via e-mail

by Alan Korwin,

August 18, 2006

Today's Q:
When was the last time you saw a network or cable news channel interview a person who defended their life with a gun, and does this affect people's perceptions of guns?

The lamestream media told you:
President Bush publicly declared that Hezbollah was defeated, now that there's a U.N.-sanctioned truce between them and Israel. Hezbollah declared victory against Israel now that there's a truce.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Neither side won, neither side lost, the Muslim jihad is still on, and it's unaffected by the truce.

----------

The lamestream media told you:
A $1 million prize may entice more people to vote, if a ballot proposition passes in Arizona. The first state to consider such a measure, it is being closely watched nationwide. Every voter who turns out will be entered into a lottery for a chance at the million dollars, if Prop 200 is adopted.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Proposed by a Tucson man who ran for governor but didn't make it past the primary, he says it puts capitalism to work in the electoral process.

Encouraging born losers who would never vote, to vote so they can have a chance at prize money, is the opposite of the American Way, where voting is a civil duty, the act of responsible individuals, and requires a little research to examine the candidates and the issues. The proponent, who deserves scorn, has been treated as a dignitary in published reports.

Every person who votes for a winning candidate, or a losing candidate, plus everyone else who pays taxes, will have to front the one million dollars. No constitutional authority exists to take any money from the public treasury and give it to a single voter based on a lottery. This has not stopped the advocates of the measure, the judges who approved the measure or members of the voting commission, none of whom have been arrested.

----------

The lamestream media told you:
U.S. authorities acting on a tip boarded a fishing boat off the Mexican coast and captured suspected drug kingpin Arellano Felix, reputed leader of the Arellano Felix organization, according to the Dallas Morning News.

"This guy happens to be one of the 45 most notorious, most wanted drug traffickers in the world," Mike Braun of the DEA said.

Mexican authorities said Arturo Villareal, arrested at the same time, was more significant.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The arrest of one or two of the top 100 drug traffickers in the world will have no measurable affect on the drug trade, no impact on the staff sizes or government spending lavished on the war on some drugs, or on drug use. The story was an announcement by government officials, with no actual reporting involved.

The organizations of these two reputed leaders are intact and unaffected. Now, unnamed lieutenants will move up the chain of command for promotions, without the usual need to murder their superiors, thanks to the efforts of the official "anti-drug" warriors. In that sense, the officials may have saved some lives.

It was not clear at press time if the next most dangerous 45 drug trafficking leaders liked being ranked as second tier, or if the official rankings were accurate. The loss of about 2% of the leadership was laughably small, someone said on condition of anonymity.

In familiar reporting style, the only important questions were not asked, let alone answered. For example, "With regard to the war on drugs, is the war succeeding? When could it be declared a success, the expense of waging it cease, and the tax-based infrastructure surrounding it be decreased or dismantled? If it can't be declared a success, when might it be declared a failure and brought to a close? How do you respond to critics who say the war on some drugs is really a federal-agents jobs program, and price supports for the drug dealers?"

For an in-depth look at the questions the "news" media never touches, see The Liberty Poll, by columnist Vin Suprynowicz, attorney Mike Anthony and The Uninvited Ombudsman.
http://www.gunlaws.com/the%20liberty%20poll.htm

----------

The lamestream media told you:
Nearly 50 have died, including two GIs, in roiling violence in Iraq, according to Robert Reid, writing for the Associated Press. Sectarian death squads have been rounding up innocent people and executing them, sometimes in broad daylight. Some were killed by suicide bombers.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
It's puzzling how newspapers everywhere seem to manage such uniformly narrow reports about the Iraq war. There are constant stories that essentially say, "So-And-So Kills Many" in the papers I review, and usually nothing else.

The U.S. has more than 140,000 soldiers in Iraq, and news consumers are left to wonder -- what do they do? Americans simply don't know, because there is routinely zero coverage of them. Most Americans, facing an aabsolutely blank slate, haven't even noticed that the slate is blank.

The soldiers must be doing something, right? A blind guess suggests they are on patrols, conducting search and destroy missions, ferreting out jihadis and killing them, gathering evidence and intelligence, supporting reconstruction projects, destroying captured munitions, interviewing locals for leads, protecting the crews rebuilding Iraq, working near the oil fields -- but the papers are dead silent on this.

That's not really a blind guess. Returning soldiers have provided such details directly to the Uninvited Ombudsman, with news of how the schools are no longer ammo dumps, hospitals have supplies, and how most citizens  are better off and appreciative, even though it's still a dangerous place (but, see following story).

When the Unibomber was in the news, you read all sorts of meaningful expert analysis -- explosive types, bomb design, modus operandi, likely perps, source of materials -- for every event. With all the money beinng spending over there, at least some details on explosives used ought to leak through, but it is virtually 100% suppressed. How?

How do the newspapers manage to uniformly report isolated bombings constantly yet collectively neglect any other coverage day after day, of what our 140,000 troops are doing every day?

