The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, April 30, 2007

Global Incident Map

Somebody has gone through a lot of effort to create a really detailed map showing incidents of terrorist or suspicious activity around the globe. As this gets filled out from certain future activity I think this site will become more and more useful. Recommended Bookmark here!

Labels: , ,

Boortz Does Not Want Pro-Lifers to Name Their Own Movement

Neal Boortz most of the time says things I can agree with. On some issues we have to part ways. It is no secret I am Pro-Life. When it comes to abortion Boortz often goes ballistic with an obsession that is quite striking for an otherwise man of reason. Today out of the blue he suddenly has an obsessive problem with the movement name those opposing abortion have selected: pro-life. He says:
The terminology for those opposed to a woman's right to chose should not be "pro life." Don't let them set the terms of the discussion like this. To call abortion opponents "pro life" is to say that those who support choice are "pro death." The appropriate labels are "pro choice" and "anti choice."
It is not that he disagrees with my point of view, nor that he is passionate about it. His words smack of one who obsesses over this topic night and day, dreaming in a troubled sleep night after night. It is almost like Lady MacBeth compulsively washing his hands again and again. The frequency that Boortz brings this topic up and this time without any context related to current events. Very, very strange.

Another odd ploy is that when he so frequently brings up the subject, he also refuses to take any calls on his show on the subject or receive any emails either. It is his show and he can say what he wants and set his own rules. This topic he simply treats like an OCB.

The attempt to stop the Pro-Life movement from calling their own movement what they want is right out of the Twilight Zone. It would be one thing to claim he thinks it is a wrong term, but to lash out with words like "don't let them set the terms of the discussion like this..." is crossing the line. Next thing Boortz will be going around trying to name other people's kids.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Liberal Fundamentalism

Most of my life I have been around Christian Fundamentalism. In my youth I did not really understand it. In my early adulthood I was fairly zealously a part of it. In recent years I have moved to the edge of the movement with only a step or two to exit. There are many good things in the movement, but I think they have at the same time earned some of the resentment hurled at them. As I analyze some of the less desirable features of "Fundies", I am seeing a closer and closer resemblance between the liberal movement and the dark side of Fundamentalism.

A detailed writing on the subject would be too long and get more into matters of faith than I choose to in this forum. So I will highlight a couple areas. One involves how they are viewed while the other how they view others. Both groups tend to be very judgmental of others. They are constantly analyzing the actions and words of people and construing (often misconstruing) what is going on in the inner person. The Fundie is often viewed as taking on a "Mrs. Gladys Kravitz" approach to viewing others: snooping, judging and jumping to conclusions. They act as if they know what is going on inside you based on whatever they think they observe. (Mind you I am not talking about all of them. Enough are this way to have given the rest a bad rap, though) Liberals in the same way are constantly judging others with their politically correct yardstick. They make judgments of racism and sexism where it does not exist - claiming it is so deep rooted even the person does not know himself enough to know he is "this way". Then if you do not subscribe to their liberal doctrines of socialism, they make accusations that you do not care about people, especially minorities and the poor.

In the area of how they are viewed, people often throw accusations of hypocrisy and insincerity at Fundamentalists. If they really believed what they "preach" they would be acting differently - toward God and toward their fellow man. I think the same think can be thrown at liberals. If they really believed what they "preached" they would live their lives differently. Two excellent examples are man made catastrophic global warming and taxes.

If liberals truly believed that the earth is in grave danger due to man's emissions, they would drastically reduce their lifestyle - and not with the discredited carbon offsets either. They are trying to push the government into forcing emission reductions across the board for everybody. If they really believed what they preach they would not wait until the government enforces such reductions. They would take drastic measures now. Some currently do, but there are many more (especially with celebrity status) who only do so when enforced by government.

