Contest this!

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:

Riddle me this: Is it because there aren't enough right-wingers in Canada to support Ezra Levant's Western Standard? Is it because right-wingers prefer to scream at each other on blogs? Or is it just an issue of the magazine industry here being so damn difficult? It's a financial struggle for many, including the most excellent Walrus and, most recently, Saturday Night, which went down in flames.

That's just my way of leading into the latest pitch from Levant landing in my ebox. It's a writing contest, by gum, and first prize is $1,000 and your chance at publication in the WS.

There is an entry fee of $50, and every entry receives a free one-year subscription to the magazine, valued at $75. If you've already got a magazine subscription, no problem -- you can extend your subscription, or give it as a gift!

Now I ask you ...

Speaking of which, I should ask Levant whatever happened to the money -- however much it was -- he raised to fight off that human rights lawsuit following his publication of the controversial Danish cartoons? Whatever happened to the lawsuit for that matter?

UPDATE: Unconfirmed word has it that the biweekly WS is becoming a monthly to cut costs. What's more, editor Kevin Libin is jumping ship, either to Maclean's or the National Post. Looks like there's trouble at the board level, with investors bailing on this sinking enterprise.

NOTE: Readers have informed me that this is the second year of the contest.

The Right Stuff

You know, I have long believed that right-wing bloggers will poop and stoop to anything to further their agenda. Now I am convinced they're just plain stupid.

How else to explain Colby Cosh's post -- and from him I would expect better -- which was picked up by Damian Penny (and a'right, s'arighted by the lovely and charming Kathy Shaidle) that I said something I didn't say?

According to Cosh:

Hezbollywood North: Until I saw Antonia Zerbisias make the case that faked news images are no big deal, I thought that a "media critic" was somebody who criticizes the media. It turns out that the full job description is "media critic... of non-journalists who are trying to figure out who they can trust." The word "media" as used here shouldn't be regarded as genitive like the "fly" in "flyswatter"; it indicates allegiance, like the "police" in "police dog."

Hum, gee. The Star dedicates most an A-section page to my column, including graphics of the offending photos, which deconstruct how the images were faked. I deplore the fact that they were, and call the photographer a moron and a danger to legitimate photojournalists. At least half a million readers see that.

Then I post it on my blog, where I take non-stop comments from readers who think this is one big damn deal.

And then I post a second entry about the possible fakery of more photos, and with all those comments too.

But to Cosh and his munchkins, I say the faked photos are "no big deal."

Are they dumb? Or just making stuff up to slag me?

Thanks for the hits my pretties.

Blog bombs away

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:

The right-wing blogosphere has erupted with claims that Israel is not responsible for the deaths of all those civilians at Qana. Commenters below have posted links to blogs and alternative news sites which raise questions about a supposed gap between the time of the IDF bombardment and the building's collapse. So far I have found nothing in the mainstream media, including Israeli media, or on the wires that picks up this issue.

Near as I can tell, the whole thing started with this story in Israel's more progressive paper, Ha'aretz.

There is an unexplained gap of about seven hours between the one Israeli air strike that hit the Qana building housing the civilians, which took place around 1 A.M. Sunday, and the first report that the building had collapsed, said the chief of staff of the Israel Air Force, Brigadier General Amir Eshel. Speaking at a press conference at the Kirya military complex in Tel Aviv last night, Eshel said that of three Israeli air strikes on Qana early Sunday, only the first strike hit the building in which the civilians were staying. The other two hit areas at least 400 meters away.

"I can't say whether the house collapsed at 12 A.M. or at 8 A.M.," said Eshel. "According to foreign press reports, and this is one of the reports we are relying on, the house collapsed at 8 A.M. We do not have testimony regarding the time of the collapse. If the house collapsed at 12 A.M., it is difficult for me to believe that they waited eight hours to evacuate it."

Meanwhile questions are being raised here and here and here and here and here.

Eshel reported that as recently as two days ago, military intelligence reported the building area had been used by the terrorists for storage or firing of weapons. It was a bad place to cram dozens of women and children.

