Something pecular happened tonight as I was purusing the latest "news" headlines. I noticed a few headlines about Gweneth Paltrow, Warren Beatty and Barbara Striesand.
But, rather than click on the link, I read the headline and moved on. Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.
At first, I had an inclination to take a peek and see what these celebs had to say, but then I mustered up the strength to NOT look at the car wreck on the side of the road--to not slow down, but rather keep going--averting my eyes and my interest toward other matters. Matters more pressing, more interesting, more helpful and more real.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Monday, September 19, 2005
NASA Planning Moon Launch for 2018
Sep 19 4:47 PM US/Easter
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.
The price tag for new rockets to return astronauts to the moon is $104 billion, a cost the nation can afford over the next decade despite the expense of Hurricane Katrina, NASA's chief said Monday.
Described as "Apollo on steroids," the new moon exploration plan unveiled by the space agency will use beefed-up shuttle and Apollo parts and aims to put people on the moon by 2018.
******************************************
This seems odd, strange... Why has it taken, or will take, nearly 50 years to return to the moon? Why is NASA reusing old parts? If we went to the moon, why have we not gone back? Where is the exploration? Where are the moon bases? Why have the Russians never gone to the moon? Or the Chinese?
It doesn't make alot of sense. When Columbus discovered the New World, colonies formed shortly thereafter. Granted, the moon's hostile conditions and distance from Big Blue make colonizing a challenge, however those obstacles have never stopped man in the past.
Blaming the Blamers
I've noticed a lot of people say there's too much blaming of the hurricane victims. Let's be clear, we're not blaming the victims FOR the hurricane, but we're tired of the tirades and exhibitionism and the constant cries for help from able-bodied people who are responsible for THEIR LIVES and who did not get out, did not take cover and did not prepare.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Danish Artists Fearful of Reprisal
Since the murder of the Islam critical Dutch film director Theo van Gogh, and the violent attack on a lecturer at the Danish Carsten Niebuhr Institute, Danish artists are fearful of criticising Islam.
Author, Kare Bluitgen, is due to publish a book on the profit [sic] Mohammed in two weeks time, but so far no one has agreed to illustrate the work through fear of reprisals from Islamic extremists. According to the author, three artists have turned down an offer to illustrate the book based on their fear of being attacked if they do so.
The president of the Danish Writers Union, Frants Iver Gundelach, said that it is a gross attack on freedom of speech, and the issue will be taken up at the next union meeting.
Where are the "courageous" Hollywood "artists" speaking out against this form of "censorship and blacklisting"?
Hollywood elites were silent when Rushdie was threatened (by IslamoFascists) and silent when Van Gogh was murdered (again by IslamoFascists) and they continue to be silent. It is much safer to rail against the evils of Bush and America, than to rail against the true villains of freedom of expression--IslamoFascists.
We are shown the true face of cowardice and that face, though it may exude beauty on the outside, is wretched and ugly.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
RIP: Steven Vincent, 3 August 2005
I had enjoyed reading Steven's articles & blog for nearly a year after his book, "In the Red Zone" came out last November.
After reading his latest article about Basra (regarding corruption & traveling death squads) in the NYT on the evening of August 2, I wondered to myself, "I hope he's o.k. --an American running around with a female Iraqi escort, he could get kidnapped or worse..." And then I said a prayer for him. Later that night (early morning hours), which would have been the 3rd of August in Iraq, I was stunned, no SHOCKED and very upset, to learn he had been kidnapped and murdered--shot in the head and torso and his female escort was critically injured, but managed to escape. I nearly collapsed. Strange reaction. But I felt that I had known him--known his hopes, his dreams, his courage, his humor, his wife, his life as he shared so much of it in his writings.
Vincent was an idealist, yet a realist. He was hopeful and human and was, IMHO, the only voice of "truth" in the wilderness that is Iraq -- reporting what everyday Iraqis' lives are like in the post-Saddam world. Rather than "call it in" from the Green Zone, as most reporters do --espousing the anti-American talking points, he went into the war zone, armed only with a pen, his intellectual curiosity and remarkable insight. He will be missed…
His blog: http://spencepublishing.typepad.com/in_the_red_zone/2005/07/the_naive_ameri.html
Vincent says it best:
"WORDS MATTER..." Steven Vincent said in an interview. Indeed. Tragically and infuriatingly.
Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word “guerillas.” As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms “insurgents” or “guerillas” to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase “paramilitary death squads.” Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, “insurgents”—and especially “guerillas”—has a claim on our sympathies that “paramilitaries” lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen “right wing paramilitary death squads.” Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.
Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology—and, by extension, the narrative—of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition “invaded” Iraq and “occupies” it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.
The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance.” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers--the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour—they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism—or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought—should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language…
After reading his latest article about Basra (regarding corruption & traveling death squads) in the NYT on the evening of August 2, I wondered to myself, "I hope he's o.k. --an American running around with a female Iraqi escort, he could get kidnapped or worse..." And then I said a prayer for him. Later that night (early morning hours), which would have been the 3rd of August in Iraq, I was stunned, no SHOCKED and very upset, to learn he had been kidnapped and murdered--shot in the head and torso and his female escort was critically injured, but managed to escape. I nearly collapsed. Strange reaction. But I felt that I had known him--known his hopes, his dreams, his courage, his humor, his wife, his life as he shared so much of it in his writings.
Vincent was an idealist, yet a realist. He was hopeful and human and was, IMHO, the only voice of "truth" in the wilderness that is Iraq -- reporting what everyday Iraqis' lives are like in the post-Saddam world. Rather than "call it in" from the Green Zone, as most reporters do --espousing the anti-American talking points, he went into the war zone, armed only with a pen, his intellectual curiosity and remarkable insight. He will be missed…
His blog: http://spencepublishing.typepad.com/in_the_red_zone/2005/07/the_naive_ameri.html
Vincent says it best:
"WORDS MATTER..." Steven Vincent said in an interview. Indeed. Tragically and infuriatingly.
Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word “guerillas.” As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms “insurgents” or “guerillas” to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase “paramilitary death squads.” Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, “insurgents”—and especially “guerillas”—has a claim on our sympathies that “paramilitaries” lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen “right wing paramilitary death squads.” Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.
Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology—and, by extension, the narrative—of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition “invaded” Iraq and “occupies” it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.
The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance.” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers--the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour—they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism—or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought—should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)