog network, through its portal, PJM now provides exclusive news and opinion 24/7 in text, video and podcast from correspondents in over forty countries. Pajamas Media also has its own weekly show on XM satellite radio – PJM Political – and syndicates its original material like a news agency."
The ad network and the blogger network are both gone now. Those are the FIRST TWO THINGS which began PJM. The core has disappeared.
You want to call attention to the fact that PJM is still alive as a legal entity, doing different stuff than what it started out doing (much of it, other than the portal, very non-bloggy to my way of thinking), that's fine. But to insult others the way you did, with as little justification as you've been able to provide, makes you look like the stupid one, not them.
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 12:13 PM (4NZ8H)
8
The effing
title of Atlas' blog entry was "Pajamas Media Closes its Doors" and says in her lede "Pajama media is shutting down the blog." She clearly thought Pajamas Media was done entirely a point she reiterated via email, declaring it very confusing and saying she would try to pay more attention.
Likewise, culture11 declared "Pajamas Media goes down...." as the headline and then went on to complain about the content of the portal... he didn't grasp that there even was an ad network, much less that that was the only part shutting down.
Likewise, a less-than-sharp Althouse declared "The Pajamas Media blogging enterprise has collapsed," completely clueless in her inference that the company was shutting down in order to switch to PJTV.
If you simply can't or won't
read the words posted here and on the pages I linked, and instead insist on substituting was passes for thought and interpretation in your mind, then we're at am impasse.
Further, my slow friend, the "PJM Blogger and Ad Network" was always one thing in reality, not two, as you so doggedly insist. It was the ads and "Pajamas Media Network Blogger" on the individual pages, and a blogroll on the portal... that's it!
The blog network
was the ad network. "They" were the same entity; the terms were used more or less interchangeably, with the "ad network" used specifically when talking about the ads that appears on multiple blogs, and the blog network describing the sites on which the ads occurred. For the vast majority it is a distinction without a difference, and the fact that you've now been reduced to arguing the meaning of the intention of the word "and" should be a strong clue at just how nonsensical your ill-informed, combative argument has been from the start.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2009 01:00 PM (HcgFD)
9
Well, if you don't care about how much of an ass you seemed like, I can't help that. I've read all of the posts you linked to, and I still say you went WAY out of your way to call "stupid" people who at WORST merely misunderstood what Roger Simon was saying when he said the PJM blogger and advertising network was shutting down.
"PJM completely changing focus, shutting down its earliest and most visible function; corporate entity to continue." Sure, that would have been hyper-technically more correct.
You COULD have simply said "hey, it's not dead, guys!" and clarified what had happened; that's what I assumed you were doing when I read the link at Instapundit which sent me to this post. But no, you decided to insist that (at worst) confusion was rank stupidity and an inability to read.
Whatever. Me, I don't see the need to call people dumb and stupid if there's any other possible explanation, and even then I find that, as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Your post, rather than providing a public service of providing clarifying information, made me believe you are an asshole. Perhaps you have some long-running feud with those other folks of which I am ignorant. But I'm a reasonable, decent guy who doesn't stop by this blog very much, stumbled across it, and was offended by the tone and thought you were fundamentally wrong in your criticisms, based just on reading the posts you linked to. Clearly, you're not interested in feedback and have plenty enough traffic, so I won't trouble you again.
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 04:08 PM (4NZ8H)
10
Who are the stupid people who should not blog?
Posted by: Joe at February 04, 2009 10:01 AM (0Gde6)
11
do you mean Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, etc. shouldn't be BLOGGING....?????
Posted by: danpa at February 04, 2009 04:15 PM (/vFCA)
12
Is it OK if stupid people still read the blogs?
Posted by: Smorgasbord at February 04, 2009 05:25 PM (HA7GS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 21, 2009
Shooting Suspects in the Back is Bad.
My post at Pajamas Media this morning is
drawing a lot of heat for labeling President Bush's commutation of former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean his "final mistake."
I can certainly see the other side of the equation, as I personally prefer a walled, wired, and if necessary mined border with Mexico, but this case isn't as hard—for me at least—as some people would like to make it.
Cops that shoot fleeing suspects in the back, leave the wounded suspect to fend for himself, and then attempt to cover-up the incident deserve considerable jail time, and sentences of 11 and 12 years don't seem excessive in that context from where I sit.
Do I wish their aim had been a little better? Certainly. I despise drug dealers as well. But the suspect's profession doesn't mitigate the decisions made by these two former officers, and in my opinion, they didn't deserve their commutations (and certainly do not deserve the pardons some were lobbying for).
Update: The Dallas Morning News had a similar reaction to the commutation:
...this newspaper does not agree with Bush's decision to commute the sentences of former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who, respectively, were serving 11- and 12-year federal prison terms for shooting a Mexican drug dealer. This was a despicable crime: The two officers had no idea the unarmed man was trafficking in drugs when they shot him in the back side as he ran for the border near El Paso. They then took extraordinary steps to cover up the shooting with a false report.
