Posted: 11 Aug 2008 11:00 AM CDT
In one Fox News report, we read that Russian jets continue to pound targets and in another Fox News report, we read that the Georgians have signed a cease fire.
Fox News report 1: Swarms of Russian Jets Bomb Georgian Targets
Fox News report 2: Swarms of Russian Jets Bomb Georgian Targets
Both stories reveal breaking news that a cease fire has been signed. No wonder no one of substance relies on the old news media for anything.
Apparently, President Mikhail Saakashvili has signed a cease fire letter and some folks are traveling to Russia to see if it will be accepted. Meanwhile, Russia The Aggressor continues to exact madness and mayhem on one of our allies and we do nothing.
Posted: 11 Aug 2008 10:50 AM CDT
Anybody the regularly crawls blogs from the right and the left could have saved the Washington Times some time and effort to be used on other stories by telling them and showing them easy examples without the need of a search engine or any complicated math.
In an unscientific experiment, the Washington Times uses google search, picks 10 liberal and 10 conservative websites, throws in George Carlin's "seven dirty words" and publishes the results.
The paper took the time to use google search, picked 10 popular liberal websites and an equal number of popular conservative websites, only using those where comments are allowed, searched for the use of the famous "seven dirty words" you cannot say on television, from the George Carlin skit and published their findings.
They found that liberals have a tendency to cuss more. 12 times as much according to their unscientific findings.
Searching for Mr. Carlin's seven words and some popular variants at the top 10 conservative Web communities yields about 70,000 results. That is dwarfed in comparison to the 1.9 million instances of profanity on liberal sites.
They used Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Atrios, Greenwald, MyDD and Firedoglake, as the liberal examples.
They used Free Republic, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, Townhall, NewsBusters, Lucianne.com, Wizbang, Ace of Spades, Red State and Volokh Conspiracy as the conservative examples.
Their finds concluded that the liberal sites had a profanity quotient of 14.6 and the conservative sites had a profanity quotient of 1.17.
The question some will ask is why the need to use profanity as almost every other word and FireDogLake answered that question for themselves back in May when the issue arose.
That isn't the question that came to my mind though after reading the the Washington Times piece, my question was, so what?
Some people cuss more than others, some people feel the need to use profanity to make their points. Some people just use it to catch the attention of the readers.
It isn't illegal and does it really matter whether liberals cuss more online than conservatives?
To some people the answer would be yes and they are entitled to their opinions and those might be the people that simply wouldn't care to visit the sites where every other word is profane and that too is their right.
Others do not care one way or another whether conservatives curse less than liberals online.
What the report did do though was peak my interest into what readers think, so I leave you with four questions.
1. As a reader, would you avoid sites that use the F-word in every other sentence or paragraph (like the FireDogLake piece linked above) or does it not really matter to the content of the article itself?
2. Do you find the use of profanity enhances the flavor, for lack of a better word, of an article or do you feel it takes away from the topic being discussed?
3. Do you think badly of someone that cannot make their point without the use of profanity or does it not matter one way or another?
4. Last but not least, does the use or lack thereof, of profanity, separate liberals from conservatives in any meaningful manner?
Posted: 11 Aug 2008 10:41 AM CDT
Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook
Feb. 11, 2006: A file photo of Michel Brunelle holding a sign saying 'Freedom of the press is sacred', argues with a Muslim man who called him a racist during a demonstration by local Muslims [in Canada] protesting the recent publishing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a Danish newspaper.
Photo Credit: John Mahoney/Montreal Gazette
The voice of Muslim "community" is reaching fever-pitch. Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher, was forced to defend himself and his publication against complaints filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities.
The "voice" is singular - the Muslim "community" throughout the world is the single voice of Islam.
Levant had the strength and constitution to fight back and 900 days later the AHRC dismissed the Islamic complaint against him. If you are not familiar with his story, his opening statement as the Alberta Human Rights Commission began its interrogation of him is a good place to start. Read his statement or watch the video here.
