Brutally Honest

Persistence fatigues

Michael Yon has mentioned in the past that several of the American troops fighting in Iraq are not, in fact, full fledged American citizens.  Evidently MoveOn.org has brought this concept to newly twisted levels by running an ad bashing Bush for separating American soldiers and their families during the upcoming holiday season.  Off camera the plot thickens when a U.S. Army captain highlights a pretty significant problem with the soldiers depicted in the ad:

These are not your normal everyday U.S. soldiers though. If you look at the frame they are actually British soldiers. One is in shorts (we don't have shorts as a normal combat uniform) and the others are all clearly wearing British pattern fatigues. So, my point is that these [turkeys] pretend to argue on my behalf and bash the president in the name of my crying wife, and they don't even know what an American soldier looks like! Anyway, it really [ticked] me off.

This is deplorable and speaks to what is desperately at stake for those who persistently cry out against the war in the media:

When you think about it, the media actually have an institutional interest in seeing the good guys lose in Iraq. If America prevails after years of doom-and-gloom "reporting," a lot of journalists are going to look awfully silly.

The whole article, including a picture of the British soldiers in the ad, is here.

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin links to the video and points out indications of a bit of photoshopping.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  Apparently MoveOn.org's persistence is fading with this ad.  CNSNews.com reports:

The liberal political group MoveOn.org has yanked a video ad from its website after being criticized for using images of British soldiers to represent Americans in Iraq.

[...]

MoveOn.org did not return repeated telephone calls from Cybercast News Service seeking comment for this article.  It was unclear Wednesday afternoon whether the ad had also been pulled from television.

Sometimes it's just easier not to answer the phone.

...Leslie

I may come to regret saying this…..

I often hear complaints about how “materialized” Christmas has become. How secularized, and “missing the point” the whole Christmas season had degraded into. Also I have noticed, as you have, that when stores set polices to eliminate “Christmas” from their signs and advertising, many in the Christian community are outraged. Perhaps rightly so. My confusion comes from wondering what part in Christ’s birth does Wal-Mart have?

Understand that I am not condoning their action, nor do I believe Christians should ignore it. In America we vote with our wallets. Buy products from vendors you agree with. If this years most coveted trinket is 10% cheaper at the store with the “Happy Holiday” sign than the store with the manger scene in the front window, who gets your business? How about 25%? How about if the MSRP on the product is $100.00? What about $500? What about $1,000? How much might our integrity be on sale for?

Christmas presents are fine. Trees are great. Carols tell the story in a way that touches our hearts. Love ‘em all. To some extent however we have allowed the culture to take over our celebration of Christ’s birth. Lets not get into the “it started as a pagan holiday” or “Jesus was not born on Dec 25” discussion. The day has been set aside, sanctified, for Christians to focus on the birth of THE Savior. To the extent that trees, gifts and carols lead us to the manger and cause us to rejoice in Him, they are good. A great discount, regardless of the advertising used to promote it, will very rarely cause me to reflect on Christ’s birth.

If a person rejects Jesus as the Messiah, what reason does he have to celebrate His birth? Christmas sets the stage for Easter, by far the more significant of the two. Our culture, for the most part, has come to rejects His resurrection. How then can we expect it to regard His birth with the same reverence we hold for it? How could they sing with us, "Go tell it on the mountain that Jesus Christ is Lord." ?

What if rather than spending six months income on trinkets and do-dads, we boycott the notion that Christmas has something to do with shopping? Perhaps God is returning to us our holiday.

...Nicks

UPDATE: Mike and his pals at Waving or Drowning are weighing in on the issue, at the expense of those who might see things differently.

Duh

WaPo suggests Democrats are making a mistake, something that ought to be lead-in fodder for every network news agency:

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

A week ago, I posted the opinion that the Bush administration's strategy to finally confront their critics, with piss and vigor and righteous anger, was a solid one:

... join me in hoping this verbal barrage, aimed not just at the enemies abroad but the enemies in Congress, the enemies in the media and the enemies on the left that are either ignorantly or wilfully aiding and abetting those our men and women are fighting, continues until it has the desired effect.

