Taste of Freedom

Sgt Hook: Taste of Freedom

Mom,

Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday.Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard please…

My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.
I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it’s true meaning or power. “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.” I read that once and it couldn’t be more true. It’s not the average American’s fault that he or she is “blind and deaf” to the taste of freedom. Most American’s are born into their God given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn’t surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.

Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and haven’t had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.

I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the President’s lawn and say that America isn’t worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isn’t worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.

Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasn’t free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you weren’t allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldn’t put shoes on your child’s feet?

You need not to have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????

The Iraqis pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldier’s in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet American’s badmouth our President for having us here.

Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the Iraqi’s. Yes there are bad one’s here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this country’s future.

I have watched brave souls give their all and lose thier lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the “deaf and blind” be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, “All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country.” For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.

My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone’s right to have. Ironic isn’t it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT XXX and 1st Platoon
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)

Please also visit the homepage of my old unit:
1st Light Armored Infantry Battalion, USMC

Michael Totten: The Latest from Beirut

Who to talk to, who not to talk to:

If strangers talk to you at a bar, at a café, at a party, at a club, in a hotel lobby, in the countryside, or in a village, they almost certainly are normal people who are just being friendly. On the street in the city, though, chances are they want something from you. Maybe they just want directions. And that’s fine. Twice people have asked me for directions. I guess I look like I know where I’m going. But if someone doesn’t instantly tell you exactly, precisely, what they want, get away from them immediately.

“Americans have to learn this the hard way,” my friend told me. He’s right. I know he is. I had already half learned my lesson. I tried half measures yesterday and it wasn’t enough. ...

Flak jacket optional:

When I asked my brother if this place is what he expected he said “After listening to you talk about it and reading you write about it, it is exactly what I expected.”

My mom, though, is in a constant state of amazement.

Their first night out we went to Brooke’s restaurant in Gemmayze, a classy bohemian joint run by a British expat friend from the English countryside. The floor is wall-to-wall hardwood. Each chair is handsomely carved and stained dark like mahogany. A candle burns in a glass in the center of every table. I introduced mom and my brother to the bartender Elie and asked him to bring us a bottle of Bordeaux. The DJ played cool contemporary rock music over the sound system. The ambience, somehow, is pitch perfect. Brooke's, like so many haunts in Beirut, has an X Factor.

“This is surreal,” mom said. “What a great place!” We hadn’t even ordered yet. “I know you told me there are great restaurants in Beirut, but I never expected anything like this.”

Hardly anyone ever does. ...

Read it all at the links.

OSM Launch Impressions; or, It's My Party and I'll Cry if I Want To, and I Don't Want To

Now I know there are a bunch of naysayers out there, even in the blogosphere, doing what naysayers do best and saying nay. Well, suit yourselves. I just went to have a good time, and by golly I had a great time. So there.

Here are my scattered recollections from the event, with my memory bolstered by other bloggers who remember the Open Source Media launch much more clearly than I.

That fashion panel. Am I the only one who thought Elizabeth Hayt was simply divine? (I can hear you groaning. I'll take that as a yes.) No, really. Let me quote Eric at The Young Curmudgeon:

The only thing memorable about it was that Elizabeth Hayt, an NYT fashion journalist, bravely showed up. And I say bravely pointedly, to contrast her dignified bearing with the hooting and hollering that occurred both in the room and on-line for her daring to depart from the blog triumphalist mood of the day.

She stated at the outset that when she was booked she told the guy on the phone that she doesn't blog, she hates blogs, and thinks blogs are absurd so she didn't know why they were booking her. He said "That's why we want you." She was brought in as a sacrificial lamb, an example of evil MSM thinking for the assembled blog horde to devour with their teeth.

Now for my own take: Almost the first words out of Elizabeth's mouth were, "I don't read blogs. They're a waste of time. I think they're absurd. ... Bloggers are mostly rich people with too much time on their hands." This in front of a room full of bloggers. Think about it: How long did it take you to develop that kind of chutzpah? Well, there you go. You see what I mean, right? The woman's already halfway to being a blogger herself. She also admitted she doesn't read blogs. Now, when she goes the other half of the way, and decides she wants to know what she's talking about, we'll all have to watch out.

The Manolo he was there, sort of. This was the kind of gag that must have sounded like a great idea in the boardroom: Have The Manolo appear (so to speak) as a disembodied voice, with a sultry Latin accent. Well, fine. (BTW, I'm almost positive I met Manolo's "voice" after the event, but I digress.) But the ten-second (or however long it was) delay was ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they had somebody e-mailing the questions to Manolo and the "voice" reading his responses. Roger tried to tell us the delay was due to "long distance". Come on, Roger. We're bloggers, dammit, we're not that stupid.

Well, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain but do pay attention to the political panel. Richard Fernandez (Wretchard of The Belmont Club) is as articulate in person as he is on the screen. For the rest of the picture, I'll give you Judith at Kesher Talk:

The political panel was like every other political panel you have ever seen. Kudlow asked the three men most of the questions, Podhoretz and Corn bloviated, Wretchard tried to be thoughtful, and Rossett tried to get a word in edgewise. Since she is one of the few real investigative journalists working in the US today, this was a shame.

Podhoretz and Corn began their own "late twentieth-century history, as seen from the Right and the Left" debate, but Roger thankfully cut them off.

The first person I met at the reception was Robert of Publius Pundit - a very bright and dynamic young individual. He talked about life as an Air Force brat, the opportunities and pitfalls of the ongoing democratic revolutions, and what he hopes to do after college. Go read his blog.

Lisa Ramaci-Vincent was one of those I prevailed upon to sign my laptop during the reception. I had the pleasure of speaking with her for a few minutes, though not as long as Eric apparently did:

Lisa Ramaci is an incredible person, warm, open, unassuming and intellectual, a medieval history expert. She spoke of trips with her husband to Viet Nam before relations were normalized and even to Iran, where it turned out everyone was pro-American. She talked about her husband's memorial service, with representatives from the fetish scene, the downtown arts scene, conservative politics etc. and is going to send me a DVD of it to watch. Like Steven Vincent, she's a true American original and an utterly amazing person. Meeting her and actually getting to talk to her at length made my day and meant a hell of a lot more than meeting some blogger or journalist.

To that, I can only add that she is full of enthusiasm and idealism about Iraq, she is very warm and easy to be with, and an utterly amazing ... oh, wait, that's already been said. Well, consider it said again. FWIW, Lisa is also very big - stupefyingly tall, big-boned, and a very impressive woman physically as well as in every other way.

I blundered into this picture. Thanks, LaShawn - again! - for the link.

Wonderful people I met. I'm almost afraid to begin, because I know I'll leave somebody out. Well, okay. There was Pieter, with whom I had the pleasure of some conversation at the very beginning of the event. Pamela, Judith, Neo, LaShawn, and Fausta it was great meeting you in person!


I never thought I'd hear myself say the words "Excuse me, are you Cliff May?" It was, and I got to talk with him about the times and challenges of FDD.

Tammy, it was a special honor meeting you - and Bruce, good seeing you again!

Susan N., it was great meeting you! If you're reading this, drop me a line.

Okay, well that's enough of this. Here is what I really want to say about Open Source Media: Maybe you think it's a great idea, or maybe you think it's a dumb idea and we're all suckers. All I can say is this: Charles and Roger didn't ask me for a dime, they just asked if I wanted to sign on. I figured anything with all these folks - and Omar and Mohammed - couldn't be a bad thing. The trip to New York was worth it just to meet the people. I don't know where OSM is going, but I'm looking forward to finding out.

James Wolcott, please make an appointment with your therapist.

At the OSM launch I had the pleasure of meeting the charming Pamela of Atlas Shrugs (another political blog that ought to be on your browser).

This morning I read about this bizarre fantasy of James Wolcott. Apparently the man has terrible eyesight and an overactive imagination ... how can you confuse a hand with a breast? Maybe he's forgotten what breasts look like. (Perhaps the blog world ought to send him some pictures of breasts to refresh his memory?)

Really, can the MSM get any more pathetic? I mean, is it even possible?

Thoughts on the OSM Launch

It's 6:30am here in New York and only 3:30am back home in Portland. I'm still recovering from a terrific and overwhelming day yesterday.

A few random thoughts about the Open Source Media launch. Everybody I met was simply wonderful - right now I don't want to start trying to acknowledge people by name because I'm afraid I'll leave somebody out. (To all those whom I bothered to sign my laptop, many thanks for your patience and your signatures!) Every person I met - whether I thrust my PowerBook and my Sharpie under your nose or not - now holds a very special place in my life.

