Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Well, at Least Kerry Wasn't Fired

I have no love for Kerry, or any professional job seeker for that matter, but what follows deserves to be disseminated.

The headline: “Clark Aims to Pull Rank on Kerry in N.H."

A quote from Clark from the linked article above.

"It’s one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He’s done that, I respect that,” Clark said. “But I’ve got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom."

I’ll say, Clark can’t get much farther from the bottom after being fired.

Headline link via Drudge.

Reality via Billy Beck.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/20 at 12:31 PM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Spreading the Word

While digging around today looking for something appropriate to post at The Atlasphere’s Ayn Rand Meta-Blog, I stumbled upon the International Society for Individual Liberty website.  What interested me, while looking around, was a notice stating “Year of Ayn Rand” Book Project Launched. Interesting.  Taking a page from The Gideon’s playbook, the project’s stated goal, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Rand, is,

"The long-term goal of the project is to introduce the works of Ayn Rand and her philosophy to Russian-speaking countries, and to make these ideas a part of the intellectual mainstream of the culture. To accomplish this, we intend to print and sell millions of copies of Rand’s works throughout the Russian-speaking world."

I wish them success.  Hopefully Rand’s works will become more dog earred than the Bibles I find in hotel rooms.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/20 at 10:06 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

I've Got News for Reporters

In this article, from Reporters Without Borders, reporting on the death in April 2003 of two journalists at the Baghdad Hotel, the reporters have this to say.

"Reporters Without Borders called today for the reopening of the enquiry into who was really responsible for the US Army’s “criminal negligence” in shooting at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 and causing the death of two journalists - Ukrainian cameramen Taras Protsyuk (of Reuters news agency) and Spaniard José Couso (of the Spanish TV station Telecinco)."

As you read further into the article, you find these statements.

"The US shelling of the hotel was not a deliberate attack on journalists and the media. It was the result of criminal negligence."

And this.

"At the bottom level, Capt. Wolford and Sgt. Gibson reacted as soldiers in a battle situation. They directly caused the death of the journalists and wounded three others, but should not really be held responsible because they did not have information that would have made them aware of the consequences of firing at the hotel."

And this.

"Their immediate superiors - battalion commander Lt. Col. Philip DeCamp and brigade commander Col. David Perkins - also appear not to blame. Their reactions and the accounts of embedded journalists indicate they too had not been properly informed by their own superiors."

Which leads the reporters to conclude this.

"It is inconceivable that the massive presence of journalists at the hotel for three weeks prior to the shelling, which was known by any TV viewer and by the Pentagon itself, could have passed unnoticed. Yet this presence was never mentioned to the troops in the field or marked on the maps used by artillery support soldiers. The question is whether this information was withheld deliberately, out of contempt or through negligence.

At the top level, the US government must bear some of the responsibility. Not just because it is the government and has supreme authority over its army in the field, but also because its top leaders several times made false statements about the incident. They also talked regularly about the dangers journalists faced in Iraq."

So, if I understand this correctly, journalists think that the military high command should be briefing the troops in the field as to the whereabouts of reporters, especially if they are highly concentrated in one area, to facilitate the reporters’ safety during periods of intense conflict.  If, said reporters, who mingle both with coalition troops and those opposing them, happen to be in an area of a fire fight, coalition troops should refrain from protecting themselves until they can assure reporters’ safety.  Whether the troops realize said reporters are in the area or not, which of course they should be aware because, afterall, they are reporters you know.

I refer you Reporters Without Borders, and possibly common sense, to the following words of Colonel Hal Moore, as delivered in the movie We Were Soldiers, to the reporter Bill Galloway.

"I can’t guarantee your safety."

If Reporters Without Borders desire safety for their club members, they should consider being reassigned to the entertainment desk, say in Des Moines.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/20 at 05:09 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

This Parrot Could've Been a Sailor

"F*** the Nazi’s, F*** Hitler, so says Churchill’s parrot which is still alive, believe it or not, and enjoying its one-hundred and fourth year of life.  Cool.  Give that bird the biggest damn cracker you can find.

Via PrestoPundit.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/20 at 04:43 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

The Flimsiest of Connections

In the Telegraph this morning we are greeted with this headline, “Cannabis is blamed as cause of man’s death." Naturally, I was drawn to such a bold conclusion, wondering, if a one ton bale of primo African skunk, or more common variety Hawaiian, had inadvertantly been dropped on the individual.  Perusing the article, alas, I find this statement.

"Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire coroner, said Mr Maisey was free from disease and had not drunk alcohol for at least 48 hours. Post-mortem tests showed a high level of cannabinoids in his blood.

He recorded a verdict of death by misadventure because Mr Maisey had died while taking part in an illegal activity. The death led to a warning about the changing strength of cannabis, which is to be reduced to a Class C drug on Jan 29."

According to the above, because the deceased ”...showed a high level of cannabinoids in his blood" the coroner was able to record ”...a verdict of death by misadventure..."

So, what killed Mr Maisey, cannabis or misadventure?  The link between Maisey’s death and cannabis is as tenuous as a rolling paper in the presence of a match.

Via Drudge.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/20 at 03:55 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages