Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts

Sunday, July 7, 2013

POW/MIA Search SNAFU, and European Junkets

I have some respect for America's armed forces. They deal with a very unpleasant reality: that occasionally force is needed to protect the lives and well-being of Americans and others.

America's military also, for the most part, deals with and corrects blunders and deliberate malfeasance committed by its members. (January 4, 2009; June 30, 2008)

That said, this reeks:
"...The internal report by Paul M. Cole was never meant to be made public. It is unsparing in its criticisms:

"--In recent years the process by which JPAC gathers bones and other material useful for identifications has "collapsed" and is now "acutely dysfunctional."

"--JPAC is finding too few investigative leads, resulting in too few collections of human remains to come even close to achieving Congress's demand for a minimum 200 identifications per year by 2015. Of the 80 identifications that JPAC's Central Identification Laboratory made in 2012, only 35 were derived from remains recovered by JPAC. Thirty-eight of the 80 were either handed over unilaterally by other governments or were disinterred from a U.S. military cemetery. Seven were from a combination of those sources.

"--Some search teams are sent into the field, particularly in Europe, on what amount to boondoggles. No one is held to account for 'a pattern of foreign travel, accommodations and activities paid for by public funds that are ultimately unnecessary, excessive, inefficient or unproductive.' Some refer to this as 'military tourism.'

"--JPAC lacks a comprehensive list of the people for whom it is searching. Its main database is incomplete and 'riddled with unreliable data.'

"--'Sketch maps' used by the JPAC teams looking for remains on the battlefield are 'chronically unreliable,' leaving the teams 'cartigraphically blind.' Cole likened this to 19th century military field operations.

"Absent prompt and significant change, 'the descent from dysfunction to total failure ... is inevitable,' Cole concluded.

"He directed most of his criticism at the field operations that collect bones and other material, as opposed to the laboratory scientists at JPAC who use that material to identify the remains. Cole is a management consultant and recognized research expert in the field of accounting for war remains; he still works at JPAC...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (July 7, 2013))
Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Thursday, June 20, 2013

TWA Flight 800, Assumptions, and Facts

I'm quite certain that hundreds of people died when TWA Flight 800 exploded off the Long Island shore.

Until late Tuesday, I was also fairly certain that a fuel-air explosion in one of the airliner's tanks caused the explosion.

'It Made a Good Story'

Ronald Reagan's "trust, but verify" quote apparently is from a Russian proverb: "Доверяй, но проверяй." I think it's good advice. I like to trust folks, but have been around long enough to realize that what some sincerely believe is not accurate: and a few folks deliberately lie.

The official explanation for TWA Flight 800's abrupt conclusion made sense, given what had been published about the incident. Jet fuel is notoriously easy to ignite, and accidents happen.

I was impressed at how many folks seemed convinced that they'd seen something heading toward the jet, or reported something else that wasn't consistent with an internal explosion. But eyewitness testimony is not particularly reliable.

Eyewitness Testimony?

For example, I saw "SAVING PRIVATE YARN" on a theater marquee downtown. I'd been driving by, not paying attention to the sign, and was past the theater when the words filtered into the parts of my mind that weren't driving.

That was a really odd title for a movie, so I drove around the block and took a look. "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN" was playing. I'm not particularly dyslexic: but I am a very fast reader. Something in my brain had taken the letters from "Ryan," and put them together as a word I'm more familiar with.

The point is that I'd 'witnessed' and remembered something that wasn't, quite, there.

I was willing to believe that the NTSB was right, and eyewitnesses remembered things in a curiously consistent, but inaccurate, way.

That was then, this is now.

Another Good Story

Maybe the eyewitnesses were right.
"...A group of former investigators ... argue that new evidence shows that an external force, from something such as a rocket or missile, may have brought down the Boeing 747 minutes after it left New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

"The petition claims 'new analyses of the FAA radar evidence demonstrate that the explosion that caused the crash did not result from a low-velocity fuel-air explosion as the NTSB has determined. Rather, it was caused by a detonation or high-velocity explosion.' ...

"People have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' ...."
(Los Angeles Times)

"... 'We don't know who fired the missile,' said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. 'But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.'..."
(FoxNews.com)
I put more, and longer, excerpts from the news are at the end of this post.1 They're interesting in several ways, and I'll get back to that.

Rip roaring good action-adventure stories can involve government conspiracies. There can be a good reason for keeping quiet about something monumentally newsworthy. Keeping something like "Independence Day's" undercover study of a crashed spaceship might be best kept quiet: if the only advantage humanity had was that the space-alien aggressors didn't realize that we knew they existed.

In general, though, I think it's a good idea to be open about why an airliner explodes. Particularly if there are people inside it at the time.

Obviously - - - This is Unsettling

Some folks seem to believe that 'the government' never tells the truth. Others seem equally convinced that the nation's leadership can do no wrong. Folks believing either extreme can be liberal, conservative, or simply crazy: depending on the individual, and who's in White House at the time.

TWA Flight 800 went down during the Clinton administration, which may or may not be involved in the disconnect between eyewitness accounts, the official explanation, and what some investigators are saying. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know.

I am very concerned that some of the folks involved in studying the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 are, 17 years later, saying that the investigation was botched: at best. "It's obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued...." When a professional who has retired - and doesn't have to worry about continued employment - says that, I'm quite willing to take the claim seriously.

News, Opinion, and Facts

Like I've said before: it's important to study the news, not just read it. Journalists are supposed to be be accurate, and 'unbiased.' However, it seems easy to mistake assumptions for facts. Particularly if 'everybody knows' that some unconsidered assumption is a fact.

On top of human shortcomings, like preconceived notions, news outlets inevitably have an editorial 'slant:' an attitude which they've found tends to attract more readers or viewers. Provided that reporters and editors don't deliberately lie, I accept this as part of the social and economic realities we deal with: and a reason to think about what we read.

