November 30, 2005
Whose Ox?
The LA Times has a piece today describing US military propaganda efforts in Iraq. Apparently, the military is using the Iraqi press to disseminate its message under cover of "unbiased news articles." Imagine that. Let's see how few words in the story one has to change to recap the crimes of the Times and other mainstream media in their "unbiased" promulgation of leftist cant about the war.
| As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. | As part of an information offensive in America, the anti-war left is secretly supplying US newspapers with stories written by radical anti-American writers in an effort to tarnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. and foreign "peace activists", are translated into English and placed in American newspapers with the help of major wire services, according to anti-war activists and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. | |
| Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year. | Many of the articles are presented in the American press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories denounce the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, trumpet insurgents and tout al-Qaeda-led efforts to destabilize the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect well on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that activists have convinced US newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "41 Iraqis, 2 U.S. Soldiers Slain as Days Darken Before Election" since the effort began this year. | |
| The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption. | The anti-war movement's effort to disseminate propaganda in the American media is taking place even as U.S. newspapers are pretending to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in an Iraq emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption. | |
| The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public. | The left's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public. |
etc
UPDATE: More at Protein Wisdom, "You Big Mouth, You", and VodkaPundit.
November 26, 2005
One Less Tree
It's pretty windy over here in West LA. Lost most of a eucalyptus tree. Luckily it missed everything when it came down.
November 20, 2005
Most Offensive LA Times Cartoon Ever
The LA Times has finally managed to publish a cartoon more offensive than anything the execrable Ted Rall has done. Quite an accomplishment, actually. In a crafty take on the "Jews-eating-babies" theme, Joel Pett suggests that Dick Cheney and his running-dog accomplices cheerfully eat a live "detainee" for Thanksgiving dinner. Such is the enlightened discourse of the day.
November 09, 2005
Secret CIA Prison Exposed!
Varifrank interviews John Drake, a recent escapee from the CIA's secret "Villiage", somewhere in Eastern Europe. Funny!!! [Unfortunately, Varifrank's Typekey interface is broken, so comments are not possible]
November 08, 2005
Putting Self Over Party
Two Republican Congressmen who opposed Prop 77 against the interests of Republican voters are John Doolittle (CA 4th) and David Dreier(CA 26th). According to Bob Hertzberg, who was then Assembly Speaker, Dreier was the Republican who cut the gerrymander deal with the Democrats, and John Doolittle seems to have single-handedly delivered his solidly Republican northern California counties to the NO column. Why? They feel it is more important that the current crop of Republican legislators stay in office than support their Governor and Party. Party traitors, if you ask me.
Both are likely, for various reasons, to have opposition in the primaries. Once the opponents file and are accepting donations, I plan to post images of my checks here. And no, I really don't care who their primary opponents are.
League of Commie Voters?
It's interesting to note that the League of Women Voters is considered a Progressive group by "progressives." Their ballot reccomendations matched nicely with those of Moveon.org and other leftist wackos. Is there some way we can get the message out that they are no longer a "Good Government" group, but rather just another left-wing front?
Prop 77 - Let's try something much simpler
I'm watching Prop 77 go down to defeat, a victim of its own complexity. So complex its own authors got confused over which draft was which. Too bad for California.
Since I cannot believe that the voters actually think rigging elections is a good idea, even when "their" side does it, I have a humble suggestion: Just ban gerrymanders. So, I'd like some comments, especially by attorneys among the blogosphere, on language and form. Here's what I have so far, and it's probably already too long.
Constitutional Amendment: Add new section 2 to Article 21:Article 21 - REAPPORTIONMENT OF SENATE, ASSEMBLY, CONGRESSIONAL AND BOARD OF EQUALIZATION DISTRICTS
SECTION 1. In the year following the year in which the national
census is taken under the direction of Congress at the beginning of
each decade, the Legislature shall adjust the boundary lines of the
Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization
districts in conformance with the following standards:(a) Each member of the Senate, Assembly, Congress, and the Board
of Equalization shall be elected from a single-member district.(b) The population of all districts of a particular type shall be
reasonably equal.(c) Every district shall be contiguous.
(d) Districts of each type shall be numbered consecutively
commencing at the northern boundary of the State and ending at the
southern boundary.(e) The geographical integrity of any city, county, or city and
county, or of any geographical region shall be respected to the
extent possible without violating the requirements of any other
subdivision of this section.Section 2. Gerrymanders prohibited.
a) No reapportionment is valid if its intent or clear effect is to produce a gerrymander favoring or disfavoring voters on the basis of race, ethnicity, political party registration or historic voting pattern.b) No reapportionment is valid if its intent or clear effect is to maximize the number of non-competitive districts.
c) The California Supreme Court shall review each decennial reapportionment after adoption for compliance with this article.
d) Considerations required by federal law are exempted. No federal consent decree may be entered into by the state that abridges this article. The Attorney General shall defend this article whenever challenged.
November 07, 2005
Prop 77: It's this simple...
After listening to all the arguments for and against Prop 77, it all boils down to this:
If you believe that democracy is helped by biasing elections towards one side, you should vote NO. If you believe that incumbents should be allowed to pick their voters, then you should vote NO. If you believe that California should wait on reform until states like Texas reform first, then you should vote NO.
On the other hand, if you believe that fair elections matter more than your side winning, if you believe that legislators should be freely chosen by the voters, if you believe that California should lead the nation in reform, and not follow -- then you have a duty to democracy to vote YES.
Update: Clark Smith reminds me of this earlier Interocitor post, which goes into details