That's the topic for a live chat by Ryan Grim, who stirred things up in that Politico profile of me. You can submit questions here now. He'll respond tomorrow at noon.
UPDATE: Read the chat here.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Columbine.
Found down by the Limnology building.
And speaking of water... I like the way the top of the flower looks like one of those photographs of a drop of water. I wonder how hard it is to get a capture like that.
Paris Hilton out of jail.
After only 3 days. Some "medical" problem. They won't tell us what it is. Maybe all the other prisoners would fake it.
ADDED: Nicole Richie can stop praying now.
MORE: TMZ says the "medical" problem was an impending nervous breakdown. Is everyone going to fake that now? There's a poll over there, and 93% of the readers are not believing it.
ADDED: Nicole Richie can stop praying now.
MORE: TMZ says the "medical" problem was an impending nervous breakdown. Is everyone going to fake that now? There's a poll over there, and 93% of the readers are not believing it.
When men "leer" at their own wives...
... at what point do we have a problem with it? Dr. Helen scoffs at at the people who complain about the way Fred Thompson looks at his voluptuous wife:
This connects for me to the discussion going on over in the comments to my profile at Politico, which refers to a line I crossed, not in person, but in writing, saying something that many people would think but not say looking at a picture of a woman. One commenter brings up the old line: If women knew what men were thinking, they'd never stop slapping us. I'm not a man. I don't know. But I've heard. It seems to me that you may have the right to leer, but as with many other rights, you'd better be careful how and when you choose to exercise it, if you want to get along well in life. Go ahead and cross a line -- I did -- but know what you're doing and do it for a good reason. (I did.)
But back to Fred Thompson. He's leering at his own wife. Does that make it okay? Well, there are lots of things you can do with your wife that people don't want to see in public. But what are people seeing with Fred Thompson? He doesn't stare at her breasts, does he? More likely, you're staring at her breasts, and then you're looking at him -- egad! he's older! -- and you're projecting your own feelings on to his face -- including, perhaps, the feeling that you don't want him to be President. You can still insult him. Go ahead! Just know what you're doing.
[T]here are many ... women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment--not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman--not even in pictures--with desire in his heart. In their eagar quest to control men's sexual rights, some "feminist" women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface. ...Well, now this goes beyond the problem of men leering at their own wives, and it also leans heavily on the idea of rights. If we're talking rights, surely, we've also got a right to express contempt for men who boorishly exhibit their sexual feelings in public. People need to learn manners -- even if bad manners aren't a crime. The word "leer" is useful: It lets you know there's a line you will be judged by. Learn where it is or suffer the consequences -- which don't include prison, just contempt and rejection... unless you've got a special way about you, which you probably don't if you're reading this and not off somewhere enjoying the benefits of flouting society's norms.
[M]en have a right to sexual expression just as women do and leering or even an interest in porn is not a crime--but if some women have their way, it soon may be. So, I say to you men out there who believe in your right to sexual freedom, stand up for your right to leer--or it may soon be a thing of the past.
This connects for me to the discussion going on over in the comments to my profile at Politico, which refers to a line I crossed, not in person, but in writing, saying something that many people would think but not say looking at a picture of a woman. One commenter brings up the old line: If women knew what men were thinking, they'd never stop slapping us. I'm not a man. I don't know. But I've heard. It seems to me that you may have the right to leer, but as with many other rights, you'd better be careful how and when you choose to exercise it, if you want to get along well in life. Go ahead and cross a line -- I did -- but know what you're doing and do it for a good reason. (I did.)
But back to Fred Thompson. He's leering at his own wife. Does that make it okay? Well, there are lots of things you can do with your wife that people don't want to see in public. But what are people seeing with Fred Thompson? He doesn't stare at her breasts, does he? More likely, you're staring at her breasts, and then you're looking at him -- egad! he's older! -- and you're projecting your own feelings on to his face -- including, perhaps, the feeling that you don't want him to be President. You can still insult him. Go ahead! Just know what you're doing.
"The imprint of seams and zips and buttons will, with time, fade..."
"... the smarting humiliation that sensible women (yes, including me) actually wore this garment outside, in public, will take a lot longer to recover from."
