Conservatives Can't Cut It At YouTube

Who would have thought YouTube had a Liberal bias?

I mean, who would have thought YouTube had any kind of bias, period?

In fact when millions of people from all over the world are uploading their favorite videos 24/7 - chances are there is no real overall bias and the videos are of a random nature.

This just in from the world of crazy :

Apparently some Conservatives think YouTube is Liberally biased and they need a warm and special place where Conservative videos won't brush shoulders with dirty Liberal videos, an idea that is truly laughable. And can you say paranoid?

What's next? Accusations that the Google Search Engine is Liberally biased?

Is the sun Liberally biased as well? We had better get the Conservatives their own sun because they believe the sun shines a little brighter on Liberals so therefore the sun must be Liberally biased...

Seriously though, the Conservatives have decided to start their own YouTube called "Qube TV". Qube TV? They might as well call it "Square TV", TV for Squares.

Are Conservatives really that whiny and prissy that they can't cut it at YouTube like the rest of us? Do they feel discriminated against because their views are unpopular?

Ahhh yeah, well - I'm sure the Kluxers feel the exact same way.

So, Conservatives have decided to start a video streaming website designed specifically for Conservatives? Are they they afraid of hearing the criticism of the rest of the world that doesn't see things threw a Conservatives rosy and narrow perspective?

The Conservatives want to segregate their videos from YouTube, and you know what?

Not only is that idea funny it also works out rather well for Liberals because normal, oops I mean average people aren't going to be on Qube TV looking for something to watch, they are going to be on YouTube.

Because we all know when average people go looking for entertainment and fun, the last place they go is where the holy rollers and snobs are hanging out, so I don't see a very expansive future for Qube TV and I can't see them appealing to an audience that is even a quarter as large as YouTube.

This idea is about as wonderful as the "Half Hour News Hour" which was intended to compete with Jon Stewart but was about as funny as [insert the least funny thing you can think of here]. Is that show even still on the air??

Yellow Snow Bracelets

"ABC News' Jessica Yellin Reports: The White House press office has handed out yellow cancer bracelets that say 'Tony Snow' to reporters.

Member of the press office said they would like the press corps to wear these bracelets during Snow's on camera briefing Wednesday, scheduled for 1:00pmET.

Reporters are divided, some plan to wear them but others are aren't." - Political Radar, ABC

**********************

What kind of move is this and what is it designed to inspire?

Here, wear this bracelet of support for Tony Snow, you know - the man who routinely refuses to honestly answer your questions and seems to genuinely enjoy evading and bullying you.

Don't forget to observe your "I Support Yellow Snow" bracelet as your raise your hand and please refrain from asking any serious or hard hitting questions because remember, he has cancer...

Puh-leeze!

Lazy Links

- Did Rove mislead Congress on attorney firings?
- Study finds couples open to embryo donation
- Beating global warming needn't cost the earth: U.N
- Israel Resists US Peace Timeline
-Pope Benedict XVI Meets With Ex-President of Iran
- GOP convention papers ordered opened
- Lawyer: Military women worked for 'madam'
- Iraq, Afghan Wars Cause Concern in US Military About Readiness
- Former Gonzales aide praises fired prosecutors
- With veterans care under strain, VA hands out hefty bonuses to senior officials
- Trojan impersonates Windows activation
- Heavy drinking ‘shrinks the brain’
- AIDS Activists Protest in Thailand
- Iranians cycle for world peace
- GOP lawmakers: Loyalty to Bush may hurt

Troubling Battlefield Ethics For Alleged Liberators

The AP Reports :

- Less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

- More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians.

- Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.

- About a third of troops said they had insulted or cursed at civilians in their presence.

- About 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating civilians or damaging property when it was not necessary. Mistreatment includes hitting or kicking a civilian.

The survey of US troops in combat in Iraq was conducted by the Pentagon in it's first ethics study of troops on the war front.

Wolf Blitzer Cites Democratic Sex Scandals But Ignores Republican Ones

This just in : the latest example of why the saying "there is no such thing as the Liberal Media" is true...

Media Matters reports that CNN's Wolf Blitzer, while discussing the current "DC Madam" scandal cited several sex scandals of Democrats without mentioning the 2006 scandal of Republican Representative Mark Foley - who was having inappropriate relationships with underage male pages.

Blitzer also failed to mention Newt Gingrich's 1999 extramarital affair with then congressional aide Callista Bisek -- whom he later married.

NRA : Terror Suspects Should Be Allowed To Buy Guns
Talk about aiding and abetting the enemy...

The AP Reports :

"The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects."

Keeping guns out of the hands of potential terrorist sounds like a good idea to most Americans, but not to NRA executive director Chris Cox who believes that denying terror suspects the access to guns would only

"allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Hmmm.

Common sense would suggest that if you can deny a person the right to fly on a plane based on "mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat" that it would only make sense to deny that same person the right to purchase a gun based on "mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

So let me make sure I have this strait, apparently in the Ultra Conservative world of NRA junkies this is how reality works:

Terror suspects on planes = BAD
Terror suspects with guns = GOOD

Giving terrorist suspects the right to habeas corpus = BAD
Giving terrorist suspect the right to bear arms = GOOD

Banning weapons on school campus = BAD
Allowing students to carry weapons = GOOD

Up is down, left is right and black is white. The stuff is so bold and reckless you can't believe anyone can say it with a strait face and a clear mind.

I'm all for second amendment rights, but if a person has found their way onto a terrorist suspect list there is probably a good reason they shouldn't have a gun until they are no longer under investigation for terrorist activities.

