Equal Protection for Bibles

Great article in The Opinion Journal (Wall Street online) by Ali Al-Ahmed on "Hypocrisy Most Holy".

He makes several excellent points:

With the revelation that a copy of the Quran may have been desecrated by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Muslims and their governments--including that of Saudi Arabia--reacted angrily. This anger would have been understandable if the U.S. government's adopted policy was to desecrate our Quran. But even before the Newsweek report was discredited, that was never part of the allegations.

As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia--where I come from--are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately.

Maybe the Christians need to start rioting in the streets.

"Who cares what makes these people angry?"

A must-read from Jonah Goldberg on the reaction of the "Muslim Street" (notice how that term has disappeared from the MSM lexicon?) to the Newsweek article.

I couldn't agree more.

And if I hear one more comment about the Crusades, I'm going to lose my lunch.

Get over it.

Some Further Analysis (no pun intended) on Toiletgate and the Media Meltdown

Just when you think the situation with the American media can't get any worse, we get this exchange at the briefing of the White House Press Corps today:

Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.

And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.

Scott McClellan has the patience of a saint. Excuse me, didn't the questionner ASK him what the President would like Newsweek to do? And then when Scott answers, he asks him 'who died and made you king'?

And anyhow, what's wrong with the President asking for Newsweek to help clean up its own mess? Why NOT report the extraordinary measures taken to respect the religious practices of the prisoners at Gitmo? (Although I always say, if I'm going to be accused of something, despite bending over backwards to the contrary, I might as well let 'er rip and give them their money's worth.).

However, this begs the question--why should there have to be external pressure applied to news organizations in order for them to retract something if they find that it was ill-founded? And then help mitigate the damage from their erroneous reporting? I would think that news organizations would want the public to know that they do NOT need any external pressures to keep their house in order (can anyone say congressional investigation?).

I, for one, do not want to see any encroachments on freedom of the press, but that carries a serious responsibility for the press to police itself. With Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan and now this, the news industry seems to be on a path of self-destruction--unable to help itself from repeating the same offenses over and over. This would imply a systemic problem.

What is the root cause? Perhaps:

-Under pressure to 'scoop' each other, journalists/editors have become careless.
-Given the competition for public attention, the 'titillating' stories get immediate coverage with no thought to the consequences.

-There is a lack of political diversity in the news organization, leaving no one to play 'devil's advocate' when these types of stories arise. This is proven out by the immediate reactions in the blogosphere who find logical errors and other reasons to question these stories which apparently have never occurred to the editors.

-A certain pervasive smugness derived from being 'in the know' leads the elite media to spend insufficient time questionning their own accuracy and underlying motivation for certain news stories.

For a good analysis and discussion of the growing public mistrust of the media, check out Winds Of Change.

If media outlets want to improve their credibility, they need to bring in some independent analysts to review their internal processes for 'vetting' articles. Anonymous sources should be used sparingly and then, only when corroborated by other independent means.

Jay Rosen has a great analysis of the sourcing issues with the Newsweek debacle.

I'm sure there will be more to come on this intriguing topic.

NEWSWEEK Lied, People Died....

I will blog more later about the role of NEWSWEEK (now dubbed Newsweak and "Toiletgate"--"Loogate" in the UK-- by the blogosphere) in aiding and abetting the enemy, but my husband asked an interesting question last night...

If an Islamic country had flushed Bibles down the toilet, do you think Christians would be rioting and killing people in response?

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? He should start his own blog.

UPDATE: Just another random thought. I am as happy as anyone to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to trashing the MSM, however...is it really OUR fault that the reaction of the Islamic world is to riot and kill each other over an alleged desecration of the Koran?

We tend to be very narcissistic here in the US and think that we somehow can control the actions of the rest of the world, simply by being inoffensive. I think that is a naive (and dangerous) view.

UPDATE: Lots of good stuff out on the blogosphere. I'll keep updating.