Their actions are an affront to Border Patrol agents who perform a difficult and thankless job, and the pair's sentences were upheld last year by a federal appeals court.
ItÂ’s regrettable that Bush shortened their jail time but significant that he found middle ground and didnÂ’t grant them pardons. Their convictions will remain on the record.
Perhaps the commutation will end the undeserved celebrity status that had erupted around these two former agents. Anti-immigration organizations have used them as poster boys to perpetuate a myth that they were in prison for doing their jobs while drug smugglers were allowed to go free.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Ramos and Compean committed felonies and were rightly brought to justice. Perhaps now the Obama administration can have a comprehensive immigration discussion without this distraction clouding the conversation.
Perhaps appropriately enough, they've been greeted with a similar response by their readers, who claim that they must favor the rights of drug dealers over that of police officers.
If that was the case, I'd agree as well.
But Compean and Ramos did not know the suspect was a drug dealer at the time. They followed a suspicious vehicle on a chase, then immediately engaged in a foot pursuit of the driver without having a chance to know why his was running. Should we really write our laws to allow law enforcement officers to do whatever they want, allowing themselves to justify it after the fact?
Ramos and Compean shot at a guy who could have stolen copper, had a warrant for failing to appear in court for a parking ticket... they simply didn't know. If you've ever watched COPS, you know that stupid people run for the police for all sorts of idiotic reasons, and officers are almost never justified at shooting at a fleeing suspect 14 times (Compean) or Ramos (once).
That the suspect in the case was later determined to be an illegal, and a drug smuggler with hundreds of pounds of drugs, cannot justify what they did before they had that knowledge.
I strongly suspect the vast majority of support for these officers would have never existed if the officers had fired upon a fleeing middle-aged white guy poaching wild game.
Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:44 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 654 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Given the fact that a true war is being raged in Mexico as we speak (with AQ type beheadings) and that this war is already spilling over to the USA, I say give Ramos and Compean a full pardon and several boxes of ammo.
Yeah I know, I'm a meanie, racist, etc. Heard it all before.
Later
Posted by: Tater at January 21, 2009 10:40 AM (CAVPy)
2
First, there is no law against shooting fleeing felons. As a matter of fact Justice Sandra Day Oconnor said it was completely legal, that no person could lawfully flee arrest and deadly force was justified. Current federal policy says that fleeing felons can be shot if they represent a threat to others. So, there is nothing inherently illegal or immoral to shoot fleeing felons. One of the reasons that crime was so low in the 50s was that cops shot fleeing felons and beat them up when they resisted arrest.
And in this case in particular, the first line supervisors of Ramos and Campeon knew about the shooting and did not instruct either to write a report. You must remember that two supervisors were disiplined for not reporting the shooting. The were even given immunity to testify against Ramos and Campeon.
Finally, they did not leave the drug smuggler "to fend for himself." He fled from them into Mexico, where Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to go. He was fleeing and did not want to be caught because he was a drug smuggler.
Lets get a few facts straight before we blog.
Posted by: Federale at January 21, 2009 11:02 AM (OdE2A)
3
Tater, Compean couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
Posted by: Pablo at January 21, 2009 11:04 AM (yTndK)
4
Have to just agree to disagree with you on this one CY. I don't presume to even comprehend what it's like to have to patrol a boarder where only one side follows the rules. Getting shot is the occupational hazard of being a criminal.
Posted by: Dan Irving at January 21, 2009 11:10 AM (3vrT+)
5
While I'm not enamoured of the idea of shooting fleeing suspects, I will be the first to admit that I wasn't there.
Neither were any of us.
I, for one, am willing to give Campeon and Ramos the benefit of the doubt.
Anything, they did, pales by comparison of what happened to 80 innnocent men women and children at Waco TX.
Who is doing hard time for that little fiasco?
Posted by: Da Possum at January 21, 2009 11:27 AM (dilZh)
6
Emphatically disagree.
Thank you President Bush!
Posted by: Greybeard at January 21, 2009 11:45 AM (gdDDT)
7
Maybe it's me but when you flee an officer you chances of being shot in the back does rise a little doesn't it or is it just me.
Posted by: Anthony at January 21, 2009 12:09 PM (v5oY3)
8
The reason that is it not hard for you is that you are uninformed about the actual events of that day, and the steps taken to convict them with charges that had never been intended to be used against law enforcement agents.
Dig into the facts some more and you will see that it gets A LOT harder to hold your posted position.
Posted by: Voidseeker at January 21, 2009 12:49 PM (U2+2Q)
9
I rarely disagree totally with what you say. This is an exception. Not only should they have received full pardons, they should never have been tried. They were convicted on perjured testimony by a career criminal and the US Attorney involved knew it. He should be in jail, not them.