Finally, I am not at all comfortable with the situation that we seem to have: where the NTSB is deciding whether or not the NTSB investigation of TWA Flight 800 should be reviewed.

In the news:
Related posts:
1 Excerpts from the news:
"What brought down TWA Flight 800? Group wants investigation reopened"
Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times (June 19, 2013)

"Federal officials are weighing a request to reopen the investigation of the 1996 explosion and crash of TWA Flight 800 that went down off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people aboard.

"A group of former investigators, interviewed in a documentary to be released next month, have petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board for the new probe. They argue that new evidence shows that an external force, from something such as a rocket or missile, may have brought down the Boeing 747 minutes after it left New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

"The petition claims 'new analyses of the FAA radar evidence demonstrate that the explosion that caused the crash did not result from a low-velocity fuel-air explosion as the NTSB has determined. Rather, it was caused by a detonation or high-velocity explosion.'

"The theory of such a strike was heavily investigated by the FBI and other agencies at the time and found to be unsupported. The NTSB eventually determined that a center fuel tank had exploded when an electrical short-circuit caused a spark.

"Tom Stalcup, a coproducer of the documentary to be aired on the cable TV premium channel Epix next month, told CNN's morning show 'New Day' that there was radar and other evidence for an external explosion.

"People have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' Stalcup told the cable news program...."
"Filmmaker asserts new evidence on crash of TWA Flight 800"
Mike M. Ahlers, CNN (June 19, 2013)

"A documentary on the 1996 explosion that brought down TWA Flight 800 offers 'solid proof that there was an external detonation,' its co-producer said Wednesday.

" 'Of course, everyone knows about the eyewitness statements, but we also have corroborating information from the radar data, and the radar data shows a(n) asymmetric explosion coming out of that plane -- something that didn't happen in the official theory,' Tom Stalcup told CNN's 'New Day.'

"A number of people have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' Stalcup said.

"He cited 'corroborating information from the radar data' and complained that 'not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of.'

" 'The family members need to know what happened to their loved ones,' he said.

"Asked why such information might have been suppressed, Stalcup said, 'That's a question that should be answered when this investigation gets reopened.'..."
"Former investigators of TWA Flight 800 want new probe"
USA Today (June 19, 2013)
"Former investigators of the TWA Flight 800 crash off Long Island are calling on the National Transportation Safety Board to re-examine the case.

"The retired investigators claim that findings were 'falsified.' A documentary on the subject is coming out in July.

"The 1996 crash of the Paris-bound flight killed 230 people.

"Initial speculation ranged from maintenance problems to a bomb and even a meteorite. Some critics theorized that a Navy missile accidentally brought down the jetliner.

"The NTSB concluded that Flight 800 was destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion, probably caused by a spark from a short-circuit in the wiring...."
"Investigators want missile theory probed in '96 TWA Flight 800 crash"
FoxNews.com (June 19, 2013)

"A handful of aviation experts, including a number of investigators who were part of the original probe of TWA Flight 800, have come forward in a new documentary to say evidence points to a missile as the cause of the crash off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.

"The New York-to-Paris flight crashed July 17, 1996, just minutes after takeoff from JFK Airport, killing all 230 people aboard. In the weeks that followed, the plane was reassembled in a hangar from parts retrieved from the sea. But the cause of the crash was not identified immediately, and after authorities said the crash was caused by static electricity ignited fuel fumes, many skeptics cast doubt on the theory. Adding to the controversy were multiple eyewitness accounts of a fireball going up from the ground and hitting the plane before it went down, accounts which the FBI dismissed at the time.

"The half-dozen investigators whose charges will be fleshed out in a documentary set to air July 17 - the anniversary of the crash - say they were never allowed to get at the truth. But they are confident a missile brought down the plane.

" 'We don't know who fired the missile,' said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. 'But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.'

"The group is comprised of people who worked for the National Transportation Safety Board, TWA and the Airline Pilots Association, all of whom have since retired. All six say that the evidence shows the plane was brought down by a projectile traveling at a high speed.

" 'It all fits like a glove,' said Tom Stalcup, a physicist who is considered one of the foremost independent researchers and participated in the documentary, said during a press conference on Wednesday. 'It is what it is and all the evidence is there.'

"Hank Hughes, a retired senior accident investigator for NTSB, said probers were not allowed to seek answers once the FBI took over the crime scene. 'We just want to see the truth come out,' Hughes said. 'We don't have hidden agendas. The only thing we are looking for is the truth.'

"Speer, who says he found explosive residue on a part from the right wing which also had three holes, agreed.

" 'It's obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued,' said Speer. 'A majority of people working in that hanger did not feel as if the evidence was properly being handled.'

"The NTSB said it will review the petition...."
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, April 18, 2010

President Lech Kaczynski's Undelivered Speech: and a Lesson to Learn

I don't, as a rule, copy my sources in their entirety.

In the case of the late Polish President, Lech Kaczynski's undelivered speech, I'll make an exception.

I've found a number of copies - and versions - of the speech's English translation. Some which seem to have been: "Edited" would be a polite euphemism.

The following copy is on the thenews.pl website: an English-language news site covering Poland. I checked the URL out: it's registered by an outfit in Poland:


AZ.PL Spolka Jawna (AZ.PL General Partnership)
ul. Sosnowa 6a
71-468 Szczecin
Polska (Poland)

A Polish address doesn't guarantee authenticity, of course: but this translation includes material which some non-Polish sources omitted.

Besides, I think people living and working in Poland may be somewhat more likely to understand Polish than, say, an American in Paris. They may also be a bit more interested in accurately transmitting the thoughts of their late president than foreigners would be. For these reasons, I think this translation may be a trifle closer to what the late President Kaczynski intended to say about Katyn.
"President Kaczynski's last speech"
Polskie Radio S.A. (April 12, 2010)

"Below is the text of the speech which Lech Kaczynski, who died on Saturday, was going to deliver at the 70th anniversary ceremony of the Katyn massacre."

