- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 23, 2008
I’ve been in the military, I’ve watched a lot of TV & movies, I’ve held numerous jobs, and so on. I have a pretty good notion of what “disobeying orders” is. Apparently, I’m alone in Georgia because when I saw this headline:
I immediately had this image of deputies shooting someone for failing to pick up litter, refusal to “step out of the car, ma’am” or shooting him in the back for the old, “stop in the name of the law!” line.
Let’s follow what happened, shall we?
Around 11p.m. , residents from the McIntosh Estates Subdivision located Southeast of Peachtree City called 911 to report a suspicious car in their neighborhood.
When officers arrived quickly found the car and asked the driver to step outside.
This must be where they shot him, right? Because they gave him an order and he didn’t obey.
When the unidentified man exited the car, he garnished a weapon.
He did what?? He garnished a weapon? That’s kind of an unexpected thing to do. Was it something like this?
I realize that it’s rather odd to dress up a knife after exiting a car, but is it really any reason to shoot him? I bet they told him to stop garnishing that knife because someone could cut themselves if they didn’t see the knife behind all that parsley and mint.
According to Coweta County Investigators, the deputies ordered the man several times to drop his weapon. Instead the man turned his weapon, pointing at the deputies.
Ok, I understand that technically pointing a knife at an officer is wrong, even if it’s been garnished. But let’s get real. Who’s going to be afraid of a garnished weapon? Apparently the deputies in Coweta County, Georgia are:
The deputies then fired their guns striking, killing the suspect.
Or maybe they just don’t like parsley.
But what about the anti-cop part? Well, I did skip over the first paragraph to make the above commentary of the illiteracy of the NBC 11-Alive reporter.
Coweta County deputies fatally injured a man Saturday night. After, he failed to obey orders to drop his gun.
It sheds a new light on it, doesn’t it? But channel 11 would rather have a sensational headline that makes it appear that the cops did something wrong.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 21, 2008
Courtesy of the Al-Jazeera Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
First:
and then they revised the headline (or more specifically the <title> tag of the post):
But “journalists” will tell you that they only report facts, right? You bet!
- Posted by Christopher Estep on September 12, 2008
First, let me start with my wife's comments:
Oh, my gosh! He's being so rude!
Look how condescending he is.
I watched him on GMA for years and he never treated anyone like this.
Look how smug he looks. Look at how he keeps looking at her.
Why won't he let her finish a sentence?
He's not even listening. Look at his face. She's talking and he's somewhere else already thinking of what he's going to say next.
It was a hack job and anyone watched it could see it. The sad part is that it's such a bad hack job of editing that you have no clue what she actually said. There was case after case where she was clearly not finished answering a question but it was edited out. In one case, she was actually in mid sentence and they cut her comment.
Worst of all, they completely distorted her position on the war as to whether it was a "task from God", with Gibson denying it saying, "Exact words." Well, Charlie, those may have been exact words but it wasn't the complete sentence.
As far as an interview goes, I'd give it a D, even though Palin was fine. Unfortunately for Chuck, even the LA Times could see that it was a hack job.
- Posted by Christopher on August 20, 2008
This is a screen capture I just took from MSNBC's web site. Note how they characterize statements about Obama. Biased? Naaah!!!
- Posted by Christopher on August 20, 2008
Those who follow polls and follow history know that polls are of dubious validity. They rely on a variety of factors, including:
- Size of the sample
- The phrasing of the questions
- The options given the polled populace
But the most important factor in determining if a poll has any value at all is the actual sample they are polling. When you read a news story about a poll, pay particular attention to whom they are seeking their opinion. They will use phrases like, "in a poll of registered voters" or "in a poll of those who are of voting-age" but the most reliable (if any can be called reliable) is "likely voters". These are individuals who specifically state that not only are they registered, but they are likely to vote. The pollster can further refine that sample by using restrictions such as "those who voted in 2004" or some such.
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41
percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking
his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
It's not possible to understate the significance of this trend. Obama should be destroying McCain. Obama's dynamic, good looking, likable, and he generally says all of the right things. And yet cranky old McCain with the weird bulge on his face, raspy voice, and a limp is actually beginning to lead. Four years ago, Kerry was destroying Bush in the polls.
