The Daily Mail, aka the Daily Fail, Is Connected to Another Hoax, Fake, Fraud

Getting some people to recognize hoaxes on the internet, persuading them to multi-source, to confirm something is true before promoting it on social media or on blogs, or through those interminable emails full of fake stories that have people freaking out, is an uphill battle sometimes.  We've done that here more than a few times, (especially recently when we've taken our friend Mitch Berg to task for doing a post on an article from the Daily Mail claiming to represent Seal Team 6 members criticizing President Obama over the bin Laden killing), which is a notoriously bad tabloid. 
There are a lot of stories like that on Fox news,  or more correctly Faux News) which has become the right wing tabloid of cable news.  Anyone other than fact-averse conservatives recognize that Fox nuisance doesn't fact check or multi-source; Murdoch media is propaganda, not reliable information.
Fake quotes are particularly effective in hoaxing.
But you should be able to rely on other media sources with better credentials to fact check, and most of all to multi-source, and to be more source savvy than EVER to rely on the Daily Mail for a story.  Which makes the following all the more embarrassing for those media outlets that got caught red faced over this story, which they clearly failed to fact check or multi-source, which apparently MSNBC DID do........but only after initially running the story that showed up elsewhere over and over and over.  Better late than never:

Story of vengeful jilted dentist WAS too good to be true

By Erin Tennant, Special to msnbc.com

A hugely popular news story about a jilted dentist accused of pulling out all her ex-boyfriend's teeth has unraveled as a hoax.

News websites around the world ran the story last week about a woman in Poland named Anna Maćkowiak who took revenge on a man named Marek Olszewski when he turned up at her clinic complaining of toothache, days after dumping her for another woman.

Among the numerous U.S. news sites that picked up the story were Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Huffington Post, Yahoo! News, MSN, the New York Post, and The New York Daily News. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft, which operates MSN, and Comcast.)

The story even included quotes from the scorned dentist and her toothless ex.

But when msnbc.com contacted police in Wroclaw, Poland, about the supposed criminal case, a spokesman said they had no record of such an incident.

"Lower Silesia Police Department has not been notified about such an event and is not investigating such a case," Pawel Petrykowski of the Provincial Police Headquarters in Wroclaw said in an email that was translated into English.
A legal adviser for Poland’s Chamber of Physicians and Dentists, which handles disciplinary matters, said the organization is not investigating and has never investigated any such case, and added that there is no dental practitioner named Anna Maćkowiak listed in Poland’s central register of dentists.
"No information about this kind of misconduct has been provided to the Supreme Chamber," the legal advisor, Marek Szewczyński, said in an email. "The Supreme Chamber is also not aware of any actions of this kind being taken by the Regional Chamber of Physicians and Dentists in Wroclaw, which would be the competent authority in case of a possible professional misconduct committed by a dental practitioner from Wroclaw."
Most online news outlets in Poland left the story alone.
Polish television news channel TVN4 published an article mocking foreign media's coverage of the story, which it speculates began as a prank. "It appears that the article, written as a joke, began life on the Internet and has little to do with any truth," the translated article reads.
All the news reports about Maćkowiak published on news websites in the U.S. and elsewhere, such as Australia’s Herald Sun or New Zealand Herald, can be traced back to an article published in the online edition of Britain's Daily Mail newspaper.
The article, which has been shared on Facebook more than 75,000 times since it was published on April 27, appears under the byline of staff reporter Simon Tomlinson.
But Tomlinson said he does not know where the story came from and distanced himself from it when questioned about its origins.
"I've drawn a bit of a blank," he said in an email. "The (Daily) Mail Foreign Service, which did the piece for the paper, is really just an umbrella term for copy put together from agencies. My news desk isn’t sure where exactly it came from."

Tabloids, and the internet --- you can't believe everything you read in either one.  In this day and age of email, and relatively inexpensive long distance (and even international long distance) it is possible and desirable to be more skeptical and to check for yourself.  To the extent that blogs function as media, or at least parallel to media, we have an obligation to fact check before misinforming people who treat sources as news reporting and news analysis.  Too many people rely on sources which are fact averse - like Rush Limbaugh who comes to mind as just one example - and believe things they should not, form their opinions on things they should not, even vote on the basis of factually grossly inaccurate nonsense. 
What I don't understand is how people are so easily able to suspend their disbelief the way they try to do while enjoying fiction, when they are clearly NOT indulging in works of fiction - tv, movies, books, games, etc.  Do we no longer distinguish between entertainment and information?
Here is an earlier hoax story printed in the Daily Mail, one that I discovered on the blog Mikeb302000, when a commenter claimed that you couldn't buy more than one or two limes in the UK because of terrorism regulations.  That story came from the right wing gun nut John Lott's blog, where it was run as fact, no questions about its authenticity or validity, no fact checking, no skepticism.  Lott is notorious for not always having a close personal relationship himself with truth or fact, but in this case he appears to have been just plain hoaxed -------and his gun nut sycophants (or in some cases just psychos) blithely recirculated it as unquestioned fact from there, creating another urban myth on the right.
Here is that Daily Mail story, which you can still find on their web site btw, and no explanation for why this appeared under another by-line was ever provided.  This time the classic quotes to give credibility are supplemented by a photo.  The Daily Mail uses photo hoaxes often, notably the one with the Occupy Wall Street protester supposedly about to poop on a police car that was picked up by the right wing media and blogosphere.  (My blogger friend Laci and I exposed that particular hoax with a phone call to the Brooklyn PD precinct where the police car was assigned.)
So here it is, a past fact free fraud from the Daily Mail - I'll follow it with the REAL story.:

You can't buy that lime... it could be classed as a weapon: Shock for chef shopping at Asda

'They vetted me and let me buy them. I clearly don't look like I'm going to carry out a drive-by fruiting any time soon'

• Store to offer 'complimentary limes' as an apology

By Nadia Gilani
UPDATED: 03:19 EST, 21 November 2011

A chef was stunned to find she was almost banned from buying two limes from a supermarket - because they could be classed as a weapon.
Marisa Zoccolan, 31, popped into the new Asda supermarket close to her home in Wallsend, North Tyneside, to pick up some groceries, including the citrus fruits.
But when she tried to pay for them at the self-service checkout, the message 'amount exceeded, authorisation required' flashed up.

Two limes? That's one too many: Marisa Zoccolan, pictured with the two limes she was almost forbidden from buying

An assistant then came over and told her that more than one lime was deemed a weapon - because the citric acid could be squirted in someone's eye.
Marisa, a self-employed caterer said: 'I thought they were taking the pip, but the assistant told me the same applied to lemons.

Eventually staff at the supermarket allowed Marisa to buy both limes

'But no, it's because they contain citric acid which could be squirted in someone's eyes. How ridiculous is that?'
Thankfully for Ms Zoccalan, who lives with partner Jacqui Nicholson, 37, and dog Doobie, the assistant allowed Marisa to eventually buy both of the fruits.
'Yes, they vetted me and let me buy them.
'I clearly don't look like I'm going to carry out a drive-by fruiting any time soon.
'If that citric acid rule applies to lemons and limes, it must apply to grapefruits as well.
'Maybe oranges are safer because they're less acidic?'
A spokeswoman for Asda said Ms Zoccalan would be offered some 'complimentary limes' as an apology.
'We know that sometimes health and safety rules can seem a bit plum crazy, but on this occasion it's a case of one of our colleagues indulging their sub-lime sense of humour,' she said.
'For some reason our tills are having trouble scanning multiple citrus fruits.
'We're working to fix the problem, but it seems our colleague tried to make
light of the issue.'
There was no story here; there was no 'vetting' of the customer to buy fruit.  British anti-terrorism security does not authorize or otherwise empower their clerks and shelf-stockers to clear or not clear people; they are not the grocery store TSA.  There was an entire story created out of a situation where a grocery store chain had problems with their self-check out registers not properly registering the number of fruit items, and instead defaulting to the number 2 but with the correct amount charged on the receipt tape.  It was totally a  'non-story'.
That was it, it was a temporary grocery store receipt problem with number of items of fruit -- not specifically only citrus fruit either.  It was a programming error that required a clerk to override the self-checkout register to generate a correct receipt.  It didn't even require that, if the customer was not concerned about the number of fruit items appearing on the receipt.
But the Daily Mail did a full story on it, ran a headline, with quotes and photos.  The part at the bottom that identifies that this was just a funny line tossed off by a check out clerk was added later, after a few other blogs and news media made fun by identifying this story was wrong.
But it is still there, on the Daily Mail web site archive.  No corrections, no apology, clearly no fact checking by the Daily Mail.  Only THIS story didn't get a lot of attention outside of the UK when it first ran, so unlike the story above by MSNBC, the right wing blogosphere didn't get caught with it as a hoax, fraud, fake.  No REPUTABLE news source - or blogger - would run this crap as if it were true; no reputable news source or blogger should run anything from tabloids as if it were plausible without first using their head for something more than holding up their hats, and then should fact check and multi-source. It isn't hard, it isn't expensive; it just requires a minimum of critical thinking, and a few minutes effort.
And that is something we should ALL do, more often than it is done - far more often.  Our world would be a better place with more skepticism, and less gullibility.  In this case, shame on all the sources that carried the teeth-pulling story, and kudos, for better late than never MSNBC fact checking.  I'm looking forward to seeing this story on the morning talking heads shows.  Too bad that not everyone on the internet is as conscientious.
We need fewer sheep, or as the right likes to call their own, fewer 'sheeple'.  We're in not only the information age, but the disinformation and misinformation age.

Rumpus in Peace, Maurice Sendak

In following up a google search where this blog turned up in the context of Sendak and pedaphilia [sic, and sick] I came across an excellent website for the de Grummond Children's Literature collection.  For those of you unfamiliar with this collection, let me share from their website, under 'about us':

Welcome to the de Grummond Collection

The de Grummond Children's  Literature Collection is one of North America's leading research centers in the field of children's literature. Although the Collection has many strengths, the main focus is on American and British children's literature, historical and contemporary. Founded in 1966 by Dr. Lena Y. de Grummond, the Collection holds the original manuscripts and illustrations of more than 1200 authors and illustrators, as well as 120,000+ published books dating from 1530 to the present. Part of Special Collections, the de Grummond Collection is housed in the McCain Library and Archives on the campus of The University of Southern Mississippi. Under their Research tab, I came across a reference to Minnesota which surprised me (emphasis in bold added - mine, DG):  Censorship Bibliography  Memories of Childhood: Six Centuries of Children’s Literature at the de Grummond Collection June - September 2000 In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak, Harper & Row, 1970. Challenged in Illinois, Texas, New Jersey because of nudity. Challenged in the Elk River, Minnesota schools in 1992 “because reading the book could lay the foundation for the future use of pornography.”

Nudity is not pornography, unless you also consider the Venus de Milo porn, or Michelangelo's David,  Not unless you consider the nude photos of little boys by Ann Geddes, the woman who famously takes photos of kids in flower pots, and other poses to be porn or pedophilic in appeal.
Like these - the one of the kid in the rose petals is a little boy named Jake.

Among the other books listed in the de Grummond list of censored books were all of the Harry Potter books, and one of my childhood favorites, "A Wrinkile in Time" by Madeleine L'Engle.  Apparently in Texas they are afraid their children are too easily confused, and might start to think instead of blindly believing in Christianity like good stupid conservatives.  In the Night Kitchen won a Caldecott Honor; A Wrinkle in Time won the Newbery Medal, the Sequoya Book award, the Lewis Carroll Shelf award, and was a runner up for the Hans Christian Andersen award.  In other words, these are recognized works of quality, but like the protest of the Disney movie Aladdin by Michele Bachmann back in the day, these are frightening to people who embrace ideas, who embrace freedom instead of free-dumb.
Apparently there were parts of the country that engaged in the primitive, ludicrous effort of bowdlerizing. They commissioned artists to paint over the few pages of Maurice Sendak's books with marker, or putting in diapers with correction fluid, rather than allow showing Mickey, the protagonist, as God would have made him if he were not a character of fiction.  I can  only shudder to think what these same people do to Ann Geddes' photos.  These prudes, these ignorant, fearful, well meaning conservative people are an embarrassment to Minnesota.

Sad news from MSNBC.com :
‘Where the Wild Things Are’ author Maurice Sendak dead at age 83

‘Where the Wild Things Are’ author Maurice Sendak dead at age 83
AP file

Illustrator Maurice Sendak, pictured at age 57, spends a moment
with one of the Wild Things he designed
 for the operatic adaptation of his book
 "Where the Wild Things Are,"
Sept. 25, 1985 in St. Paul, Minn.
 Maurice Sendak died May 8, 2012 at 83.

Children’s author and illustrator reportedly died of complications from a stroke
TODAY books

updated 5/8/2012 10:03:11 AM ET2012-05-08T14:03:11

Maurice Sendak, the children’s author and illustrator best known for the 1963 classic “Where the Wild Things Are,” died Tuesday in Danbury, Conn., reportedly of complications from a stroke. He was 83.

