The Only Republican in San Francisco

We repeat it because it must be true!

You know, I have said many times how incredibly gullible our mainstream press is, based on their willingness to repeat things that might or might not be true. On memeorandum this morning, this was the AP headline: “Iraqi claims U.S. GIs beat wounded man”. Clicking through reveals the AP has already altered it to “Iraqi raises questions on al-Zarqawi death”.

Wow! It must be true! Here’s how we know:

[A]n Iraqi man raised fresh questions about the events surrounding the end of Iraq's most-wanted militant.

The man, who lived near the scene of the bombing, told AP Television News on Friday that he saw U.S. soldiers beating an injured man resembling al-Zarqawi until blood flowed from the victim's nose.

The Iraqi, identified only as Mohammed, said residents put a bearded man in an ambulance before U.S. forces arrived. He said the man was found lying next to an irrigation canal.

"He was still alive. We put him in the ambulance, but when the Americans arrived they took him out of the ambulance, they beat him on his stomach and wrapped his head with his dishdasha, then they stomped on his stomach and his chest until he died and blood came out of his nose," Mohammed said, without saying how he knew the man was dead.

Got it. “Mohammed”. Certainly they could do better than that. Turns out the etymology of that name is “Convenient witness for those who will repeat anything”.

Folks, this is exactly like the situation during Katrina where CNN put some jackass on the air claiming that rapes and murders were happening at the Superdome, even though there was no evidence of it actually, you know, happening.

It’s not that the above couldn’t have happened. It’s just that making a headline out of some dude’s story has nothing to do with news. I am sure that the AP could just as easily have found someone to describe Elvis’ ghost, with similar credibility.

------

Man-on-the-scene Jeff Goldstein managed to find a quote from another witness:

[...] with one US serviceman purportedly kneeling beside the mortally wounded terror leader “to apply a soothing poultice made with palm fronds and an herbal paste much favored by the locals” while comforting him “with a stirring version of the Eagles’ ‘Desperado’ in a rich, throaty Alabama twang.”

------

Jeff also points out that pounding on the chest of an injured man is consistent with someone trying to save a life. Just a thought.

Amir Taheri on the emerging Iraq

Amir Taheri expands on an article that first appeared in the WSJ, on the messy birth that is occurring in Iraq. It is an excellent accounting of the successes that you are not hearing about — large numbers of people immigrating back into the country, and a growing free press.

More importantly, it includes a clear description of exactly why our current press is so gullible.

The enemies of the new Iraq have succeeded in ruining the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis, but over the past three years they have advanced their overarching goals, such as they are, very little. Instead, they have been militarily contained and politically defeated again and again, and the beneficiary has been Iraqi democracy. [...]

The Baathists and jihadists, their prior efforts to derail Iraqi democracy having come to naught, have now pinned their hopes on creating enough chaos and death to persuade Washington of the futility of its endeavors.

Terrorism is a media war. Terrorist acts in Iraq, and in most places, are militarily insignificant. They don’t succeed in capturing land or governments, and they don’t degrade their enemy’s fighting capacity.

Rather, suicide bombs are political weapons. In the case of Iraq, the target is the American citizen, and more specifically, the American left. The only way that we lose in Iraq is to lose the will to fight. When a war criminal blows up a market, the goal is outrage and despair. And, too often, the Western left (lead by the mainstream press) gives them exactly what they want.

If you’d like to understand the stakes, read Taheri’s piece all the way through, it’s worth it.

New York Times: Bad things are bad

Hi friends, I have heard loud and clear that I am boring the bejeebus out of you with this net neutrality stuff. So let’s get back to good old, inane, pro-death media bias.

Don Surber does a good job taking apart the latest NYT editorial which celebrates the purported failure of some of our Marines in Haditha. Like most on the right and left, of course I believe they should be tried and the guilty convicted. I also think they should, you know, be tried.

But let’s look at the worst-case scenario. If 7 of our Marines did indeed commit what would be war crimes, what does that say about our people in uniform? Out of 150,000 currently in the field (over 200,000 if you count those that have rotated through) that means that .0035% of our Marines have broken the rules of engagement.

Let’s add in, liberally, 20 people who were purportedly involved with Abu Ghraib. Now we are up to .018% of the military currently in Iraq. That’s just under one-fifth of one-tenth of one percent. Meaning that over 99.9%+ of our folks have acted by the rules, in a situation the difficulty of which you and I will never know.

(Psst — find me a city anywhere in the world, in peacetime, that has such a low crime rate. Or an ethnic group, or a gender, or a faith, or any group at all.)

Now, for those who are outraged at the Haditha accusations: good. It takes great moral courage to say that bad things are bad, I admit. But it is hardly leadership, as many lefties would like to believe.

If the real impetus behind the NYT editorial is that intentional killing is a bad thing (again, moral courage), then I wonder how much editorial ink they they dedicate to the 24,000 innocent civilians that have been targeted and killed by the insurgents?

------

Update: let me pull one passage out, emphasis mine:

Now that we have reached the one place we most wanted to avoid, it will not do to focus blame narrowly on the Marine unit suspected of carrying out these killings and ignore the administration officials, from President Bush on down, who made the chances of this sort of disaster so much greater by deliberately blurring the rules governing the conduct of American soldiers in the field.

What is this “one place”? Two possibilities. The first is that we have reached a place where we are perceived as war criminals, fairly or not. A PR disaster in other words.

I have no doubt this will be a huge, exploitable black eye — with the NYT’s active assistance and regardless of the actual outcome. Well, my notes above tell the basic truth that overwhelmingly, we are not war criminals, and that overwhelmingly, our enemy are. Yet one has to wonder, if the NYT is sincerely concerned about this perception, why do they go to such great lengths to promote it?

The other possibility is that the one place is not about perception, but reality. That our military have indeed lost a moral compass and that they wantonly kill as standard procedure. If that’s the case, then I would imagine something more .018% of them, over three years, might have been accused...

------

Another update and into the breach: Michelle Malkin points out that the military will certainly be painted with a tar brush by those who think themsleves pacifists. But what sort of logic would this follow?

Imagine a redneck, sitting in front of the TV, watching COPS. On the show, a black guy, drunk and violent, is pulled from his house in the midst of beating his wife. Based on his vision of one guy, the redneck points out “Well, they’re just all that way, aren’t they?”

In polite society, we would call this the logic of a “bigot”. On the left, when applied to other select groups, the more appropriate term is “mainstream”.

Truth to power: the White House press corps breaks latte-gate wide open

This is hilarious, and apparently real. Great for those still suffering from the idea that the White House press corps is comprised of serious people. A transcript:

Q: Scott, I believe I asked for low foam with cinnamon. Is it the president’s position that everyone drink a mocha grande? Are we now the world’s coffee-drink police?

McClellan: I am not sure who you talked to about that. I’ll see what I can do.

Q: Is this official government policy? It’s not the first time this has happened...seriously, the American people are wondering how we can afford this many calories in wartime. Isn’t it time for the president to show some leadership?

McClellan: Well, I’ll try to get you the background on this. Shall we talk about Iran?

Q: Scott, please don’t evade. These are taxpayer dollars, and they are ruining my waistline. The American people would like to know whether our government should be so dependent on foreign caffeine. They are absolutely tousled.

McClellan: I can assure you the president has precisely no opinion on this.

Q: Some have argued that the more volatile parts of world are simply not ready for espresso. Should we be imposing our values on them?

And, scene.

-----

Be sure to check out the commenters on the link above. It’s as if some people are uncomfortable with free speech or something. Oops, was that my outside voice?

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Bernstein speaks to an empty room

Drudge pointed me to this Carl Bernstein piece, “Senate Hearings on Bush, Now”. The blogosphere seems to be roundly ignoring it. Frankly, Bernstein was before my time and I haven’t come across any of his work in years. That may be my own ignorance, but he is hardly a “present” voice on a par with the Mark Steyns and Christopher Hitchens of the world.

What is interesting, and widely noted, is our mainstream press’ fascination with the 70’s, and its refusal to deal in the present or future. Of course there are many exceptions, but they are unfortunately outnumbered by journalists who are more interested in “speaking truth to power”, rather than reporting. Like most of the American left, the MSM is ultimately all about the self.

Anyway, since there is nary an echo on what might otherwise be a controversial piece, allow me to try to find meaning in Bernstein’s words. The subhead asks:

Should Republicans on the Hill take the high road and save themselves come November? [...]

Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing 50 percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.

If the Republicans lose in November, it will be because they have disappointed their base, not because they failed to “take the high road”. Bush’s problems can certainly reflect poorly on Republicans, just as he can reflect well on them when he is popular.

But this is marginal compared to the fact that too many ‘Pubs have abandoned their first principles. Their base might stay home, and that is their electoral problem. The same polls put Democratic and general Congressional support even lower than the Republicans and Bush, by the way.

So what then shall be the article’s focus?

The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.

Fine, a valid subject. There are serious arguments pro and con. Is that the basis for this article, then?

Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.

Alright, so then it’s about Iraq, Katrina and Libby too? Each has its own merits and have been debated extensively inside and outside the Beltway.

More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.

We are four paragraphs in and the term “Watergate” has been used seven times already. Note that he wants to investigate the presidency — an excellent way to avoid having to debate any issue on its merits.

You need better sources, and better sources need you (II)

I got a very nice thank-you postcard from Michael Yon yesterday (I had sent him a few bucks). He is on his way back to Iraq (via Afghanistan) to do the stunning, independent, first-hand reporting that you are not seeing in the MSM. Examples here and here. If you want to know what’s happening in Iraq, you need sources like Michael Yon.

Michael Totten is already there, in Kurdistan via Turkey. His approach is much more cultural, ad hoc and from the hip. He really gives you a feel for the place.

They are both doing this on their own, so click through and give them a few bucks if you can.

------

Why do you need these guys? Because our mainstream media are worse than biased. They are straight-up gullible.

It is becoming regular practice for terrorists (and their backers) to stage events for the cameras, knowing that there is a very good chance that it will be reported as fact in the US. Here’s the New York Times on March 27:

The bodies of 30 beheaded men were found on a main highway near Baquba this evening, providing more evidence that the death squads in Iraq are becoming out of control.

Awful. How did the Times find out about it?

Interior Ministry officials said a driver discovered the bodies heaped in a pile next to a highway that links Baghdad to Baquba, a volatile city northeast of the capital that has been wracked by sectarian and insurgent violence.

“Iraq Ministry officials” heard it from “a driver”. Terrible. Who had the grisly task of recovering them?

Iraqi army troops were waiting tonight for American support before venturing into the insurgent-infested area to retrieve them. [...]

But it is not at all clear who killed the 30 men found beheaded this evening. The area where they were discovered is mostly Sunni Arab and controlled by Sunni insurgents. It would be very difficult for Shiite death squads to operate there. Interior Ministry officials said they did not have enough information tonight to identify the victims.

I’ll cut to chase: nobody found 30 bodies. Headline in the NY Times. Heartbreaking news to any feeling person, and evidence that Iraq is spinning out of control. And also entirely false.

------

I was first turned on to this phenomenon last fall when I read this article which deconstructs a series of “action shots” of insurgents in Falluja. All staged for the camera, it turns out, and happily published by the AP.

It also turns out this was the regular beat of AP photographer Bilal Hussein, who has an extraordinary knack for getting the most evocative, behind-the-scenes insurgent photos. He won a Pulitzer Prize. How does he do it? Michelle has a lot more.

Gullibility: even more dangerous than bias.

Free speech: better for Republicans or Democrats?

Ramesh Ponnuru over at The Corner offers this conversation-starter:

Republicans are leading a charge to subject "527 groups" to onerous regulations. A minority of them, again, have sincere and above-board reasons for doing this. Most of them just want to shut down groups that are trying to beat them in elections. For a majority to restrict the freedom of others to try to boot them out is pretty much a textbook definition of the abuse of power, isn't it?

I agree that this is a very transparent political move by the ‘Pubs. McCain-Feingold, the legislation that brought us new government restrictions on political speech, was already a problem ideologically for me and many others.

Republicans should be fighting the growth and power of government, especially in the area of speech. Using government as a cudgel against one’s opponents is an affront to real conservatives and a very bad precedent.

But let’s look at this strategically. Who benefits more from freer speech, left or right? I would argue (and I am certainly not the first to do so) that Republicans have benefited more from new communications media, from talk radio in the 90’s to the blogosphere today. Ideology aside, Republicans should be fighting new speech restrictions because free speech works to their favor.

How is this? Michael Barone has opined:

So what hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans' adversaries in Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans.

The mainstream media, including most of the leading newspapers and broadcast networks, skew liberal in their staffing and coverage, and have done so consistently for 30+ years. (I think this is clearly evident and studies tend to support my observations.)

The new media — blogs and talk radio — provide direct competition for traditional media, and are thus competing with a traditionally liberal message.

Left-of-center blogs have seen substantial success, but are not a “new” medium for their audience, as the MSM have been a liberal message machine for a long time. In other words, the message and the audience of lefty blogs largely overlaps with the traditional MSM. Since their “market share” of ideas was already large, each new entrant provides only an incremental gain.

Meanwhile, right-of-center blogs reach an audience that the MSM largely hasn’t touched. The outlet is new, as there was very little in the way of right-leaning media prior. The net gain is substantial.

Let’s say that there are 100 players in traditional media, and that 75 lean liberal and 25 lean conservative.

Let’s then suppose that there are 10 new entrants into the field, evenly distributed, 5 liberal and 5 conservative. These new entrants represent a 7% increase in the number of liberal outlets, but a 20% increase in conservative outlets. Simply by being in a historical minority, new conservative voices represent a larger incremental gain.

Simply put: the market for liberal media is largely saturated, while the market for conservative media is one of growth.

Getting back to my original premise: Republicans should be removing as many barriers as possible when it comes to political speech. Adding new restrictions is abhorrent ideologically (and constitutionally), and in direct opposition to conservative first principles.

My strategic message to Republicans: the growth market is yours. Please, instead of building upon the restrictions of McCain-Feingold, do yourselves and your country a favor by working to diminish them.

------

Update: Byron York goes a lot further with the details and how the parties are approaching it. Up is down.

Net neutrality vs free speech

I am technologist by trade — a web developer — so you’ll have to pardon me if I get a bit worked up on places where tech intersects politics. You’ve heard me harp on the issue (and threat) of net neutrality legislation. Time for more!

My basic argument has been that differentiated, premium services are part of a healthy and forward-looking market. The proposed legislation actually makes it illegal to charge for better service and build the better network. It is an attempt to cast the ‘net as a public utility, emulating our sclerotic power and traditional telephone systems.

We need to think about the next generation of high-bandwidth ‘net services and leave all options on the table. Skype, Google, iTunes and a hundred other life-enhancing innovations were neither anticipated nor sanctioned by the government. We can’t possibly know what will exist in five years, and we are perennially on the verge of a new wave of amazing things. Let’s not regulate them before they exist.

That’s the background, so let’s go further: network neutrality legislation should be fought on grounds of free speech.

Free speech, as in the First Amendment, means that government cannot restrict the means of communication. Free speech also means that individuals and companies can decide what is said, and not said, using their resources.

Even if you are attracted to the idea of net neutrality as a concept (I am not), consider this: the likelihood of a federal bureaucracy correctly defining “neutrality” is about as high as its defining “decency”.

Think about recent attempts to legislate decency. Do you feel like the FCC are overstepping their bounds, applying a crude hand, perhaps even violating the First Amendment? I do too.

We should apply this thinking to such attempts to proscribe how bits cross the wire. The proposed neutrality legislation is exactly that: a law that dictates how private network traffic must be managed.

That network traffic, in my humble opinion, is speech. It’s not a question of finding the right kind of law. It is a question of whether the government is within their right to legislate at all. I say no.

----

News.com has very good coverage of recent developments. Some of it is encouraging, such as Randolph May’s piece, which posits that we should approach claims of network abuses on a case-by-case basis, with existing law.

Also, the PFF blog has an inspiring note from a technologist who gives a scientist-in-the-trenches account of why now is exactly the wrong time to legislate. I would excerpt it, except that I found every sentence to be pithy and valuable. I suggest you simply read it yourself.

Sammenhold in San Francisco

San Francisco: tolerant, supportive, worldly. It looks like the sun may hold for a few more hours, so grab a Carlsberg and come join us for the free speech rally today.

Update 1:30pm: I just got back and it went well. We had 70-80 people, among them a Danish journalism student from Berkeley, many flags, a hottie handing out Havarti and a complete absence of local media.

I met organizer and “9/11 neocon” Cinnamon Stillwell as well as local blogger The Gentle Cricket. I’ve got some pictures -- but I am pushing my luck by blogging at work, so you’ll need to check back after dinner!

Michelle Malkin has some coverage.

------

It’s after dinner, and here are my pix. Feel free to use them.

Coining a phrase

With cable cars, just in case you thought we made this up

Havarti hottie

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Added: A carnival of Danish recipes over at EGO.

San Francisco demonstrates tolerance of ... conformity

There’s a large, granite, bank-looking building down at the end of Columbus Ave here in San Francisco, which has been home to the Scientologists for several years. I’ve always regarded it a curiosity, as I have no trouble politely waving off people with fliers or sales pitches.

Upon this edifice, the San Francisco supervisors continue to demonstrate that ours is a tolerant city, just so long as you’re not different:

The Church of Scientology and other religious groups would be banned from buying a historic San Francisco building in the heart of the city's North Beach neighborhood under a proposed city ordinance. [...]

[Board of Supervisors President Aaron] Peskin said he sponsored the measure after fielding complaints from neighbors and merchants concerned the church would aggressively peddle religious materials and disrupt the neighborhood's easy-going ways.

But the measure is not intended to single out the Church of Scientology, he said.

``This legislation is intended to ensure the existing types of uses that have been in the Colombo Building for 100 years,'' he said.

My understanding of the Constitution is that all of us have a right to freely practice religion, even if, gasp, it’s not the same as everyone else’s. Let’s look at Mr. Peskin’s two arguments here:

Reason 1: He (or the “neighbors”) are “concerned the church would aggressively peddle religious materials and disrupt the neighborhood's easy-going ways”.

“Would”? They’ve been there for years. Why the sudden concern? Sounds a bit like guilty until proven innocent. More to the point, if the problem is aggressive peddling, then pass an ordinance against that.

(“Peddling”, by the way, is remarkably similar to “speech”.)

Reason 2: “This legislation is intended to ensure the existing types of uses that have been in the Colombo Building for 100 years”. Apparently, it is city policy that building use must not change. For the love of John Travolta, don’t put a museum in there! Or a café! Because, you know, they weren’t there before.

Let’s sum it up. The city is concerned about aggressive peddling in or around the Colombo building, which they want to make sure is used in traditional ways just so long as it’s not a church. Rest assured, though, it’s not about the Scientologists!

Your humble scribe is not a religious person by any stretch, though I still am recovering from a minor in Philosophy. I would like to think I represent the San Francisco which is tolerant enough to allow our neighbors to differ.

Imagine if this building were being used as a synagogue or a mosque. Think Mr. Peskin would magically find some tolerance?

Cross-posted at California Conservative