Well, technology is finally keeping up with the needs of intelligent discussion on the internet (from the Wall Street Journal);
Though frequently compelling, online message-board discussions can also be inane. Gabriel Ortiz thinks this is a problem, so he has a simple proposition: Ban stupid comments from the Web.
Specifically, Mr. Ortiz wants Internet users to be able to block out stupid comments in much the same way they use spam filters to sift useless email from their inboxes. He has turned this idea into a project called Stupid Filter. After months of fine-tuning, Mr. Ortiz has begun sharing his software code with others and says he hopes to turn the idea into a business.
Ortiz compared YouTube comments to literature to define “stupid”.
Here’s how the process works. Mr. Ortiz compiled a library of more than 225,000 comments gleaned from YouTube. His volunteers—he says he has 800 of them—view comments and rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most stupid. (Example of a 5: “This song was sooo sick at projekt rev.”) While no single volunteer could wade through all those comments, Mr. Ortiz says he hopes to have each one in his library rated at least twice.
Once rated, these sample comments are then compared to “smart” text from a body of work on sites like Project Gutenberg, an online catalog of great world literature. Mr. Ortiz says he took snippets from classics by such authors as Jules Verne and J.D. Salinger to serve as a baseline for “the edited English language.”
Well, you can bet Democratic Underground won’t be installing it – there are no budding Jules Vernes over there.
While Clinton and Obama are busy duking it out over which of them is more experienced to be president, John McCain is doing all of the things candidates who have their party’s nomination locked up can do – kissing babies, visiting the troops in Iraq, etc. But the New York Times doesn’t want to limit itself to reporting current events. Since John McCain won’t do anything or say anything that reflects poorly on his candidacy, the Times dredges up crap from the past.
Today, the Times drags out the old story that McCain considered leaving the Republican Party four years ago, again using the headline that he doesn’t talk about it on the campaign trail;
Senator John McCain never fails to call himself a conservative Republican as he campaigns as his party’s presumptive presidential nominee. He often adds that he was a “foot soldier” in the Reagan revolution and that he believes in the bedrock conservative principles of small government, low taxes and the rights of the unborn.
What Mr. McCain almost never mentions are two extraordinary moments in his political past that are at odds with the candidate of the present: His discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.
There are wildly divergent versions of both episodes, depending on whether Democrats or Mr. McCain and his advisers are telling the story. The Democrats, including Mr. Kerry, say that not only did Mr. McCain express interest but that it was his camp that initially reached out to them. Mr. McCain and his aides counter that in both cases the Democrats were the suitors and Mr. McCain the unwilling bride.
So, of course, we’d rather believe the Democrats’ version (because everyone knows Republicans can’t be trusted to answer truthfully) that McCain was ready to defect. But boiled to down it’s significance, we (and the New York Times) should realize that it doesn’t matter either way. He didn’t leave the party, and now he’s the party’s nominee. So who really gives a tiny rat’s ass what happened four years ago? No matter whose version is the correct version.
Maybe the New York Times should commit the writers that they’ve dedicated to research on McCain into doing a little research into the two Democrats. Republicans have been a little too cautious to choose candidates with any closet skeletons – forcing Democrats and the New York Times to make up their own scandals with no evidence. Perhaps Democrats should be a little more careful about who they choose – well, if the New York Times would do their job and actually help the country root out corrupt Democrats before they get into office.
Focusing on Democrats might turn out to be more productive for the Times than just throwing McCain’s stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.
Just do a news search on any search engine this morning using the terms “grim+milestone” and see how may results you get. On Yahoo, I get 430 results at 7:30 Eastern Time. Of course, all of these “grim milestones” refer to the US casualties reaching the 4000 mark. It was the first thing I heard on radio this morning when my alarm went off at 5am, it was at the top of Drudge.
Yesterday, the Associated Press pushed it’s “US casualties near 4,000 mark” headline across it’s web presence – it’s almost as if AP set the IED that took out the magic 4 troops this morning so they could have their story and headline.
Yes, it’s a cryin’-ass shame that 4,000 US troops have died in Iraq – I really mean it. I take offense at the “pro-war” label that’s applied to me. I’m certainly not for war. I take offense that the Veterans for Peace imply that I’m a “veteran for war” because I won’t join their broke-dick organization.