My assessment is that Obama is overexposed. I believe that the media adulation of him and the rabid nature of his Kool-aid drinking supporters are beginning to cause great suspicion in the minds of likely voters. I saw a bumper sticker that said, "I already have a savior. I want a President" and I think that summarizes it quite nicely.
The fact is that the adulation being heaped upon Obama is not believable. The media and democrats are daily extolling his virtues such as leadership but they don't ring true. The arrogance and total lack of humility shown by Obama is more evident every day.
But most importantly, I suspect that foreign affairs play a significant role in this turnaround. When push comes to shove, a lot of people will question whether a 1st term senator is really capable of protecting us in an aggressive world. More and more people are finding that Obama has led nothing and has absolutely zero foreign policy experience.
Obama is shiny. Obama is new. And the shine is beginning to wear off.
- Posted by Christopher on August 17, 2008
Once again, the AJC has chosen to use its headlines to cast police activity in a negative light:
Looks like a real travesty, doesn’t it? When you read that, what’s your first assumption? You assume that the article is about how the police shot an innocent bystander who just happened to be at the scene of the crime.
A silent alarm was tripped, and when the responding officer arrived, the boy fled on foot toward a minivan registered to his mother, Bolton said. After a brief tussle, the youth allegedly jumped into the vehicle, threw it into reverse and nearly hit a second officer who had just arrived.
The second officer’s patrol car was hit, and the first officer fired at the teen, hitting him “more than once,” Bolton said. The boy was taken to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston and is expected to recover from his wounds.
In other words, officers shot a burglary suspect who was trying to murder them. But you won’t read that in the main stream media, will you?
- Posted by Christopher on August 2, 2008
Not that it wasn't expected, but the Obama campaign has just opened 5 offices in Georgia.
The five offices are the first to open in the state, kicking off a grassroots effort in the state.
The
offices are in Atlanta at 1080 Spring Street, on Prince Avenue in
Athens, on Mt. Zion Road in Jonesboro, on Concord Road SE in Smyrna and
on Adair Street in Valdosta.
Staffers will try to recruit supporters and organize them in the communities.
Ok, I realize that I'm not as smart as the media, but the last I head, "grassroots" didn't mean "started by, paid for, and sponsored by the super-wealthy campaign".
It doesn't surprise me, but more evidence of the "in the tank" media, especially here in Atlanta.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on June 20, 2008
I’ve been meaning to do an analysis of all the reasons why Barry won't win Georgia in spite of the media pronouncements that he can, but Erick over at Redstate has written a lengthy and absolutely fantastic article detailing just that.
The speculation on Georgia has more to do with changing the media narrative than it does with victory. Obama will not win Pennsylvania. There are other states that will become competitive for John McCain that would not be competitive for a different Republican. But Georgia will stay red, as will the rest of the south. Obama just has a money advantage right now to build hype and buzz.
One of my favorite recent anecdotes is the urban white liberal who put a McCain bumper sticker over the Bill Bradley sticker on his range rover. Obama's politics, positions, and lack of experience do not sell well in Georgia except in areas of large African-American or liberal university professor vote concentrations. And you cannot win Georgia on those demographics.
Not Gonna Happen | Redstate
- Posted by Christopher Estep on June 16, 2008
From the moment I read this story in the LA Times, I’ve been searching for the other 3 horsemen.
Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
Somebody pinch me!
Now maybe we can discuss the merits of the war rather than the polemics of “Bush Lied, People Died”.
Oh wait, there are people like Reverend Jerry who think the government developed AIDS to use on blacks. Never mind. Most liberals are still a lost cause.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on June 13, 2008
Though lifelong Democrat, Russert will be missed as one of the few true journalists in the main-stream media in that he understood it was his job to find the news and report it, not to make the news.
WASHINGTON - Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday after a sudden heart attack at the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58.
Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said. He and his family had recently returned from Italy, where they celebrated the graduation of Russert’s son, Luke, from Boston College.
No further details were immediately available.
NBC's Tim Russert dead at 58 - U.S. news- msnbc.com
My comment from Michelle Malkin's blog:
He was a life-long Democrat.
I wish all democrat journalists were like him. You could see his
bias from time-to-time, but he genuinely worked not to let it show. He
was only human, but he was an example of telling the story without being the story or making the story.
Tim Russert was the journalist that America thought Cronkite was and what Rather wishes he could be.
Even gone, he will remain a figurative giant among his peers.
May his widow and son find peace despite their tragic loss.