I wanted to continue this discussion, but instead of having the comments fade into obscurity as I write more entries I decided to create a new journal entry to continue the discussion. I think this stuff is worthy of discussion, so let's do this! I'll start with the last comment:

(e:Ajay) writes:

[size=s](Jason), I do come from a long line of soldiers, so being a soldier is not an unknown for me. I was objecting to the standard "liberal media" and other BS. The media is most definitely NOT liberal. Just because an occasional anti-war story creeps through it does not make them "liberal". If you really care to understand what this "war" is about (and it is/was NOT about defending America, just to make it clear. It was NOT about installing democracy there either; if democracy was that important, why are the 3 closest US allies (KSA, Kuwait and Pakistan) non-democratic? In Kuwait and KSA women have minimal rights. But I digress), then you should be open to other views, and make your own mind up instead of blindly believing whatever National Review (there's a "liberal media" rag for you :) ) tells you. How come you never criticise the war? I think it was Roosevelt who said, "dissent is patriotic".

Coming to the issue of the solidiers being harassed, of course it is wrong. I will take issue with anybody who thinks harassing a uniformed service member is OK. It is not. By linking (in your mind) the harassment and the "liberal media" or "liberal professors", you are just as bad as the jackasses who harass the soldiers.[/size]

Well first of all I am relieved to hear that you are against soldier harassment. In this manner you agree with the basic premise of the article. The point of the article wasn't to say "lib media this, lib media that" - it was to highlight the treatment some of these guys and gals are getting on campus. What can I say, other than some people enjoy being misanthropes?

Whether the media is "liberal" or not depends on who you are talking to. A lot of liberals object to it being called the liberal media because it is not pushing the opinions of the far left wing. The mainstream media does not read like The Nation, so how could it be liberal? I understand this point of view, and put that way I definitely agree. Many people in conservative circles tend to lump everyone left of center into the "liberal" category. They don't realize how fractured the left really is. No, I wouldn't say that the mainstream media is far left wing but I would say that it is without a doubt tilted to the left more often than not. This manifests itself in a few ways, such as the headlines that are printed, how the articles frame a subject, what information is omitted, the language that is used, and misinformation. This stuff is self evident - you do not need to read conservative rags to see the situation for what it is.

Cherry picking the odd right-leaning quote from a mainstream media outlet is a very weak strategy - if I had to make a post every time the mainstream media shapes a story in favor of the left I likely would not post about much of anything other than the media. So if you say to me that the media isn't liberal because it doesn't carry the torch of the left wing I would agree, but don't make the mistake so many other people do in ignoring or denying very basic truths about how the press shapes their "product". The exploding success of Fox and other right wing media outlets is only a result of having a product that is unique - they differentiate themselves by airing scoops that nobody else on TV or radio will cover, and providing different angles than other news media. It is SOSDD from everybody else.

Someone please tell me who else besides the right-leaning media will cover soldier harrassment on campus? The only time soldiers are any good to the left is when they are in a casket or when they beat up a poor, helpless insurgent. Nobody on the left wants to shed positive light on our soldiers or anything they do. These people have titanium plated, diamond encrusted testicles and the left absolutely refuses to tell their stories. Why is this? Political reasons? Without a doubt. Saying that I should not believe NR because it's a conservative rag is silly - someone on the left or the mainstream media should be covering this stuff as well if they want to shed the labels they have been given and retain credibility.

Of course, when someone is a right-leaning person, they can't possibly think for themselves! Nobody who can actually form coherent, logical thoughts could POSSIBLY come to a different conclusion than what the left offers! If they do, no it is not because of careful consideration or life experience, it is because of brainwashing and weak minds! There is not a conservative alive who thinks for themselves! Personally attack them at all costs! They're drinking the Kool-Aid of course! What a shallow, silly thing to say - especially when there isn't an effective counter argument to the article I posted about soldier harrassment on campus. If people here really want to know what I read on a regular basis, I will offer it up honestly:

National Review
The Nation
The New Republic (although you have to pay to read their full articles, wtf)
Town Hall
Huffington Post on Yahoo
Talking Points Memo (I learned of this one passively through you, (e:Ajay))
Washington Monthly
Fox News
New York Times

I check out a variety of media sources. The reason for this is because you can learn different angles dealing with the same story, and you can read about different subjects each side champions. Although I lean to the right I'm interested in all points of view. I've said I don't know how many times on this very journal that I'm open minded and willing to listen. I've asked the lefties on this site for their opinions. I'm the only political person on (e:strip) who is willing and humble enough to challenge what they think. This whole kool-aid, think for yourself nonsense will never stick. Partisanship is not useful - it is groupthink. Ultimately what I want isn't to take sides, but to learn the truth. If I'm wrong about something I will admit it. In this way I am light years beyond most people.

