Beheadings are "peaceful"

As Somali Crisis Swells, Experts See a Void in Aid By Jeffrey Gettleman

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

Once again, a journalist is afraid to speak the truth...

"United Nations officials now concede that the country was in better shape during the brief reign of Somalia’s Islamist movement last year. “It was more peaceful, and much easier for us to work,” Mr. Laroche said. 'The Islamists didn’t cause us any problems.'”

Well, of course they didn't cause them any problems. The radical Islamists are satisfied when they're capable of imposing their ideology upon others and enforcing Sharia law, as they have done for over a decade.

However, one must also ask for whom was this short time span so peaceful?

The ICU (the former political party of Somalia) was the unification of previous Sharia courts, and each ICU member controlled their designated district according to their personal interpretation of religious texts. However, 2 of the 11 courts were reputed as radical (1), one of which was linked to terrorist group Al-Qaeda and occasionally beat people for watching Western movies (2). The ICU also received military training from the terrorist organization, Hezbollah (3). Even a previous New York Times article observed an increasingly radical trend among the politics in Somalia. In the article the journalist relates,

"One Islamic leader in a town north of Mogadishu recently issued an edict threatening that anyone who did not pray five times a day would be beheaded," arguing that “It’s black and white...The Koran says people must pray.” (4).

Proposing to hack a person's head off from their neck because they didn't pray enough is... "peaceful"?

Also, a government founded on Sharia law inevitably restricts the human rights of its constituents, especially those of women. In Somalia 98% of women already are subjugated to human rights violations such as genital mutilation, where their labial folds and clitoris are removed usually by a family member using a dull knife, and without anesthesia (5). Although the ritual has no foundation from Islamic texts, it has become a cultural standard associated with religious obligation. If these women are already suffering now, how much more so would they be as the ICU (the former Islamic political party of Somalia) became increasingly rigid in their interpretations of the inherently sexist passages of the Quran and Hadiths?



Lastly, this group of Islamists might not have bothered the UN during their short reign; however, last year the ICU called for jihad against Ethiopia, who then vowed to "crush" the Islamists (6). The enduring war has entailed steep causalities and a humanitarian crisis, worsened by the fact that those who want to provide aid are fearful of the rampant suicide bombings and assassinations. Somalia, by the way, has a rich history of Islamic assassins murdering anyone, Somalians included, who works within a counter-terrorism network or refutes Muslim beliefs (7).

Ironically (or disgustingly), this whole article is about the humanitarian crisis in Somalia, yet not only does the journalist refuse to identify the jihadists as the catalysts for the worsening conditions there (they were never favorable), he actually includes a quote that represents them as not causing "any problems" and "peaceful." Talk about a spin.


"The United States and Ethiopia, Somalia’s neighbor and rival, quickly labeled the Islamists a threat and accused them of harboring terrorists from Al Qaeda."

Although the journalist implies that Ethiopia hastily (and recently) accused Somalia of Islamic extremism, documents revealing the association between Islamic leaders and Al-Qaeda have been existent for several years. One Somalian Al-Queda member,  Sadiq Mohamed Odeh,  has cooperated with the United States counter-terrorism efforts and admitted training dozens of fighters to battle U.S. and U.N. forces.

He also told the FBI that Al Qaeda worked with the leaders of a Somalian Muslim group al-Itihaad, some of whom are members of the ICU. One member of the ICU actually headed al-Itihaad (8).

Those Ethiopians...according to Gettleman, they're so impulsive! And yet, they prove so accurate! And ironically, the  journalist exposes his own hastiness in assuming Al Qaeda doesn't extend into Somalia, and also his inaccuracy with the chronology of events.

"But the people in Afgooye’s squatter camps do not have a lot of faith. 'We want the Islamists back,' said Mohammed Ahmed, a shriveled 80-year-old retired taxi driver.
Mr. Mohammed said he was not especially religious. 'But,' he said, 'at least we had food.'”

After online research, I found that the economy did improve in the year of 2006 (9), but it also followed the same upward trend that had begun since about 2003. The recent economic collapse because of the war between Somalia and Ethiopia, however, is partially due to the ICU's provocation, so for the journalist to include this quote without a subsequent rebuttal conveys a false sense of prosperity due to the ICU.

It is true, however, that many Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, often embrace charity as a way to win the "hearts and minds" of the population. They cater to the impoverished population's sense of oppression (while they are in fact oppressing them!), and then offer acutely needed services, such as hospitals or schools. Often, one has to sign pledges before receiving the services, and they are not offered to non-Muslims. This form of propaganda is highly effective at creating a "we" versus "they" psychology, where "they" (non-Muslims) are oppressing us, but "we"-the Muslims- will save you and provide you with services.

"Illegal" Immigration

Candidates Walk a Tightrope on Immigration by Michael Luo

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

"The Republican presidential candidates talk about illegal immigration as if they were in an arms race on toughness. The Democratic candidates have begun to tread more warily on the issue, as their debate last week in Las Vegas showed, but they still favor the language of accommodation over alarm."

“Arms race,” “alarm,” and “toughness” versus “tread warily,” “favor,” and “accommodation.” Already through his language Luo has constructed a clear dichotomy between the Republicans and Democrats, portraying the latter as thoughtful while the Republicans are vying for who’s the most macho. By connoting war and the military with his phrase “arms race,” he highlights the constant accusation among the New York Times staff that Republicans are somehow testosterone and aggression laden men obsessed with war. The democrats throughout the article, however, “tread warily,” contemplate, but ultimately want to “accommodate.” In my opinion, they’re “treading warily” because, as we saw with Clinton in a former debate, they don’t actually have a firm stance. The Democratic Party is split on the issue of immigration (remember, illegal immigration affects all Americans), therefore they’re afraid of alienating a group of their supporters with a clear statement one way or another. Their need for personal power impedes on America’s need for a truthful politician.

"They sound just as tough as the candidate who has been the angriest on immigration, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, whose shoestring campaign recently began to run a television commercial in Iowa declaring that Islamic terrorists roam free in the United States because of an unsecured border."


Setting aside that within this “fact-based” article Luo himself judges the Republican candidates as sounding “tough,” setting aside that he makes the qualitative comparison that they sound “as tough” as Tancredo, and finally setting aside the subjective word “angriest,” (which further depicts Republicans as aggressive), this paragraph is teeming with sarcasm. The last clause hangs there because the journalist never mentions the association between terrorism and unsecure borders again, nor does he offer any facts or statistics that would either refute or support Tancredo’s claim. Its purpose is to dismiss him as a candidate, only supported by the unnecessary comment that he’s been unsuccessful with his campaign.
Tancredo, however, is very astute in his observations about illegal immigration. After inquiring with the Department of Homeland Security, he publically announced to Congress that 51 men who were arrested as terrorist suspects between October 2004 and December 2005 had crossed the US border illegally. (1).

Also, I consider gang activity a form of local terrorism, and

“A confidential report by the California Department of Justice indicated that 60% of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang in Los Angeles was composed of illegal immigrants in 1995. About 60 percent of the membership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang was illegal, according to a 2002 statement by former U.S. attorney Luis Li.” (2 , quoted from Wikipedia).

Imagine what will happen if terrorist organizations pay gangs to help them smuggle across weaponry and fellow extremists. Imagine what will happen if the terrorists utilize the gangs’ ties with the multi-million dollar operation of identity theft, which would subsequently allow terrorists to function easily in our society.

Or if you’re a Democrat, don’t imagine it at all and continue to pretend like no threat exists.



