Sunday, September 12, 2004
A Quick Note to the Oklahoma University Sooners
Practice special teams. A lot. If my Ducks play as crappy against you next week in Norman as they did against Indiana yesterday here in Eugene, "Y'all" are going to be spending a lot of time kicking off after scoring.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
It's Been a While
So I thought I'd do a Top Ten List.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
What's the Font, Kenneth?
A while back, I attempted to fisk a blog post by Tom Humphrey, a newspaper editor from Tennessee. I wasn't the only one. If you'll follow the links to other blogs in my post, the trackback, or the link to Tom's blog where the comments are, you'll see that quite a few of us tore in to ol' Tommie.
While there was plenty to go on in his post, the main reason bloggers went after Mr. Humphrey was due to a comment in his post:
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those iron clad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such.
Nice, huh? Thanks a lot, Tom. What's sad is, in recent days I've heard the same comments about bloggers AGAIN, thanks to the Memogate controversy.
Dan Rather called us "rumor mills" and "partisan political operatives" (pot and kettle much, Danny Boy?). Last night watching MSNBC, I heard a guest on Scarborough Country accuse bloggers of being rumor mongers, and of not being subject to fact checking.
Let's address quickly the fact that this is an unabashed ad hominem, and then move on. The person that made this comment could not refute the forgery allegations, could not lend any expertise to the discussion of the documents, so they had to assail the bloggers instead. Because we're rumor mongers, then anything we say must therefore be nothing but rumor, with no relevance or basis in fact. Pure ad hominem. As unsophisticated as some people think it is to cite her, I have to say, Ann Coulter was right when she wrote Slander.
Well, I have news for them. If anything, blogs are more closely scrutinized than Mainstream Media sources. Go back to my post on Tom Humphrey. In criticizing him, I made some spelling and grammatical errors myself, and a reader caught me and called me on it. Admittedly, it took a while, but I have a readership of what, 100 people a day or so? I'm nothing. If one of the heavy hitters (The top 100 or so on the TTLB ecosystem) make a mistake, how quickly do they get called on it. If not in their comment sections, you can BET other blogs, especially those of opposing political views, will call them on it.
That's a significant factor in the checks and balances present on the web, among blogs, as opposed to those in the MSM. Let's look specifically at fact checking.
Any time we are presented with an argument and with evidence for a position on any issue, our own opinion and feelings on that issue cloud our judgment of the evidence. That is human nature. Our desire influences our inclination, that is, the more we want something to be true, the more apt we are to believe it. It takes a great deal of intellectual courage to say, "I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not." Some people are more able to do it than others.
We were taught for generations that among those best able to do this were journalists. The dispassionate, impartial observer and reporter who could set aside personal feelings to "Just tell it like it is." But this belief itself was in great part based on our desire to believe. The reality was, sadly, more and more different all the time. Journalists are as fallible as we are. If someone is presented with a story that fits their perception and beliefs and desires, they are going to be more inclined to believe it. They're supposed to exercise caution, but sometimes it can be too tempting to pass up. That's why fact-checking, or some sort of independent review, is important. In the MSM, that's supposed to be the job of fact checkers, editors, and producers. In the blogosphere, it's your readers themselves (who also serve that function for the MSM, but to a lesser degree -- more on that in a bit), and your fellow bloggers.
The problem that the MSM runs into is that over the years, they have grown pretty close to homogeneous in their politics and beliefs. That means that the overseers, the editors, producers, and fact checkers, tend to have the same bias as the reporters, and thus inclined to err in favor of the same view that the reporters do. Whereas in the blogosphere, there are plenty of readers and fellow bloggers who disagree with you on any give topic, and they'll be more than happy to pick at and look as deeply as possible into the claims you present.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the greater a blogs readership, the more likely and the more quickly will occur an "AHA!" if the blogger missteps. That means the most popular bloggers are held most accountable. In theory, it should be the same in the MSM, but alas, as a journalist becomes more famous, more influential, and more highly regarded, they develop clout that allows them protection from too close a scrutiny. Their mistakes tend to be glossed over and ignored by their peers and superiors, and until recently, the public had little recourse to address their errors. How many letters written to an editor actually get published? And if they don't how else will you get the word out? Go to a cometing journalist? It was doubtful you'd get the time of day unless the charge was highly significant and incontrovertable, and even then it was not guaranteed any attention. Out of professional regard, mutually held opinions, and self-preservation, journalists rarely attack their own. It happens, but not often.