" 'Dear Representatives of the Katyn Families. Ladies and Gentlemen. In April 1940 over twenty-one thousand Polish prisoners from the NKVD camps and prisons were killed. The genocide was committed at Stalin's will and at the Soviet Union's highest authority's command."

"The alliance between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the Soviet attack on Poland on 17 September 1939 reached a terrifying climax in the Katyn massacre. Not only in the Katyn forest, but also in Tver, Kcharkiv and other known, and unknown, execution sites citizens of the Second Republic of Poland, people who formed the foundation of our statehood, who adamantly served the motherland, were killed."

"At the same time families of the murdered and thousands of citizens of the eastern territory of the pre-war Poland were sent into exile deep into the Soviet Union, where their indescribable suffering marked the path of the Polish Golgotha of the East."

"The most tragic station on that path was Katyn. Polish officers, priests, officials, police officers, border and prison guards were killed without a trial or sentence. They fell victims to an unspeakable war. Their murder was a violation of the rights and conventions of the civilized world. Their dignity as soldiers, Poles and people, was insulted. Pits of death were supposed to hide the bodies of the murdered and the truth about the crime for ever."

"The world was supposed to never find out. The families of the victims were deprived of the right to mourn publicly, to proudly commemorate their relatives. Ground covered the traces of crime and the lie was supposed to erase it from people's memory."

"An attempt to hide the truth about Katyn – a result of a decision taken by those who masterminded the crime – became one of the foundations of the communists' policy in an after-war Poland: a founding lie of the People's Republic of Poland."

"It was the time when people had to pay a high price for knowing and remembering the truth about Katyn. However, the relatives of the murdered and other courageous people kept the memory, defended it and passed it on to next generations of Poles. They managed to preserve the memory of Katyn in the times of communism and spread it in the times of free and independent Poland. Therefore, we owe respect and gratitude to all of them, especially to the Katyn Families. On behalf of the Polish state, I offer sincere thanks to you, that by defending the memory of your relatives you managed to save a highly important dimension of our Polish consciousness and identity."

"Katyn became a painful wound of Polish history, which poisoned relations between Poles and Russians for decades. Let's make the Katyn wound finally heal and cicatrize. We are already on the way to do it. We, Poles, appreciate what Russians have done in the past years. We should follow the path which brings our nations closer, we should not stop or go back."

"All circumstances of the Katyn crime need to be investigated and revealed. It is important that innocence of the victims is officially confirmed and that all files concerning the crime are open so that the Katyn lie could disappear for ever. We demand it, first of all, for the sake of the memory of the victims and respect for their families' suffering. We also demand it in the name of common values, which are necessary to form a foundation of trust and partnership between the neighbouring nations in the whole Europe."

"Let's pay homage to the murdered and pray upon their bodies. Glory to the Heroes! Hail their memory!' (mg)"
[copied from http://www.thenews.pl/national/artykul129342_president-kaczynskis-last-speech.html April 18, 2010. Edited: blank lines between paragraphs were deleted; " ’ " replaced with " ' "]

So What?

A speech that wasn't read by a dead Pole may not seem either particularly important, or relevant to a blog about the war on terror.

I think it's both.

The speech which the late President Lech Kaczynski intended to deliver discusses an atrocity which is of great importance to Poles. The Soviet Union's decision to pretend that the Katyn massacre never happened has gotten in the way of Russia-Poland relations.

In a more general sense, the Katyn cover-up is, I think, a pretty good example of why it's a really, really bad idea to try pretending that embarrassing things didn't happened.

Aside from getting in the way of dealing with people in other countries - who may have at least an inkling of what's being concealed - suppression of inconvenient realities makes it impossible to learn from mistakes.

The American military have been known to make mistakes. When that happens - the mistakes are scrutinized, analyzed, recorded - and made part of officer's training. I think that approach makes sense. (June 30, 2008)

I think one of the strengths of America is not that we make mistakes - everybody does that. It's that, once we recognize that we've done something wrong: we make sure that generations that follow won't forget how we screwed up. Embarrassing, and occasionally over-done: but I'd rather have that, than a nice, well-run country where all the masses hear about is how wonderful their leaders are.

America isn't the only country that's learning to learn from mistakes, of course. I think it's an idea that's catching on globally.

About time, too.

Related posts:In the news:More:
A tip of the hat to deacon_jim, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the Polish president's undelivered speech. (And responding to my query about the origins of the speech on his blog (April 20, 2010))

Normally, I wouldn't copy an entire document. But with so many versions floating around, I wanted at least one copy to come from a Polish source: with links and a citation.

Besides, commercial websites sometimes remove content after it's become 'old news.' I did not want what may well be an adequate translation to disappear.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Commie Plots, Cholesterol, Frank Burns, Hugo Chavez, and 2012

In the "good old days," when I was growing up, a vocal portion of the American populace were convinced that commie plots were behind just about everything they didn't like.

By the time I was paying attention, they had a declining influence over the American government's decisions. In my opinion their greater contribution to the culture was a fairly steady stream of gaffes, and being a highly identifiable group for comedians to joke about, satirists to satirize, and writers to use as the basis for memorable - if somewhat two-dimensional - characters like Frank Burns of M*A*S*H.

That was then, this is now. Acid rain, the terrible dangers of electrical transmission lines, and global warming, have replaced "commie plots" as effective rallying cries. Although not for the same people as were swayed by the likes of Wisconsin's Senator Joseph McCarthy, of course. It's hard to imagine a politician building his or her campaign on the claim that there are some number of known communists in the State Department.

Or, if some politico was crazy enough to try - winning a state or national election.

Hugo Chavez, Weather Control, Democracy and All That

This afternoon, discussing western-hemisphere politics and cultural history with my oldest daughter, we ran over the idea that democracy was the only viable, or for that matter, decent, form of government.