Good riddance to the "hideous" garment that had "the cheek to tell you what your body shape needs to be in order to wear it."
Good riddance to the "hideous" garment that had "the cheek to tell you what your body shape needs to be in order to wear it."
"American life was becoming so surreal, so stupefying, so maddening, that it had ceased to be a manageable subject for novelists..."
So thought Philip Roth in 1960 -- as reported in a 1997 NYT review of "American Pastoral." (TimesSelect link.)
He argued that real life, the life out of newspaper headlines, was outdoing the imagination of novelists, and that fiction writers were in fact abandoning the effort to grapple with ''the grander social and political phenomena of our times'' and were turning instead ''to the construction of wholly imaginary worlds, and to a celebration of the self.''
These remarks -- made even before John F. Kennedy's assassination and the social upheavals of the 60's magnified the surreal quotient of American life -- help illuminate what Tom Wolfe identified (with considerable self-serving hyperbole) in the late 80's as a retreat from realism. They also help explain the direction that Mr. Roth's own fiction has taken over the last three and a half decades, his long obsession with alter egos and mirror games and the transactions between life and art.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Will the legislature cut back on affirmative action in the University of Wisconsin System?
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:
I understand Grothman's point, that diversity-based admissions ought to connect to some real diversity that the student will bring to the classroom. But isn't his solution worse than the problem he cites? We're going to ask students to prove what percent of a race they are? That's really ugly, worse than abolishing affirmative action altogether I would think.
Affirmative action in the University of Wisconsin System and state contracting would be abolished or significantly scaled back under legislative proposals to be taken up today by a committee of state lawmakers and citizens.(Do some people figuratively grow up in another country? Apparently, yes.)
One measure would draft a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state agencies and public universities from granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin....
Other proposals, crafted by Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), chairman of the Special Committee on Affirmative Action, would:
• Require racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System or state contracting agencies to prove they are at least 25% that race or ethnicity to receive preferential consideration.
• Require racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System to demonstrate "knowledge or experience" of their racial or ethnic group to receive preferential consideration. If applicable, the applicant would have to demonstrate proficiency in a language other than English.
• Prohibit the UW System from considering the race or ethnicity of an applicant unless the applicant proves that his or her family makes less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($80,000 for a family of four)....
David Giroux, a spokesman for the UW System, said there was a "compelling need for diversity" in public universities and that it would be a shame for the Legislature to move against affirmative action, which he described as a "divisive issue."
"Diversity benefits all students, improving the quality of their education and their prospects for career success," he said.
Grothman disagreed.
"I think it's racist to imply that I'm going to learn something from you because your great-great-grandparents came from someplace else," he said. "Unless you literally grow up in another country, you're an American just like everyone else. You follow the Packers, eat McDonald's, and share the same tastes as everyone else."
I understand Grothman's point, that diversity-based admissions ought to connect to some real diversity that the student will bring to the classroom. But isn't his solution worse than the problem he cites? We're going to ask students to prove what percent of a race they are? That's really ugly, worse than abolishing affirmative action altogether I would think.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
"This case is very emotional, very personal, very sad."
On trial for murder, Gregory Zalevsky is representing himself:
With an arsenal of bad posture and loud sighs, soft paunch and hushed, almost groveling tones, Mr. Zalevsky, 57, has turned his trial into something of a humility contest....
In court, his main adversary is Jonathan S. Kaye, an assistant district attorney with a jarhead haircut and the blocky features of a man who plainly knows how it feels to be punched in the face. Mr. Kaye has matched the defendant’s demeanor with a choice of soothing, schoolmasterly tones over harsh rhetoric.
“Does everybody think they’re able to focus on the issues of this case and not get distracted by extraneous things, such as the defendant representing himself?” he asked potential jurors. Later, he put his concern more bluntly: “I may come across as — not a bully, but — if he doesn’t follow the rules of evidence, it’s my obligation to object.”
For jury selection, Mr. Zalevsky arrived from jail in striped slacks, tan socks, stitched shoes, tortoiseshell glasses and an aging sweater, all variants of blue or brown but none quite matching. He rubbed his lip idly, scanned the panel, scribbled notes and seemed to try to ignore Mr. Sweeney out of existence.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
New York Times and Memorial Day: VULTURES
The New York Times, once again, publishes a piece, on Memorial Day no less, that leaves me shaking my head in disgust.
It seems that as far as this writer is concerned, a soldiers right to privacy and families right to be notified of their family members death before having the soldier's picture splashed all over the front pages, comes after the medias right to capitalize on said soldiers wounding or death.
Yes, this war on terror, specifically when the fighting is being done in Iraq is sooooooooo tiring to....THE MEDIA!!!!!
Maybe, just perhaps, possibly, they are being seen as vultures because they are acting like vultures!!!
So they are complaining that they have to ask and get consent before publishing a soldiers face, wounded, perhaps dying, for the world to see.
Poor babies.
Remember now, this is the paper that published a piece showing a soldier (U.S. Army SSGT Hector Leija) dying, and they did this BEFORE his family had been notified.
Lets not forget that they often ignore what the soldiers tell them if it doesn't match their anti-war, anti-American philosophy, and these reporters want to complain about the rules?
Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe if they would cover the "reality" of the war, instead of cherry picking just the bad, skipping over the good and ignoring what our troops say, they wouldn't have this problem of being seen as a bad luck charm or a vulture.
Maybe.
Vulture is too good a word for the likes of them.
Exactly, but that, of course, isn't something the media, specifically the New York Times is worried about.
The families be damned, their headlines comes first.
This is how the paper cleans up what they did to SSGT Hector Leija's family.
Oooooops? They "forgot" to mention that the picture was shown before the family was notified?
I doubt it, they simply try to rewrite history and downright lie by omission here. No mention of the "reality" of what they did.
Unbelievable that they have the nerve to complain about this type of trivial bullshit while our soldiers are risking their lives to protect, not only us, but the reporters that are embedded!!!
Amy Proctor has a wonderful piece up about the Good news From Iraq, video and other news releases showing some words from our commanders on the ground.
Amazing how a blogger, a military wife can get these stories, yet we don't see them printed in the New York Times and they are physically THERE.
They are treated like the enemy because they are acting like the enemy and becoming the enemies mouth pieces....so they need to quit complaining, start actually supporting our troops, telling their stories, dealing with the whole picture instead of just the Bleed and Lead articles and perhaps, then, they will stop being seen as a "bad luck charm" or a "vulture.
I doubt they are capable of it though.
They are vultures and they can be replaced.
Here is some good news from Iraq that you aren't seeing from our dinosaur media.
5/29/07- BOMBS DESTROYED, 18 SUSPECTS DETAINED
5/26/07- SECRET CELL KEY LEADER DETAINED, AIR STRIKE IN SADR CITY
Or this one:
5/26/07- TWO TERRORISTS KILLED, 23 SUSPECTS DETAINED, EXPLOSIVES DESTROYED
Or dozens of others found at Centcom. These are daily releases and papers like the NYT have access, just as we do, but they don't find good news important enough to tell the American people.
Vultures, indeed.
Related articles today:
David Patten from the Middle East Quarterly explains the realities of Iraq, he doesn't sugar coat things, but he gives a good lesson on the differences between political posturing and the truth.
Bottom line here folks is this: If you want the truth, the whole truth, you cannot get it these days by watching the news or picking up the paper, you must open your search engine and look for yourself, visit Centcom daily, read the military blogs our soldiers are writing and speaking to us, but some are too lazy to look and listen, they prefer to be told what to think.
Those like that, deserve to be called ignorant, because they choose to be ignorant.
The news is out there.... do you care to see it all?
.
It seems that as far as this writer is concerned, a soldiers right to privacy and families right to be notified of their family members death before having the soldier's picture splashed all over the front pages, comes after the medias right to capitalize on said soldiers wounding or death.
On this Memorial Day, thousands of United States men and women are engaged in untold acts of bravery and drudgery on behalf of what our leaders have defined as vital American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But even as the flags wave to honor soldiers past, much of the current campaigns go on without notice, because while troop numbers are surging, the media that cover them are leaking away, worn out by the danger and expense of covering a war that refuses to end.