"The Republicans have railed against 'amnesty' and 'sanctuary cities.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'illegals' out."

AND

"Perhaps recognizing the need to temper his comments, Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate who is increasingly using immigration to go after his rivals for the Republican nomination often hastens to add, after a weighted speech about 'sanctuary cities' and 'amnesty,' that he has no problem with 'legal' immigrants."

Why are there quotation marks? Is a person’s “legal” status (sorry, had to mock his usage of quotation marks) within the US somehow subjective now, a mere matter of opinion? Also, why does Luo point out that Romney welcomes legal immigrants, when in fact every candidate (including the “angriest” one, Tancredo) welcomes them as well? Also, look at the phrase, “increasingly using immigration to…” Do you see it? No? Well, look at these, too:

“They sound just as tough as the candidate who has been the angriest on immigration”

“Many Democrats point to the Republican Party’s precipitous slide in California after Gov. Pete Wilson’s re-election in 1994 as proof of the cost of a harsh tone toward immigrants”

“it[s] shortsighted for the Republicans to use immigration as a ‘weapon’”

“they are perceived as overloading on anti-immigration bombast”

“Pat Buchanan’s runs for the presidency in 1992 and 1996, which were heavy on anti-immigrant talk”

Luo consistently omits the word “illegal.” It’s subtle, yet greatly alters the meaning, and produces a sense of xenophobia and racial tension.


"Nevertheless, the sound bites on the trail are dominated by denunciations. Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, has coupled his plans for border enforcement with a call for English to be made the country’s official language."

Definitions of denunciation, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The act or an instance of denouncing, especially a public condemnation or censure.

2. The act of accusing another of a crime before a public prosecutor.

Notice nowhere in there is “wanting a secure border” or “establishing a national language.”



Consider a recent forum for Mr. Thompson at a retirement community in Bluffton, S.C. Four out of six questions from the audience were on the topic. Most were similar in tone to a comment hurled by one woman, who described herself as a ‘'Law and Order’ freak': 'If you go to KFC, unless you call out a number or something, they don’t understand what you’re saying.'"


This completely irrelevant paragraph firstly portrays Thompson supporters as favoring him because of his career as an actor. Then, Luo picked the most poorly articulated portion of the most poorly articulated question about immigration. Why? They want to convey that Thompson supporters are fried-chicken loving (i.e. southern hicks) who do not have the mental capacity to understand why they are voting for Fred. It's the typical Northern-elitist attack, and one of the few that Democrats have in their arsenal for the well-regarded former senator of Tennessee.

These terrorist supporters are "moderate"?

Jordan's Islamists Seek Offices Their Allies Scorn by Thanassis Cambanis

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

Hamas militants in Palestine

Thanassis Cambanis conveniently masks the truth by simply omitting much of it and then adopting a politically correct tone, regardless of its accuracy. This positive picture of the Jordanian political party will not offend the ACLU, nor will the New York Times be bombarded with hate-mail accusing it of discrimination; however, minimal research is required to cloud the sunny portrait given to us in the article. Our country needs to rise from our politically correct media-induced coma and accept the truth for what it is!

"If Islam is the solution as the party's slogan proclaims, and the political system is corrupt, some religious voters wonder why the Islamist bloc should take part in elections at all."

Apparently the IAF has hidden their intentions from both the Jordanian citizens and the New York Times journalist, but I will expose it: THEY WANT TO ESTABLISH A GLOBAL ISLAMIC STATE (aka. a caliphate). If they gain enough power in the Parliament, they would disband it immediately and form a new government, where their slogan "Islam is the solution" would become literally the way the entire government functions. A man cheated on his wife? Well then, the solution is in Islam; he will be stoned to death. A woman was with a man who wasn't her husband or in her family? The solution is in Islam; she will be stripped, her hands bound, and then lashed a minimum of 100 times.

The funny thing is that the IAF doesn't even try to hide the fact that they want to establish an Islamic state. Zaki Saad, the party leader, said "We not only have the right to participate in elections, but to form a government if we win."(1) This is just another case of either a lazy journalist or one afraid to admit the truth for fear of a media and ACLU backlash.


"Yet they also seem willing to set aside the frustrations of their daily lives to cast their votes for a group of Islamist candidates whom they fault at times for not being radical enough."

You can almost hear the reader sigh in relief when she realizes that the Islamic Action Front isn't just another radical sect trying to institute Sharia law or support militaristic jihad in the Middle East. The IAF is just a moderate Muslim political party, tamer than a lamb. After all, they're actually condemned for not being radical enough, and their "quintessential" candidate is a female!

OH WAIT....

You'd never know from the journalist's quote that this political party is sympathetic with Hamas, a terrorist organization that only last November publically urged Muslims from around the world to murder all Americans. In fact, the leader of the Islamic Action Front (IAF) publically stated, "We have a special feeling for Hamas in the face of the Zionist project,"(2) thereby exposing their tolerance of killing civilians. Moreover, it is well known that the IAF believes Israel is a "militant society" (since all Israelis must serve in the military), therefore the murder of any citizen is considered an act of holy jihad.

When asked about their opinions about terrorism, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood (the IAF is the political branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) stated that they condemn terrorism, but maintain that jihad is a "divine legal right" that can be used to defend himself/his people and spread Islam (3). To me, that response makes it obvious that he believes the murder of Israelis and their supporters doesn't define terrorism. Or, if its a "divine legal right" that can be used to spread Islam, Muslims are justified to utilize military force to crush any opponents of Islam, i.e. to murder non-muslims.

Furthering the IAF's ties with radical Islam is a recent incident where 4 of the 17 members of the IAF serving in the Parliament of Jordan paid their condolences to mass-murderer Al-Zarqawi, a man responsible for gruesome beheadings of hostages and thousands of suicide bombings. Not only did they pay condolences, one even called him a "martyr," while his Jordanian victims in one bombing were "mobs and ignorant people" (4).

Another side note: Al-Zarqawi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (5)before he became one of the two most prominent members of Al-Qaeda.

Also, take a look at the Muslim Brotherhood's slogan beside Hamas's slogan; they are identical in content and ordering:


Muslim Brotherhood: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."


Hamas: "God is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur'an its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes."


The truth is the IAF is inextricably tied with radical Islam, and with a terrorist organization hell-bent on destroying Israel and their supporters (i.e. the Jews and Christians).


"Ms. Massimi, a mother of five, is the quintessential Islamic Action Front politician: professional, bilingual, capable of both restrained political speech and impassioned religious discussion."

This quote is completely counterfactual,and worse, obscures the plight of women in the Middle East. The only reason the IAF allows women to run for office is because Jordan legally requires at least 6 females in the Parliament, so why not one from their own party? If the IAF gains enough power to alter the government and therefore establish Sharia law, women's rights would inevitably regress to an even further subjugated status. Here's a short list of some of human rights, specifically those of women, that dissolves in "the solution of Islam":

1. Protection from domestic violence

2. Ability to marry whoever you choose

3. Ability to divorce without husband's consent

4. Opportunity to learn in a co-ed environment

5. Ability to leave the home without husband's permission

6. Guarantee of a fair trial (6)


THESE ARE NOT GHOSTS! THESE ARE MUSLIM WOMEN!

Their Silence is Deafening

Ruling Jolts Even Saudis: 200 Lashes for Rape Victim by Rasheed Abou-Alsamh

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

“For a woman to be in seclusion with a man who is not her husband or a relative is a crime in Saudi Arabia, whose legal code is based on a strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law.”


