Iraq Casualties And Perspective

I know I haven't been blogging as much as late, but I hope that this post does show why I continue to bother from time to time. Regardless of your point of view on whatever the issue of the moment is, blogs represent a new way to learn and debate. And it is a means that I find superior to being spoon-fed someone else’s opinion on the evening news.

A week or so ago, there was a post at Redstate that tried to give some perspective to the military deaths that have occurred in Iraq. Coming from a blog with such a conservative bias, I think you can imagine what direction the perspective took the raw numbers. To their credit, the post is open to comments and some of the comments offer a severe criticism of the analysis.

The post was picked up by Instapundit. Originally the post was nothing but a short link to the Redstate post. But given the readership levels of Instapundit, Glenn was soon bombarded with different points of view and updates to his original post were made.

A counter-analysis was given at the Winds of Change blog. This counter was itself countered at Belmont Club and Elements of Power.

And the above just represents where I stopped digging into this issue. Certainly the analysis is not complete. I still have open questions, specifically concerning the validity of these numbers that people are tossing around as verified fact. But one thing is perfectly clear to me. The above set of links has made me think more about this issue than hearing soldier number X died today in Iraq on the evening news.

Hillary Clinton, Immigration, and Jesus

No, you didn't read that headline wrong. Doesn't make any sense to you? I'll have to agree with that. Speaking out against a bill that would criminalize illegal immigration, Ms. Clinton had the following to say. (Hat tip Polipundit, which links to the Times version of the AP story. Since you can't read that without a silly subscription, I found the AP wire version on another site.)

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

The quote almost has me speechless, but I had to comment on it anyway. Can you imagine the storm of reactions is President Bush vowed to veto a bill because of its theoretical effects on Jesus? Is anyone else buying Ms. Clinton's sudden rebirth of spirituality?

You can find a number of strawman polls and more formal polls, testing how various potential Republican candidates would fare against Hillary Clinton in a 2008 Presidential election. The more press Clinton gets, the less likely I think it is that she will get the Democratic nomination. Will the energize portion of the Democratic base--the avid Kos followers--support a candidate who continually attempts to quote scripture, make biblical analogies and in general appear to be a person whose life is guided by a strong faith?

Time will tell, but it seems unlikely.

Washington Post Goes Red

Ben Domenech has a new editorial column at the Washington Post called Red America. The column promises to bring a conservative point of view to an otherwise liberal news paper. Michele Malkin predicted that this would cause an outcry among the more liberal minded and her prediction is already starting to come true. Read the comments from readers...the word that comes to mind is raving.

What is perhaps most shocking to me is that this is news as all. A paper hires an editorialist with opinions. Is this really noteworthy? Sadly, it's the reaction the hiring has received that has been the most worthy of note.

Mainstream Media Mistakes and Biases

Near the end of last week, the mainstream media showed its colors once again and while I can't say I was surprised, I was once again angered.

First up was the coverage of the recently declassified documents that had been captured in Iraq. Blog commentary about the coverage can be found by Malkin. Malkin writes about an ABC News analysis of the documents (available here). The recovered documents clearly suggest a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. (Remember, these are the findings of an Iraqi intelligence officer, not ABC News.)

• That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
• That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
• That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
• That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

But the editor felt compelled to add the following note to the above findings.

Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.

Interesting, isn't it, that this time documents are of "limited evidentiary value" but when memos slandering Bush were released during the election they were found to be "fake but accurate?" This is a double standard of almost indescribable proportions.

Also in the news at the end of last week was a monumental misstep by a personal favorite of mine--the New York Times. The Times has interviewed a man who claimed to be the now infamous "man in the hood" from the Abu Ghraib prison photos. It turns out that the man is a liar and not in the picture. A retraction and editor's note has been published. The most laughable part of the excuse comes from them 2nd paragraph of the editor's note.

The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.