Yes, this war on terror, specifically when the fighting is being done in Iraq is sooooooooo tiring to....THE MEDIA!!!!!
Many of the journalists who are in Iraq have been backed into fortified corners, rarely venturing out to see what soldiers confront. And the remaining journalists who are embedded with the troops in Iraq — the number dropped to 92 in May from 126 in April — are risking more and more for less and less.
Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.
[...]
Ashley Gilbertson, a veteran freelance photographer who has been to Iraq seven times and has worked for The New York Times, (along with Time and Newsweek among others), said the policy, as enforced, is coercive and unworkable.
“They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.”
Maybe, just perhaps, possibly, they are being seen as vultures because they are acting like vultures!!!
So they are complaining that they have to ask and get consent before publishing a soldiers face, wounded, perhaps dying, for the world to see.
Poor babies.
Remember now, this is the paper that published a piece showing a soldier (U.S. Army SSGT Hector Leija) dying, and they did this BEFORE his family had been notified.
Lets not forget that they often ignore what the soldiers tell them if it doesn't match their anti-war, anti-American philosophy, and these reporters want to complain about the rules?
“They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. “I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.”
Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe if they would cover the "reality" of the war, instead of cherry picking just the bad, skipping over the good and ignoring what our troops say, they wouldn't have this problem of being seen as a bad luck charm or a vulture.
Maybe.
Vulture is too good a word for the likes of them.
Lt. Col. Josslyn L. Aberle, chief of media operations for the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said that the regulations are a matter of common sense and decency, not message management.
“The last thing that we want to do is to contribute to the grief and anguish of the family members,” she said by phone from Iraq. “We don’t want the last image that the family has of their soldier to be a photo of him dying on a battlefield. You have to ask how much value is added.”
Exactly, but that, of course, isn't something the media, specifically the New York Times is worried about.
The families be damned, their headlines comes first.
This is how the paper cleans up what they did to SSGT Hector Leija's family.
There are some people stateside who would agree. In February, a story and accompanying video by The New York Times reporter Damien Cave — and a photo taken by Robert Nickelsberg — that depicted the grievous wounding and eventual death of a soldier on Haifa Street, drew both praise and condemnation on Web logs and in the military about what constitutes appropriate imagery for the breakfast table. What some readers see as a gratuitous display of carnage, others view as important homage to the boots on the ground.
Oooooops? They "forgot" to mention that the picture was shown before the family was notified?
I doubt it, they simply try to rewrite history and downright lie by omission here. No mention of the "reality" of what they did.
Unbelievable that they have the nerve to complain about this type of trivial bullshit while our soldiers are risking their lives to protect, not only us, but the reporters that are embedded!!!
Amy Proctor has a wonderful piece up about the Good news From Iraq, video and other news releases showing some words from our commanders on the ground.
Obviously there are problems. Iraq is, after all, a war zone. But for every bomb that goes off in downtown Baghdad, there are 10 areas of improvement ignored by the MSM. I’m here to bring them to you.
Amazing how a blogger, a military wife can get these stories, yet we don't see them printed in the New York Times and they are physically THERE.
They are treated like the enemy because they are acting like the enemy and becoming the enemies mouth pieces....so they need to quit complaining, start actually supporting our troops, telling their stories, dealing with the whole picture instead of just the Bleed and Lead articles and perhaps, then, they will stop being seen as a "bad luck charm" or a "vulture.
I doubt they are capable of it though.
They are vultures and they can be replaced.
Here is some good news from Iraq that you aren't seeing from our dinosaur media.
5/29/07- BOMBS DESTROYED, 18 SUSPECTS DETAINED
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Coalition Forces detained 18 suspected terrorists and destroyed a cache of weapons and bomb-making materials during operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq Sunday.
Based on information gained from successful operations May 21, Coalition Forces raided a suspected meeting place for al-Qaeda operatives. Inside the two targeted buildings, ground forces detained five individuals with suspected ties to the al-Qaeda network. One individual said he had attended an IED-making class in a building nearby.