The Brooklyn-born author, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland, lost many family members in the Holocaust and spent time in bed with health problems as a child. After seeing the Disney movie “Fantasia” at the age of 12, an experience that influenced his work throughout his career, he decided to become an illustrator.
Video: ‘Wild Things’ author Maurice Sendak dead at 83 (on this page)Career of controversyDuring the 1950s, Sendak illustrated children’s books by other authors before starting to write his own stories, most notably the "Little Bear" series by Else Holmelund Minarik. His first solo work was "Kerry's Window" in 1956.

When “Where the Wild Things Are,” also a solo work, came out in 1963, its monstrous characters (actually parodies of Sendak’s aunts and uncles) raised concerns from some parents. But the book, about a boy named Max who is banished to his room and takes a fantasy journey to a mysterious land whose grotesque inhabitants crown him king, quickly brought him international acclaim, including the prestigious Caldecott Medal. Despite Sendak’s dim view of Hollywood, "Where the Wild Things Are" became a feature film in 2009.
2009: ‘Wild Things’ author isn’t wild about Hollywood
Sendak wrote and illustrated many other books, including the controversial 1970 work “In the Night Kitchen,” about a boy who dreams of helping a baker create a cake in a bizarre kitchen. The book's hero, Mickey, is naked in illustrations throughout the book, and it has frequently been challenged and banned. Other Sendak works include “Outside, Over There” (1981), the story of a girl who is left to care for her younger sister and reluctantly goes to her rescue when the child is abducted by goblins.

Sendak's work extended beyond printed media. He was an advisor to the Children's Television Workshop during the initial development of "Sesame Street" and worked on several animated stories for the show, including an adaptation of his book "Bumble-Ardy." In 1975 he produced an animated TV special, "Really Rosie," which featured the voice of Carole King. Inspired by a little girl Sendak observed singing and dancing outside during his childhood in Brooklyn, "Really Rosie" has become a staple of children's theater troupes.

Video: 1980: Sendak talks about ‘Wild Things’ ‘Really Rosie’ (on this page)
Sendak created a stage version of "Where the Wild Things Are" in 1979 and designed opera and ballet sets for such groups as Houston Grand Opera and the New York City Opera. He also collaborated with "Angels in America" playwright Tony Kushner on an English version of the Czech children's opera "Brundibar"; his illustrated book version, featuring text by Kushner, was named one of the 10 best illustrated books of 2003 by the New York Times Book Review.
Accolades and remembrancesIn addition to his Caldecott Medal for "Where the Wild Things Are," Sendak's many accolades include a 1970 Hans Christian Andersen Award for children's illustration, a 1982 National Book Award for "Outside Over There," a 1983 Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal, and a 2003 Astrid Lingren Memorial Award.
Video: 2006: Maurice Sendak on latest kid's book (on this page)
Sendak lived with psychoanalyst Eugene Glynn for 50 years before Glynn's death in 2007.
Among those mourning Sendak's passing are a number of mothers who commented on the TODAY Moms Facebook page. Carolyn Larrabee said "Where the Wild Things Are" is "by far my daughter's favorite book...I've read it so much I have it memorized!" And Jamie Bishop admitted: "I'm actually crying.. I didn't realize how much his books mean to me. A big part of my childhood died this morning along with him."
TODAY anchors also were moved to comment. "A bit of our childhood just passed," Al Roker tweeted. "Hope he's playing with Max and the Wild Things." Savannah Guthrie also tweeted, remarking: "A wild rumpus in heaven today. Loved him."
In one of his last public appearances, the outspoken author was a guest of Stephen Colbert on "The Colbert Report" in January. The two traded wisecracks and Sendak gave capsule reviews to children's classics by other authors, including "Green Eggs and Ham" by Dr. Seuss, which he liked, and the 1985 book "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie," for which he had little use.
Story: 9 most subversive children’s books ever written
During the Colbert interview, the famously cranky Sendak remarked, "I didn't set out to make children happy!" And yet he did — generations of them.
**********
Throughout my years in K-12 I enjoyed volunteering in the various school libraries.  My very first regular paying job, (as distinct from extra household chores and babysitting) was to work at our county library, which I loved.  The chairs and tables in our county library headquarters children's section were provided by a donation from the local Kiwanis Club during the time my father served as club president.  I also volunteered at the various fund raising events that produced the money for those tables and chairs and other amenities; as a paid worker, I always kept an extra keen eye on their care and wear. 

One of my duties in the summer months was to help with the summer reading program for kids, including helping to create displays featuring books, and to change the books displayed in the children's reading area.  We did regular outreach events at places like the local shopping mall, where I took my turn reading children's books out loud to ever-changing groups of children (and sometimes their parents) sitting on the floor in front of me.  While this is usually more the sort of thing you associate with kindergarten classes or the lower levels of elementary education, it always surprised me how many older kids and adults stayed for more than one book.

Maurice Sendak was one of the most loved books for those sessions, second only to Dr. Seuss.  After reading the text on every page, it was pro forma to present the page illustrations for the children (of all ages and heights) to see, and by 'children' I include those more than old enough to collect social security payments after retirement.

Great books and great art, including for children, is timeless, and is appreciated beyond any single age group regardless of the targeted lowest age that it is assumed children can read.  Examples from the past would include Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland, alongside the more current classics by J.K. Rowling and the late, great Dr. Seuss.

Like Dr. Seuss, who collaborated and supervised all aspects of the work in creating a wonderful movie in 1953, "the 5,000 Fingers of Dr.T" which was something of a glorious horror film, long before the various posthumous creations of his work on the big and small screen, Sendak dramatized his "Where the Wild Things Are" on stage in 1979.

Maurice Sendak was gay; he was devoted to his partner of 50 years, the late Dr. Eugene Glyn, a psychoanalyst working with children and families.  I see Sendak's life as not only a wonderful contribution to art and to the delight of children, I see him as a perfect example of the kind of person who is a perfect rebuttal to those who try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and to those who do not acknowledge, understand. or appreciate the value to our world of people who have a same-sex orientation.

Lucky those who live in Philly who can attend the Rosenbach Museum and Library, to which Sendak donated his work and his private collection, the largest collection of 'Sendakia' in the world.  A small sample of his work.  I particularly delighted in how so many of his monsters have quite human feet, despite the many other ways in which they differ from us.  It is a delicious reminder of what we all have in common.  Enjoy!:

the book which inspired the movie Labrynth

The Republican Vagina Parody - Women Push Back Against the Male Republican Culture Wars

Ya gotta love it; ya gotta laugh. Except that the reality is that Republicans are scary, not funny; by scary, I mean controlling, corrupt, and coercive.

