Fri, Jul 18th 2008, 12:09
Take a look at
this article. Yes, the hard-hitting journalism that is CNN has come up with a winner here. Using the ever-present boogyman that is Al Qaeda, CNN has come up with a great attention grabbing story. "Al Qaeda-linked suspect may have targeted Bush." This is beyond irresponsible journalism and I'm going to tell you why.
Back in January, a 24 year old student took video of an Israeli helipad that was reserved for senior officials. CNN is sure to point out that Bush used this helipad at some point in the past. Then, said student went to an "Internet forum identified with al Qaeda" and asked about the "possibility" of attacking an aircraft with Bush on it. CNN then points out that this student, along with 5 others, were arrested. It provides the following justification: "The suspects used the Internet to go to radical Islamic Web sites, including some identified with al Qaeda".
If you haven't realized it yet, there is nothing even close to proof that the al Qaeda we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with these people and CNN fails to mention this. So the issue isn't that CNN reported this story, the issue is
how it was reported. It is making connections to things that aren't connected. How can they say "Al Qaeda-linked suspect" in the title when the only link is that this person visited websites "identified with al Qaeda"? Is this a grand conspiracy by al Qaeda to take out Bush? Or is it one pissed off individual posting some outrageous ideas on an internet forum?
This is the same tactic they used to get Americans to identify Saddam Hussein with 9/11, the repetition of names and associations, the flagrant disregard for critical thinking, and the use of sensationalist headlines that all add up and contribute to the general ignorance that is bovine America.
0 Comments
Tue, Jun 10th 2008, 10:24
It's only a matter of time before lies surrounding the marijuana debate come crumbling down. The problem with the current 'debate' is that there are basically two sides, one grounded in reality and one grounded in the usual politics.
Take
this article for example. It has an eye catching headline of "Marijuana May Up Heart Attack, Stroke Risk". The first paragraph of the article reads:
"Heavy marijuana use can boost blood levels of a particular protein, perhaps raising a person's risk of a heart attack or stroke, U.S. government researchers said on Tuesday."
Such strong words! "
can boost blood levels"? "
perhaps raising a person's risk"?
Perhaps its time to stop smoking! Perhaps.
Now lets look at some actual facts. The study was done on "18 long-term, heavy marijuana users and 24 other people who did not use the drug" "based on self-reported drug history". The participants were smoking an average of "78 to 350 marijuana cigarettes per week". Now reread that last sentence, 350 "marijuana cigarettes" a week! So here we have a "respected" news organization, Reuters, reporting that "Marijuana May Up Heart Attack, Stroke Risk" based on a study from an extremely biased source that uses self-reported data by people claiming, literally, to smoke 50 joints a day. Good thinking!
Often times this is how the marijuana debate gets framed, and what's sad is that any legitimate concerns about marijuana use gets thrown aside for crack pot studies like this. Couple that with extremely shoddy and flat out irresponsible journalism on the part of "respected" news organizations, and the entire debate becomes useless.
0 Comments
Tue, Jun 3rd 2008, 14:17
Step 1: Secure high-ranking government job.
Step 2: Refuse to stand up to an abusive administration waging an illegal war all the while repeatedly spewing grotesque lies often times going against all documented evidence, accepted thought and common sense.
Step 3:
Profit!
0 Comments
Sat, May 31st 2008, 13:39
Like most red-blooded Americans, I want to do everything I can to help my country fight the War on Terror. And, like many others, sometimes I get confused and lack the initiative or knowledge to know what to do next. Luckily, Michelle Malkin has come into my life. Michelle is brilliant. If you aren't aware of her latest slap in the face to Osama bin Laden, it came in the form of a proposed boycott of Dunkin' Donuts because in one of their television commercials, Rachael Ray is wearing what appears to be a "black-and-white keffiyeh".
What is a keffiyeh you might ask? For the uneducated, a keffiyeh is a traditional headdress worn by Arab men. However, Michelle knows there is more to it; she claims the keffiyeh "is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad." And while Rachael Ray was, according to the Dunkin' Donuts statement, "wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design that was purchased at a U.S. retail store," Michelle had the insight to see what was
really going on here and threatened a boycott if the ad was not pulled. Luckily cooler heads prevailed and the ad was immediately pulled off the air. In your face bin Laden!
To get the other side to this, I contacted the Boston chapter of the Muslim American Society. I politely put forth my question as to why they hate America, and why wearing a keffiyeh is even allowed any more. A lovely young lady named Elizabeth "Lizzy" Dann responded with some information. She claims that the keffiyeh has become a fashion trend and that it doesn't mean anything close to what Michelle says it does. In fact, she goes on to say "Also, just as a side note, it has no religious significance whatsoever. It doesn't stand for anything at all...it has taken on meaning insofar as it is connected to a culture and a "race" of people...but in itself it is just as meaningless as a shoe, or a shirt. It was not created for any political or religious purpose, and has been worn for centuries...long before we even knew what a 'jihadist' was." Now, I know what you're thinking to yourself: "who knows more about Muslim culture? The Outreach Center Coordinator for the Boston chapter of the Muslim American Society or Michelle Malkin?" The answer is painfully obvious.
I applaud Malkin's no nonsense approach to this issue. It takes guts to go against to the liberal media and take a stand on a complete non-issue with erroneous information backed by empty threats. Who cares if Rachael Ray was actually wearing an American scarf? Michelle Malkin doesn't fuck around when it comes to terrorism. Which brings me to the real issue here: khaki pants.
Inspired by the Michelle, I did some research of my own. What I found out was as alarming. Millions of people have been wearing khaki pants with no idea of the ideologies I've decided they are supporting. To quote Wikipedia, "The name comes from the Persian word khak (dust/ashes) which came to English from India, specifically via the British Indian Army." And do you know who was in the British Indian Army? Muslims. The history gets really confusing, but all you have to know is that in the end, the British no longer govern India. What is it about Muslims that they can't accept a helping hand? After minutes of research, I had seen enough. I, David Chez, from this day forth will no longer wear khaki pants, and I urge anybody who loves American to do the same.
2 Comments
Thu, May 29th 2008, 15:54
Welcome to SUYKA's new look. I redid the blog as a project to learn CakePHP, a web framework that uses the ever popular MVC design pattern. For those of you who know what I'm talking about, I highly recommend giving it a try. Regular updates are coming soon so stick around for more of that hot SUYKA action you have come to love.
Be sure to subscribe to 'The Feed' in the upper right hand corner. The old feed is now dead and if you want to recieve site updates, you have to subscribe again.
0 Comments
