Paragon
var BL_backlinkURL = "http://www.blogger.com/dyn-js/backlink_count.js";var BL_blogId = "8038865";
/*
Blogger Template Style
Name: TicTac
Author: Dan Cederholm
URL: www.simplebits.com
Date: 1 March 2004
*/
/* ---( page defaults )--- */
body {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: small;
text-align: center;
color: #333;
background: #e0e0e0;
}
blockquote {
margin: 0 0 0 10px;
padding: 10px 0 0 10px;
font-size: 88%;
line-height: 1.5em;
color: #666;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/quotes.gif) no-repeat top left;
}
blockquote p {
margin-top: 0;
}
abbr, acronym {
cursor: help;
font-style: normal;
border-bottom: 1px dotted;
}
code {
color: #f63;
}
hr {
display: none;
}
img {
border: none;
}
/* unordered list style */
ul {
list-style: none;
margin: 0 0 20px 30px;
padding: 0;
}
li {
list-style: none;
padding-left: 14px;
margin-bottom: 3px;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/tictac_orange.gif) no-repeat 0 6px;
}
/* links */
a:link {
color: #69c;
}
a:visited {
color: #666699;
}
a:hover {
color: #693;
}
a:active {
color: #cc3333;
text-decoration: none;
}
/* ---( layout structure )---*/
#wrap {
width: 993px;
margin: 0 auto;
text-align: left;
background: url(http://img94.exs.cx/img94/2220/background1000pxwideV2.gif) repeat-y;
}
#content {
margin-left: 30px; /* to avoid the BMH */
}
#main-content {
float: left;
width: 610px;
margin: 0 0 0 0;
padding: 15 0 0 0;
line-height: 1.5em;
}
#sidebar {
margin: 0 71px 0 664px;
padding: 20px 0 0 0;
font-size: 85%;
line-height: 1.4em;
color: #999;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/sidebar_bg.gif) no-repeat 25 0;
}
/* ---( header and site name )--- */
#blog-header {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-family: "Lucida Grande", "Trebuchet MS";
background: #e0e0e0 url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/top_div.gif) no-repeat top left;
}
#blog-header h1 {
margin: 0;
padding: 45px 60px 50px 160px;
font-size: 200%;
color: #fff;
text-shadow: #81A75B 2px 2px 2px;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/top_h1.gif) no-repeat bottom left;
}
#blog-header h1 a {
text-decoration: none;
color: #fff;
}
#blog-header h1 a:hover {
color: #eee;
}
/* ---( main column )--- */
h2.date-header {
margin-top: 0;
padding-left: 10px;
font-size: 90%;
color: #f93;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/date_icon.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;
}
h3.post-title {
margin-top: 0;
font-family: "Lucida Grande", "Trebuchet MS";
font-size: 130%;
letter-spacing: -1px;
color: #f63;
}
.post {
margin: 0 0 1.5em 0;
padding: 0 0 1.5em 14px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd;
}
.post-footer {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 0 0 14px;
font-size: 88%;
color: #999;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/tictac_grey.gif) no-repeat 0 8px;
}
.post img {
padding: 6px;
border-top: 1px solid #ddd;
border-left: 1px solid #ddd;
border-bottom: 1px solid #c0c0c0;
border-right: 1px solid #c0c0c0;
}
/* comment styles */
#comments {
padding-top: 10px;
font-size: 85%;
line-height: 1.5em;
color: #666;
background: #eee url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/comments_curve.gif) no-repeat top left;
}
#comments h4 {
margin: 20px 0 15px 0;
padding: 8px 0 0 40px;
font-family: "Lucida Grande", "Trebuchet MS";
font-size: 130%;
color: #666;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/bubbles.gif) no-repeat 10px 0;
height: 29px !important; /* for most browsers */
height /**/:37px; /* for IE5/Win */
}
#comments ul {
margin-left: 0;
}
#comments li {
background: none;
padding-left: 0;
}
.comment-body {
padding: 0 10px 0 25px;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/tictac_orange.gif) no-repeat 10px 5px;
}
.comment-body p {
margin-bottom: 0;
}
.comment-data {
margin: 4px 0 0 0;
padding: 0 10px 1em 60px;
color: #999;
border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/comment_arrow.gif) no-repeat 44px 2px;
}
.deleted-comment {
font-style:italic;
color:gray;
}
/* ---( sidebar )--- */
h2.sidebar-title {
margin: 0 0 0 0;
padding: 25px 0 0 50px;
font-family: "Lucida Grande", "Trebuchet MS";
font-size: 130%;
color: #666;
height: 32px;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/sidebar_icon.gif) no-repeat 20px 15px;