Similarly in taxation, many liberals think that our fiscal problems are caused by being under-taxed. This notion is ludicrous. All one has to do is look around: every person with a job, every item for sale, every property, every service and every luxury is an opportunity for taxation. All are taxed and often on multiple levels of taxation. There is a ton of money coming in. Liberals then point out how much the wealthy have and that such wealth is too obscene while others have little or nothing. So they push and they vocalize for more and more taxation. More taxation for all and especially more taxation for the wealthy. They preach this is the right thing to do because they can then take the money and help others without. If they really believed what they preached, they would voluntarily pay more taxes. It is so easy - simply figure your tax liability and when writing the check ADD to it. Instead they want to wait until laws are passed before they will part with more of their money. Instead they scrape and claw for every tax loophole and deduction they can find to keep their tax burden even lower.

Face it liberals - many of you show nothing but contempt and hatred for Christian Fundamentalists. You disrespect them with your comments on TV. You use Fundies as material for your comedy. You buck against this group. However, as I have shown you are very much alike in the areas I have pointed out: how you view others and how you are viewed. I'm sure this makes your day.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Who Will Fill the Big Hole Left by Rosie?

On the lighter side (as in humor, not ...) I have been speculating who might be selected to replace Rosie on the View. There are many things to consider. First, it has always been an all women's show. Assuming they will continue that model, this narrows down the field considerably.

I heard some suggetions on a morning radio show, Don Wade and Roma from WLS890, and some were mentioning people that simply had celebrity status. Somebody mentioned Sheryl Crow. I am sure this may be considered, but people like Crow might make a good guest yet after 2-3 days will not have much else to say. So far other than her musical career, when it comes to public discourse Sheryl Crow only seems to have one note and does not sing that note very well.

I am confident the selection will lean to the left (packaged as mainstream of course). This would exclude some interesting selections like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin or Peggy Noonan. Then there is the "looks" criteria. Barbara Walters has not put much stock in looks when making selections. After all it is a group of women on the show and things could get ugly if they brought in somebody very pretty. They could really play it safe and select Helen Thomas, if they could extract her from the front row of the WH Press Corp. A few other overripe possibilities might be Leslie Stahl, Cokie Roberts or Nina Totenberg.

Well, maybe they might risk bringing in a younger fresher looking woman. I think this is the path they will take, in spite of potential in-fighting among the panel. It is tough on the crowd to have to look at AND hear somebody like Rosie. So, as is my custom of fun, but rarely accurate, I will make my prediction. There is somebody that was recently freed up and may be ready to make such a move. She definitely leans to the left (packaged as mainstream). She is not a screaming maniac like Rosie. My prediction is: Soledad O'Brien. She is frequently "busted" by for her liberal slant and would likely provide even more fodder on the View.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Democrats: We Want Seats Not Facts

Harry "Shadow Boxer" Reid has such a way of periodically saying it like it is, when saying it like it is does the Dems no favors. A short time ago Harry Reid made a statement that underscores what is at the heart of himself and his fellow Dems. He said "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." If you observe any babies, you will notice times that they get so excited that they flex just about every muscle in their little bodies at once and squeal. It is quite a sight. This ill advised statement by the Shadow Boxer seems to be just such a flush of uncontrolled excitement. It also exposes the top thing on their minds: power. I am not naive enough to think the GOP does not also want power. However, this accidental candid moment tells us all we need to know about the direction they want to take Iraq. They want the US to withdraw in defeat out of Iraq, where they will hammer the issue until election day. All the while they will be trying to picture themselves as the caring benefactors who brought the troops home.

We see this agenda underscored by the new tactic of ignoring facts and ducking meetings that would present such facts. The blog points out the various actions by the Dems on Iraq:
- Reid's claim that the war is "lost"
- Murtha's plan to defund the war with his "slow bleed" strategy
- Pelosi avoiding the briefing with General Petraeus
- Pelosi and other Dems have already skipped two other Petraeus briefings on March 8th and April 9th.

