Related link: (Sort of, at least I think it's related.)
NOT related, but you gotta read this!

I'm sensing something smoldering out in the blogosphere about this Guiliana Sgrena incident. For the basic facts of the case read this.

After reading some details of conflicts in the story on Austin Bay's blog, as well as some fishy foreshadowing fleshed out on LGF, I'm starting to sense a pattern.

I would not be surprised if it turns out this whole kidnapping was faked. Some things just don't sound kosher...

This terrorist group had never been heard of before, and their first action is something this high-profile, this bold, and this successful?

The name of the terrorist group: "Mujahadien Without Borders". Doesn't that sound a lot like "Doctors Without Borders"? And doesn't it sound a little too Euro? A little too touchy-feely to be a name of a terrorist group?

All of the holes in the story about the "barrage" of bullets yet there is relatively little damage to the automobile?

I trust there are plenty more sophisticated bloggers out there that could really expose this one. I hope they do. The whole thing just doesn't sound right... it's too convenient and too coincidental that this whole episode in this person's life fits perfectly with her view of the war, of coalition forces, and is beginning to turn Italian public opinion even further against Berlosconi's support of the US, which is exactly what her newspaper and Berlosconi's political op[onents have been aiming for.

Something's fishy in Italy.

UPDATE:

After doing a google search on "Guiliana Sgrena, kidnap, hoax" I only found five references. However The Jawa Report seems to have been in front on this idea with posts going back to mid-February. I think we might be onto something here...

Check out some of Jawa Report's questions about this:

- Doesn't this whole incident seem more than a little odd?

- Sgena was kidnapped by her admitted friends in Iraq.

- She was kidnapped while on the phone with another journalist.

- A tape was released of her begging Italy to cave to the terrorists demands of pulling Italian troops out of Iraq the day before the Italian Senate was to vote on that very issue.

- On the tape Sgrena appears to tell the 'terrorist' holding the camera to stop. He follows her order as if she is directing.

- The tape came exactly two-weeks after she was captured.

- One month to the day after her abduction she is released.

- On the day of her release her car speeds toward a US checkpoint, fails to stop when ordered, fails to heed warning shots, and the car is ultimately fired upon.

In the end, who looks like the bad guys? The terrorists? The jihadis? The 'insurgents'? No, the US.

Read the whole blog and you'll see there are a lot of questions on this going all the way back to the abduction itself, not just the shooting.

UPDATE #2
The great Michelle Malkin is on this too. This means there's GOT to be something to this.

Things are changing. Stop a moment and appreciate it. Something big is happening. I remember when the Berlin Wall was coming down and the communist states in Eastern Europe fell so quickly fifteen years ago. I noticed it, but I didn't truly appreciate the historical significance of the events at the time. We should all now stop and begin to really look at what is happening in Beirut today.

Look at the photo above. There will be plenty of time in the coming months to debate the cause and to truly explain the significance of the Bush Administrations Middle East Democracy policies. Right now look at what is happening and understand that our world will never be the same.

Do you see the joy in this photo? Do you see the massive number of people? Do you see women and men side-by-side as equals demanding a better life? This is the picture of hope. This is the picture of life. This is what all humans, created in God's image, yearn for. Never again should we be lured by intellectual midgets pontificating about how some people are not ready for democracy, not ready for freedom.

Let no man be another man's slave. Free Beirut!

I have not been able to formulate any clear thoughts on the Terri Schiavo situation. My overwhelming feelings of anguish and sadness for those involved in this highly personal yet public situation has confounded my thinking and kept me from attempting to express any thoughts here at OC Chronicle. I feel now, on Good Friday, as we recognize the infamous day when all of us stood powerless and witnessed the shattering of all that was known and the birth of a new world view, now I feel ready to say what I want to say:

Dear Mr. Schiavo,

I can imagine these being very difficult times for you as your character is being questioned in so many public arenas. Some people have suggested that you are a cad looking to extricate yourself from a miserable situation so you can finally marry the woman you have started a family with. Some have suggested you are looking to cash-in on the money that was meant for your wife's long term care and re-habilitation. Some have even suggested that you had some hand in Mrs. Schiavo's original injury and would prefer that she go away forever lest she recover and implicate you in some way.

I will not support any of these positions or expound upon the speculation. Nor will I offer any insight as a legal, constitutional, political or medical expert. I am none of these. I am a husband. And I am a father of two little girls. Little girls who will grow up and be the wife of another man some day. I am also a son-in-law. The man who married the daughter of a man, her father. Each of these perspectives force me to finally write this.