height: 32px !important; /* for most browsers */
height /**/:57px; /* for IE5/Win */
}
#sidebar ul, #sidebar p {
margin: 0;
padding: 5px 20px 1em 20px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd;
}
#sidebar li {
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/tictac_green.gif) no-repeat 0 5px;
}
/* profile block */
.profile-datablock {
margin: 0;
padding: 5px 20px 0 20px;
}
.profile-datablock dd {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
.profile-img img {
float: left;
margin: 0 10px 0 0;
padding: 4px;
border-top: 1px solid #ddd;
border-left: 1px solid #ddd;
border-bottom: 1px solid #c0c0c0;
border-right: 1px solid #c0c0c0;
background: #fff;
}
#sidebar p.profile-link {
padding-left: 36px;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/profile.gif) no-repeat 20px 4px;
}
p#powered-by, #sidebar p.profile-textblock {
margin-top: 1em;
border: none;
}
/* ---( footer )--- */
.clear { /* to fix IE6 padding-top issue */
clear: both;
height: 0;
}
#footer {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 0 9px 0;
font-size: 85%;
color: #ddd;
background: url(http://www.blogblog.com/tictac/bottom_sill.gif) no-repeat bottom left;
}
#footer p {
margin: 0;
padding: 20px 320px 20px 95px;
background: url(http://img83.exs.cx/img83/2407/bottomslashpiece932pxwidedone3.jpg) no-repeat top left;
}
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
@import url(http://www.blogger.com/css/navbar/classic.css);div.b-mobile {display:none;}
function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } }
Paragon
News That Matters,
Analysis of current events and all things important to the world.
The Web The Real Ordeal
On the "Death Tax"
The actual name is "Estate Tax", but that is of little importance.The official source on whether or not this tax is helpful.The very short: the tax is imposed only on the estates of rich people when they die. Congress decided to change it a few years back, and now Congress wants to change (or repeal) it again.The slightly longer: the tax is imposed on estates at the time of the holder's death. If the estate is worth less than $1.5 million, then it is free of tax. If it is worth more, a tax is imposed on its value over $1.5 million. The $1.5 million deductible will increase annually until 2009, at which point it will be at $3.5 million. In the year 2010, the deductible will be change to 'infinite', which means that there will be no estate tax. In 2011, the deductible will drop to $1 million – its value before Congress decided to contort it.The right wing has realized that this is a good time to get rid of the tax, and the left has realized this is a good time to complain about the rich getting richer while government sinks deeper into debt. This tax is a bit complicated, is a media topic, and has an emotional nickname. So, naturally, the facts are ignored in favor of slogans and irrationality. The intentions of the tax are good: to limit the inheritance of the obscenely wealthy in order to enrich the government, ensure that a few families cannot collect ungodly wealth over several generations, and thin out the population of bratty rich kids who feel entitled and try to ruin life for the rest of us. Unfortunately, the tax does not work. It collects more than 20 billion per year, but most of that would be paid in the form of income tax anyway. Additionally, the tax discourages long-term investment in favor of unnecessary consumption because the estate is valued based on market price (investments increase value over time, consumables decrease value over time). Also, the cost of implementing the tax drains most of the money it collects. So, this tax should be repelled. Its intentions were good, but it is incapable of fulfilling those intentions. (this blog was brought out of retirement for this post, and I honestly do not know if I will return to regular posting or permanently end this blog. I believe I have found a new reason to care about politics, but I do not know if that reason is enough to justify the time required).
posted by Chris Edwards at
8:40 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post  
Back from a short vacation
I have some good news and some bad news. I will start with the bad news.