This is on top of Reid all but calling Petraeus a liar by stating in an interview that he would not believe if the General stated there was any progress in Iraq. Of course Reid "believes" Petraeus enough to quote him saying the situation in Iraq cannot be won militarily. One problem. Reid misquotes him to his advantage. Petraeus said we could not win in Iraq "militarily alone".

Yes, Reid's words and the actions of the Dems expose their lust to win more seats at the expense of a US defeat in Iraq. They are very foolish in their thinking, though. All of the politics, all of the words, all of the posturing, all of the olympic efforts to extract us out of Iraq boils down to one thing: Democratic Ownership of the Defeat. A Wall Street Journal editorial today points out just that very thing(emphasis mine):
Mr. Reid has since tried to "clarify" that remark, and in a speech Monday he laid out his own strategy for Iraq. But perhaps we ought to be grateful for his earlier candor in laying out the strategic judgment--and nakedly political rationale--that underlies the latest Congressional bid to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting this fall. By doing so, he and the Democrats are taking ownership of whatever ugly outcome follows a U.S. defeat in Iraq.
The UK Guardian (no friend of the decision to go into Iraq) describes what that "ugly outcome" would likely be (hat tip Captain's Quarters):
The so-called axis of moderate Arab states - comprising Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - dreads an early US withdrawal. First, because it would be widely interpreted as an American defeat, which would weaken these pro-American regimes while both energising and radicalising their populations.

Second, if the US leaves, the emergence of a Shia regime in Iraq - in itself an offensive prospect to them - would only be a matter of time. Facing Arab antipathy, this regime would be likely to look eastward and forge close ties with its Iranian co-religionists. In the view of most Arabs, this would present a formidable challenge, setting in motion a series of dangerous events - an Iranian-Iraqi alliance; political and material support from Arab countries being offered to disgruntled Iraqi Sunni groups; retaliation by Iraqi forces; and the threat of broader regional involvement.

Third, a US departure risks triggering Iraq's partition. As some Arabs see it, the occupation is what holds the country together. So long as coalition forces are deployed, a full-blown breakup can be avoided.

However, none of this seems to matter to the Dems. They seem only to be interested in SEATS. They seem also to be confident that the MSM will cover for them when a massacre ensues in Iraq after our withdrawal. So look for the Shadow Boxer and the Stumbler to continue closing their eyes, plugging their ears and saying a continuous mantra of "nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you..."

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Why Doesn't Reid Claim We Have Lost in Afghanistan?

In my recent post about how Harry Reid, I pointed out what I think is a link between Reid's support of the war and his "lost" terminology. Some of the comments led me to wonder why Reid or many other Dems criticize the effort in Afghanistan. There are similar setbacks with the resurgence of the Taliban. According to Wikipedia on the subject the following has taken place in Afghanistan since the Taliban started regrouping:


  • June 6: A roadside bombing leaves 2 American soldiers killed, the attack took place in the province of nanghar. Also a separate suicide bombing in Khost leaves three US soldiers wounded.[25]
  • June 15: A bus carrying workers to an American base explodes killing 10 and wounding 15. The explosives were placed on the bus.[26]
  • July 1: 2 British soldiers are killed when their base came under small arms fire including rocket propelled grenades.[27]
  • August 8: 4 Canadian NATO soldiers are killed in two separate attacks. And a suicide bomber targeting a NATO convey detonates killing 21 people.[28]
  • August 20: 3 American soldiers are killed and another 3 are wounded in a battle with Taliban millitants after a roadside bomb hit an American patrol.[29]
  • September 8: A major suicide car bombing near the US embassy in Kabul kills 18 including 2 US soldiers.[30]
  • September 10: The governor of Afghanistan's southeastern Paktia province is killed alongside his bodyguard and nephew when a suicide bomber detonates himself beside the governor's car.[31]
  • October 14: A suicide attack in Kandahar city leaves 8 dead including one NATO soldier.[32]
  • October 15: 2 Canadian soldiers were killed when Taliban militants attacked NATO troops using small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades.[33]
  • December 6: A suicide bomber blew himself up outside a security contractor's office killing 7 including 2 Americans, the attack took place south of Afghanistan in Kandahar.[34]