To paraphrase the excuse: "We didn't do out job and fact check, but other's made the same mistake and the Pentagon didn't do our job for us, so isn't that OK?" Pathetic. A round of up other reactions can be found at Instapundit.

Just over a year ago, my first post posed the question, "Why Blog?" Political and news blogs provide an amazing fact-checking service for the mainstream media. And judging by the past and continuing behavior of the media, it is a service that is desperately needed.

Full Circle: Hollywood Doesn't Get Jon Stewart

One of my first every blog posts dealt with Jon Stewart of Daily Show fame, and his admission that good things could be happening in the Middle East as the result of the choices of President Bush. It seems fitting that after my short break from blogging that I find myself posting about Mr. Stewart again.

As many of you realize, Jon Stewart hosted the Academy Awards last night. I didn't watch the awards show, but I did happen across this interesting article at MSNBC titled, "Those big stars just don't get Jon Stewart." The article suggests that Stewart's hosting performance will go down in history as a failure, joining the likes of Chris Rock and David Letterman. What was more revealing was that it wasn't that Stewart's performance was bad--it was that the sheltered Hollywood community takes itself too seriously. Most notable were reaction like the following.

An admitted and unashamed progressive himself, Stewart later made fun of the film industry's perceived liberalness, telling viewers the Oscars are a chance to "see all your favorite stars without having to donate any money to the Democratic party." Our favorite stars barely chuckled.

The author further suggests that this is more evidence that Hollywood is out of step with much of the country.

But that sort of contradictory, somewhat nuanced humor didn't work well for the Oscars' audience. The theater audience's lack of laughter was judgmental and was at odds with viewers who were laughing because this was the funny Jon Stewart we know from cable.

While I haven't been blogging myself of late, I have continued to read and watch what is going on in the world. And lately I've been more and more struck by a consistent theme--people taking themselves too seriously. More (much more) on that later.

In regards to this topic, however, I think this is just further proof that disappointing theater revenues aren't due to internet piracy or a high ticket prices. They are due to Hollywood pressing an agenda that many have no interest in following and believing themselves so important that they can't take a reflective look to see that, even when pointed there by one of their own.

Break From Blogging

It seems that I have taken an unplanned break from blogging. The reasons are both many and likely uninteresting to the few people that read here.

I have some thoughts on what I would like to do next, blogging-wise, but they may take some time to set into motion.

Check back for more details.

Math Errors And Political Agendas

I know this stems from my academic background, but I really can't abide people who make egregious math errors in an effort to promote their agenda. Sometimes it involves simply quoting statistics that have no basis in reality. Case in point, note this comment by John Kerry on NBC today.

53% of America’s children do not graduate from high school.

The real number turns out to be around 87%. (Hat tip Polipundit.) Why would someone make such a claim when they have to know how quickly and easily there error would be discovered?
(Update: Malkin has the video.)

Sometimes the error is more complicated, but still simple enough to not be excusable. As an example (hat tip Instapundit), here's a blog post by Eugene Volokh detailing some sketchy math being done by the Oregon State University newspaper. The paper made the following statement.

According to a press release issued by the Women’s Center, 2,000 rapes occur every five minutes.

If that number seems shockingly high to you, it should; it suggests there are 200 million rapes a year. When Volokh questioned the paper, he was directed to the press release which actually says:

About 2,000 rapes are committed daily at the rate of about one every 5 minutes.

2,000 daily is much different that 2,000 every 5 minutes. The errors continue as Volokh points out:

A "rate of about one every 5 minutes" would be about 300 daily ((60/5) x 24), not about 2000 daily.

There remains great debate about what the actual number is.

What is so frustrating about this to me is that there is no need to hype this ill in our society. Whether the number is 300 daily or 2000 daily, it is appallingly too high. One does not need to suggest it is 700,000 daily to make a point.

This fudging numbers issue really bothers me. As as result, should I suggest that 79.2% of all mainstream media articles have incorrect statistics? No, because I have no idea what the actual percentage is; therefore I won't pretend that I do. And irrespective of how noble their agenda is, no one else should either.