I love a good conspiracy theory but NRA people seem to be the grand masters of Conspiracy Theories that involve the evil government coming and taking away our weapons and making us slaves.

But let's be realistic, the redcoats are not coming and if the government was really that evil and wanted to placate the American people what good do you really think your rifle or pistol is going to do against smallpox or any of the other arsenal the government has at it's hands? So that Conspiracy Theory is "out there" as far as I am concerned.

We don't allow terror suspects to fly on planes so we shouldn't allow terror suspects to own guns, it's a pretty simple logic to follow.

Furthermore, I don't think there is anything "arbitrary" about keeping guns out of the hands of people who may intend to use those guns on other people in terrorist attacks.

Loyalty Day, huh? That's pretty absurd considering ...

Abu Ayyub Al Masri Is Dead Again, Or Maybe He's Not

Al Masri is dead, again.

This is the second time that al Masri has died, last time he died it was February. Just like Zarqawi who died one thousand deaths before his true demise, news of Masri seems to materialize just when the Bush Administration needs it the most.

Yesterday was Mission Accomplished Day, the day Bush was set to veto money for his own war and the news that terrorism is up about 30% was traveling fast.

Then the media announced a pipe dream that alleged anti al-Qaeda insurgents may have killed al Masri. Yeah right, and ABC didn't seem to be buying it either when they ran this banner :

"SOURCES TELL ABC NEWS THAT REPORTS OF THE DEATH OF HAMZA AL MASRI, LEADER OF AL QAEDA IN IRAQ, ARE UNCONFIRMED AND PART OF A MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN. DEVELOPING... "

Furthermore, those in the know would remember that shortly before the demise of Zarqawi the son of bin Laden's mentor Abdallah Azzam was claiming Zarqawi had already been replaced by a man they were calling Abdullah bin Rashid al-Baghdadi.

It seemed within hours of Abu Musab al Zarqawi's death the US had already fingered this Masri character as being the new head of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

But there seems to be at least some confusion over who this man really is. BBC reported that "A prominent Cairo lawyer says the Egyptian man identified by the US as the new al-Qaeda leader in Iraq has been in jail in Egypt for seven years."

Psyops

The information coming out of Iraq is becoming increasingly unreliable and I believe this is due to massive disinformation campaigns by both the United States and the insurgents in Iraq.
Remember the Pentagons Information Operations Roadmap?

If not, then maybe you should read it and learn about a wide "range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks"

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," the roadmap reads.

"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public,"

The United States has been using what they call "psychological operations" for quite some time and these operations are not limited to the Middle East and most likely not limited to only the enemy.

One example may have been militant Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Shorty before Zarqawi's death The Washington Post reported in an article titled "Military Plays Up Role Of Zarqawi" that :

"The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

So what news can you trust that's coming out of Iraq? It seems like every tidbit of information is twisted and squeezed by the Mainstream Media and military in an effort to mislead "the enemy" but in actuality they just mislead the public.

Seven Lies Multiplied By Seven, Multiplied By Seven Again

The video below is something I found on YouTube.Com and found to be incredibly creative and entertaining.

Is it hyperbolic? Is it provocative? The answer is yes, but in this case perhaps that is what makes it so entertaining.

Lazy Links

- Blair rejects 7/7 inquiry calls
- Bush vetoes war funding bill, but fight isn’t over
- 4,000 U.S. soldiers arrive in Baghdad
- With No Body, Al-Masri Death in Question
- Spy court rejects no requests in 2006
- Immigration Protest In L.A. Turns Ugly
- Brain changes seen in some Gulf War vets
- U.S. diplomats returning from Iraq with post-traumatic stress disorder
- Calls for Olmert to Resign Growing
- ICC judges issue arrest warrants for Darfur suspects
- Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast

Bush Vetoes Troop Withdrawal Bill

Iraqi PM Maliki Purged Officers Who Cracked Down On Shia Militias

The Washington Post is reporting :

"A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad."

I have had my own suspicions about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki for some time. I had suspected the Prime Minster may be involved in cracking down on Sunni militias but letting Shia militias roam free, Maliki's close ties with Muqtada al-Sadr seemed to confirm that notion.

Maliki does have his defenders though, who claim he has been equal in his distribution of justice.

Read Full Story At The Washington Post

7 Out Of 8 "Successful" Projects In Iraq In Shambles

Rebuilding Iraq, one failure at a time.

The New York Times is reporting that :

"In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle."

Read Full Story

So in other words 7 out of 8 "success stories" are now failures, so is the typical story of the entire story of the Iraq war.

It really leaves me to wonder how the Bush Administration and it's loyalist can continue to claim there are "real success stories in Iraq that the media isn't telling you."

One example is 11.8 billion that was spent on generators for an airport, now 8.6 billion dollars worth are not even working. That's a job well done!

Another example was medical workers who could not find the keys to an expensive medical incinerator, as a result medical waste including used syringes and dirty bandages were "clogging the sewage system and probably contaminating the water system."

Here's the real kick, the Officials said they wanted to sample various projects from various regions but :

"they were constrained from taking a true random sample in part because many projects were in areas too unsafe to visit."

This, they claim means that :

"the initial set of eight projects — which cost a total of about $150 million — cannot be seen as a true statistical measure of the thousands of projects in the roughly $30 billion American rebuilding program."

Common sense would suggest that if 7 out of 8 projects in so called safe areas had failed then projects in areas too dangerous to visit have most likely failed as well.

But asking for common sense to be used in the war or rebuilding is like, I don't know, walking on water.