  • January 23: A suicide bomber blew himself up outside a US base in eastern Afghanistan killing 10 people who were waiting outside the base.[35]
  • February 2: Taliban forces raided a southern Afghan town destroying the government center and briefly holding some elders captive.[36]
  • February 19: The Taliban briefly seized a small town in western Afghanistan after police fled the town, the Taliban forces moved in for 30 minutes and seizing 3 vehicles.[37]
  • February 20: A suicide bomber blew himself up during an opening hospital ceremony injuring 2 NATO soldiers and a hospital worker.[38]
  • February 27: 23 people are killed when a suicide bomber attacks an American military base in Kabul. The attack took place while US vice president Dick Cheney was in the compound, Cheney was unhurt in the attack and was the intended target of the attack as claimed by the Taliban. The dead included an American soldier, a Korean soldier, and an American contractor.[39]
  • March 4: A suicide bomber attacks an American convoy which leaves 16 civilians dead in the after-math as the American convey begins to sporadically fire at civilian cars around them. In a separate incident 2 British soldiers were killed when a Taliban rocket was fired on them during clashes in Southern Helmand Province.[40]
  • March 17: A suicide bomber targeting a Canadian military convoy leaves one dead and 3 injured including one NATO soldier. The attack took place in Kandahar.[41]
  • March 19: A car bomb blew up near a three-vehicle US embassy convoy injuring many in the convoy.[42]
  • March 27: 4 police officers are killed in the southern Helmand province after a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a police station. [1]
  • March 28: A suicide bomber killed a top intelligance officer and 3 others in the capital Kabul.
  • April 6 A suicide bomber struck a police checkpoint in Kabul leaving 4 dead and 4 others wounded. [2]
  • April 9 6 Canadian soldiers were killed in souther Afghanistan when they struck a roadside bomb. In a separate roadside bombing also in south Afghanistan left another NATO soldier dead and one wounded. In another incident a statement from the talibans spokesperson claimed that they had beheaded a translator for a kidnapped Italian journalist. [3]
  • April 15: A suicide bomber struck a US-private security firm killing 4 Afghans working for the company. [4]
  • April 16: A suicide bomber ran onto a police training field and detonating his explosive device killing 10 police officers and wounding dozens of others, the attack took place in the relatively quiet city of Kunduz. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. [5]
  • April 20: Seperate explosions in Southern Afghanistan leaves 2 Nato soldiers dead. [6]
  • April 22: A suicide bomber blew himself up an eastern city of Afghanistan killing 6. A roadside bomb also hit an Afghan intelligance service vehicle killing all 4 who were inside. [7]

The war in Afghanistan is considered "justified" by even many of the staunchest Dems. Yet five years later we are still fighting against insurgent Taliban fighters and there continues to be loss of life among civilians and our troops. Using the same formula, why doesn't Reid claim we have "lost" in Afghanistan? I think we all know the reason.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Bottom Line on Winning and Losing

Malott has a great take on Harry "Shadow Boxer" Reids's claim that we have lost in Iraq: the equivalent of "Mission Accomplished" for radical Islam. Neal Boortz like others calls Reid a "traitor" and lays out his case very well. I don't think Tokyo Rose could be doing a better job than Reid and his fellow lefties. Michelle Malkin has posts with letters from our valiant servicemen responding to Reid here and here.