Republicans, Get In My Vagina! from Kate Beckinsale

There is nothing quite as creepy as the religious righty, patriarchal, fanatical women-dominating, women oppressing, sex fearing , mysoginistic Republicans (and other conservatives).

Here's a little 'bumper sticker' for the GOP and their Tea Party extremist bretheren - ->:




And here's another one for all the vaginal probe, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, ignorance only sex ed mandating, pro-bullying anti-gay, medical misinformation requiring, doctor misinforming, right wingers as well:
<-------------

And lets not forget how unhappy women are with the right for defunding planned parenthood, one of the major providers of health care for women OTHER than abortion.  Or the repeal of legislation that helps us get closer to equal pay for equal work - the right is big on helping bad employers discriminate, including against women!  OR the failure of the right to vote in support of renewing the violence against women act.  That's the right, all right - pro violence against women (and other groups).  These are the same people who wanted to redefine rape so there would be no coverage if a woman wasn't beaten up badly enough -- to exclude statutory rape, rape where a woman is drugged or otherwise incapacitated, or merely threatened and  intimidated so aggressively that she capitulates --- yup, that's the kind of rape /Republicans want to define out of existence so as to damage women.  Damned misogynists!!!!

(I'm assuming the little dots are bullet holes, because while the right doesn't trust women, the trust and love anyone with a gun, especially old, white, flabby and crabby men who belong to the NRA.

A big F for the F-22 - the CBS 60 Minutes Interview

Below is the 'overtime' online additional footage of the 60 minutes report on the F-22. In the context of the concern expressed by these pilots was the crash back in early April of a different model of plane, an F-18, which struck an apartment building. Clearly that is the kind of incident that concerns these pilots, and reportedly, their colleagues and associates. It is a significant story in view of two recent posts on this blog, in part in a response to some highly dubious sources which have claimed our special forces are openly critical of President Obama's characterization of his role relating to the death of Osama bin Laden. I think entirely separate from the issues of the F-22's safety, the concerns of these top pilots relating to what constitutes professional conduct in speaking out should be noted, and those two posts revisited if you don't really get why this is so challenging for these two pilots.
********************************


It's not news that there's something wrong with the F-22.
Even the Air Force acknowledges that there's a problem with the pilots' oxygen system in their top fighter jet, having grounded the entire F-22 fleet back in May of 2011 over the issue.



What is news, however, is the appearance of two decorated F-22 pilots-- in uniform-- talking to Lesley Stahl on camera about their personal experiences, frustrations, and concerns with the aircraft.
Not surprisingly, getting Major Jeremy Gordon and Captain Josh Wilson to appear this week on 60 Minutes broadcast was no easy task. In this video, Lesley Stahl and veteran producer Karen Sughrue tell Overtime editor Ann Silvio about the pilots' decision to go public.
What do you think of Major Gordon and Captain Wilson? Did they do the right thing by breaking chain of command when they granted an interview to 60 Minutes? Or should they have kept their concerns about the F-22 jet inside the military loop?
And what about the Air Force? Should it ground the F-22 until this problem is solved or keep asking pilots to fly it while the search for a solution continues?

And here was the main segment that aired on the broadcast 60 Minutes of May 6 2012.



***********************
I've written here about the dubious and arguably corrupt problems related to the F-35 which also does not work properly, and which has serious issues about cost over runs, and the so-called 'F-35 caucus' of reported Lockheed Martin stock owning members of Congress. So it should not surprise me that this aircraft is also made by Lockheed Martin.

Monday Morning: Seriously Humorous Commentary

From the STrib 5/7/'12

The op ed art should have included "we need fireworks", "we need more guns in more places to shoot more people",  "we need our own state currency", and let's not forget big Tony Sutton's fiscal irresponsibility or the disastrous and incredibly costly scandal of Amy Koch and Michael Brodkorb -- because the culturally conservative fiscally responsible right wing is anything but. The things to which they give lip service.  They are the party of arrogant overreach and mismanagement, overlaid by a heavy layer of intolerance.

and

Ed on Ed' - Ed Stein on Education

I'd call this 'Republican Math', where the numbers never add up the way they should; where the claims of fiscal responsibility are in fact irresponsible; and where EVERY TIME - EVERY TIME - they do something it is either culture war OR the policies benefit the 1%, or corporate special interests AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 99% (EVERY DAMNED TIME).

Usually when I post Ed Stein's wonderful editorial art, it is just the art, limited to any words that occur within the panels.  I'm going to make an exception here, and hope you will join me in taking regular visits to Ed's own blog, where he elaborates on the visuals.

In this case , I was so moved by the words as well as the visual images on his blog that I am cross posting them here:

Congress,  as usual, is paralyzed. It can’t figure out how to extend the low-cost student loan program. Without Congressional action, the interest rate will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8, on July 1. The cost of extending the program for a year is estimated to be $6 billion. With the economy still weak and with the states having already made massive cuts to higher education, with more pending, tuitions at state colleges and universities are soaring. Raising the student loan interest rate likely will put college out of reach for many. Republicans call the program irresponsible and seem willing to let it die, unless it is paid for with further cuts to the safety net. In an economy that increasingly favors the wealthy and disadvantages everyone else, college is fast becoming a luxury of the wealthy. I guess the rest of us will be sending our children to Hamburger U, where they can learn the valuable skill of asking the children of bankers if they want fries with their Happy Meal.

Military Intelligence

An open letter to a person I know....

During the Iraq War, there were a few US soldiers, among them Gens Eric Shinseki and Ricardo Sanchez, as well as more than a few enlisted men, who criticized the effort in Iraq.

The thing is, they did it AFTER leaving the service.  This isn't a coincidence.

When I was in college, I was in Naval ROTC.  I eventually had to leave NROTC for a physical issue, but I was able to join the National Guard and then the US Army Reserve. I was standing around one day in college listening to a speaker rail against abortion.  While doing so I was wearing my dress whites.  I was a freshman, and really didn't know better than to not stand and listent to a politcal speech in a way that might convey support or dissention from a political opinion.

Suddently, I was grabbed from behind and pulled away.  Our adjutent NROTC officer, Major Von Wald (USMC), simply said, "When you're in uniform, you don't have a political opinion."

It was a lesson I've never forgotten, it was a sentiment I've passed along to more than a few members of the military, and a concept I've explained to more than a handful of civilians.

A legal point for the neophytes out there.  When you are in the military you are governed not by the Constitution, but intead by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  While in uniform you can have your equipment randomly searched, and most important to this point, you have NO right of freedom of speech, especially not against or about the orders you've been given.    One other thing - the President is the "Commander in Chief", meaning, he is the highest ranking member of the military.  You swear an oath to obey the orders of the office of the President, everyone does, every enlisted man/woman, every officer.  No exceptions, ever.  Refuse the oath, you can't join or stay. Ever.