A fashion panel? To kick off the event? Well, it wasn't quite what I would have done, but it was entertaining in its own way. Really, how else would I have found out that bloggers are "mostly rich people with too much time on their hands"?

The only thing that bothered me about the fashion panel - and I'm going to be frank here - is that I think we could have done with more time for the political panel. Why a fashion panel, anyway? If fashion, then why not sports? Was the fashion group something thrown in "to appeal to the ladies"? I'd have liked to see women political bloggers better represented. For instance, I would have liked to see more of these women on the program.

That's all I have for now. More soon.

Liveblogging from OSM Launch

From the OSM (Open Source Media) launch in New York City:


Andrew Breitbart: In the old media, I never would have introduced competitors. But in the blogging world, we're all friends.

Roger Simon: We don't just want to criticize (a short-run thing); we want to do something constructive (a long-run thing). ... This is the first deliberate blend of these factions to create a new media paradigm. ... The internet ... is an ideal place to ensure accuracy of content. ... Our guiding principle will be this openness as practiced by citizen journalists.

John Podhoretz: "The authority inheres in the words themselves."

Richard Fernandez: Your primary capital is your "rep" ... and when you have a rep, suddenly everything you say matters.

Caudia Rosett: One of my favorite papers is the "Weekly World News", because I find stories about aliens entertaining. [But] when you set yourself up as a source of "truth", you have to be responsible.

David Corn: There's a transparency that's being imposed on all of us ... and that transparency brings accountability.

Glenn Reynolds, the George Washington of the Internet: Technology is empowering ordinary people in many ways. Blogs are only part of the story: We see amateur filmmakers ... The terms "correspondent" and "journalist" are going back to their original meanings.

Judith Miller: I rarely open by quoting Karl Marx, but I'll make an exception: "Changes in production create changes in consciousness." But changes in consciousness also produce changes in the modes of production; and I think we're seeing both phenomena simultaneously. We still don't know the political ramifications of this revolution, but the ramifications for journalism are already apparent: journalists in the MSM are under pressure as never before. ... I didn't have internet access during my 85 days in the Alexandria Detention Center, but I did have time to think about a lot of things. I think many bloggers will be needing - just as we in the MSM do - a "shield law" to protect the relationship between the journalist and the source. ... Some of the more irresponsible bloggers conjured up stories of million-dollar book contracts, or published hurtful stories about my husband and family. ... There have been precious few stories - either from bloggers or from the MSM - on the threats to our freedom of expression. I urge you to support the "Free Flow of Information Act", federal shield legislation that is working its way through Congress. It is the function that we play as informers of the public that requires this legislation. ... This legislation would not cover all bloggers, but it would cover many bloggers. Those who express unsupported opinions or vitriol would not be covered - nor, in my opinion, should they be. But those whose goal is educating or informing the public, would be. We don't have an "are you making money" standard. ... The "Five Commandments" of journalism and mainstream blogging: (1) Be honest about who you are, what your agenda is, and where your funding comes from. (2) Try to reach the subject of your story for comment before you publish information about them. (3) If the subject of your article denies what you are reporting, and if the subject has corroboration, say so. (4) If you are wrong, acknowledge it through more news stories. (5) If you are wrong, commit to getting it right.

Senator John Cornyn: We are still a nation whose laws are premised on the consent of the governed; and if the governed don't know, then they can hardly consent, to what the Government is doing on their behalf. We can and should reform the culture in Washington to one where, if a citizen asks for information, the presumption is that they're entitled to it.

[All quotes are paraphrases and may not be verbatim.]

Visit OSM - Open Source Media, and be sure to mark the site on your browser favorites and/or sidebar.

UPDATE: The launch event is over - I'll have more on it later. I'm blogging from CyberCafe. It's a great place, and well worth your visit if you're in the area.

Update - Live from OSM (Open Source Media)

This morning I've shaken hands with Charles, Roger, Judith, LaShawn, Cathy, Richard, Neo, and the anonymous author of this classic essay! And many others whom I haven't named. This is incredible.

I'm in New York City!

... for the Pajamas Media launch tomorrow. The ride in from the airport was awful, but I'm here now and looking forward to meeting up with other bloggers.

UPDATE - 8:30pm ET: I'm in the downstairs lounge at the Lexington Avenue Dubya.

"Before You Go"

Belated (but always timely) Veterans' Day message; via homeboy Randy.

Inspiration for "Before You Go"

The elderly parking lot attendant wasn't in a good mood.

Neither was Sam Bierstock. It was around 1 a.m., and Bierstock, a Delray Beach, Fla. , eye doctor, business consultant, corporate speaker and musician, was bone tired after appearing at an event. He pulled up in his car, and the parking attendant began to speak. "I took two bullets for this country and look what I'm doing," he said bitterly. At first, Bierstock didn't know what to say to the World War II veteran. But he rolled down his window and told the man, "Really, from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you." Then the old soldier began to cry. "That really got to me," Bierstock says.

Bierstock, 58, and John Melnick, 54, of Pompano Beach - a member of Bierstock's band, Dr. Sam and the Managed Care Band - have written a song inspired by that old soldier in the airport parking lot. The mournful "Before You Go" does more than salute those who fought in WWII. It encourages
people to go out of their way to thank the aging warriors before they die."If we had lost that particular war, our whole way of life would have been shot," says Bierstock, who plays harmonica. "Every ethnic minority would be dead. And the old vets are now dying at the rate of about 2,000
every day. I thought we needed to thank them."The song is striking a chord. Within four days of Bierstock placing it on the Web (http://www.beforeyougo.us), the song and accompanying photo essay have bounced around nine countries, producing tears and heartfelt thanks from
veterans, their sons and daughters and grandchildren. "It made me cry," wrote one veteran's son. Another sent an e-mail saying that only after his father consumed several glasses of wine would he discuss "the unspeakable horrors" he and other soldiers had witnessed in places such as Anzio, Iwo Jima, Bataan and Omaha Beach. "I can never thank them enough," the son wrote. "Thank you for thinking about them." Bierstock and Melnick thought about shipping it off to a professional singer, maybe a Lee Greenwood type, but because time was running out for so many veterans, they decided it was best to release it quickly, for free, on the Web. They've sent the song to Sen. John McCain and others in Washington. Already they have been invited to perform it in Houston for a Veterans Day tribute - this after just a few days on the Web. They hope every veteran in America gets a chance to hear it.

NOTE: If the link in the article doesn't work, just go to www.beforeyougo.us. It will get you there.

Pajamas Media - NYC

I'm leaving early tomorrow morning for New York City - I'll be there to attend the official launch of Pajamas Media, which will begin operations under its new, as-yet-to-be-announced name.

Reminder: any readers planning on attending the PJ Media event this Wednesday are cordially invited to zap me an e-mail. Or look for me there: I'm the odd-looking figure in round glasses, ponytail, and black beret.

The Price of Liberty

Although those who have fallen in the defense of our Nation's ideals are remembered on a special day - Memorial Day - it is also appropriate to pay tribute to them on Veterans' Day.

These Marines paid the ultimate price. The names I'm posting here are those affiliated with my old unit, 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (formerly 1st Reconnaissance and 1st Light Armored Infantry battalions) and our sister units 2nd and 3rd.

Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson 26 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division Durham, North Carolina Killed in a vehicle accident west of Nasiriya, Iraq, on April 2, 2003


Lance Cpl. Jeremy L. Bohlman 21 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Sioux Falls, South Dakota Died from hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on June 7, 2004


Lance Cpl. Daniel Scott R. Bubb 19 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Grottoes, Virginia Killed by small-arms fire during combat operations against enemy forces in Al Rutbah, Iraq, on October 17, 2005.


