Tom Cruise is losing his best Co-Star

The F-14 Tomcat are due to be retired on September 22, 2006.

Link here.

Our Responsibility to our Media: Redux

It would be too much to say that Malkin is getting on board, but it’s good to hear the words:

You tell me: What exactly is the journalistic value of having Hussein hanging out in the desert with civilian-slaughtering terrorists and snapping Theater of Jihad glamour shots for them? Why doesn’t the American media leave that job to as Sahab, al Qaeda’s media production unit, and its analogues?

Urging news organizations to think twice about being used as tools in the terrorists’ propaganda war isn’t “thuggery.” It’s responsible journalism and responsible citizenry. Oops, did I say a bad word?

This is what I was talking about here. It is incumbent to our victory on the GWOT that the Western Media take a reflective look at what they are doing and why they are doing it.

From my earlier piece:

The Press is the force multiplier for the groups who now call themselves the enemies of the West, and so there is no better place to draw a line in the sand.

The Western Free Press, in all of its iterations from the blogosphere to Reuters to AP to CNN to Fox, can and should acknowledge:

1. that it needs to put in controls to deal with questionable sources so that there are no more Hajj-like replays.
2. that it is an essential aspect of the terrorist’s method and strategy, and should allow for that in their editorial decisions.
3. that a Free Press can and could do damage to the West, and to its War on Terror.
4. that its best interests lie with the interests of the West, and that to fundamentally damage one is to damage the other.

It’s not pie in the sky to want a free and responsible press, and they are no more mutually exclusive than the Blogosphere is.

The Pope is riding the fence Politically, but not Religiously

I could spend several pages covering why I think Benedict is right on religiously in his recent remarks about Islam and its consuming volunteerism. I went into some length here as to why I felt like his remarks were carefully measured. I discussed the connection between his speech and the dearth of philosophical leadership in the West here, making the case that the Pope was drawing the philosophical lines that need to be drawn for the West and the East. Of course, most telling of all was the reaction by Islam at large: shock(!) and outrage(!) here.

Now he’s still not apologizing:

Pope Benedict said on Wednesday that his use of medieval quotes portraying a violent Islam did not reflect his views and were misunderstood, but he did not give the clear apology still demanded by many Muslims.

The leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, whose speech last week has provoked al Qaeda groups to declare war on the Church, Iraqis to burn the Pope’s effigy and Turks to petition for his arrest, said he had not meant to cause offence.

That is a very political way of saying that he meant what he said. Every apology that he has made has been the same: the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is right to understand that this is no apology at all.

But in that recognition, they are missing the bigger point of course.

“For the careful reader of my text it is clear that I in no way wanted to make mine the negative words pronounced by the medieval emperor and their polemical content does not reflect my personal conviction,” he said.

His said his intention had been to “explain that religion and violence do not go together but religion and reason do.” He said he hoped the furor could help encourage “positive and even self-critical dialogue.”

As I made clear, he was attacking the West’s uneasy relationship with Christianity first and foremost in the speech. But it was also clear that he wished this point to be understood in the context of Islam’s own ecclesiastical fall. The message seems clear enough: the West cannot come to grips with its need to destroy evil if it cannot distinguish evil from good, and the means of making that distinction lie in the West’s evolved religions.

If anything, Benedict was being dismissive of Islam.

Islamo-fascists are right to be concerned of course – America would be dangerous if she were decisive. And they would be doomed if America were both decisive and guided by a clear conceptualization of good vs. evil.

The UN: Just like your Middle School

I guess that everyone must think this is very cute, and how wonderful it is that world leaders can cut up, share a laugh, grow.

Given that the US was paying for this venomous pile of bilge to speak to the UN – and by paying I mean in GDP-related man hours, federal tax dollars, and prime Turtle Bay Real Estate – I think its time to demand an official and comprehensive apology. This needs to come from both the Assembly at large for their peanut-gallery style chuckles and from the murderous thug Chavez himself.

Hungarian Socialists Lie to win Elections

Thanks to Krakatoa, we know that the Hungarian Government is having a little PR problem.

Wait …. not a PR problem per se … a problem with lying to their constituents for 18 months.

The protests were triggered by a recording that surfaced Sunday. In it, the Socialist prime minister admitted lying “morning, evening and night” about the economy to win April elections.

Communists and Socialists have to lie to win elections, because the facts don’t bear them out. And you know, the problem with lying about the economy is that you have to be sophisticated about it. Because people know whether they’re doing badly or not.

In the recording leaked Sunday to local media, Gyurcsany could be heard admitting that his government coalition, the first in post-communist Hungary to win re-election, had lied about the economy — keeping it afloat through “hundreds of tricks” and thanks to “divine providence.” … “We screwed up. Not a little, a lot,” Gyurcsany was heard saying. “No European country has done something as boneheaded as we have. … I almost died when for a year and a half we had to pretend we were governing. Instead, we lied morning, evening and night,” he told his fellow Socialists.

“Divine Providence” … that must have hurt.

Krakatoa opines:

Funny how easily the left uses that particular scheme to get elected all over the world. (Clinton’s ’92 campaign lies, and of course the endless lies & media slant all during Bush’s presidency.)

Funny how easily it could be avoided if the worldwide media wasn’t complicit in it.

I am shocked (shocked!) that you would imply that the Democratic Party are a) Socialists, and b) in league with the horrible media. Why the media are the scourge of the earth, Sir, and I will not sit by and tolerate this insensitive madness. Democrats are incorruptable, by damn.