Mr. Schiavo: Don't do this. You have won the fight, but you do not have to let Terri die. it is clear now that you hold this power in your hands. You must look within and see that there is no better option for you, your family, for our society than for you to keep Terri alive.

I understand that your position is that you are honoring Terri's wishes. My understanding is that after viewing a news program regarding patients on life-support systems, she remarked to you that she would not like to be kept alive in such a way. this was an intimate, private conversation between a husband and wife. These conversations happen all of the time and they are not unimportant. Our legal system has acknowledged and honored this conversation. As much as some may disagree with this decision, it doesn't matter anymore.

But there are other private conversations that happen that deserve just as much honor. You see, long before she was your wife, or even your girlfriend, she was Mr. Schindler's daughter. There was a time when Terri may have been frightened by a dream, or a shadow, or another person. And Mr. Schindler comforted her and promised her to protect her and not let anything happen to her. We must honor this conversation, too.

Perhaps when he was about to walk Terri down the aisle to hand her over to you as your wife, Mr. Schindler looked at his daughter for a moment. Leaned in and reminded her that he loved her and that he would always be her Dad, no matter what happens. And that she should always come to him for help no matter how difficult her situation may be. This conversation must be honored, too.

Mr. Schiavo, please, think about this. When Terri said to you that she would not want to live by artificial means, what if you had said to her: "If you were not comatose, not on a respirator, only needed a feeding tube to stay alive, did not have any cognitive ability but your mere presence, the look in your eyes, that fact that you were still alive, even in this state brought unending joy to the lives of your mother and father, and they would be anguished and inconsolable if you were to be allowed to die, then what would you want?"

What would she want, Mr. Schiavo? Did you really marry a woman that would want her parents to be destroyed in this way? Is Terri really so selfish as to take away what ever joy she is currently giving her parents merely because she had a passing thought when watching a TV news show? I can't believe it.

Think about it, Mr. Schiavo. Please do not do this. As much as we must honor your position as the husband of this woman, we must also honor the mother and father of this woman. Let them be happy and let Terri live.

-OC

It is no big surprise that the world witnessed black smoke emerging from the chimney at the Sistine Chapel today. It would be strange and unseemly if the college of Cardinals met for a few hours on the first afternoon and chosen our new Pope. It would suggest that they've had someone in mind for years. Of course, they probably have.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been discussed here and there as a likely successor and the OC Chronicle agrees with this speculation. Here a re a couple of good reasons:

1. Doctrine, doctrine doctrine. Cardinal Ratzinger's chief responsibility for the past few years has been to properly articulate and enforce the Church's doctrine. As much as people would like to believe that Pope John Paul II's popularity and success was due to his personality and charisma, the fact is he was a successful pope because he was orthodox and unwavering in his support of and interpretation of the Church's teachings on faith and morals. This is a pope's chief function and Cardinal Ratzinger was the pope's number one advisor on subjects of faith and morals.

After the second Vatican council and the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI, there was much uncertainty about the direction and foundation of the Church. Vatican 2 has been misinterpreted as a reformation. It was not, in terms of faith and morals, it was in terms of the worship and practice, as well as the participation of the laity. John Paul II's rock solid stance on what the Church believes has pretty much quieted any confusion in local parishes.

Ratzinger is part of the foundation on which this message was built and he is the best man to continue it.

2. His age. Cardinal Ratzinger is 78 years old. This makes him perfect as a "transitional" pope. Our Church needs powerful and charismatic men on throne of St. Peter, but there should also be space between dynamic reigns for reflection and perspective. Cardinal Ratzinger will be Pope for a relatively brief period, and that's OK. We should not try to follow John Paul II's pontificate with another long and dynamic reign.

3. He's German. This sends strong messages.
a. "The Polish Pope" was not a fluke, but a trend.
b. We have moved on from Martin Luther
c. Perhaps a German Pope will do for the questionable society of Germany what the Polish Pope did for the government of Poland.

Finally, why the decision will come tomorrow or the next: Because they know. They've known for a while. And, I believe, they know because John Paul II let them know.

The Holy Father

A very exciting mention on Roman Catholic blog!

 

Just when I'd stopped reading the LA Times...

I've sworn off reading the LA Times, but after their Sports page had the good taste to feature my Christian as the Father's Day photo, I had to go out and buy a few copies.

Check out that smile! He is clearly the greatest little Angels' fan in the world! And this was at a game we lost!