If this poll is any indication, then we're getting closer to the desired effect.  But now's not the time to let up.  As I said a week ago:

Keep it coming President Bush.  Keep it coming Vice President Cheney. Keep it coming Karl Rove.  It's not time to stop when you have them on the ropes.  It's time to finish them off.  Keep up the pressure, keep this issue in the limelight.

I see no reason to change that advice now.

Spiritual potpourri

Tony Woodlief has some potent things to say about  immigration and a Christian's attitude toward the same.  Go check it out.  I'd think we'd all benefit if he and La Shawn had a discussion.  Maybe.  I'm frankly leaning towards seeing more Christ-likeness in Tony's perspective.  A bit of a switcheroo for the Rickster.

Also, wondering what to get someone for Christmas?  Mike has some excellent ideas and thanks to him, the Brutally Honest household has purchased 1 goat, 1 sheep, clean water and some food and supplies for people in need.  Will you consider joining in and helping?

And one more from Mike, who turns us on to Bruxy Cavey.  I think Bruxy's the real deal.   You can find out more about the man here.

That's all for now.

"... filled with a quiet longing..."

A week or so ago, MarcV, a Brutally Honest regular (thanks Marc) and a blogger himself, referred to this Christianity Today piece, something I find especially interesting if for different reasons:

Down through the years I have made a surprising discovery. Most of the Christians I know are disappointed with their churches, finding them either too traditional or too modern. Their sermons are too theological or not theological enough. The people are cliquish. In the end, the root problem is always the same. It's the people.

Yet Sunday after Sunday these believers return to their pews, expecting God to meet them there once again. Some might view such attendance as an act of futility or an exercise in wishful thinking. I believe it is a work of grace.

The author of The Message and veteran pastor Eugene Peterson has written that when we get serious about the Christian life, we usually find ourselves in a place and among people that we find incompatible. "That place and people," Peterson explains, "is often called a church. It's hard to get over the disappointment that God, having made an exception in my case, doesn't call nice people to repentance."

...

It has been nearly four decades since I first went looking for Christ on Church Street. The place where I worship today is neither mysterious nor drab. Its message, still rooted in the hope of the Cross, is consistently positive. Its décor is corporate, its music unrelentingly chipper. I like it.

There are times, though, when I am filled with a quiet longing for the shadow of mystery and the unsettling scent of holiness. In many ways, I am still waiting for the Spirit to fall and for God's people to "get the victory." Wednesday night's children have all grown and gone and the dodge balls have long since been put away. After all these years, there are still times when I feel like an unwelcome visitor. Nevertheless, I decided long ago to cast my lot with the church. It has probably failed me as many times as I have failed it, but I will not abandon it. I could not, without abandoning myself.

'Filled with a quiet longing for the shadow of mystery and the unsettling scent of holiness'.

That's good stuff, aptly describing my own heart and my place these days.  I'm filled less with faith, at least faith as I once defined it, and more with... well... that quiet longing. 

A couple of weeks ago, I rode the Harley to my favorite place after having a particularly tough day.  I sat on my favorite bench for a while, the one with the view of two lighted buoys in the distance, on a night made bright by the near full moon, on a night where that moon's light danced on the water's surface like something out of a painting, pondering my troubles, wondering, like most of us do I'd think, why.  Why this.  Why that. Just why.

I didn't get any answers, at least anything I'd find satisfying, but I do remember at one point wishing longing for God's presence to be made manifest, even bargaining with God that if an apparition of Christ would appear on the water amongst those dancing moon borne fireflies, I'd not tell a soul.  It'd just be something that I'd take to the grave, my own personal sign of the reality of God.