About the Iraq war - (e:Ajay) is correct, I do not criticize the war. I do not say much about the war at all. I have family fighting in it so I keep quiet in general. In my journal I have said that I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq, and that our focus should have been squarely on Afghanistan - it seems to me that we left one mission half-finished before we started another one. I do not make a connection between 9/11 and Iraq - a more accurate connection would be 9/11, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. I'm not like other people and I will not speculate on the reasons for the war and pass it off as fact. The most interesting theory I have heard is that there are numerous ancient artifacts in Iraq that Saddam had control of which could possibly give us much more information as to the origins of humanity. It is allegedly very shocking information - too dangerous to be let out into the public. Now obviously it sounds far-fetched, and it is - but it is much more interesting than the blood for oil argument - yep that petrol we're stealing from Iraq should be arriving here any day now. Is this enough criticism, or is there something specific that someone wants to ask me about? Ask away and I'll give you my honest opinion. I don't always toe the line like everybody else.

Jason

Check out this new reality TV show ready to hit Europe (you can bet it will be on our TV stations as well)!



There are times when I have to shed my humility and pat myself on the back for understanding the complexities of human nature, and for my prophetic wisdom in understanding how things are going to shake out in the future. Now there will be a reality TV program dealing with the reduction of the human male to sperm donor status. Some people say that reality TV doesn't accurately reflect our nature. I have to disagree - it does mirror our own nature (however packaged and contrived the shows are), and in some cases also shapes our reality as media tends to do.

I've said before it is only a matter of time before men are relegated to sperm donors and ATM machines. Now the idea has been implanted. The thing that is so aggravating is the horde of emasculated she-men out there who are complicit in the systematic destruction of the male. The oppresive court system with laws tilted enormously against men, the politicians and their lap dogs who go along with it just so they stay in power, the media happily advocating it - it is enough to make a guy want to pack up and move to the mountains.

Just as there is an argument now as to whether or not marriage is a "right", there will be an argument as to whether or not having a child is a "right" as well. Should there be public funds going towards sperm banks so women can have a child whenever they want without actually having to deal with those ridiculous, hateful, cheating, violent men out there (that is to say, any male at all)? Wait and see - this reality TV show is only a reflection of the attitudes of millions of women out there who can't find "the perfect flawless man" and still want children. Remember fathers don't matter!

Jason

Campus Rads vs. Our Vets
[size=s]The antiwar unwelcome on campus.[/size]
[size=s]By Wynton C. Hall & Peter Schweizer (from National Review)[/size]

As college students hit campuses across the nation this week, a new generation of young veterans will step off the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and onto the ideological battlefield of our university campuses. For those on the frontline in the war on terror, the antiwar hostility of liberal professors and campus activists will assuredly prove unsettling.

Just ask Marine sergeant Marco Martinez, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a full-time psychology major at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, Calif.

"A woman on campus had apparently learned I might be a Marine. When I told her I was, she said, 'You're a disgusting human being, and I hope you rot in hell!' "

Indeed, Martinez, who will be the first male in his family to receive a college diploma, says he is receiving more of an education than he bargained for: "There are a lot of people who don't appreciate military service in college," Martinez said. "If someone asks me about it, and I think that they're not too liberal, I might tell them I was in Iraq. But I don't tell them the full extent of it or anything about the Navy Cross."

The Navy Cross - as in second only to the Congressional Medal of Honor. Martinez, formerly of 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, is a bona-fide American hero and the first Hispanic American since Vietnam to receive the Navy Cross. During the Battle of At Tarmiya, one of Sergeant Martinez's fellow marines had been hit in the legs and left for dead by five terrorists holed up in an adobe garden shed. That's when Martinez used his body to shield the dying marine from the terrorist before mounting a 20-meter frontal charge at the bunker with nothing but a depleted rifle and a grenade. With enemy bullets pinging off his gear, Martinez unpinned the grenade, slammed his body into the adobe building, and lobbed the device into the window of the structure, killing all the terrorists inside.