The idea died at the scene.

Our conversation ricocheted in another direction: which has even less to do with the general topic of this blog than this post.

The encounter with one of the basic assumptions of many Americans - that democracy is the only "right" way to run a country - reminded me of something I wrote about a year ago:

Military Rule as the Ideal Form of Government

No, I don't really think so, but look at this:
  • Government by Religious Leaders
    Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban
    Result: Terrorism
  • Government by Monarch
    Example: Saudi Arabia
    Result: Terrorists
    • (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis)
  • Government by Elected Leaders
    Example: Somalia
    Result: Terrorists - and pirates
  • Government by Military Ruler
    Example: Guinea
    • Assuming that the elections were as faked as critics claim
    Result: No terrorism (and no pirates, either)
You see?! That 'proves' that military rule is superior to old-fashioned monarchies, theocracies, and constitutional democracies.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? I carefully selected examples that supported my claim. That can make for effective propaganda, but it's not good reasoning.

As a matter of fact, I don't have the visceral, reflexive revulsion that many Americans have toward the idea of having a country run by military or religious rulers. I think it depends on what individuals are running the show, and which side of the eighteenth century most of the country's people live on.
(December 29, 2008)
Hugo Chavez is the leader of a constitutional democracy. Venezuela's current constitution dates from December 30, 1999 - and President Chavez was elected in 2006 by a respectable margin: 62.9% to 36.9%. The next election for the Venezuelan president is in 2012.1

The Mayan "Long Count," and 2012; and 7138; and 12263; and 17388; and ---

Which brings up the point of this post. Quite a number of people seem to assume that 2012 will be when the world ends.

As a matter of fact, December 21, 2012, is when a "Long Count" cycle of the Mayan calendar will end - assuming that the current Long Count started on August 11, 3114 BC. If it started on August 13 - which is possible - the cycle re-starts on December 23, 2012. It'll also re-start in the spring of 7138, summer of 12263, autumn of 17388, and so on.2

Western civilization's calendar uses a base-ten numeric system, and involves centuries and millennia. We just experienced the end of one of our 'long cycles' - December 31, 1999 - and Y2K went past without an apocalypse. (Yes, there was a real issue with legacy software - which encouraged some long-overdue upgrades and re-engineering.)

I don't expect to influence people who are convinced that:
  • Commie plots are behind every disagreeable event
  • We're all gonna die from
    • Acid rain
    • Cholesterol (high or otherwise)
    • Global warming
    • The end of a Mayan calendrical cycle
On the other hand, I think there's some merit in reminding the rest of us that assumptions are a convenient mental shortcut - and should be re-considered now and again.

Related post: In the news: Background:
Hugo Chavez may, eventually, be the basis of a character as colorful and memorable as Frank Burns. From today's news:
"Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez says he will join a team of Cuban scientists on flights to "bomb clouds" to create rain amid a severe drought that has aroused public anger due to water and electricity rationing.

"Chavez, who has asked Venezuelans to take three-minute showers to save water, said the Cubans had arrived in Venezuela and were preparing to fly specially equipped aircraft above the Orinoco river.

" 'I'm going in a plane; any cloud that crosses me, I'll zap it so that it rains,' Chavez said at a ceremony late on Saturday with family members of five Cubans convicted of spying in the United States...."
(Reuters)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 19, 2009

White House Reporting, John Ensign, Freedom and a Reality Check

This blog isn't political, as I've discussed before. (June 21, 2009, for starters)

In some circles "everybody" knows that FOXNews always lies about President Obama, and never covers any conservative scandals. I can see their point: FOXNews coverage wasn't as adulatory of the "change" president as traditional news networks. And FOXNews has the annoying habit of reporting news: even if it doesn't support White House policy or display President Obama's efforts in a favorable light.

Criticizing the President is Treason!

Well, no.

That's the way we work in America. It's a concept we call 'freedom.' Being allowed to criticize national leaders can result in awkward conversations - and the occasional criminal investigation.

Remember Watergate?

I remember the 'good old days,' when it was conservatives bitterly complaining about people who criticized The Government, and even The President. You could almost hear the capital letters as they uttered those two phrases. Quite a few of them seemed to think that criticizing government policies or elected officials bordered on treason.

Well, those were conservatives. And "everybody" knows what they're like.

This time "everybody" isn't all that wrong.

Some conservatives have a very narrow - and distorted - view of the world, and regard reminders of that objective reality which we all share as a sort of attack.

So do some liberals.

I suspect that tunnel-vision chauvinism is a trait you'd find in some supporters of almost any political or philosophical position.

That's more of an annoyance, than a problem, as long as people who see the world through an ideological kaleidoscope are few in number and far from major decision-making positions.

When they're in top federal offices, I get concerned.

As I wrote before, "In some circles 'everybody' knows that FOXNews always lies about President Obama...." When the "everybody" are people contributing to a discussion thread, or writing a blog, that's America's cultural background noise these days.

When they're on the White House staff, I get concerned.

Like it or not, the American president is in a critical decision-making position - and if he or his staff are breaking with reality, we've got trouble. Big time.

The White House Communications Director, FOXNews, and Fact Checking

"...'She [White House communications director Anita Dunn] criticized "FOX News Sunday" last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official,' [FOX News Sunday host Chris] Wallace said Sunday. 'They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check.'

" 'Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign,' Wallace added. 'A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong.'..."
(FOXNews)
"Fact checker" is a term used in journalism. It's what you call a person who researches assertions made in non-fiction text: and who is supposed to point out assertions that can't be verified; or which are contrary to objective reality. To "fact check" is, presumably, the act of performing a fact checker's tasks.

I "fact-check" routinely: a habit from my college days, and before.

Since the host of a FOXNews show asserted that FOXNews had covered the John Ensign scandal (the latest one, anyway), I needed to see if FOXNews actually had published an article or two on the conservative senator.

