The left is finding new ways to be petty

Why is Bush bad for America?
Because he is obsessed with excercise. No, I'm not kidding.
The LA Times own Jonathan Chait is in a huff:

Earlier this year, an airplane wandered into restricted Washington air space. Bush, we learned, was bicycling in Maryland. In 2001, a gunman fired shots at the White House. Bush was inside exercising. When planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, Bush was reading to schoolchildren, but that morning he had gone for a long run with a reporter. Either this is a series of coincidences or Bush spends an enormous amount of time working out.

Uh huh. And he always smells good. What's that about?

American press reminded of how a totalitarian government works

Andrea Mitchell of NBC is in a huff today.
She was treated rudely by the government of Sudan.

Now before this gets misinterpreted, I'm not saying that Sudan was right for treating her bad. It just amazes me how our journalists think that they are protected by the first amendment, even when in Sudan. Andrea said, according to Yahoo:

"I would rather see them live up to their promises," she said. "What they did to me is not important. They can't control my life."

Andrea... you were not in the U.S.. You can't claim that our government should protect you, all while criticizing the way the government goes about taking down dictatorships. When you are in Sudan, they can control your life. It was only the incredible power of the US defense industry that kept you from becoming a sex slave in a Sudanese prison, today.
Please sleep on that.

Writing an Op-Ed, NY Times style

Whenever I talk to people about the NY Times, I focus on what they read in on the editorial page. Not the page that is written by guests, but the one that is written by the actual editors, containing the opinion of "the paper." As I've pointed out to many people, you can find out just how liberal the NY Times is by reading their editorials.

But sometimes, you can get how liberal the NY Times is by reading their Op-Ed pieces too. Particularly when the NYT re-writes the Op-Eds to change the tone.

In this case, the following correction appeared in the NY Times

The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

Curious?
Sure, you would be. I mean, how would they incorrectly get the impression that Phillip Carter, the person writing the article wrote: "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders..."
Or the phrase "surprise tour of Iraq"
See, this is the thing. The NY Times called him up and suggested those phrases. Let me repeat. The NY Times called him up and suggested those phrases.
Its pretty clear to me that they wanted to make him sound bitter about being called up on reserve. This is how the NY Times defended themselves against such a charge:

"We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers. We do not impose language on them - if they want something out or something in, we accede to their wishes. They have final sign-off"

They don't ty to impose language on them? They clarify copy? Bullshit. Adding in the phrase "Imagine my surprise" is not "clarifying," and the editors at the NY Times know it.
But Carter didn't bite. He said "no" and the NY Times meant to change it back to his original wording. Only they forgot to, and the article went up online. Carter caught it, and told them to kill it before it went to print.

This, the NY Times did, and much to their credit.
What isn't to their credit is that they are suggesting wording in a piece that clearly changes its meaning. If you never believed that they were liberal before, this should at least give you pause.

By the way...

...has anyone noticed that since Rove was named in the investigation, there's been no push for a shield law?
Is anyone surprised?

Hillary worried about hidden sex...

...And this time, it has nothing to do with her husband.
According to the NY Times, in an article called,
Clinton Urges Inquiry Into Hidden Sex in Grand Theft Auto Game :

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling on federal regulators to investigate the latest version of Grand Theft Auto, a popular video game series that allows players to go on simulated crime sprees.

And...

...Mrs. Clinton expressed concern over reports that anyone who used a free code downloaded over the Internet could unlock sexually graphic images hidden inside the game...

I love how the left always accuses Republicans of being uptight about sex, but when the left wants to run for office, suddenly they have a moral compass on such things.
Remember when Gore's wife Tipper wanted to get rid of music with dirty lyrics? I do.
I guess that's what Democratic wives do. They get upset about all of that nasty stuff (that their hubbies are engaging in.)
Anyway, as we all know Miss Hillary Rodham, its "just about sex." Sound like a familiar phrase?

Things that make you say, WHAT???

Apparently, there is a group planning to march on Washington August 13th, regarding prisoners. Not prisoners in Gitmo, mind you. Although I'm sure they got their inspiration from the "Close Gitmo!" crowd. These people want prisoners released from jail.
"What?", you say.
They want prisoners released from jail. Here is the best line from their statement:

This is a day for us to meet each other, and show our leaders that we demand justice.