There are other mysteries. The roof of the building was intact. Journalist Ben Wedeman of CNN noted that there was a larger crater next to the building, but observed that the building appeared not to have collapsed as a result of the Israeli strike.

Why would the civilians who had supposedly taken shelter in the basement of the building not leave after the post-midnight attack? They just went back to sleep and had the bad luck to wait for the building to collapse in the morning?

National Public Radio's correspondent reported that residents of that building had left and the victims were non-residents who chose to shelter in the building that night. They were "too poor" to leave the down, one resident told CNN's Wedeman. Who were these people?

What we do know is that sometime after dawn a call went hour to journalists and rescue workers to come to the scene. And come they did, in droves.

While Hezbollah and its apologists have been claiming that civilians could not freely flee the scene due to Israeli destruction of bridges and roads, the journalists and rescue teams from nearby Tyre had no problem getting there.

Was this a brilliant piece of Hezbollah propaganda? Are the media guilty of falling into line? Or is this a case of the pro-invasion blogosphere seizing a piece of information which is not even close to being confirmed and running away with it?

If you ask me ...

TUESDAY UPDATE: So far this appears to be nothing but unsubstantiated speculation, perhaps even wishful thinking on the part of the right wing blogosphere which just can't handle the truth of this tragedy. Not even a a legitimate Israeli news source has challenged the notion that Israel's bombardment was the direct cause of the deaths of all these children.

Incidentally, here's a bit from Fox News yesterday, one which may help shed light on the disinformation campaign by the pajamahadeen.

HILL: AThe Israelis are reporting, and it hasn't been disputed yet  (my emphasis), that the - that that house that was struck by Israel was struck eight hours before it collapsed.

DOOCY: Midnight.

HILL: Which which - and it collapsed around 8 AM. And so it raises the question of why, after the building was struck, there would be women and children using that for shelter. Perhaps it was just slightly damaged but it also brings up why did it come down then. And some have speculated that it is because of secondary explosions, because we know, from what we have seen on video and from what our reporters have experienced, that frequently Hezbollah has been using houses and the basements to store their own munitions.

DOOCY: Human shields.

The rest of the piece is a highly recommended debunking of this attempt to whitewash the bombing.

Nice try guys.

Maybe next time.

ONE MORE: Even Miri Eisen, the official Israeli spokeperson, doesn't mention this, in the kind of unflinching CNN International interview many of us would love to see happen more often (and not just on this subject) on domestic CNN. The anchor is Rosemary Church.

YET ANOTHER ONE: It gets curioser and curioser. This is from Ha'aretz:

As the Israel Air Force continues to investigate the air strike, questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident.

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

Many more twists and turns in the report. But nothing appears to confirm the rightwingosphere's wishful thinking that this was somehow Hezbollah's fault.

COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD HAVE BEEN CLOSED AS ISRAEL HAS APOLOGIZED AND ADMITTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS ATROCITY.  SO MUCH FOR THE FLOGOSPHERE'S ATTEMPT TO MAKE THIS SEEM LIKE ANOTHER MEDIA CONSPIRACY.

True Hate

This post has been updated:

You know, this blog is often accused by righties (and one capital-Liberal blogger who sits on the board of the Canada Israel Committee) for being a haven for ''anti-Israel'' wingnuts. I personally have been denounced by B'nai Brith and other lobby groups for my observations on the catastrophe playing out in the Middle East. I get attacked regularly in the National Post as well.

So, with all that in mind, when will we see all these people come out against this hate-filled screed, posted on the website of a supposedly respectable publication, one put out by Ezra Levant, a former communications apparatchik to (now) Public Safety Mnister Stockwell Day, and a man whose law firm was instrumental in getting Hezbollah declared a terrrorist organization in Canada. (More on this later this week.)

I cannot abide by apologists calling Islam a religion of peace. Not when every new day brings fresh tales of violence. Not when the devil that they call Allah rewards murder with polygamous sex. Not when their undeserved supremacy is fought for in countries big and small around the globe.