The bottom line on this winning and losing business is how would the status of the war be considered if there was no disagreement on whether we should be there in the first place? Without rehashing the justification for the war, IF all still felt it was justified would anybody be claiming that we are losing or that we lost in Iraq? Without the stigma, would Harry Reid be saying or even thinking we have lost? Absolutely not. And that is the point, the bottom line. Reid is not giving a genuine, realistic assessment of our prospects of victory in Iraq. He is playing politics of the worst kind. In fact, it was shameless how he appears to have been waiting in the wings and rubbing his hands waiting for a day to come that enough Iraqis would be killed by bombs. The bombs killing over 180 people happened and Reid jumps out like a Jack in the Box to undercut our troops.

While things have not and are not rosey in Iraq, if all were behind the cause nearly all would view the situation winnable instead of through a defeatist prism. The concept of "lost" is only based on the lack of will (personally and politically) to continue.

Labels: , , ,

Harry Reid Shadow Boxing

Ok, I have a nickname for Harry Reid - Shadow Boxer. It is a name that hints at his being a former boxer and combines that with his habit of fighting himself. TexasRainMaker blog points out his latest.

Reid was quoted complaining about the ruling by the Supreme Court this week upholding the ban on the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. Malott has a cycling picture showing the procedure in all its cruelty here. Well, apparantly the act of Congress that banned p.b.a. was voted for by Harry Reid himself. Ouch! I have kudos ready for the first non-Foxnews MSM reporter to point this out.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

CFL or Ratings Booster

MSNBC has a story describing a package the maniac gunman Cho sent them before his rampage. According to the story:
The package included an 1,800-word manifesto-like statement diatribe in which he expresses rage, resentment and a desire to get even. The material is “hard-to-follow ... disturbing, very disturbing — very angry, profanity-laced,” Capus said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon.

The material does not include any images of the shootings Monday, but it does contain vague references.

“I didn’t have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no, I will no longer run. It’s not for me. For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you [molest] — I did it for them,” Cho says on one of the videos.
So they have the package, they have viewed the contents and yet this story does not answer:

"rage, resentment" - AT WHO?
"a desire to get even" - WITH WHOM?
"I will no longer run" - FROM WHOM?
"For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you [molest]" - GETTING SUSPICIOUS BUT WHO IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

The story later says:
He does not name anyone specifically, but he mentions “hedonism” and Christianity, and he talks at length about his hatred of the wealthy.
Does he really rant and rave in 23 videos and an "1800 word manifesto" without clearly identifying the source of his rage other than generically hedonists, Christians and the wealthy? Is this what I call CFL (Central Field Loss) reporting where they avoid answering the most pressing questions? The NBC Nightly News will be airing portions tonight. Perhaps they are saving the answer to these questions until then. The absence of such answers in such a large package does not seem likely. If the Nightly News does not reveal the answers, it will certainly raise my suspicions why.

Update: NBC had their story and provided exerpts from the "manifesto". Now a day later, why has not the full script been made public? NBC had it. They had no problem showing some of it. Why not release all of it? Very, very strange.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Something Good From Global Warming?

Well, well, well. Something positive could come of global warming. In addition to increasing the number of vacation spots arount the world and reducing the number of annual deaths from cold weather, global warming may also increase wind shear which saps the power of hurricanes in the Atlantic. Who would have known?

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Under the Gun

Too many deadlines to do much posting. I often put this post out there and then things clear up, but I don't see that happening. In addition to my work, I have a ton to do at home as I am the bookkeeper for Olive Oyl's new business. Too bad, there are tons I would love to post on. I missed the Imus debackle, the Duke Rape conclusion and more global warming fun. Ah well, work before fun.

Feel free to rummage around and read all the interesting comments. There have been some doosey's lately. There are my links and archived posts as well. Enjoy.


Sunday, April 08, 2007

Did Iran Make Enough Extra Cash to Pay Their Russia Bill

Recently we saw that Russia pulled away from further assistance for Iran's Nuclear program supposedly because they were not paying their outstanding bill for the program. We saw with the recent taking of the UK sailors that the price of oil spiked due to a fear of escalation against Iran. This rise in the oil price must have been an economic shot in the arm for Iran. Will we soon see news of Iran squaring off their debt with Russia and Russia going back full steam ahead with Iran's nuclear program? Makes me wonder if it wasn't part of the plan all along.