They want justice. This isn't sarcasm, folks. Its not my idea of a bad web joke. They are going to Lafayette Park and they are going to march. Felons, and friends of felons. It should be a great time. Who wants to go? I do! I do!
But wait. ... There's more:

On July 12, 2005, David Losa of FACTS (Families to Amend California's Three Strikes) will embark on an epic Bicycle Journey for Justice, a 3,000 mile ride from his home in Santa Barbara, CA, arriving in Washington D.C. just in time for the FMI March on Washington.

I sincerely hope it doesn't happen. But wouldn't it be funny if his bike was stolen on his way to this event?
Normally, I think its a blast to go to these types of events, and take photos of the nuttier people in this world. But I will not be attending this one. I... uh... have laundry to do.

Yet more evidence clearing Rove

After Rove spoke to Matt Cooper, the journalist from Time magazine, he zipped off an e-mail to Stephen Hadley, a deputy national security advisor. According to My way news:

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.

Note: Cooper called Rove. Just as Novak called Rove.
Already, this makes it harder to argue that Rove was calling around to reporters and telling them that there was a spy they needed to report on.
But wait. There's more.

"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

Meaning, its exactly what Rove has said; that he was correcting the lie that Wilson was propagating about Niger. Wilson said that Iraq wasn't trying to get uranium from Niger in an editorial. Rove told the reporter that he was wrong.

This whole story is completely collapsing in on the left, and its pretty funny to watch. As more and more evidence escapes that Rove is innocent, the left has changed their strategy to adapt.

Now the argument is that it wasn't Rove, but the "Bigger Picture" of our involvement in Iraq, etc. Etc. Etc.

Another words, how were they to know that they were going off the deep end? Again?

The Rove thing explodes. In the face of liberals.

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

That article, in itself, should close the door on whether Rove outed a CIA agent.
Its been a pretty funny day watching liberals tripping over their own feet, backpedaling.

So let's do a quick overview of what we've learned.

The left felt that it was Rove who outed Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent.
But Victoria Toensing, one of the people who helped write the law, doubts that charge in a NY Times article:

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

Toensing also said that "We made it exceedingly difficult to violate" the law.

There are a lot of people calling for Rove's firing. The NY Times said:

Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004.

This is the actual text of what the president said:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

That's not exactly the same as a simple "Yes," but I digress.

The New York Times has started to refer to her as Valerie Wilson, instead of Valerie Plame. Curious, that.

Mr. Bush's comment came nearly two years after he suggested that he would fire anyone in his administration who had knowingly leaked the identity of the operative, Valerie Wilson. Her naming has led to a federal grand jury investigation.

Huh. So after Rove says that he didn't name her, she is suddenly Ms. Wilson. Yep.
Up until a few days ago, the NY Times kept referring to her as Valerie Plame. Now, suddenly, she's taken on her hubbies name by the press?

Oh, and just for reference, this is what the Washington Post said about Wilson's claims a while back:

He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

More later, when I have time to type in all of my links.

The "Shield" problem, and the Plame leak

I took a journalism class or two at a local community college.

I say this, because I don't want to sound flippant about the "need for confidentiality" when it comes to reporting. I think that far too often, the concept of reporter privilege is overused. For that matter, I don't get it in the first place. Why should a reporter have any greater ability to keep something confidential then an ordinary citizen?
Yet, some liberals are now arguing for a "shield law" that will protect reporters from having to reveal their sources.

While thinking about this, I read an article today about a journalist named Cooper who is going to reveal his source. The source gave him the go-ahead, so now he's going to talk to the judge.
I believe that the liberal demand for a "shield law" will depend on the name that he gives the judge.
A number of reporters are saying that the source was Karl Rove. I think this is ridiculous, because I can't see two liberal organizations protecting Karl Rove, even if they *did* promise confidentiality. However, if Cooper emits the words "Karl Rove", I don't think that liberals will continue to argue for a "shield law."
On the other hand, if Cooper says "Wesley Clark" or "Joe Wilson", or someone liberal, the demand for a shield law is going to explode overnight.

