An important post from Allah on the Reuters press van hit by an Israeli missile.

I've had an awful lot of problems with people endeavoring to prove this particular attack was staged or faked or whatnot. My main problem? The Israelis admit firing on the vehicle. It seems to me that an Israel-defender cannot go further in defending Israel than Israel is willing to go. If they say they hit the van-- then, well, they hit the damn van. End of story.

The fact that the sort of damage inflicted on the press van is similar to the damage inflicted on the Lebanese ambulances should not be taken as suggestive of the press-van hit being a fake. It should rather be taken as suggestive that the ambulance-hit stories are more likely to be true, and attempts to debunk them, while well-intentioned and inspired by good questions about the extent of damage inflicted, should be reexamined.

The MSM digs into a storyline or narrative and won't give it up, no matter what conflicting evidence there might be. It's human nature, and it's not suprising bloggers do the same. But still, if bloggers are supposed to be honest brokers more self-aware of the human foibles and biases that infect MSM reportage, we really do need to be more on guard against this.

Does this mean those ambulances were in fact hit by Israeli rockets? No, not necessarily. But when one vehicle we are pretty sure got hit shows similar (lighter than expected) damage, it certainly makes it seem more likely that the ambulances were hit as well. Or, at least, could have been hit. The main objection to to the hit-ambulances stories -- that a missile would have completely destroyed the vehicle, not merely pock-marked it with superficial damage and a dented roof -- seems to be a bit weak at this point.

The day after Reutersgate broke I advised a let's-settle-down a bit approach to all of this. Media criticism is all well and good, but the memes and narratives of media criticsim must not be allowed to become as entrenched as those favored by the MSM itself. Otherwise we're just an anti-media, no different than they are, just, as the man says, on the other side.

Clarification: I did not mean to state as a fact that the ambulances were hit. I haven't been following that story very much; I just skim and link. I do not know the full extent of the evidence.

My point is this: That if someone is convinced that an ambulance was not hit, and it shows the same sort of damage as the press van, the conclusion reached fairly quickly seems to be ergo, the press-van hit was faked-up as well.

That conclusion is strongly undermined by the Israelis' statement that they hit the van. If they did not fire on a vehicle that night, they would know it, and they would say so. They would not admit to error when a simple check of where their helicopters were would show there were no attack copters firing missiles at vans at that time.

As for the possibility a vehicle was hit, but not the vehicle later shown in photographs: Well, anything's possible. Uncle Jefe says he saw the news that night and thinks the vehicle looked different in early footage than in later footage. I didn't see it, so I don't know. If someone has early footage and can show the vehicle is different than the one depicted in later photos, well, that's damn good evidence. But no one to my knowlege has done so yet and for me, personally, it's a bridge too far to speculate about such a possibility without ever myself taken note of a discrepancy in the photos of the vehicle.

I've thought there's been way too many premature calls of "fake" for a while, and I've said so. But the Drudge-hyped "disappearing mic cord" shot has made me a much stronger skeptic than I had been (and I was on the skeptical side of the dextrosphere before).

The Drudge thing was just embarrassing for us MSM critics. I don't know the genesis of that, but it seems to me to demonstrate the great peril of making quick judgments without the necessary expertise to back them up.

I have no idea if the photographer's explanation posted at Hot Air makes sense. I do know for a steel-clad fact that I do not have the expertise required to question his claim. I know his explanation sounds plausible. If an art authenticator tells me a painting is fake because the paint uses titanium which wasn't used in paints until the 1950's (let's say), how do I tell him he's wrong? I sure don't know.

I am not saying the ambulances were hit by Israeli missiles as charged. I am saying that in the present case we seem to have a confirmed hit showing similar damage -- caved-in roof, pockmark damage as if inflicted by shrapnel, no heavy scorching, no total vehicle kill -- it should at least make one reconsider if those ambulances were the result of Hezbollywood fakery.

Assuming the press van was not swapped out with another vehicle, it seems like similar damage was inflicted.

Again, that's to my eyes, the eyes as confirmed a non-expert as you could run into. But then most of the claims of fakery also come from non-experts as well.

It can't be the case that every, most, or even a substantial fraction of these incidents are faked. It's just too big a job, too big a conspiracy. In war, the wrong targets get hit all the time. Including in Iraq.

Just because Hezbollah and Reuters have been caught lying does not mean that every report of an errant Israeli strike is a lie.