Lance Cpl. Kyle W. Burns 20 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Laramie, Wyoming Died as the result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on November 11, 2004


Pfc. Nathan B. Clemons 20 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Winchester, Tennessee Died of from wounds sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle during combat operations against enemy forces near Ar Rutbah, Iraq, on June 14, 2005


Lance Cpl. Timothy R. Creager 21 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Millington, Tennessee Died due to hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on July 1, 2004


Lance Cpl. Tenzin Dengkhim 19 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force Falls Church, Virginia Died as a result of hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 2, 2005


Cpl. Nicholas J. Dieruf 21 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Versailles, Kentucky Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004


Lance Cpl. Scott E. Dougherty 20 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Bradenton Florida Died as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on July 6, 2004


Lance Cpl. Mark E. Engel 21 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Grand Junction, Colorado Died on July 21, 2004, at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, of wounds he received as result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on July 6, 2004


Pfc. Christian D. Gurtner 19 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division Ohio City, Ohio Killed by an accidental weapons discharge in southern Iraq on April 2, 2003


Lance Cpl. Chad R. Hildebrandt 22 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Springer, New Mexico Killed from small-arms fire during combat operations against enemy forces in Al Rutbah, Iraq, on October 17, 2005


Lance Cpl. Justin T. Hunt 22 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Riverside, California Died as a result of hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on July 6, 2004


Cpl. Jeffrey D. Lawrence 22 Company D, 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Tucson, Arizona Died as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on July 6, 2004


Lance Cpl. Gregory E. MacDonald 29 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 4th Marine Division, Marine Forces Reserve Washington, D.C. Killed when the light armored vehicle he was traveling in rolled over on June 25, 2003, in Iraq


Lance Cpl. Blake A. Magaoay 20 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Pearl City, Hawaii Died as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on November 29, 2004


Lance Cpl. John J. Mattek Jr. 24 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Stevens Point, Wisconsin Died on June 13, 2005, of wounds received in an explosion during combat operations against enemy forces in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on June 8


Staff Sgt. Jorge A. Molina Bautista 37 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Rialto, California Died as a result of hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on May 23, 2004


Sgt. Bryan J. Opskar 32 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Princeton, Minnesota Killed when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb during combat operations near Ar Rutbah, Iraq, on July 23, 2005


Lance Cpl. Justin D. Reppuhn 20 Headquarters Company, 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Hemlock, Michigan Died as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on November 11, 2004


Cpl. Scott M. Vincent 21 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Bokoshe, Oklahoma Died due to hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004


Pfc. Nachez Washalanta 21 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Bryan, Oklahoma Died from injuries received due to hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, on August 21, 2004


Pfc. Rodricka A. Youmans 22 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Allendale, South Carolina Died as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province

From the unit veterans' message board. Visit 1 of the Few for our story.

Michael Totten is in Beirut.

And he's wondering what it must be like to live someplace really crazy ... like, say, Paris.

But I'm a cheerleader!

You just never can tell.
Soundtrack: The Epoxies - "Bathroom Stall".

(Hat tip: Argghh!)

Rabbi Natan Gamedze: Getting Off the Conveyer Belt

Swazi prince on his conversion to Judaism. Aish has the story of 40-year-old Natan Gamedze, born into a royal family in Swaziland. (Hat tip: Winds of Change.)

Aish.com: It is unusual, to say the least, for someone of your background to find his way to Judaism.

Gamedze: I was never interested in religion, per se. I was interested in what was going on in the world. What is our reason for being here? Okay, so you get up in the morning, you eat, go to work, have a shower, watch TV, go to bed, get up and start all over again... Hey, I did that yesterday!

I felt that life was like being on a conveyer belt, and eventually you get off. So what was the point? I couldn't accept that.

Aish.com: An existential question.

Gamedze: Yes. In other words, I wasn't searching for a way to give my life meaning. Rather, I was trying to find out what was going on, like a detective. I felt there's something going on in this world, something behind the scenes. And I wanted to know what it is.

Aish.com: If you weren't looking for religion, how did you find it?

Gamedze: I was sitting in a boring Italian literature class one day. I think we were studying D'Annuncio. And as people do when they are bored, they look around, and I noticed some guy was writing backwards in funny letters. So after class I asked him what he was doing. He said he was doing his Hebrew homework. I thought: That's really interesting. Imagine if I could write like that! And then I forgot about it. But later on, I needed a credit to complete my degree. I wanted to take Russian, but I had a scheduling conflict. Then I remembered about Hebrew. It fit my schedule, and so I began studying it.

Aish.com: So what was the moment of awakening?

Gamedze: The first text we got was the biblical passage of the Binding of Isaac. Coming as I did from a moderately Christian home, I was familiar with the text, but I was surprised at how Hebrew appeared to convey much more than could be conveyed in any other language. I couldn't figure it out.

But what was so compelling was that I thought it was telling me something about myself. It was like opening an inner dimension that perhaps many people don't even know exists. It wasn't like an archeologist trying to find out about, say, ancient Incans, an interest which has really nothing to do with him. Here, I felt it was telling me something about myself. I thought it had to do with the language itself. I didn't know at the time it was the religious dimension.

Aish.com: And from there?

Gamedze: I began to discover the beauty of Judaism. I got interested in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah. ...

Read the rest at the link, and be sure to read the comments (scroll down, then click link for more) for stories of other Jews from nontraditional backgrounds.

Retraction and Apology from PSU Vanguard

Portland State University's student newspaper, the Vanguard, has withdrawn a virulently anti-Semitic article that appeared in its Opinion section a few days ago. The editors are to be commended for doing the right thing in response to public outcry.

The editorial staff write: "Column 'A City Divided' Should Not Have Been Published":

On Oct. 18 the Vanguard published an opinion column by Caelan MacTavish, titled “A city divided,” about conflict over the city of Jerusalem.

The column was riddled with factual inaccuracies and overbroad generalizations of the Jewish faith, people and history.

The column was met with an outpouring of response from members of the student body, academia and the Jewish community, expressing outrage and disappointment at the column’s publication.

Our goal in publishing opinion columns is to advance educated debate about issues that impact or are of importance to our readers. To fulfill that goal our mission is to publish thoughtful, well-researched commentary that provides a unique or interesting analysis of complex situations.

In the case of “A city divided,” we find that the column failed gravely to meet that goal or to meet the editorial standards that we at the Vanguard aim to uphold. ...

The Vanguard deeply regrets that the column was not given as much editorial attention as it deserved, and realizes in retrospect that the column simply should not have been published. ...

Giliad Ini of CAMERA writes, Provocative Ideas Require Civil Discourse:

It is probably clear that the false and contemptible statements ideas in Caelan MacTavish’s Oct. 18 column, and the Daily Vanguard’s decision to publish his piece, are protected by the first amendment [“A city divided,” Oct. 18.]. Because the Bill of Rights established that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,” MacTavish’s offensive words are legal — and, most agree, they should be.

What might be less clear is whether the legal right to “free speech” requires a newspaper to publish every idea. ...

PSU's Jewish Student Union see a city divided, a campus united:

The writer’s justifications for the Holocaust are appalling, as well as the reference to it as “The Great Burning.” He was factually wrong on numerous accounts, including statements such as “Nobody can really convert to Judaism—you are born Jewish, or you are not.” There are in fact several converts to Judaism within our student group alone. There are too many false statements to address here. ...

As students we have a responsibility and a right to attend classes in a safe and hate-free environment. The Code of Conduct states that, “the University recognizes the intrinsic value of individual differences and diversity. The University supports the right of all people to live and learn in a safe and respectful environment that promotes the free and vigorous expression of ideas. Policies and procedures are designed to protect these freedoms and the fundamental rights of others. Students are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with these principles.”

Freedom of opinion is allowed, as long as it does not impinge upon another’s right to that “safe and respectful environment.”

In that spirit, the Jewish Student Union would like to encourage more constructive dialogue about religious and cultural difference, especially among student groups, with the support of our professors and the administration. We are proud of our beliefs and our way of life. We also respect the beliefs and rights of others. But the presence of multiple beliefs and cultures is worthless unless it is partnered with an ongoing dialogue that acknowledges the differences, and then celebrates them. ...

And finally, there's this response from PSU faculty:

In the course of his essay, Mr. MacTavish tells us that: "Nobody can really convert to Judaism — you are born Jewish, or you are not." This is simply untrue, as anyone with a passing familiarity with the Jewish religion knows. This sentence is found in a paragraph beginning, “Currently, Jerusalem is deep inside the West Bank…” In fact, Jerusalem is not “deep inside” the West Bank as commonly understood, but on its perimeter. (And since there are no plans we are aware of to move the city to another location, we expect it will be there not only “currently” but for a long time to come.)

In between these two sentences of demonstrable falsity, Mr. MacTavish offers a summary of Jewish history that makes one cringe in embarrassment for its historical and moral distortion. Ignoring or unaware of a rich, millennia-long history of cultural exchange with other groups, Mr. MacTavish leaves out 2000 years of Jewish history since the first-century Diaspora, with the single exception of the Holocaust, which he perversely suggests the Jews brought upon themselves because of their “exclusive religion.”

Later in his essay, he refers to Jews as a “race,” a falsely biologistic notion discredited since the Nazis gave such thinking a bad name.

A few comments:
It's good that the editors of the Vanguard have done the right thing here. What remains, of course, is a frank and open discussion of anti-Semitism in today's world. I hope that the repercussions from this incident will wake up some of the students and faculty - not only at PSU, but throughout the academic world.