But as liberal professors and antiwar activists continue to wage a nationwide campaign to rid university campuses of military recruiters - in some cases going so far as to throw water bottles and scream epithets at them - it is easy to see why Sergeant Martinez would remain tight-lipped about being one of the nation's most decorated heroes.

Indeed, as one campus newspaper reported, the rift between young veteran college students and their civilian classmates has left those who have served feeling isolated from campus life, "shunned" because of their service.

Just ask Armand McCormick, 23, a student at the University of Northern Iowa.

While walking to class one day, McCormick stopped to listen to a speaker during an antiwar student rally. When he challenged the protestor's arguments, the "peace" activist sneered, "The Iraqis don't want us there. If you think the war is okay, then why don't you go and serve!"

There was an obvious problem with the protestor's retort: He had no clue who he was talking to - -Silver Star recipient Marine corporal Armand McCormick.

"I've had a few conversations about [the War on Terror] in the liberal classrooms I go to everyday," said McCormick. "A lot of the time I just look at them and tell them that they don't have any clue what they're talking about, because all they do is listen to liberal news. I always tell them, 'If you don't experience something, how in the hell can you say what will happen?' "

As Corporal McCormick rightly points out, his classmates' reliance upon the elite mainstream media all but ensures that they are unfamiliar with the jaw-dropping acts of heroism he performed on March 25, 2003, in Ad Diwuniyah, Iraq. Far removed from the breezy comforts of a college campus, it was there, inside an enemy trench, that McCormick, along with his two fellow Marines, captain Brian Chontosh and corporal Robert "Robbie" Kerman, was swarmed by what officials estimate was a company-sized element of between 150 to 200 Iraqi fighters. When the smoke cleared, the three marines had not only survived, they had eliminated scores of enemy fighters and regained key territory. It's the sort of incident the campus Left should think about the next time it proclaims how "courageous" it is in protesting the war.

The Left has adopted the mantra that it opposes the war but supports our soldiers. Those veterans visiting campuses tell a different story; the early fault lines forming on our nation's campuses do not portend hopeful signs.

For those who profess to embrace "diversity" and champion allowing "marginalized voices" to be heard, perhaps liberal professors, administrators, and students might learn something were they open-minded enough to listen to the heroes in their midst. Then, and only then, will they correct the tragic mistakes of the Vietnam era that valued politics more than patriots.

Yes, as (e:Joshua) said we put up the banner. At first I thought we could have two big strings looping around the length of the banner but Joshy's engineering skills proved to be superior.

I like the festival, but there is one thing about it that nearly drives me to violence.

What is it, do you ask? What could make the cuddly, utterly adorable Jason that mad?

There are VERY few places to sit and rest on the block during the fest, and my porch is one of those places. I understand, and I really don't mind when someone wants to sit down and take a break. The problem is that almost every single one of them leaves their half-eaten trash on the porch for my neighbors and I to clean up. WTF IS UP WITH YOU PIGS?!?!?! PEOPLE LIVE HERE!!!!

When I get mad I fantasize about all kinds of nasty evil shit to do to the perpetrators. I've wanted to follow people home and take a dump on their front porch. I've wanted to dump paint on people. I've come up with a much less offensive, yet much more hilarious way of embarrasing people who can't clean up after themselves and disrespect me.

Water balloons are the answer. If I catch someone leaving their junk on my porch they are going to get soaked, period. I don't care how they feel about it, they deserve to be humiliated. Littering a-holes beware!!!!

Jason

Since no matter who wins an election there will always be someone whining, crying and bitching about foul play, I have developed the perfect method of deciding who will become our next Mayor.

You know how dogs drag their ass on the carpet every now and then? They can't scratch their ass like we can, but I think their method is much more humorous. Since I have basically no faith that local government will ever engage in serious reform, they will metaphorically scratch their ass while we continue to suffer.

We will lay out a giant "track" of carpet with lanes, and every candidate will wear a number on their back. The candidates sponsors can pay for advertising space on their race jerseys. The candidates will drag their ass like a dog from point A to point B. Whoever crosses the finish line first will become the next Mayor of Buffalo!

Jason

I thought this was rather humorous.