Meanwhile, the drug gangs know any Border Agent who tries to protect the country will be prosecuted for political purposes.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at January 21, 2009 01:05 PM (ZtG1n)
10
"I strongly suspect the vast majority of support for these officers would have never existed if the officers had fired upon a fleeing middle-aged white guy poaching wild game.
Please tell me where I'm wrong."
Seriously CY? You're gonna play the race card on this one?
Come on, you know you're better than that.
Posted by: Dan Irving at January 21, 2009 02:16 PM (3vrT+)
11
Dan, I'm not playing the race card... as a blond-haired, blue-eyed white guy, I've never been allowed to touch one, much less play it.
Many commenters however--and it is worse in the comments at PJM than here--obviously have been heavily influenced by the fact that the guy shot was A). Mexican, B) an illegal, C) a drug dealer (which was only confirmed well after he'd been shot). They are obviously willing to abandon the law because of their frustration with open borders/amnesty/illegals/crime, etc.
By applying a different character in the same general situation--a white poacher--I would hope that the politics, bigotry, and raw anger that seems to be clouding the judgment of many would fall away.
It's obviously not going to work for all people, but let's be honest and admit that anti-illegal hatred has fueled quite a bit of the support for these two former officers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 21, 2009 02:54 PM (gAi9Z)
12
I found a rather concise summary of the trial and the events of the shooting over at FreeRepublic - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788411/posts
While I still don't agree with the 10 year sentences, and I do believe a commuation was in order, I now believe that mess Campeon and Ramos found themselves in was largely of their own doing.
Their lives were not endangered - not even threatened and if they had followed regluations, they wouldn't have ended up in jail.
Posted by: Da Possum at January 21, 2009 03:34 PM (dilZh)
13
Your web sight is the first one that told me THE REST OF THE STORY. I call myself a neutralist because I want ALL the information on a subject before I make a decision on it. I knew the jury, then later on, the president heard the whole story that happened. I figured there must be more to the story than I knew so far. It turns out I was right. Thank you for THE REST OF THE STORY.
Posted by: Smorgasbord at January 21, 2009 04:05 PM (VoMG9)
14
I"d say it was not a mistake. A full Pardon would have been one. Commutation was the best compromise.
Posted by: JP at January 21, 2009 05:08 PM (Tae/a)
15
"...that had never been intended to be used against law enforcement agents."
Telling turn of phrase which shows that CY is willing to think outside the box and not follow the herd.
A civilian badge is not -- has never been -- license to wage war on American soil. The "SWAT" cowards who tact up at the first sign of push-back, at the hint of a hairy situation are a disgrace to the long history of the thin, BRAVE blue line.
Posted by: JAT at January 21, 2009 06:26 PM (/TQ1s)
16
You are absolutely right CY.These guys should still be in prison.
Posted by: Rusty2 at January 21, 2009 07:16 PM (LXKYH)
17
A vehicle moving on dirt roads adjacent to the border is presumed to be a smuggling vehicle given the facts that there is no other reason for a private vehicle to be in that spot. It is well within their training and experience to conclude that the vehicle was loaded with drugs or people, and since only the driver ran, that the vehicle carried drugs. Aliens always run when their smuggler runs. Drugs, since they don't have legs, can't run when the smuggler runs. Not many people poach game on that part of the border, and, regardless, white people assist in smuggling, but, obviously, not many white people smuggle in that particular area. Most white smugglers use the Ports-of-Entry to smuggle. Ramos and Campeon correctly concluded, based on experience and training, that the driver was a smuggler. Yeah, people run for many reasons, but in that particular area and that particular situation, someone running because they are stupid is very unlikely. You must also not that Campeon was on the loosing end of a physical confrontation with the smuggler.
Again, also note, that shooting fleeing felons has been justified by moderate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor in a written dissent.
Also, federal policy, not law, is that fleeing felons may be shot if the office thinks they represent a threat of serious bodily injury and/or death.
Also note that both Ramos and Campeon reported the shooting to their first line supervisor who told them not to write a report. Remember that both the supervisors on scene were given immunity for admitting that fact.
Posted by: Federale at January 21, 2009 07:36 PM (OdE2A)
18
With regard to the race card, it is disappointing that it was raised. It is beneath the dignity of this blog to use Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Baraka Hussein Obama non-logic. A white smuggler would have enjoined the same support for Ramos and Compeon, perhaps more since the Mexican lobby would have had a reason to support the Mexican Americans involved rather than the Mexican involved. I, for one, am glad to see my fellow whites shot by the police because I believe that criminal behavior is contrary to the principles of Western Civilization.
The other important issue that was raised was Waco, and the other issue that should be raised, which is Ron Horiuchi, who shot an unarmed woman in the head because he was given orders to shot any adult on the Weaver property.