It has become very easy in recent years to become complacent about anti-Semitism. I know I have been guilty of this myself. Even 9/11 did not, I think, immediately bring the message home; certainly there was vile Jew-hatred at work among the terrorists, but it was harder for some of us to think of judaeophobia as a home-grown phenomenon.

A second perception that may need to be re-considered is the idea that anti-Semitism is the exclusive province of the uneducated (or of "rednecks", "hillbillies", insert your favorite stereotype here). I've read enough and learned enough that I now no longer believe this. There are some highly educated people who are profoundly anti-Semitic. Beyond this, many Jews with connections to the academic world are becoming concerned that anti-Semitism has acquired an aura of "respectability" on the campus.

The author of our Vanguard piece is certainly no scholar; but we need to ask: How did this screed get approved for publication? In other words, how was the message sent that it was "OK" to publish this kind of stuff in a university newspaper? What kind of climate exists that fosters the notion that this drivel constitutes a contribution to intelligent discourse?

My first experience with overt anti-Semitism at PSU did not come from other students. It came, instead, from a rap artist who'd been invited as a guest speaker in a Women's Studies class. The gentleman delivered himself of a "performance piece" that consisted of a lengthy rant against the Government in general and, wait for it, "Zionists" in particular. The guest waxed eloquent about the suffering of Palestinians (one of only two nations mentioned by name - guess what the other one was) but could find no time to mention the African victims of Arab genocide in Sudan. Violence, it would seem, is only a crime when it is committed by Jews.

Finally - and without getting too political - I would submit that anti-Semitism is not confined to a particular area of the political spectrum. It's amazing how right-wing skinheads and left-wing anarchists sometimes sound a lot alike. Whether your politics are liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian, or none-of-the-above, remember that no ideology is exempt from crackpots and crypto-fascists.

UPDATE: Please read Caelan MacTavish's response at the link. I will post comments on this shortly.

Ex-Leftitsts Speak Out

Also via Tammy, five former leftists speak on their political journeys in this symposium on "Leaving the Left" at FrontPage. The guests are Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler (another hero of mine), Dr. Paul Kamolnick, John R. Bradley, and Keith Thompson.

Condi Photo Manipulated

Demonic, triangular-shaped, black-centered eyes were added to a photograph of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as From the Pen demonstrates.

The USA Today version on the right was deliberately altered to make Condi Rice look more menacing. Notice how the whites of the eyes are highlighted to make her BLACK eyes look BLACKER and HATEFUL.

Go to the link to see a Rathergate-style animation of the original and retouched photos.

Powerline and Michelle Malkin are on it.

Times of India on Communist Chinese threat to US

An article on the PRC threat to the United States appears in The Times of India:

The greatest threat to America is not terrorism but a belligerent communist nation that is over billion strong, says Constantine Menges, an unknown figure even to the scrupulous China experts, in his recent book, China: The Gathering Threat . ...

... Bill Gertz, the national security reporter for The Washington Times and New York Times reporter writes in the foreword, "Menges explains why we need to go on the political offensive against Beijing's communist rulers and bring democracy to China."

In fact Gertz opens his foreword by saying that the challenge posed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Russian Federation represent the most serious long-term threat to American national security, now and for the foreseeable future.

Full article at the link.

Saddam on Trial

Iraq's deposed fuehrer went on trial today. Saddam Hussein pleaded "innocent" to the first charges brought against him, stemming from the 1982 killings of more than 150 people.
MSNBC:

A judge on Wednesday adjourned the trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants until Nov. 28, after Saddam pleaded innocent to murder and other charges, questioned the court’s authority and scuffled with guards.

The main reason for the adjournment was because some 30 to 40 witnesses had been too scared to show up, the presiding judge said.

“They were too scared to be public witnesses,” Rizgar Mohammed Amin told Reuters. “We’re going to work on this issue for the next sessions.” ...

The first session lasted just three hours, during which presiding judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin read the defendants their rights and the charges against them — which also include torture, forced expulsions and illegal imprisonment in a case involving the massacre of nearly 150 Shiites in 1982. ...

Mohammed at Iraq the Model:

“Does he deserve a fair trial?” this was the question that kept surfacing every five minutes…he wasn’t the least fair to his people and he literally reduced justice to verbal orders from his mouth to be carried out by his dogs.
Why do we have to listen to his anticipated rudeness and arrogant stupid defenses? We already knew he was going to try to twist things and claim that the trial lacks legitimacy or that it’s more a court of politics rather than a court of law, blah, blah, blah…

“Why do we have to listen to this bull****?” said one of my friends.
“I prefer the trial goes like this:
Q:Are you Saddam Hussein?
A:Yes.
Then take this bullet in the head.”

Everyone could find a reason to immediately execute a criminal who never let his victims say a word to defend themselves “let’s execute him and get over this” sentiments like this were said while we watched the proceedings which were rather boring and sluggish for the first half of the session.
At the beginning we were displeased by the presentation of the prosecution which was more like a piece of poetry in the wrong time and place and this is what encouraged the defense to give us a worn out speech about objectivity and how the court must not go into sideways; the thing which both the prosecution and the defense were doing.

Anyhow, the prosecutor began reading the facts and figures about what happened in Dijail. The defendants went silent but Saddam objected on some details and then prosecutor said “Do you want me to show the film where you said and did that?” Saddam stopped talking and the prosecutor asked the court to allow showing the film, we don’t know if it was played there as transmission was paused for a while.

As the prosecution went deeper into details and facts, the way we viewed the trial began to change an d those among us who were demanding a bullet in Saddam’s head now seemed pleased with the proceedings “I don’t think I want to see that bullet now, I want to see justice take place as it should be”.
We were watching an example of justice in the new Iraq, a place where no one should be denied his rights, not even Saddam.

Tammy Bruce points out an unsettling episode.

Go read the full posts at the links.

Headline of the Day

First, the text of the article:

TRIPOLI, Libya [AP] - Several hundred Libyans demonstrated Tuesday in the Libyan capital to protest President Bush's call for the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor sentenced to death for allegedly infecting 400 children with the AIDS virus.

The United States and European Union have been pressuring Libya to free the six, who were sentenced to death in May 2004 on charges they infected Libyan children with HIV-contaminated blood in an experiment to find a cure for AIDS.

The defendants have appealed the verdicts, and international observers say the charges were contrived and extracted by torture. ...

And now, the headline:
Libyans Demonstrate Against Bush's Stance

Well, that tells you everything you need to know, right?

Chinese Dissident Protests Yahoo/PRC Collusion

David Kopel at The Volokh Conspiracy:

A few weeks ago, I criticized Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and Cisco for cooperating with evil, because each of those companies assists the Chinese suppression of dissent, in order to be able to make money from the lucrative and growing Chinese market. Some apologists for the companies replied that, even though the companies were assisting repression and making it more efficient and pervasive, the companies were somehow encouraging the long-run development of freedom in China.

Today, the Financial Times reports on a letter which a leading Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, has sent to Yahoo. Having spent time in prison for speaking the truth about China's ruling Communist Party, Liu "says Yahoo has enough market clout not to need to toady to authorities." He explains the corporate-communist deal: coporations make profits at the expense of human rights; the communists are given Internet control, and new means to squelch dissent. Thus:

“The collusion of these two kinds of ugliness means that there is no way for western investment to promote freedom of speech in China, and that in fact it greatly increases the ability of the Communist party to blockade and control the internet,” he writes.
“You are helping the Communist party maintain an evil system of control over freedom of information and speech,” he writes.

Simply put, there appears to be no way to be an ethical Internet company in China today, just as there was no way to be an ethical supplier of spy equipment to the USSR or Nazi Germany.

Read the rest at the link.

Guerriero: Time for Gay Conservatives to Come Out

From Patrick Guerriero of Log Cabin Republicans:

News Release
For Immediate Release
October 14, 2005

Contact: Christopher Barron
Log Cabin Republicans
(202) 347-5306 or
(202) 297-9807 (cell)

It’s Time for Gay Conservatives to Come Out

Op Ed by Patrick Guerriero, President

This critical moment in the history of the LGBT movement's fight for equality demands that a new generation of Americans come out of the closet—gay conservatives. Now is the time for closeted gay conservatives to find the courage and personal strength to stand up and be counted. Now is the time we can really make a difference. If every gay conservative came out of the closet today, the journey to full equality would be over in years instead of decades. It would soon become ineffective to use gay and lesbian families as wedge issues in campaigns. The cynical efforts to amend our federal and state constitutions would eventually stop. The hypocrisy of anti-gay political tactics being used by way too many Republicans and some Democrats would be finally exposed.