I spent the last few days in Birmingham, Alabama – yes, during the hurricane. The "hurricane" didn't prove to be much several hours after landfall, but had enough power to provide an interesting show Sunday night. However, I doubt I will ever go back to Birmingham; I am under the impression that nothing gets done in the city except for the smallest amount necessary to distract people from the fact that nothing gets done. I must note, however, that the hotel staff was helpful and left me little reason to complain.
The best part of the trip was actually the flight. If it all possible, use Southwest airlines – you will not regret it. The plane left the terminal on time and was in the air in less than five minutes. Southwest actually schedules flights perfectly so that the runways are open when they need to be, and passengers are not forced to wait on the tarmac for hours (like other airlines are prone to require). I had to drive back to Cincinnati because the hurricane's remnants cancelled my flight, but that actually saved an hour in the long run.
Now, for the good news. I got a composite score of 33 on the ACT. In case you do not know, that is excellent. I am moderately pleased with myself. I would be happier, but the test required no real commitment except for a few hours of reading and filling in an answer sheet. So, the score has only wrapped another protective layer around my ego.
I need to figure out what I want to do with this blog. News and analysis is being done to death, and it is not worth the incredible amount of time required to write something original. I have a post on computer interfaces – a dreadfully boring subject – in the works, but I do not want to devote the blog to computer topics. What I will probably do is pick up some of the long-term news items and explain a subject that is important in the event. For example, I have studied military strategy in my free time for more than 6 months, so I may write a few pieces regarding US strategy in Iraq or why US strategy in Somalia (Black Hawk Down incident) was horrible.
posted by Chris Edwards at
2:50 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Happy 4th of July
Of course, I have a bit to say about the 4th of July. Have a great time celebrating the birth of your country by blowing up a small part of it!
posted by Chris Edwards at
8:08 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
We need an anti-virus virus.
In case you don't know, I am referring to computer viruses.
The easiest way to eliminate the threat of mydoom, sobig, and all the other viruses should be rather simple. Once those epidemic-type viruses are discovered, anti-virus companies like Symantec or McAffee should write a new virus which spreads in the same or better way than the epidemic viruses. Then, when the Symantec-made virus infects a computer that is also infected with mydoom, sobig, ect, the Symantec-virus removes mydoom/sobig/whatever.
Many of the problems caused by these viruses could have been avoided if computers were kept up-to-date and had anti-virus programs installed; such not only would have protected the computer, but also would have prevented the computer from spreading the virus to others. An anti-virus virus would use the same methods as harmful viruses to protect computers, without requiring the user to do anything.
I have found that people will rarely change their habits, even if it means protecting their computer and all of their software. Some companies do not realize this, and make products that require customers to change in order to make those products more effective (like sunscreen, which you are supposed to apply 30 minutes before going outside – most people apply it when they are already outside). The anti-virus virus that I described above does the correct thing: it gets the job done without requiring the customer to change. Mind you, the anti-virus virus would be spread to everyone indiscriminately, so there would be no actual customers, but the point is the same.