Using Google, I found 816 hits for "John Ensign" - which doesn't prove much.

About "John Ensign" and Names in America

"John Ensign" is a fairly typical sort of name in America.

You may not know all that many "Ensign" families, but the surname is the 15,523th most-common surname of the 88,799 listed in a U.S. Census report.1

That's not as common as the top three names (Smith, Johnson, Williams); but much more common than family names like Kiliipaakaua, Billingsby, or Plavnik. As for "John," It's the second-most-common name for guys in America, just after "James," and before "Robert."

So some of those 816 "John Ensign" hits might be stories about a John Ensign who won a chess tournament in Boise, Idaho, or was elected mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Quite a number of those Google hits, though, are about a "John Ensign" who is a senator - and who apparently should have known better.

FOXNews Coverage of Senator John Ensign's Scandal (That - According to the White House - Doesn't Exist)

I selected the first few Google hits, ignoring a page of links to videos, and a sort of 'where are they now' of politicians caught with their pants down.

John Ensign May be Innocent Until Proven Guilty - But His Current Scandal is Certainly on FOXNews

This is America, so a person is innocent until proven guilty. In courts, anyway. Just the same, Senator John Ensign seems to have cheated on his wife - systematically - and had his parents pay the bill for his extramarital jollies.

Admirable, in a way, keeping it 'in the family:' I get the idea that most Senators use public funds for that sort of thing.

Not that I approve of cheating on your spouse - even if you're a senator.

Finally, I noticed that FOXNews chose to put their articles about John Ensign - which the White House says don't exist - in the Politics section. That choice is open to criticism, since under the circumstances coverage of Senator Ensign's extramarital activities might have been categorized in some other way. Alternative placement might have been in the Health or Leisure sections.

Related posts: on news, assumptions, and points of view.
(added about 6:20 p.m. October 19, 2009): News and views:
1 "Frequently Occurring First Names and Surnames From the 1990 Census," U.S. Census Bureau. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Data read May 22, 2007, verified October 19, 2009.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 12, 2009

TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work; Protecting the Public From Flash Cards

The TSA recently defended air travelers from a grave danger: An American student named Nick George and the Arabic flash cards he carried in his backpack.
"...George said that Transportation Security Administration officers kept him in the screening area for what seemed like 45 minutes. Eventually a woman from the TSA arrived and began asking more questions, like how he felt about 9/11.

" 'Do you know who did 9/11?' he said that the woman asked.

"George said that he told her that it was Osama bin Laden, and that she responded smugly, 'Do you know what language Osama bin Laden spoke?'

"Soon after that a Philadelphia police officer arrived and told George to put his hands behind his back. Without explanation, he slapped handcuffs on him and led him away...."
(Philadeplphia Daily News, via philly.com)

Defending American Ignorance

In a way, the TSA's officers' and inquisitor's efforts are admirable.

In the face of a general awareness that foreigners are human beings, and easy communication with anyone on Earth through the Internet, they were valiantly striving to protect the air travelers from those who are so un-American as to actually learn something about those nasty Ay-rabs.

Nick George was a suspicious character, of course. Even though he looks like a "real American" (by, say, Timothy McVeigh's standards), Nick George had not only been in countries that weren't America, England, or (for the more tolerant "real Americans") France. George had been in Jordan, Egypt and Sudan.

And, Ay-rab words like "terrorist" and "explosion" were on his flash cards.

Nick George claimed that he had the flash cards so that he could learn to translate Al Jazeera - an Ay-rab news network.

What more proof did the TSA need? Here was someone who not only had been in places known to harbor Ay-rabs and other foreigners: he actually admitted to wanting to learn how to follow an Ay-rab television news network!

WASPs, "Real Americans," and the Rest of Us

Nick George is obviously not a "real American." Not by some standards.

For that matter, neither am I. By some standards.

Although I look 'Anglo,' and even have blue eyes, I'm no red, white, and blue-blooded WASP. Half my ancestors came from the British Isles - but they were Irish and Scots. One of them might have been deported from England - but that's another story. The rest of my forebears were from Norway - so by some standards, I'm simply not a "real American."

I can live with that.

Particularly since quite a substantial number of American citizens aren't WASPs - and don't even look the part. I'd like to think that the days when "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" and "American" were considered as synonyms by more than a few isolated crackpots are past - but incidents like Nick George's run-in with the TSA keep happening.

All-American Ignorance, Dangerous Knowledge, and the TSA

As I wrote in a post about dangerous technologies like LP gas and computers, "Knowledge is Power: and I Like Power."

I'm quite willing to believe that an American citizen might be interesting in learning Arabic - and even travel to the Middle East - without being a danger to others. Not physically dangerous, anyway. There's always the chance that someone like that might let others know that Ay-rabs were as human as "real Americans" are, weren't all terrorists, and weren't all Muslims.

"They're All Muslims," Nipple Rings, Flash Cards, and Common Sense

My guess is that quite a few TSA officers don't think that the flying public needs to be protected from nipple rings and flash cards. Or from the people who carry them.

On the other hand, in common with quite a few other Americans, some don't seem to realize that
  • Not all Arabs are Muslims
  • Not all Muslims are terrorists
  • Not all terrorists are
    • Arabs
    • Muslims
I realize that this isn't as easy to remember - or deal with - as the 'all foreigners are suspicious,' 'all Arabs are Muslims / all Muslims are terrorists,' and "they're all Muslims" belief system that some cherish.

It's a big, complex world out there. Cherishing ignorance isn't a viable option. Neither is hectoring people who try to expand their knowledge.

Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Terrorists, America, and Generalizations

I've gotten the impression that, for many, a "terrorist" is someone with darkish skin, very dark hair, a prominent nose, a name that just simply isn't 'American' - like Smith or Jones - and who lives in some far-off place.