One of the biggest un-kept secrets in Washington, DC is that closeted gay Republicans are everywhere—the White House, Republican Party organizations, the halls of Congress, the most influential law offices, and the most powerful lobbying firms in our nation's capitol. Some of those who remain closeted have chosen to be either passive bystanders or, in some cases, active critics of our movement while comfortably partaking in the fringe benefits of our community work—all the while sipping the finest martinis in our trendiest gay bars.

Coming out is an intensely personal journey. As someone who struggled long and hard with how and when to come out of the closet, I unequivocally oppose outing. I am unaware of a single forced outing that led to passage of a single piece of pro-LGBT legislation. Coming out on one’s own terms, with free will, and with personal courage is a positive catalyst for change. Forced outings don’t advance our movement because they’re motivated by vengeance.

Over the years, many closeted gay Republicans have discreetly and impressively helped advance equality. In spite of attacks from too many on the partisan gay left, some gay conservatives work behind the scenes to pass equality legislation, increase funding for HIV/AIDS, offer vital counsel to LGBT groups, and help defend us against anti-gay legislation. These gay conservatives have quietly come out to their bosses and colleagues—changing some into gay allies and challenging others to soften their positions over time. These individuals have been quiet heroes, not asking for or wanting public credit.

Other gay Republicans, however, simply have failed to stand-up—more concerned about keeping their title, their paycheck, their chance for promotion, or their chance to attend another White House cocktail party.

During this moment in the culture war, we face a fight that will determine how LGBT Americans are treated for decades to come. Those who choose to be missing in action are running from the most critical fight of our generation. During these historic times, the closet is not only a place which suffocates personal dignity, it is also a place which suffocates the powerful force of personal integrity that can change the hearts and minds of even the most conservative Americans and most conservative politicians. Coming out doesn’t have to mean putting a sticker on your car, flying a rainbow flag from your front porch, or marching in a parade. Coming out means different things to different people. It may be as simple as putting a picture of your partner on your desk at work, sharing your personal story with your boss, or speaking up when someone says something anti-gay. For others, it may be as difficult as offering a letter of resignation instead of implementing or assisting with an anti-gay campaign strategy.

For many conservatives, coming out will come with real and profound sacrifice. Thankfully, we can find role models in and inspiration from a new generation of Log Cabin members who are coming out in some of America's most conservative places, joining new Log Cabin chapters in places such as Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, and the Carolinas. They are coming out to family members who sometimes turn them away from the Thanksgiving dinner table if they insist on bringing their partners, in towns where they’re the only openly gay person, in traditional churches where they’ve heard intolerance from the pulpit, in high schools without gay/straight student alliances, and in workplaces where there are no protections that prevent them for being fired for simply being gay. They are the real heroes of today's LGBT movement and they need and deserve to be given a helping hand in the days ahead.

That helping hand needs to come from gay conservatives. We hold the key to changing the hearts and minds of fellow Republicans, conservative Democrats, and people of faith. In the not too distant future, the history books will record who had the courage to come out of the closet and lead us to victory when it mattered most. Only with the help of gay conservatives can our movement achieve victory over the radical right. Only with the help of gay conservatives can we prevent the radical right from hijacking the Republican Party. Only with the help of gay conservatives can we defeat the voices of fear and intolerance that are feverishly working to deny any and all civil recognition for gay families. The history books will note not only those who had the courage to stand up, but sadly also, those who remain silent. The time is now.


###

Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's largest organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Log Cabin has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time Washington office, and a federal political action committee. www.logcabin.org

"How can you determine a source's biases?"

What are a source's biases?  And why is it important to consider a source's biases? 

In November 2006, just days before the national mid-term elections, the magazine Vanity Fair issued a press release suggesting that several leading neoconservative thinkers - David Frum, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and others - had renounced their earlier beliefs about Iraq and the Middle East.  But according to the neoconservatives, the release grossly distorted and misrepresented their views, and some expressed regret that they had granted the interviews at all:  in the words of Frank Gaffney, "None of us who responded candidly on the basis of such promises to thoughtful questions posed by reporter David Rose would likely have done so had the magazine’s true and nakedly partisan purpose been revealed."  More at the post Neocons Blast Vanity Fair.


Suppose you are the reader, reading a magazine - or a book, or a newspaper, or a page on the internet.  How do you determine the source's biases?

I don't think there's any simple answer, and I'm not sure it's the kind of question you can really find the answer to by typing it into a search engine.  But I'll share my own thoughts on it.  I addressed the problem of media (and source) bias in an earlier post, "Poison Pill:  The Media Today".  I quoted a New York Times editorial by Patrick Healy and a post by Neo-Neocon tracing the use of anonymous sources.  The media's problem, I argued, was largely created by its own reliance on apocryphal sources - potentially biased, and anonymous, informants whose reliability and accountability are doubtful.  As a first step toward correcting the problem, I echoed Neo's suggestion that

If the MSM really wanted to clean up their act, they might follow these sensible guidelines, devised by prominent journalists in a 2003 Poynter report:

• Anonymous sources should be encouraged to go on the record.

• We should weigh the source’s reliability and disclose to readers the source’s potential biases.

• The more specific we can be in describing the source in the story, the better.

• Anonymous sources should not be used for personal attacks, accusations of illegal activity, or merely to add color.

• The source must have first-hand knowledge.

• Journalists should not lie in a story to protect a source.

Now to the question at hand.  Journalists are here being exhorted to "disclose to readers the source's potential biases".  How would a journalist, or a layperson, make such an assessment?  Well, I think it's mostly commonsense, but I'll throw a few ideas out there:

What is the source's ideological orientation?  What are the person's political sympathies, their party affiliation, etc?  This is not to say that people can't be objective or critical about a movement they belong to - but the potential for bias is certainly there.

What are the source's financial interests?  I think this one is a no-brainer, but a person who owns a lot of stock in XYZ Corporation is going to have an incentive to promote pro-XYZ legislation and contracts.  In the case of the MSM, we all know that "bad news sells".

Debts and favors.  Is the source looking for a payoff down the road?  If I go on record saying nice things about Candidate A, maybe I am hoping to get appointed to a nice comfy job if A wins the election.

The medium is the message.  News stories go through news networks, broadcast networks, and publishers.  Books go through publishing houses.  In other words, somebody has to provide the materials for the message to be communicated.  Somewhere, a network executive makes decisions about what gets on the air and what doesn't.  Somewhere, an editor or publisher decides what gets printed and what doesn't.  So if you're reading a book you have to think about not only the author's background and point of view, but also the publisher's orientation:  for example, they might publish mostly liberal books or mostly conservative books.  Knowing something about the background of a publisher or a broadcast network can help give you an idea of what to expect.

What are the source's own experiences?  How might those experiences be relevant, and how might they affect the source's perceptions?  First-hand knowledge of any issue is always helpful; on the other hand, a person might have had an experience that was atypical or unrepresentative.  A soldier on the front lines is going to have a very vivid, detailed, and specific recollection of a battle.  The general in a command bunker may not see the battle up close, but he will have information on the "big picture" of troop strengths, enemy positions, strategic decisions, and other things that the soldier will not know, and may not be allowed to know.  The soldier's memory may be distorted by trauma, confusion, fear, or shame (of a real or imagined failiing on the battlefield); the general may ignore or suppress key information, perhaps with his career in mind.  Both perspectives are valuable, both have their limitations.

Psychological factors.  There are basic psychological factors that operate in all of us to one degree or another.  Resistance to change is one; Neo has written extensively and insightfully on the human reluctance to change familiar patterns of thought.  There is a need for approval of others; there is also a need for a sense of autonomy and a belief that we determine our own destiny.  And of course we all like to be thought knowledgeable, which is why we are often tempted to speak more than we actually know.

The centrally-managed and -edited traditional media (including radio, TV, print periodicals, and books) have nothing to fear from the internet ... provided they do not contribute to their own irrelevance by ignoring it.

The internet is anarchical, and therefore makes great demands on the individual user in terms of critical thinking skills. How do we know to trust a site? We compare information from multiple sources, listen to different analyses, learn to weed out irrelevant input and compare the picture with what we know from our own previous experience.

With the traditional media, this is all delegated to the editor, publisher, producer, or university. Often we have to do this, because the material is specialized or technical in nature, or because individual contributors don't have the credibility to reliably provide the information we need.

But centralized media can serve their own agendas at the expense of accuracy. That's where the supremely democratic world of blogging comes in.

Traditional media still play a valuable role. But they risk abdicating this role if they fail to recognize the democratizing effects of electronic communications.