Posted by: Ace at 09:23 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 975 words, total size 6 kb.

Pretty good:

BOB PORTER
Well, then I gotta ask, then how exactly are you keeping peace if you don't, you know, do anything?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well, uh, uh, uh, because, uh, the flag of the UN stands for peace and our presence reminds them of the world's opinion. We stand for peace.

BOB SLYDELL
You physically stand in their way?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well, no, the, the, US or UK does the actual fighting, if there is any to be done

BOB SLYDELL
Ah.

BOB PORTER
Then you must physically assist, with weapons, money, food, and so on?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well...no. Yeah, I mean, sometimes.

BOB SLYDELL
Well, what would you sayÂ… you do here?

UN PEACEKEEPER
Well, look, I already told you. I deal with the #$(*&^@! terrorists so the French don't have to!! I have people skills!! I am good at dealing with people!!! Can't you understand that?!? What the hell is wrong with you people?!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

Yet another stalling move until they're ready to test the bomb.

- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the U.N. Security Council as Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with President Bush on world issues.

The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons, or face economic and political sanctions.

"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.

"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.

Ahmadinejad challenged Bush to a live, televised debate on "world issues and the ways of solving the problems of the international community."

I'd love to see this jerkoff grilled on the Holocaust.

The Democrats will predictably argue Bush should debate him, knowing full well he can't, as it raises the stature of this psychopath in the jihadists' eyes. Just once, I'd like to see them take a position that was almost reasonable and not motivated by the crassest and most cynical political posturing.

Kind of a funny thing to think about -- a debate between two guys who don't know how to pronouce "nuclear." Bush of course favors the southern variation "nuke-yoo-lar," and Ahamdinejad pronounces it "anti-Zionist Prophet-atoms."

Thanks to Michael at Innocent Bystanders with his own take.

Also there, thanks to skinbad, a David Blaine style street-magic trick, sexed up with a Penn & Teller style bit of (light) graphic violence.

It's such a good trick I suspect there's digital manipulation going on; David Blaine's famous "levitating" trick was done -- at least for the cameras, without crowds around -- via a simple hoist, digitally taken out of the shot.

I know that fake skin grafts have been used by magicians before; Harry Anderson had a great trick where he stuck a long needle through his arm and ketp insisting, "This is a trick! Stop freaking out!," which had the reverse-psychology effect of making you suspect he'd really stuck a nine inch needle through his forearm.

So, I guess it's just a trick, though how he pulls it off is quite beyond me.

Here's how dorky I am. The D&D crap you knew about. But I'm a sucker for the lamest form of entertainment of all -- magic.

(Actually, I guess I do know how he does it, in broad terms. Still, it's pretty good.)

Posted by: Ace at 08:51 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

Andrew cracks me up in the comments, and I thought it was a shame that so many laughs were sort of hidden. So I've asked him to be the newest coblogger here.

Andrew is of course the writer of such poetry classics as:

(NSFW past the jump)

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:13 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Like many of you, I am appalled that one person, the so-called "Secret Hold Senator", is able to block the democratic process for his own selfish reasons. So deep and insulting is this affront that I woke up this morning and, for the first time, wrote a letter to my senator, Susan Collins.

I'm posting it here in the hope that it will encourage all of you to do the same. Democracy simply does not work if citizens refuse to get involved.

Content Warning: Extremely NSFW language after the jump. more...

Posted by: AndrewR at 08:02 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 518 words, total size 3 kb.

Interesting stuff here:

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am submitting, along with my colleague Senator Wyden, a Senate resolution to amend the Senate rules to eliminate secret holds.

I know Senators are familiar with the practice of placing holds on matters to come before the Senate.

Holds derive from the rules and traditions of the Senate.

In order for the Senate to run smoothly, objections to unanimous consent agreements must be avoided.

Essentially, a hold is a notice by a Senator to his or her party leader of an intention to object to bringing a bill or nomination to the floor for consideration.

This effectively prevents the Senate leadership from attempting to bring the matter before the Senate.

A Senator might place a hold on a piece of legislation or a nomination because of legitimate concerns about that legislation or nomination.

However, there is no legitimate reason why a Senator placing a hold on a matter should remain anonymous.

I believe in the principle of open government.

Lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public officials.

I would maintain that the use of secret holds damages public confidence in the institution of the Senate.

It has been my policy, and the policy of Senator Wyden as well, to disclose in the Congressional Record any hold that I place on any matter in the Senate along with my reasons for doing so.