But the whole truth is this; if the news organizations AND the Veterans for Peace – and all of the rest of these pinhead anti-war-at-any-cost hadn’t been turning this country into a bunch of pansies over the last forty years, the war would have ended after the first three weeks. If the anti-war crowd, the anti-US media and the anti-Republican politicians in Congress had let us go to Baghdad in March 1991, before Mogadishu, before the Clinton aspirin factory bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, the US embassy bombings in Africa, before the taliban, we wouldn’t have had to go to Afghanistan or Iraq in this century.
The only reason we’ve lost 4,000 troops in Iraq is because the American Left is a pack of cowards who can’t summon the intestinal fortitude to deal with foreign policy problems as soon as they occur. They’re bound and determined to make the US a third world country.
The most laughable comment I’ve heard today was on the ABC News broadcast on my radio this morning at 5 am when some pinhead newsreader tried to imply that US troops in Iraq are thinking seriously about voting for Obama because he’s consistently been against the war – and that we need change that Clinton and McCain don’t represent. I’d like ABC to show me those troops, currently engaged in Iraq, who think it’s a good idea to throw up their hands and leave Iraq.
Show me or stfu.
Jammie Wearing Fool noticed the same proliferation of the “grim milestone” nomenclature.
Gateway Pundit reminds us of a milestone that the media could be reporting if they had an ounce of integrity left.
Standing just outside the recruiting center were several current or former servicemen, including Coby Dillard, who said he served on the USS Constitution as a Navy petty officer in 2003. At one point, a lob of red paint hit the sidewalk and exploded at Dillard’s feet. “This is the blood that has been spilled,” yelled a protester before being admonished by a noticeably perturbed organizer.
Great! Good to know a fellow squid who has done time post-9/11 is standing up against the marxist goon squad who wants to degrade our military. Of course his claim to be an Iraq vet, judging by the text of this article, looks to be in question since the USS Constitution or “Old Ironsides” hasn’t seen any action on the high seas since the War of 1812.
USS Constitution
LT Nixon continues to explain that the young petty officer served on the USS Constellation – easy mistake, the first five letters are the same, aren’t they? In an email to me the El-Tee asks “Sheesh, it’s like the media is trying to make vets look like jackassess.”
My answer was; no, they just think all of their consumers are jackasses.
I’ve been ruminating how I would close out this weekend after focusing on Winter Soldier for the last few days. I thought a point-by-point refutation of the testimony, but I figured that’d be disingenuous of me, since the testimony lacked context – there were no dates or times or places (other than general references) or even participants in some cases. So, just like the participants, I can only give general impressions – only I’ll do it without playing to the applause.
First, my personal experience with the IVAW/Veterans for Peace and the other and sundry people was professional. I wasn’t especially pleased that I was escorted everywhere I went, or that we spent the day surrounded by security people, or that our blogs were being monitored – however, it does lend what I wrote a measure of credibility. But there were news outlets like the Guardian and al Jazeera wandering around without security and writing what they want. I’ll grant that my readership is somewhat less than theirs, but the product I created was under much more scrutiny while it was being released to the public.
I commend Army Sergeant for her hard work in getting access to the event for us. I’m sure she burned off more than a few calories running in circles making sure we weren’t overly-harassed or confined. Without her support, we’d have been stuck watching the streaming video from our homes like everyone else. We were instructed to only photograph the panels and that we couldn’t photograph the audience. When one member of the audience took a snap shot of TSO and me, I brought it to the attention of one security member and she deleted the picture from his camera.
However, I do condemn them for tackling from behind Gerry Kiley whom I reported stood up and yelled “Kerry lied and good men died”. I don’t agree with what Mr. Kiley did – it certainly didn’t remove any scrutiny from what we were doing – but tackling a frail 61-year-old from behind was just as cruel as any testimony from the panel. I’m sure they could have easily pulled him from the room without the drama. But then the whole day was about over-reaction, wasn’t it?
But to the testimony; War sucks. It’s sucked since the beginning of the invention of the rock as a weapon. Innocent people die in war, and that sucks, too. But not since the beginning of warfare has any Army taken such care to minimize innocent deaths as the United States armed forces. Never. That’s indisputable.
But, the people who testified Friday glossed over that fact. Take Kelly Dougherty’s testimony that Kellog, Brown and Root prevented scavengers from taking the diesel fuel from their disabled vehicles by firing beanbag rounds at them. What other military entity in the world uses beanbag rounds in a combat zone?