Why do we believe what we believe? How do we decide what is true, and what is important? Consider the role of the following factors, and feel free to add others:

· internal consistency (details of the narrative agree with each other)
· external consistency (details of the narrative agree with information previously verified)
· insider details (information available only to an authentic source)
· dialog and dissent (narrative welcomes questions and challenges; fosters better understanding among divergent opinions)
· awareness of objections (narrative recognizes legitimate counter-arguments and seeks to refute them)
· nuance (recognition that a proposition may hold true in general and still admit of exceptions)
· the human voice (an intangible quality that may include a distinctive personality, awareness of ambivalence, self-analysis and self-criticism)

Finally, what does biased writing look like?  Bias isn't necessarily bad, but you need to be aware of it and, if necessary, allow for it.  Yahoo offers this:

Check for the tone of the publication - pick out opinion statements and check the publication's references (are all of the references from the same author or does the publication offer a variety?). What other articles has the author written - the topics of these may help determine her/his bias.

Does the author present both sides of the argument/topic? If not, which side is presented more often? What is the point s/he is trying to make? Ask yourself these questions and you should be on the right track!

That sums up the main points:  variety of sources, obvious rhetorical slant, agenda.  Going a little deeper, I'll offer the following ideas:

* Look for "snarl words" versus "purr words" - words that mean the same thing but sound bad or good.
* See if you can tell what kind of overall picture, or "narrative", the writer is trying to present.
* Sometimes an article will seem to present both sides, but will use better arguments to represent one side, and weaker arguments for the other, so that one side sounds more convincing; this is a kind of implicit bias.
* Sometimes people will use bogus arguments (called "red herrings" or "straw men") to evade questions they don't have answers for; these are examples of fallacies or bad logic.  Studying the types of fallacies can help you see when somebody is trying to pull a fast one on you; you can find out more about logical fallacies here, here, or here. 

Another common form of potential bias is the use of "weasel words" - words or phrases that make a statement appear factual but really undercut the precision of the statement.  They're called "weasel words" because they allow the writer to wiggle out of being pinned down to a specific statement that can be proved or disproved.  Wikipedia's style manual has an excellent section on weasel words:

Words and short phrases that make a statement difficult or impossible to prove or disprove:

• Some humans practice cannibalism. (True, but useless and misrepresentative)
• Many humans practice cannibalism. (“many” could well be two, three, ten, or even five billion)
  
  • Throughout human history, there have been many individuals with three arms. (to illustrate.)
• Most scientists believe that there is truth
  
  • "Most" can mean any amount over 50% but short of 100%
  • A "scientist" could be anyone with any knowledge of science
  • The statement gives no necessary contextual data:
    
    • How, when and by whom were the individual beliefs counted
    • Whether the statement concerns all published scientists, or all
      those presently alive, or only those who are qualified in the given
      scientific field
  • The meaning of "truth" varies
• "More and more", "more than ever", "an increasing number"
• "Possibly", "may", "could", "perhaps" and the like
• It is believed that... Anyone could believe anything so it is very important to know who believes that, and why?
• It remains to be seen... Pointless, since it usually introduces an unverifiable statement.

The following examples often qualify for weasel words by vaguely attributing a statement to no source in particular:

• "According to some (reports, studies, rumors, sources…) …"
• "Actually, Allegedly, Apparently, Arguably, Clearly, Plainly, Obviously, Undoubtedly, Supposedly ..."
• "(Contrary, as opposed) to (many, most, popular, ...) ..."
• "(Correctly, Justly, Properly, ...) or not, ..."
• "Could it be that..."
• "(Critics, detractors, fans, experts, many people, scholars, historians, ...) contend/say that ..."
• "It (could be, should be, may be, has been, is) (argued, speculated, remembered, …) …"
• "(Mainstream, serious, the majority of, a small group of ...)
  (scholars, scientists, researchers, experts, scientific community...)
  ..."
• "It has been proven that…"
• "Research has shown..."
• Personifications like "Science says ..." or "Experience has proven..."
• "There has been criticism that ..."
• "It turns out..."'

In an earlier post at Dreams Into Lightning, I complained about the use of vague modifiers in the media: 

Have you ever noticed how often they use vague quantifiers like "some"
and "many", especially when they're talking about public opinion? But
of course you have - Dreams Into Lightning readers are a smart bunch.
So you've already figured out that that's an easy way for the
"journalist" to introduce his or her own opinion into a story, without
having to defend a more stringent assertion, e.g. the claim that said
opinions represent a majority (which would require the word "most").

Now go take another look at Wikipedia's list - better yet, print it out! - and spend some time looking for weasel words in your favorite media source.   I bet you'll find a lot of them.  (How many is "a lot"?  Well, try it and find out for yourself!)

Make a game of it:  print out a copy of this post, and go through your local newspaper with a pen or a highlighter.   Look for anonymous sources, or people who might have an incentive to be partial, or examples of journalists possibly putting their own opinions into the mouths of the ubiquitous "some people".  Look for snarl words, purr words, and weasel words.  Try to spot logical fallacies.  Check for internal consistency, external consistency, and awareness of objections.  Ask yourself which analyses come from people who know what they're talking about - those who have first-hand knowledge of the relevant "facts on the ground" and who are prepared to respond to opposing arguments - and which ones are unsupported opinions from people with their own agenda. 

I hope you have found this post helpful.  But the most important thing in determining a source's biases is to do your own thinking!  And that's important for students, too - so if you are a student, please take the time to come up with your own answers to this question.  Remember, your instructor can use a search engine just as easily as you can.

Related. On Scott Thomas Beauchamp and source biases.

Latest News From the Other Other Portland

Superstitious Portland, Dorset (UK) residents wary of "Wallace and Gromit" film with "rabbit" in title.

Hat tip: Tammy "Why We're Us and They're Them" Bruce.

Morning Report: October 3, 2005

CENTCOM: Iron Fist a success. Stratfor (subscription) reports: 'U.S. Central Command on Oct. 3 announced that several successful engagements against insurgents in Anbar province occurred during the first day of an offensive to route out jihadist and Sunni nationalist insurgents located by the Syrian border. Operation Iron Fist began Oct. 1 against insurgents around Sadah, Iraq, with U.S. Marines from Regimental Combat Team-2 backed by air support from the 2nd Marine Air Wing engaging terrorists in combat. The operation is part of a larger offensive in Anbar province known as Operation Hunter, which is taking place along the Euphrates River valley.' (Stratfor)

Belmont Club on Iron Fist. Wretchard returns after a few days' absence with this analysis of Iron Fist, concluding: 'After the Marines anchored their western defense on Fallujah in November 2004 they have been steadily creeping westward within the riverine zone along the Euphrates. The latest efforts to secure Ramadi means they can move the Iraqi training center from Habbaniyah westward to Ramadi; and the probable objective is to extend the writ of the Iraqi government until it reaches Rawah. In the meantime, Task Force Olympia, with the 11th ACR and the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (including Michael Yon's 1st BN, 24th Infantry "Deuce Four") has been campaigning in Mosul along the Tigris. Therefore, returning to the New York Times account, whether Zarqawi decides "to send the foreigners south to Baghdad or north across the desert to Mosul" he will be running into hard stops and harassed in all the intervening ground. If the US is successful, it will greatly reduce the insurgency's prospects of holding out against the government.' (Belmont Club)

Debka: Egyptian al-Qaeda in striking range of Israel, Suez, Jordan. Debka reports: 'Al Qaeda has established local terror networks in northern Sinai – centering on el Arish, as well as strongholds in the inaccessible central mountains of the peninsula around Jebel Hillal. In all, the jihadists control roughly one-fifth of Sinai total area (61,000sq. km or 23,500sq. miles). Egyptian forces of law and order have learned not to venture into these bastions or into the areas commanded by age-old smuggler clans who currently collaborate with al Qaeda. This leaves about half of the forbidding desert peninsula inaccessible to Egyptian security forces. Today, they can only claim to control the main roads routes fringing the vast desert expanse: from Ras Sudeir down to Sharm el Sheikh along the Suez Canal and Suez Gulf shores; from the Suez Canal east to El Arish along the Mediterranean shore and from the Sharm el-Sheikh resort center north along the Gulf of Aqaba to Taba and the Israeli port of Eilat. ... the only way for Egypt to wrest mastery of the Sinai heartland from the terrorists is by a combined aerial bombardment coupled with helicopter landings of at least two special forces brigades. This in present circumstances is not feasible because - 1. The 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty demilitarizing Sinai precludes Egyptian air force operations. In theory, Cairo can approach Jerusalem for permission, but in practice this would expose the Mubarak government to widespread Muslim opprobrium for collaborating with the Jewish state in the war against Islamic terror. 2. Egyptian intelligence does not have an exact count of the anti-air missiles in al Qaeda’s hands. The passage of a quantity of these weapons from Sinai to the Gaza Strip leads Egyptian intelligence to deduce a fairly sizeable number – enough to cause havoc with a helicopter commando drop. 3. Al Qaeda’s smuggling routes crisscross Sinai day and night, freely plied by fighters, weapons, explosives and food. These routes exploit the peninsula’s exceptional geography to run between Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and of late the Gaza Strip. ... 4. That al Qaeda has established a presence in the Gaza Strip is no longer a matter of speculation. Today, Israeli military intelligence AMAN and the Shin Beit are taking the new manifestation of Al Qaeda-Palestine as an offshoot of Al Qaeda-Sinai with the utmost seriousness. Foreign terrorists have been detected entering the Gaza Strip, welcomed and integrated in to the logistical infrastructures of Hizballah, Hamas, Jihad Islami and the Popular Fronts.' Full article, with map, at link. (Debka)

