I think it's important as a conservative to keep abreast of the other side. I do that principally by faithfully listening to the BBC and downloading its NewsPod. I also listen pretty regularly to National Public Radio (NPR), esp. the classical music from the Maine station, which seems to have employees over the age of 35 unlike the NH one.
The segment this morning on the Army Maj. who is a mass murderer was a whitewash as I expected it would be. It brought up the fact he may have been a Muslim extremist. But it didn't bring up any evidence that has been circulating in mainstream publications, such as this one, where he's reported to have told colleagues that "infidels should have their throats slit" and that suicide bombers who kill innocents are equivalent to soldiers who sacrifice themselves by throwing their bodies on a grenade ready to explode in order to save their buddies. Does NPR think we're stupid and lack an Internet connection?
But it did bring up the unsubstantiated claims he was harassed for being Muslim. They're quick to do that. It's the Christians who incited him!
Lawrence Auster puts it with wonderful acerbic wit:
I think there may be something to that in fact, having witnessed it at first hand. Years ago, in the early '90s, I was a bit disappointed the same court decided not to hear Pamela Smart's appeal on similar grounds: the truly bizarro media circus in that trial and the fact that the judge's seemingly questionable decision not to sequester the jury, may open up reasonable doubts that they were swayed.
What year was that, 1990? Coincidentally, I was a student at UNH and was interning at the NH public television station in Durham and the women there were glued to the TV. When the verdict came out, everyone came out and watched it on a huge screen and screamed with joy, hearing "Guilty."
I think it was ridiculous that when the media frenzy is in full gear a jury wouldn't be sequestered.
The segment this morning on the Army Maj. who is a mass murderer was a whitewash as I expected it would be. It brought up the fact he may have been a Muslim extremist. But it didn't bring up any evidence that has been circulating in mainstream publications, such as this one, where he's reported to have told colleagues that "infidels should have their throats slit" and that suicide bombers who kill innocents are equivalent to soldiers who sacrifice themselves by throwing their bodies on a grenade ready to explode in order to save their buddies. Does NPR think we're stupid and lack an Internet connection?
But it did bring up the unsubstantiated claims he was harassed for being Muslim. They're quick to do that. It's the Christians who incited him!
Lawrence Auster puts it with wonderful acerbic wit:
[The liberal mainstream] media establishment are saying that the mass murder is bigoted America's fault, because the man's Army colleagues "harassed" him as a Muslim and made him lose his mind. In reality, far from being harassed, he was allowed complete freedom to make his numerous blood-curdling and treasonous statements, since everyone in today's diversity-cowed Army was afraid to make a formal complaint about him. Think of it: a jihadist enemy ensconced as a major in the U.S. Army makes classic jihadist threats against America, and then carries them out, while other Army officers do nothing to stop him; and now the U.S. establishment accuses the very people who did nothing to stop him of harassing him and so turning him into a mass murderer!The other news account of interest to me is the US Supreme Court deciding to hear the disgraced former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skillings, who will receive a hearing for, among several things, the principal fact that the media circus of his trial in Houston prevented a fair trial.
I think there may be something to that in fact, having witnessed it at first hand. Years ago, in the early '90s, I was a bit disappointed the same court decided not to hear Pamela Smart's appeal on similar grounds: the truly bizarro media circus in that trial and the fact that the judge's seemingly questionable decision not to sequester the jury, may open up reasonable doubts that they were swayed.
What year was that, 1990? Coincidentally, I was a student at UNH and was interning at the NH public television station in Durham and the women there were glued to the TV. When the verdict came out, everyone came out and watched it on a huge screen and screamed with joy, hearing "Guilty."
I think it was ridiculous that when the media frenzy is in full gear a jury wouldn't be sequestered.
Leave a comment