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated. And some day, like this week, it may just drown out the old, authoritarian voices of the old media.
While there was plenty to go on in his post, the main reason bloggers went after Mr. Humphrey was due to a comment in his post:
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those iron clad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such.
Nice, huh? Thanks a lot, Tom. What's sad is, in recent days I've heard the same comments about bloggers AGAIN, thanks to the Memogate controversy.
Dan Rather called us "rumor mills" and "partisan political operatives" (pot and kettle much, Danny Boy?). Last night watching MSNBC, I heard a guest on Scarborough Country accuse bloggers of being rumor mongers, and of not being subject to fact checking.
Let's address quickly the fact that this is an unabashed ad hominem, and then move on. The person that made this comment could not refute the forgery allegations, could not lend any expertise to the discussion of the documents, so they had to assail the bloggers instead. Because we're rumor mongers, then anything we say must therefore be nothing but rumor, with no relevance or basis in fact. Pure ad hominem. As unsophisticated as some people think it is to cite her, I have to say, Ann Coulter was right when she wrote Slander.
Well, I have news for them. If anything, blogs are more closely scrutinized than Mainstream Media sources. Go back to my post on Tom Humphrey. In criticizing him, I made some spelling and grammatical errors myself, and a reader caught me and called me on it. Admittedly, it took a while, but I have a readership of what, 100 people a day or so? I'm nothing. If one of the heavy hitters (The top 100 or so on the TTLB ecosystem) make a mistake, how quickly do they get called on it. If not in their comment sections, you can BET other blogs, especially those of opposing political views, will call them on it.
That's a significant factor in the checks and balances present on the web, among blogs, as opposed to those in the MSM. Let's look specifically at fact checking.
Any time we are presented with an argument and with evidence for a position on any issue, our own opinion and feelings on that issue cloud our judgment of the evidence. That is human nature. Our desire influences our inclination, that is, the more we want something to be true, the more apt we are to believe it. It takes a great deal of intellectual courage to say, "I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not." Some people are more able to do it than others.
We were taught for generations that among those best able to do this were journalists. The dispassionate, impartial observer and reporter who could set aside personal feelings to "Just tell it like it is." But this belief itself was in great part based on our desire to believe. The reality was, sadly, more and more different all the time. Journalists are as fallible as we are. If someone is presented with a story that fits their perception and beliefs and desires, they are going to be more inclined to believe it. They're supposed to exercise caution, but sometimes it can be too tempting to pass up. That's why fact-checking, or some sort of independent review, is important. In the MSM, that's supposed to be the job of fact checkers, editors, and producers. In the blogosphere, it's your readers themselves (who also serve that function for the MSM, but to a lesser degree -- more on that in a bit), and your fellow bloggers.
The problem that the MSM runs into is that over the years, they have grown pretty close to homogeneous in their politics and beliefs. That means that the overseers, the editors, producers, and fact checkers, tend to have the same bias as the reporters, and thus inclined to err in favor of the same view that the reporters do. Whereas in the blogosphere, there are plenty of readers and fellow bloggers who disagree with you on any give topic, and they'll be more than happy to pick at and look as deeply as possible into the claims you present.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the greater a blogs readership, the more likely and the more quickly will occur an "AHA!" if the blogger missteps. That means the most popular bloggers are held most accountable. In theory, it should be the same in the MSM, but alas, as a journalist becomes more famous, more influential, and more highly regarded, they develop clout that allows them protection from too close a scrutiny. Their mistakes tend to be glossed over and ignored by their peers and superiors, and until recently, the public had little recourse to address their errors. How many letters written to an editor actually get published? And if they don't how else will you get the word out? Go to a cometing journalist? It was doubtful you'd get the time of day unless the charge was highly significant and incontrovertable, and even then it was not guaranteed any attention. Out of professional regard, mutually held opinions, and self-preservation, journalists rarely attack their own. It happens, but not often.