For a country that extols the “separation between church and state,” we’ve remained exceptionally quiet about the danger of Sharia law. A brief description of some components of Sharia law (which is based almost DIRECTLY from religious texts. Do not think for one second this is an inherently peaceful religion):

1. Theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet.
- Quran 5:38: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

2. Adulterers are stoned to death. In the religious texts, only the female is given the death sentence.
- Sahih Bukhari, Book 82: He said, "My son was a laborer working for this man and he committed an illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and I gave one-hundred sheep and a slave as a ransom for my son's sin. Then I asked a learned man about this case and he informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and be exiled for one year, and the man's wife should be stoned to death." The Prophet said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Laws of Allah. Your one-hundred sheep and the slave are to be returned to you, and your son has to receive one-hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. O Unais! Go to the wife of this man, and if she confesses, then stone her to death." Unais went to her and she confessed. He then stoned her to death.

3. Single “fornicators” will be lashed a minimum of 100 Times. In this article, the victim of rape will be lashed 200 times and sentenced to 6 months in prison.
- Quran 24:2: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

4. Those who renounce Islam for another religion must die.
-Bukhari, volume 9, #17: Narrated Abdullah Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."


"The woman and the former boyfriend were originally sentenced to 90 lashes each for being together in private, while the attackers received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison, and 80 to 1,000 lashes each.
Mr. Lahem appealed the attackers’ sentences, saying that they were too lenient and that the treatment of the victim was too harsh. In its new decision issued Tuesday, the court increased the victim’s sentence to 200 lashes and six months in jail."

This woman, raped in a society where the victim is also then the perpetrator, is further humiliated and debased, further punished and TORTURED. Where are the democrats who had a fit when Mr. Mukasey refused to condemn waterboarding as torture (thereby subjecting several members of the military to judicial scrutiny) without having full access to top-secret documents? This woman is guilty of nothing more than wanting pictures of herself back from an ex-boyfriend. She’s not a terrorist plotting to kill the infidel, building roadside bombs, or organizing the next 9/11. And her discomfort isn’t “simulated” (waterboarding is “simulated drowning”); it is very real. Where is the left’s tirade of angry protests? Why are they not barraging the government of Saudi Arabia with floods of messages condemning this common sentence as torture, or going to the media as they did with Mr. Mukasey? In fact, where is their condemnation of integrating radical Islamic law into government in the first place? The fact is they’re too oblivious and too politically correct to EVER mention it. While members of the right realize the gravity of the situation in the Middle East, where millions are oppressed and killed in the name of Allah, the left is too busy exploiting issues like torture for political gain. Don’t believe me? Read Marc Santora’s article about it today here. Republicans are depicted with a bloodthirstiness that is quite misdirected.

“Lashing is a common sentence under the Saudi penal code, applied for crimes ranging from homosexuality and drinking alcohol to theft and adultery. Usually, lashes are meted out in increments because offenders could not survive hundreds of lashes at once. The administrator of the punishment is supposed to hold a Koran under his arm so he cannot swing the whip too fiercely; lashes are not supposed to leave permanent scars. The sentence is frequently delivered in public, often at the entrance to a jail.”

I’m totally aghast. The victim will be physically tortured and it will be done in public. This woman’s body was violated and her psyche forever traumatized, yet her naked body will bleed in front of a jail with thousands of eyes around her. The public is also one that will likely ostracize her not only because she spoke to a man that’s not her husband or relative, but also because her rape signifies she wasn't a virgin before marriage. This abhorrent and nauseating patriarchal ideology, probably existent only because of the males’ fragile egos and shortcomings (if you know what I mean), has long been denounced here in the United States as sexist. Yet once again, a complete silence resonates from the “feminists” of the United States, whose agendas have become more closely intertwined with abortion “rights” than actually promoting improvements for the welfare of their sisters.

And the point is...?

A Soldier Home From War, and a Mother Fighting Hard by Clyde Haberman

Read at NYTimes.com




I want to apologize for not posting the last two days. Villanova University's internet was down the past two nights, and as the internet is essential for picking articles and posting them, this was certainly an issue! It hopefully will not reoccur.

This essentially incoherent article lacks a central point, but uses quotes and sensationalism to drive home the journalist's own personal points-- war is bad (duh!), and we should be out of Iraq. Seriously, read this article 3 times, and you'll still be pondering its meaning. It is undoubtedly one of the most appalling pieces of professional writing I've ever seen published.

"Physically, John Di Iorio has been back for a few years. Back to his parents’ house on Staten Island. Back from active Army duty. Back from Iraq. Back from the roadside explosion that ripped his Humvee apart and rattled his brain, damaged nerves and hurled shrapnel into his spine, thigh and abdominal wall."

Grammatical error aside (seriously, NO ONE noticed the missing comma in the last sentence between thigh and abdominal wall?), this first sentence is perplexing. The first and sometimes second paragraph of an article typically summarizes the main theme while piquing the readers' curiosities with colorful language and imagery. However, the last graphic sentence--while I'm sure is only a cursory description of the pain he endured-- seems a bit excessive, or more accurately...sensational. Based on the title, I assume the main theme was supposed to be about a mother's fight about something involving soldiers (the whole thing is poorly executed and ambiguous), so how are the details of the son's injury relevant? Haberman relates the horror of the soldier's injury to emphasize the horror of the war in Iraq. Horror, however, is an unfortunate aspect of every war. Haberman exploits it in order to express his personal disdain for the situation in Iraq.

"She does know that the extent of his injuries was not detected at the time. 'They put him back out in the field without knowing there was this shrapnel in him,' she said.'"

Evidently he didn't know, either. This quote is irrelevant to the mother's "fight," and was incorporated to depict the doctors in Iraq as incompetent and the commanders as indifferent (as long as their soldiers fulfill their duties).

"Don’t even get her started on the doctors, she said. She has tried on her own to get information from them, only to 'get the runaround.'”

Ms. Di Iolio and Clyde Haberman are apparently oblivious to privacy laws that prohibit the doctors from discussing John’s condition. This is why his mother gets the "runaround." They legally can't tell her more unless her son specifically allows them to inform her. For more information on privacy laws, visit the United States Health and Human Services website.

“'They acknowledge he has the shrapnel in his body, but he has to prove that it came from Iraq,' she said. 'That’s where I blow a gasket. Prove? How’s he going to prove that?'”
“He’s got a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. That’s great. But all I want is medical advice — where to go, what’s the right thing to do.”

This is so confusing. Why does he need to prove the shrapnel came from Iraq? The article relates that he receives medical treatment from Veterans Affairs doctors, so the complaint is simply puzzling. Is he not financially covered for the treatment involving the shrapnel in his body, or did the journalist just add the quote to further imply medical incompetence? The reader never knows.

Also, once again the mother complains she doesn’t receive medical advice, but her son goes to the doctors alone, and privacy laws prohibit the doctors from discussing his medical condition.

"Like some other New Yorkers, John Di Iorio responded to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A neighbor of his, a firefighter, had died in the World Trade Center. So Mr. Di Iorio joined the Army and went proudly off to war, even if it was in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."

The clear "jab" at the end of the paragraph is an argument I hear far too often: "Why did we invade Iraq even though it had nothing to do with 9/11?" The ignorance is almost unbearable. Never once did those who favored the war--the military, president, Republicans, and Democrats-- ever propose that the government of Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact, the media almost immediately reported Al Qaeda’s involvement. Weapons of mass destruction housed in a country run by a mass-murderer were the main concern. Although this is knowledge readily available, the liberal media (Rosie O’Donnel included) constantly distorts this information so that clear facts become muddled, and all that remains are anti-war and anti-Bush sentiments.