<SNIP>

If everything from smoking to lead paint to pitbulls can be banned because they are dangerous and deadly, why can't Islam? At what point is a death cult afforded the status of legitimate religion, and why? What makes Mohammed any better than Jim Jones?

Islam must be labelled for what it truly represents: wholesale slaughter and a corrupt ideology of sex and death. It must be stopped.

And, if that isn't bad enough, you should read the comments. I won't repeat them.

Here's Cerberus -- who tipped me to this -- who does repeat the comments.

I certainly would never claim all conservatives hold these same views, but WOW! there's a lot of this stuff out there and it is just normal discussion on a high profile periodical like The Western Standard.

Far be it for me to call these conservatives bigotted. I'll just let readers judge for themselves.

And next time some idiot on the left spews off some thoughtless inanity that gets spread far and wide by the conservative blogosphere, feel free to link back to Cerberus.

You know, if this were on some stupid blog, I could ALMOST let it go. But the Western Standard pretends to be a credible magazine, and whadda ya know? It loves Prime Minister Stephen Harper who loves it back.

Shame.

UPPITY DATE (25/6 at 1:42 a.m.): Looks like Chris Selley over at Western Standard distanced himself from Right Girl's rantings -- and the even more hateful postings of her commentariat.

A post suggesting that Islam be outlawed shouldn't be a chance to debate the merits of different religions, or to discuss what passages in some ancient book condone or condemn violence. It should be a chance to say that Canada doesn't ban religions and never will, and to point out how hopelessly repressive and needless and stupid it is even to suggest such a thing.

Let's see what kind of reaction he gets.

MORNING AFTER DATE: Hey! Where's my link???  (H/t to Werner Patels.)

DOUBLE DATE: The Last Realist has a funner take here.

UPPER DATE: Commenter Elliot below sent me the URL for his wife's blog. He didn't give me her name but it appears to be Melly. She's in Haifa on the vacation that went horribly wrong.

Even Steven

Why you can't believe everything you read on blogs.

Be sure to read the comments.

Fourth Estate. Fifth Column.

Tom Tommorow Tom Tomorrow says it all, in six action-packed panels.

(Yeah, well, after yesterday's troll invasion by those Little Green Meanies, I can dig it.)

H/t to Carolyn Kay of Make Them Accountable.

Spelling correction by Rob Hyndman.

I'd Rather not wait

Mary Mapes, who lost her job at CBS in the wake of the Sept. 2004 60 Minutes blogostorm over Preznit George W. Bush's National Guard service record (or lack of it or however you want to interpret his comings and going during a war in which 50,000 -- mostly -- draftees were killed), has a vigorous defence of Dan Rather here today. (I added some links.)

That first anonymous analyst (who turned out to be a Republican activist lawyer) raised questions about the memo using only a single shot of a faxed document digitally transmitted to his computer screen. Those kinds of transmissions radically change the way a document looks. His analysis was worthless.

The laundry list of problems that critics claimed they saw in the memos has turned out to be bunk. There never has been any definitive proof that they were forged or falsified in any way, despite a multi-million dollar investigation into the story by Viacom. The reasons we put them on the air remain valid: the content of the memos was corroborated by people familiar with Bush, his unit and his commander; the dates, times and details intricately matched what we know of the record; and two experienced and respected document analysts, who examined copies that had not been faxed or digitally recreated, concluded that the papers showed every indication of being real.

I don't believe we will know the truth about the memos until after the Bush team is out of office and people with information are no longer afraid to come forward.

Viacom, CBS's parent company, never did care whether the story was true or not. They just wanted rid of it. Among other things, they had multiple issues pending before the FCC and various other arms of the administration and our story was no help to the company in its quest to squeeze every last dime out of what used to be the public airwaves. Firing longtime employees in an attempt to get back into the administration's good graces was simply a business decision. It had nothing to do with journalism or the crucial role that critical reporting is supposed to play in American democracy.

Amazing how, after all these years, and all the lies, and how low Bush has sunk in the polls, the MSM still won't touch the fundamental story.