Bush Approval Rating Hits 50%

This latest Rasmussen poll is getting some coverage (by blogs of course, not the mainstream media). As of January 31, the running poll show's Bush's approval rating at 50%.

What could explain the rise in approval?

Perhaps this?

Or this?

Or maybe this? (And it gets better here.)

Some advice for Democrats. You aren't running against George Bush anymore. Like it or not (and we all know you can't stand it to the very core of your being), George Bush will be President of the United States for 8 years. After that, his political career is over.

Do you want to regain some semblance of respectability and some chance of regaining power in 2008? Concentrate on 2006 Senate elections. Concentrate on having a party platform that is compelling to a majority of the American population and one that stands by itself. You platform cannot be Bush lied, Iraq is a failure, or Republicans are evil.

Politics is full of absurdities. But there are, it seems, limits to how far the American people can be pushed.

CNN's Military Bashing Agenda

With Alito and trapped miners in the news, there has been little coverage of Iraq on the front page of CNN as of late. It has been said that the best sign of success in Iraq will be when the mainstream media stops caring about it.

It seems however that CNN couldn't keep their agenda held back forever. The front page has a featured article, with the headline: "Army's 'thin green line' could snap, study says." Completing the mood-setting piece is the following photo.


Normally I try to at least read the article that I'm referencing, but this time I couldn't get behind the headline and the photo. I would love to know the source of the photo. I'm pretty sure it isn't a photo troops reacting to the report. It wouldn't surprise me if they had been sitting for a long time and were just bored. But I have no way of knowing of course.

I will perhaps follow-up more later if I can find more information and analysis of this report. For now, I'll leave you with a few more photos. These we part of some a collection of "best pictures of 2005" that has been circulating the internet. I'm not sure really what I'm trying to say with these; I only know I want it to be different than the constant and consistent bile being spewed out by CNN and their kin.

Progress In Iraq? Infighting Among Terrorists

This didn't get much press (shocking I know), but I found it fascinating. Bill Roggio writes about "Faultlines in Iraq's Islamist Insurgency". In particular:

al-Qaeda in Iraq has recently issued a statement claiming to “have set up an umbrella body to coordinate their fight against U.S.-led forces and the Iraqi government.” Notably excluded from this body of insurgent groups are Ansar al-Sunnah and the Iraq Islamic Army.

Zarqawi was able to secure the commitment of a little known Islamist group called The Victorious Sect and five small organization, however he was unable to reach out to two largest groups, Ansar al-Sunnah and the Islamic Army in Iraq, two groups that have worked with al-Qaeda in the past.

Couple this story with Bin Laden's rejected (and disingenuous) call for a truce, and I can only see more progress in Iraq.

Laura Bush Responds To Hillary Clinton's MLK Comments

Yesterday I posted regarding some outrageous comments made by Hillary Clinton on MLK Day. I felt that the comments showed a moment of political clumsiness rarely showed by Ms. Clinton.

Laura Bush has criticized Senator Clinton for her remarks. (Hat tip Polipundit.) The political staging of the first lady's comments seemed a lot savvier, in my opinion. She comments while in Africa, after Monday's inauguration of Liberia's president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first woman president elected in Africa. Regardless of the content, comments made in the company of a woman such as Ellen Sirleaf seem much more respectable that those made in the company of Al Sharpton.

Of course, political staging aside, the content of Mrs. Bush's remarks deserves a lot more respect than those of Ms. Clinton.

Hillary Clinton Shows Weakness: MLK Day Comments

Hillary Clinton made some shocking comments at a church in Harlem on MLK day. I first read heard about this via the NY Daily News. Searching for more references, I found that Michele Malkin was already on the case. It's hard to provide a better collection of links than Michele, so I'll just direct you to her post on the subject. She includes a link to video of Senator Clinton making the comments.