The second “jab” occurs when Haberman strips John Di Iorio's decision to go to Iraq down to a mere whim. Overcome by emotion, he immaturely decides to go "proudly" into war; at least, this is the picture Haberman paints for us. I assume the connection between the friend's death and John's enlistment was assumed by the journalist and/or his mother since John is never interviewed. Without his input this connection is mere speculation, and irrelevant as well. The whole paragraph is simply inappropriate.

"The rest of us got to go about our lives. No political leader asked for a comparable sacrifice from us, not for a second. We could dwell unhampered on more immediate concerns, like A-Rod’s millions or the latest on Paris Hilton."

My response to this: WHAT ON EARTH?! Ok, no political leader asked for John to go to war; he voluntarily enlisted. But how on earth is mentioning “us" (assumedly the journalist and readers) and our lives during the last few years relevant to this story? A-Rod and Paris Hilton certainly aren't. Besides, it's a bit insulting Haberman assumes the typical American is infatuated by celebrities (I certainly couldn’t care less).This paragraph is so out of place it's almost comical. Is the New York Times seriously so desperate to fill the inches of their pages that they'd include a paragraph as pointless as this?

“'The child that you send over is nothing like the child that comes back to you,' said Ms. DeLisa, the organization’s chief executive. Returning soldiers, many of them anyway, are 'not at peace with themselves or with anybody around them,' she said. They need help."

AND

"She knows something else, too. Mentally and emotionally, her son is far from back. That’s a road less traveled."

AND

"But then, she said, he’s not what he once was. Suppressing bitterness isn’t easy for her.

'They took my son from me,' she said. 'He’ll never be the same. Never.'”

AND

"'On Veterans Day, all that Cathy Di Iorio wanted was to have her son back. It was too much to ask for. 'It’s not happening — let’s be honest,' she said."


Not once does the article address Ms. Di Iorio's desire to help soldiers psychologically, yet Haberman mentions the emotional effects of war repeatedly. This has become the central point of the article, yet it has nothing to do with Ms. Di Iorio, the main person of the article. Why, then, does he mention it? Clearly, he possesses anti-war sentiments, and there is nothing wrong with those opinions. What's wrong, however, is that he and his editor allowed these sentiments to leech into his “fact-based, unbiased” reporting. Not only does this compromise their journalistic integrity, but in this case, has produced one of the worst articles I’ve seen published in the New York Times to date.

Where the heck is the editor?

When an Election Becomes a Forum on Immigration by Peter Applebome

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

This article is quite possibly the most unequivocally biased one I've read so far. Nearly every paragraph includes some aspect I studied in my Journalism 101 class...under what to AVOID.

"One reason is Matthew Neuringer, who graduated from nearby Carmel High School in 2005 and last year ran the virulently anti-immigrant State Assembly campaign for Greg Ball."

Don't be fooled: Applebome omits the word "illegal" from "virulently anti-immigrant" to convey a sense of xenophobia to the readers. It makes Neuringer and Ball appear intolerant of all immigrants, and virulently so, when immigrants comprise 99% of the US population or their ancestors. "Virulently" somehow quantifies how "anti-immigrant" he is without the use of statistics, and the diction associates his position on immigration with disease, death, and decay. Obviously there's some negative connotations with that one!

The journalist also commits my #1 most offensive "error" (in this case, it is clearly done purposefully): he unnecessarily mentions age. In Journalism 101, we learn never to mention age, sex, orientation, handicap, etc. unless it is directly associated with the story. To do otherwise reveals an underlying prejudice; it exposes the journalist's belief that most people of a certain age would/could not be in situation "x." Liberals would cry discrimination! In this article, Applebome obviously mentions Neuringer's age to somehow discredit him, or to show that these "ignorant" Republican constituents follow the lead of a 20-year old. The journalist fails to realize that young adults can also wield great talent and power, as is shown throughout history. Case in point: I graduated highschool in the same year as Neuringer, and I'm finding basic errors in a New York Times journalist's article. That has to hurt Applebome's ego.

By the way, check out Ball's website to see what he ACTUALLY says. He seems quite concerned with the exploitation of illegal workers, an issue the journalist says is "a note not often heard in his campaign" even though it's right on his website. Apparently, Applebome is too lazy to do his homework.

"This year, both advised Mr. Rights and his S.O.S. — Save our Southeast — slate, which for months inundated voters with dark mailings and urgent robo-calls about illegal immigration, crime and social decay. Mr. Rights, who has declined to say how much of his own money he spent on the race — estimates run well upward of $100,000 — says voters are fed up and want someone who will address the immigration issue."

The journalist glutted the first sentence with so many negative images-- "inundat[ing] voters", "dark (subjective word) mailings", impersonal, annoying robots--that not much needs to be said here.

The second sentence, however, is simply repugnant. Applebome is playing to class-warfare sentiments, as there is absolutely no alternative reason for mentioning personal finances. It is certainly irrelevant to the rest of the article. He likely wants to evoke dislike toward the politician. Indeed, I would not be surprised if many readers thought at this point, "I can't believe this politician, probably born to an old-money family and raised with a silver spoon, used mommy and daddy's money to support his intolerant campaign!"

"And it’s possible that Mr. Rights and Mr. Ball are sincerely voicing the frustrations many people feel about an immigration system almost everyone agrees is broken.

But, you also hear another view, that much of the jockeying has to do with power and development, with immigration just the hot-button issue used to rouse the populace to turn out one team and put in another."

"It's possible, BUT..." God, I hate the way the New York Times journalists often disguise their own opinions by stating "some say" or "you hear." WHO says? WHERE do you hear? Tell me, and give me quotes, or I condemn you a journalist without integrity...but with an agenda.

Shelter and Booze: What More Could A Man Want?

On the Bottle, Off the Streets, Halfway There by Dan Barry

Read the Article at NYTimes.com



In lieu of the kick-off for Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week (HHAW), I thought I'd pick an article that directly addresses the issue. HHAW is something I've been involved with at Villanova University, and is a topic close to my heart, so I hope you find this commentary informative and interesting!


"They came to know the jagged pieces of each other’s bottle-shattered past, the broken marriages, the lost jobs, the ghosts. Daryl still sees what he saw in Vietnam. As for Ed, he was working on a fifth one day in his Iowa hometown when suddenly, there before him, stood his father and grandfather, telling him for shame. That both were dead only underscored the point."

This paragraph succinctly summarizes three MAJOR factors that influence homelessness: service in the military , addiction, and mental illness. On any given night,

200,000

veterans seek a park bench, a shelter, a cardboard box--anything that can shelter them from the sometimes loud, harsh environment outside(The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans). Studies have shown, despite popular belief, that is not the military service itself, but the increased propensity for addiction and substance abuse that causes their homelessness. About half of the homeless population is destroyed because of an addiction, mostly to alcohol. I drew the following diagram to portray the vicious, destructive cycle of addiction and homelessness:



It's also easy condemn the homeless for their actions, and say "Why don't they get help?" Well, once a person is already in that situation, it takes a miracle to receive any kind of help for their addiction. They often lack basic requirements, namely health insurance (most don't have it, even though they are indeed eligible for Medicare), proper documentation, basic transportation to a facility, and basic contact information.
"But why don't they just go to shelters and get help there?" Well, here are some reasons why:

1. 65-85% of the homeless "suffer from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, or some combination of the three,"(full article) greatly hindering the chance they'd land at a shelter.