From the looks of it, federal authorities broke up a small terrorist organization here in America. Seven men have been accused so far:
"A father, his two sons and four other men living in North Carolina are accused of military-style training at home and plotting 'violent jihad' abroad, federal authorities said.

"Officials said Monday the men were led by Daniel Patrick Boyd, a married 39-year-old who lived in an unassuming lakeside home in a rural area south of Raleigh, where he and his family walked their dog and operated a drywall business...."

"...'These charges hammer home the point that terrorists and their supporters are not confined to the remote regions of some far-away land but can grow and fester right here at home,' U.S. Attorney George E.B. Holding said...."

"...Boyd's faith was so brash that, this year, he stopped attending worship services in the Raleigh area and instead began meeting for Friday prayers in his home."

" 'This is not an indictment of the entire Muslim community,' Holding said. "These people had broken away because their local mosque did not follow their vision of being a good Muslim."..."
(AP)
Daniel?

Patrick??

Boyd?!

Of course: This must be one of those radical right-wing extremist white supremacists we hear about. You know: white people, who go around killing blacks (and other people who aren't sufficiently American - remember Oklahoma City?).

Nope. Mr. Boyd is a Muslim.

Then, using an all-too-common generalization, Daniel Patrick Boyd must be like all the other Muslims: a fanatic killer, just waiting to go off. They're all Muslims" and other sweeping generalizations are not, I think, at all helpful. Not in today's world, where people you meet don't all have the same ancestors, don't all eat the same food, and don't all believe exactly the same things that you do.

Intolerance, as well as over-generalizations, go both - make that all - ways:
"...The wives of the men told The Associated Press in an interview at the time they were glad the truth about their husbands had finally become known. The wives said the couples had U.S. roots but the United States was a country of 'kafirs' — Arabic for heathens...."
(AP)
I'm aware that there's some debate about what "kafirs" is supposed to mean - but remember:
  • The Associated Press was quoting someone
  • That was a select group's attitude
Just the same, I'm pretty sure that quite a few other people around the world see America as a nation of "kafirs." Although some use other terms.

Last December, I wrote about a case which involved someone with a rather familiar attitude toward America and Americans: court documents dated November 4, 2008, and provided by Wired magazine, show a fellow who seemed oddly familiar:
  1. Dedicated to a cause
    1. He meant the technical how-2 in his post " '...to be used against those who fight for the United States' since he considered them and their allies fighting in Arab countries to be 'invaders'."
  2. Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed's opinion of
    1. Law enforcement officers
      1. "Dogs"
      2. "Christians"
      3. "Infidels"
      4. "Racists"
      5. "Enemies of G-D'"
    2. Americans
      1. A "stupid people"
      2. "One of the most stupid creations of G-D"
    3. America
      1. A "vile nation"
        (In a conversation with his parents on December 20, 2007)
    (December 18, 2008)
Terms like "infidel" and "dog" used as a derogatory term identify the person as a Muslim with cultural roots in the Middle East. What I found interesting about Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed's opinion of America and Americans was the set of generalizations about this country shared by Ahmed, many Islamic terrorists, and some of America's self-described best and brightest.

I put the shared opinions in bold. I didn't include the characterization of law enforcement officers as "Christian," but there's a lively antipathy toward Christianity in America's higher echelons. (August 5, 2008)

Beware Generalizations

Generalizations are handy. They allow thoughtful consideration of events to be replaced with associations of the 'all [noun] are [adjective]' variety. Once a set of generalizations is built around personal preferences and the peer group's prejudices, a person can sail through life with many of the higher brain functions offline.

It's not a particularly good idea, in many ways, but it can be done.

Back in the fifties and sixties, the KKK did Christianity no favors by 'protecting' 'Christian' American against blacks (as well as Jews and Catholics): and making the burning cross into a sort of cultural icon.

The War on Terror is, to a great extent, a matter of fanatic Muslims who feel that they and they alone know what Islam is, and echo what much of American academia has claimed about 'racist' and 'oppressive' America.

The problem is that, where the more 'sophisticated' American academics usually stop with teaching America's youth that America is an icky place - and indulging in academic pursuits like trashing the Quran and Eucharist - The Islamic fanatics are taking active steps to set up their version of Islamic nations.

But, just as all American academics aren't like Professor Ward Churchill, and not all Ron Paul supporters are potential terrorists, not all Muslims are terrorists. And, as Timothy McVeigh and company demonstrated, not all terrorists are Muslims.

But I don't expect people who are accustomed to the luxury of generalizing their way through life to believe that.

More-or-less related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, July 24, 2009

Who Needs Facts? Cultural Assumptions and Politics

This post is a bit off-topic, but not all that much.

In my view, the war on terror (or whatever we're supposed to call it) is in large part a conflict between people who desperately want to revive a culture which the world left behind centuries - or millennia - ago, and those who want the right to wear trousers or drink beer.

Dubiously-Accurate Beliefs

Dubiously-accurate points of view aren't limited to Islamic extremists, of course. Every group has its crazies, and every group has even more people who aren't all that aware of the differences between what they think is real, and the world the rest of us live in.

A case in point came up this week, when Cambridge police responded to a house break-in and put handcuffs on a friend of the American president's.
"...Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who reportedly has characterized the arrest as 'every black man's nightmare and a reality for many black men.'...

"...'I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home,' Obama told ABC's "Nightline."

"When Obama waded into the story by answering a question about it during his news conference Wednesday night, he admitted that he "may be a little biased" because Gates is a friend.

" 'I don't know all the facts,' he also conceded.

"He said he did not know what role race played, but 'the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.'..."
(CNN)
Cambridge police aren't taking the right attitude, from some points of view. Instead of pleading for forgiveness and mandatory re-education, they're saying that the criticism is unjustified.

They could be right.

Handcuffs, Harvard, and Feeling Good

I'm sure that the Harvard professor doesn't feel good about being handcuffed. I'd worry about anyone who did get a thrill about that sort of thing.