Coalition Forces moved on to the nearby building and found a cache of weapons, explosives and improvised explosive device-making materials.
The cache contained three fully assembled IEDs, two artillery rounds, multiple IED triggers, eight rifles and assorted IED components. A trained explosives team safely destroyed the materials on site.
In Mosul, Coalition Forces detained six individuals in two separate raids targeting al-Qaeda cell leaders in the city. At the first location, Coalition Forces detained three individuals, including a suspected IED cell leader responsible for attacks on Iraqi and Coalition Forces. At the second site, Coalition Forces detained three more suspected terrorists, including an alleged al-Qaeda in Iraq cell leader who is known for distributing media and propaganda, including videos showing attacks on Iraqi Forces.
Intelligence reports led Coalition Forces to two buildings southeast of Fallujah, where they searched for associates of an al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leader. Four suspected terrorists were detained.
Coalition Forces raided a building searching for a cell leader within a Baghdad vehicle-borne IED network, where they detained three suspected terrorists for their involvement in the cell and destroyed two vehicles used in the VBIED network.
"Every day, we are chipping away al-Qaeda in Iraq's ability to operate and threaten the people of Iraq," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson.
5/26/07- SECRET CELL KEY LEADER DETAINED, AIR STRIKE IN SADR CITY
Or this one:
5/26/07- TWO TERRORISTS KILLED, 23 SUSPECTS DETAINED, EXPLOSIVES DESTROYED
Or dozens of others found at Centcom. These are daily releases and papers like the NYT have access, just as we do, but they don't find good news important enough to tell the American people.
Vultures, indeed.
Related articles today:
David Patten from the Middle East Quarterly explains the realities of Iraq, he doesn't sugar coat things, but he gives a good lesson on the differences between political posturing and the truth.
Bottom line here folks is this: If you want the truth, the whole truth, you cannot get it these days by watching the news or picking up the paper, you must open your search engine and look for yourself, visit Centcom daily, read the military blogs our soldiers are writing and speaking to us, but some are too lazy to look and listen, they prefer to be told what to think.
Those like that, deserve to be called ignorant, because they choose to be ignorant.
The news is out there.... do you care to see it all?
.
New York Times and Memorial Day: VULTURES
The New York Times, once again, publishes a piece, on Memorial Day no less, that leaves me shaking my head in disgust.
It seems that as far as this writer is concerned, a soldiers right to privacy and families right to be notified of their family members death before having the soldier's picture splashed all over the front pages, comes after the medias right to capitalize on said soldiers wounding or death.
Yes, this war on terror, specifically when the fighting is being done in Iraq is sooooooooo tiring to....THE MEDIA!!!!!
Maybe, just perhaps, possibly, they are being seen as vultures because they are acting like vultures!!!
So they are complaining that they have to ask and get consent before publishing a soldiers face, wounded, perhaps dying, for the world to see.
Poor babies.
Remember now, this is the paper that published a piece showing a soldier (U.S. Army SSGT Hector Leija) dying, and they did this BEFORE his family had been notified.
Lets not forget that they often ignore what the soldiers tell them if it doesn't match their anti-war, anti-American philosophy, and these reporters want to complain about the rules?
Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe if they would cover the "reality" of the war, instead of cherry picking just the bad, skipping over the good and ignoring what our troops say, they wouldn't have this problem of being seen as a bad luck charm or a vulture.
Maybe.
Vulture is too good a word for the likes of them.
Exactly, but that, of course, isn't something the media, specifically the New York Times is worried about.
The families be damned, their headlines comes first.
This is how the paper cleans up what they did to SSGT Hector Leija's family.
Oooooops? They "forgot" to mention that the picture was shown before the family was notified?
I doubt it, they simply try to rewrite history and downright lie by omission here. No mention of the "reality" of what they did.
Unbelievable that they have the nerve to complain about this type of trivial bullshit while our soldiers are risking their lives to protect, not only us, but the reporters that are embedded!!!
Amy Proctor has a wonderful piece up about the Good news From Iraq, video and other news releases showing some words from our commanders on the ground.
Amazing how a blogger, a military wife can get these stories, yet we don't see them printed in the New York Times and they are physically THERE.