THE HUSBAND STORE

A store that sells husbands has just opened in Dallas, TX, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:

1) You may visit the store ONLY ONCE!
2) There are six floors and the attributes of the men increase as the shopper ascends the flights.
3) There is, however, a catch . . . you may choose any man from a particular floor, or you may choose to go up a floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!

So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband . . .

On the first floor the sign on the door reads:
Floor 1 - These men have jobs.

The second floor sign reads:
Floor 2 - These men have jobs and love kids.

The third floor sign reads:
Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love kids, and are extremely good looking.
"Wow," she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

She goes to the fourth floor and sign reads:
Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love kids, are drop-dead good looking and help with the housework.
"Oh, mercy me!" she exclaims, "I can hardly stand it!"

Still, she goes to the fifth floor and sign reads:
Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love kids, are drop-dead gorgeous, help with the housework, and have a strong romantic streak.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the sign reads:
Floor 6 - You are visitor 3,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store. Watch your step as you exit the building, and have a nice day!

I read today that on the 700 Club television program, Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. I'm shocked and disgusted. How can a man call himself a Christian, and go on his Christian television show and advocate the killing of another human being? Furthermore, how can he reconcile that statement with his anti-abortion stance? It's shit like this from the wacko religious right that gives all Christians a black eye, and provides the wacko left with the ammunition they desire to demonize and hate all religious people. Does anyone care to wager that this will show up in our alternative shitrags this week?

Now I'm not saying that Hugo Chavez is a good person or a good leader. He took land away from people and gave it to other people. He has tried to take over the Venezuelan oil industry. For someone who talked about "social revolution", the oil wealth that is generated is not shared among the populace. The country has gone on general strike numerous times. Venezuela is a dangerous, unstable place. As he was a former military man, I have serious doubts that he will ever accept stepping down from power, no matter what the election results say. Communism is a failure of a social and economic experiment. I can't really think of anything good to say about Hugo Chavez, other than the fact that he was indeed elected.

None of this means that we have a reason to assassinate him. Pat Robertson is a fake, a phony.......no Christian in the world should use his Christian television program to promote killing. I read the Holy Bible often - therein are many nuggets of wisdom that I try to keep in mind, the most important to me right now being that "A cheerful heart is good medicine." I'm not a "Super Christian" or a holy roller, but I do try to live by certain guidelines. Out of Pat Robertson's mouth come words of violence and hatred. I want you all to know that in no way does he represent all people of faith. Of course you all are aware of the fact that he is a lunatic, much like Mr. Chavez. By the way Mr. Robertson, are you aware that the assassination of a leader of another nation is against international law?

Jason

Today, I choose to have a good day.

Jason

PS - Yesterday (e:Ladycroft) came thru with some of those awesome zucchini squares and some tomato so I don't starve to death. We chilled and whatnot - I wasn't thinking about my problems! You the bomb Timika!

Someday I hope the world can be war-free. I believe it is wholly unnatural for human beings to fight each other. I also believe the Iraq war was a mistake, as our priorities should have been in Afghanistan. This all being said, I'm not naive enough to think that war is eradicated and replaced with peace by holding peace vigils, lighting candles, holding signs, drafting UN resolutions, or getting into the drum circle.

A number of you believe that nothing, not even your own freedom, is worth fighting for. That's fine. So then it would follow that you would believe that the free world has no responsibility to the world in terms of making sure that nobody is oppressed, and that people all over the planet have basic human rights and living conditions. You're not alone, as evidenced by the world's deafening silence as people in Darfur execute "population control". It is also manifested in the silence regarding North Korea. I can go on and on. There are many situations where if we were a caring, compassionate race, it would enrage all of us to the core, and boots would be on the ground. It has come to my attention that in fact we are not a caring, compassionate race, and that we are willing to ignore atrocities all over the world to ensure we don't have to sacrifice anything.

All of the hope, the vigils, the protests will continue to amount to jack shit as long as there are people in the world who want to fight and kill to maintain power and control the populace. I'll take off my right-winger hat for a moment. I want to open my ears and listen to the leftists out there. I want to know how those of you on the left think we can attain world peace.

Jason

We heard this argument in defense of the killing of Terri Schiavo. Let me pose the following question to you all: If someone doesn't like the situation they are in, if they don't want to live they way they are living, is it A-OK for that person to go to a doctor and be "put down" for lack of a better phrase, to end their suffering?

What do YOU think?

Jason