Wildcats Repeat As City Series Champions :: Villanova (16-7) wins 11th straight Big 5 game
Anyone see Larry Brown at that game? What's up with that?
Anyway, watching Martelli lose made the St Louis Airport Marriott bearable. I don't know what it is about that guy, but I can't stand him. He looks like Young Frankenstein.
I like Drexel this year though, they're playing over their head.
Rest of the year, 'nova has a killer schedule, watch out.
They beat Louisville too, saw parts of that one too, glad Louisville made it to the Big East, I get to see basketball I actually have some interest in.
It has been my opinion that the people who run around and assert that the "lack" of WMD's and the fact that Iraq had "no connection" to 9/11 completely invalidates the war in Iraq due to the fact that these were the only
reasons for going to war were simply either misinformed due to their choice in media or just not paying attention to the situation during the years between 2001 and 2003.
For two reasons:
1) I was unemployed until 9/18/2001 when I was hired by my former employer. I had applied for several jobs with the DOD and CIA and I had more than a little interest in what was going on. Especially since the DOD jobs paid more than I would be making at my former job, and I would have had to move. For the record, those jobs weren't filled until 2002, I was a finalist for one, but I didn't want to work on contract.
2) I had three kids at the time, and if I was going to end up in the army, I wanted to know why, know what I'm saying?
Now, I know that there's evidence (click here)
that the US sold arms to Iraq, and even evidence that US firms sold Iraq precursers to chemical weapons in the 80's. That's been reported over and over. What's interesting about that is that the people responsible for Reagan's measured support of Iraq v. Iran are the same "realist" that we are now supposed to take seriously since they are part of the Iraq Study Group. People the press would have skewered if they were still part of the administration. It makes no sense to me that the people who can most be blamed for letting the Iraq situation get so out of control before
2003, should be the people we listen to now that Iraq is even more out of control in 2007.
I have a real hard time believing anything actually reported from Iraq, unless it's reported without filters by someone who happens to, you know, be there. (click here)
And I'm not just one of those "I hate the MSM guys" for no reason. For instance, here's a link to the Washington Post's story on the release of the Duelfer Report. (click here)
Note the Headline, then the correction. Needless to say, reporting on the Duelfer report was more than a little dishonest. Hell, you can read the original yourself (click here)
it's all there, page back and forth.
For a long time the average guy would never have been aware that there was a certain amount of fiction in the news presented on TV and in the paper. All of that was over, we thought. History, a chapter on "yellow journalism" and the Spanish-American war (American Imperialism at the turn of the century, everyone remember that class?). Journalist were professionals now, they have special schools and everything, they would never just make stuff up. But now we know there's a new definition of facts. (click here)
Fake but accurate, quite a catchphrase. But you would think that surely that was just election-year politics, right? Wrong. (click here)
Follow the links on that page to see what happened next, I'll summarize here.
There was a big stink. The AP had used an Iraqi Police captain named Jamil Hussein as a source on about 60 articles on events all over Iraq. One of these stories was pretty unbelievable and involved Shia militias destroying four mosques and dragging six Sunni men into the street, dowsing them with kerosene and lighting them on fire. Burning them to death while the Iraqi police looked on
. That's some heavy-duty stuff right there. Problem is, what they reported,and what they now say may have actually happened (click here)
are two different things. Plus, there seemed to be an issue over the source, was this Jamil Hussein guy for real? Or was he made up? Seems his real name wasn't Jamil Hussein, seems he wasn't in that part of Bagdad. If it was the guy they now say it was and it seems that there's plenty of reason to question any of the 60 or so stories where the AP used this character as a source. At least there is in my mind, you might be satisfied with "fake but accurate".
More to the point, the source of the news that Jamil Hussein was found and now faced arrest for passing information to the AP?The AP, of course. (click here)
To be fair, I'm not saying that I think there's some big conspiracy to doom the new Iraqi govenment by the AP. What I am saying is that the AP is lazy, arrogant, and trying to work on the cheap. How else would you explain that it took months to send out reporters to check and see if the mosques had actually been destroyed? Shouldn't that have been followed up on in kind of a hurry? Somebody who works for the AP is in Bagdad, right? Or are these stories just phoned in by anonymous strangers?
Let me ask you, suppose you did your job the way that I just illustrated that the AP, the New York Times, CBS and the Washington Post had done. That is, you took a consensus opinion and invented facts in order to justify that consensus, wouldn't you expect to be fired?Isn't that, in effect, what Enron did? (click here)
Seems to me, consensus opinion has a lot more to do with "feelings" than actual facts. Take this example, my favorite Athiest Socialist, Christopher Hitchens, (click here)
has a pretty good takedown of Frank Rich, who has evidently written a pretty dishonest book...
"I don't think we ever said—at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein," Bush said in the spring of 2006. That is technically true, but it is really just truthiness: Bush struck 9/11 like a gong in every fear-instilling speech about Iraq he could."
Now, "truthiness" is a laugh-word invented by Steven Colbert who (along with his friend Jon Stewart and the other heroes of Comedy Central) is the beau ideal of what Rich considers to be the ironic. In this book and in his regular column, he gives "truthiness" a workout whenever he can. He clearly wishes he had coined it himself, and he has kept it going for perhaps a touch longer—may I hint?—than even Colbert might wish. Let us examine it in the present case. The administration did not, in point of fact and as Rich concedes, ever make the case that Saddam Hussein had sponsored the assault of 9/11. It did, however, strongly imply that he might have an interest in, or enthusiasm for, this kind of activity. And many Americans when polled were found to suspect him of an even more direct connection. Well, Saddam Hussein had sheltered the Iraqi-American fugitive who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He had allowed the internationally-wanted criminal Abu Nidal to use Baghdad as his headquarters. He had boasted of paying a bounty to the suicide-murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The man who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, a certain Abu Abbas, who was responsible for rolling Leon Klinghoffer in his wheelchair off the vessel's deck and into the Mediterranean, had to be released when apprehended because he was traveling on an Iraqi passport. A diplomatic passport. The Baghdad state-run press had exulted at the revenge taken on America on 9/11. This does not exhaust the "truthiness" of the suggestion that Saddam Hussein might have to be taken seriously as a sponsor of nihilistic violence. Could one even suggest that those who thought so might be intuitively and even objectively wiser than those who thought it crass to mention Saddam Hussein and "terrorism" in the same breath? Not without being jeered at by Rich, who either does not know any of the above facts or who chooses not to include any of them in his proudly truth-centered narrative.
If you haven't yet, go back and read that whole article. Hitchens can write and he says a lot of the things I was trying to say, only he actually succeeds in making his point.
Labels: basketball, dragged off and shot, media, rant, Villanova