"Communism is bad for business." Discarded Lies reports on an astonishing discovery: 'Hong Kong has become less competitive, with political concerns helping to drag it down seven places to rank 28 in an annual worldwide table, according to the latest Global Competitiveness Report drawn up by the World Economic Forum.' Not only that, but 'China slipped three notches from last year, to 49th spot, the ranking of 117 economies shows.' Could it possibly have something to do with communism? Well, Taiwan ranks #5 on the list. Go read Evariste at the link. (Discarded Lies)

Dawn Patrol. Don't miss Holly Aho's latest installment of Dawn Patrol at the Mudville Gazette.

NYT's Weisman: Saudi women are happy!

NYT: Saudi women are happy! Last week, the New York Times' Steven R. Weisman published an article on Saudi Women's message for Karen Hughes. I shared the article with some friends in the Arab world. Here are the reactions:

Nadz has a blistering condemnation of "femicide and apologies". Turning to the article on Hughes after the horrifying murder of a woman in Denmark, she writes:

it turns out that there are no problems for women in Saudi Arabia. 500 women want Karen Hughes to know that they're happy with the way things are. First of all, good for them - I'm glad they're happy and they have the right to their own opinion. But I'd also like to point out several things:

- It's true that some women in the Middle East are content with the status quo. I wasn't, and I know many who also weren't. I know some Saudi women who were severely depressed because their lives, where they could go and what they could do, were so restricted. 50% of Arab women are illiterate, some of the attitudes towards us are downright Medeival, we don't have the same rights in any aspect of public life. Saying that you don't need to drive and that your abaya is stylish isn't going to change that.

- When Americans and other westerners talk about mistreatment of women, many Arab women tend to go on the defensive. I know this because I did it myself. Women see it as a personal attack on their culture and feel that they need to offer an alternative viewpoint. They think that most Americans are ignorant about the region - and they tend to be correct. As a result, it's hard for women to admit that there are still problems. Especially in a forum being sponsered and watched by the unfeminist Saudi government.

- These women are from the more well-to-do side of Saudi society - they are mostly wealthy, educated and upper-class. They have been able to travel to Europe and the States, and like the security and simplicity of life in the kingdom. I know women who are like this. But plenty of less fortunate women in Saudi Arabia don't have the same oppurtunities, and they might have a different answer.

Different women have different experiences - not all women live a hellish existence while others are miserable. I think these women, however, are becoming part of the problem by refusing to acknowledge problems.

The Religious Policeman thinks the women's denials of sexism in Saudi society have all the credibility of a high-class john denying he knows anything about a call girl. Here's his reaction to Weisman's article on Hughes:

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 27 - The audience - 500 women covered in black at a Saudi university - seemed an ideal place for Karen P. Hughes, a senior Bush administration official charged with spreading the American message in the Muslim world, to make her pitch.
But the response on Tuesday was not what she and her aides expected. When Ms. Hughes expressed the hope here that Saudi women would be able to drive and "fully participate in society" much as they do in her country, many challenged her.

So who were the audience? A random sample of Saudi womanhood, from all regions and classes, Sunni and Shia, working or unemployed? Well, not exactly.

The group of women, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country. And while they were certainly friendly toward Ms. Hughes, half a dozen who spoke up took issue with what she said.

Two points here. One, no group of Saudis, whatever their situation, would ever admit that something was wrong with Saudi Arabia, to a member of the widely-detested Bush regime. They could be up to their waists in boiling oil, and they'd just say that they were, on average, quite warm. Two, in a country where the female employment rate is less that 1%, anyone with a job is a member of a privileged minority, and any female student hopes to become part of that 1%, just like people elsewhere hope to win the lottery.

"We're not in any way barred from talking to the other sex," said Dr. Nada Jambi, a public health professor. "It's not an absolute wall."

I asked Mrs A about that. She snorted. Even in the universities, there is a physical wall between men's and women's campuses. Men lecture to women via closed circuit TV. But, as Mrs A said, she's privileged to have the job she does. And there's always the example of this poor female academic to keep everyone else in line. So, she concluded, "She would say that, wouldn't she?"

Several women said later that Americans failed to understand that their traditional society was embraced by men and women alike.

....as demonstrated by our numerous opinion polls, elections, letters in the free press, investigative programs on our free TV...

Go to the link for the rest of RP's reaction to the Steven Weisman piece on Karen Hughes.

Sandmonkey weighs in:

The Audience?

The audience - 500 women covered in black at a Saudi university - seemed an ideal place for Karen P. Hughes, a senior Bush administration official charged with spreading the American message in the Muslim world, to make her pitch.

An ideal place? Really? Ok!

Who picked them and what segment of society do they represent?

The group of women on Tuesday, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country.

The Priviliged elite. Clearly the most oppressed of all saudi women, no?

It even shows in their grievences:

She seemed clearly taken aback as the women told her that just because they were not allowed to vote or drive that did not mean they were treated unfairly or imprisoned in their own homes.
"We're not in any way barred from talking to the other sex," said Dr. Nada Jambi, a public health professor. "It's not an absolute wall."

Not an absolute one, but a wall nonetheless! LOL

And then there is the Michael Moore effect

A woman in the audience then charged that under President Bush the United States had become "a right wing country" and that criticism by the press was "not allowed."

LOL

As for male chauvinism and that pesky question of women's rights?

"There is more male chauvinism in my profession in Europe and America than in my country," said Dr. Siddiqa Kamal, an obstetrician and gynecologist who runs her own hospital.

Yes, there is Chauvinism in the west, which makes the one we have at home Ok.

"I don't want to drive a car," she said. "I worked hard for my medical degree. Why do I need a driver's license?"

"Women have more than equal rights," added her daughter, Dr. Fouzia Pasha, also an obstetrician and gynecologist, asserting that men have obligations accompanying their rights, and that women can go to court to hold them accountable.

Oh my God, this is too funny! I am laughing my ass off. Hehehehehehehee!

Gotta say, Saudi men really know to how to "break-in" their women. For those of you who may disagree, I am sure those women could've spoken up against male domination and managed not to get beat up by their men at home. No?

Well, enough of Saudi, on to Turkey, where things kept getting interesting for Karen, If interesting meant continuing to hear idiotic arguments:

"You are very angry with Turkey, I know," said Hidayet Tuskal, a director of the Capital City Women's Platform, referring to what she characterized as United States reaction to opposition in Turkey to the Iraq war, which she said was a feminist issue because women and children were dying daily. "I'm feeling myself wounded," Ms. Tuskal added. "I'm feeling myself insulted here."

Ok, does anyone get her point? She opposed the Iraq war because of women and children dying in it, and wasn't concerned with the women and children dying under Saddam? And it's a femenist issue? She feels wounded and insulted? What?

Ohh, and please, american readers, let's take a survey: Every person who is "very angry" at Turkey for not supporting the US in the war raise your hands. Every person who couldn't give 2 shits about Turkey's support anyway-like the rest of the world- please refrain from laughing at her idiotic statement.

And it just keeps getting better:

Fatma Nevin Vargun, identifying herself as a Kurdish rights advocate, said she was "ashamed" of the war and added that the United States bore responsibility. Referring to the arrest of a war protester at the White House on Monday, she added, "This was a pity for us as well."

She is a kurdish rights activist and opposed to the war that gave the Kurds their rights. Is anybody else getting this?

Ahh, me loves the New York Times. It always gives me a good laugh!

UPDATE
Finally, here's my own two cents' worth:

Personally, I would say I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of how much the views expressed in the article represent Saudi women.

First of all, consider the source. We all know the Times is going to do whatever it can to discredit the Bush Administration's radical premise that most people do not enjoy being oppressed.

