Media Criticism

“They Lack A Sense Of Irony”

I recall reading in The Economist, many years ago, a leader (editorial to the Yanks) that described an anecdote about the British Foreign Service, in which one of the people was describing some benighted Third World former colony. “The problem they have, is that they lack a sense of irony.”

Apparently Reuters has the same problem.

Hey, one man’s anti-violence protester is another man’s Jihadist.

Any of my trolls going to try to defend this one?

And let’s see how long it stays up in that form.

[Update]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Here’s the link, Bill, from Yahoo. I’ll keep a screen shot of it, for when they decide to memoryhole it.

Media Criticism

“They Lack A Sense Of Irony”

I recall reading in The Economist, many years ago, a leader (editorial to the Yanks) that described an anecdote about the British Foreign Service, in which one of the people was describing some benighted Third World former colony. “The problem they have, is that they lack a sense of irony.”

Apparently Reuters has the same problem.

Hey, one man’s anti-violence protester is another man’s Jihadist.

Any of my trolls going to try to defend this one?

And let’s see how long it stays up in that form.

[Update]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Here’s the link, Bill, from Yahoo. I’ll keep a screen shot of it, for when they decide to memoryhole it.

Media Criticism

“They Lack A Sense Of Irony”

I recall reading in The Economist, many years ago, a leader (editorial to the Yanks) that described an anecdote about the British Foreign Service, in which one of the people was describing some benighted Third World former colony. “The problem they have, is that they lack a sense of irony.”

Apparently Reuters has the same problem.

Hey, one man’s anti-violence protester is another man’s Jihadist.

Any of my trolls going to try to defend this one?

And let’s see how long it stays up in that form.

[Update]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Here’s the link, Bill, from Yahoo. I’ll keep a screen shot of it, for when they decide to memoryhole it.

Political Commentary

No Separation Of Mosque And State

At least not in Illinois. Or New Jersey, or other states, apparently:

The Illinois statute, modeled after a New Jersey law, requires anyone selling or producing halal food to register with the state for a $75 fee and fill out a disclosure form by checking off boxes indicating how the food was obtained and who certified the product as halal. Since New Jersey passed the nation’s first halal law in 2000, similar laws have taken effect in nearly a dozen states.

How in the world can this be constitutional? The state is not, or at least should not be, responsible for enforcing religious dietary laws. Do they have a similar requirement for what is, and isn’t kosher? If they do, it’s just as bad. Somehow, the Jews have managed to keep kosher in this country since its founding without having to involve the government. Why can’t the Muslims? This seems like creeping sharia to me.

Where’s the ACLU? I thought that they always came down with both feet over this kind of thing? Or is that only when there’s a Christian creche on a lawn?

[Update at 3:30 PM EDT]

OK, reading the comments, I’m scratching my head.

No, this is not just about enforcing against fraud.

In order to enforce against fraud, the government must prove there was fraud. In order to prove that fraudulent halal foodstuff was purchased, the government must prove that said foodstuff was not halal. In order to do that, the government must provide a legal standard as to what is, and what is not, halal. In other words, the government must put its imprimatur on whether or not a particular foodstuff meets a certain religious dietary restriction, in effect playing the role of a (in the case of the Jewish religion) Talmudic scholar.

Do you folks really want to open up that can of worms?

Church A promises me that if I attend it and give it money, and subscribe to its beliefs, I will live a happier life. Does anyone here propose that the government should prosecute that church for fraud if in my opinion it doesn’t meet its promises? Whose definition of halal (or for that matter kosher) should the government choose?

Sorry, but to me, this is nuts. Not to mention completely and thoroughly unconstitutional. At least if you believe in the concept of “separation of church and state.”

And to the poster who asked why Good Friday is a state holiday, beats me. I don’t think that the government should be granting religious holidays, either. Though at least in that case there’s a much better consensus on what day Good Friday is, and there is a huge majority of people who celebrate it, so (like Christmas) it makes sense at least on practical reasons.

[Wednesday morning update]

I’m properly corrected in comments. I should have written “observe Good Friday,” not “celebrate” it.

War Commentary

More Inconvenient Truth

For Harry Reid. From Iraq:

We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don’t know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA’s and IP’s in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus’ strategy is just getting started and we’re seeing huge gains here.

However, you don’t see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn’t bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.

Yes, that’s the same reason that he doesn’t want to hear from Petraeus, or have open testimony in front of the cameras.

The truth? Harry Reid can’t handle the truth.

[Update a couple minutes later]

That noted neocon reporter from the NYT, John Burns, says that the Democrats are executing Al Qaeda’s strategy perfectly:

Well, the number of troops, that’s finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that’s probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That’s to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.

Look, I don’t think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi objectively want Al Qaeda to win. I’m sure that they have succeeded in deluding themselves that we are the problem in Iraq. I’m also sure that they believe that this is in the near term a political winner for them, and sadly, they may be right. But they’re playing a dangerous game. What if they’re wrong, and the people actually reporting success in Iraq are right? They’re so heavily invested in defeat now that it could actually be an electoral disaster for them next year. I certainly hope that will be the case. For me, it would be win-win–we’d have won in Iraq, and the Dems would have lost precisely because they did everything they could to prevent it from happening.

Anyway politics aside, like it or not, and deny it or not, they are objectively providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem is that they won’t start acting in the national interest until, to paraphrase Golda Meir, they start loving their country more than they hunger for power and hate George Bush.

[Update a few minutes later]

More contempt for Harry Reid from the troops.

[Afternoon update]

OK, that’s progress. I guess.

Now Harry will listen to Petraeus. He just won’t believe anything he says. Unless, of course, it fits with the leftist narrative.

Well, hey, we already know that the truth is inconvenient.

[Late afternoon update]

OK, one more, since it’s still near the top. Dick Cheney is too kind to Harry Reid:

…only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months’ time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!