That's my prediction. Let's see what happens.

Mainly, for when Rove had planes flown into buildings

Sometimes you read something on a blog, and you think to yourself...
"Are they serious?"

The headline from Proud Liberal

karl rove: worse than osama bin laden

This, from a person who claims to be into "Peace, tolerance, and the common good"

Proud liberal not only thinks that Rove is responsible for the Plame leak (as the press has blithely jumped on that bandwagon), but he/she thinks he was ordered to do it:

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for.

Uh huh. yeah. right.
Man, I cannot wait for the 2008 elections.


-John

Happy Birthday America

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

-The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

My father is probably the man responsible for helping me appreciate the above quote. As a great fan of the founding fathers of our country, he explained to me how much they were putting on the line. These were men of privilage. They could have gone on to live comfortable lives, but instead, they risked it all for the dream of freedom.
On the other hand, I don't think I really got it until recently. Its hard to go back in time 200 years and imagine what that was like. Its too abstract. There are no pictures of it happening. Until January of 2005.

I don't want to violate APs Andrew Parson's copyright, but I want to link to his photo, here.
This year, Iraq's citizens proved the pesimists wrong. They went out and risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour on the road to freedom.
Its difficult for me to comprehend the shift in mindset of these brave people. Up until recently, they lived in constant fear of a brutal regime who would torture people who were suspected of speaking against the ruling party. And I'm not talking about "Gitmo torture." I'm talking about having your ears, arm, or tongue cut off, electric shocks to the genitals, and/or having your daughter raped in front of you. This is the type of torture that you can't believe existed, until you see the photos of those who are missing ears and hear them tell their stories through tears.
Yet, in the face of terrorists who threatened to behead anyone who voted, the Iraqi people did.

In our country, a good vote turnout is 40% of the populace.
In Iraq, their turnout was between 60% to 70%.

Some people complain that we need to get out of Iraq. To those people, I ask why our own soldiers who are in Iraq are so committed to this cause. When polled, the vast majority of those men and women in service to our country support giving Iraqis a chance at freedom.
Our own brave soldiers are risking their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour to help Iraq become a country free of tyranny.
That is nobility.
That is a higher calling then our own selfish interests.
Its something to be damn proud of.

On this July 4th, I celebrate the freedom to sit here comfortably on a nice chair, in front of my nice computer, and spout my opinion to the world on a network for speech, that was originally a network for the department of defense.
I celebrate the people who are thousands of miles away; wearing my countries colors, with sand in their food and a 110 degree temperature in the daytime, 90 degrees at night. Despite the random bombs and mortars, criticism and pessimism, those men and woman say that we need to finish the job. I celebrate their honour.

Finally, I celebrate the Iraqi people. I sincerely hope that someday soon, they celebrate their own version of the 4th of July. I hope to see them dancing in the streets again, as I did when they voted, dancing to the tune of freedom.
Let freedom ring.
Let freedom ring.

-John

SC's remaining 8 and Time's bias

I was reading Time magazine's article on the remaining 8 Supreme Court justices, and it sounded like there was some kind of media bias going on. But it took me a moment to nail it.

The conservative justices are described as... conservative justices. A sample:

• "who leans conservative" (Rehnquist)
• "A favorite son of the conservative movement" "has attempted repeatedly to strike down Roe v. Wade" (Scalia)
• "...has earned a reputation as a conservative" (Thomas)

The liberal justices are listed as:

• "a pragmatist..." "...preferring to consider the impact of law on the lives of everyday people" (Breyer)
• "...known for her commitment to striking down laws that treat men and women differently" (Ginsburg)
• "most influential moderate" (Souter)
• "A true independent" "but he always considers the effects of a ruling on society" (Stevens)

Kennedy was listed as:

• "A moderate..." "...seems uninterested in making larger political statements."

Now granted, under Breyer, it says that he "...often sides with the liberal wing of the Court: Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens" but it struck me how every conservative was specifically listed as conservative. The other justices "consider everyday people", are moderates and independents.

This is pretty much the template for the way the media covers conservatives. We are conservative. They are considerate, and are independent thinkers.

-John