Labels: , ,

Weather Sucker Punch Every Global Warming Event

It seems these days every time there is a major event on Global Warming, there suddenly is some extreme weather giving the event a sucker punch. I have already predicted that the Climate Change Alarmists are doomed to be a major historical laughingstock, but there is already plenty to keep us laughing. There was the yawning hurricane season last year after the GW crowd blamed Katrina on greenhouse gases. There were the Congressional hearings and other meetings cancelled due to blizzards.

Now the IPCC has released the 2nd of 4 planned reports claiming dire catastrophe around the globe for millions due to warming. Of course this week we have seen stories of such a cold March in Alaska that the frost line is beginning to reach the water pipes 10 feet down. It is the coldest April Easter in Minnesota for the last 57 years. Crops around the US are endangered from the cold. There is snow covering the Cherry blossoms in the east.

Is it coincidence that these timed cold spells keep happening, or is there a sense of humor targeted at scientists who claim to understand the complex weather systems, yet really know so little. Who knows?

And remember the five questions of Global Warming we need to answer before succumbing to Climate Change Alarmism:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

Labels: , ,

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Great Sucking Sound in New York

If you hear a great sucking sound in the direction of New York City, in my opinion it will be the presidential hopes of Rudi Giuliani going down the drain. Rudi has made such an incredible gaffe on the subject of funding abortion that I do not think he can recover from the momentum he will lose over it. Right now, the maximum I see for him is a shot at V.P.

As many others, I tend to stay away from the topic of the legality of abortion. My comments in this post do not address whether or not abortion should be legal. My position on that is obvious. My concern over Rudi's statements go deeper. Captain Ed at Captains Quarters provides a transcript on an interview with CNN's Dana Bash that includes a statement from a years old video(my emphasis in bold):
BASH: There's something on -- you know, on YouTube from 1989. It's flying around the Internet. It's -- it's a clip of you.

[tape]GIULIANI: There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources. [applause] I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions.

BASH: Is that also your -- going -- going to be your position as president?

[live]GIULIANI: Probably. I mean, I have to reexamine all those issues and exactly what was at stake then. It is a long time ago. But, generally, that's my -- my view. Abortion is wrong. Abortion shouldn't happen. Personally, you should counsel people to that extent. When I was mayor, adoptions went up. Abortions went down.

BASH: So, you...

GIULIANI: But, ultimately, it's a -- it's a -- it's a constitutional right. And, therefore, if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure that people are protected.

BASH: So, you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortion in some cases?

GIULIANI: If -- if it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes. I mean, if that's the status of the law, then I would, yes.

I think that Giuliani could have survived his pro-choice stance. He had stated he was against abortions and had promised to appoint constructionist judges. There are many in the GOP that are pro-choice and many others that put the war on terror as a higher priority than abortion. He could have weathered this position until this interview.

Like Mitt Romney, Rudi has past positions that would not sit well with the conservative base. Romney has reversed himself on these and actually has a public record of votes for this reversal when he was MA. Governor. While many may put other issues higher than abortion, one thing they cannot abide is the notion of their money going toward paying for abortions. Rudi's first mistake was to reinforce his position of public funding for abortions. In this interview, he could have ducked (weak, but surviveable). He could have made a promise not to vote for such funding without stating his current position. On the positive, he did not lie or evade. On the negative, he not only has an unpalatable position for the GOP primary - he underlined it.

Rudi's second mistake was to brand abortion as a "constitutional right". One may be in favor of legalized abortion - the passing of laws to make it legal. However, to claim abortion a constitutional right where no such right is even hinted at in the Constitution brands Giuliani as a liberal to the core. A liberal will take something they want where the law is against or silent and the Constitution is silent and they will create a court ruling out of thin air. Such was Roe vs. Wade. It is one thing to think the laws of the land should allow abortion. It is another to proclaim an abortion is a Constitutional right. It takes a serious legal process of interpretation and converts it into a ridiculous "magic wand" to get what you want.