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated. And some day, like this week, it may just drown out the old, authoritarian voices of the old media.
Looking to the Future
2008
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Friday, September 10, 2004
Mass Hypoxia at the Democratic Underground
Caused by Memogate giving them all "the Vapors", I suppose.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Word Association
A little game for a Friday afternoon. I say a word or phrase, you say the first name that comes to mind.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Kerry's Campaign Gets Pulled Over Again
Thanks for the Memory to reader CG at (you guessed it) Ace of Spades.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
He's Baaaack....
Good News From the Home Front:
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Harkins Hops in Handbasket
FLASH
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Update #3:
Rather Spins
Thanks for the Memory to Ace YET AGAIN
So Rather's story, and he sticking to it (for now), is that even if the source isn't true, the story is!
Dan, Dan, Dan.... if the Source is Lying, the Story is a Lie!
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
Reaping the Whirlwind -- in a Good Way
Wow.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
Semper Fidelis
Just got back from a little jaunt over to Blogmother Da Goddess' blog, where I saw this very moving picture. I suggest you go view her photography, read her moving words. i'm still unsure of how I escaped tears.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
Quote of the Day
(During the fourth quarter of last night's Indianapolis Colts vs. New England Patriots football game in Massachussetts, after two Colts possessions and one Patriots possession had ended in turnovers):
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
Thursday, September 09, 2004
WHAT THE HELL
Is It With the End of the Week and Stressfull Calls?????
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
Memo
From: Blogs
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
Get to the Points
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Toot! Toot!
That's my own horn, folks! When I got back from vacation Tuesday, I learned that I've won a Kerry photo caption contest over at Blogs for Bush! Go check it out!
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
I Love Living in Oregon: Reason #87
Not-quite-Summer-not-quite-Fall September weather. Believe it or not, I missed real seasons and the changes between them when I lived in San Diego. "76 and sunny" gets old after a while.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
Damned if You Do....
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
There's Something on the Wing!
And it ain't patriotism.
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Some of you may remember the entry I made regarding Greyhound's treatment of a Marine. I never did hear any follow-up on that one. Apparently, however, Greyhound isn't alone in its idiocy. Michelle links to one of my favorite blogs, Marine Corps Moms, who in turn link to the Benton Courier, and a Letter to the Editor (sort of):
This letter is NOT to the editor. This letter is to the young female soldier from Benton, who I had the privilege to meet this past Friday evening as we were both trying to get home to Arkansas. Returning from a business trip to New Jersey, I was changing planes in Cincinnati when we met. I had just boarded Delta Flight 6281 (operated by Chautauqua Airlines, a Delta Connection Carrier), Delta's last flight of the evening to Little Rock, when you came onboard and sat down in front of me. I, along with other passengers who had already boarded, listened while you shared your story with us. Having spent [more than] six months in Iraq, you were traveling home to Arkansas. While in Iraq, you had been under enemy fire frequently - on many occasions, several times a day. You had lost two fellow soldiers from your post, and just recently (watched) another lose a leg. You were exhausted from two days of travel, having flown from Iraq to Kuwait, from Kuwait to the Netherlands, from the Netherlands to Cincinnati Š but you were excited and happy, because Cincinnati to Little Rock meant you would be home, just in time for your youngest child's second birthday. You had 18 days' leave remaining before returning to Iraq.