posted by Chris Edwards at
8:07 PM
|
1 comments
links to this post
US vows to keep internet in competent hands
Open note to the UN: SHUT UP! Everyone capable of rational thought knows you destroy everything you touch! Get your FILTHY, STINKING, hands off of my internet!Now I feel so much betterIn the News Of The Day, the US refused to give control of the internet over to countries like Sudan (genocide, corruption, and all-around death), Zimbabwe (kills white people, politically-caused starvation, and genocide), the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo (killed all the democratic people, then killed the rest of the people – the republic is just a term it holds on to, and genocide), North Korea (nukes, oppression, politically-caused starvation, deathcamps, and genocide in that let's-just-kill-everyone way), Venezuela (kills people from Columbia, the leader is a raving lunatic, horrible corruption, and just generally unfettered murder whenever government officials feel like it), China (murder of political opponents and people "not wearing enough red", extreme censorship of the internet, upwards of 95% of China's software is pirated, genocide when it comes to Tibet), Russia (upwards of 90% of software is pirated; one of the world's highest suicide rates; haven for software piracy, hacking, launching/controlling viruses, and spam), and a handful of others. What do all those countries have in common? Let's try a checklist of things that should not happen in a country, and determine how those nations stack up compared to the US.__ genocide__ civil war was started by government, rather than by a rebel group__ murder by government officials outside of law enforcement duties__ current leader assassinated predecessor__ current leader assassinated family of predecessor__ current leader assassinated appointed successor and/or family thereof__ political imprisonment__ silencing of anyone who opposes the government__ silencing of anyone who does not show enough support for the government__ corruption so common and extreme that no one tries to hide it__ the population is starving, but government officials are gaining weight__ companies are run by the government, rather than by qualified managers__ private property laws impotent when government officials say otherwise__ companies and/or parts of government are run by organized crime__ companies seized by government without adequate reason__ parts of government seized by other parts of government without adequate reason__ elections obviously rigged, but the government claims legitimacy__ elections obviously rigged, but government-controlled media proclaims legitimacy__ healthcare exists only in the capital – ie, for government officials only__ education exists only in the capital – ie, for government officials only__ government blames a nation thousands of miles away for all problems__ blamed foreign government sends million in aid__ aid sent by blamed foreign government ends up entirely in government's coffers__ UN sanctions are in place on country__ UN sanctions on country are circumvented__ country helps any other country circumvent UN sanctions placed on the other countryI believe the listed countries meet much of the criteria on the list. In other words: they are the type of countries that should have no international responsibilities whatsoever. But would any control of the internet actually be given to them; and if so, why? Strictly speaking, they would not get control of the internet (or more accurately, the Domain Name Service, which is the backbone of the internet). Rather, the non-profit company that controls the Domain Name Service (DNS) would be free of US oversite. Over time, however, it is likely that the company would be increasingly dragged into the UN's grasp, where it would be slaughtered in a fashion reminiscent of the BTK killer (maybe Jack The Ripper, for brits).Mind you, this would not be the first time the UN wrecks havoc with the internet. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – which appears to include everyone on the list above; yes, even North Korea – saw the internet as a problem waiting to be solved and is the creator of such notorious things. Such things include the "notice and takedown" rule, which requires internet service providers (ISPs) to remove any website that is claimed to display anything copyrighted without permission – no proof is needed, just the claim. The website will go down in a day, and can take weeks, sometimes even months, to get back up, and sometimes even require going to court. Scientologists have used this to remove thousands of websites which are critical to them, hence the everlasting battle Scientology Vs. The Internet. Diebold, which made voting machines for the 2004 election, claimed that leaked memos detailing Diebold's illegal response to voting machine failure were copyrighted and had websites which published the memos taken down. I do not believe the memos were copyrighted, but that does not matter in this particular law. Fortunately, WIPO's power is quite limited. If the UN injected its corruption, unreliability, and incompetence into the internet, then countries or groups of countries would use their own DNS servers, and break the internet into chunks. Those chunks may not be compatible with each other. Among the problems that have a good chance of occurring, that is probably the worst. The internet would not be killed, but it would be disjointed, and that would the global accessibility and freedom that makes the internet as great as it is.
posted by Chris Edwards at
1:56 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Nejad, the ultra-conservative, "won" Iran's election
Voter turnout appears to be around 0%.
This is bad. Very, very bad. Europe's strategy with Iran and its nuclear program has just backfired. Now, Europe will face an Iranian president who is little different from the Supreme Leader. Additionally, the Iranian people are probably furious; they know the election was a fraud, and almost none of them voted. In this 4-year term, there is ample time for a revolution. However, such a revolution will almost certainly be horrifically brutal and cost Iran much of its best and brightest, if it occours.
Regime Change Iran naturally is on top of this.