Rudi's third mistake is to take an already serious breach on conservative principles and add something far worse. He adds the notion that since it is a "constitutional right" those that cannot afford it should be assisted with public funds. This is ludicrous. A local talk show host this week compared this warped thinking to public funding for guns. There is more in the Constitution to grant the right to own a gun than to have an abortion. By Rudi's thinking if someone is too poor to afford a gun, which is their constitutional right, public funding should spring for it. This analogy shows the folly of such thinking in clear terms.

Conservatives have been burned so many times by presidents, senators, congressmen and judges they have supported. Once in office, these have turned against the things they were voted into office for. The GOP president and congress had a strong opportunity to advance the cause of conservatism and strengthen the country. Instead, they sold us out by spending money like drunks no differently than their Democrat predecessors. They refused to enforce our borders from the invasion of illegal immigrants. They refused to enforce existing immigration laws creating a scenario where they present a false need to create new immigration laws. Bush '41 burned us when he said "Read my lips" and then raised taxes instead of cutting spending.

Having been burned so much, this stumble by Rudi Giuliani will cause enough fear of being burned again that the GOP will look elsewhere. Rudi will not survive the the primary unless some miracle happens to help him gain back the momentum he has lost here.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, April 06, 2007

Predicted CFL Reporting on Iran Hostages

I recently posted on a media phenomenon where the reporting completely misses the part you want to know about most. I have decided to name it "CFL Reporting". CFL, an acronym for Central Field Loss is a vision problem where you only have peripheral vision and cannot see the center. It is the opposite of Tunnel Vision where you can only see the center. CFL Reporting has occurred when the topmost question the average person would want to know is completely avoided during the giving of the story. An example might be where a child was abducted and there was an eyewitness, yet the story would contain no description of the kidnapper.

During the time Iran held the 15 hostages we were all surprised to see the sailors going on camera and admitting to wrongdoing - stating that they were in Iranian waters in a confession style. The most obvious question on everybody's mind is what would it take to cause a trained hardened military person to submit to such an act? One would suspect that if an Iranian captor would approach one of the sailors and asked them politely to "confess" to being in Iranian waters and apologize on camera, that sailor would tell the captor where to go. Most would even think that if the captors were verbally harsh and made threats demanding they do this, it would be met with failure. This would lead to one of the top questions in the story: what did the Iranians do or say to convince the sailors to submit to such humiliation?

Information may be slow to come out, but when such data is available my prediction is that there will be very little focus on this critical detail if any in most stories produced by the media. I predict there will have been more reporting on the clothing and "goodie bags" provided for the sailors' return than on what spurred the "confessions". The next few days will tell if I am correct. I hope I am not, as I wish to know the answer to this puzzle.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Too Early to Change Baghdad Curfew?

According to the Iraq Slogger, Iraqi PM Maliki has ordered that the curfew in Baghdad be reduced by 3 hours each night. He apparently thinks the new security measures associated with the surge are working well enough to take this measure. Time will tell if it is a good idea.

Looking at the improvement in the numbers, my opinion is that now would be the ideal time for showing Iraq a little support and solidarity. Whether any think that the improvement is temporary or not, every war has a heavy psychological factor. If they had any concern at all for the future of Iraq, it would be more prudent for the Dems to stop their little games and at least acknowledge that there is an opportunity here for the new Iraqi government to get a foothold on stabilizing the country. If they had any concern for the future of Iraq. Big If. Unfortunately there is a political power base to solidify where the foundation is built on failure in Iraq.