Well, I didn't get that sign.  And the why questions linger.  I, like the author of the CT piece, am waiting for the Spirit to fall, for the victory to come in the circumstances being faced.  Empty of the faith once held, full of that longing I now claim as faith.

The soul must long for God in order to be set aflame by God’s love; but if the soul cannot yet feel this longing, then it must long for the longing. To long for the longing is also from God.

— Meister Eckhart

Flame on Lord, flame on.

A General Thanksgiving

From The Book of Common Prayer:

Accept, O Lord, our thanks and praise for all that you have done for us. We thank you for the splendor of the whole creation, for the beauty of this world, for the wonder of life, and for the mystery of love.

We thank you for the blessing of family and friends, and for the loving care which surrounds us on every side.

We thank you for setting us at tasks which demand our best efforts, and for leading us to accomplishments which satisfy and delight us.

We thank you also for those disappointments and failures that lead us to acknowledge our dependence on you alone.

Above all, we thank you for your Son Jesus Christ; for the truth of his Word and the example of his life; for his steadfast obedience, by which he overcame temptation; for his dying, through which he overcame death; and for his rising to life again, in which we are raised to the life of your kingdom.

Grant us the gift of your Spirit, that we may know him and make him known; and through him, at all times and in all places, may give thanks to you in all things, Amen.

Here's hoping we're all aware of something to give God thanks for.

"Adios Open Source, we hardlly knew ye."

I've wanted to write about the going-ons at Pajamas Media, ahem Open Source Media, cough again, Pajamas Media but at this point had nothing really cogent or deep or pertinent or worthy to say.

There are many in the 'sphere who are laughing at what amounts to a false start of sorts, many who are thinking that this entire thing is a joke, many who are hoping it's a bust, and many who are delighting in the buzz this rather inauspicious beginning has generated.

And then there are those I respect, like Gerard Vanderleun of American Digest, who have a different take:

There are many who would question the sanity of anybody, founders, staff or bloggers, aligned with Open Source Pajamas Media. You all know those people. They're the same people who couldn't understand why anybody would want to bid online for the contents of America's basements and attics; the same people who thought buying a book you couldn't hold in your hands now pay the lease on a thousand failed bookstores across the country; the same people who didn't buy Google at $100, $200, $300 and $400 because it was "too expensive." Don't listen to Roger Simon and Charles Johnson. They're so crazy they've actually organized bloggers, signed up the top 100, gotten a lot of them to come to New York and drink, eat and talk together, and created the "Yahoo" of blogs at Open Source Media. Don't listen to them. It's better, much better, to listen to the calm and rational voices that told you to short Apple in 2003.

Isn't it?

I read the entire piece.  I think many should.

I continue to believe that my participation in this elite band of bloggers is simply a gift, one I'm not particularly worthy of receiving but one I'm holding on to and treasuring.

Pajamas Media represents the beginning of something special.  There will of course be the naysayers who think (and wink) otherwise but as Gerard points out in his piece, many laughed at Google, at Yahoo, at Ebay.  Many of those people are crying today. 

I'm sticking with Roger and Charles and Gerard and The Anchoress and all the rest who've signed up for this ride.  I think they're good company and I think it's gonna be a blast and I think I'd be a fool not to continue on down the road.

One thing though on the name change.  I kind of like Open Pajamas Media.  You know, the kind with the flap in the back...

... something we can simply flip up while slightly bent over as we leave the deriders, the ridiculers and their like-minded friends in the dust.

An unbridgeable gap

A couple of days ago I was moved by Leslie's handling of what has become the Issue du Jour:

Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica says:

Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace...We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace.

What does he mean by evil peace?  Is he right?  He lived in the 1200s.  Maybe that was then and this is now.  Do you think peace is ever evil or is it always good?  When would it ever be bad? 

Blessed are the peacemakers.  Look at this peace.  Then look at this piece.