So the deeper lesson that I have taught goes like this; When you're in uniform, the orders of the President (e.g. the policy of the President), like the orders of your officers, aren't open for public rebuke or review.  You are an instrument of policy, you are expected to support any President, any time, whether you like him or not IF you chose to remain in the military.  You are expected to do so quite simply because failing to do so tells your subordinate staff that THEY get to pick and chose the orders THEY want to obey.  In short, if a President orders you into combat in a war you don't like, then, IF you want to continue to wear the uniform, you go to war, and you keep your mouth shut.  What would happen to our military structure if the military got to vote about the wars they wanted to fight?  What would have happened to morale if General Tommy Franks had said, "This war in Iraq is crap!"  You keep your mouth shut because failing to do so is insubordinate (as an NCO) and "Conduct Unbecoming" for an officer.  It also violates a primary military edict to ensure your actions always support "the good order and discipline" of the troops.  George Patton was nearly casheired in WWII for making an obliquely critical reference of US policy.  He was out of line for saying anything and he knew it.


Consequently, for those of you who may think that the right-wing, vocal critics of the President who wear the uniform are within their rights to criticize the President, you are wrong.  You aren't slightly wrong, you are dead wrong, wrong in every facet of every way.  Openly questioning the policies/orders/conduct of the President is a direct violation of your oath.  It undermines discipline.  Those of you on the right who balley-hooed about US Congressmen criticizing the war effort while Bush was President as "undermining morale" need to check yourself - you need to consider what the impact would be if a few sergeants said "F-it, I am not dying for this chuckle-head."   Acting in such a manner is grossly unprofessional, doing so is profoundly insubordinate, it is conduct unbecoming an officer.  THAT's why Ricardo Sanchez left the service THEN criticized the war, that's why William McCrystal was sacked for doing so while in uniform.  You are an instrument of policy, and you keep your damned mouth shut while you wear it.  You obey your orders, you do your duty, you don't pick and chose the orders you'll obey.  Picking and chosing orders, in the guise of creating a lack of respect for the officers above you (in this case the President) is the height of unprofessionalism for a soldier.  Doing so means you don't deserve your stripes, you should be cashiered, you're a pig, you're less than a civilian, you have no honor.  You've failed to keep faith with the millions of soldiers before you who may not have liked their orders, but they SOLDIERED on.

Nuff said? 

If not, then your political blinders have allowed you to be blind to one of the most profoundly well understood axioms of service among professional armies and professional soldiers.  If not, you don't know jack about the military, If not, your "intelligence" is at best, ignorant.  Put another way, every member of the military WORKS for the President, since when do you get to criticize, publicly, the CEO of the company you work for?  It's worse than that in the military though.  Your open questioning of orders may in fact cause someone to fail to obey an order because they don't like the President and think they're within their rights to not support him and so they fail to act when they should, costing someone their life.  Those of you who believe this kind of conduct is "ok" are  advocating for insubordination.  You are, quite simply, supporting the most grossly unprofessional thing a soldier can do.  IF you advocate for that, you don't understand anything about the military.  John Kerry was deeply criticized for criticizing the Vietnam War - John Kerry left the active duty militry before doing so.  Kerry was wrong to have done so while in the naval reserve, and doubly wrong to have testified before Congress and tossed his ribbons away while in uniform.  You didn't like it when he did, if you didn't like it then, why not?  When you anwer that question, you'll begin, maybe, to understand why it's NEVER ok to do while in uniform.  No exceptions, ever.

Nuff said.

Beyond the Pale: Cinco de Mayo and Cultural Diversity

"...[J. T.]Ready had once said of Lily, who was half-Hispanic, “she's 50 percent ugly,” the paper reported. “That's how he described her," she [a friend of the child's aunt and mother] added."       - from MSNBC.com,

        about the toddler shooting victim, aprox 18 months old in Gilbert, Arizona murder / suicide

Cinco de Mayo, celebrating Mexican heritage, seems to be more celebrated in the United States than it is in Mexico.

flag of Mexico

If you asked many of the American celebrants what they were celebrating (at least in my experience), they wouldn't know, responding they were enjoying Mexican food, or  that it was a national Mexican holiday so they are celebrating Mexican heritage or maybe Mexican Independence Day.  Buzz-killers would simply grump that it is a made up holiday, a sell-more-greeting-cards kind of event.
So.....what is it really all about, celebrating Cinco de Mayo?
The ever-popular source for quickie explanations, wikipedia, provides background and context:
Cinco de Mayo (Spanish for "fifth of May") is a celebration held on May 5. It is celebrated nationwide in the United States and regionally in Mexico, primarily in the state of Puebla,^[1][2][3][4] where the holiday is called El Día de la Batalla de Puebla (English: The Day of the Battle of Puebla).^[5][6][7] The date is observed in the United States as a celebration of Mexican heritage and pride,^[8] and to commemorate the cause of freedom and democracy during the first years of the American Civil War.^[9] In the state of Puebla, the date is observed to commemorate the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín.^[2][10] Contrary to widespread popular belief, Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day—the most important national patriotic holiday in Mexico—which is actually celebrated on September 16.^{[2] [11]}
So now you know, if you didn't know before!

flag of Norway

A friend and I were talking recently about 'cultural diversity' in the corporate setting.  My friend is of Norwegian immigrant descent; while there are more people who have at least one ancestor of Scandinavian descent in Minnesota, last time I checked (which was a while ago) there were more people in this state of German descent than there were people of any one of the individual Scandinavian countries.  That gets tricky, because if you are up on your Scandinavian history, you would know that not all of the areas which are now separate and distinct nations were always so.  Most at one time or another, often for significant periods of time had national connections that made them controlled by or otherwise intricately related to Sweden.  (When you have a few minutes sometime, check out the Dissolution of the PERSONAL Union between Norway and Sweden in 1905, for example; a 'personal union' is probably not what you think it is.)
My friend noted that the company where she worked, a U.S. company that had become a subsidiary of a huge foreign-based, multi-national entity, was going to do something to promote cultural diversity for Cinco de Mayo...........but nothing for Syttende Mai (Seventeenth of May) which is the celebration of Norwegian Constitution Day, dating back to 1814.
Perhaps you are wondering why I'm writing about a Norwegian holiday celebrated in May on the day Mexican culture is celebrated.  It is a good question, and I have a good answer.
While both ethnicities, both cultural groups, have celebrations in this country of their heritage by marking a day special to their history, there are a couple of differences that go to the heart of issues in our culture, government and politics, even to the very unity of our nation as a melting pot for people from around the world.
My friend noted that while there was a corporate recognition and events for Cinco de Mayo, there was nothing done for Syttende Mai......and she felt slighted, as if HER heritage was treated as less important, and by extension as if SHE was therefore less important or valued for not having a celebration or recognition.  It created a very minor but real feeling of resentment on her part, and understandably so.
As a result, she felt (as I understood the feelings she expressed) that cultural diversity in some respects created more of a division than a reciprocity of understanding and sharing.  This woman is one of the nicest, kindest, most generous and compassionate people I know; it was not an easy thing to share that she felt a twinge of resentment once in a while. 
Her candor led to a very lively discussion, one that was a microcosm reflecting in very mild form broader national tensions and issues.
Part of our conversation focused on the immigrant experiences, including how Scandinavians were at one time treated disparagingly.  Ole and Lena jokes and Sven and Ole jokes were standard humor when I was growing up, with Ole and Lena being traditionally Norwegian, and Sven and his wife being Swedish in the classic ethnic humor tradition.  Like Polish ethnic jokes, the protagonists are often portrayed in a less than flattering light.  Ole and Lena have their own entry on - where else? - good ol' wikipedia, where this connection to the immigrant experience was drawn:

