Whither Logic

A Nobel Laureate Speaks Out

NUZ May 13, 2004:

"Imagine how much better things might be going in Iraq if the terrorists knew that while Democrats might have some domestic policy differences with the president, but that they were solidly behind him in his determination to destroy Islamic terrorism?"

Muslim silence is speaking volumes.

I've had enough.

I just heard some clown on NPR say, in the same sentence that "according to the whitehouse, our involvement in Iraq is for the purpose of liberating the Iraqi people." Okay, so the guy doesn't believe the Whitehouse and that's fine except for his next statement where he says that the recent beheading of theS citizen by some Arabs is the "first documented revenge killing for the prisoner abuses in Iraq."

So what the whitehouse says is suspect but what some arab murdere's statement of shy he does something is "documentable" and true. Un fucking believable!

I was complaining to someone about the bias in the major news media the other day and I received an interesting response. I complained that 1) the major news outlets slanted left and 2) that the reaons for it was most likely a combination of undereducated journalists and the FACT that most journalists are left-leaning. My audience of one responded that I was certainly wrong as, and I losely quote, "The major news companies are run by big business!!!!"

He seemed to have made some jump that big business is conservative and therefore would be pushing a righ-slanted agenda. Well, besides being a little shocked at his simplistic response, it also made me think. Yes, big media is corporate controlled but one also has to realize that it also thrives on making policy: fashion, ideas, "news" and the like. If truly were to educate the masses, you would also lose your exalted position at the top of the policy heap. It's much easier to sell lefty feel good and alternately scary doom and gloom than report the ideas of personal responsibility and delayed gratification. So maybe the conspiracy shakes out like this: Big evil Republican big business types run the news majors. To effectuate their goals and line their profits with advertising cash, they employ uneducated liberal journalists that will propogate fear and indolence thus providing a fertile market place ofr their advertissers. Stupid paople make good buyers.

EditorandPublisher.com - Information Authority for the Newspaper Industry:

"NEW YORK Despite having more than 1,000 photos taken by American soldiers of life in and around the abuse-filled Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

Abuse-filled: okay, so is that term maybe a little value laden? And yesterday, that dum-ass publisher from the LA times lamenting the attack of pseudo-journalism. My God!!! we're living in some strange world where hypocracy reigns supreme. It's time for a revolution before it's not too late.

Particularly outrageous in Saudi Arabia, such twisted and often contradictory conspiracies are commonplace in the Arab world, where they are peddled by repressive regimes obsessively guided by a single motive: deflecting the dangerous anger of their oppressed populations to a convenient bogeyman. Which is why Arab “think tanks,” like the now-shuttered Zayed Center in the United Arab Emirates, can, in the same breath, deny the Holocaust and decry Jews as Nazis. And why media like the Egyptian daily, Al-Gumhouriyya, can charge, as it did last month, that Jews are responsible for every terrorist attack in the world.

Some other idiocy that I've been reading as of late and it seems that no one in the press seems to make a point of it: We hear that the Iraqi's that were humiliated by our GI's complaining that the abuse they suffered was worse that the punishments inflicted by Saddam. The abused Iraqi's have stated that physical torture and the like is preferrable to the sexual and perverted humilitations thay have suffered. While I agree that what some of our troops did was absolutely outrageous and disgusting, the claims of the prisoners makes no sense.

You see, if pysical torture was preferrable to being forced to wear women's underwear and forced to get naked with a bunch of other Arabs, then why the hell did they do it? I mean, what threat were our GI's putting forth to make these guys engage in cross-dressing and male "bonding." I'm assuming that they were threatened with physical punishment but they chose to forego that did they not.

Obviously, one cannot say "wear this underwear of I'll force you to wear this underwear." The victims were obviously threatened with physical punishment and chose to forego it and instead do the naked thing so I guess that being physically tortured is worse (they were given the choice).