Infinite MonkeysI'm almost all settled in to my new home in Pasadena -- but I also have family visiting this week and am getting up to speed on my new job. So my blogging might still be spotty for a while longer. I'm very sorry to have missed the Monkey Summit. I'll definitely be there next year.
But I've seen lots of items over the past few weeks that I was dying to comment on and draw to yinz's attention -- almost all of them in my new paper, The LA Times (the publication Hugh Hewitt calls the worst major metro newspaper in the country. I'd agree with him 100 percent on political coverage, but they do have a lively "Calendar" section -- called the "Life" or "Style" section everywhere else in the country. Their sports section is just fair (too much smart-ass, not enough good writing). I'll get to the LA Times later. For now, the most mind-jarring nonsense I'd like to share is this asinine passage from the NY Times. It is an excerpt from a surprising story in that anti-war newspaper that actually outlines the progress the US military has made in Iraq and provides a clear explanation of the chaos that would erupt if we heed the Democrats' disgraceful call for surrender:
General Lynch said his troops had promised local people that they would stay in the areas they had taken from the extremists until enough Iraqi forces were available to take over, and said this had helped sustain “a groundswell” of feeling against the extremists. He said locals had pinpointed hide-outs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an extremist group that claims to have ties to Osama bin Laden’s network, that had been used to send suicide bombers into Baghdad and they had helped troops locate 170 large arms caches. The general said the locals had started neighborhood patrol units called “Iraqi provincial volunteers” that supplied their own weapons and ammunition.
Well, yes. We're making great progress in Iraq -- progress that is vital if the US is to protect its national security and avoid a disaster that would make our Vietnam experience look like a moment of glory and wisdom. But to describe terrorist killers as "extremists"? I would think even that is too much for the NYTimes, yet they use that term throughout the piece. Disgraceful.
And also note the reference to "Mesopotamia." Not only does that ape the language of our enemy, it invalidates the existence of Iraq and the noble attempts by brave patriots in that country to forge a unified and peaceful future.
But to posit, as the NYTimes does, that AQ in Iraq merely "claims" to have ties to bin Laden's network is the height of silliness. There have been -- what now -- at least two dozen communications between AQinI and bin Laden and his deputies in the Main Office ... er ... caves that have made the papers? How many times has AQ No. 2, Zawahiri, released videos detailing the symbiosis between the groups -- with such statements as "the warriors we have sent..." etc.?
Is it too much to ask the country's knighted "newspaper of record" to actually report true facts?
Posted by Dr. Zaius at July 18, 2007 08:08 PM
"knighted," or "benighted?"
It's a sad but true fact that Dr. Zaius doesn't know the difference between knighted and benighted. Not his fault. He was badly abused by his previous lord and master. But it doesn't help that he does not return my calls.
Posted by: H.L. Monkey at July 20, 2007 10:24 PMActually, I crudely meant "knighted" -- as in lauded, respected, or an ironic reference to the dictionary.com entry of "a defender, champion, or zealous upholder of a cause or principle." Like a said, a crude adjective poorly used.
I certainly did not have the definition of benighted -- "being in a state of moral or intellectual darkness" -- in mind, at least not in this construction. Though, that is an accurate description of the mindset of most in the MSM when it comes to war coverage.
Keep in mind that I began my presence on this blog misspelling my own name ... clownishly as "Dr. Zeus."
It will not be my last embarassment.
Posted by: Dr. Zaius at July 26, 2007 04:51 PM