Check out this one..."Guns Don't Kill People...Reporters Kill People". And this one..."Newsweek Told Koran Flush Story Was 'Slam Dunk'"

Austin Bay also has some great commentary.

UPDATE: Newsweak retracts.

Great comment from Cliff Kincaid, of the Accuracy in Media website:

Ironically, noted Kincaid, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas has been teaching a course at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government on "the ethical, moral and practical issues that recur in news delivery."

Kincaid commented, "It looks like he flunked his own course."

Any Fraud is Bad Fraud...

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel misses the point *AGAIN* in their editorial on voter fraud, "What's the Fraud Threshold?". If voter fraud were found to favor the Republicans, I suspect that ANY level of fraud would exceed the threshold. But somehow, to date, there is not sufficient evidence for them to conclude that fraud has actually occurred. Too bad no one captured the fraud ACTUALLY occurring on videotape (of course, tape can be doctored!!!)

Here's what the interim report from the Fraud Task Force said:

Based on the investigation to date, the task force has found widespread record keeping failures and separate areas of voter fraud.

Here's what the J/S editorial said:

Investigators have found widespread record-keeping glitches and spotty instances of fraud.

Hmmm...I think that Ricardo & friends need a new thesaurus!

The J/S editorial goes on...

The task force has developed evidence of more than 100 instances in which residents are suspected of voting twice or of using somebody else's name or a fake name to vote. It also found more than 200 felons who voted despite being barred from doing so.

But here's a little tidbit they left out....

"The number of votes counted from the City of Milwaukee exceeds the number of persons recorded as voting by more than 4,500....To date, the investigation has concentrated on the 70,000+ same-day registrations." (emphasis mine)

Here is the actual interim report for your reading pleasure.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the Journal/Sentinel is quibbling over 'how much fraud is too much'. (Well, I guess I can believe it).

But, as the interim report states,

These findings impact each other. Simply put: it is hard to prove a bank embezzlement if the bank cannot tell how much money was there in the first place. Without accurate records, the task force will have difficulty proving criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

And, of course, this is the crux of the problem. The system was not designed to have an audit trail worthy of follow up and prosecution for fraud, NOR does it make any sense to try to develop such a system. The problem is not to prove and prosecute voter fraud AFTER THE FACT (the old 'locking the barn door after the cows have escaped' option). The point is to PREVENT voter fraud from happening so that everyone's vote DOES count. Requiring people to register before elections and present some form of photo ID is a much better option than depending upon the tenacity of the poll workers (those great senior citizens who selflessly devote hours to staffing the polls so that the rest of us can vote!)

Failing to prevent voter fraud disenfranchises ALL voters (even the ones that voted for Kerry!!)

Read additional commentary here from Powerline and Michelle Malkin.

Once more, Wisconsin is in the news for all of the wrong reasons. And the Journal/Sentinel is on the wrong side of the issue.

UPDATE: Great comments and a history of news on the Wisconsin voting fraud situation from Sean at everythingiknowiswrong.com.

In the words of Mark Twain...

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

A lot of discussion going on right now about the future of the newspaper and traditional media. Are they in their last, dying gasps?

Excellent post from Powerline on the general decline of newspaper circulation.

Charlie Sykes also talked about this on his radio show yesterday on WTMJ.

Since many newspapers have been inflating their circulation numbers, (Journal Sentinel included), it is difficult to tell how much decline is attributable to the correct circulation and how much is attributable to people becoming fed-up with their bias, or turning to other outlets for news and information.

Most of the callers on Charlie's program mentioned the internet as a key contributor to the decline in newspaper readership. They cited the following reasons that they use the internet as a primary source (as opposed to the paper):

-The internet is more visual and interactive (and therefore appealing to younger customers)
-The internet is more timely (get news as it is happening)
-The internet allows links to the source material and other related stories
-The internet allows you to be selective (if all you want to read is the sports, why buy the whole paper?)
-The internet is 'free' -- or relatively so, after you've purchased a computer and pay for broadband/ISP access

It will be interesting to see how newspapers evolve in response to this threat. But I believe it is too early to sound the death knell. Remember, years ago when people were predicting that movies on demand and online entertainment would mean the demise of books? Remember predictions that movie theaters would disappear due to the rise of Blockbuster and NetFlix?

