Technicalities

The Strange Story of Nick Berg

First off, before we go anywhere else, let's get this straight - What happened to Nick Berg is one of the most horrendous things that could happen to a human being. To say that the people who killed him are animals is not even close to the mark. (not to mention being an insult to animals everywhere)

What I am finding fascinating, is the reaction of the mainstream news media, or possibly lack of reaction of the mainstream news media is more like it. And the "facts" about Nick Berg that are now leaking out and causing speculation about the man and why he was in Iraq. It is an interesting chain of events starting with the original outright horror expressed by all right minded people and progressing now into the analytical stages as the initial horror wears off.

Let's Award Him a Chicken Dinner

It seems that James Degorski is going to file a Civil Law Suit. He is suing the Cook County (Illinois) Sheriff's Office and two of the guards at the Cook County jail for an unprovoked attack.

Wilson was tried criminally for the incident and acquitted. His attorney could not be reached for comment, but Wilson testified at his trial that he struck Degorski after Degorski lunged at him.

Ah, I see the guard was arrested and the criminal case went to trial - where he was acquitted. In this country that means - Sue the Bastards!!! Sounds to me like he wanted the guard to go to jail - since he can't get that satisfaction, he is now going to try and take away all of his money.

Now you may want to know what Degorski is doing in jail. Thought you'd never ask.

Degorski, 31, who along with Juan Luna, 30, is accused of killing seven people at a Brown's Chicken and Pasta restaurant in Palatine in 1993

Yep - he's awaiting trial for murder. Not just any murder. He and his buddy are accused of walking into the restaurant as it was getting ready to close, ordering a meal (which they partially ate - thus the DNA evidence against them), herding the 7 employees into the back room - and executing them. Why? Because they wanted to see what it was like! They finally got these 2 when an ex-girlfriend turned them in, once they had the names, they were able to match up the DNA on the discarded dinner. I can't remember if they got any sort of confession from either one of these scum.

Degorski's civil lawyer, Edward Fox, said Degorski changed his mind about suing after the acquittal and having to live with the permanent injuries inflicted on him.

"I think there's the sense that something needs to be done for some kind of accountability," Fox said.

So now I wonder - what about the permanent injuries to the families of the people he killed? How about the guy who was first accused of the crime because he had been fired a couple of weeks before - his name and pictures of him were splattered all across the news media here - his life was ruined. I wonder what kind of accountability on Degorski's part will ever begin to make up for that?

As far as I'm concerned - the guard had his day in court. It should end there - Degorski should NOT have the right to sue anyone unless he is acquitted of the crime for which he has been charged - and not until then. If he is found guilty, he should not have the right to make anyone else's life a nightmare ever again.

Out of the Comments

And into the Limelight! Cool Blue has a roundup of the Good News out of Iraq! This will never find its way to the front page of any major news paper or as a top story on any Broadcast news. None of it follows the party line of Americans are evil.

And while you're at it - click on over to Blackfive who has an inspiring letter from a Marine Officer in Fallujah.

The Agenda of the News Media

In all of the angst, anger, and despair over the Iraqi prisoner scandal, it seems to me that most neo-cons, conservatives, and conservative leaning libertarians have forgotten a very important point. The mainstream media has an agenda that is ultra liberal and they will exploit every bit of information coming their way to achieve their goals. Those goals are the election of John Kerry and the tearing down of our military.

For the past few years, there has been a push to show how very slanted the major media are in their coverage of just about everything. They bend the story to suit their objectives without regard to the truth. Therefore, most intelligent people take any news they receive from these sources with a huge grain of salt. Those with a background in what ever the subject of a current story, will jump in and correct slant and outright lies. (or at least they try)

With the prisoner scandal, the most amazing thing I've seen so far is the almost complete lack of any questions regarding the news coverage. It's as if people are afraid to voice concerns about how the news media is slanting the coverage in favor of their agenda. And yes, they certainly are slanting their coverage - it's at about a 90 degree angle at the moment. If you have an opposing news story (one that sheds a good light on the military) it will hit this wall with a thud, slide to the floor with a splat, and never ever be heard.