...

As a matter of principle, the American people need to be made aware of any action that prevents a matter from being considered by their elected Senators.

Senator Wyden and I have worked twice to get a similar ban on secret holds included in legislation passed by the Senate.

But, both times it was removed in conference.

...

The time has come to end this distasteful practice for good.

I'd like to know the names of the conferrees on that, and compare them against the likely suspects.

Senator Wyden spoke out more recently against the practice, on March 28 of this year:

Nowhere in the Senate rules does it say anything about secret holds. Nowhere is it written down that a Senator can exercise this enormous power and do it without any accountability at all.

Thanks to Slublog for all that good stuff.

He thinks the fact that this isn't even in the rules -- but is a, ahem, "time-tested unwritten privilege of a Senator," screams "Robert Byrd."

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Just speculation from Immodest Proposals, but Byrd is the most likely offender.

Actually, he names both Byrd and Stevens, but I'll ignore the Stevens thing. Not because it couldn't be Stevens, but because Byrd demolishes Stevens in every relevant criterion.

They both fit the profile, prolific abusers of pork, self righteous, been in the Senate longer than I've been alive, have been silent or hostile to the whole porkbusters movement, Sen. Byrd is an avid student of parliamentary procedure, both are Senators for as long as they choose to run without any real fear of ever losing an election, even if they are discovered as the 'secret hold' offender, and neither have been added to the TPM Muckracker's list of Senatorial denial you linked previously.

The case against Byrd is pretty strong. And Immodest Proposal is right-- he has little chance of being voted out of office.

He's also got something else on Stevens-- he's incredibly arrogant and a big believer in exploiting the idiotic procedural powers of single senators. He's a preening jackass who thinks himself a genius for being the "pre-eminent scholar of Senate rules."

As someone else (forget who) remarked-- given that the guy has been in the Senate since nineteen-noughty-two, is it really that remarkable he's figured out the procedural equivalent of the best bathrooms in the office? Is knowing where the boss keeps his secret stash of Post-Its after working in a joint for six hundred years really such an accomplishment?

And that, of course, is his claim to fame. (That, and being a Kleagle in the KKK.) After four thousand years in the Senate, the guy knows the rules. This is bullet point number one on his resume.

Stephanie, I think, also suggested that the retiring Senators be looked at closely. Even if one wasn't strongly against the Coburn-Obama Act, it's possible one did a favor for a senatorial friend who didn't himself want to be the one placing the secret hold.

Then again, I don't think the Secret Hold Senator realized this was going to be a national issue.

What Is A Secret Hold? Some don't know the background. A secret hold is a one-man veto, basically, by which a single senator informs the Senate leader of his desire to place a hold on any voting on a bill. The identity of the senator requesting the hold is supposed to remain a secret.

The Coburn-Obama bill, by the way, would create a searchable database of who, exactly, is getting money from the US government. It is therefore an anti-pork initiative, as much pork spending will look shameful and borderline corrupt if only people were able to, as Deep Throat advised, "follow the money."

The Secret Hold Senator has blocked any voting on the bill which will certainly pass when (if?) it comes up for a vote.

More... At Porkbusters.

Up To 74? According to TPM.

I'm not sure I'm buying this. A lot of these denials come from spokeswomen. That gives someone plausible deniability-- the spokeswoman can always claim she only meant "not to my knowlege" or that there was a misunderstanding in the question.

I really think the denials have to come from the Senator himself/herself to carry any kind of weight.

I'm thinking at some point someone's going to be on the "cleared" list who actually is the culprit.

And I think TPM is well-intentioned, but the blog is in far too much of a hurry to narrow the field without getting genuine denials from the actual parties we're concerned with.

I'm going to review TPM's list and create my own list of real denials.*

BobK already caught TPM "clearing" Chris Dodd, whose spokeswoman offered the weakest of "not to my knowlege" denials.

* No I'm not. It sounds like too much work. Besides, it's not clear from TPM which denials are coming from Senators and which are coming from spokeswomen. (And I say "spokeswomen" because most are female, so it seems correct to assume the female gender here.)

NOT Lott? Although I was just arguing with Paul from TPM Muckraker about how strong these spokeswoman-offered denials really are (apparently we agree to disagree), he notes that Lott's spokeswoman has issued a strong denial:

Update: Susan Irby, Sen. Lott's spokeswoman says, "Senator Lott DOES NOT have a hold on this bill."