Publius Pundit also has some excellent reporting.
posted by Chris Edwards at
1:34 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Those things which matter, part 2
Supreme Court rules that private land can be seized and turned over to private developers. The 5-4 ruling, which is deeply controversial and will be subject to incredible debate, was against a group of New London, Connecticut, homeowners who refused to sell their homes so an office building, riverfront hotel, and other commercial structures. The court ruled that, just as government can force the sale of private property to make way for public (government) projects, private developers can also force the sale of property if the project serves a "public good". Interestingly, it was the left-leaning portion of the court that determined private property can be subject to eminent domain-like laws, while the right wind opposed. Of course, (Justice Stevens) wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit.…In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.""Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.source.my take: I have long held the belief that individuals and companies (or, more accurately, executives acting on behalf of companies) should have comparable rights. This system no longer exists, because one man who has a company in his name now has rights over his neighbor.This decision reeks of private interest and the unjust confiscation of private property from the now-defenseless for the benefit of the rich. There are few, if any, cases where a private developer's plans can be said to not be for the public good. Also, private developers do not always achieve, or even follow, their plans. There is no recourse if the developer lies about its intentions; at least, any recourse is buried in the law and analysts have yet to find it. The corruption and theft made possible by this ruling is easy for me to see: a land developer realizes that an area will increase significantly in value over the next several years, so it forces homeowners in the area to sell their land at its current (and low) price. After spending little on the land, which has increased in value due to outside influences, the developer can sell the land for a notable profit. Thus, the homeowners are cheated out of the increase in land value. However, there is an important possibility that the court has ignored. Citizens, either individually or as a group, cannot force a developer to give up land, even if that developer is destroying the land (in which case kicking the developer out is in the public interest). I believe that the political split, with the left favoring big business and the right favoring the poor, private citizen (literally, in this case) is incredibly revealing. Most liberals, when reading O'Connor's comments, would swear that republicans decided to favor big business.I predict that the majority of Americans will disagree, quite strongly, with the court's decision. As a result, democrats in congress may be forced to yield and allow more of Bush's nominees to pass. With any luck, Congress will pass a constitutional amendment that cancels the court's decision.House approves anti-flag burning amendment. The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.…Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment. "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment." But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."…By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.The amendment has been attempted several times in the past, but could not pass both houses. Congress first attempted to outlaw flag desecration after a Supreme Court ruling in 1989 (5 justices for, 4 justices against) which determined flag desecration is a form of free speech. After the ruling, and Congress's federal ban on flag desecration, nearly 1000 American flags were burnt in Washington, DC, as a protest. Among the protestors was the man who won the original Supreme Court case; several of the participants were arrested, and the Supreme Court again overturned the federal law. The Supreme Court is not able to overturn any part of the Constitution, so passage of this amendment will be final – unless another amendment removes it. Republicans may use this amendment, and their support of it, as a show of patriotism and to claim opponents are anti-American. Democrats may claim that republicans are destroying a freedom of expression to garner political support, and that the freedom which the flag represents is more important that the preservation of the physical flag. source. My take: sadly, this issue will be clouded with politics. Some may claim that flag burning is similar to cross burning because it is reminiscent of terroristism like cross burning references the Klan. 9/11, to republicans, appears to be the perfect reason that this measure should pass now where it failed years ago. However, democrats are exactly right – at least thus far. 9/11 did not teach Americans that the flag is sacred. Rather, it taught us that our freedom is sacred, while our symbols are expendable. Further, from our observations of the Muslim world, we see how veneration for a symbol or belief can cause us to destroy our own freedoms and, by extension, our way of life. Democrats will be shocked to find themselves in the majority, and with some of the most ardent and right-thinking conservatives backing them up. I can not wait to see the horror on a few republicans' faces. Democrats may argue that flag burning, though stupid, is a freedom, and stupidity is not illegal in America. Americans reluctantly cherish their ability to protest in any fashion they want, and are determined to keep those freedoms for the minor chance that they must be used. America maintains a huge military for the same reason; we do not need such incredible power, but we have it 'just in case'. The left's arguments will be especially influential with conservatives, who have often claimed "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it".Personal note: I cannot describe how much I care about this issue. I fear that a blind, unthinking search for patriotism may result in the passage of this amendment. I wrote this letter to my congressman: Dear sir,I have long followed the slogan "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it". However, I believe the proposed constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag attacks this critical part of America. I value my rights, and though I never plan to use them to their furthest extent, I wish to preserve them "just in case".I believe the majority of my fellow Americans will be glad to abandon partisan differences to defend this right because it exemplifies our tolerance for that with which we disagree. Contrary to popular belief, 9/11 did not teach us to be nationalist or to venerate the flag. Rather, it forced us to examine the middle east, where we saw the horrors caused by abandoning freedoms in favor of an ideology. Sir, you may believe that banning flag desecration may be a way to support America's troops. I am sorry to inform you that this belief is tragic. America's troops are not fighting for the flag, they are fighting for freedom. Banning flag desecration would kill in the homeland what our troops are fighting for in the front lines.Please, seek to understand that freedom is the basis of the American way of life. Reduction of any freedom destroys a part of this way of life, and no claim of patriotism will ever serve as an excuse. Please carefully consider the issue and tell your congressmen what you think. It is imperative that America's politicians see how the American people understand this issue.By the way, the Republicans' easy way out of this fiasco: non-flammable flags.
