JABbering Stooge

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Science marches on, in spite of ourselves

There was an interesting article on MSRNC today about a potential cancer treatment being developed at MIT (Forgive me while I pause to grumble about MIT getting all the cool discoveries - remnants of my time as a Carnegie Mellon student). I'll let you peruse the article without further comment, except to say that this sort of thing would not be possible without the kids who have become the MIT researchers being taught all the things that the anti-science crowd want thrown out of science.

(By the way, if you really believe the claptrap that "evolution hasn't produced any useful advances," I suggest you Google "genetic algorithms" or even "antibiotic resistance". Study of evolution helps explain a lot about both topics.)

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

More on Traitor-gate: GOP shoots the messenger...AGAIN!

Those of you who were watching Beat the Press on July 17 saw Tim Russert limply try to extract from GOP spokesman Ken Mehlman a promise that the GOP would respect (Republican) federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's decision, even if it meant indictments for those involved in Traitor-gate. I think that now it should be obvious why Mehlman danced around the issue: the Rethuglican attack dogs have come out in force to smear not only Fitzgerald, but also former CIA agent (and also a Republican) Larry Johnson, who gave the Democratic Radio address over the weekend.

According to the Brad Blog, both Jeffy Lube and Gary Schmitt of the Project for the New American Century were first out of the gate to attack Johnson with near verbatim recitation of the new talking point that...um...Johnson had a "9/10 mindset" regarding terrorism.

Unfortunately, this doesn't help the right, since all one has to do is look back a few years to see who was really interested in fighting terrorism, and who was more interested in rooting around inside the President's zipper and sniffing the First Lady's panties (Okay - shameless self-promotion, I know - I'm sorry).

Meanwhile, Fitzgerald's investigation is itself being investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Now why on earth would the Republican-dominated Senate Select Committee on (Lack of) Intelligence want to probe someone who is investigating treason on the part of a Republican administration? Something stinks to high heaven here.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Rove/Libby Treason Hits Home

Though it pains me to admit this, the true human cost of Bush's Iraq quagmire has been something of an abstract excercise for me and those don't yet know someone who knows someone who was killed for the giant pack of lies that Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were willing to commit treason for. Sure, I could shout from the rooftops about all the hell this was causing the families left behind, torn apart by blood and distance; those soldiers who did make it back scarred physically and/or mentally having to pick up the pieces of their lives, but it never really impinged on me the way it does for those with more direct experience of war and loss - until today.

Buried in the Metro and State section of today's Austin American-Statesman was an article about a local Marine who was killed - Cpl. Steven Gill, who was killed by an IED in Iraq last week. I first heard his name mentioned on the news the other night, but for some reason the name didn't register in my mind until I read that he was a fellow Westwood High School graduate (though a year behind me) and that he had received a black belt in Kuk Sool Won, the very same martial art that I study. It all came back to me; he was a good friend of one of my friends - they often went to the same Kuk Sool class. I last saw him back in October (I remember it because it was the night of a total lunar eclipse), when he, some other acquaintences and I hung out at my friend's place after my friend and I had gotten off of work for the evening.

Although I didn't know him very well, I was around him enough to know that he was definately someone worth knowing, and that (at least to my perception) he always carried a boundless energy, engaging sense of humor and strong sense of personal honor wherever he went. His death is a tragedy that should not have happened, and probably wouldn't have happened if Bush had kept his eye on the ball and gone after bin Laden like he'd promised in the aftermath of 9/11.

I would not presume to speak for his family and friends. However, in my eyes, the blood of Steven Gill and all the other soldiers who have died and will continue to die needlessly in this war, along with the thousands of injured soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians will be on the hands of Karl Rove, "Scooter" Libby and anyone else involved in the illegal, treasonous outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. Furthermore, if any American citizen dies at the hands of a suitcase nuke that would've been otherwise stopped had Valerie Plame's cover not been blown, their blood will also be on the hands of the traitors that Bush and his GOP flunkies continue to protect.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

R.I.P. - James Doohan (3/3/1920 - 7/20/2005)


A younger James Doohan as "Scotty" (Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)


James Doohan in later years (AP file photo courtesy of CNN)

James Doohan, a World War II vet better known for his role as Scotty on Star Trek, died early this morning at 5:30 Pacific Time after a long bout with Alzheimer's disease. He was 85 years old.