Again, I don't know how much stock to put in that. A denial through a spokeswoman provides insulation and plausible deniability.

Posted by: Ace at 06:38 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.

He enjoyed travelling to places like Brazil and Thailand, surprisingly enough.

An affidavit in support of a criminal complaint filed today in federal court in Alexandria says Ward's luggage [after returning from a trip to Brazil] was flagged for a more thorough inspection for possible child pornography after a customs officer noticed Ward's "excessive" trips to Thailand. Federal agents recovered at least three DVDs, in which Ward appears to be "engaging in sexual contact" with children, the affidavit reads. A video of children as young as eight engaged in sexual activity was also allegedly found on Ward's laptop computer.

Ward's resume says he has been a visiting professor at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand. Federal officials believe Thailand to be a well-known destination for so-called "sex tourists" who travel there to exploit minors. Wharton's website also lists pro bono consulting work in Brazil as one of Ward's current projects.

According to published reports, in 1999 Ward was fined $2,500 and sentenced to five years probation on charges of attempting to promote prostitution and corrupt minors. [He pled no contest.]

...

Many of his published works deal with the effects of television advertising and marketing on children and adolescents. According to his biography,

....

Ward's biography also states that he was chairman of a foundation that served disadvantaged children with learning disabilities.

The working with children thing seems to be their preferred cover. Makes sense, I guess.

I know I'm going to get ripped for saying this, because there are, I'm sure, many men who just like working with children. But I don't know. Anytime I hear about a man who wants to spend a lot of time with children, my suspicions are raised.

Men don't like other people's children, unless they really like them.

Hell, they're not even that keen on their own children.

You give a guy truth serum and ask him if he'd rather have a child he can nuture and teach to become a good human being, or if he'd rather have a really cool dog that watches, and has a rudimentary understanding of, football, and, well, look.

There's no guy in the world who wouldn't rather be watching a Patriots-Steelers with his dog Bruiser than cleaning up babyspew.

This is why God made offensive schemes and Cover-2 defenses utterly baffling to dogs. Were it not so, the human race would have all but died out already.

Thanks again to Stephanie, who's still taking members for that college football pool.

Posted by: Ace at 06:10 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't know if this is anything. It's about Tara Reid, who I don't know and don't care about, Paris Hilton, who I do know and wish I didn't, and the pecking order in Hollywood, which has about as much relevance to my life as the heft of a polar bear's left testicle.

Still, it's sort of educational. Tara Reid now gets dinged by Hollywood velvet-rope goons and forced to wait outside with the plebes as if she were... well, Tara Reid.

Even more educational: Trendy Hollywood nightclubs play Footloose.

Make sure you don't click on the video link beneath this one, because that shows Lindsey Lohan sunbathing in a skimpy bikini.

Thanks to Stephanie, who has that college football pool a lot of you were asking for.

Posted by: Ace at 05:56 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Liberal blogs, like TPM, have joined in. 58 senators have now denied placing the secret hold.

Assuming they're not lying -- and lying here could well be political suicide -- only 42 are unaccounted for.

Check the list. If one or both of your Senators are unnaccounted for, pick up the phone and make a call.

Meanwhile... Mary Katherine Ham fingers Debbie Stabenow.

Well, I, you know, mean she names her as a likely suspect.

Sorry about that. I was trying to ratchet up that sex appeal thing, and went too far.

I think that might have actually reduced the sex appeal, anyhow.

Take Chris Dodd Off The "No" List: BobK points out:

Their saying both Connecticut senators have been put on the "didn't do it" list. Here's a couple paragraphs from the TheDay.com.

Lieberman press secretary Casey Aden-Wansbury says the senator did not block the bill he'd voted for in committee, and doesn't know who did.

And Colleen Flanagan, Dodd's press secretary, sounded a similar tune: "to the best of our knowledge," she wrote in an email, referring to other Dodd aides, "it was not Senator Dodd."

If it comes out that all senators deny it, I'd suspect Dodd, based on the secretary prefacing the denial with "to the best of our knowledge". Dodd hasn't really denied it.

If he had actually denied it, she wouldn't need the qualifing preface. Since it's a secret he couldn't tell her if he did put the hold. If she actually spoke with him about it, he must have given an ambiguous answer.

Brit Hume Video Update: Next on the Political Grapevine: time-travelling political prognosticator Johnny Coldcuts.

Posted by: Ace at 05:32 PM | Comments (54)
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.