posted by Chris Edwards at
8:47 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Those things that matter; June 23rd, 2005:
The majority of Americans think Gitmo is fine. 36% claim prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (45% of republicans, 28% of democrats), another 34% say treatment is "about right". 20 percent of the US thinks that prisoners are treated unfairly (7% of republicans, 30% of democrats, and 22% unregistered). Additionally, 14% agree that prisoner treatment is similar to nazi tactics. 69% disagree with Durbin's comments.
source.
Possible bias: ordering of the questions and differences in numbers of registered republicans and democrats could tilt the poll either way. This is probably contained within the 3% margin of error.
A US U2 spyplane crashed in the United Arab Emirates, killing the pilot. The exact location of the airplane is not being released, possibly because the US does not want to risk the capture of any advanced technologies.
source.
Iraq will officially restore relations with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
source.
my notes: it is extremely unlikely that all relations between Iraq and its neighbors were entirely ended. Rather, the embassies continued operations, but the head ambassador was removed as a sign of disapproval. Continued embassy operations allows for routine communication and emergencies, so it is a common practice to continue diplomatic operations, despite the absence of the head ambassador. Thus, this restoration may be mostly symbolic.
A police officer was beaten to death, or died of a heart attack influenced by being beaten, by anti-genetically modified food protestors and "we want to skateboard in this park" protestors in Philadelphia. The officer was a 17-year veteran of the force, and fell during a tussle with the protestors. While on the ground, the officer was either kicked to death or kicked while dying from a heart attack, or some other medical problem that was set off by being beaten. A few of the protestors expressed remorse, but many only complained that they are being called cop killers. The officer was black (I will explain why I mention this later).
No national news paper has reported this; Fox News gave it a brief mention once (to the best of my knowledge). The story was reported only in the Metro or Local section of a Philadelphia newspaper. Radio host Glenn Beck spoke about the story for a notable portion of his 3-hour talkshow and read an email from a police officer who described the death. Major news networks in Philadelphia have a tape of the beating and death, but refuse to show it, nor even mention the story.
My notes: If a black man was beaten by a white officer, on tape, the story would cover the national news for days. I can prove it. Do you remember the name Donovan Jackson? Well, CNN keeps an article, which should bring back memories of a black teen being slammed against the hood of a police car and punched in the face. In that case, the teen did not die – he didn't have any permanent injuries, in fact. The story developed over the national news for at least a week, and caused an uproar on both sides of the political isle. The left claimed brutality, the right claimed the cops were set-up by the teen and the man who filmed the incident, who was allegedly a friend of the beaten teen. My thanks to CNN for using the server space to keep articles that are nearly three years old. Records of daily news events are, in truth, rare, and most services charge a subscription for access to old articles.
The media should play fair and report this story. However, because protestors committed the crime, the much of the media refuses. I know first-hand that the media loves left-wing protests, but will ignore right-wing protests like the plague, no matter the size nor subject. This is despicable. The news media exists to report what is happening in the world; its job is to give the facts to the public, with as little distortion or interference as possible. From there, the public can use analysts' opinions or conclusions, or develop their own beliefs with similar access to the facts as the analyst. Thus, the public reaches the best conclusions that it can, because it can pick from a wide range of opinions and the basic understanding of events is accurate.