2. Shelters are scarce if even existant in rural areas.

3. If they're aware of a shelter's location within a reasonable distance to travel, and they're in a state of mind that allows them to get there, they might be denied because of maximum occupancy.

Half the kids at my college don't make it back to their dorms on a typical weekend night of binge drinking, so it seems a bit callous (and hypocritical) to be harsh toward the homeless who don't make it to the often overcrowded shelters while they're intoxicated and/or enduring mental illnesses. It's especially harsh when you think that almost half of the homeless are the men and, yes, women too, who previously served for our country!


"The idea: provide them first with housing and meals, gain their trust, then encourage them to partake of the available services, including treatment for chemical dependency.
No mandatory meetings or church-going. And one more thing, crucial to all: You can drink in this place.
The $11 million project has endured the angry complaints of some that it uses public money to enable, even reward, chronic inebriates."

Granted the idea seems a bit fanatical at first, but I feel like opponents are looking at the issue too narrowly! Firstly, many shelters don't allow access for people who are clearly drunk (I wonder how many students would be homeless on any given night if the same were true at universities!). The shelter described in the article allows these poor people (in every sense of the word) to have stable housing. This is a basic human need-BASIC. Research has in fact indicated that housing stability is "essential for successful treatment and/or recovery." Once there, they are offered much-needed support services.
Think about it: what is the main difference between the 14 million Americans identified with alcohol issues and the several thousands/millions (it's impossible to definitively know) who are on the streets? The latter lacks both money for therapy and a social support system. It's no wonder why some people substitute the word "homelessness" with "disaffiliation", since they often lack meaningful human relationships--another BASIC need-- that other people possess.

Once they have these basic needs met, they have more of an opportunity to work on their issues. Personally, if I were on the concrete streets on cold night, and instead of rays of hope I saw only the clouds of mental illness, I'd be hitting that bottle myself. Jack, Jose, and I would be good friends. However, reducing these "trigger" situations (and believe me I think the harrowing experience of homelessness would count as a trigger for almost everyone) would allow them to tackle their underlying issues.

"It is difficult for an individual with limited financial resources to remain in stable housing. When significant proportions of those financial resources are spent on alcohol or other substances, maintaining stable housing becomes even more difficult. However, it is difficult for an individual to focus on substance abuse treatment when basic survival needs for food and shelter are precariously and unreliably met. The stress and danger associated with homelessness also may feed back into the cycle of relying on alcohol or other substances as a coping strategy." (check out the government publication here


What we spend money on is always controversial...what do you all think? I know I'm going to be labeled a crazy for this post!!

Let the police do their job!

Protest Greets Police Plan to Map Muslim Angelenos by Neil MacFarquhar

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

A plan by the counterterrorism bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department to create a map detailing the Muslim communities in that city, an effort described as a step toward thwarting radicalization, has angered civil rights groups, which say it is no better than racial profiling.



Well, let's think about this. What group of people have announced a holy war against the United States? What religion did a cleric belong to who said, "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity. We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy"? (Quote from Omar Bakri Mohammed)

Regardless of the fact that people of Middle-Eastern descent are categorized as white in the United States (an oversight of the civil rights groups, I'm sure), the idea that police can't retrieve information based on factors directly linked to crimes is not only ludicrous, but deleterious. Counterterrorism expert R.P. Eddy states that police "are the best tool the government has for preventing homegrown terrorists"(for full article, go here). If Los Angeles wants to hinder terrorist activities--and, by the way, I'm aware of at least 3 Islamic terrorist attacks planned or executed in California since 2000 (more to come below)-- they need to know where Islamic extremists reside, and what factors contribute to the acceptance of radical Islam. The fact that they happen to be of similar ethnicity and religion are secondary because it is the ideology of hate, domination, and violence that the police want to combat, not their "race."

"The civil rights groups argue that contrary to what has been found in Europe, the scattered cases exposed in the United States have involved individuals with no clear ties to international terrorism groups."

“'Al Qaeda has always operated outside the United States,' Mr. Ayloush said, 'and has miserably failed to gain any support or sympathy among the American Muslim population.'”

The .American Internet Jihadi , who has 500 loyal visitors to his site daily, mostly from the U.S. and U.K.

Even though some homegrown terrorists may not be connected with international terrorist organizations, they still subscribe to the same ideology that is just as dangerous. We should not dismiss this threat.

Also, attacks planned or executed on U.S. Soil by Islamic Terrorists since 2000:

2000 January 1: 2000 millennium attack plots, plan to bomb LAX Airport in Los Angeles, California

2001 September 11: September 11, 2001 attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda. Islamic fundamentalists use airplanes to destroy the twin towers of the World Trade Center and heavily damage The Pentagon. A fourth plane crashed prematurely in Pennsylvania.

2002 July 4: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, kills 2 Israelis and wounds 4 others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, although they found no evidence linking Hadayet to any terrorist group.[16]

October 2002 Beltway Sniper Attacks: During three weeks in October 2002 John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people and critically injured 3 others in Washington D.C, Baltimore, and Virginia. An earlier spree by the pair had resulted in 3 deaths in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, California, Arizona, and Texas to bring the total to 16 deaths. No motivation was given at the trail but evidence presented showed an affinity to the cause of the Islamic Jihad.

2003 May 1: Iyman Faris pleas guilty to providing material support to Al Qaeda and plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge by cutting through cables with blowtorches. He had been working as a double for the FBI since March, but in October was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

2006 February 21: The Toledo (ok.. this is Canada, but they're right next to us, with lax border control!) terror plot where three men were accused of conspiring to wage a "holy war" against the United States, supply help to the terrorist in Iraq, and threatening to kill the US president.

2006 June 23: The Miami bomb plot to attack the Sears Tower where seven men were arrested after an FBI agent infiltrated a group while posing as an al-Qaeda member. No weapons or other materials were found.

2007 May 7: Fort Dix attack plot Six men inspired by Jihadist videos arrested in a failed homegrown terrorism plot to kill soldiers. Plot unravels when Circuit City clerk becomes suspicious of the DVDs the men had created and report it to authorities who place an informant in the group.


(descriptions from Wikipedia.org)


"The groups were particularly angered that in his Senate testimony, Mr. Downing, discussing the possibility of Muslims’ radicalization, seemed to suggest looking at factors like exposure to the puritanical teachings of the Wahhabi sect, instability in countries of origin and where they get their news."

Firstly, the media they watch is clearly relevant, as seen in the video of Samir Khan, internet Jihadi.

Secondly, the "puritanical" teachings of the Wahabi sect are clearly nothing similar to the Puritans, the group of people imagined because of the journalist's diction even though "puritanical" could alternatively just mean "strict".  In fact, Wahabi's " instructions in the matter of extending his religious teaching by force were strict. All unbelievers (i.e. Muslims who did not accept his teaching, as well as Christians, &c.) were to be put to death. Immediate entrance into Paradise was promised to his soldiers who fell in battle, and it is said that each soldier was provided with a written order from Ibn 'Abd ul-Wahhab to the gate-keeper of heaven to admit him forthwith. In this way the new teaching was established in the greater part of Arabia until its power was broken by Mehemet Ali. Ibn'Abd ul-Wahhab is said to have died in 1791."(click here to see full article). This is different from the Puritans because Wahabi's teachings stemmed from Quran verses that explicitly encourage killing, whereas the Puritans' faults were perversions from their religious texts that encourage peace.

