Blue Crab Boulevard

Tom Elia at The New Editor points to a really, really arrogant statement by Roger Ebert that actually speaks volumes about the mindset of the media.

Though I disagree with his political views, I like movie critic Roger Ebert, and respect his abilities as a movie reviewer.

However, this excerpt from a review of A Mighty Heart, a movie about the kidnapping of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is simply ridiculous and speaks volumes about how many in the press seem to view their critics:

The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful.

Which brings up the question: how, exactly, has Ebert made his living for all these years? Why it's by criticizing others! While I certainly derive no financial benefit from running this blog, Ebert has lived quite well off his complaints about movies and movie makers. But to point out what is perceived to be biased reporting in not akin to trying to shoot a journalist. Ebert appears to believe - as do many in the media - that by virtue of their position that they are above criticism - regardless of reason. If the news was, indeed, the news that would be one thing. Unfortunately, the "news" these days is increasingly the criticism and opinion of the reporter. Shining a light under the rock isn't intellectually akin to shooting a reporter. Demanding accurate coverage from the media should not even be necessary. But, sadly, it is.

Yeah, I know, new posts have been pretty scarce here for about the last day. I've been busy with a number of issues in the real world. One of which has been to "repot" one of my computers. I always had heat problems with that computer case - it was not ducted properly for a Pentium 4 CPU. After the second power supply failure, it was time to move to new digs, so to speak. Which appears to have fixed the random crashing problems I was having with said computer.

Germany is, quite literally, urging the others members of the European Union to simply ignore Poland and go ahead with negotiating a treaty to replace the failed EU constitution. This is not an unprecedented move, incidentally. The EU did it once before to Britain over Margaret Thatcher's objections.

BRUSSELS (AFP) - Germany urged its European Union partners to move ahead on a new treaty of reforms without Poland, after Warsaw rejected an offer to modify the bloc's voting system in its favour.

After a series of unsuccessful face-to-face talks with Polish President Lech Kaczynski, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to press on with plans for ending the EU's two-year political malaise and replace its failed constitution.

"The German chancellor wants to take a decision at the summit without Poland," her spokesman, Ulrich Wilhelm, told reporters, setting up a marathon summit in Brussels.

"The German presidency now wants to obtain a joint mandate of the 26 other countries for an Inter-Governmental Conference," he said, referring to a series of meetings originally set to start next month to finalize the "reform treaty".

Under EU rules, only a simple majority of the 27 countries is needed to call such a conference, and this has happened in 1985, despite the objections of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

However decisions at the conference would have to be taken at unanimity.

"Poland would then have the chance to join the European consensus at the governmental conference in the autumn," Wilhelm said.

After the announcement, an EU diplomat warned that "nothing has been decided yet. Everything could change over dinner" among the leaders.

Poland is not trying to get rules that favor it, however, contrary to the wording of the AFP story. They are trying to get rules which do not favor Germany and France. There is a difference, and the Germans and the French obviously do not want to give up their dominance. (Earlier posts here and here.)

Although it isn't exactly clear which military. Speaker Nancy Pelosi managed to do it, yet again. Last year it was the Democratic party who used a photograph of a Canadian soldier to illustrate their concern for the troops. This time it's Pelosi (it has already been taken down, just as they did last year. But McQ from QandO was smart enough to get a screenshot.)

It reminds you of the old song and dance some biased people used when talking about Jews and/or black people, doesn't it? Too bad this bias is directed against the troops. And Democrats wonder why people don't trust them on defense matters.

We regret to inform our readers that not all of man's best friends have remained loyal in the face of continuing pressure from the Animal Uprising™. And when man's best friend goes bad, there is no telling what can happen. For example, they might steal your car and joyride it right into the river.

SAGLE, Idaho - Bad dog. Charlie the black lab is in trouble after driving his owner's car into the Pend Oreille River. Owner Mark Ewing had just returned home from picking up a pizza Wednesday evening. As he walked to his home, Charlie jumped into the car through an open window, and apparently knocked the vehicle into gear.

"He somehow got the car into neutral," Ewing said. "My car just went boom, down an incline and into the drink."

Ewing could only watch as his Chevy Impala sank into the river. No dummy, Charlie jumped out of the window as the car went downhill.

"There's nothing weirder than looking at your car cruising down your driveway when you're not in it and seeing your dog jump out and then watching your car go splash," Ewing said.

Blackguard lab, you mean. All of you people who take your dogs for rides in the car, watch out. They've been observing you and figuring out how to operate the controls. Expect a flurry of man bites dog stories as the full role reversal kicks in! Incidentally, Ewing was wrong - things did actually get more weird. The tow truck driver, named Keith, handed Ewing his false teeth to hold so he could take a swim before fishing out the car.

We weren't aware our brother had moved to Idaho.

Charles Krauthammer looks the recent takeover of Gaza by Hamas and the de facto splitting of the Palestinian territories. He tentatively supports giving Mahmoud Abbas one last chance to get it right in the West Bank - but only one last chance.

With Hamas now clearly in charge, Israel should declare that it will tolerate no more rocket fire — that the next Qassam will be answered with a cutoff of gasoline shipments. This should bring road traffic in Gaza to a halt within days and make it increasingly difficult to ferry around missiles and launchers.

If that fails to concentrate the mind, the next step should be to cut off electricity. When the world wails, Israel should ask, what other country on Earth is expected to supply the very means for a declared enemy to attack it?

Regarding the West Bank, policy should be equally clear. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas represents moderation and should be helped as he tries to demonstrate both authority and success in running his part of Palestine.

But let's remember who Abbas is. He appears well intentioned, but he is afflicted with near-disastrous weaknesses. He controls little. His troops in Gaza simply collapsed against the greatly outnumbered forces of Hamas. His authority in the West Bank is far from universal. He does not even control the various factions within Fatah.

But the greater liability is his character. He is weak and indecisive. When he was Yasser Arafat's deputy, Abbas was known to respond to being slapped down by his boss by simply disappearing for weeks in a sulk. During the battle for Gaza, he did not order his Fatah forces to return fire against the Hamas insurrection until the fight was essentially over. Remember, too, that after Arafat's death Abbas ran the Palestinian Authority without a Hamas presence for more than a year. Can you name a single thing he achieved in that time?

Without Western aid, Abbas will lose the West Bank, with it, he might save that much. But Fatah is not much better in the great scheme of things than Hamas. Let's not forget were dealing with two terrorist organizations. But Fatah has at least been convinced to admit that Israel has a right to exist. For that, we probably need to give Abbas one last chance.