Deo volente.

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.


September 21, 2006 Posted by | Free Press, GWOT, Philosophy of the Commons | 1 Comment

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.


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).
Continue reading

September 10, 2006 Posted by | GWOT, Philosophy of the Commons, Politics, Terrorists | Leave a comment

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.

September 7, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy - General, Philosophy of the Commons, Politics, Sweet Crazy | 7 Comments

David Gregory (NBC): Not Not repeating Democratic Talking Points

Tony Snow is a genuinely nice guy. Given his public persona, which is really all I know, I have tremendous respect for the guy. He’s a mensch. David Gregory is a jack ass. Not in that hard-bitten, “I’m a reporter covering the beat” sort of way either. He’s a jack ass. He acts like a jack ass. He talks like a jack ass.

And he kicks like a jack ass.

If I’ve got to pick between a guy who deserves all the respect he gets and more and a jack-ass, my money’s on the mensch.

Continue reading

September 6, 2006 Posted by | Jack-Asses, Philosophy of the Commons | 2 Comments

The Rastafarians vs. The Wikipedia Jews

The Edge has a really great piece on the collectivism that is Wikipedia. And the guy who wrote it?

Continue reading

August 28, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy of the Commons | 2 Comments

Christopher Hitchens is my Favorite Socialist

Here … see if you don’t agree. This goes directly to the Malontent’s Hitchens/Maher content. You should look at the site too …

What do we gain from this? I’ll take an honest debate with facts any day of the week, with whomever and wherever.

August 28, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy of the Commons | 3 Comments

Sexual Politics

Allah is, as Ace suggests, exploring the studio space. It’s Friday – time to throw gas on smoldering fires. The bit about porn I’ll just let go … better men than I are on it.

But the bit about Forbes’ article on career women is funny. Evidently it caused enough stir that they took the post down and then re-upped it as point / counterpoint. What is really a pretty reasoned and factual article by Michael Noer is taken as a slap in the progressive face. So they got some stringer, and a woman to boot, to do the refutation in the name of balance.

So the balanced diversity thing is a little silly. And the fact that the refutation is anecdotal, poorly written, and a fluff opinion piece certainly didn’t stop the editors from doing their bit for the cause. But really, this is all pretty funny …The best part? Here are the titles …
Point: Don’t Marry Career Women

Counterpoint: Don’t Marry A Lazy Man

That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an attack.
Continue reading

August 25, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy of the Commons, Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Politics of Science – Whither Pluto?

I just keep hearing Mickey saying, “Pluto, here boy … Heh Heh!”

Continue reading

August 25, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy of the Commons, Science | Leave a comment


… is single. I was going to rag him on his site, but no one’ll read it here. Here’s the theory …

He quit blogging to shore up the previous relationship.

He started blogging again when that was obviously not enough.

If you question the timing, as I do, then it all makes sense.

But, really, who gives a crap. He’s single. He seems like a good guy. Go get him, girls. You could do worse than having “Garfield Ridge” as a last name …

August 23, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy of the Commons, Pr0n | 2 Comments

Nasty, Brutish, Short

Most of the positivist American conservative philosophical lexicon is geared around an optimistic assessment of Man: what is his potential, get government off of the individual’s back and watch him prosper, that sort of thing. This is what you hear conservatives, or Republicans, talk about when they’re stumping for votes. These ideas made up the backbone of Reagan’s domestic agenda, for example. Historically, this political notion is summed up well in the writings of John Locke.

At the same time, conservative foreign policy makes few bones about the Hobbesian nature of mankind. Hobbes was the fellow who proclaimed that human life was “nasty, brutish, and short.” But these two make Hobbes look positively cheery:

Twisted young British parents planned to sacrifice their precious baby in the evil cause of jihad by mass murder.

Fanatical terror suspect Abdula Ahmed Ali, 25, and his wife, Cossor, 23, are among those being interrogated by police as suspects in the massive plot to attack trans-Atlantic flights in midair.

What the outwardly normal couple had secretly plotted is almost too horrifying to consider, cops said.

The Alis planned to use 6-month-old son Zain’s baby bottle as a liquid bomb, blowing themselves and their child up, along with hundreds of others aboard the flight…

This is the latest ruse by which these terrorists would use our tenderist feelings against us. And this is exactly why a foreign policy, or a war policy for that matter, must (today, now, instantly) stop being optimistic about humans in general and Muslims specifically. There is no more room for the West to give the benefit of the doubt to followers of the Religion of Peace.

Of course, authorities are concerned that the idea may catch on and that it will become a tactic to smuggle detonators and explosives on board an aircraft.

Think about this the next time that you are getting on an aircraft and feel safe with all of the families sitting around you.

August 16, 2006 Posted by | GWOT, Philosophy of the Commons | 3 Comments