The Muslim community was offended that Levant dared republish the "Danish cartoons" of Muhammed. They took their complaint not to court but to a Human Rights Commission. Here's a portion of Levant's response in defense of own human rights:
I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state.Levant was lambasted by Leftist columnists when the dismissal was announced. Naomi Lakritz ("Jewish" according to Levant), writing for the Calgary Herald, lamented the lengthy process within the HRC and didn't hesitate to blame Levant for failing to take advantage of "conciliation."
[Levant] Yes, I was offered conciliation. The offer sounded like this: "pay cash to the radical Muslims, and give them a page in your magazine, unedited. Then we'll let you go." Most people take it -- they don't have the time or money to fight these bastards for 900 days.By accepting and acting upon the Edmonton Muslim Community complaint, the Commission violated Levant's right to free speech. That's the issue: freedom of speech violated in the name and defense of Islam.
Is the dismissal a victory for Levant?
I suppose, in a narrow technical sense, it is. I'm off the hook now for both of the HRC complaints. That's two legal battles done – though I'm still up to my eyeballs fighting defamation suits and other legal actions that the human rights industry piled on top of these complaints.Here's Levant on another violation of free speech by the AHRC:
Two months ago, Rev. Stephen Boissoin was given an outrageous sentence by the Alberta HRC for doing the same thing I did. Rev. Boissoin even met Gundara's goofy tests. Why was I acquitted and Rev. Boissoin convicted, sentenced and humiliated? Because I'm a pain in the neck to the HRCs, and I have been embarrassing them ever since I YouTubed their interrogation of me. They wanted to avoid the PR disaster of a trial. Rev. Boissoin is more their style: a quiet man they can beat up with impunity.Boissoin has been forbidden, for life, to speak of, refer to or quote any biblical passage on homosexuality.
Read more about Boissoin in Jeremy Maddock's Soft Facism: The Persecution of Reverend Stephen Boisson.
Read about the Kafkaewque Show Trial of Mark Steyn
Read about the Council on American-Islamic Relation's (CAIR) defamation suit against Anti-CAIR's Andrew Whitehead
Read more on a first Islamic complaint, now withdrawn, against Levant.
Posted: 10 Aug 2008 10:43 PM CDT
Members of Windsor's Lebanese community, Ghina Maawie, left, Aida Mrove, Ayat Choukier and H. Dabaja show their support for the message of the billboard, which is on display at Wyandotte Street and Marion Avenue. The sign has led to a political divide between some.
Photograph by : Ian Willms, The Windsor Star
But some people are starting to fight back...
And now this...
'Sharia law is hate'
Billboards announce: 'Sharia law is hate' Group hopes to spark debate over accepting Islamic rules in U.S.
Posted: August 08, 200811:34 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn© 2008 WorldNetDaily
An organization in Florida plans to educate what it perceives as an increasingly culture-tolerant public about the horrific dictates of Islamic law by purchasing billboard space with a simple, but confrontational message: "Sharia law is hate."
The Central Florida chapter of the United American Committee, a nonprofit group that seeks to educate Americans on the threat of Islamic extremism, is raising money to purchase a six-month contract to display the billboard, which the group hopes will awaken the public to discussing the full extent of Islamic law. Read the rest here
Posted: 10 Aug 2008 03:13 PM CDT
Mea cupla is a Latin phrase that translates into English as "my fault", or "my own fault".
This isn't about John Edwards (you are welcome) although it his scandal that has MSM opinion editorial writers crediting citizen journalists and kicked off the beginning of the mea culpas from the mainstream media.
Long long story short about John Edwards because it has been covered every which way from Sunday and this article is not about him, but what his scandal has shown members of the mainstream media (MSM). He had an affair, the National Enquirer reported it, the story was ignored by the MSM, the Enquirer followed up, provided enough proof and detail to finally get noticed, and Edwards was forced to admit the truth.
Told you I was making a long story short. Enough about Edwards, this is about the media.
The media on the other hand is busy explaining to their readers why they did not bother to investigate a story of major importance when Edwards was campaigning to become the President of the United States of America.
Media irresponsibility is being acknowledged from some unlikely quarters..... the media themselves in their opinion sections.
It bears noting here that two media outlets showed responsibility here, one being Fox News that did some legwork and confirmed portions of the National Enquirer story and ABC, while not reporting on the matter, was working behind the scenes and actually investigating until they confirmed enough to confront Edwards on it, leading to his public confession.
Starting with the LA Times writer Tim Rutten who produces the harshest column yet entitled "Old media dethroned", with his sub headline describing the content of the article spectacularly, stating "Edwards' admission signals the end of the era in which traditional media set the limits of acceptable political journalism."
Rutten describes how Edwards' confession "ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism."
He goes on to point out that it was the National Enquirer that did the work and it was Citizen journalists aka bloggers and online commentators, that refused to allow the MSM to sweep the story under the rug.
Slate's Mickey Kaus has been foremost among the latter, alternately analyzing and speculating on the Enquirer's reporting and ridiculing the mainstream media for a fastidiousness that has seemed, from the start, wholly absurd. Like other commentators, he repeatedly alleged that a double standard that favored Democrats applied to the story. Like the Enquirer's reporting, the special-treatment charge is largely true, as anyone who recalls the media frenzy over conservative commentator and former Cabinet secretary William Bennett's high-stakes gambling would agree.
He shows that when the story first broke there was a "cone of silence", then when further details emerged, still no reporting, no investigating and not a peep from traditional media.
Rutten continues to flay the MSM stating that bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands for the MSM to explain their silence.
As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer's stories had been "confirmed."
Rutten concludes that with Edwards' confession fell the "illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana."
The LA Times is not the only one issuing their own mea culpas and using their opinion section to do so, the New York Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, while denying that media bias was the reason, also takes the Times to the woodshed on their refusal to follow up and investigate.
Hoyt's pieces is entitled "Sometimes, There's News in the Gutter" and he comes straight to the point in his first paragraph by saying, "The Times and most of the mainstream media seemed to be studiously ignoring a story of sex and betrayal involving a former Democratic presidential candidate who remains prominent on the political stage."
He admits outright that the Times never made an effort to investigate the story.
Hoyt points to one email received approving of the Times ignoring the story then he recounts the theme of what all the rest entailed.
But everyone else I heard from over the past several weeks was either puzzled or outraged that the newspaper, which carried front-page allegations of a John McCain affair, was ignoring the relationship between Edwards and Hunter. John Boyle of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., said, "I hope you will find the time to tell me why this news story is not reported by your paper." Some readers, like Bert A. Getz Jr. of Winnetka, Ill., were sure they already knew the answer: liberal bias.
Hoyt denies that bias was the reason behind their silence and argues that the Times, like all other mainstream media were "too squeamish" about reporting on it and they did not want to regurgitate the Enquirers story without verifications.
Makes sense, but then he goes on to say the Times did not even attempt to verify it at all which he calls "wrong".
Hoyt also gives a valid reason for why this is public fodder by using John Edwards' own words spoken to Katie Couric on "60 Minutes" early last year, where Edwards said, "I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic, have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation ... to look at what kind of human beings each of us are."
He points out the excuses that were given about the Times silence and their justification for reporting rumor about a McCain affair, saying he would personally would not have reported that either because they "did not convincingly establish its truth" and makes the point that if they went after one of those two stories, they should have pursued them both.
Two examples of how the traditional media is being taken to the woodshed by their own opinion editorial writers as they are still receiving complaints about their lack of investigation into a story, especially when it first broke last October, when Edwards was campaigning for presidency and more recently as his name has been speculated as a possible vice presidential candidate as well as reports about him possibly being offered a position in a potential Obama cabinet.
Some are even saying it is good to see that citizen journalists, bloggers and online commentators are receiving credit for pushing the traditional media into doing their jobs.
Posted: 10 Aug 2008 01:13 PM CDT
Comedians finally understand that there is much about Barack Obama to laugh at, especially his "presumptuous" nature where he feels he is "The One" America and the world has been waiting for.
The Telegraph goes on to list what they consider some of the best Obama jokes:
Just for giggles, the McCain ad entitled "The One".
McCain has his number!!!
As Sister Toldjah says "About bleeping time"
I always said Obama was a joke, I am glad comedians finally came to the same conclusion.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|