I know a Civil Rights Division trial attorney who had no answer as to why Horiuchi was not prosecuted, much less the supervisors who gave written shot-to-kill orders.
So, what we have here is a big double standard on prosecutions in police shootings, much less that case of a Maryland police officer who was prosecuted by the Civil Rights Division for allowing her police dog to bite a fleeing felon.
Folks, if you are shooting white people, there will be no justice, but if you dare shoot a Mexican, the full weight of the federal government will fall on you. Beware the next time your local PD shoots a criminal who's next victim might have been you.
Posted by: Federale at January 21, 2009 07:52 PM (OdE2A)
19
Ramos and Compean did not report the shooting to their supervisor at the time of the shooting or at any time until the investigation commenced. How could R & C claim that they were shooting at a fleeing felon when they had not seen Davila exit the van and they certainly did not know if he had been convicted of a felony. The other agent reported that Davila did stop running and tried to surrender but after hit with a shotgun decided that running was a better option.
Better yet why not read the point by point refutation of most of these wild and unsubstantiated claims;
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight%204-25%202007.pdf
As well as a narrative of the shooting, the trial and the circus:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Badges%20of%20Honor.pdf
Ramos and Compean had a two week trial to attack their own depositions, the physical evidence and the witness testimonies but were unable to convince a jury of anything other than that they were guilty. And their string of not being believed continued in a string of losses at the various appeals. They only place they seem to have been successful is convincing the gullible and lazy of their innocence.
Everyone keeps referring to a right to shoot a fleeing felon when the dissent in that case arose from Tennessee v. Garner where state law had allowed a suspect of a felony to be shot if it was possible he would escape if not stopped. The standard used then had to be reasonable and the circumstances were mad moot by the agents because they did not arrest Davila when they had an obligation and a chance to do so. But when R&C made no attempt to arrest Davila as he lay wounded then the majority opinion in the case held and O'Connor's dissent became just as not applicable as it was before. The BP agents may shoot if allowed under state law but they must effect an arrest. They cannot simply shoot then walk away. Plus we do not make criminal law conform to the minority opinions of SCOTUS but rather the majority. Below is the text of the decision of Tennessee v Garner;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=471&page=1
Posted by: Pat Patterson at January 21, 2009 11:21 PM (6SDmD)
Posted by: UNRR at January 22, 2009 07:10 AM (uKBSQ)
21
You're correct, CY.
Shooting someone in the back is simply wrong. The coverup only compounds the situation.
That said, commutation was a good move; the convictions remain on the record.
Posted by: dad29 at January 22, 2009 09:28 AM (GVb0I)
22
So their aim should be better so as to kill the fleeing men, but the shooters sentences should be long. Oh Constipated and Kranky you've got your mind in a bunch.
Posted by: ConstipatedNKranky at January 22, 2009 04:01 PM (8EKnl)
23
204 comments, including this one between here and PJM. Is that a record?
Posted by: Pat Patterson at January 22, 2009 11:37 PM (6SDmD)
24
What I've yet to see from anyone in this debate, anywhere, is the role that prosecutorial discretion plays. This situation is often parsed in terms of who's right, the officers or the jury that convicted them? The argument being that the officers had a trial and were convicted by a jury of their peers, therefore, they deserve what they got and justice was served. While I don't know every specific detail of this case, there are some factors that should be considered.
Let us assume that the officers made mistakes. It falls then to the prosecutor to decide if those mistakes rise to the level of criminal conduct, and to what degree. The prosecutor in this case had the option, as do all prosecutors, not to charge the defendants. Allowing the Border Patrol to handle the matter would have been within the prosecutor's legitimate exercise of discretion. But why might a prosecutor want to do that?
It's been said that the officers didn't know the drug dealer as a drug dealer and that they had no idea what he was doing when they shot him. Therefore, their conduct must be judged entirely on what they knew at the time of the incident. This is a sterile and naive way of looking at such things and is one of the primary reasons why prosecutors have substantial discretion. If it turned out that the officers shot a priest on the way to a baptism, that line of thinking might have greater appeal, but when we consider that the suspect was a very bad guy indeed, in fact, someone who did, before and after meeting the officers, far more damage to the United States that the officers could even imagine doing, there is much to be said for a prosecutor taking that information into account.
Remember too that there is a double standard of justice, perhaps even a triple standard, with which every police officer tries to deal. Officers understand that they must adhere to higher standards, but they will be treated very differently--often far more harshly--when they make mistakes than will citizens and criminals. Officers must make split second decisions on matters of life and death and must be right 100% of the time. Those who will judge their actions will have the comfort and convenience of hindsight and facts unknown to the officers.