I've been detained by the police a few times, though: and been very carefully searched for weapons and/or contraband. I could wrap myself in righteous indignation and play the victim - but that would be a bit silly. I hadn't been engaging in criminal activity, but it didn't look like that from the law officers' point of view: and they'd be stupid to take chances. Even if I am some guy who uses a cane.

Back to the American president, a state governor, and assumptions.

Commie Plots, Disco, and Feeling Groovy

When I was growing up, quite a lot was made of Americans who thought that commie plots were behind all the world's problems. We got characters like Frank Burns of "M*A*S*H" out of the heyday of anti-communist hysteria. I still enjoy watching re-runs of that seventies sitcom, by the way.

The seventies are as dead as Disco, the sixties are even further back on the timeline, and the McCarthy era is long gone. I've made the point before in this blog:

In a nation like America, where citizens are expected to vote intelligently, it's a good idea to keep track of what decade you're in. Or, by now, what century. That goes double for national leaders.

Unconsidered Assumptions?

I'm quite sure that President Obama's prestige won't be hurt by this little gaffe. He's charming, charismatic, and a very intelligent man.

I can't help but wonder if this little oopsie doesn't show some of the underlying, unconsidered assumptions that Barack Obama retains.

'Nuff said.

Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Nancy Pelosi's 757, Revisited

Earlier today, I wrote about the persistent rumor that something about Michael Monsoor is a hoax. I'd been going through this blog's statistics, which lets me know what visitors in general are looking for. (I do not track individuals. First, I don't want to, and second, I don't have the technology.)

My guess is that quite a few of the Monsoor hoax visitors are a trifle left-of-center, politically. To even things out, here's a very short retrospective on Nancy Pelosi's 757.

The post on Pelosi's "wasteful" and "extravagant" 757 gets about as many hits as the main Monsoor post. My guess is that people looking up Pelosi's alleged extravagance are a bit right-of-center, politically.

My best guess is that an email, and its mutant clones, about Pelosi's 757 are still making the rounds.

Although I'm no fan of Pelosi's politics: I don't see any scandal there. In fact, I think that Pelosi using a 757, when it's available, makes sense from a security point of view.

America is at war, remember.

Assumptions, Facts, and Living in the Real World

I'll wrap this up with a couple of quotes from that Pelosi post:

"...I've been over this before: assumptions aren't facts. Rumors, or what you heard from some guy, may be true: but they may not be, too...."

"...Sometimes, when I read about, or hear, someone whose connection to this space-time continuum is shaky, I wonder if that person will vote...."

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

News from Gaza: Making a Game of Death and Destruction

It's a variation of "what's wrong with this picture?"

While you're watching the news from Gaza, or reading about Israeli aggression and Palestinian pathos, try looking for this sort of detail:
  1. A photo of shattered concrete, twisted steel, once a happy home
    • With a brightly-colored, spanking-clean toy sitting on top of the dust
  2. A Palestinian who speaks fluent English, being interviewed as resident of one town
    • Being interviewed as another resident of another town a little later
  3. Any photo that looks like the one on the right:

Learning from Past Mistakes

The second example may not be too likely. Saddam Hussein's regime provided reporters with articulate young women in different locations, who spoke fluent English and gave moving accounts of what the Yankees were doing to Iraq. Until a particularly astute reporter noticed that the young women all had the same voice, the same face, and were, in fact, the same person.

I think Hamas is smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others.

The same goes for the third possibility. Ever since Reuters published what may be the worst digital editing outside Photoshop 101, and got caught, news services seem to have been a little more careful.

Even so, Iran 'enhanced' a photo of its indomitable missiles being launched was published as the real McCoy in:
  • The Los Angeles Times
  • The Financial Times
  • The Chicago Tribune
  • BBC News
  • MSNBC
  • Yahoo! News
  • NYTimes.com

(from The Lede/The New York Times, used w/o permission)
Impressive, isn't it?

Then, The Associated Press found the original photo.


(from The Lede/The New York Times, used w/o permission)
Can you spot the difference between these two photos?

To Iran's credit, whoever did the postwork on that photo was pretty good. A person would have to look closely, to notice that two clouds of dust on the ground are virtually identical.

Isn't Playing a Game with War Coverage Ghoulish?

Actually, I rather hope that 'spot this lie' doesn't catch on as entertainment. The War on Terror is a very serious matter.

On the other hand, I would like to see more people pay attention to what they see, rather than letting the news wash over them. Particularly since it's hard to shake the impression that at least some 'objective' journalists aren't quite convinced that outfits like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban are a bigger threat than the FBI and the CIA.

More-or-less related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, January 5, 2009

Taliban Triumphs and the Truth: Or, Never Tell a Little Lie

Wow! The Taliban, those Lions of Islam, killed 5,220 foreign troops in Afghanistan's quagmire (oops: quicksand) last year!

According to the Taliban.

That's about 20 times what the foreign oppressors say were killed.

The foreign oppressors are, of course, America which is 'unilaterally' 'brutalizing' Afghanistan, along with NATO and other forces.

I'm inclined to believe the western figures. Partly because I'm an American - but mostly because I know the west's almost obsessive attention to detail, when it comes to reporting its own casualties.

NATO's member countries, and NATO as a unit, report all troop deaths: complete with names, ages, hometowns, and how the soldiers were killed. America is the same way.

It's possible that the military of over a dozen countries would lie about death tolls: but soldiers have families, who probably would notice if their son or daughter dropped out of sight; and if the families didn't notice something odd, reporters routinely nose around war zones and the home front, looking for a story.

And discovering a systematic cover-up of thousands of American and European deaths would be news!

The Taliban has an answer to that: it's all a vast conspiracy. "The true damage inflicted on U.S. and NATO fighters over the last year has been 'repeatedly hidden by the enemy and they have controlled the media by using money, power and their lies,' the [Taliban] statement said."