"One would not find Ole and Lena jokes in Sweden or Norway.  Rather they are an outgrowth of an immigrant experience. Language mistakes are a frequent source of Ole and Lena joke material. Turning the misunderstandings and mistakes into jokes enabled people to jest about their American immigrant experience. "

We are all immigrants to this country; it is only a question of how long ago, how far back in our history.  Yes, even the 'indigenous people' are immigrants; their ancestors came over the land bridge that is now the Bering Strait, earlier than the rest of us arrived from east and west.  My friend and I also watch the PBS series with Prof. Henry Louis Gates, 'Faces of America' together, which delves into the complexity of the genealogy of several diverse guests each episode, including DNA tests which show their origins from other parts of the world, and selected sections on their antecedents.  Among other things, Gates demonstrates that racial or ethnic 'purity' is largely a myth.

In the course of my discussion with my friend about diversity, I made the point that her company was attempting to give recognition to people who were less in the majority, who more often were excluded, marginalized or treated as other, outsiders, or diminished in some way.  It is intended as a way to include and make feel more accepted, more that they belong people who have not always been included, and/or people who are either in that immigrant transition, or people who have so few around them who are 'like them', in appearance, language or custom that they do not equally feel they belong, or fit in.  We have held robust celebrations for Syttende Mai for a long time; Cinco de Mayo is still new, still needing and deserving of greater exposure.

Some groups of people have already gone through that - as the Ole and Lena ethnic jokes, or the Pat and Mike Irish ethnic jokes (NO wikipedia entry) evidence; some of us are more 'like' the majority of those around them, we already have more points in common, a greater connection to each other of shared experience and references.

I believe profoundly that people should, all of us, be proud of who we are as individuals, of our heritage, from whatever country or countries, their cultures and traditions.  I believe we are a wonderful nation, that we are very special by having absorbed and combined so many people from so many parts of the world into one country.  I don't believe in 'American exceptionaism', however.  If we are a great nation for having been a melting pot of many different heritages, then we are so because those individual heritages were also valuable, EQUALLY valuable, for the strengths that they brought to our mix.  We do not need to be 'number 1', much less promote it interminably to be important, good or of value.  Others do not have to be less than us; it is not a sum game.  It is even more detestable when the 'we're number 1' claim is not true, when it is factually inaccurate.

There are those on the right who want to promote a false image of who we are.  There are those on the right who want to pick and choose what nations and cultures will be valued and which will not, focusing on people who are white, preferably western European in origin and culture. They seek a dominance for white people, for predominantly Christian people, preferably protestant more than Catholic.  The closer you get to the far right, the closer to the edge, the more extreme, the more that preference transforms into hatred --- hatred like J.T. Ready's that would cause him to accumulate a cache of paramilitary equipment.  His hatred caused him to hate an innocent little girl, eventually shooting and killing her.   CPAC and the current conservatives, whether they call themselves Libertarian, GOP, Tea Party or something else have embraced, as a movement in opposition to Barak Obama, a hateful and bigoted racism.  While it is clear that not all of the right is racist, they have tolerated, embraced, accepted and encouraged it. The right does more than just tolerate this pro-(some) European belief in the superiority of some people over others, of dominance of people they identify as like them over everyone else.  They demonize people, wrongly, unfairly, inaccurately.
In extreme cases, like J.T. Ready, it drives some people to kill other people.  Being caught in such horrific actions that result directly for horrific beliefs is embarrassing.  So these groups have to make up conspiracy theories pulled out of their backsides, claiming as fact the fiction that their 'hero' was murdered by malevolent Hispanic narco-terrorists, instead of being a murder/suicide arising out of a domestic dispute.  That a 911 call reporting the domestic dispute to police was in progress at the time of the shooting proves that wrong, but the extreme wing nuts will try to fly it anyway.

That this racism is behind the politics and policies of the right is clear from insanity like the following, from Think Progress (see the whole article that accompanies this video):



When they get caught, the right back pedals like crazy. Caucasian is a term used to describe a race; there IS no way to refer to it that is not racial. They lie; the right will lie like a rug, to avoid being caught publicly in expressing their racism. There IS no way to use the word Caucasian without addressing race in this context.
Cultural diversity should not ever disparage a majority, but so far as the larger experience of people who are in minorities or who are less inclusive in that majority, people who see fewer people around them who are like them, benefit from celebrating different cultures, from learning and from celebrating our respective strengths.  It is NOT something to be condemned, avoided or disparaged, even when it makes us less comfortable  That discomfort should be the starting point for finding common ground and shared understanding.
The alternative is what people like Ms. Brunstetter propose, which would harm a significant minority of people who are not 'like' her, who have a different sexual orientation.  And the extreme alternative to it are the views and actions of truly hateful people like J. T. Ready.  Conservatives are not moral people, they are not principled people, so long as they continue to embrace the white supremacists and the hateful anti-cultural diversity fringies, the homophobes and the Islamophobes and the Anti-semitics in order to expand their numbers and find new sources of money- and votes.  This is true in the politics and positions of people like Pat Buchanan.  It is true in the newsletters of Ron Paul.  It is true in the politics of CPAC.  It is true in the polling this past March by Public Policy Polling of SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVES that found significant percentages of them believe interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL (although not as high as the number of fools who did not believe in evolution).  Miscegenation ended by a SCOTUS decision in 1967; it never ended in these place by legislation.  The conservatives who feel this way are exclusively white; and they would love to see it be impossible for someone like President Obama not to be a legal child of marriage.  It is true in the politics of the people behind the 'Papers Please' immigration law in Arizona. It is true of people like J.T. Ready, who claimed (eventually, insincerely) to only be against illegal immigrants and 'narco-terrorists', but who could so clearly hate an innocent little girl for her parentage.  It is not isolated; it is endemic.