The fact is that this case need never have been brought to trial, particularly when one considers the character and actions of the "victim." Putting these two men in jail served justice? That's why prosecutors have discretion, because the law cannot anticipate all factors and all situations, and mitigating factors sometimes demand something other than what the law can anticipate.
Posted by: Mike at January 23, 2009 12:00 AM (3+MmZ)
25
Once it became known that the two agents shot a total of 15 times at an unarmed man, didn't attempt to arrest him and then tried to clean up the scene the US Attorney didn't have any choice in the matter as the law, Title 18 usc sec.924(c)(1)(A)(iii) required that this case of a shooting during a crime of violence with a minimum of ten years. Congress attached no exception for law enforcement.
They didn't even know for sure if Davila was the driver, they didn't know if there were drugs in the van, they lied and covered up reporting the shooting to their supervisors, they failed to file a shooting report, they fired 15 times, the saw Davila fall and then made no attempt to arrest him. They even perjured themselves in the courtroom in trying to contradict the shooting report that was eventually filed and their signed depositions.
It's very simple in that in this case there was no prosecutorial discretion. The circumstances of the case made it obvious they had violated Title 18 and the judge and jury agreed. People assume that all acts by law enforcement are covered by in re. Nagle but that only applied to an officer carrying out his duty. With Nagle it was to protect a California senator from an assassin while R&C's duties were to only shoot when in imminent danger. A guy that first tries to surrender by raising his hands and saying "No me pegues" clearly falls in the category of using a weapon in an act of violence.
Once Davila crossed over the border into the US all civil protections afforded to American citizens also covered him. What difference does his character make when at the time of the shooting the agents didn't know who he was nor even be sure that he was driving the van.
Posted by: Pat Patterson at January 23, 2009 01:38 AM (6SDmD)
26
Last sentence second to last paragraph should have read, "...saying 'No me pegues'(don't hit me)clearly does not fall un the category of using a weapon in an act of violence." Which might have justified the terrible accuracy of the one agent.
Posted by: Pat Patterson at January 23, 2009 08:59 AM (6SDmD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 12, 2009
Joe the Plumber in Israel
Pajamas Media published a pair of articles today about Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber"
going to Israel for ten days to talk to Israelis and provide commentary for
PJTV. I wrote the
pro-Joe article three days ago; Jazz Shaw wrote the
anti-Joe article since then.
In my post, I don't think I made any unreasonable demands of the man whom admirers like to refer to as "JTP."
IÂ’m not expecting Pyle's humanizing folksiness, nor Yon's gritty incisiveness, nor Crane's vivid imagery from Wurzelbacher. I don't know if he can craft a coherent sentence or conduct an revealing interview. And perhaps he'll be an absolute disaster as a journalist, even as he's created a PR explosion for PJTV.
But there is an obvious fear among so many members of the media so defensively and preemptively dismissive of "Joe the Plumber" trying his hand at reporting. Deep inside, they must wonder if an Ohio plumber could really be much worse than the so-called professionals we already have. There lies the fear that underlies those mocking Wurzelbacher in the media. It is a bruise to their egos when they realize that almost anyone can do what they do.
Since writing that post, Joe hasn't dazzled the world as a reporting prodigy, and has most recently been mocked today for telling a group of reporters that the media should be banned from reporting the conflict he was sent to report on:
"I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting," Wurzelbacher said. "You know, war is hell. And if you're gonna sit there and say, 'well, look at this atrocity,' well you don't know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."
The media, of course, lapped up Wurzelbacher's comment with great glee and held it up as if it were their vindication. I'm not sure it was, as there are good reasons to ban journalists from war zones on occasion.
While an outright ban on media coverage is generally considered undemocratic and is certainly unpopular in a culture told we should have access to almost any thing at any time, the simple fact of the matter is that irresponsible and often ignorant just-in-time journalism endangers combatants and civilians, and far too often reports completely false information as undisputed fact.
This conflict is no different.
Certain heavily-biased Middle eastern and European journalists have castigated Israel for using illegal incendiaries against civilians. It turns out those "illegal incendiaries" are quite legal 155mm M825A1 shells used to create smoke screens.
An aid organization temporarily stopped shipments of food and medical supplies into Gaza based upon definitive claims reported by the media that an Israeli tank targeted and shot at one of their trucks with a tank shell, killing the driver. Days later, after many came to accept this as fact, it was revealed that tank fire was not involved in the death of the driver, and that Hamas sharpshooters armed with rifles may have killed him.
Two news organizations—CNN and Channel 4—uncritically reported the claims of a Palestinian cameraman who stated his brother and cousin were killed by an IDF drone that fired a missile at them as the played on a rooftop. That no known missiles could cause the cartoonishly minimal damage shown on the rooftop, and that critics in the medical field quickly denouced the CPR performed on the boy in the hospital by a known propagandist dcotor as poorly pantomimed fakery, is buried by both networks, who defend the footage created by a cameraman who was later determined to have ties to Hamas.