We here at JABbering Stooge wish him godspeed in whatever awaits him beyond the veil of death, and wish to give our condolences to his family and friends.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Sorry Dubya, We Won't be distracted from Treason-gate

Wow. Bush's choice of nominee certainly was a dog-and-pony show worthy of Karl "I'm a Traitor and I'm O.K." Rove. For the benefit of those who had something better to do the last week, at 9 P.M. Eastern Time last night,President Bush announced, after a day of allowing the press to speculate that he would tap the slightly less wacko Edith Clement to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that he had decided instead to nominate Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to replace O'Connor.

While this is clearly a perfect fecesstorm (say that three times fast!) to distract the press and the co-dependent Democrats from Rove and "Scooter" Libby's two-minute treason drill, I sill think that the Sacless Party can still salvage something from this - if they play it smart.

So let's start with why Judge Roberts is such a bad idea. Here's just a small listing of documentation on him that should make any neutral observer think twice before advocating for his promotion to the highest court in the land (all links courtesy of AMERICAblog).

  • FEC records of Roberts' political donations: Roberts gave significant buckaroos to various PACs and candidates, almost exclusively Republican - this suggests a certain ideological tilt that is very worrisome, if not outright inappropriate, for one who sits on the highest court in the land - supposedly representing all Americans.

  • Women's Rights:
    1) As Deputy Solicitor General in Bush I's administration, Roberts co-wrote a brief in the case of Rust v. Sullivan that stated "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled..."
    2) In the same position as the above, Roberts wrote an amicus brief defending anti-abortion terrorist group Operation Rescue in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic.
    3) In a 1999 radio interview in which he ranted about the evils of every single federal law on the books (okay, not quite, but pretty close), he singled out the Violence Against Women Act, stating that "We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else."

  • Religious Freedom: As Deputy Solicitor General (boy, he sure was busy then, wasn't he?), Roberts submitted an amicus brief in Lee v. Weisman that, according to People for the American Way, "while [acknowledging] that coerced participation in a religious ceremony [at graduation] was improper...'A voluntary decision not to witness a civic acknowledgment of religion...cannot be considered a response to coercion.'" In other words, Roberts was arguing that a graduating student cannot exercise his/her First Amendment rights to protest an illegal mingling of church and state at a public ceremony! Additionally, the brief instructed the court to throw out the Lemon test in favor of the much more lenient standard derived under Marsh v. Chambers.

  • Roberts decides against veterans: When the D.C. Circuit Cort found in favor of veterans who had been tortured in Iraq in Acree v. Republic of Iraq, Judge Roberts wrote a dissent claiming that the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act (EWSAA) "'deprived the courts of jurisdiction over suits against Iraq' for damages resulting from torture and other terrorist acts" according to PFAW; a decision that would've made restitution to vets tortured in Iraq virtually impossible.



And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Read up more on Judge Roberts (here, here and here), and weep for democracy should he ever be confirmed.

However, the nomination of Judge Roberts is only a small part of the larger picture - one in which the President and his flunkies have repeatedly placed party loyalty and partisan politics far, far, far ahead of doing what is best for America. It is with this in mind that I suggest the following talking point to our spineless leadership, in the hopes that they can get back on the subject of Karl Rove's treason.

I am deeply saddened that President Bush has squandered an opportunity to build bipartisan consensus by nominating a far-right ideologue who has shown repeated disregard both for settled case law and for the ideals upon which our country was founded.

This act of naked contempt for the President's critics, shamelessly designed to divert attention from the discussion of possible criminal activity on the part of the executive branch, is just one more example of his devotion to party politics over his supposed devotion to the people who entrusted him with executive authority. It is also part of a larger pattern of active deception that perfectly illustrates what the Downing Street Minutes were about - a rush to judgment and blatant disregard for the safety of the American people in order to "win" a petty domestic squabble. This is behavior most unbecoming of a head of state, and possible grounds for removal from office.