Just a Thought

When is the last time one of the major newspapers ran a positive front page top story headline about our troops.... yeah that's what I thought, I don't remember either.

Love Us or Hate Us

Over at David's Medienkritik - he is carrying a list of the most pro-American people of the world from Pharoh's blog.

He then comes up with a list of the most anti-American people in the world, which is really quite excellent.

1. All types of fundamentalist muslims such as Osama bin Ladin/Al-Quaida and the Iranian Mullahs.
2. Saddam Hussein's followers (to the extent that they are still alive).
3. The German Left in the media and in politics (see below for further explanation).
4. The North-Korean leadership, for obvious reasons.
5. The French political èlite, in their never ceasing illusionary lust for world dominance.
6. Fidel Castro and his sad remnants of socialism.
7. Lest I forget: Michael Moore, Susan Sontag, Noam Chomsky, and all the lunatics of the American Left.
8. Hamas, or whatever the Israelis left of them.

It's just that he forgot one set of people that should be up near the top of the list...

The Mainstream American News Media...

Why does Anyone Buy This Paper?

According to Juan Non-Volokh, The New York Times has once again got the story wrong.

Today's New York Times provides more evidence that newspapers should be careful assigning writers to cover subjects about which they know very little. The article, under the misleading headline "Court Rulings on Emissions Sharply Split Two Groups" (emphasis added), contains a mistaken central premise and a major omission. As a result, it provides an incomplete and misleading picture of the Supreme Court's handling of environmental cases.

Apparently the NYT is trying to push it's own environmental agenda at the expense of the facts. Well, nothing new there. I guess for some reason, people thought getting rid of Jayson Blair et al would solve the problem the NYT seems to have with truthful reporting. Looks like that's not the case.

For "balance," the article also quotes an industry lawyer claiming the issue in both cases (TVA and SCAQMD) is really the means used to achieve pollution reductions, not the end of cleaner air, but then returns to its central theme, citing "environmental lawyers" who say "the impact of both decisions is poor air quality in regions of the country struggling with air pollution." (There's that mistake again!)

My question would be, was the industry lawyer quoted correctly and in context? Is this really a lawyer representing the other side of the argument? Unless proof was provided, I would venture to say that the answer in all cases is No. This may sound contradictory, but it isn't. They could have used any quote they wanted from someone interviewed, even if the person in question did NOT use the quote in the same manner as the reporter. It's mighty convenient to be able to pick and choose what quote to use in a story. Therefore even if the lawyer in question is actually pro-environment, they could still use quotes out of context to present their case.

As far as I'm concerned, the NYT has no credibility, all quotes and stories are suspect. Sadly, they would have an uphill battle to convince me that they've changed their ways, even if they were trying. At the moment they still seem to hold to the opinion that the reader is an idiot and they can write whatever they damn well please and pass it off as news. Sad.

UPDATE*** I would've blogged about Juan's excellent post regarding Jamie Gorelick, but I'm so tired of the 9/11 commission and their theatrics. They've proven beyond a doubt that they have no interest in improving ANYTHING. So, for today, I'm going to leave it alone.

The Invasion of the Mutant Wheat

The Canadians are being stalked by mutant wheat and they don't like it!

Canadians upset that genetically modified wheat might one day find itself on their shelves now have a new way to vent their anger -- mail a slice of bread to Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Well, you can certainly tell that Canada is not a starving country. They have enough extra food to be able to mail it to their own government. One wonders how much time, money, and landfill space this wastes. After all, even if it's only a few thousand people mailing in slices of bread, someone has to take it to the trash, it has to be hauled away and dumped somewhere, all of which costs money. Not to mention the fact that bread will very likely start to mold after a few days, possibly attracting bugs and rodents to post offices and government buildings where it's being held. (Can you say "exterminator"? I thought you could.)