France 2 is the latest to fake journalism, airing footage they claimed was from Israeli attacks, when the carnage aired actually come from a blast caused by Palestinian militants in 2005.
Another news organization can't tell the difference between dropping flares and dropping bombs. One pathic professional that reports from the region can't tell the difference between airplanes and helicopters.
So perhaps Joe the Plumber may turn out to be not much more than a media stunt. If so, he may still be more of a success if simply for causing less damage than our so-called professionals.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:37 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 711 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Any reporter assigned to file stories from a war zone should have, at a minimum, two years' experience in the active duty military. They would then at least have a framework that would give them a clue on what they're reporting about.
In some cases, even when facts are patiently explained to them, reporters "go with their gut" and simply report falsehoods. With a degree of military service, they could no longer claim ignorance as an excuse.
Posted by: Just Askin' at January 12, 2009 07:48 PM (esv00)
2
To read my commentary on Joe the Plumber, please go to this link: http://www.marymacelveen.com/blog/_archives/2009/1/13/4055174.html
Thank you,
Mary MacElveen!
Posted by: Mary MacElveen at January 13, 2009 02:18 AM (I4yBD)
3
It may not be Joe, but soon someone is going to demonstrate that "journalists" are not doing their jobs.
Yon, Totten, Roggio and others have been doing that for years.
France 2 is the latest to fake journalism, airing footage they claimed was from Israeli attacks, when the carnage aired actually come from a blast caused by Palestinian militants in 2005.
France 2 also perpetrated the Mohammed al-Dura fraud back in 2000. Old habits die hard, especially when you're not trying to kill them.
Posted by: Pablo at January 13, 2009 08:51 AM (yTndK)
4
I like JTP. I think his comment was meant to rankle when he said they should be banned from reporting. He was saying if they are that terrible at their jobs, and are just promoting propaganda and lies - that's not what the "free press" even means. I'm sure he would not be for banning them in fact - he's just saying they are so awful they should be banned - like the ultimate put down of how terrible of a job they are doing in providing comfort to the enemy.
They're no different than "Hanoi Jane" or whatever they called her the way they're doing their jobs over there. That's how I took it - not as a literal - but the ultimate show of disgust. He's raised my interest level and I think he'll be a sensation.
Posted by: l at January 13, 2009 11:28 AM (KquNY)
5
"It is a bruise to their egos when they realize that almost anyone can do what they do."
It's not that almost anyone can do what they do, it's that almost anyone can do it better.
Posted by: Tom the Barbarian at January 13, 2009 12:13 PM (Poz+V)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 06, 2009
Reuters: In The Service of Hamas
I've got post at Pajamas Media highlighting
Reuters using deceptive captions to suggest that photos capturing the deployment of defensive flares (uses to thwart heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles) are weapons being fired on targets in Gaza.
This is an Israeli helicopter deploying a weapon (a Hellfire, most likely), as is this. No one with any competence could ever confuse a bomb, missile, or rocket with a flare.
Associated Press photographer Ariel Schalit can ever photograph and properly label both missiles and flares in the same picture.
Reuters, masters of fauxtography, don't even try.
It doesn't serve their interests of cashing in on anti-Israeli propaganda by selling biased and inflammatory photos to an always-enraged Islamist-friendly media in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:34 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So - what else is new?!?!
Posted by: SShiell at January 07, 2009 08:06 AM (nQ6kb)
2
"No one with any competence" pretty much excludes Al Reuters.
Posted by: Old_dawg at January 07, 2009 10:30 AM (7nc0l)
3
I can't recall where, but I recently saw some MSM bit of hackery referring to Israel deploying "flare bombs". Uh, yeah.
Posted by: Pablo at January 07, 2009 10:31 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 23, 2008
What's the Difference Between Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh?
Competence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:41 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
HAH! I linked to you here:
http://thewarpiper.blogspot.com/2008/12/to-point.html
Posted by: Warpiper at December 24, 2008 08:53 AM (AVokL)
2
The difference in the eyes of elite media is that Timothy McVeigh was a red neck, lived in a rural area, probably had a 4x4 with a gun rack and shot puppies. Bill Ayers, being from the city and left wing, my god he must be brilliant.
Posted by: Rick at December 24, 2008 09:42 AM (FWmwx)
3
McVeigh was honorable at one point in his life.
Posted by: Pablo at December 24, 2008 11:36 AM (yTndK)
4
Bill Ayers is alive and Tim McVeigh is dead.
Posted by: GEJ at December 24, 2008 03:53 PM (g2f8B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 12, 2008
Debunking the Proofers
I'd love to see Obama ask the state of Hawaii to produce his long-form birth certificate. While there is no procedural mechanism in place as some have noted before, that is merely a matter of process, not a legal hurdle.