They are treated like the enemy because they are acting like the enemy and becoming the enemies mouth pieces....so they need to quit complaining, start actually supporting our troops, telling their stories, dealing with the whole picture instead of just the Bleed and Lead articles and perhaps, then, they will stop being seen as a "bad luck charm" or a "vulture.
I doubt they are capable of it though.
They are vultures and they can be replaced.
Here is some good news from Iraq that you aren't seeing from our dinosaur media.
5/29/07- BOMBS DESTROYED, 18 SUSPECTS DETAINED
5/26/07- SECRET CELL KEY LEADER DETAINED, AIR STRIKE IN SADR CITY
Or this one:
5/26/07- TWO TERRORISTS KILLED, 23 SUSPECTS DETAINED, EXPLOSIVES DESTROYED
Or dozens of others found at Centcom. These are daily releases and papers like the NYT have access, just as we do, but they don't find good news important enough to tell the American people.
Vultures, indeed.
Related articles today:
David Patten from the Middle East Quarterly explains the realities of Iraq, he doesn't sugar coat things, but he gives a good lesson on the differences between political posturing and the truth.
Bottom line here folks is this: If you want the truth, the whole truth, you cannot get it these days by watching the news or picking up the paper, you must open your search engine and look for yourself, visit Centcom daily, read the military blogs our soldiers are writing and speaking to us, but some are too lazy to look and listen, they prefer to be told what to think.
Those like that, deserve to be called ignorant, because they choose to be ignorant.
The news is out there.... do you care to see it all?
.
It seems that as far as this writer is concerned, a soldiers right to privacy and families right to be notified of their family members death before having the soldier's picture splashed all over the front pages, comes after the medias right to capitalize on said soldiers wounding or death.
On this Memorial Day, thousands of United States men and women are engaged in untold acts of bravery and drudgery on behalf of what our leaders have defined as vital American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But even as the flags wave to honor soldiers past, much of the current campaigns go on without notice, because while troop numbers are surging, the media that cover them are leaking away, worn out by the danger and expense of covering a war that refuses to end.
Yes, this war on terror, specifically when the fighting is being done in Iraq is sooooooooo tiring to....THE MEDIA!!!!!
Many of the journalists who are in Iraq have been backed into fortified corners, rarely venturing out to see what soldiers confront. And the remaining journalists who are embedded with the troops in Iraq — the number dropped to 92 in May from 126 in April — are risking more and more for less and less.
Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.
[...]
Ashley Gilbertson, a veteran freelance photographer who has been to Iraq seven times and has worked for The New York Times, (along with Time and Newsweek among others), said the policy, as enforced, is coercive and unworkable.
“They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.”
Maybe, just perhaps, possibly, they are being seen as vultures because they are acting like vultures!!!
So they are complaining that they have to ask and get consent before publishing a soldiers face, wounded, perhaps dying, for the world to see.
Poor babies.
Remember now, this is the paper that published a piece showing a soldier (U.S. Army SSGT Hector Leija) dying, and they did this BEFORE his family had been notified.
Lets not forget that they often ignore what the soldiers tell them if it doesn't match their anti-war, anti-American philosophy, and these reporters want to complain about the rules?
“They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. “I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.”
Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe if they would cover the "reality" of the war, instead of cherry picking just the bad, skipping over the good and ignoring what our troops say, they wouldn't have this problem of being seen as a bad luck charm or a vulture.
Maybe.
Vulture is too good a word for the likes of them.
Lt. Col. Josslyn L. Aberle, chief of media operations for the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said that the regulations are a matter of common sense and decency, not message management.
“The last thing that we want to do is to contribute to the grief and anguish of the family members,” she said by phone from Iraq. “We don’t want the last image that the family has of their soldier to be a photo of him dying on a battlefield. You have to ask how much value is added.”
Exactly, but that, of course, isn't something the media, specifically the New York Times is worried about.
The families be damned, their headlines comes first.
This is how the paper cleans up what they did to SSGT Hector Leija's family.