These people, these HORRIBLE, BACKWARD people, want to roll the world back to their odd, sick and horribly unequal and unfair days of 1920 and earlier, days when blacks and hispanics and women were all kept in a subordinate place, where they were submissive and dominated, where they did not play a significant role in power and politics and the economy.  A world where they could legislate away any fact they did not like and a world where corruption is rampant and ugly - where money buys everything.  They are immoral and they hate deeply.
They may be white, but these people are beyond the pale (so to speak) of a moral, ethical, civilized society.  THEY are the only ones who should excluded, by their political choices and beliefs, not their ethnicity or race, cultural origins, language or religion.

U.S. flag = US, ALL of US

Double Standard Much? Right Wing Presidential Candidates Conveniently (Intentionally) FORGET Our Right Wing President FAILED to get bin Laden WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE

There has been a lot of sour grape griping from the right because they begrudge the triumph of President Obama in making the decisions that resulted in the end of an enemy to this country, Osama bin Laden.
They demonstrate the political right's willful ignorance of history.  They routinely make botched attempts to create a revisionist history that is falsely favorable representations of their actions.
Not only did Mitt R-money state that he would NOT 'move heaven and earth' to get bin Laden, he made it clear that he did not consider bin Laden a target worth the effort and cost in resources for such a pursuit......until it became an unpopular position.
Quoting from politifact.com's analysis that looks at multiple statements made by R-money stating his position, clarifying his position and elaborating on his position, the preponderance of what he said was that he would emphatically NOT make the choice that President Obama made. 
From politifact.com:

The quote comes from an Associated Press story on April 26, 2007, about a Romney interview with reporter Liz Sidoti that covered a range of topics. Here’s the related passage:

In the interview, Romney also:

Said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.

...Still, Romney suggested just a few months later that he wouldn’t do what Obama ultimately did  — call for a secret, unilateral Navy SEALs strike inside Pakistan. In 2007, Obama had said that if he were elected president, he would be willing to launch strikes against al-Qaida targets in Pakistan with or without Pakistan’s approval.
An Aug. 4, 2007, headline from Reuters — an article cited by Obama’s ad — says, "Romney attacks Obama over Pakistan warning."
Romney called Obama's comments ‘ill-timed’ and ‘ill-considered,’" Reuters reported, along with other news services.

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said, according to Reuters. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them." Romney "said U.S. troops ‘shouldn't be sent all over the world.'"

Mitt Romney had made the clear statement that he would NOT have allocated the resources to pursue bin Laden.  When put on the spot, he changed his......spots.  (The man should be wearing reversible polka dot ties and magic Mormon polka dot underwear to facilitate those changes, since he makes them so often.)

This is a right wing pattern.  President George W. Bush did not pursue bin Laden when he had an opportunity to do so in 2001.  It appears that 'W' was playing politics with getting bin Laden.  I would argue it is more politics than foreign policy.   This seems to me to be effectively a decision about how Bush wanted our war in Afghanistan to play as PR spin, perception - similar to the efforts to distort perceptions about WMDs in Iraq. We did not have a sufficient relationship or performance basis to expect that leaving it to Afghan forces would be sufficient for success, in place of American forces.  This represents a major divergence, as noted, from our usual modus operandi in supporting our own armed forces.  
It is worth noting that R-money has been conspicuous in recruiting former 'W' personnel to his staff of advisers and other campaign positions, and presumably plans to do so for his administration, should he win the presidency. 

Foreign policy decisions under 'W' were disastrous, and would be so under R-money.  Domestic and foreign economic decisions were disastrous under 'W' and would be so under R-money.  The ONLY people who have benefited under 'W' benefited dramatically, the 1%, who grossly gained in wealth, while the 99% declined in wealth and endured very real suffering.  This is the path that R-money intends to pursue, and he will lie out of one or both sides of his mouth to do so, regularly and often.
In 2008, updated 2009, the CBS news program 60 Minutes



We do know now, from the material being released that was taken from the bin Laden compound that he was clearly afraid of the leadership of President Obama.  President Obama, in spite of the lies from Dick Cheney and others, has been a better president in his strategic and tactical decision.  He has exercised the leadership to make the correct decisions, even when he is disagreeing with his advisers - as he was in this instance, a calculated gamble on his part that was tremendously successful.  He has been successful not ONLY in his removal of bin Laden as a threat, but in combating terrorism generally, and very specifically in dramatically reducing the threat of Al Qaida.
Perhaps in the revisionist history that Mitt R-money has been spouting, when he makes a snide reference to former President Jimmy Carter, he has forgotten, or wishes to ignore, the reality of Operation Eagle Claw.  While it was a failed mission, unlike President George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter had the courage to make the attempt.  Unlike Mitt R-money, Jimmy Carter had a distinguished military career.   While an unpopular president, Carter left behind a far more distinguished list of successful foreign affairs accomplishments - notably the Camp David Accords, still holding - but many others than George W. Bush and his administration (the people R-money is recruiting).  And unlike President Obama, R-money doesn't appear to be a savvy strategist or tactician.
Sadly, instead of any form of new thought or better concept on the right, we have the same old same old failures.  We have the right wing blogosphere parrots blithely quoting the most disreputable of sources without either fact checking or multi-sourcing, so long as it disparages Obama and advances the right wing revisionist history effort.  One of those terrible anti-Obama laments was this one, quoting the UK rag that is so poor I wouldn't use it to wipe up puppy poop, for fear it would contaminate the dog excrement. 

The Daily Mail is THAT BAD as a source; if a right wing nut sees a story in the Daily Mail, and it appears NOWHERE else in reputable news sources (as distinct from the far right wing echo chamber), even the most credulous should recognize it is a HOAX, a FAKE, a FRAUD.  It is a step LOWER than the National Enquirer stories or the Weekly World News, back in the day.  In the 90s it was silly derogatory stories about the Clintons; now it is the same crap about Obama.
To give you a little perspective on how BAD that really is, here are a few sample covers, a blast from the REAL past, showing what sloppy news and fake derogatory anti-democratic President accusations look like -- the predecessor to what you're used to if you watch Fox News or rely on other Murdoch media.  There are legitimate reasons to criticize Barak Obama's presidency; there were legitimate reasons to criticize the Clinton presidency, but nonsense like this, made up silliness claiming to represent Seal Team 6 is not among them.  It is too bad it is acceptable to conservatives supporting Mitt R-money.

