Right off the bat, I admit that I am a geography snob! Perhaps this is related to the fact that I had Geography in fourth grade with a large book devoted only to Geography.This week the big news story concerned the killing of Qassem Soleimani of Iran, and the subsequent feeble “response” by Iran. It appears that with the firing of about 15 ballistic missiles supposedly aimed at American military bases in Iraq, the only significant thing that was apparently hit was a Ukrainian 737 Boeing airliner while taking off from Tehran’s International Airport bound for Kiev. Thus far the evidence suggests that the airplane was shot down by an Iranian Surface to Air missile, killing all 176 passengers, including 63 Canadians. The ballistic missiles “aimed” at the US military killed nobody.  “Strong work, Iran!”

But I stray from the real topic of today’s piece.where is Iran? Can you pick it out on a map? If not, could you pick it out on a map of the Middle East? (If your answer to either of these is “yes,” can you identify which countries border Iran to the east and to the west?) If you are clueless as to the answers of the above questions, you are in the majority. A poll by Morning Consult/Politico found that less than a quarter of registered voters knew where Iran was on a map. Only 23% could identify Iran as being between Iraq and Afghanistan, and only 28% if shown a map of the Middle East. Nonetheless, 47% were for the killing of Soleimani and 43% were against it.

I can’t decide what is worse:

That 47%/43% have an opinion about a country that they do not know where it is. 

Or

The sad state of our educational system!

1/9/20

A new term in the day-to-day lexicon of our country and in the vocabulary of almost all of us is, “fake news,” which refers to the way the media tells a news story. Either the info in the story is false or misconstrued or probably more commonly the reporting of a story is sprinkled with bits of editorial commentary that slants the factual telling of the news story. When the story is blatantly false, it is often fairly simple to spot, for example, A.B.C.’s recent map of the fires in Australia, superimposed on a map of the U.S. I tend to think the mistakes like this, while “fake,” are probably due to the ignorance of the flunky who was tasked with  the job of making this superimposed map. Unfortunately for ABC mistakes happen. 

However, the more blatant “fake news” often comes from a T.V. news network that purposefully reports a news story with factual inaccuracies. CNN and MSNBC are most often the culprits here, and it seems obvious that these inaccuracies are deliberate in order to slant the story in favor of their political agenda. Just yesterday MSNBC was reporting that 30 U.S. service members had been killed in Iran’s ballistic missile attack, despite the Department of Defense saying otherwise. Incompetent or malicious? As best I can tell these “news networks” do not apologize nor do they retract the “fake news.” 

Similarly, newspapers also have been known to print similar inaccuracies (again “fake news”), however often they will subsequently print a retraction, hidden somewhere in the following editions. A “mea culpa” . . . but a soft whispered one.

In other news this week CNN settled a defamation lawsuit that was the consequence of its reporting in the case of Covington Catholic High School’s student, Nick Sandmann, in January, 2019 in Washington, D.C. Although not confirmed, the settlement is reportedly $25 million.

Now my question is: “Is there a name for not reporting a newsworthy event?” It is not “fake news” as nothing false was actually reported. I would realistically not expect CNN to report that it had doled out $25 million because of how it reported a certain news-story. I also would not expect the Washington Post to report on this story as WaPo is one of the next in line to be sued for its reporting of that same story. But what about my local newspaper? I do not think that it is on the chopping-block to be sued by Nick Sandmann or his family. I scanned every page in the front section of today’s local paper, but nada! Nothing on the CNN settlement! Is it not news? Why is there nothing on this story? (Like most of you, I can make an educated guess!)

But again back to the original question: “What do you call it when a newspaper deliberately does not report on a story?” Could it be that silence is the default tact when a story goes against its political agenda?

I have some potential descriptive names for No Apparent News (N.A.N.), but would be interested in any other ideas.

Osama bin Laden was a bad dude! He believed that women and children of enemies were legitimate targets for jihadists to kill, and thus the killing of more than 3,000 civilians on 9/11/01 was okay by him. 

Before 9/11, in 1998 he orchestrated simultaneous truck bomb explosions at U.S. embassies in Africa, killing hundreds. In Dec. 1998 the director of the C.I.A. Counter-terrorist Center reported to President Clinton that al-Qaeda was preparing for attacks in the U.S.A., including the training of personnel to hijack aircrafts. On Sept. 10, 2001 (the day before the 9/11 terrorist attacks), ex-president Clinton, while in Australia, stated that, “he could have killed bin Laden, but I would have had to kill innocents, so I did not do it.” On the following day, the World Trade Center attack occurred. Apparently the CIA had bin Laden in its sites in late 2000 before Clinton left office, and this is when then President Clinton demurred and said, “no!” (According to Dark Side author, Jane Meyer, Clinton was haunted by a swing set in the area, which suggested that children lived nearby. In 2012, 60 Minutes reported that President Clinton had many chances to kill bin Laden, but because of the risk of civilian casualties, he did nothing.) The question will always remain, “If President Clinton had killed bin Laden when he had the chance, would he have saved the over 3,000 innocents killed on 9/11?” History will be the judge.

Qassem Soleimani was a bad dude. He was the head of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. He had been described by an ex-CIA operative “as the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today.” Within the week prior to his demise an American had been killed in Iraq and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad attacked – undoubtedly with the knowledge of Soleimani, and more than likely both orchestrated by Soleimani. 

It has been said that Soleimani has been responsible for hundreds of American deaths. (It has been rumored that President Obama kept a list of all the hundreds of American military that had been maimed or killed because of Soleimani.) Moreover, it has been said that Soleimani had future attacks against the U.S. planned. The attacking of an embassy is tantamount to declaring war, and President Trump finally acted and ordered him killed. He was killed with a drone strike last week. As best I can tell there were no civilian casualties. Did the action of President Trump save American lives? History will be the judge.

Back in 2011, after bin Laden had been killed, Sen. Coons (D,Del) sponsored S. Res. 159 honoring those who work over many years culminated in bin Laden’s death. This resolution passed 100-0. Word has it that Sen Cruz (R, Tx) is planning a something similar concerning the death of Soleimani. It will certainly be interesting to see if the Democrats in the Senate do as the Republicans did for bin Laden’s death in 2011. Will they cheer the death of another terrorist leader, or will they demur even though there has not been any reports of swing sets in the area.

Here the American people will be the judge.

I would think that at least one of them would show some leadership, or at least some leadership potential, but that’s not what is happening. What I am hearing is bleating from a bunch of sheep, and what’s worse is that they are bleating in unison with the head ram, Chuck Schumer, and the queen ewe, Nancy Pelosi. Who am I talking about here ? 

I am referring to those who are running for the Democratic nomination for the highest office in the land. Yes, there is a whole flock of them, and with such numbers one would think that at least one would break from the flock. We all are aware that most Dems, including those competing for the nomination, do not like Mr. Trump, however one would think that statistically at least one of them probably agrees with the recent decision by President Trump to order the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes. But I not hearing anything of the sort!

What if one of these spineless lambs said something like this: 

“I do not agree with most things that President Trump says or does, however in this situation I believe that he made the right decision. Those who were killed in the air strike were terrorists that have been responsible for the deaths of many many Americans, and they deserved what they got.”

I, for one, would pay attention to that individual, as that person seems to have the hutzpah to actually be our Commander-in-Chief . . . but nooo, none of them demonstrated that they could think and act on his/her own. That group-think inaction is one of the reasons why none of them will ascend to the throne! 

In a more practical sense, everyone realizes that the independent voters are the key to this election. A Democratic candidate must separate him/herself from the rest of the flock, and must appeal to Independents. It would have been a smart political thing to demonstrate some independence and some leadership on this issue by verbalizing support for Trump’s actions in this case.

I am still listening, but so far all I am hearing is, “Baa, Baa!”

As this is the start of a new decade, I want everybody to close their eyes and concentrate. Imagine what the House of Representatives would look like without the 55 members who have been in the House for over 20 years.

 Forty-two of these would be Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Barbara Lee. Of the 13 Republicans, the only name that I recognize is Jim Sensenbrenner..The first thing that jumps out at me is this difference in the name recognition of the Democrats and the name recognition of the Republicans on the above list. Even though there are many many more Democrats on this list, it also appears that the Democrats have distinct advantage in the “big mouth” derby, as their name recognition is because they appear in front of the cameras so often. (FYI, Adam Schiff has been in the House since only 2001.)

Things are not similar in the Senate which has 15% (15/100) of its members who have been in the Senate since before 2000. Think of McConnell, Feinstein, Durban, Collins, and Schumer, as examples.
The question that is being discussed by some is whether or not having over 50 members of the House, entrenched in the House, and 15% of the Senate, entrenched in the Senate is good for the country? Certainly our Founding Father’s did not envision that our government representatives be career politicians. They imagined “ordinary people” in Congress, but this is far from what we have now. As Nick Tombuilides recently said at a Senate hearing, “the main problem with the system as it is now has to do with the power of incumbency, as 98% of incumbents get re-elected!! Once in office they have a huge advantage in future elections.
82% of Americans want term limits. This includes 89% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 83% of Independents. And, to boot, both President Obama and President Trump think that term limits would be a good thing! If 82% of Americans agree with both Barack Obama and Donald Trump on this issue, we should just do it. . . make term limits the law of the land. Why not?
The answer, unfortunately is intuitively obvious . . . it is those in Congress who would have to change the law. Can you imagine them voting to cut themselves off from the gravy train? No, I too am having a hard time imagining this. The argument from the “no term limit” side is that experience is absolutely necessary for the government to work. To me at this time, “ a well working government” is an oxymoron!
If the Congress ever decides to implement term limits, then perhaps we should go even further and make having a law degree an automatic exclusion from elected office. (Think, Barack & Michelle, lawyers; Bill & Hillary, lawyers; Chuck Schumer & Harry Reid, lawyers. Think Bush 1 & Bush 2, not lawyers; Ronald Reagan & Donald Trump, not lawyers.)  Imagine just how well our government in Washington would work without lawyers!