Romney's Rose Colored Glasses

On Campaign Stump, Romney Preaches the Importance of Optimism by Michael Luo

Read Article at NYTimes.com

"The question put to Mitt Romney at the Republican presidential debate in Michigan several weeks ago seemed to be a golden opportunity for him to show off his vaunted analytical side. Maria Bartiromo, a CNBC commentator, asked the candidate what he thought posed “the greatest long-term threat” to the American economy.

But instead of summoning a litany of facts and statistics, Mr. Romney suggested that the greatest threat was this: 'Our sense of optimism. America has to be optimistic and recognize that there’s nothing we can’t overcome.'"

Once again a New York Times journalist uses the word "seemed", a word I pray readers immediately discern as inherently biased, and a word that every writer in Journalism 101 knows to avoid. If something "seems" to be something, then it is not definitively that thing; therefore, it is inappropriate in fact or truth-based journalism. It is a matter of personal interpretation, which has become somewhat of an increasingly frequent habit in the media.
The journalist also implies through his sentence, 'But instead of summoning a litany of facts and statistics," that this is what a typical politician would/should do in his situation, which might appear a tad ironic since the Democratic approach often favors character attacks over statistics. To me, it seemed (see, I can use this word because I use the preface "to me", and also never professed unbiased analysis) that this sentence serves to enfeeble his response to mere propaganda aimed to target Americans' patriotic, can-do sentiments, not their intellect.

"The gauzy answer might have surprised some observers, but the comments fit into the sunny mien that Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has tried, with varying degrees of success, to carry off since the beginning of his campaign."

My previous sentence (that the last paragraph enfeebles his response) is only supported by Luo's word choice, "gauzy". Gauzy means thin, transparent...like gauze. This also implies a certain weakness. And as always with the New York Times, it implies personal interpretation. The journalist also interprets that Mr. Romney has purposefully acted buoyantly optimistic (since if it were natural, he wouldn't have "tried"), but that he's only been somewhat successful. Apparently, there has been some study testing how successfully Romney can appear optimistic, or Luo has some kind of hope-o-meter that he compares to Romney's approval ratings. Or, just maybe--hypothetically let's say-- he's just interpreting based on his own observations? Oh no, no! Not possible in the New York Times!



"But Mr. Romney’s campaign believes that harnessing positive language is an effective way for him to distinguish himself from his rivals, like Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose relentless focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism can feel dark to some, and Senator John McCain, who has maintained a dour resolve about the Iraq war."

Words that are inherently biased/subjective:

1. Believes- To accept as true or real; however, this is another word to be evaded, as taught in Journalism 101. One cannot assume another believes something without a direct quotation. In this case, what the journalist posits as the campaign's belief contradicts the quotation he publishes. It's just shameless!

2. Relentless- Unyielding in severity or strictness; unrelenting. Not much needs to be said here; this is clearly subjective.

3. Dour- Marked by sternness or harshness; forbidding. Also subjective.

* From American Heritage Dictionary

Phrases that, because of the previous words, are therefore inherently biased/subjective:

1. "believes that harnessing positive language is an effective way for him to distinguish himself from his rivals."

2. "whose relentless focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism can feel dark to some."

3. "who has maintained a dour resolve about the Iraq war."

Wow! This means the only unbiased words in that sentence are "But Mr. Romney's...like Rudolph W. Giuliani...and Senator John McCain."


Pathetic.

Media Prostitution

Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left by Jacques Steinberg

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

This post is less analytical and more commentary in nature just because I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this!



"Lest there be any doubt that the cable channel believes there is ratings gold in shows that criticize the administration with the same vigor with which Fox News's hosts often champion it, two NBC executives acknowledged yesterday that they were talking to Rosie O'Donnell about a prime-time show on MSNBC."


They criticize the administration with the same vigor as Fox News? This is stated so matter-of-factly, yet if one compares O'Reilly with Olbermann (which Steinberg does throughout the article), it's evident that the MSNBC commentator doesn't lean to the left as the titles implies, he fully embodies it. Olbermann has accused Bush of war crimes, dictatorship, and bribing journalist to relate positive news about the war. The latter assertion is perhaps the most outlandish, because hearing about improvements in Iraq is as rare as hearing about Hillary Clinton's vote to go there in the first place. That wouldn't help with their ratings or their agendas. O'Reilly, who has never expressed his political affiliation outright, does seem to possess conservative ideologies, but any praise or criticism of the Bush administration (since he does cover both, when he covers the topic at all) often contains statistics, studies, etc. Olbermann's "special comments" attack Bush and call for his impeachment based on speculation and interpretation. The two programs are simply incomparable.

"During the nine months she spent on 'The View' before departing abruptly last spring, Ms. O'Donnell raised viewership notably. She did so while lamenting the unabated casualties of the Iraq war and advocating the right to gay marriage, among other positions."

Those "other positions" that Steinberg omits include:

That Christians are as threatening as Islamic extremists.

That the United States are the terrorists.
(By the way, the body she gives is off by over 500,000. Most estimates are around 70-80 thousand. The study she referred to included Iraqi deaths from illnesses, such as heart disease or cancer.)

The 9/11 attacks were planned by the US government.
(A simple google search shows that fire can do the "impossible" and melt steel at 2750°F, and much less heat is needed to weaken the frame enough to cause the tower to collapse. Click here to read how experts have debunked this conspiracy theory.)

Rudy Giuliani covered up the 9/11 conspiracy.

What is the state of our media that anyone would ever consider hiring Rosie as a primetime host? Not only does she vomit out propaganda with no factual basis--often, her points can be easily discredited, such as her assertion that steel can't melt--but Rosie uses her statements to divide a nation and rouse distrust. Like a primitive, unrefined animal, she even grabbed her crotch and used profanities (mocking Donald Trump) in front of 17 high-school aged girls who were awarded scholarships so that they can pursue media careers! Is she really the type of woman we'd want as these girls' role model? MSNBC, clearly desperate for ratings, is willing to hire a woman with an acidic tongue that corrodes vulnerable minds and our society in general. They essentially are prostituting themselves, granting anyone access (to their organization) who will line their wallets.

"Having a prime-time lineup that tilts ever more demonstrably to the left could be risky for General Electric, MSNBC's parent company, which is subject to legislation and regulation far afield of the cable landscape. "

I wanted to point this out because it exemplifies one of the most subtle, yet potentially prevalent, biases that exist in media. Most news organizations have parents companies that might exert pressure if certain stories conflict with their financial interests, and most journalists/editors/producers/etc. would not willingly risk losing their job for a story. This type of bias is difficult to detect because it involves the silence or repression of stories, not a clear misrepresentation.

Abortion is a "good thing"?

Telling the Stories Behind the Abortions by Cornelia Dean

Read the Article on NYTimes.com

Published Online Nov. 5, 2007




The photograph summarizes the entire sentiment of the article: abortion is a "good thing"(quote taken from later in the article). Dr. Susan Wicklund, whose career mostly entails performing abortions, seems both celestial and enterprising. The hand placement conveys a sense of resolution, while the upward tilt of her head, facing away from the camera, makes her appear like a visionary, looking ahead to the future. The bright sky reminds one of well-being, and the expansiveness of the sky makes her appear as though she's alone in her "struggle." To me, it even appears like she's floating (like an angel), since you can't see the ground or any landscape. The New York Times' viewpoint on the controversial subject is truly "as clear as day" from the first glance at this photograph.