Jason Hurd testified that the ROE ALMOST forced him to shoot a woman carrying home groceries – he broke into tears and slung snot all over the panel because he ALMOST shot a woman. I guess the fact that escaped him was that the ROE worked – he didn’t have to shoot her.
Hurd also tearfully testified that his unit, when fired upon from a building turned a 50-cal on the building and unleashed 200 rounds on the masonry structure. The firing stopped and the unit continued their mission. Hurd went into great detail explaining the size of the rounds and the brass (by the way, Jason, a fifty-cal is a half-inch in diameter, you missed that) and how much ammo is in the metal container – but I fail to see how that reflects on the Bush administration or that Pentagon entity he was trying to blame. Hurd admitted that he doesn’t know how many people were in the building, that he knows of no casualties resulting from that action – so one is left to wonder what was his point?
The point of the whole testimony, for the entire day I spent there was that the war is illegal from the get-go. They offered no evidence that the war is illegal – but when there’s room full of aged bobbleheads nodding on cue – who needs evidence? All of these terrible things that happened could have been avoided if George W, Bush and the evil neo-cons hadn’t invaded Iraq in the first place. No one had stories of torture or atrocities – they only described the horror of being in war. You could only accept these things as atrocities if you accepted at the beginning that war is illegal. Without that admission, you were left to wonder what everyone was talking about.
That was one of the problems – I was probably one of the youngest people in the room and I’m nearly 53 years old. The audience were a bunch of old hippies who’d never served in the military and had never seen a war outside of the context of the politics of war. They tch-tched their way through the hearings without understanding the pains the military had to suffer to avoid real atrocities. Their only solution to the war was ending it – today with no real thought of the consequences. The only victory they sought was a victory of Democrats over Republicans regardless of what the nation would be forced to deal with when their solution was enacted.
Almost everyone testified that they were confused as to the ROE – but then they all testified to a measure of restraint they all knew was present. Um, the ROE. The confusion came when they actually had to apply their own common sense in relation to the ROE and their circumstances.
Jon Michael Turner started telling us how he shot people, he showed us pictures of his kills (dare I say trophies?) – but he neglected to fill in the part about why he shot those people in the first place. I’m pretty sure he didn’t just indiscriminately shoot “the fat man” or the guy in the bicycle. Why didn’t he tell us about the events leading up to his pulling the trigger instead of beginning his stories with the death of his targets? He referred to his “choking hand” and his bracelet on his choking hand – but he failed to tell us if he ever used his “choking hand” to choke anyone that didn’t deserved to be choked. Just that he had a “choking hand”. And then he went on to tell us that he’s not the monster he once was. Well, fellow Vermonter, what made you a monster – the fact that you designated one of your hands a “choking hand”?
His testimony has changed somewhat since January when this video was posted on YouTube and Turner announced that atrocities against innocent civilians was the policy of the military in Iraq.
From his testimony Friday, it seems the only policy of committing atrocities against Iraqi civilians was his own.
James Gilligan’s claims were funny. Some troops stole a few gold coins they found (wasn’t that in the movie “Three Kings?) – what about the troops who found billions of US currency and didn’t take even a George Washington? His first sergeant threatened a boy with a pistol – he didn’t kill the boy, he didn’t harm the boy, he just threatened him. hardly an atrocity. Oh, and he outright lied about witnessing someone being waterboarded – but then he was playing to the crowd. More detractors of the practice have been waterboarded to demonstrate it to the masses than have been actually waterboarded to extract information. But as soon as he said “…and of course they were waterboarded”, all of the bobbleheads in the audience went to nodding.
While we’re on the subject of lying, Adam Kokesh began his testimony with a lie – that’s why I switched on the video – so I didn’t have to listen to him and then get dragged out like Gerry Kiley. He claimed that he’d opposed the war before it began but joined because he thought it was his duty – his website used to claim he joined because he was a real hoo-ah guy and supported the war against terrorists and he’d been influenced by recruiters but the horrors of war turned him against it. So now that he’s established that he’s a liar. when was he lying – on Friday or on his blog? Kokesh depends on people to forget what he’s said in the past.
The real atrocity stories were being told out by the ashtray, though. I don’t know how many of the IVAW kids I heard relating their tales to the belly-shirt, hip-hugger wearing college aged chickies while I took my smokebreaks. But I don’t want to c***block on any of those guys who might still be laid up with their airhead honeys today – that’d be a neocon atrocity.