This letter is also to the well-dressed, middle-aged woman who boarded the plane late, who through some administrative error had been assigned the same seat as the soldier. Your behavior made it obvious to me and those around me that you had no intention of handling the situation in a mature way. You approached the flight attendant and demanded "your seat." As the flight attendant worked with the gate crew to try and resolve the issue, the soldier was asked to leave the plane. Shortly thereafter, you returned. When I inquired as to whether you were aware that the individual who had previously been in "your seat" was a soldier traveling home from Iraq on leave to see her family, your verbatim response was, "So what Š I'm a victim from Chicago! What's the difference?" All within earshot were dumbfounded. It was apparent that you have no appreciation for your fellow Americans who leave home and family and risk their lives wearing the uniform of the United States military.
This letter is also to Delta Airlines. When I, along with several others onboard, approached the Chautauqua flight attendant volunteering to give up one of our seats for the soldier, she left to ask the pilot if that could be arranged, then returned to inform me that the pilot was discussing it with "ops." I overheard part of her ensuing conversation with the pilot, where he conveyed the message that Delta would not permit a paying passenger to be replaced with a "non-rev" Š so, in the end, the decision which caused the soldier to spend yet another night away from home was a financial one. Why, instead, don't soldiers like this one get preferential treatment from Delta instead of being placed last on the list? I am, and have been for many years, a Delta Medallion frequent flier, and may continue to fly Delta when appropriate. However, in spite of Delta's well-publicized financial difficulties, if it is your corporate policy to prioritize profit margin over principled corporate citizenship, then I will be a vocal opponent of any federal financial aid to Delta Airlines.
This letter is also to those in the U.S. military responsible for placing this soldier and all like her in this situation in the first place. As a small businessman, I understand fiscal responsibilities and expect taxpayers' money to be stewarded wisely. I cannot believe, though, that there are not better ways to save money than having our military personnel traveling to and from combat situations on leave flying on commercial airlines under this type of arrangement. Does this policy apply to the military decision-makers as well? Will it take you three days to get home on leave if and when you are ever again asked to serve in combat?
As I was deplaning in Little Rock, the flight attendant handed me a folded piece of paper and personally thanked me for offering my seat to the soldier. Walking through the terminal, I read the note she had written. The youngest of her six children, her only son, was joining the Army. She was expressing her hopes that, in the event he was ever placed in a similar situation, he would be treated differently or at least know that there were those who appreciated his service.
Back to the young soldier: Because you were asked to leave the plane, you did not see that there were numerous volunteers willing to give up their set for you. You only heard the one ingrate who had no appreciation for the sacrifices you are making for all of us. That was no way to be welcomed home to America. I was both ashamed to have been a part of what happened and angry that, in spite of our efforts, there was nothing the other passengers and I could do to help you. Again, this letter is first and foremost to you. It is my intention that it appears in the media before your return to Iraq, so that you will know your efforts are appreciated and that you are sincerely welcomed home by most, if not all, of us. I hope we get another opportunity to do just that. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Michael E. Nelson
Warren
Well said, Mr. Nelson. Good for you and your fellow passengers for the effort. shame on that woman.
And shame on Delta for stabbing a young soldier serving her country in the back. I'll never fly Delta again. (And with the financial trouble they're in, let's hope that before long, NOONE ever flies Delta again)!
Courtesy of Michelle, here is a site where you can tell Delta what unpatriotic scum they are.
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Some of you may remember the entry I made regarding Greyhound's treatment of a Marine. I never did hear any follow-up on that one. Apparently, however, Greyhound isn't alone in its idiocy. Michelle links to one of my favorite blogs, Marine Corps Moms, who in turn link to the Benton Courier, and a Letter to the Editor (sort of):
This letter is NOT to the editor. This letter is to the young female soldier from Benton, who I had the privilege to meet this past Friday evening as we were both trying to get home to Arkansas. Returning from a business trip to New Jersey, I was changing planes in Cincinnati when we met. I had just boarded Delta Flight 6281 (operated by Chautauqua Airlines, a Delta Connection Carrier), Delta's last flight of the evening to Little Rock, when you came onboard and sat down in front of me. I, along with other passengers who had already boarded, listened while you shared your story with us. Having spent [more than] six months in Iraq, you were traveling home to Arkansas. While in Iraq, you had been under enemy fire frequently - on many occasions, several times a day. You had lost two fellow soldiers from your post, and just recently (watched) another lose a leg. You were exhausted from two days of travel, having flown from Iraq to Kuwait, from Kuwait to the Netherlands, from the Netherlands to Cincinnati Š but you were excited and happy, because Cincinnati to Little Rock meant you would be home, just in time for your youngest child's second birthday. You had 18 days' leave remaining before returning to Iraq.