This glaring omission contributes to why the public increasingly distrusts the "news" media.

----------

The lamestream media told you:
A suicide bomber near a Shiite shrine killed 26 people, in the deadliest such attack in a while, reports the Associated Press.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
While Iraq endured 26 horrific murders, an average of 82 people in America died of gunshot wounds on the same day (30,000 divided by 365).

Approximately 60% were a direct result of, or related to, crime and the war on some drugs. The victims are largely "people of color," a fact known to police but rarely revealed in the lamestream media. The remaining 40% were generally elderly suicides, by people who had run out of patience, money, and the ability to endure prolonged illness, in a land where palliative care is severely restricted.

Although America faces three times the killing rate of Iraq, the "news" media only focuses on deaths in Iraq for some reason.

----------

The lamestream media told you:
Due to a foiled terrorist plot, liquids and gels are now banned from carry-on luggage in domestic flights.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Due to a foiled Islamo-fascist plot, liquids and gels are now subject to confiscation by airport authorities, before they can be brought on airplanes. Though rumors circulated that some of the confiscated property was being kept by the TSA and its agents, supervisors now insist the merchandise is reportedly discarded, and factory sealed containers are donated to local charities.

The rational for keeping or donating containers of suspected explosives has not been explained.

The nature of the liquid explosives has not been revealed, for fear of leaking the information to terrorists, who were planning to bring the liquids onto planes. Think about that.

No compensation for the takings, required by the Constitution, is being made.

----------

The lamestream media told you:
"A Tip Foils Terror Plot." 24 Arrested In Britain. Multiple Flights Targeted. Travelers Adapt to New Onboard Ban on Liquids. Breathless reports relayed police reports that terrorists, not pictured, had been rounded up before their dastardly plan could be executed. More may be on the loose.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Those screaming page one headlines hid the truth, while fomenting terror and fear in a public angered by the changes they are now forced to accept when they travel.

Locally here, the truth ran on page 17, in a sidebar, in small type, covered with a gray halftone, with no byline (Arizona Republic, 8/11/06). It may be the first time this has come out publicly in such unvarnished terms: "President Bush said that a foiled plot to blow up multiple flights from Britain to the United States shows, 'this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

No reason for running this item 17 pages behind the lead stories was given.

----------

The lamestream media told you:
"Bush's 'Islamic Fascist' Remark Angers Muslim Leaders," according to Louis Sahagun, writing in the L.A. Times. Already resentful of the increased scrutiny they are under since Sept. 11, he says, (when radical Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center towers and more), Muslim leaders said the President's politically charged rhetoric fuels hostility against Islam and Muslims in America.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
No, radical Muslim jihadis waging global holy war against infidels and western civilization fuels hostility towards Islam and Muslims in America. And everywhere. The Times apparently missed the connection. The President's frank observation is merely the truth in this case.

According to Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, "The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire,'" are not well received, "particularly in the Islamic world." He got that right.

The L.A. Times attributes the popularization of such language in part to conservative talk show hosts, who prefer the term "Islamo fascists" for "terrorists" and "insurgents." The lamestream media sometimes expresses a certain distaste for conservative talk show hosts, for some reason.

----------

Corrections and Clarifications:

1. Several Page Nine readers wrote to say that supplying Internet service over household power lines has little to do with planned government control of the web, since they can already do that if they need to through the highly regulated cable and phone companies. They also know where the handful of major domestic web nodes are, which they can flood with troops at a moment's notice. No, the problem is that web on power lines generates static that demolishes ham radio transmission, and the radio community is up in arms. Hey, you learn something new every day.

2. Arguing that global warming is indeed real, carbon dioxide levels are rising, and scientific thought is all but unanimous, James Lippard does note that: There seems to be a cluster of global warming skeptics at ASU (the Idsos and Robert Balling, Jr.)--there are only about a half-dozen others of any prominence.
http://www.discord.org/
(Note: Why does this remind me of the 18th century scientific attachment to things like phlogiston and the luminiferous ether.)

3. One reader finds bias in Page Nine because in the intro it says it expects to find support from "right thinking businesses." The Uninvited Ombudsman apologizes for a poor word choice, and has changed that phrase to "clear thinking businesses," to eliminate the perception of bias. (See full remarks at end.)

Plain Ole Observation:
Have you noticed that when newscasters speak, they run footage in the background? It's called "B roll." Lately, the footage almost never relates to the subject, has no caption, and isn't even timely. It's file footage used as eye candy. They don't tell you what you're seeing, it has no relevance, but at least they roll it over and over. They don't even caption half the talking heads they put on air anymore. Watch and you'll see. Turn the sound off for a moment and watch -- it makes it easier to detect. Start separating in your mind the words they speak and the unrelated images the throw at you.. Makes it a whole nother world.

What would happen if the Founding Fathers returned today?
Read "Tempus Fugit" --A stunning achievement.
http://www.gunlaws.com/books7novels.htm

Thanks for reading!
Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman