According to CNN.com, the rallies have begun. But when you click on the story, they tell you next to nothing about the level of support these rallies have garnered. And they seem to be misrepresenting the protesters in Iraq. I mean, although they do say:
“Demonstrators against the Iraq war gathered in London; Tokyo, Japan; New York, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia.”
And:
“In the United States, rallies were also scheduled Saturday for Los Angeles, California; Fayetteville, North Carolina and Crawford, Texas.”
And although they do provide a link to the “Full Story” (more on that later) this article gives you no idea of the numbers involved outside of those in Baghdad. Apparently, CNN wants to lend the impression that the world has come to a standstill because of the massive size of these rallies. Do you know why they don’t provide the actual numbers on this lead story? Because the support is pitifully small in almost all parts of the world that they mention in their “Full Story”. Wait, I’m almost there. But first...
This is how CNN frames the only rally they cover in the lead link. After throwing out the above generalizations of the rallies, CNN says:
“Thousands of Sunni and Shiite Muslims had come together to rally in Baghdad Friday, one year from the beginning of the war. ”
Four paragraphs later:
“In the capital, Iraqis took to the streets to protest the U.S.-led occupation, expressing outrage over poor security and unemployment.”
Now, what’s the problem here? Those silly Iraqis aren't arguing against the war; they’re protesting about what a lousy job we’re doing afterwards. And for a lot of ‘em, it’s true that things could be better. But the fact that they are protesting without fear of being arrested and worse is a sign of how far things HAVE gotten better for all Iraq.
So why the FREAK do I have to click on the “Full Story” when that’s what I came there for in the first freakin’ place??!! Idiots.
And so, on to the full story. Here are the “numbers” as posted at approx. 1130 hours:
Central London – no number, just “several thousand”.
Egypt – no number, just “several hundred”. In the Middle East, no less. Don’t seem too upset to me.
Greece – 10,000, but they’re also protesting NATO involvement at their Olympics (“we don’t want any extra security – we’re every bit as thorough as Spain” – more idiots), so you can’t count ‘em all.
Tokyo – 30,000. Now that’s a significant crowd. You’d expect as much, I suppose, cuz this is their first foreign deployment since World War II in hostile territory.
Hong Kong – 500. Very unscary number.
Thailand, So. Korea, So. Africa, Poland, Sweden – no mention of the number of protesters AT ALL. Had to be less than “several hundred”.
Copenhagen, Denmark – a “few hundred”.
Turkey – “about 2,000”. That’s more like it – but still not very significant, esp. considering their proximity to the conflict.
India – no number AT ALL, just this all-encompassing quote: “Communists, anti-war activists and ordinary citizens took part in marches across India, during which some burned effigies of Bush and Blair.” Again, must’ve been less than a “few hundred”.
Australia – no number in the article, but a caption under a pic states “thousands”.
Manila, Philippines – 500.
And that’s all. Hey, there may be a lot more support for these rallies, but this is what CNN actually published. It surely doesn’t paint the picture of a worldwide rally; more a bunch of separately unhappy and partially brain-dead peaceniks with nothing better to do with their time.
Again, it pisses me off that you go to CNN’s lead link, and they tell you squat about the level of support. You have to go to their secondary “Full Story” to find out there is no full story. And I don’t think CNN helps their position, either by their choice of who to quote. I give you:
“In Hong Kong, about 100 demonstrators marched to the U.S. Consulate General, condemning the presence of American troops in Iraq.
"Bush's invasion of Iraq has incited more terrorism. It caused terrible suffering not only to the Iraqi people, but everyone in the world," said protest organizer and pro-democracy activist Lau San-ching.”
Barkin’ f*ckin’ moonbat alert folks!! And this is who CNN chooses to quote? Sheesh, – says it all, don’t it? That’s what I meant about “partially brain-dead”. There is no one in the world (with full mental capacity, obviously leaving out Mr. or Ms. Lau San-ching) that doubts that Saddam Hussein was a murdering butcher, and that a “few hundred” Iraqi people would go dead weekly under his regime. But that’s better than being free, I guess...
Update: How can I have been so remiss? I didn’t even get to deliver the sweetest blow. Notice how CNN had said that “In the United States, rallies were also scheduled Saturday for Los Angeles, California; Fayetteville, North Carolina and Crawford, Texas.”? Then they never mention ‘em again – not even in the “Full Story”? The turn out must’ve been worse than in a city CNN strangely fails to mention – San Francisco. Come on – San Fran and protesting (ANYTHING) go hand in hand. Guess why. Money quote:
“Police estimated that fewer than 1,000 people participated in the protests, which started around 7 a.m. and had dissipated by midmorning. ”
Nope, no Left-Leaning Media bias here, folks. Just keep moving on...
Beating Dat Dead Horse Yep, still bithcin’ ‘bout dat Left-Leaning Media Bias. IOT downplay the stunning success of the OIF, whose upcoming anniversary is giving Bush much needed positive PR, CNN HL News continues their campaign against the Prez. Sometime around today’s 5 – 6 pm news cycle, the teaser vid clips at the quarter hour commercial break concerning OIF had the curiously (and blatantly) inaccurate caption of “Coalition Setback”.
Now I do not doubt that the recent bombings in Iraq have caused the havoc (but not nearly as many deaths) as intended, and it is indeed a setback for Iraqi security and stability. And I'm only referring to the car bombs; all that other crap (RPG and "rocket" fired in the general direction of some Coalition target - min damage, no casualties. and didya notice that the initial death toll of the Nasirya bombing was breathlessly increased up to 27; er, until they actually counted the dead – down to seven *sheesh*). But it’s not a setback for the Coalition. Nobody but the new Socialist-pussy Spanish gov’t has decided to pull out as a result of terrorist pressure. So how a setback? It just doesn’t make sense, unless you’re as paranoid as me and totally believe that Mainstream Media is bound and determined to get rid of Bush. And during the actual news segment, there was no mention of a “setback” for anyone. Funny...
Still not convinced? 2004 Presidential poll results from the news networks always make headline news – when Kerry is shown gaining or leading Bush. Fox news is the only network I’ve noticed that has caught on to the fact that whenever those same networks’ polls show Bush gaining or leading, they don’t broadcast or publish the results. Come on!! We are the sheeple, and they our wise and all-knowing shepherds; they will herd us in the direction they know is for our best – stupid, crass General Public (did you know that most of the GP doesn’t have a college degree? *sigh* they need us to guide them...)
Two other stories are making a huge presence on good ol’ HL News: The Polish prez stating that Iraq “never had WMD” (even though the world, which includes Poland, knows Saddam used WMD, which would seem to imply that Iraq had some; wonder what his actual quotes are, since most of the story – which you’d never guess from the crawlers & teasers – indicate that the guy is still very pro-Coalition), and the “world-wide rally against the war” stories. I wonder how many people actually attended this rally, and I’d like to continue to compare it against how Big Media ignores much larger shows of support (and also, how extensive all networks/newspapers are covering the story of the Florida soldier who is refusing to return to Iraq after stateside R&R; like, this is supposed to show how the common soldier also believes that the war is wrong – even though this is the only jerkoff who’s done as he has. trust me, if there were more, we’d sure as shoot be hearing ‘bout it). Maybe I’ll update with links, if I get the chance. Getting late and I still ain’t quite recovered from St. Paddy’s Day...
Update before I even post this. Here’s the Polish President’s quote from CNN’s website:
"We were informed that weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq, that there is a probability of the existence of such weapons," The Associated Press quoted Kwasniewski as saying. "Today, this information is not confirmed."
How is this interpreted as “WMD never existed”? Still don’t feel the lean to the left? All right, I’ll keep trying...
What Media Bias? Continuing that good ol’ Left-Leaning Media Bias trend, check out today’s WaPo. There’s a follow-up article on a Maryland woman who was arrested for allegedly accepting $$$ from Iraqi agents. It is well established & documented that this woman worked on Democratic congressional staffs. First paragraph mentions her congressional staffer jobs, and – to give the WaPo credit – the second para mentions that she is a “self-described antiwar activist”.
However, in the same (2nd) para, last sentence, our intrepid WaPo reporter manages to work in the fact that the accused is related to a White House staffer, like so – “…she allegedly met repeatedly with Iraqi agents in New York and Baghdad, then delivered a letter in January 2003 to the home of a second cousin, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.,…”. Kinda just slid that one in - pretty slick, eh? Had this been a Dem, the story probably would’ve just said she delivered the letter to the COS residence; maybe somewhere towards the end of the article would the relationship be revealed.
But that’s not what happened, and what is printed is factual: Susan P. Lindauer is indeed the 2nd cousin of Andrew Card. Here’s what gets my goat – they put the “2nd cousin” description in the 2nd para, while the fact that she worked for “several” DEMOCRATIC congressional staffs is buried down in the sixth paragraph.
But wait – there’s more!! Yesterday there was an anti-war protest in DC, covered extensively by CNN, despite the fact that there were fewer than 100 participants (this number has since be increased to “roughly 200”, but is not backed up with photos). Today the WaPo follows up with this Section B coverage. Wonder how many pro-war demonstrators you’d need to get CNN or WaPo coverage? How ‘bout 4,000? Nope, not gonna happen. And that, folks, is Left-Leaning Media Bias laid bare.
Anti-Gun Lobby Idiocy Makes Way for Liberal Media Bias
I was planning on posting – late as usual – a rant against the anti-gun lobby’s tactic of suing gun manufacturers. Their rational is that the gun makers not only sell a dangerous product, but they actually MARKET the product. The utter reeee-DICK-you-less-ness of this approach would seem to be apparent. However, lawyers are involved, so even the most frivolous and asinine lawsuits need to be fought.
But I must postpone this particular rant just a bit longer, even though it’s been festering in my brain for weeks now. Why? Cuz, like an idiot, I listened to NPR again this morning.
First, in the 0600 (EST) news segment, the anchor (not Carl Castle (sp?), but some female with an Asian-sounding name I can’t remember) - in a segment touching on John Kerry’s inadvertently overheard “the most crooked, … lying group” comment – casually tosses out that Bush’s political ads are the ones generating controversy. She states that Bush’s ad depicting scenes from Ground Zero caused an outcry from 9/11 victims’ family groups & local (NY) firefighters. And she feels completely confident that she can continue to use this line with impunity. Ya know why?
CUZ WE ARE TOO STUPID TO USE THE INTERNET TO GOOGLE-SEARCH FOR THE DEBUNKING OF THIS FAUS-PROTEST!!!
The blogosphere pointed out first (as usual) that the groups doing the protesting against these ads have deep political affiliations, and they don’t lean right, kiddo! The blogosphere was suspicious of the rapid response of these “offended” parties, suggesting that the LiberalLeft had been anticipating the ConservativeRight’s ad approach, and had lined up some canned negative reactions. A tiny, tiny, tiny bit of sleuthing by independent bloggers turned up the political ties these groups have to the LiberalLeft (summed up nicely here in the WSJ – yeah, I know, not an independent blogger, but it's presented in a neat, readable article, which is hard to find in a blog piece), esp. the fact that Kerry’s wife finances the umbrella group (Tides foundation) that supports these smaller factions. Finally, by yesterday, even BigMedia caught on to the dubious credentials of those making the protests. So you’d think any time that the negative response to the Bush-9/11 ads was mentioned, a responsible news outlet would include this important caveat. Guess NPR has ceased to be a responsible news outlet…
But wait! There’s more!! Instead of turning the damn thing off, I continued to listen to NPR’s Morning Edition, with Bob Edwards (poor reception in So. Central IN, and lack of much choice at 0600 even with good reception limits my choices; and I’ve gotta listen to something to stay awake for my 45 minute commute within the “Crossroads of America”). There was a horrific series of terrorist blasts on commuter trains during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain. At 0600 EST, the body count was already 70+, and before the day was over, would exceed 180. But at this early hour of Morning Edition, Bob was pumping his reporter on the scene in Madrid for info. When asked, the reporter stated that while no one has claimed responsibility, Spanish officials suspect the Basque-separatist group, ETA. Hold on there, partner! ETA? Why suspect them, asks Bob E.? I sn’t it just as likely that it’s part of the “Arab resistance” or al Qaida-linked terrorists?
Huh?
The only people who are attempting to pin this on Osama or anti-Americanism spawned by the war in Iraq are the Basque-separatists themselves, and NPR. I doubt the sincerity of the first, and I have grave misgivings on the motives of the second..
And now maybe I can get on with my rant against the anti-gun idiotarians…
Same Sex Marriage and the U.S. Constitution For the life of me, I cannot figure out why Prez Bush would come out in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. I really don’t have strong feelings one way or another, but I guess I tilt toward NOT singling out a particular demographic of people for discrimination. And the US Constitution is definitely NOT the place where you want to enshrine such a discriminatory policy.
There is already signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (signed 1997), which we haven’t even tested in the courts. Perhaps we should be patient? Why the rush to amend the defining document of our Republic? Especially with language which specifically denies a certain minority – despite the fact that they are US citizens - a right enjoyed by all others. The only other amendment to the Constitution that restricted freedom for US citizens was the 18th, and what a rousing success Prohibition was!!
Okay, maybe you think that by allowing same sex marriage, you can no longer lawfully prevent incestuous marriages, polygamy, marriages between adults & kids… PUH-leeez!! Seems like this is really a States-rights issue – one of those things that each State should decide for itself. And if your State decides these things are acceptable, then if I was you I’d be making plans to pack up & move the hell outta Dodge.
So what if you’re married in Mass. (for example), but end up in Indiana? It should all be based on your place of residence. It doesn’t matter to IN whether or not you’re married if you’re vacationing in Bloomington (no one checks on the marital status of heteros coming to town). But what if some legal/medical type issue occurs whilst out of your State of marriage, say your loved one was in an accident, and is on life support? Your marriage certificate, while not recognized by IN, would still give you all legal rights of a spouse. This has been the precedent set by the very similar miscegenation ($7-word for, mainly, black & white mixed marriage) marriage issue. Aha!! That’s your point, isn’t it? By not explicitly banning such arrangements via the Constitution, those gays & lesbos will gain social acceptance. Sort of like… well, mixed marriages. Aha!! That’s my point. Just replace “same sex” with “mixed race”, and you wouldn’t even think about saying you favored a ban. But somehow this is acceptable discrimination. I don’t see the logic.
And why the FREAK was the Indiana legislature allowed to let this issue hijack an already reeeee-DICK-you-less-ly short legislation session? The GOP wasn’t satisfied with a law prohibiting same sex marriage. The IN Constitution had to be amended – NOW!!! Um, why? Is there no other pressing issue AT ALL in IN? Preserving the institution of marriage is the MOST IMPORTANT issue facing IN? Then what the FREAK do we need you parasitic politicians for, any way? *huff, huff*
No, you mindless, knee-jerk, grandstanding politicos – it is not the most pressing issue. But if we allow this precedent – putting all scheduled agenda items on the back-burner because of some political hot-button issue – then each & every legislative session is bound to be held to this kind of political blackmail. That’s why there are all those silly Parliamentarian rules governing the legislation. To discard this decorum will seriously diminish the amount of actual legislative activity per session – each of which is already just a couple of weeks short.
Comments? Write to madbob, located at budweiser.com.