This letter is also to the well-dressed, middle-aged woman who boarded the plane late, who through some administrative error had been assigned the same seat as the soldier. Your behavior made it obvious to me and those around me that you had no intention of handling the situation in a mature way. You approached the flight attendant and demanded "your seat." As the flight attendant worked with the gate crew to try and resolve the issue, the soldier was asked to leave the plane. Shortly thereafter, you returned. When I inquired as to whether you were aware that the individual who had previously been in "your seat" was a soldier traveling home from Iraq on leave to see her family, your verbatim response was, "So what Š I'm a victim from Chicago! What's the difference?" All within earshot were dumbfounded. It was apparent that you have no appreciation for your fellow Americans who leave home and family and risk their lives wearing the uniform of the United States military.
This letter is also to Delta Airlines. When I, along with several others onboard, approached the Chautauqua flight attendant volunteering to give up one of our seats for the soldier, she left to ask the pilot if that could be arranged, then returned to inform me that the pilot was discussing it with "ops." I overheard part of her ensuing conversation with the pilot, where he conveyed the message that Delta would not permit a paying passenger to be replaced with a "non-rev" Š so, in the end, the decision which caused the soldier to spend yet another night away from home was a financial one. Why, instead, don't soldiers like this one get preferential treatment from Delta instead of being placed last on the list? I am, and have been for many years, a Delta Medallion frequent flier, and may continue to fly Delta when appropriate. However, in spite of Delta's well-publicized financial difficulties, if it is your corporate policy to prioritize profit margin over principled corporate citizenship, then I will be a vocal opponent of any federal financial aid to Delta Airlines.
This letter is also to those in the U.S. military responsible for placing this soldier and all like her in this situation in the first place. As a small businessman, I understand fiscal responsibilities and expect taxpayers' money to be stewarded wisely. I cannot believe, though, that there are not better ways to save money than having our military personnel traveling to and from combat situations on leave flying on commercial airlines under this type of arrangement. Does this policy apply to the military decision-makers as well? Will it take you three days to get home on leave if and when you are ever again asked to serve in combat?
As I was deplaning in Little Rock, the flight attendant handed me a folded piece of paper and personally thanked me for offering my seat to the soldier. Walking through the terminal, I read the note she had written. The youngest of her six children, her only son, was joining the Army. She was expressing her hopes that, in the event he was ever placed in a similar situation, he would be treated differently or at least know that there were those who appreciated his service.
Back to the young soldier: Because you were asked to leave the plane, you did not see that there were numerous volunteers willing to give up their set for you. You only heard the one ingrate who had no appreciation for the sacrifices you are making for all of us. That was no way to be welcomed home to America. I was both ashamed to have been a part of what happened and angry that, in spite of our efforts, there was nothing the other passengers and I could do to help you. Again, this letter is first and foremost to you. It is my intention that it appears in the media before your return to Iraq, so that you will know your efforts are appreciated and that you are sincerely welcomed home by most, if not all, of us. I hope we get another opportunity to do just that. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Michael E. Nelson
Warren
Well said, Mr. Nelson. Good for you and your fellow passengers for the effort. shame on that woman.
And shame on Delta for stabbing a young soldier serving her country in the back. I'll never fly Delta again. (And with the financial trouble they're in, let's hope that before long, NOONE ever flies Delta again)!
Courtesy of Michelle, here is a site where you can tell Delta what unpatriotic scum they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)