Meanwhile, the geniuses at National Review Online offer this for intelligent criticism.

Keep watching the skies, Mary. The truth is out there.

Did Mapes, Rather and CBS screw up? No doubt about it.

But were their basic assertions wrong?

I'm with Mapes: We'll find out soon enough.

Could Ann Coulter be arrested for hate speech in Canada?

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED AND SLIGHTLY CLARIFIED:

This woman is insane.

NBC TODAYS MATT LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process."

And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."

Because they dare to speak out?

ANN COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die--

Ann Coulter is unspeakably cruel but-oh-so cunning. She is emblematic of everything that is wrong in U.S. politics, journalism and talk TV. That she is allowed given hours and hours on the public airwaves to promote (see sidebar) her hate literature while other worthier books get ignored is despicable. Books such as this, by Greg Palast:

The new book out today, Armed Madhouse, details the fix of the 2004 election, the Bush Administration’s confidential, and surprising, plans for Iraq’s oil, the untold story of the destruction of New Orleans, the dark, misunderstood economics of the rise of the India-China colossus, Ken Lay’s unindicted co-conspirators and many more tales of the current regime you won’t get on your nightly news.

Don’t be fooled by the fact that the book is entertaining — this is my most serious investigative reporting yet, connecting Venezuela’s petrodollars, 3.6 million missing ballots, Thomas Friedman, Hurricane Katrina and, the death of General Motors and the Arnold Schwarzenegger’s tawdry little gatherings with Ken Lay.

The full title is Armed Madhouse: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘08, No Child’s Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.

Meanwhile, Coulter says:

    * "Environmentalists' energy plan is the repudiation of America and Christian destiny, which is Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing." [p.7]
    * "[L]iberalism is a religion." [p.1]
    * "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul." [p.3]
    * "Liberals can believe what they want to believe, but let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God." [p. 22]
    * "To a liberal, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate." [p.78]

If Muslims or lefties were to say the things she says, she'd be demanding that they be executed or killed or wiped off the face of the earth.

Oh, wait. She's already advocated that they be bombed and stuff.

Why does she get airtime?

Can you say ratings?

UPPITY DATE: Not only does Coulter shake her mane, as a commenter complains below, she also -- well let's leave it to wisecrack comedian Kathy Griffin here.

I saw that nut-bag on the show earlier. What's she doing wearing a cocktail dress at seven in the morning. She got home from the party last night. Doesn't she just make stuff up Al? Who fact checks?

Also, the 9/11 widows react here.

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter's accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again...

To Coulter, it's all a money-making joke. What's worse is, her book will be a bestseller because many people actually buy into her hate.

The gang that can't shoot its mouth off straight

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Two weeks ago, Amir Taheri published an op-ed in Canada's National Post about an Iranian law that forced Jews to wear a yellow stripe. The story, reminiscent of Nazi Germany, quickly provoked outrage, but was just as quickly revealed to be a total fabrication. It also ran in the New York Post.

Apparently this is just the sort of reliable advice that President Bush needs. Yesterday, Taheri had a face-to-face with the President as one of a small group of "experts" on Iraq that visited the White House.

Here's the bit from yesterday's White House press briefing with Tony Snow:

Q Can you give us a readout on the President's meeting this morning with the Iraq experts?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Oh, my goodness, I forgot to bring the list. But actually -- do you have the list, Fred? Yes, it was an interesting meeting. What you ended up having was -- I've got all the names but one written down here. We had Wayne Downing, Barry McCaffrey, Michael Vickers, Amir Taheri, Fouad Ajami and Raad Alkadiri. And you had a combination there of military men and also scholars who are students of Iraq. And it was an interesting discussion that touched upon cultural issues, on political issues, on the state of affairs in Iraq. You had a number of people who've been there recently, General McCaffrey having returned just last month from his latest visit. Fouad Ajami last year had the occasion to sit down and speak with the Ayatollah Sistani, Ali al Sistani.