Now I realize that bread is in general biodegradable, but this seems like a tremendously regrettable waste of food. I'm sure Canada has it's share of hungry people. Wouldn't it be better to send bread to the local food pantry and letters of protest to the government? I don't deny them their right to protest, I just think the method of protest is ridiculous. Especially in light of the fact that it's mostly "greens" doing the prostesting. As usual, someone gets a "clever" idea for a protest, which is then initiated without proper thought as to the consequences of the action.

It's certainly not up to the standards of the complete morons who set fire to Hummers because they don't like SUV's, but it runs along the same lines.

More Nightline Fun

Tim Blair has some interesting thoughts on the upcoming edition of Nightline.

MAN READS LIST, EARNS $30,000

Yeah, that about sums it up. But there is another thing I found to be most annoying, a quote by Ted Koppel

"I have always felt, and I said it when I was in Iraq last year, that the most important thing a journalist can do is remind people of the cost of war."

So, let me get this straight... Koppel is being paid $6 million per year to state the bleeding obvious! Where do I get a gig like that? Do I have to do funny stuff to my hair?

Bush takes a stand - Reporters claim sky will now fall

The headline from USA today on my Yahoo page reads: Bush's tone may hinder Mideast plan. Ummm - I really hate to say it, but what plan? So far as I know plans have been floating about for so long, I can't remember when there wasn't a plan. I also can't remember ANY plan that came close to actually being implemented. So, what is everyone worried about?

But the way in which Bush spoke, with little regard for the painstakingly careful codes of Arab-Israeli diplomacy and with such a strong embrace of Israel, antagonized already jittery U.S. allies in the Arab world. (Related story:Bush endorses Sharon's land plan)

Horsehockey! There is no such thing as Arab-Israeli diplomacy. It doesn't matter what Bush says because ANYTHING and EVERYTHING antagonizes these people. There has never been a time when they WEREN'T antagonized.

Now I'm sure you'll want to know what Bush said that's causing the ruckus.

Bush's comments on the right of Palestinian refugees to return to ancestral homes in what is now Israel were the most contentious. Veterans of the peace process acknowledge that giving all 4 million refugees the "right of return" was a passionate but impractical demand that would eventually be dropped in a final negotiation. But Bush's unequivocal dismissal of the idea infuriated Palestinians and their supporters.

So, Bush tells it like it is, and the Palestinians are infuriated. The people who are supposedly veterans in the work to bring peace to the mid-east have been hiding behind lies and misdirection all these years. They know that the "right of return" is not a workable solution, but they'd prefer not to actually say it out loud. Just string everything along for years. Keep telling people you're working on it. Keep everything up in the air - then no one gets mad - right? But Bush blew their game and is telling it like it is. Oh the horror of it all!!!

(We now pause for this interlude to run screaming through the streets - someone told the truth and the sky is falling - look out the Palestinians are MAD!!!)

"Both Clinton administrations were prepared to accept the logic of what was done today," said Aaron Miller, a veteran U.S. negotiator with Israelis and Arabs under Clinton and prior administrations. But Miller said Bush had made "more explicit what had been implicit" and gave no written assurances to Palestinians, even as he gave a letter of assurances to Sharon.

Even Clinton knew what was up - but with that European flare that so endeared him to the "old world" governments, he didn't acknowledge the truth either. Too messy don't you know. And what's the biggest beef here? That Bush has given no WRITTEN assertions to the Palestinians.

Oh, okay, just hang on and we'll get you that little piece of paper - will you be happy then? And how about, while we're sitting here writing, you Palestinians, get rid of Arafat and Hamas and get yourselves a real leader who wants to talk peace. Negotiate for some real estate somewhere, park yourselves on it, and start building your own life. Start working on living instead of trying to kill all the Israeli's. You might find that the future looks much better then.