From the NY Times coverage of the speech:

Mrs. Clinton added that the House has been "run like a plantation" under Republicans. "And you know what I am talking about," she said. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary point of view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument."

This seems to me to be a serious miss-step by Ms. Clinton. In the more recent moonbat and media explosions, trying to Blame Bush for something new, Clinton has wisely kept her distance. She didn't support immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. She hasn't (to my knowledge) attacked the President about wire taps, knowing full well that her husband did the same while he was in office. She has made no crazy attacks against Alito--attacks of the sort that have made other Democrats look silly in the last week.

So why now appear in a church with Al Sharpton making outrageous and inflammatory statements? Normally she we would be savvy enough to let the Sharptons and Gores of the world make the ridiculous statements. Watching the video, only one word comes to mind.

Unelectable.

New Horizons Mission To Pluto

In minutes, the NASA mission New Horizons will launch, with the destination of Pluto and the Kuiper Belt. Currently the launch is in a built-in hold, with the NASA team analyzing strong winds and the possible effect on the launch.

Live-blogging coverage is available at space.com.

The event is getting press as CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS.

The NASA has a page dedicated to New Horizons, including a live video feed if you want to see the launch and aren't near a TV.

Overall, I agree with Glenn at Instapundit:

Now we need to start resume moving humanity out beyond Earth orbit.

Good luck to all the people at NASA and elsewhere that have worked for years to prepare for this moment.

Update: The launch has been delayed due to unacceptably high winds.

Gore speaks out against NSA wiretaps...

Al Gore gave a speech condemning the NSA wiretapping program. CNN.com briefly had it's report on the speech as it's top story on their front page. My question is why exactly is this news worthy of an 850 word article, let alone front page news? The speech breaks no new ground. It adds no new information to the discussion of this issue. Much of the report consists of boilerplate background on the NSA story. Gore has not held political office in almost five years and is unlikely to do so in the future. Of course, it's nothing more than an opportunity to haul out the boilerplate.

Glad to see that CNN apparently agrees about the story's newsworthiness. It was soon bumped from it's top story slot by something truly importance - Golden Globe coverage

CNN out of Iran - Will their coverage improve?

CNN is reporting that their network has been banned from working in Iran. The Ahmadinejad regime is retaliating over an error in translation. The interpreter on the original CNN broadcast originally said that the Iranian president claimed to have a right to nuclear weapons, while the Iranians say he only claimed a right to nuclear energy. CNN has issued a correction and apology, but this was apparently not good enough.

My reaction to seeing this story is to wonder what new information about the Iranian regime CNN might now admit to having. Back in 2003, after American soldiers had removed Hussein from power in Iraq, CNN's Eason Jordan admitted to concealing much of the atrocities committed by Saddam's regime. (The original NYT OpEd is a pay link, but Free Republic has it posted here.) Jordan claimed that it was necessary to hide things in order to maintain access to Iraq and to protect their employees and contacts. It's easy to imagine that the mad mullahs in Tehran have committed attrocities. Based on their record it's also easy to imagine that the folks at CNN would put preserving access to Iran above truth in reporting.

Of course, I fully expect that CNN will regain access to the country after suitable ritual abasement.

Again The NY Times Caught With Fake Photos

The American Thinker has the story of the New York Times, once again, getting caught with a misleading (and likely staged) photograph. (Hat tip Instapundit.)

The story that ran spoke of the devastation being wrought upon Pakistani people in failed U.S. attempts to capture Zawahiri. To hammer the point home, the story feature the following photograph, which was said to depict the remains of a missile amidst the ruins of a Pakistani house, complete with a deeply saddened family.


The object picture above turns out not to be a missile at all (which is actually quite clear to someone with any knowledge of military hardware). It is in fact an old artillery shell that has been used as a prop in a staged photograph, designed to illicit anger against a seemingly inept and dangerous Bush administration. And it was a staged photograph that the New York Times was happy to publish without any indication of fact-checking.