I fully intend to send this to all who may listen. We shall see if they follow up on my advice...

Update: Silly me, I forgot to give a hat tip to fellow Bartcopper Liioni for the statements in the chatroom that were the genesis of this post.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Monday, July 18, 2005

Sen. McCain not up on fatwas, either

Senator John McCain (R - AZ) was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno tonight. During the interview, he happened to repeat the Tom Friedman/Tucker Carlson talking point that no Muslim group has ever declared a fatwa against Osama bin Forgotten.

Unfortunately for McCain, the facts tell a different story. As I mentioned before, Spain's leading Muslim clerics issued a fatwa against bin Laden on the anniversary of the Madrid train bombings. Furthermore, University of Michigan History Professor Juan Cole pointed out on his blog several instances of prominent Muslims either condemning or outright declaring fatwas against bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorists. And last, but not least, we learn from the McPaper (by way of AMERICAblog) that, according to a poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, "three-quarters of those in Morocco and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia said Islamic extremism posed a threat to their countries." Granted, there are still some disturbing trends in some Muslim countries, particularly in regards to support for Osama bin Laden. Still, if the trend continues, we may yet see some positive change in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, it may all come to naught if Westerners perceptions of Muslims don't change. In particular, I would like to point out the following. According to the article, "fears about radical Islam were tied to perceptions of Muslim communities within those countries. Resident Muslims were seen as having a strong and growing sense of Islamic identity, a situation most of those surveyed saw as a bad thing." Yet strangely enough, "in the United States and most Western nations majorities said they had favorable views of Muslims."

In other words, we like Muslims, just as long as they shut up about their religion and don't wear it on their sleeves - preferably if they try and act Christian. Meanwhile the American Inquisition gets to be as loud and proud as it wants to be.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

"Christian" Love - GOP Pharisee-style

Before we dive into a special edition of what Stephanie Miller refers to as "Right Wing World," I would like to add a brief disclaimer. Notice that the word "Christian" is in quotes, and that I refer to them as "Pharisees" - as I believe that the theocrats who have hijacked the GOP are actually undermining the message of a certain Nazarene carpenter, rather than promoting it as they claim. In particular, I'd like to focus on a couple of recent remarks that made the news cycle.

Unrepentant Rudolph Issues Pro-Terrorism Rant

From the AP wire via MSRNC:

Defiant serial bomber gets expected life term
Injured nurse wishes death sentence on convicted abortion clinic attacker

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - An unrepentant Eric Rudolph declared Monday that abortion must be fought with "deadly force" as a judge sentenced him to life in prison for setting off a remote-controlled bomb at an abortion clinic that killed an off-duty police officer and maimed a nurse.


*snip*

"What they did was participate in the murder of 50 children a week," he said, shackled at the ankles and wearing a red jail uniform. "Abortion is murder and because it is murder I believe deadly force is needed to stop it."


Assuming his life sentence came with the option for parole, the above two bolded sentences ought to make any parole board worth its salt say "No parole for you! Come back, one year!" as it indicates that, should he ever be released back into society, he would be a likely repeat offender.

So tell me, why haven't Mullah Falwell, Ayatollah Robertson, Imam Dobson and the rest of the American Inquisition issued a fatwa against this unrepentant terrorist? Do they, by their silence, embrace religious terrorism as readily as they claim that each and every last Muslim supposedly embraces terrorism?


(Haraz Ghanbari/AP file photo courtesy of MSNBC)

Unrepentant terrorist Eric Rudolph smirks as he contemplates the many "abortionists" and "fags" he'll get to murder the instant some moronic parole board sets him free.


Colorado Rethuglican Declares Jihad Against Muslims

As I'm sure you've probably read from AMERICAblog by now, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R - CO) told Florida talk radio host Pat Campbell that if Al-Qaeda or any other Muslim extremist group nukes us, we should play tit-for-tat and "take out their holy sites" (i.e., Mecca).