Some people close to Iraq are still skeptical about whether there is any real improvement. CNN's Michael Ware got a bum rap from Matt Drudge over his skepticism. Ware was accused by Drudge of getting his nose bent out of shape during a press conference with John McCain and heckling him. The tape later revealed this charge to be bogus. Shame on Drudge. I have not seen a retraction or apology either. Personally, I think Ware may be a bit too skeptical; but I do know that if he ever begins reporting positively on the situation, it will be hard for any to doubt.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Why Does the Media Ignore What You Want to Read

I have mentioned before that one (of many of course) of my pet peeves of the media is when they write a story that completely skips over the most obvious point that you want to know. I'm going to have to come up with a name for this phenomenon.

There is a story about how Rudi Guliani is telling the media to back off of his wife. According to
The former New York City mayor is fending off increased media scrutiny of his third wife -- the former Judith Nathan. Rudy is now asking the media to back off.

"Attack me all you want," Giuliani said. "There's plenty to attack me about. Please do it. But maybe, you know, show a little decency."
Ok, now what is the first thing you want to know after reading that assuming this is the first you have read on the subject? If you are like me you want to know what the media is saying about his wife to get Rudi's feathers all ruffled. However, the story is virtually silent on the subject. The entire offering on the subject is in the quote above: "increased media scrutiny". Is it laziness? Is it a total disconnect from what details are critical to the story? This is a harmless example, but often the topic is much more important and they just breeze over the key element.

As for Rudi, the story points out that this request is odd because he recently "...suggested he might invite his wife into cabinet meetings." I don't know about you but that gives me the creeps. It reminds my of then First Lady Hillary Clinton stating, "We are the president". Another unconfirmed, unelected cabinet member is not what we need.

Anyway, we can only hope the media will do its job in this and other areas.

Labels: ,

Monday, April 02, 2007

They Want to Have Their Agenda and Their Credibility Too

Since bloggers cannot possibly write about everything or even many things, each blogger has a niche that he or she focuses on to write about. As long as transparency is kept in the process this should be acceptable. Consistency lends credibility, but due to time constraints full balanced blogging is not feasible. So most bloggers focus on their desired niche and clearly post they are doing so. This blog is no exception.

However, there are many organizations that either claim or give the appearance to be non-partisan and have the resources to cover a broad range of activities. Many of these organizations have targeted the disgusting but localized actions Abu Graibh. They have also have made great hay about the Gitmo prisoners by taking the word of the detainees above those of the guards. Many are media outlets that claim to be non-biased. Others are organizations allegedly devoted to fighting human rights abuses.

I have been looking at several of these for any mention about the Iranian hostage situation and found very little. First, our new House Speaker Nancy “the Stumbler” Pelosi appears to have “frozen” at the last minute and did not follow the Senate in passing a resolution denouncing it. One news story quotes Pelosi as wanting to make sure she was doing “more good than harm”. Since when has this concern ever stopped her before?

While I have seen the story mentioned in the news, there is very little showing Iran in a bad light. In the face of evidence that the sailors were clearly in Iraqi waters, this action amounts to an act of war. The retaining of the sailors after the evidence was submitted is no less than making the sailors hostages. The parading of the hostages on television is against the Geneva Convention and an act of humiliation. They have added to the humiliation by forcing the female sailor from a modernized liberated country to wear an Islamic head covering. To top things off they are showing so-called “confessions” by the sailors. No military person would volunteer to do such a thing without being under some kind of duress.

The sorry-excuse United Nations fell short of a full condemnation against Iran. Is anybody surprised? Then there are the organizations supposedly devoted to ridding the world of human rights violations. I have been monitoring the websites of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for several days now. If there is any mention of the abuses against the UK sailors I could not find it.

Basically it boils down to credibility. If an organization devoted to denouncing these violations turns a blind eye to clear abuses, how can anything they say be trusted. If they put on their site that they exclude any mention of Western civilization victims, then at least we would know why this situation was excluded. Instead there is a deafening silence and their agenda driven heart is laid bare for the world to see.

Labels: , , , ,