Thankfully, bloggers did notice the mistake, and the Times has a corrected caption under the photograph here.

Correction: A picture caption on Saturday with an article about a U.S. airstrike on a village in Pakistan misidentified an unexploded ordinance. It was not the remains of a missile fired at a house.

But isn't the damage already done?

Analysis Of The Alito Hearings

Instapundit links to an interesting analysis of the Alito hearings so far at Soxblog.

And then there’s yesterday’s other memorable moment. So distraught was Judge Alito’s wife over the abuse the windbags had doled out to her husband, when Lindsey Graham apologized for that abuse she bolted from the hearing room in tears.

To say this was a disastrous turn of events for the Democrats would be an understatement. American’s don’t mind dirty politics. Attack politics are almost part of our national DNA.

But there is one limit – leave the opponent’s family alone.

I think that the author Dean Barret is probably being a little optimistic here. While negative attacks can backfire, they often don't do so to the degree that he suggests. I note that CNN has pushed coverage of the hearings off the front page, but still runs with headlines such as "Democratic Senator Grill Alito" and "Alito Denies Conflicting Answers".

Conservatives Open Up Huge Lead In Canadian Polls

Steve is off on his honeymoon (congratulations Steve!) so you won't get a detailed analysis of these poll results. The news from up north is that the conservatives have opened up a huge lead in the polls--as much as 13%.

McClure at Polipundit asks perhaps the most important question:

The big question mark is the 17% undecided voters. Will they stay home or vote Liberal out of fear of the Conservatives.

There are enough undecided voters to swing the election either way, but they would have to vote en mass to do so.

Captain's Quarters Blog has more.

The Alito Media Circus

I'm having a hard time finding topics to blog about these last few days. The news has been dominated by the Alito confirmation hearings, a topic which I find particularly uninteresting. For those that are of a like mind with me and would just rather the whole thing would be done with, here are the highlights of what is going to happen.

• Democratic senators will make opening statements that have very little to do with the Supreme Court and very much to do with their hatred of President Bush. They will be very smug while they do this.
  
• Republican senators will make opening statements that have very little to do with the Supreme Court and very much to do with their hatred of the people who just made the negative statements about President Bush. They will be equally smug while they do this.
• The media and the Democratic senators will repeatedly ask Alito how he will rule on abortion cases.
• Alito will repeatedly remind the senators that a good judge only responsibility is the rule of law and that it would be inappropriate to answer such questions.
• Liberal, moonbat bloggers will go ape over his refusal to answer such questions. They will dig up mountains of records that try to prove Alito is fascist, a Nazi, racist, etc.
• Conservative, anti-abortion-crazed bloggers will go ape over many things including the questions asked by the liberal Senators, the postings at the liberal blogs and the bias in the media coverage.
• A few of the most liberal senators will threaten a filibuster.
• In the end, a very qualified judge will be approved, thus making the entire series of events outlined above meaningless and tiresome.

I suppose there is a small chance that something interesting happens. Alito could snap under the constant barage of stupid questions, but I doubt it. Pressure from the moonbats could cause the Democrats to actually try a filibuster for real, instead of threatening it, but I doubt it.

Now to find something more worthy to blog about.

Ted Kennedy On The Goldwater Presidency

I'm not sure how I missed this yesterday. I think Senator Kennedy needs to put down the bottle again. Covered at the New Editor (hat tip Instapundit), here's a gem of a quote by Kennedy.

Briefly, Kennedy rewrote the outcome of the 1964 election. "This nominee was influenced by the Goldwater presidency," he said. "The Goldwater battles of those times were the battles against the civil rights laws." Only then did Kennedy acknowledge that "Judge Alito at that time was 14 years old."

Really? Here's a link that might help Mr. Kennedy out. I suppose it might be too much to ask for Kennedy to actually know who has been president and who hasn't. On second thought, no it's not. I wasn't really sure how it would be possible for my opinion of Senator Kennedy to sink lower. Now I know.