"Determined that other women should have better reproductive care, she began work as an apprentice midwife and eventually finished college, earned a medical degree and started a practice in which she spends about 90 percent of her time on abortion services. "

Better reproductive care? Not only is Dean determining that an increased availability of information about abortions would constitute "better reproductive care"(emphasis mine), wouldn't "reproductive care" involve PRESERVING the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby? (It's so annoying to have to refer to the baby by different names at different developmental stages!) But, how is preventing reproduction performing reproductive care? The terminology is awkward, and invokes images of doctors addressing legitimate health issues. Last I checked, pregnancy wasn't considered a health problem, except in extremely rare cases. Circulatory issues, diabetes, cancer...these are health problems. Abortion is a procedure utilized to end undesired pregnancies, not to improve the state of a woman's reproductive system; therefore, I would have appreciated if the writer wrote a sentence like, "Determined that other women should have a more pleasant and informative atmosphere while terminating pregnancies...", since this to me is a more accurate phrasing, with less connotations of pregnancy as a medical concern. Notice, by the way, that this article is actually in the "Health" section of the NYTimes.com when abortion may be better categorized as a social or legal issue.

"'We don’t talk about it,' she said in a telephone interview. 'People say, ‘Nobody I know has ever had an abortion,’ and that is just not true. Their sisters, their mothers have had abortions.'"

and

"Dr. Wicklund said that at current rates almost 40 percent of American women have an abortion during their child-bearing years, a figure supported by the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health policy. Abortion is one of the most common operations in the United States, she said, more common than tonsillectomy or removal of wisdom teeth. 'Because it is such a secret,' she said, 'we lose sight of how common it is.'”

and

"According to the Guttmacher Institute, about a quarter of pregnancies in the United States end in abortion."


This news story is about Dr. Wicklund's book where she describes, "the circumstances that lead her patients to choose abortion, and the barriers — lack of money, lack of providers, violence in the home or protesters at clinics — that stand in their way," The goal of the book is to " to encourage more open discussion of abortion and its prevalence." Why, then, with this diverse content, does Dean emphasize the abortion rates? There's no mention of the issues that the book directly addresses, only the procedure's prevalence. I speculate that Dean focuses on this point because of the (il)logic that if "everyone's doing it, it must be OK." But really, I wonder how abortion rates can be employed in the argument for or against abortion, since even the most exorbitant of numbers undergoing the procedure would not alter the morality of the action. The morality, not the commonality, is the nucleus of the contention.


"Dr. Wicklund said she would put more credence in opponents of abortion rights if they did more to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Instead, she said, many of the protesters she encounters 'are against birth control, period.'"

I actually agree with Wicklund on this one. Abstinence is/has been essentially a myth for decades (for study, click here), so if you want to prevent abortions, you have to prevent pregnancies via birth control. However, I find it very interesting that this is the extent of the elaboration of the pro-life position, and that nowhere in the article does one observe the mention of morality or religion.


Weigh in below!

Islamophobic vs. Realityphilic

3 Top Republican Candidates Take a Hard Line on the Interrogation of Detainees by Marc Santora

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

"While the three candidates (Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Romney) all condemn torture, they have been purposefully vague about what constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment."

When Santora writes, "they have been purposefully vague," he immediately assumes an ulterior motive from the Republican candidates, a judgment clearly contradicting fact-based reporting. He leaves no room for the reader to decide himself/herself whether the (Republican) politicians' stances have been vague, or if their responses were strategically formulated. Later in his article he reports, "Mr. Thompson has argued that there are circumstances where 'you have to do what is necessary to get the information that you need,'” words that appear straightforward to me. Through his own individual analysis , Santora goads the less vigilant readers to the confines of his own opinions.

Mr. Giuliani often frames the threat of terrorism in graphically personal terms, telling crowds that Islamic extremists 'hate you' and want to come to the United States and 'kill you.'In that vein, he has been perhaps the most forceful in suggesting that the president must be able to take extraordinary steps to combat terrorist threats."

I don't know whether it's the odd use of quotation marks, or his use of the subjective adjective "graphically" (which in this case, connotes striking, shocking terms), but I felt like this sentence echoes a sentiment expressed later in the article that accuses Republicans of "pandering to peoples’ fears." However, is he pandering to fears or discussing reality? Read the quote below to decide.

"To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." (emphasis mine) Osama bin Laden

In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998.

disclaimer: I am NOT Islamophobic. I AM reality-philic. Obviously not all Muslims share these viewpoints expressed; I'm specifically addressing Muslims who associate their relationship to the United States with the verse in the Quran [Sura 2:191] "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." I'm also addressing those who are depicted below.



"Their positions have come under fire from leading Democrats who say they unconditionally oppose torture, want Guantánamo closed and oppose rendition."

I would just like to point out that extraordinary rendition was implemented by the CIA during the Clinton administration (when a certain leading Democrat was living in the White House).


Critics, however, not only condemn the conditions at Guantánamo but also find it unacceptable that the majority of detainees have been in legal limbo for more than five years, with only a handful facing formal charges.

Mr. Thompson was dismissive of such concerns when asked for his opinion at a recent campaign stop in Tampa, Fla. “I think that Guantánamo Bay is necessary,” he said. “Those who have criticized Guantánamo Bay do not come with any alternative.”

I appreciate Santora's attempt to give equal inches to the supports of Guantánamo Bay's continuance, but I object to the paragraphs' disparate content. In the first paragraph, Santora effectively outlines the main reasons for opposition toward the detention facility. It's succinct, logical, and addresses legitimate issues. The other paragraph, however, does not discuss any reason for the support of its perpetuation; he merely states that supporters believe it is "necessary." Since he provides only partial information that would allow the reader to formulate an opinion, I figured you might like to see the other side here. A Defense Department official stated that, "The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remains a valuable asset in the war on terror as a place to hold enemy combatants and a source of useful intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks." You decide.

Teeny-Bopper Voters

Clinton, a Wellesley Alumna, Comes Home to Stump by Elisabeth Bumiller

Read Article at NYTimes.com




"Oh my God! Like, will you seriously take a picture of us in front of the cardboard Hilary? I'm like, way too psyched!" As adorable as this photograph may be--well, actually, that's the problem. When you see these girls, who are in college and therefore of voting age, you don't perceive a group of women who look mature and educated enough to make a responsible decision. Instead, repressed images from middle school emerge: the crazy, energetic girl that annoyed everyone, the insecure book worm, the girl that thinks her dullness can be counterbalanced by the crazy girl's personality, and then the "satellite" who doesn't really fit in, so sort of hangs around the edges. I'm personally affronted that they chose this picture since I myself am a college-aged woman, and this photograph depicts us in an undeniably unflattering way. And I thought only the conservative media was supposed to be sexist! So the question remains, why would the New York Times depict these Democratic supporters as girls who just came back from a slumber party? The answer is on the center of the front page, in the largest article in the front section, "Obama Envisions New Iran Approach." Just take a look at the photo they put up on their website (below) where Obama is captivating the audience with his authoritative stance.

Apparently the Magic Negro has cast his charm on the New York Times.


"Although Mrs. Clinton was treated to a triumphal welcome as Wellesley’s most famous graduate, and students said much if not most of the campus was pro-Clinton, not everyone in the crowd was a stalwart supporter. Many waiting to enter Alumnae Hall in the long line that snaked under the yellow autumn leaves along College Road said they supported Mr. Obama or were undecided."

Evidently, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have clinched every decided voter among Wellesley students so far in their campaigns (note the sarcasm). Despite what the media or academia proclaim, not all educated women are liberals, and the writer of the article, Bumiller, circumnavigates other viewpoints inevitably held by other populations in the college.