Recall that Taheri is a lobbyist/pr agent for neocons and neocon causes, whose cultural expertise on Iran is such that he couldn't even accurately name its cultural minister in his op-ed piece and who, judging from the evidence, alerted the Simon Weisenthal Centre in advance of the publication of his misleading op-ed, which then led to the circuitous loop of outrage and false stories.

Now this guy is advising U.S. Preznit George W. Bush?

Incidentally, I ran a few of the other names through Google.

This profile of Fouad Ajami from The Nation, April 10, 2003.

As for the reaction of the Arab street, the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation in Basra and Baghdad, the streets are sure to erupt in joy."

Raad Alkadiri is not so easy to pin down. He's ''director for Middle East and Africa in the Country Strategies Group at PFC Energy'' which is in the oil and gas consulting business and claims to be

... one of the pre-eminent strategic advisory firms in global energy. Combining a detailed knowledge and understanding of markets, countries and competition, PFC Energy is recognized in the global energy industry for the depth of its analysis and the integrity of its advice.

Barry McCaffrey:

According to an article written by Seymour Hersh published in 2000 The New Yorker, General McCaffrey committed war crimes during the Gulf War by having troops under his command kill retreating Iraqis after a ceasefire had been declared. Hersh's article "quotes senior officers decrying the lack of discipline and proportionality in the McCaffrey-ordered attack." One colonel told Hersh that it "made no sense for a defeated army to invite their own death. ... It came across as shooting fish in a barrel. Everyone was incredulous."

Wayne Downing:

"'The Iraqis really have got plans prepared,' said retired US Gen. Wayne Downing, a former commander in chief of the US Special Operations Command, at a recent symposium on Iraq. 'They are ready to take the war ... overseas. They would use whatever means they have to attack us.'"

What a team.

Mark my words: This Iranian yellow badges story will be the beast that won't die.

Hat tip to Patrick Kelly.

The Battle for Bunkum Hill

All out war has broken out between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Harper government, according to Global National with Kevin Newman.

Prior to the start of a news conference in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada would contribute $40 million in humanitarian and military assistance to the war-torn Sudanese region of Darfur, members of the press gallery simultaneously got up and left, moments before the prime minister arrived in the room, in an act of defiance against new news conference rules imposed against the media.

Harper has come under fire from the media in recent months for limiting the parliamentary press gallery from having access to certain events and federal personalities.

I know that some excreTories think it's great that Harper isn't playing ball with the commie left-wing loony liberal MSM but there will come a time of reckoning. This is not the USA where you can bypass the news media by going on the late night talk shows. There are no late night talk shows here to go on. And there are only so many commercial minutes a party can afford to buy during an election campaign.

Despite what the Con-o-sphere thinks, the MSM, especially TV, are still where the overwhelming majority of people find their news. But it looks like the Blogging Tories didn't get the memo on that cold hard fact. Reaction from the Con-o-sphere here and here and here and here.

So the old media doesn't want to cover Stephen Harper under these new rules? Fine. Start shooting some press releases and doing online Q&A sessions with us bloggers. Might not be as engaging as video for the evening news, but if it keeps Canadians informed, why not? It gives the government a means of getting its message out, and subjects the government to questions from people with a fresh perspective. And no one thinks bloggers are uniformly left-wing the way the old media is perceived (not entirely fairly, by the way).

This promises to get funner still.

UPPITY DATE: Paul Wells has some thoughts here and here.

UPPER: Say, heeeeeeeeeeere's an idea from Geneva Gin.

A good old fashioned bowler hat. That is what. It should be used to collect the business cards of every journalist who wants to ask a question. The President of the PPG shakes it before the PM appears and places it conveniently close to the PM. When "The Statement" has been made and the floor is open for questions the PM picks one of the business cards out of the hat and invites that journalist to ask a question. No control by the PPG, No control by the PMO and no more long and rowdy line ups at a microphone.

But how will we know he reads the actual card he picks? And how will we ensure that French and English get equal time? And what about TV versus print? East versus west?

Forget I brought it up.