Anyway, I took a stab at debunking the common "Proofer" claims in an article at Pajamas Media.
Do you think it sufficiently makes the case to the rational people who have been misled by the half-truths of the proofers? And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:48 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Do you think it sufficiently makes the case to the rational people who have been misled by the half-truths of the proofers?"
These "rational" people of which you speak, would that be the ones that buy into Gorbalwarming?
The ones that buy stuff from spam? That believe a bigger penis is the solution to all of life's problems?
The ones that buy junk cars every two years because their image would be damaged if they don't.
The ones that run up bills that they have no hope or intention of paying?
In a word, no I don't think the case has been made for those people. I don't think it is "makeable".
"And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?"
They elected Obama because Affirmative Action is SUCH a good thing. What else can I say.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at December 12, 2008 08:57 AM (OmeRL)
2
I am not one of those Bush lied men died, or Obama was born in TimBuckToo people. However I feel all candidates should prove where they were born, and most especially when requested to do so. I could care less if it would or would not convince conspirary theorists.
Posted by: Rick at December 12, 2008 11:40 AM (FWmwx)
3
There are only three consitutional qualifications to be president, all three are satisfied by proof of birth. I do not understand why the states do not ask for evidence prior to allowing a person on the state ballot.
Posted by: davod at December 12, 2008 01:30 PM (GUZAT)
4
Well I'd normally dismiss the conspiracy folks, but there's one very large elephant in this room. It's very easy to shut them up, get Hawaii to release the document, yet he spends money sealing his records. Why?
People are saying "but Hawaii doesn't do this for normal folks" however these aren't normal circumstances, this is the Constitutional requirements for the highest executive office in our nation.
I had to submit to all kinds requirements when I changed jobs, I had to fill out an I-9 proving my citizenship, undergo investigation into my past, etc. and I won't have anything close to the power and access to information that the President has.
Why is Obama exempt?
Also cfbleachers makes a good point:
"The second element here has to do with some of the rather “unique” ways in which the Obama campaign treated what Al Gore has coined as “inconvenient truths”. I haven’t the faintest clue or notion what is contained within the transcripts of the higher education institutions that might cause some discomfort. Nor do I have the faintest clue what would or could be contained within the medical records. I don’t know what we might find in the full and unfettered review of the documents that Stanley Kurtz went looking for and was blocked, impeded, stalled, hindered and delayed.
However, I do know thisÂ…if I had a witness on the stand who began to suddenly become evasive, clearly wanted me to move on to another subjectÂ…I knew I was on to something that needed further exploration."
Posted by: Scott at December 12, 2008 03:42 PM (z2S93)
5
You sure are taking some lumps there on PJM, CY. I agree with you in general that The One simply needs to make the request/demand of Hawaii to release the document(s). However, it is possible he is letting this fever run its course until it spikes highest. Then he will release the document(s) and gain even more marginalization of 'the right' in general instead of just the kooks.
The guy won an election that, by all rights, should have gone to Hillary. I wouldn't put it past him to use this approach to try and get Blago-gate off the news.
Posted by: PhyCon (formerly Mark) at December 12, 2008 04:04 PM (4od5C)
6
Ya just lost me, Bob.
I posted on your last attempt to raise this issue that I thought those that kept raising it on
both sides are akin to the 9/11 "truthers." Since you continue to bring it up, I have no alternative but to place you in that category.
It's been a lot of fun, and we've had some good discussions, but I've had enough wacko conspiracy theories.
Fare thee well.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at December 12, 2008 06:09 PM (oGgom)
7
So, Conservative Wanderer, those who attempt to debunk conspiracy theories are also guilty of spreading them? What other ingenious logical conclusions can you provide? That rape victims cause rape? That fire fighters promote arson? That FEMA enables natural disasters?
Bye bye. Door, ass, BOOM!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 12, 2008 08:24 PM (mfdQL)
8
Short answer: Nope you will never convince them.
Long version at my blog
Posted by: DaTechGuy at December 13, 2008 01:20 AM (rcakW)
9
CY,
To answer your question, no, your piece did not make a sufficient case that anyone’s been misled — other than yourself. Let me give you one example: You asserted, “The problem with this theory is that no one has been able to provide any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.” However, you failed to substantiate this assertion with empirical evidence. And if you point to the worn-out COLB as your proof, I would appreciate it if you could point me to the Hawaiian statute that authorizes the use of COLBs and I would ask you to explain why Obama sidestepped Hawaii’s statutory provision for verifying Hawaiian births. And when you cannot answer these two points, I would note that contrary to your assertion, no one has provided any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere. In fact, for all you and I know, pod people spawned him.