"Many of the Wellesley women in the audience wore T-shirts that proclaimed, 'I can be president, too.'”

AND

"But many others said Mrs. Clinton’s words had inspired them. “Hillary made me cry, just hearing her talk about women’s rights and how you can do anything if you put your mind to it,” said Michelle Lieberman, 22, a science student from New York who transferred to Wellesley from Dartmouth."

Wow! The way she infantilizes Clinton's supporters is shameless! In the first quote, you can almost see these women stomping their feet like 3-year olds, "No, I can do it! If the Little Engine could, I can,too!" Granted, it is telling that these are the type of constituents Hilary is targeting (the ones who are just a little...off), but I still don't believe they'd publish about the apparel of Obama's supporters. In the second quote, not only does the woman appear juvenile, but she appears overly emotional too, perpetuating the negative stereotype that females are more emotional than their counterparts. These quotes were clearly chosen to undermine the supporters of anyone other than Obama. If they're this brutal with Clinton, I can't wait until they publish some articles about Republican nominees and their supporters.


"Mrs. Clinton, of New York, made no mention of her opponents’ attacks on her in the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, or of The Politics of Pile-on video with clips from the debate that is now playing on her Web site. But her campaign condemned her rivals’ actions in a new fund-raising appeal sent out on Thursday."

Although I don't see anything inherently misleading with this paragraph, I would like to comment on Hilary's Politics of Pile-on video, and her not-so-subtle intimations that her rivals' attacks are at least partially due to her gender. I mean, c'mon! She asserts herself as a feminist, yet complains when other politicians address her as an equal? Firstly, any candidate would address her stances more often than, say, Joe Biden's, simply because he needs to distinguish himself from the front runner. Also, more importantly, they're attacking her stances since they literally change within seconds! Check out this video provided by fellow Democrat John Edwards here. One can't flip-flop, then cry sexism when someone exposes it! Like a chameleon changes his color to better increase his survival in different environments, Hilary changes her politics and personality to enhance her survival during her campaign. One second she's the epitome of female strength, the next she's the female victim to male badgering. Hilary needs to stop exploiting her gender for votes, because it mocks true feminism. Besides, does anyone actually view Hilary as a female? I've always kind of lumped her in the same classification as Janet Reno; they say they're females, but you don't REALLY know...or want to.

Hillary is not an angel

Immigration: From Talking Point to Sore Point by Marc Santora

Read Article on NYTimes.Com

"Questioned about a plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, Mrs. Clinton at first seemed to defend it, then suggested she was against it, until finally, pressed for a direct answer, she accused the moderator, Tim Russert, of playing 'gotcha.'”

First, Santora commits one of the cardinal sins of journalism: a factual error. Ms. Clinton did not accuse Tim Russert of anything, instead she stated, "this is where everybody plays gotcha" (emphasis mine--want to watch the video? click here). To analyze it as an accusation geared toward Tim Russert is clearly a matter of personal interpretation or, more likely, a cursory study of the debate's transcript. This issue might initially appear trivial, however for me it does change the meaning of the phrase. Her actual words connote previous attacks on her political flip-flops, and it shows that although she's aware of her fluctuations, she still doesn't know how to defend them. Also, it is my personal belief that journalists should never be so lazy as to allow such blatant errors. Every factual error is consequential and should be addressed and corrected, on the record. Of course, more than their measly quarter page would be necessary to fulfill this obligation to accuracy, and then where would they find space for the MoveOn.org ads?

I also have an issue with the journalist's use of the word "seemed" in his phrase, "seemed to defend it." The word implies uncertainty, and more importantly, personal interpretation, since how something "seems" is completely dependent on individual response.

In issuing the statement, Mrs. Clinton was trying to deal with the concern that she was not taking clear positions on issues. Still, the wording of the statement was murkier than what many of her opponents have said in either supporting or opposing Mr. Spitzer’s initiatives.


The wording of the statement is murkier, according to who? Whether a statement is clear or muddled, once again, is an individual's opinion. To me, the intricacies and complexities of Hollywood personae are as enigmatic as life's meaning, yet to some of my celebrity-savvy friends, it's considered common knowledge. Likewise, one should never assume in an "unbiased" publication that a statement is universally "mucky".


I do, however, want to take the time to applaud writer Marc Santora for daring to write an article that *gasp* actually exposes a Democrat's flaws. With our media today, you'd think the angels of the Democratic party have the power to transform the United States into prelapsarian Eden (by taxing the rich, of course). So kudos to Santora, and also the editor who chose to put this article in the front page.

Class warfare or tax warfare?

Rangel Offering Broad Tax Plan, And Big Target by Steven R. Weisman

Read Article at NYTimes.com

"When the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee proposed a sweeping overhaul of the tax code last week, aimed at shifting more of the burden of taxation to the wealthy, Democrats were lukewarm and Republicans loosed a fusillade of attacks."


I'm amused by Weisman's phrase, "shifting more of the burden of taxation to the wealthy". To shift something to a group, it can't be the group's originally. His phraseology connotes that the burden hasn't been on the shoulders of the wealthy, even though the top 5% of wage earners pay 54.36% of taxes (for stats, check out the IRS statistics ). The top 1% (those who earned $295,495 or more) pay 34.27% of all income taxes. Apparently, Weisman blatantly dismissed these facts, or he believes in ghosts since the group he refers to doesn't exist in reality. The only thing phantasmal according to statistics is this lower 50%'s tax contribution: they pay about 3% of all income taxes.




"But even as Democrats ran for cover and Republicans fired away, the proposal by the chaiman, Charles B. Rangel of New York, gave shape to the debate over one of the biggest issues factoring the next administration: whether to keep President Bush's tax cuts in place of roll them back."


Oh God, I can see it now, "Republican Psycho": senators turned syndicate. Guest starring the NRA. But seriously, the gun imagery really does portray Republicans as loose cannons who go ballistic on their innocent, unarmed opponents (sorry, I couldn't refrain from continuing the weaponry theme). His imagery perpetuates the idea of the impulsive, agressive Republican. My mom noticed, however, that it also perpetuates the stereotype of the cowardly Democrat.


"Democrats have distanced themselves from the Rangel bill even while expressing approval of its general objectives of making the tax system more progressive, with the burden rising on those with the highest incomes."


The usage of the adjective "progressive" in this sentence is quite ambiguous. Did he misuse this term to refer to a progressive tax, where higher incomes pay more taxes? Or is he implying the tax system is
"making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc" (http://www.dictionary.com)? I can't tell, but the latter option is full with biased connotations. I believe this sentence could have been phrased more clearly for readers, who might not be familiar with progressive/regressive/flat tax definitions, and would assume the journalist was merely referring to an innovative, beneficial tax plan.



“the goal of tax fairness,' “welcomes his leadership,” “His bill is both brave and well designed,” "a coherent plan,” “put money back in the pockets of working families,” "very courageous in moving forward,” "on the right track,"


VS.

“largest increase in the history of America,” “no, ” “the mother of all tax hikes, ” "Boy, does this bill give them more revenue,” “I’m not a big fan of this proposal,”

Not much needs to be said here. Supporters of Rangel's plan recieved more inches in the article, and the quotes are better explicated than the quotes chosen from its opponents. The words themselves evoke a positive response-- "fairness," "leadership", "brave," "well designed," "coherent," "courageous," "moving forward," "on the right track." The opponents, however, seem to be randomly fabricating ideas, using colloquial instead of polished language, and readers gain a sense that the Republicans don't really know what they're talking about.

What do you think?