Notice how much of the article is not reporting but editorializing. "The administration's efforts to publicize American ideals in the Muslim world have often run into such resistance. For that reason, Ms. Hughes, who is considered one of the administration's most scripted and careful members, ..." blah blah blah. "Many in this region resent the American assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans." Yada yada yada.

So we already know - as if there was any doubt - what the article wants to tell us: Silly Americans, those Arab women are HAPPY living like that.

But those are just my opinions. What do we learn from the article itself?

That Saudi women, speaking in public, on the record, by name, to an American official, in front of 500 people, will say nice things about their country.

Our NYT writer wants us to be amused by the irony (at the Bush government's expense, of course) of the tables being turned on Hughes. Ho, ho, ho, those Saudi women weren't saying what the Bush minion wanted to hear! And, get this, they're the "privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country" ... well! If even they resent those meddlesome Americans, then - "mi'kal va'chomer" - what may we infer about the rest of the country?

But we don't really have to make even that mighty leap of logic, because Mr. Weisman explains it for us: "Many in this region say they resent the American assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans."

Now what does that mean? I mean, let's just look at that one sentence. "Many"? Who the hell are "many"? And HOW many? Did the journalist conduct a formal poll (or even an informal one)? Are these "many" a majority, or a large minority, or just ... many? And what is "this region"? That's a highfaluten, scholarly-sounding, and extremely vague word, "region". Does "this region" include Iran? We all know how much Iranian women love living under Islamic fundamentalist law ... just ask Farnaz Ghazizadeh at Rooz. And what is this "American assumption"? What does "living like Americans" mean - does even Weisman himself know what he means? No one who graduated from Neocon school expects other cultures to abandon their own traditions - you know that and I know that, it's just a smokescreen that fascist symps like Weisman throw up to make freedom sound scary and unattractive. You know as well as I do that if Saudi Arabia became a free country tomorrow, every one of those 500 women would still be free to wear their beloved abayas if they chose. IF they chose.

But that's the trouble, and that's why Weisman's sentence cannot be credibly uttered without the all-important qualifying clause, "given the chance". That, however much the NYT would like to dance around it, is precisely the problem: they have not been given the chance.

UPDATE:
Mahmood posts on another happy, contented Saudi woman.

UPDATE:
Welcome, readers of The Muslim Woman!

Intelligent Design

I blame Michael in San Francisco for sending me this.

Day No. 1
And the Lord God said, “Let there be light,” and lo, there was light. But then the Lord God said, “Wait, what if I make it a sort of rosy, sunset-at-the-beach, filtered half-light, so that everything else I design will look younger?”
“I’m loving that,” said Buddha. “It’s new.”
“You should design a restaurant,” added Allah.

Day No. 2:
“Today,” the Lord God said, “let’s do land.” And lo, there was land.
“Well, it’s really not just land,” noted Vishnu. “You’ve got mountains and valleys and—is that lava?”
“It’s not a single statement,” said the Lord God. “I want it to say, ‘Yes, this is land, but it’s not afraid to ooze.’ ” ...

Paul Rudnick - Intelligent Design
Read it all at the link.

Morning Report: September 28, 2005

CTB: Terror threats in Italy, Muslim Brotherhood in France. The Counterterrorism Blog: 'Senior analysts at The Investigative Project on Terrorism have produced two new studies of importance. Lorenzo Vidino's "Is Italy Next In Line After London?," published by The Jamestown Foundation, discusses the potential targeting of Italy by al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups operating in Europe. As Lorenzo points out, the number of hardcore militants operating in Italy number in the hundreds; suicide bombers recruited in Italy have carried out attacks outside Italy; and Italy, like the UK, was unable until recently to pass effective anti-terrorism legislation or effectively enforce immigration and terrorism laws. ... Glen Feder's "The Muslim Brotherhood in France," published by "In the National Interest," discusses how the Muslim Brotherhood "has taken hold of the most powerful Muslim organization in France today, and is quickly penetrating into the political and social fabric of secular France." It is a detailed and excellent account of the history of the Brotherhood in France ...' Read Steven Emerson's full post at the link. (CTB)

Portland Coffee House, Trinity

Also known as One Way Coffee House, may be found at 1951 West Burnside. It's still the best coffee shop in the neighborhood. And now I can announce their CORRECT phone number: it's 503-248-2133.

Morning Report: September 27, 2005

Terrorist killed in Baghdad; identity in dispute. According to Debka, 'The Abu Azzam reported killed in Baghdad is not Zarqawi’s most notorious senior lieutenant. DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources strongly doubt that the man reported dead is in fact the Abu Azzam believed in charge of financing and arranging the movement of foreign fighters into western Iraq from Syria and other countries. His death has in fact not been officially announced. On March 19, coalition forces announced his capture in Baghdad. it was reported in DEBKA-Net-Weekly in the same week. He was then commanding Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s forces in the capital. Since then, according to our information, he has been held and interrogated by US forces.' The Counterterrorism Blog warns: 'Abdullah Abu Azzam, the Al-Zarqawi lieutenant killed in Iraq on Sunday, is being labeled "the #2 Al Qaeda in Iraq" by the Pentagon and in media reports. Counterterrorism experts and students have learned, often the hard way, to never take claims of important tactical victories or defeats without skepticism and objective review.' CTB promises more analysis soon. (Debka, CTB)

Belmont Club: Tables turned in Fallujah. Wretchard writes: 'Analysts who talk about the 'unstoppable IED' should consider the problems posed to the enemy by the American precision strike, which is in its way the rival "weapon from hell". If a modified cell phone represents a detonator to a triggerman lying in wait for an American target, a regular cell phone in the hands of an Iraqi working for American intelligence is a means to rain down certain destruction on any safehouse, hideout or enemy installation.' Read the full post at the link. (Belmont Club)

Voice of Reason

A sapphic reconsideration. A few of the anti-war protesters actually seemed to respond reasonably when approached reasonably. Global Cop's photo roundup reports that this "Dykes for Peace" demonstrator thought better of her part in the protest when she was gently reminded that "she wouldn't be very welcome in most Islamic societies".

This is why I like to stress the importance of talking to people one-on-one. Blogs and internet activism are good; demonstrations are good; but there's no substitute for just having a friendly, civilized conversation with your left-leaning friends and neighbors.

Our protestor might also be interested to learn that some activists like Irshad Manji are taking on the challenge of reforming the Muslim world from within. And don't miss this:
Irshad - the definitive interview

Iran Report

Iranian Nuclear Chief Ali Larijani: The West Should Learn the Lesson of North Korea (MEMRI)

"In my opinion, any reasonable person will understand that although Iran proposes these peaceful conditions, if you want to use aggressive language, Iran will have no choice but to protect its technological accomplishments by withdrawing from the NPT and from the regulations of the [Additional] Protocol, and to begin enrichment."

Anne Bayefsky: Impotent IAEA (NRO)

Working against referral to the Security Council, and for giving this state sponsor of terrorism more time to develop weapons of mass destruction, was U.N. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei from Egypt. ElBaradei said, after the failed U.S. and EU attempt to send the issue immediately to the Security Council: “I am encouraged that the issue has not been referred to the Security Council, precisely to give time for diplomacy and negotiation…” He continued, “time is still available for diplomacy to resolve outstanding issues, for Iran to build confidence, and that the question of reporting to the Security Council could only be discussed at a later date.”

For years, “lack of consensus” was trotted out as the main stumbling block to Security Council involvement. When it finally became clear that a vote at the IAEA would be the only way to move the issue forward, the size of the margin became the new obstacle. In an effort to minimize the opposition, the final resolution stated that Iran had breached the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, its claim of merely peaceful purposes was not credible, but that “the timing and content of the report…and the notification required” to the Security Council would be discussed at an unspecified later date. ...

The IAEA statute actually makes referral to the Security Council after a clear finding against Iran mandatory ...

ADNKronos: US Financing Radar Station on Iran-Azerbaijan Border

Tehran, 26 Sept. (AKI) - The Iranian media has reported a decision by the United States to finance radar stations in the central Asian republic of Azerbaijan, that the government in Tehran says are part of a military strategy by Washington to encircle the Islamic Republic. One of the stations is reported to be 20 kilometres from the Iranian town of Astara, while another is situated in Khizi, 50 kilometres from the border with Russia.

The construction of the two stations is part of the Caspian Guard Initiative, an American project which aims to guarantee the security of the 3.6 billion dollar, 1,600 kilometre-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that runs from Baku in Azerbaijan to the Turkish port city of Ceyhan. ...

Read full articles at the links. First and third items come by way of Regime Change Iran.