Michele Bachmann, Principled Flip Flopper!

The daily show puts the latest example in sharp focus:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Bachmann's endorsement is marginal at best, and far more likely to be worthless, or even a detriment to R-money.

The hypocrisy of Bachmann on R-money, er, Romney, is on a par with Bachmann's rants on fiscal responsibility, in comparison and contrast, with her role in spending MORE than any other member of Congress from Minnesota - while providing arguably the least service, and having the worst attendance, turning in the worst performance of any legislator from Minnesota in federal government.

NONE, absolutely NONE of Michele Bachmann's factually flawed crackpot statements are any more reliable, consistent, or ethical than the one above.

Pure Joie de Geek

As an unabashed science geek, both factual science and sci-fi, I simply loved this.
Watch, and celebrate your own inner geek, with a momentary a-snide (a wonderful malapropism from a friend of mine) to laugh at the faux News network right wingnuttery of the disgraced eeeevil mogul Murdoch.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney Alliance Analogies
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Followed by this clip relating to serious science, to keep the joie de geek balanced!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Who's Honoring Me Now? - National Space Society & Buzz Aldrin
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Jon Stewart on the Insanity of Guns and Gays in Missouri

The right likes to give mindless repetition to claims about wanting smaller government.  In theory concepts like reducing redundant programs and streamlining laws to be simpler and less intrusive, including eliminating them entirely where they are unnecessary is an excellent one. 
If the right ever, even remotely, put actions to their words, I would join them.  They don't.  They say one thing, do another. (Anyone remember that whopper lie assuring us they would focus on jobs, not waging culture wars?)
In practice, what the right does is the opposite.  The only laws and regulations they repeal are those which give more money to big corporate interests who are their donors and supporters, at the expense of public policy and citizen interests.  At the same time they enact overreaching and intrusive laws which make our citizens less free, less independent, and a whole lot less affluent.  Examples would be requiring that medically inaccurate propaganda be forced on women making reproductive decisions, or intrusive and expensive vaginal probe ultrasonography confirming what they already know.
The political right does NOT want FREEDOM.  They want FREE-DUMB, they want people to be ignorant and conformist.  No critical thinking, no trusting people to make their own decisions with accurate information for the right! 
This segment by Jon Stewart's Daily Show is one of their most brilliant examples of right wing bigger government, stupid government, less free and equal government in action. 
Guns are not overly regulated; given the gun violence and the desperate need we have to change our gun culture in this country to something more safe and more sane, the following clip makes a very strong point against both the rights Gun Manufacturer driven NRA promoting lethal stupidity and hypocrisy. This is brilliant, simply and purely brilliant.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Two of a Kind, Peas Meet Pod

Two more or less military wannabes.  Ready thrown out, Breivik couldn't make it in.  One expert testified in the Breivik trial that Breivik had trouble differentiating between reality and World of Warcraft and other war game fantasies.  Breivik arguably lived in his own little world separate from the fact based reality we know.  Both tried to become important through proving themselves adept at military actions - Breivik by gunning down many people who were not able to fight back.  Ready gunning down fewer people who could not fight back, but also playing at vigilante war  in the outdoors with his silly friends also dressed up in their little soldier suits.
Neither was legitimate. Both were rather bland, pale and pudgy faced, and both shared similar views that expressed hatred for the rest of the world, fear of Islam, white supremacy and right wing ideas and ideals.  Both were people who are or were largely not taken seriously, deservedly so.
Both have an utter lack of charm, charisma, or true social graces; they are clumsy boors - past tense in the case of Ready. Both were fascinated with their own race.  Both were fond of silly looking one arm extended salutes.  The two were only a few years apart in age.
Both were wrong, and both have done more to persuade people away from, not towards, those points of view.

Breivik

There may be one last way in which they are alike; both are an embarrassment to their respective countries and cultures.

Arizona Mormon Nazi Shooting Update - Who Shot Whom?

From the Fox News station in Phoenix, it appears the house had numerous firearms, that the Mormon Nazi believed to have shot the others was wearing body armor, and it is a possibility that one of the other people in the house shot him.  Amber Mederos was the daughter of Ready's girlfriend.

Amber Mederos has been listed as a treasurer with the JT Ready for Sheriff campaign. This happened at the home of Lisa Mederos, where Ready had been living for the past 2 years.

Ready is dead, but it's not clear whether the wound was self-inflicted, "as there is multiple weapons on scene," an official said. There were reports of a domestic violence incident between Ready and his girlfriend earlier in the day Wednesday.

We've learned another daughter of Lisa's, a 19-year-old, is alive and found the blood bath. 

It appears that Ready was wearing body armor at the time of the incident.
I'm surprised that Ready would meet the qualifications for the job of sheriff; apparently he had a conviction for assault at 18, was discharged from the marines, twice, for bad conduct, including theft.  This was not a law abiding man, yet he was able to own 'multiple weapons' despite a pattern of conflicts with law enforcement over a period of years.
While Ready claimed to be running as a Democrat, he did not have the support or endorsement of the Democratic party which was supporting their popular incumbent candidate, Clarence Dupkin.
One more gun nut who shot himself and a lot of other people, one more ugly gun incident in the lax gun state of Arizona.

Michele Bachmann Endorses Romney; did he buy her support?

Did anyone else happen to notice that Romney is an anagram for R-m o n e y?

Apparently Bachmann's going to Virginia to formally make her endorsement -- she goes anywhere but House floor votes or committee meetings or meeting constituents in her office.  Must be all that traveling to promote herself that keeps her expenses among the highest of the Minnesota delegation; it certainly isn't doing legitimate work on behalf of her district.  She doesn't have time for that.
It is not unheard of for candidates who win endorsements to pay off the debt of losing candidates who drop out.  Romney has already contributed to T-Paw, helping pay down a significant part of his campaign debt.  Given the relative holes that Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich are each in financially, and in particular Bachmann's stunning decline in popularity at home, money will be important.  Of these candidates, Bachmann appears to be the only one running for another office.  I'm also expecting that sooner or later we will find that Herman Cain negotiated a little quid pro quo on his campaign debt in exchange for publicly supporting Mitts full of Money.

It should be noted that Obama has done something similar for Hilary Clinton as well.  The difference however is two-fold; one, I can't imagine that any of the candidates endorsing Romney will make much of a difference, all of their campaigns have been characterized by extreme apathy. Two, I can't imagine that Romeny wants any of these jackasses anywhere near a cabinet position or any other position of authority and responsibility.  Lets have a rousing chorus or six of "Money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world go round..."