Short thoughts for a Monday...

A few quick thoughts:

1) excellent press conference with two senators, both Democrats, and one of them Mr. Murtha. I particularly like when the one Sergeant stood up in the back and thoroughly debunked all the B.S. Murtha and his fellows are spewing. He had just come back from Iraq, and was returning, as were all the troopers whom he led; their morale, and the morale of the troops in Iraq that he visits, is excellent; and not once did they receive any call, letter, or visit from the other Senator sitting beside Mr. Murtha (cannot recall the Senator's name, my apologies) - despite the fact that the Sergeant was one of the Senator's constituents. No visits, nothing -- but a lot of B.S. about how morale stinks, the troops hate their jobs, etc. My congraluations and appreciation to the sergeant for proving how glaring and blatant the hypocrisy of Mr. Murtha and his ilk is -- and for standing up for yourself and for your fellow soldiers against them.

2) Same topic - of course, I could only find that press conference on Fox News and a few mentions here and there on other news sites (that took effort to dig up the stories). I suppose it makes sense that they cover Mr. Murtha when he's in a controlled environment and the "message" isn't distorted by something as horrific as actual experience and actual facts -- and ignore reality when it's slammed into the faces of those who deny it. Liberal bias, perhaps; but a definite bias nonetheless. If that sergeant had stood up and agreed with Murtha, we'd have heard about it on the front page of every newspaper -- and when he stood up and rebuked both Senators, that also should have been front-page news.

3) Corruption. Interesting, isn't it, how Republican corruption issues are front-page news... and the corruption scandal involving Democrats (this time in Louisiana!) that came to light last week was nowhere to be seen, except on back pages and buried on pg. 38? One of these days the newspapers are going to remember that the issue isn't one party's corruption or the other -- it's corruption as a whole, and should be addressed as such, particularly when evidence piles up implicating BOTH parties. But again, whenever someone asks about bias, remember the rule: if the standards are unbiased, the stories will be covered fairly, and a front-page article on one party's corruption charges will be followed appropriately with a front-page article on the other party's corruption/scandal problems when those arise. Otherwise, basic reading-for-comprehension learning tells us that there's a bias or slant involved -- and it's not hard to figure out that bias/slant.

4) Interesting, isn't it, how we're now seeing evidence coming out of Iraq -- ledgers, written documents, and physical set-ups, evidently -- that Hussein did provide for the training of terrorists on Iraqi soil prior to the invasion. It's also interesting that these little facts are being ignored by the mainstream media, who would, I suppose, have to undo four years of the B.S. they've been spouting about how there's "no proof". Try again. Personally, the fact that Hussein, on the record in the 1990s, stated to the world that he would pay any terrorist who blew himself up and took any "godless Americans" with him would be paid $25,000 (to his family, obviously) -- which in the middle east is a massive sum -- is more than enough for me. It puzzles me that anyone would say he wasn't "supporting terrorists" when making this public statement -- since the statement itself is blatant, outright, and well-covered by the international press, and expresses clearly his support and encouragement of terrorist murders. One of these days, the mainstream media... nah. Never mind. It's almost pointless, wishing that the mainstream media would report facts instead of ideology, the truth about things instead of their own slant. Leave editorial opinion and world-view to the editorial page --and report NEWS, which is to say FACTS, in the rest of the paper.

Until tomorrow!