(Pic swiped from An Unsealed Room. Slublog did a similar one (first I think) but I've linked that before.)

The media tried to portray that picture as an aberration. It was not. The coverage was systematically biased against Israel and in favor of terrorists in all ways -- reportage, photography, editorial -- and they've never admitted that.

But now, with the absolute moral authority of Harvard, here's truth about "Truth." When even your friends tell you you're drinking too much, maybe it's time to cut down on the sauce.

It's not "the right-wing attack machine." It's an intervention.

While the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged in Lebanon and Israel last summer, it became clear that media coverage had itself started to play an important role in determining the ultimate outcome of that war. It seemed clear that news coverage would affect the course of the conflict. And it quickly transpired that Hezbollah would become the beneficiary of the media's manipulation.

A close examination of the media's role during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon comes now from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, in an analysis of the war published in a paper whose subtitle should give pause to journalists covering international conflict: "The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict." Marvin Kalb, of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, methodically traces the transformation of the media "from objective observer to fiery advocate." Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became "victimized by its own openness."

...

Journalists did Hezbollah's work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia's effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy. With Hezbollah's unchallenged control of journalists' access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood. Hezbollah's strong support from Syria and Iran -- including the provision of deadly weapons -- faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population.

...

According to the Harvard paper, Arab TV network Al Arabiya portrayed Arabs as the victims in 95 percent of its stories, while Al Jazeera did it in 70 percent of its reports. Arab journalists' bias against Israel is hardly surprising, but consider this: Al Jazeera's coverage portrayed Israel as the aggressor just as often as did the four main German television programs. And if you think American journalists held no bias against Israel, you may be surprised to know that "On the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, Israel was portrayed as the aggressor nearly twice as often in the headlines and exactly three times as often in the photos."

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

Over at SCOTUSblog, a report on oral arguments about the constitutionality of the provision.

With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Antonin Scalia leading an aggressive assault on a key provision of federal campaign finance law, Congress' latest attempt to reduce the flow of corporate and union money into federal politics appeared to be in trouble in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. While that attempt had an energetic defense from Justices Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter, it seemed apparent at the end of an hour of argument that the "blackout" period for "electioneering" ads on radio and TV -- if it survived at all -- would have far less effect in restraining such ads.

While both Roberts and Scalia seemed quite tempted to vote to overrule a decision of just three years ago upholding the "blackout" provisions on their face (Scalia commented that "Maybe we were wrong last time"), they might well find a way to narrow its scope so significantly that overruling would not be necessary as a practical matter. Roberts, for example, sought to explore ways to avoid an overruling of the 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission as it applied to the "blackout." It would take five votes to undo that ruling and, given the likely lineup of the Court, a fifth vote could come only from Justice Sanuel A. Alito, Jr., who did not display any enthusiasm for that outcome on Wednesday.

The trouble is, while striking down this provision may be a victory for free speech, it's also a victory for liberal advocacy groups, which greatly outspend conservative groups in this area.

Better to strike it down, though, of course. Conservatives just have to get as good at loopholing the laws as liberals -- fighting speech with more speech and all that.

Via Andrew "Pretty In Pink" McCarthy at the Corner.

Speaking of McCain-Feingold: K-Lo snarks about the "breaking news" that John McCain is running for President.

He announced today.

Who knew he was even considering such a thing?

Reaction: Dan Riehl says that McCain's announcement reminded him of Reagan... but not in a good way.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

Parodying the Democrats' cheerleading defeat.

I'll just say it before the unhinged left has a chance to: This woman is a disgusting hypocrite who hypocritically wears a whorish miniskirt when she so hypocritically hates sex and is a hypocrite for being pretty hot while hypocritically wanting everyone else to wear chastity belts (which, by the way, are kind of hot in a twisted forbidden fruit kind of way, adding an additional level of hypocrisy, as if we needed that).

Projection, of course. We're not the ones who write three blog posts a week about the oppressive nature of oral sex.

Posted by: Ace at 09:56 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

A sample.

I think I'll declare a contest.

Rosie's Just Imitating Feisty: Who declares she's done with her blog.

Posted by: Ace at 09:29 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

A lot of people have sent this, Jack Straw the latest. I didn't link it before because it's not work safe, and I always seem to get it sent during working hours, meaning to link it later, but then I forget.

Since I'll forget, I'll link it now. Not work safe. She rants about vagina power and men "givin' dick away" and the wedding band as a "noose around da nutssss."

Funny, though. Especially because her mother is there, who seems pretty embarrassed by her wacky daughter.

Posted by: Ace at 09:22 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Klavan writing in the City Journal, noting leftism is little but an often-contradictory and frequently batty collection of white lies.

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.
...

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite...

Um, well, I'd disagree with that. Leftists' "politeness" is much like their regard and respect for humanity generally -- the love "the masses" (neatly abstract) but seem to hate actual people. Their "politeness" is of a formalized, abstract kind -- can't see this about that group -- but in terms of interpersonal, real politeness, they're among the most hateful and incivil in the world.

This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN.

And there you go. The "politeness" spoken of is not a true politeness -- which is, of course, a favor paid to the world -- but rather a weapon to be used against any and all.