Good Day Sir!

Jedi Squirrels

I don’t think this picture really needs any explanation. But I think that it’s time that the world knew … they’re here.

David Gregory – Entangled

Even Hot Air is muscling in on my act and putting NBC’s David Gregory in the spot light. Why? Because he continues to be a jack ass.
I preserve the entire transcript here for two reasons: Bush, who supposedly can’t talk without reading the text from a comic book, does a nice job of dealing with this guy. And secondly, Bush’s point is well taken re: the detainees at Gitmo and the Detainee Detention Act.

But note that at the end, DG is still a jack ass as he insists on trying to make his non-point. Bush does some nice jiu-jitsu to get him to STFU.

The Conversation of the West – The Pope as a Western Leader

This last week has had one major headline … that the Pope has angered Muslims the world over with his comments at the University of Regensburg (full text).

There are two points that are not being made clear about this. A number of observers are quick to dismiss Benedict’s comments, to diffuse them and despoil them in their references to Islam. The implication is that he did not know what he was saying, that his comments need context in order to instill full comprehension. In fact, this speech wasn’t about Islam alone, but about how the West must first reconcile Religion and Reason (already done). Only by each Faith’s resolution to these essential issues can we save both.

The Disputed “Path to 9-11” Scenes

Red State has the disputed videos available in Quicktime format. As I won’t destroy my computer by loading this demon application, I won’t be able to watch until somebody gets it in an open format. RS also links the letters that the Clinton Lawyers sent to Bob Iger, head of ABC. I reproduce chunks of the entire text here because it looks like the site is getting deluged and service is spotty.

Dear Bob, Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of “The Path to 9/11,” we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as “fiction” does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

How does this work exactly? What should ABC have labeled this? – Shitty Fiction? Is there some categorization for “Making my boss look bad?” No, what is really being set up here is the moral highground. This is like doing it for The Children ®

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, …

Sorry … Stop the tape. If I didn’t know this was written by Clinton’s lawyers, I could have told you that this was written by Clinton’s lawyers. This is almost verbatim, “I need to get back to doing the work of the President for the good of this country.” The arrogance is astonishing.

…”The Path to 9/11″ calls into question the accuracy of the Commission’s report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission’s actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

Of course, no one was that concerned about Reagan or F911. But the real issue is whether any of this would have been a problem if Clinton’s team hadn’t been portrayed as incompetent and unfocused (allegedly – just like Clinton’s team, I still haven’t seen the movie either). As I said earlier, the problem is not the dramatization, it’s what’s being dramatized. The truth hurts.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to “The Path to 9/11” are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.

QED

You know, I have no clue what my wife is giving me for Christmas, but I’m pretty sure that it’s going to suck. And I’ll go ahead to file for divorce because I know this thing. NOT. Because I live in a little place I like to call reality.

Continued after the bump …

Updates: Allah has the blogo-perspective on the videos.

And WND has Clinton’s aide Buzz Patterson saying that the film is correct (more on this below).

The Left and the State

Ace is getting pissed …

The left has decided that talk of murdering politicians they don’t like is now acceptable. Cute, even. I have long been against such talk — including on this site, directed at people I personally loathe — but I have to say I’m getting to the point where I’m less willing to avoid it if the other side refuses to abide by similar common-sense restraints.

I can’t say I’m in complete disagreement. What is particularly dangerous is the notion that they can hide behind the Net’s anonymity, the “humor” gambit, or their collectivism to say that they didn’t mean it. It is precisely that identification with a group or with a philosophy that would give them license to pull a nut-brained stunt like this.

I can tell you one thing about the Left’s conspiracy theories – they all point the finger of blame at Bush and his administration. When and if they gain political power, given their philosophical roots, they will seek to assuage that blame by having the State proclaim him or his administration or his supporters as its enemy. Does anyone recall when Clinton sought to blame right-wing talk radio for the Oklahoma City Bombing?

I’m goddamned tired of the murder-talk and the left’s wink-wink-nudge-nudge response to it. I am sick of these vile fuckers subtly and not-so-subtly encouraging the assassination of duly elected or appointed members of the Bush Administration.

Here’s the problem: our political opponents are autoritarians all, believing in some mix of fascism, socialism, and communism. The ends justify the means, and only they are privy to what the appropriate ends must be. In that way, they are philosphical duplicates of jihadist assassins, for whom a loss of life is the means of advancing the argument.

Their delusion of grandeur is based on the flawed notion that they are both omniscient and representative of the State appratus. Just as there are already calls for an Impeachment hearing should the Republicans lose the House, there will be pressure put on elected Democratic representatives shoud they gain any power whatsoever. Because the ends justify the means. And if the elected officials don’t take action, don’t you think some jack ass would take a Democratic win as a mandate for sanction to act on the behalf of the State?

This is precisely why we cannot start talking like that as a party or as a group. Classical liberalism and rugged individualism cannot tolerate an “ends justify the means” motivational component, because they don’t. The means are the ends that we seek. The way that you do things is important. And the State is not the god of the Republicans – we don’t serve it; it serves us.
Communism and socialism are known as the governments of thugs, becuase they are the first groups to benefit from the ability to hide vicious criminality behind the veneer of righteousness. The Democratic nutroots are devouring that political methodology, and this is why they are a danger to the US. They would allow anything as long as it promoted the State agenda.

We are living in dangerous times when a group of people would act on the behalf of the State to advance an un-democratically supported political agenda.