No matter how hard the panels tried, they tried to make it about the Bush Administration, but their testimony all boiled down to the actions of the soldiers. They claimed to support the troops, but their supposed atrocities were all the result of small unit leaders’ actions (yes, guys, your captains and lieutenants are “troops”, too). No matter how hard they tried to deflect their criticism away from the troops, it hit all of our service members square in the forehead. Registering your gun with willie pete isn’t a decision made by some faceless neo-con in the Pentagon, calling for fire on a village is a company commander’s decision, not Dick Cheney’s. Bragging about firing up a civilian car isn’t coming from the Defense Department. George Bush wasn’t pushing down on the 50-cal’s butterflies or reloading the gun.
I may have some more thoughts as the day goes on, but I’m going to spend the day with my grandson. Keep an eye on The Sniper, TSO is supposed to be live-blogging the media portion of the testimony.
OK, Spitzer’s gone (on Monday) – that’s all we needed was to get rid of the hypocrit and now we can move on. Well, apparently not. Now that our bloodhound media has discovered pictures, websites and My Space links (provided by bloggers, I’m sure) we’re bombarded on every website, every print media, every news program with this girl’s picture. Why?
On top of that, Tuesday we were treated to “expert” guests in legitimate news media like Heidi Fleiss who does an interview with Newsweek and Fox News. Newsweek for pete’s sake!
The local Fox station here in DC interviewed the “DC Madam” you can see the worthless interview here with the lead in; “The “DC Madam” Deborah Palfrey weighed in, spilling the insider secrets in a Fox 5 Exclusive. Fox 5’s Tom Fitzgerald has details.” So?
Was she in the room with Spitzer and this slut (yes, dear, you’re a slut – you may feel like a star right now – but you’re a slut, just like Heidi Fleiss and Deborah Palfrey)? What possible information could she have that sheds light on the case? Why are we subjected to this regurgitation of old news – and recycling of old (skanky) newsmakers? Because Drudge told us it’s important? How dare the media try to act like bloggers?
I saw her picture yesterday – although she’s a comely lass, she ain’t worth $4300 and a governorship (and possibly a marriage and fatherhood). I don’t think I’d pay $50 for four hours and give up my job for her.
The only interest I had in the whole dust up was that we wipe that smarmy smile off of Spitzer’s mug. Having accomplished that, I think we’re done here.
Then Friday, they got bent all out of shape over the interview he gave in regards to the talks McCain had with Kerry back in 2004. The video and transcript is at Politico. It turns out that the reporter was just plain rude, and the New York Times is fixated on stuff that happened a longtime ago and usually is a molehill. This time they want all to remember he has a famous temper (which makes him unstable, apparently).
Now this morning they run an article that asks why no one is asking him about his melanoma problems back eight years ago with a headline like this; “On the Campaign Trail, Few Mentions of McCain’s Bout With Melanoma” – so he might die right after we elect him is their point, I suppose.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m getting the impression that maybe John McCain isn’t the New York Times’ choice for President in November. I wonder when they’re going to run an article on Hillary’s 35 years of experience, or on Obama’s land deals?
The Washington Times’ Jennifer Harper reports this morning that NPR’s foray into conservative talk radio was met with dismayed NPR listeners, apparently unaccustomed to conservatives on that taxpayer-funded broadcaster;
National Public Radio listeners who tuned in to “Morning Edition” during the last four days of February found some atypical programming around 6:30 a.m. during the broadcasts.
“Conversations with Conservatives” was heard during morning-drive time with host Steve Inskeep and a conservative of the day with much on his mind.
[…]
According to NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard, more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls arrived at the network, calling the programming “shameful” and a “lovefest with radical, right-wing nuts.” There were only a few, she said, that praised the series as “refreshing” and “articulate,” among other things.
Imagine that – having an opinion that runs counter to that of the regular programming on NPR is “shameful”. Actually, it should give NPR execs some pause – if running a few 7 minute spots of conservatives shock your listeners, maybe what conservatives have been saying for years is true – NPR is nothing but Leftist propaganda disguised as mainstream programming.
And if you have to experiment with conservative shows to get a “sampling” of conservative opinion, maybe you’ve been fooling yourselves all along.