Those are the important stories, to the best of my limited knowledge, of today. Additional reports will be added in later posts, if possible.
posted by Chris Edwards at
2:39 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
terrorists killing each other, for a change
From the New York Times:Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.A United Nations official who served in Iraq last year and who consulted widely with militant groups said in a telephone interview that there has been a split for some time."There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."The nationalist insurgent groups, "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the Jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added. The insurgency is largely hidden, making such trends difficult to discern. But marines in this western outpost have noticed a change. For Matthew Orth, a Marine sniper, the difference came this spring, when his unit was conducting an operation in Husayba. Mortar shells flew over the unit, hitting a different target."The thought was, "They're coming for us. But then we saw they were fighting each other," he recalled during a break in Monday's operation. "We were kind of wondering what happened. We were getting mortared twice a day, and then all of a sudden it stopped."Disagreement between Iraqi rebels and insurgent jihadists started not long after the US took Baghdad, but the differences were relatively minor. It was solved in large part, perhaps, by the two groups not working together. However, the jihadist's new tactic of executing random, innocent civilians has infuriated the Iraqi rebels. In short, the insurgent's targeting of civilians is causing their own downfall, for an abundance of reasons. Amir Taheri, by far my favorite analyst, has a wonderful article on the debate of tattarrus - the justification of killing innocents, including Muslims. As you probably know, Zarqawi has come out in favor of killing just about anyone, but more sane people have concluded that reckless murder is morally wrong in many ways. The later seems to be winning the debate by virtue of not having its greatest supporters blow themselves up, and because the average civilian tends to not like the threat of being murdered by lunatics. So, a hattip to the minds who helped create this in-fighting amongst the terrorists, or at least to those who work to preserve Iraq until the terrorists kill each other or themselves out. I wonder if the terrorists may qualify for the first group-wide Darwin Award.
posted by Chris Edwards at
7:59 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
Iran's Election
It is difficult to pick between 7 identical candidates, especially when you hoped to pick one of the thousand disqualified by Iran's clergy. As a result, many have decided to not pick a candidate at all – by not voting – in order to drive down voter turnout. The Iranian media is showing video from last year's election and Iranian officials are forcing or bribing people to vote in the few locations that the western media is allowed to cover – every reporter is followed by a thug who ensures that the journalist, like the Iranian people, is thoroughly intimidated. To make up for dismal turnout, Iran has likely printed millions of pre-filled ballots. And, the winners were announced before the election ended – even though all ballot boxes were locked and exit polls most likely didn't exist because voters would say whatever they were told to say by Iran's thugs. No matter who wins, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will still control Iran. Khatami, the outgoing president, saw his reforms crushed by the Council of Guardians, a hardline group of unelected religious leaders, and Khamenei. It is the knowledge of the fallacy of Iranian democracy and the exploitation of the turnout last election that has largely prevented voters from leaving their homes this time. Unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, among the first to vote, told Iranians they would be endorsing not just their chosen candidate, but their country’s Islamic system.“Whoever you vote for among those seven candidates, it’s a vote for him, the Islamic republic and the constitution,” he said after using a special ballot box at his official residence.For this reason, most are avoiding the election (hattip to Publius Punbdit).The leaders in credible coverage are, naturally, blogs: Regime Change Iran, Publius Pundit, and Willisms. The later two cover polling stations placed in the US, another of Iran's efforts to make the election appear more credible. A .pdf of the 40 polling stations in the US is here. Willisms has photos and the story of how he almost got arrested by the thugs around one ballot box stationed in the US. Personally, I am awaiting responses from the two hotels that hosted sites in Ohio. The Word Unheard also has notable comments. Update: Willisms has his video here and Publius Pundit does a wonderful job describing his interview of an election monitorTurnout at the US-based locations is dismally low, just as it is low in Iran – at least in the voting stations that are not surrounded by western reporters. An account of what Iranians are seeing of elections is
|
|