You know, it's bad enough that we're turning our military into an arm of the theocrats who have hijacked the GOP, but nutty statements like this only serve to convince the Arab/Muslim world that we really have declared jihad against them. Not that that matters to the Ann Coulters of the world...

Welcome to Bizarro World America - Where Muslims are the New Jews...

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Bow-Tie Carlson not up to speed on fatwas

Last night on MSRNC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, Carlson was interviewing Sabiha Khan of the Council on American-Islamic Relations regarding a California National Guardsman's viciously anti-Muslim flyer. In the interview, Carlson had this to say about the Muslim world's opinion of Osama bin Forgotten:

CARLSON: OK, OK, well, to some extent, I think you're right. That reminds me of a fascinating column by Tom Friedman the other day in the “New York Times” in which he pointed out that no Muslim group in the world -- and I think you researched this—has issued a fatwa against Usama bin Laden yet.


I guess that in the minds of Carlson and Thomas Friedman, the Spanish imams who issued a fatwa against bin Forgotten on the one-year anniversary of the Madrid train bombings don't count as "a Muslim group."

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

No wonder why the right hates science

An oldie, but goodie from the local fishwrap (registration required):

Born gay?
Growing body of research points to biological explanations for sexual orientation.

By Sandy Doughton

THE SEATTLE TIMES

Sunday, July 03, 2005

SEATTLE — As the culture wars rage over gay rights, a flock of sheep at Oregon State University may help answer a key question behind the controversy: Is homosexuality a matter of choice or biology?


*snip*

Sheep aren't people, but the Oregon work adds to a growing body of research that bolsters biological explanations for sexual orientation across species — including humans.


In other words: BEING GAY ISN'T A CHOICE! (Not that that will stop the scienceophobes of the right from continuing to bleat otherwise - just look at the persistence of anti-evolution rhetoric).

The social and political implications of the research are impossible to ignore, leading to unease on both sides of the gay-rights debate. If science proves homosexuality is innate, is there any basis to deny gays equal treatment — including the right to marry? But if scientists unravel the roots of sexual orientation, will it some day be possible to "fix" people who don't fit the norms, or abort fetuses likely to be born gay?


Now there's an unanticipated possibility that'll send righties for a loop - do you send homos to a genetic "re-education camp" or do you "murder" them before they're born? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

And last fall, Italian scientists offered a possible explanation for the persistence of gay genes — even though evolution tends to weed out traits that discourage reproduction. The team from the University of Padua found that mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals, suggesting genes that influence homosexuality in men may increase fertility in females.


'Nuff said.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

The Hill: Abramoff duo quits U.S.

This is interesting. According to The Hill (yes, I know, I just got done complaining about their preferential treatment of Bush, but this is important news that even AMERICAblog has yet to report on), Sam Hook and his wife, Shana Tesler, two of embattled DeLay associate Jack Abramoff's fellow lawyers from his days at Greenberg Traurig have fled the country, deciding that Israel looked rather nice this time of year.

Although their attorney, Alyza Lewin insists that "Pursuant to longstanding plans that predate any investigation, Shana Tesler and Sam Hook have relocated to Israel" and that "One thing had nothing to do with the other," one can't help but wonder if this had something to do with their decision:

Former White House counsel Lanny Davis said that the pair’s relocation could hamper the Justice Department investigation because it would be harder to enforce subpoenas abroad.

"Whether you are able to enforce a subpoena in a foreign country depends upon specific treaty commitments," Davis said, "but in general the answer is no... Even if you could try to enforce it through a treaty, it would be extremely difficult."


Well gee, isn't that conveeenient?

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Thoughts on SCOTUS

If MSRNC is correct in its prediction, Bush is expected to name his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on or around July 26. Whatever happens - or doesn't happen - in the next two weeks will in all likelyhood affect how the nomination fight turns out. With this in mind, here are my thoughts on the subject.