There are some people stateside who would agree. In February, a story and accompanying video by The New York Times reporter Damien Cave — and a photo taken by Robert Nickelsberg — that depicted the grievous wounding and eventual death of a soldier on Haifa Street, drew both praise and condemnation on Web logs and in the military about what constitutes appropriate imagery for the breakfast table. What some readers see as a gratuitous display of carnage, others view as important homage to the boots on the ground.
Oooooops? They "forgot" to mention that the picture was shown before the family was notified?
I doubt it, they simply try to rewrite history and downright lie by omission here. No mention of the "reality" of what they did.
Unbelievable that they have the nerve to complain about this type of trivial bullshit while our soldiers are risking their lives to protect, not only us, but the reporters that are embedded!!!
Amy Proctor has a wonderful piece up about the Good news From Iraq, video and other news releases showing some words from our commanders on the ground.
Obviously there are problems. Iraq is, after all, a war zone. But for every bomb that goes off in downtown Baghdad, there are 10 areas of improvement ignored by the MSM. I’m here to bring them to you.
Amazing how a blogger, a military wife can get these stories, yet we don't see them printed in the New York Times and they are physically THERE.
They are treated like the enemy because they are acting like the enemy and becoming the enemies mouth pieces....so they need to quit complaining, start actually supporting our troops, telling their stories, dealing with the whole picture instead of just the Bleed and Lead articles and perhaps, then, they will stop being seen as a "bad luck charm" or a "vulture.
I doubt they are capable of it though.
They are vultures and they can be replaced.
Here is some good news from Iraq that you aren't seeing from our dinosaur media.
5/29/07- BOMBS DESTROYED, 18 SUSPECTS DETAINED
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Coalition Forces detained 18 suspected terrorists and destroyed a cache of weapons and bomb-making materials during operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq Sunday.
Based on information gained from successful operations May 21, Coalition Forces raided a suspected meeting place for al-Qaeda operatives. Inside the two targeted buildings, ground forces detained five individuals with suspected ties to the al-Qaeda network. One individual said he had attended an IED-making class in a building nearby.
Coalition Forces moved on to the nearby building and found a cache of weapons, explosives and improvised explosive device-making materials.
The cache contained three fully assembled IEDs, two artillery rounds, multiple IED triggers, eight rifles and assorted IED components. A trained explosives team safely destroyed the materials on site.
In Mosul, Coalition Forces detained six individuals in two separate raids targeting al-Qaeda cell leaders in the city. At the first location, Coalition Forces detained three individuals, including a suspected IED cell leader responsible for attacks on Iraqi and Coalition Forces. At the second site, Coalition Forces detained three more suspected terrorists, including an alleged al-Qaeda in Iraq cell leader who is known for distributing media and propaganda, including videos showing attacks on Iraqi Forces.
Intelligence reports led Coalition Forces to two buildings southeast of Fallujah, where they searched for associates of an al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leader. Four suspected terrorists were detained.
Coalition Forces raided a building searching for a cell leader within a Baghdad vehicle-borne IED network, where they detained three suspected terrorists for their involvement in the cell and destroyed two vehicles used in the VBIED network.
"Every day, we are chipping away al-Qaeda in Iraq's ability to operate and threaten the people of Iraq," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson.
5/26/07- SECRET CELL KEY LEADER DETAINED, AIR STRIKE IN SADR CITY
Or this one:
5/26/07- TWO TERRORISTS KILLED, 23 SUSPECTS DETAINED, EXPLOSIVES DESTROYED
Or dozens of others found at Centcom. These are daily releases and papers like the NYT have access, just as we do, but they don't find good news important enough to tell the American people.
Vultures, indeed.
Related articles today:
David Patten from the Middle East Quarterly explains the realities of Iraq, he doesn't sugar coat things, but he gives a good lesson on the differences between political posturing and the truth.
Bottom line here folks is this: If you want the truth, the whole truth, you cannot get it these days by watching the news or picking up the paper, you must open your search engine and look for yourself, visit Centcom daily, read the military blogs our soldiers are writing and speaking to us, but some are too lazy to look and listen, they prefer to be told what to think.
Those like that, deserve to be called ignorant, because they choose to be ignorant.
The news is out there.... do you care to see it all?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)