Let me make one more observation: your article is a bad rewrite of Malkin, Horowitz, and Moran, who, like you, resorted to abusive ad hominem arguments instead of advancing logical arguments grounded in established facts. And if you think about it, there are very few established facts in this controversy because Obama has not been forthcoming with primary-source documentation (I wonder why). Therefore, if I must believe that there’s a “conspiracy” at work here, then I am sorry to conclude that you belong to a conspiracy of ignoramuses who make the baseless charges of conspiracy-mongering, which among trained logicians is known as framing a strawman.
By the way, you’re dead wrong when you write, “I’d love to see Obama ask the state of Hawaii to produce his long-form birth certificate. While there is no procedural mechanism in place as some have noted before, that is merely a matter of process, not a legal hurdle.” You really should do some research.
Posted by: CTN at December 13, 2008 10:33 AM (1dn9O)
10
"And is there anything that can ever be done to convince those conspiracy theorists that they are wrong?"
No. Any evidence you offer can be dismissed as fake, and any witness as a member of the conspiracy.
For example, suppose I have an INFINITE budget and my goal is to convince a conspiracy theorist that the Apollo missions really did land on the moon. It's already possible for scientists to prove this by shining sufficiently powerful lasers on the landing sites and measuring the coherent light that comes back from laser reflectors placed at the landing sites by the astronauts. But the conspiracy theorists (let's call them CTs for short) can either say the scientists are lying or claim that the reflectors were actually placed on the moon by probes last week as part of the conspiracy.
Well, then, I'll send a fleet of new unmanned probes to the moon to take high-resolution still pictures and video of the Apollo landing sites, showing the footprints and hardware left by the astronauts. Nope. The CTs will dismiss all of the pictures and video as computer-generated fakes.
OK, fine! I'll fly the CTs to the moon in person and SHOW them the landing sites. When they see the hardware and footprints with their own eyes, they'll have to believe, won't they?
Won't work. Some of them will refuse to believe that they are on the moon at all. They'll claim that I've drugged or tricked them, and they're seeing a set or a desert location somewhere in Nevada. Or maybe the whole thing is computer-generated video again. (How can I PROVE to them that what appears to be a window or a spacesuit faceplate is not actually a video screen?)
But even if they accept that they are actually on the moon in the year 2008, they will tell me that the Apollo hardware and footprints I show them are fakes, created for their benefit within the last few weeks, and proving nothing about what may or may not have happened in 1969-1972.
No, you can't convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong.
Posted by: Pat at December 13, 2008 03:32 PM (GhD9A)
11
As I said when people were running with the "Obama is a secret Muslim" meme, are conservatives so demoralized and frightened they can longer fight the left on the level of issues and ideas and policies? Leftist ideas still suck as much as they ever did. Conservative principles are still as valid as they were in Reagan's time. Our job is to articulate those ideas better and to try and make sure they're heard (a rough battle when you consider the MSM.)
We have our work cut out for us. This crackpot obsession with Obama's birth certificate only makes the right look intellectually bankrupt and petty. And it's depressing to see self-described conservatives acting as irrational and goofy as 9/11 Troofers.
Bill Buckley performed a huge service to the conservative cause when he marginalized the anti-Semitic, racist, "floride is a Commie plot" people back in the '60's. Unfortunately, I don't see another Buckley on the horizon. Christopher Buckley obviously doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Donna V. at December 13, 2008 08:24 PM (o5sBi)
12
Can someone in this thread please show me where CY demonstrably proved that ANYONE has advanced a so-called “conspiracy theory”?
Please, I would appreciate it if anyone in this thread, including the host of this blog, could furnish a source that substantiates this strawman. Surely one of you, including the host, could substantiate this claim. And by “substantiate,” I mean provide a source that has outlined the specifics of this “conspiracy,” which includes the names of the persons who have “conspired.”
Posted by: CTN at December 14, 2008 08:10 AM (i7uNT)
13
Until BO produces his real certificate, it's all speculation. The fact that he has not, and has spent considerable cash and effort to conceal it only fuels the fire. It's dishonest and unacceptable from someone aspiring to be Commander in Chief. Voters deserve verifiable proof that the electorate is complying with the Constitution. Troofer accusations against any theories are premature. It's up to BO to lay this to rest and if he continues to refuse, he should not be sworn in.
The HI COLB does not suffice to prove Natural Born Citizenship so, no, your article did not debunk anything. You succeeded at calling the craziest of the troofer theories as crazy, but the fact remains, we still don't know if BO is a legal presidential candidate.
Posted by: Smokin at December 14, 2008 10:08 AM (BZfBT)
14
After reading several unambiguous replies in previous posts concerning Obama's birth certificate that make it clear enough he's met any reasonable standard of disclosure, I'd have to say nothing will shut some people up.
Posted by: DoorHold at December 14, 2008 12:44 PM (DA32L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 27, 2008
122kb generated in CPU 0.0312, elapsed 0.1312 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1091 seconds, 234 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.