  • While President Bush is not explicitly bound to uphold the filibuster compromise, his continued stonewalling, eerily reminiscient of his "consultation" with the U.N. prior to the invasion of Iraq, is hardly what a neutral observer would consider adequate consultation with the Senate. If anything, the Democrats have held to their end of the bargain by suggesting to president Bush names of nominees that they could accept - much like when Orrin Hatch suggested Ruth Bader Ginsberg to President Clinton instead of Clinton's preferred nominee, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

  • Speaking of the infamous 3/5 Filibuster Compromise, Part II, Section A. of the compromise states that "each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgement in determining whether such [extraordinary] circumstances exist." Arbitrarily precluding ideological leanings of nominees from such a consideration, as certain members of the Gang of 14 (almost exclusively Republicans) have openly stated, effectively blocks signatories from exercising their own discretion and judgement. Thus the Gang of 14 members who want to remove ideological considerations are in violation of the 3/5 Filibuster Compromise.

  • Almost every time the Democrats have reached out their hands in a show of bipartisan unity, this administration has arrogantly slapped them away. Are we seriously to expect that they'll treat something as serious as a Supreme Court nomination any differently? Remember what this means for the president's role in the consultations with the Senate demanded by the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution, and compare it to how Clinton treated the Republican minority in 1993, and all the good it did him.

  • While we're on the subject of the seriousness of this nomination process, would it kill Sens. Larry Craig (R - ID) and Rick "Liberalism caused the pedophile priests" Santorum (R - PA) to act like grownups for once?

  • The Hill seems awfully sympathetic to the president - the title of the article is "Bush makes nice on his court pick," and opens with the following gag-inducing paragraph: "President Bush and his administration have engaged in unprecedented efforts to solicit the views of Republican and Democratic senators as the White House considers whom to nominate to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court." Yeah, unprecedented if you ignore the fact that Clinton solicited advice from Orrin Hatch (man, I'm starting to sound like a broken record - or Puffy McMoonface).

  • Given the fact that many on the right still see the 2004 election as a "mandate" (with Jeff Gannon) to ram their destructive agenda through and anyone daring to think otherwise should just shut up about the whole thing, it is unlikely in the extreme that they will accept anything less than Jerry Falwell's wet dream - an ideological clone of Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada. Unfortunately, this attitute dates back to 1981, when St. Ronnie of Tampico, IL, patron saint of Republicans nominated O'Connor for the Supreme Court. Falwell himself declared that "All good Christians should be concerned" about the nomination of O'Connor - to which Barry Goldwater replied: "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

Friday, July 08, 2005

What's in a list?

I suppose I only have myself to blame. For some weird (and possibly masochistic) reason while I was on break on Wednesday night, I decided to turn the breakroom TV at work to MSRNC, when what to my wandering eyes should appear, but Joedy "Dead Intern" Scarborough and - well, not tiny reindeer, but former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg. As you can expect, Scarborough did nothing but lob softballs at the partisan hack posing as an honest journalist, who used the questions as a launching off platform for demonizing anyone who disagrees with Dear Leader in the slightest. And his new book is no different.

In talking about the book, Goldberg had this to say:
Whatever your politics are out there, you had to have noticed over the years, over the recent years, that America has gotten nastier, less civil, more selfish and, most of all, I think, more vulgar. I mean, people walk down the street and they are dropping the F-bomb as if nobody is hearing them. And they don't care if people are hearing them.


Strangely enough, I agree with Goldberg. (see links)

But the brain droppings continue:

It is somebody's fault. In this case, I am naming 100 people who I think are at fault for cheapening our culture. And I'm telling you, Joe...


And later:

So, I don't think these people, who—who, by the way, think they are smart simply because they are famous, I don't think they are adding much to the conversation by being as mean-spirited and nasty as they are.


Perhaps Mr. Goldberg should look in a political mirror sometime before he makes asinine statements like those above...

Goldberg has a problem here. The vast majority of his book by far attacks only Democrats, so how does he avoid the hypocrisy charge that he complains about Democratic name-calling while engaging in some name-calling of his own? Why it's the old, reliable Zell Miller Defense:

SCARBOROUGH: Bernie, you know, you are a self-described—well, you are not a self-described liberal, but you voted for Democrats your entire life. And yet...

GOLDBERG: Well, no, not my—not my entire life, not my recent life.

SCARBOROUGH: Most of your life. Right.