The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel ran Jonah Goldberg, from National Review, today. In his column, "Bloggers are latest media darlings", he contends that newspapers are not 'down for the count' and predicts that the Internet will be absorbed by traditional media. He cites examples of how the blogosphere is beginning to consolidate:

Big media outlets are starting blogs and buying up the best bloggers. Independent bloggers are joining forces to achieve economies of scale for advertising and editorial direction.

Just this week, some of the best bloggers created a small consortium called Pajamas Media. It's not inconceivable that consolidation will continue to the point where bloggers become new online newspapers.

I can't find an online version right now...will add one if it becomes available.

I think the bottom line is this: Choice is good. Competition raises the bar. The gauntlet has been thrown to the newspaper industry. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the challenge.

Political Correctness Reaches New Heights

The much-awaited decision has come down from Marquette University over the naming of their sports team/mascot. As you may know, years ago, the Marquette Warriors was deemed offensive to Native Americans, so the name was changed to the Marquette Golden Eagles. (I'm surprised PETA didn't protest it as being offensive to eagles).

A couple of alumni offered to donate a cool $2M to the school if they changed the name back to the Warriors. Now, I can see that a Native American sports mascot might be offensive (Willie Wampum WAS pretty tacky), but they certainly could have made it a more 'generic' warrior. How about an ancient Greek warrior? (Our local high schools have Spartans and Lancers as their mascots. Since those guys are all dead, none of them can protest.)

So...what is the final decision? The Marquette Gold! The Marquette Gold? Yes, Gold. They have selected a COLOR as their mascot.

From the Marquette University website:

Further, data collected in an online survey last fall of opinions and attitudes indicated that even 10 years after its introduction, the Golden Eagles nickname, logo and mascot have not generated with the Marquette community a strong sense of pride or identity. In the survey, the terms respondents most often used to describe the Golden Eagles nickname are boring (57 percent), weak (55 percent) and common (52 percent).

So, they think "Gold" is not boring, weak or common?

Cheesh. What will be next? The Milwaukee Puce? The Madison Magentas?

Update: Great posts from Marquette Warrior....read the "Trustees Turn Chicken" post.

Next: Alchemy 101

Pamela R. Winnick writes an eye-opening article, "A Textbook Case of Junk Science" in the latest issues of The Weekly Standard.

If this doesn't make your head spin, nothing will:

SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, some "very light-skinned" people were shipwrecked on a tropical island. After "many years under the tropical sun," this light-skinned population became "dark-skinned," says Biology: The Study of Life, a high-school textbook published in 1998 by Prentice Hall, an imprint of Pearson Education.

"Downright bizarre," says Nina Jablonski, who holds the Irvine chair of anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences. Jablonski, an expert in the evolution of skin color, says it takes at least 15,000 years for skin color to evolve from black to white or vice versa. That sure is "many years." The suggestion that skin color can change in a few generations has no basis in science.

Pearson Education spokesperson Wendy Spiegel admits the error in describing the evolution of skin color, but says the teacher's manual explains the phenomenon correctly. Just why teachers are given accurate information while students are misled remains unclear.

But then there's lots that's puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It's as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science.

But wait, there's more...

A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001 found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85 percent of the students in the country. One misstates Newton's first law of motion. Another says humans can't hear elephants. Another confuses "gravity" with "gravitational acceleration." Another shows the equator running through the United States. Individual scientists draft segments of these books, but reviewing the final product is sometimes left to multicultural committees who have no expertise in science.

I, for one, plan to peruse my son's science textbook when he gets home tonight from school.