(Welcome 'Best of the Web Today' readers! Please feel free to look around. I couldn't be prouder than to be linked by Mr. Taranto)

These are the words of Steven Vincent, a brave and talented journalist and blogger who reported from the heart of Iraq. These words probably helped get him killed. His murder was announced this morning:

"Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word "guerillas." As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms "insurgents" or "guerillas" to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase "paramilitary death squads." Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, "insurgents" and especially "guerillas" has a claim on our sympathies that "paramilitaries" lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen "right wing paramilitary death squads." Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.

Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology ---and, by extension, the narrative--- of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition "invaded" Iraq and "occupies" it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.

The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists "the resistance" What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers--the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour--- they are the "resistance." They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism, or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought--- should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language..."

A more fitting epitaph one can hardly imagine.

... and has been for a while. But now they've actually gone a bit too far. I'm hardly a gun nut, but the 2nd amendment is pretty clear on this one, isn't it? I mean to force citizens to turn in their firearms is a pretty blatant violation of the Bill of Rights. How can this even come close to passing the Judiciary?

Here's Michelle's excerpt from Neil Boortz: :

"require that every resident of San Francisco who owns a handgun to turn it in to the government by April 1st. April 1st, by the way, is more commonly known as 'April Fool's Day.' Even voters in San Francisco should be bright enough to figure out that law-abiding citizens will be the ones to turn over their guns, while the lawless, the criminal element, will not. The number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will go down. The number of guns in the hands of criminals will not."

"'I am just looking for someone in the news like Murrow did with McCarthyism, like Cronkite did with Vietnam and like Bernstein and Woodward did with Nixon. I'm just looking for someone in the news to ask difficult questions of this government. It's not my job to do that. I'm not intelligent enough to do it,'"

That's howTheKSBWChannel.com quoted George Clooney recently in a puff piece about his film, Good Night and Good Luck.

The self-evaluation at the end of his quote is dead-on, it seems. There is a recent brou-ha-ha over a blog posting at the Huffington Post that was attributed to Clooney. Apparently, Clooney had responded to some questions and Huffington Post Kingpin Arianna Huffington edited his responses as a "post" for her Left-log. Clooney objected to the editing and he asked for a retraction. Zsa-Zsa Gabor-ington refused and the fur is now flying.

Today, Zsa-Zsa responded and explained how this came about:

"When I first invited George Clooney to blog after a screening of 'Good Night, and Good Luck' in New York a few months ago, he said he wasn't sure how a blog worked. So we put together a sample blog from answers he had given on Larry King Live and an interview with the Guardian in London, and sent it to him to rework in any way he wanted."

"Wasn't sure how a blogged worked..."???????

Really George?

It's a pretty point-and-click situation... you know?

This also begs the question: How many of those "Celebrity Blogs" are just Q & A sessions that Zsa-Zsa's staff at the H-Post edits into a coherent sounding post? Shouldn't the Huffington Post acknowledge and disclose this?

The Huffington Post presents the impression that the celebrities blogging there are all penning their thoughts attributed to their by-line. This suggests that, in some cases, these celebrities are pithy, witty and even literate. But, if in this case, the celebrities answer questions THROUGH THEIR PUBLICISTS, then the actual thoughts and ideas attributed to them at Zsa-Zsa's Play Pen are actually twice or three times removed from the actual celebrity in question.

Is this honest? Or is it a gross mis-representation of the actual star power "contributing" to the H-Post?

Arainna... disclose the truth! Who REALLY writes their own posts?

Welcome Hugh Hewitt listeners/Blog Readers! -While you're here, take a look at my kids... aren't they ADORABLE???

This is the extent of the "Explicit Steamy Lesbian" scene from Lynn Cheney's "Sisters":

The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage -- no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were. She felt curiously moved, curiously envious of them. She had never to this moment thought Eden a particularly attractive paradise, based as it was on naiveté, but she saw that the women in the cart had a passionate, loving intimacy forever closed to her. How strong it made them. What comfort it gave.

It took me all of 2 minutes to find this from a website called "Bella OnLine".

Now if it was that easy for little old me, why couldn't Big Bad Wolf Blitzer do the same before he embarrassed himself in his interview of Mrs. Cheney today?


UPDATE: Here is a link to a pdf which purports to be the full transcript of "Sisters". Given the nature of the webpage referenced above, it is safe to assume that if they could have found a more explicit, lesbian scene, they would have reproduced it.

The Lynn Cheney lie perpetuates...