Later that same day, I came across David's piece on peace:

Stephen Lewis closes his Massey Lectures (published as Race Against Time with this poignant paragraph:

In 2005, the world will pass the trillion-dollar mark in the expenditure, annually, on arms. We're fighting for $50 billion annually for foreign aid for Africa: the military totally outstrips human need by 20 to 1. Can someone please explain to me our contemporary balance of values?

From Bruce Cockburn:

God damn the hands of glory
that hold the bloody firebrand high
And if mankind must have an enemy
let it be his warlike pride.

Draw your own conclusions.

I certainly did.

Stephen Lewis closes his Massey Lectures (published as Race Against Time with this poignant paragraph:

In 2005, the world will pass the trillion-dollar mark in the expenditure, annually, on arms. We're fighting for $50 billion annually for foreign aid for Africa: the military totally outstrips human need by 20 to 1. Can someone please explain to me our contemporary balance of values?

From Bruce Cockburn:

God damn the hands of glory
that hold the bloody firebrand high
And if mankind must have an enemy
let it be his warlike pride.

CNN's X marks their bias spot?

The folks at CNN have explained that their version of the X files was a 'technical glitch ' and are apologizing for the mistake:

CNN apologized on Tuesday and offered a rare explanation from its control booth for a technical glitch many viewers failed to notice -- a large "X" the network flashed over Vice President Dick Cheney's face.

The wayward graphic, which CNN said lasted for about one-seventh of a second, appeared during the network's live coverage of Cheney's speech on Monday addressing critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq.

Word of the snafu quickly surfaced on the Internet, including still photos of the image posted by online columnist Matt Drudge, along with a story suggesting that some who saw the momentary "X" thought it might have been deliberate.

CNN, a unit of Time Warner Inc., later issued a mea culpa saying an investigation by senior management concluded "this was a technical malfunction, not an issue of operator error" and expressing regret for the incident.

...

"So, for all the conspiracy theories out there," [CNN anchor Daryn] Kagan said, " ... that's not what this is about. It's a computer bug that people deal with everyday. It's just that ours was in front of millions of people."

That's their story and they're stickin' to it...

Yet, the folks at WizBang have a recording of an exchange with "a CNN minion" that spins things slightly differently.  Go over and listen and decide for yourself.  Here are some teaser quotes from that recorded conversation:

"Maam, it was just a comment or opinion of someone watching the speech."

"The point is, tell them to stop lying."

"Tell your President to stop lying."

"If you don't like it don't watch."

CNN, can we get an explanation for this?

Via the Drdge Report:

CNN MARKS CHENEY: NETWORK FLASHES 'X' OVER VP'S FACE DURING LIVE SPEECH

**Exclusive**

At 11:04:45 AM ET Monday CNN was airing Vice President Dick Cheney's speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington -- when a large black 'X' repeatedly flashed over the vice president's face!

The 'X' over Cheney's face appeared each time less than a second, creating an odd subliminal effect.

As this DRUDGE REPORT screen capture reveals, while one 'X' flashed over Cheney's face CNN ran a headline at the bottom of its screen: "CHENEY: I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO CRITICIZE."

One top White House source expressed concern about what was aired over CNN.

"Is someone in Atlanta trying to tell us something?"

I'm sure there's an innocent explanation for this right?  I mean, I'm sure it was some technical glitch, some hiccup in video equipment, some malfunction that a technician will speak to as for the reason for this... right?

Yea... right...

One can blindly hope...

UPDATE: Ian, as always, has the video. And Reynolds points us to Evan Coyne Maloney who thinks people like me are over-reacting.  I hope he's right.

There are plenty of examples of media bias that are far more provable. To latch onto a few flashes of an "X" as major evidence of bias--when no such evidence exists beyond the act itself--undercuts the possibility of being taken seriously when talking about the more tangible stories.

Maybe CNN should get the benefit of the doubt. There's an old saying: Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. Given CNN's recent performance in the marketplace, that statement seems apt.