GOLDBERG: My earlier life.

SCARBOROUGH: But most of your life.


And failing that, he tries the Colorado University/University of Texas Young Republicans' defense of their professor blacklists: "B-b-but...They're not blacklists! There are (token) conservatives on them, too! (Okay, so they only receive VERY mild criticsm compared to the vitriol projectile vomited at the liberal professors, what does that matter? Why do you hate America?)"

Here are some of the conservatives that "Democrat" Bernard Goldberg "chastizes":

GOLDBERG: Well, I will tell you, I go after one radio talk show host, not Rush Limbaugh, who I think is very civil (You mean, Mr. "Don't kill all the librals" is civil?! - Ed.)


I mean, it is one thing to be a conservative talk show host. And, frankly, I agree with many of the things he says.

But when everybody is a stupid idiot whom he disagrees with, I don't think that is a good thing. (Don't know who this is supposed to be - probably Loofah Boy or The Savage Weiner - Ed.)


SCARBOROUGH: You also go after preachers.

GOLDBERG: I go after one who said that, if a gay guy looked at me funny, I would kill him and tell God he died by accident.


But none of that saves him, as the book is still full of anti-anyone who disagrees with The Most Holy George W. Christ nastiness. As the Fourth Estate's Golden Boy points out:

GOLDBERG: If they were my parents, I wouldn't be talking to them.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes, unbelievable.

Now, in your book, you write number 85 is—quote—“the dumb celebrity.” A short list includes Cameron Diaz.

GOLDBERG: Right. Right.

SCARBOROUGH: Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit, Kate Hudson, Margaret Cho and Janeane Garofalo. Number 84 is called the vicious celebrity. You list Alec Baldwin, Wallace Shawn, Sean Penn and Janeane Garofalo.

And number 83, titled the dumb and vicious celebrity, you list Linda Ronstadt, Martin Sheen, David Clennon, Janeane Garofalo.

Why you are picking on our good friend Janeane Garofalo?

GOLDBERG: Because she gives me too much ammunition.


Hey Bernie, guess what? I can make inane, sophomoric lists that serve no purpose other than to demonize the other side, too! Watch!

10 People Who Threaten Democracy

  1. Vicious Conservative Pundits (Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh)

  2. Conservative Shock Troops (FreeRepublic and Lucianne.com)

  3. "Fair and Balanced" News Organizations (Faux News, MSRNC, any Rupert Murdoch publication and The Moonie Times)

  4. Government Officials Who Lie Us Into War (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney)

  5. People Who Illegally Out CIA agents (Karl Rove?)

  6. Conservative Think Tanks (American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institute, etc.)

  7. White-collar crooks (Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Halliburton, etc.)

  8. Dumb, Lying, Angry Partisan Hacks Posing As Reporters (Brian Wilson, Brit Hume and Bernard Goldberg)

  9. Angry Partisan Hacks Posing As Reporters (Brian Wilson, Neil Cavuto, Jeffy Lube and Bernard Goldberg)

  10. Partisan Hacks Posing As Reporters (Jeffy Lube, Wolf Blitzer, Neil Cavuto and Bernard Goldberg)



See how easy that is? And see how it adds absolutely NOTHING to the discussion? And yet somehow it's okay to write a book about it....amazing.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!

"What Liberal Media?" Part 3.14159...

Sorry if the next couple of posts are a bit behind the news cycle. I've been doing that uniquely American thing of working multiple jobs to make ends meet.

So yesterday morning, London had a bit of a 9/11 of its own, in that Al Qaeda, or an Al Qaeda-related organization set off three bombs in London's subways and one on one of the ubiquitous double-decker buses.

The reaction to the bombings was swift and severe all around the world. However, to hear the "librul" media in the U.S. tell it, all Muslims were either conspicuously silent or rejoicing at the news. For all the feet of film and server hard disk electrons CNN devoted to the story, not one iota went towards covering the reaction in the Muslim world. Even the reliable water-carrier for anti-Muslim bigots, Faux News, neglected to look into the matter. Only MSRNC mentioned anything about the reaction of the Muslim street - a whole seven hours after the attack. And what they had to say about it wasn't pretty. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I enter into the record Exhibit A:

Amy Robach: Jacob, where did the statement originally appear?