If the Truth Doesn't Suit You: Substitute Your Own

One of the advantages the Taliban has, I think, is that they're playing to an audience whose members desperately want to believe that
  • America and western civilization is absolutely awful, and the cause of all their problems
  • The god of their own hand-rolled version of Islam will give them victory
  • Any inconvenient facts are part of a plot against them
Maintaining that sort of belief system is, I think, a lot easier than thinking: which may help explain the popularity of outfits like the Taliban - in some quarters, anyway.

Running Low on Funds and Suicide Bombers? Tout Your Triumphs!

If the triumphs aren't really as big as your marketing people say they should be: boost the numbers. But, be sure to say that western media, military, and governments are all involved in a big plot to hide your version of the truth.

The Associated Press article explained it this way:

"The insurgents' exaggerations are designed to boost morale inside the Taliban and to attract financing from donors sympathetic to their cause, a U.S. military official and a Taliban expert said.

" 'They put out this propaganda in order to raise capital to continue their operations,' said Col. Jerry O'Hara, a U.S. military spokesman.

"Vahid Mojdeh, the author of a book on the Taliban who continues to study the militia, said the exaggerated claims help the insurgents recruit new fighters.

" 'The Taliban needs volunteers to carry out suicide attacks, so they want to show they are killing a lot of people,' Mojdeh said...."

Of course: that's the Associated Press. And, according to the Taliban, they're conspiring with the American military to hide The Truth - Taliban style.

Related posts: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 4, 2009

All Those 'Poor, Uneducated, Minorities Being Drafted in America!'

If you are upset about America's drafting of young people to fight in its unjust wars, you aren't alone.

Here's a comment left recently, on "Cards-to-the-Troops Campaign by Xerox" (July 23, 2007), from Solidinkoutlet:
"I am dedicating this post to all of our soldiers in Iraq and other states fighting for our country! Young men get drafted into the army and most are not really aware of the corruptness of the government with every political issue or economic issue.

"These young men in the army are literally fighting for their lives since it is their 'nations duty'

"Lets all take a moment and really admire our talented individuals fighting for our lives too.."

"January 1, 2009 8:36 PM"
I think the comment is mostly spam for "Xerox Ink Sticks and Xerox Solid Ink for Phaser" - and might, possibly, be referring to a country other than the United States. However, since Xerox is an American company, and this blog is written from a rather unambiguously American viewpoint, I think it's reasonable to assume that Solidinkoutlet was referring to America's military draft.

America's Military Draft: Reality Check, Please!

For the benefit of those who get their information from the likes of United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, and Berkeley, there hasn't been an active military draft in America since 1973.

Young Americans didn't even need to register with Selective Service from 1975 to 1980. President Carter restarted registration after the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Every administration since has kept registration going, and I think it's quite possible that Barack Obama does, too.

So:
  • Could Americans be drafted into the military?
    • Yes
  • Are Americans being drafted into the military?
    • No
  • Are Americans likely to be drafted into the military?
    • In my opinion, not likely
Despite the impression one might get on some campuses, and other enclaves, this isn't the sixties. Times have changed.

Attention, Anti-War Chauvinists: The Age of Aquarius is Now the Information Age

The American military doesn't use - or need - unthinking zombie soldiers. The blindly-obedient, lockstep 'Prussian' military model, as popularized when I entered academia, was a 19th-century phenomena, extending into the 20th. And, as far as I've been able to determine, nowhere near as stupid as it was made to look.

American Soldiers: Not Thugs With Clubs

Draftees have not been part of the American military for over thirty years: and for good reason. It's been a very long time since national armies were hordes of peasants, occasionally trained to use something other than farm implements as weapons.

America's soldiers must know how to use and maintain Information Age technology, and deal with a complicated set of tasks when they are deployed. Even if hordes of ignorant peasants were still available, they wouldn't be very effective. Except for giving the medics something to do.

America's Military 'Looks Like America' - Pretty Much

'Everybody knows' that America's military victimizes the uneducated, the poor, and minorities (black Americans, that is), right? 'Everybody' may know that, but it's not so.

First, I'm not at all sure that employment, plus training that can be transferred to civilian jobs, and educational opportunities constitutes "victimization."

Even if earning that combination-plate of money, training, and education is being 'victimized,' the pain is being spread around rather well, as I learned in research for another post.

American military victimizes:
  • The uneducated
    There's actually a grain of truth to this
    • 2004 recruits' mean reading level was a full grade level higher than that of the comparable youth population
    • You'll find a higher proportion of high school grads in the American military, than you will among civilians
  • The poor
    Again, true - sort of
    • Young people from the poorest and the richest American families are underrepresented, and you're more likely to find middle-class kids in the military
  • Minorities
    There's real 'inequality' here, but probably not what you'd expect
    • Asian - you're not as likely to see someone with this ethnic background in the American military, compared to the American population as a whole
    • Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander - there are 649 percent more people with this ethnicity in the American armed forces, than in the general American population
I think this 'victimization' may have something to do with America having a volunteer military. If an American is a soldier, that person must:
  • Want to be a soldier
  • Have the qualities it takes to serve in the armed forces
Face it: Not everyone wants to be a soldier. It's even possible that young people in some American subcultures are less likely than others to want a military career. No problem with that: with a population topping 300,000,000, it would be a little odd if America didn't have a bit of diversity.

Why Not Let People Live in Their Own World?

People thinking that America's soldiers are drafted, or that a cabal of Jesuit assassins and priests of Baal1 are plotting to take over the world, might not matter if America was an old-fashioned monarchy.

The citizens in this country can vote, and have a voice in decisions that affect everybody. As GlobalSecurity.org put it, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Related posts: Background: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
1 I'm not making that up. I wrote more about the Black Pope, secrets of the Vatican library, and global conspiracies, in another blog, A Catholic Citizen in America.
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.