I got that from the guy who doesn't link.

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

Andrew Klavan writing in the City Journal, noting leftism is little but an often-contradictory and frequently batty collection of white lies.

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I donÂ’t have to lie. I donÂ’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I donÂ’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I donÂ’t have to say that everyoneÂ’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I donÂ’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I donÂ’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.
...

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite...

Um, well, I'd disagree with that. Leftists' "politeness" is much like their regard and respect for humanity generally -- the love "the masses" (neatly abstract) but seem to hate actual people. Their "politeness" is of a formalized, abstract kind -- can't see this about that group -- but in terms of interpersonal, real politeness, they're among the most hateful and incivil in the world.

This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN.

And there you go. The "politeness" spoken of is not a true politeness -- which is, of course, a favor paid to the world -- but rather a weapon to be used against any and all.

I got that from the guy who doesn't link.

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

She says she "couldn't come to terms" with ABC -- apparently, um, they wanted her for a long-term contract but she's in such high demand she couldn't commit to that.

She does say she'll guest host frequently (Allah doubts that, as do I) and she vows she'll still be "on her blog."

Donald Trump gets in his last licks.

Did I say "last"?

Did I say "licks"?

What an erroneous, and horrifying, turn of phrase.

Not sure who sent this, but thanks!

The Trump Mantra: Hah, it's good stuff, even though every Trump statement boils down to:

1) She's fat,

2) She's disgusting,

3) She's a loser,

4) She has "no ratings,"

5) She's a failure at everthing she does,

6) She's a loser, she really is a loser, really, she's failed at everything she's tried, and she's also fat and disgusting,

and 7) I really feel sorry for her wife. Can you imagine having to sleep with that fat, disgusting loser who has no ratings?

He didn't get around to 7 this time, but I'd like to think it's present nonetheless. Subtext.

Posted by: Ace at 09:01 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

No comment from Rosie's people. Which would usually mean it's true.

Allah's heartbroken.

It's amazing to me that Rosie O'Donnell could hate America so much. She's a big fat ugly (not even cute-fat, but just ugly-fat) stupid lesbian without a lick of talent and yet she's a millionaire.

Shouldn't she sort of acknowledge America's willingness to look past things like sexuality and looks to see the undauntable spirit of submediocrity within?

Posted by: Ace at 08:33 PM | Comments (80)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, well I guess it's the second Class M, apart from earth.

How far are we talking? I'm tired of this planet.

It's got the same climate as Earth, plus water and gravity. A newly discovered planet is the most stunning evidence that life - just like us - might be out there.

Above a calm, dark ocean, a huge, bloated red sun rises in the sky - a full ten times the size of our Sun as seen from Earth. Small waves lap at a sandy shore and on the beach, something stirs...

This is the scene - or may be the scene - on what is possibly the most extraordinary world to have been discovered by astronomers: the first truly Earth-like planet to have been found outside our Solar System.

The discovery was announced today by a team of European astronomers, using a telescope in La Silla in the Chilean Andes.

The Earth-like planet that could be covered in oceans and may support life is 20.5 light years away, and has the right temperature to allow liquid water on its surface.

20.5? Well... assuming you could travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light...

This remarkable discovery appears to confirm the suspicions of most astronomers that the universe is swarming with Earth-like worlds.

We don't yet know much about this planet, but scientists believe that it may be the best candidate so far for supporting extraterrestrial life.

The new planet, which orbits a small, red star called Gliese 581, is about one-and-a-half times the diameter of the Earth.

...but the planet is much, much closer to the weak star, giving it a year of a mere 13 days, and making it appear huge from the planet's surface.

It probably has a substantial atmosphere and may be covered with large amounts of water - necessary for life to evolve - and, most importantly, temperatures are very similar to those on our world.

It is the first exoplanet (a planet orbiting a star other than our own Sun) that is anything like our Earth.

...

Gliese 581 is among the closest stars to us, just 20.5 light years away (about 120 trillion miles) in the constellation Libra. It is so dim it can be seen only with a good telescope.

...

This new planet - known for the time being as Gliese 581c - is a midget in comparison [to previously-discovered gas giants], being about 12,000 miles across (Earth is a little under 8,000 pole-to-pole).

It has a mass five times that of Earth, probably made of the same sort of rock as makes up our world and with enough gravity to hold a substantial atmosphere.

Double our gravity, the article says. Eh. I guess you could get used to it. Especially if you had a mech.

...

It is difficult to speculate what - if any - life there is on the planet. If there is life there it would have to cope with the higher gravity and solar radiation from its sun.

Just because Gliese 581c is habitable does not mean that it is inhabited, but we do know its sun is an ancient star - in fact, it is one of the oldest stars in the galaxy, and extremely stable. If there is life, it has had many billions of years to evolve.

It's interesting gee-whiz reading that makes you feel like a 12-year-old again, especially when they speculate what it may be made of (perhaps just a a big lump of ice, with liquid water oceans and "land" consisting of icemasses).

Another article states mostly the same stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 04:42 PM | Comments (215)
Post contains 615 words, total size 4 kb.