Jacob Keryakes: Well, the statement was published on an Islamic web site. Minutes later, it was removed from the web site itself because it contained an error in one of the Quaranic verses and al-Qaida doesn't usually do that, but the same statement was published (later) on a secular web site.

The statement was signed by a group calling itself "The Secret Organization or the Secret Wing of al-Qaida in Europe."

They are claiming they warned the British government before and now they have fulfilled their promises and carried out what they have warned. They're also warning governments like Denmark and Italy saying you have to withdraw your troops from Iraq and Afghanistan otherwise the same thing will happen to you.

Robach: You've been following the Arab coverage of this explosion in London and certainly they're making reference to this claim of responsibility as well. How would you characterize coverage?

Keryakes: Well, they have been careful so far in saying who's behind it. But different analysts came on Al-Jazeera and said that from the way the series of attacks took place, there might be an Islamic group behind it. This is a well-organized attack.

The second thing is (that) some of the analysts are saying, "It's time for us to examine ourselves. We are breeding terrorism and we have to address this, we have to correct our mistakes."

Robach: Did they make reference at all to that statement and what they believe this group might be, if they actually exist? Are they responsible? Did they at all look into the statement, the web site and the group itself?

Keryakes: Yes, they did make reference to the statement itself but they said "We cannot verify it so far."


Notice the part in bold and italics. For Amy Robach (the same Amy Robach who indirectly impugned the patriotism of anti-Bush protestors recently) and Jacob Keryakes to obsessively focus on the presentation style of Al-Jazeera makes it sound like the Arab news station is covering up the culpability for those responsible.

Furthermore, only citing Al-Jazeera leaves the impression that Al-Jazeera speaks for every single solitary Muslim on Earth. This only serves to help those conservatives that regularly projectile vomit about how evil all Muslims are (*cough* Ann Coulter *cough* Michael Savage *cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough* Sean Hannity *cough*).

As Exhibit B of how pathetically docile the Fourth Estate has become when it comes to Republican outrages, one is forced to go to the English Wikipedia to find any "Fair and Balanced" coverage of the Muslim street's reaction to the attack.

Of note are the following comments:

  • Sydney - 8 July 2005 - The Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN) joins other civil rights and Muslim organisations in condemning the apparent acts of terrorism in London.

    "Such attacks are barbaric and totally inconsistent with any kind of civil tradition, whether it be secular or religious," AMCRAN co-convenor Dr Waleed Kadous, said. "Such disrespect for life is a symbol of barbarity."

    "Regardless of who committed these acts, we unequivocally and unambigiously condemn these attacks."

    "We would like to express our condolences to the people of London, and let them know that we stand with them, and that we will support them in the pursuit of those involved in these criminal acts and their punishment under the law."
    -AMCRAN official press release (Remember, Sydney is about 12 hours ahead of GMT)

  • The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the attacks, stating "We join Americans of all faiths, and all people of conscience worldwide, in condemning these barbaric crimes that can never be justified or excused. American Muslims offer their sincere condolences to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured in today's attacks and call for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators."

  • The Islamic Circle of North America released a statement saying, "The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is shocked and horrified at the several attacks on the people of London during the rush hour mass transit. We join everyone in condemning such acts of terror and senseless violence. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones at this tragic moment. We trust that the authorities will determine those responsible for these barbaric acts and bring them to justice quickly."

  • Leading Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim scholar Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah stated, "These crimes are not accepted by any religion. It is a barbarism wholly rejected by Islam."

  • The Muslim Council of Britian had the following to say on the subject:
    "These evil deeds makes victims of us all. It is our humanity that must bring us shoulder to shoulder to condemn, to oppose and to overcome those who would spread fear, hatred and death." Later, the MCB also said that "This criminal attack is condemned in the strongest possible terms. No good purpose can be achieved by such an indiscriminate and cruel use of terror."



Will the "liburl" media ever report these statements? Better check the temperature in hell, first.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!