Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:41 am

WEEKLY WORLD NEWS: Speaking of the Weekly World News, as I was here, their top story this week is: Huge Oil Reserves Found on Moon. According to “respected astronomer Gary Wiltts,” this discovery will have a positive effect on U.S. policy in the Middle East: “In a short time, the Mideast will no longer be of any real strategic importance to the United States — we won’t have to put our servicemen and women in harm’s way every time some tinhorn dictator in the region acts up. . . . In the past, whenever we had a conflict with Iraq, we had to worry about harming their oil supply. That’s no longer an issue. Now we can just nuke them back to the Stone Age.”

100K LIMIT: Well, yesterday I

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:34 am

100K LIMIT: Well, yesterday I ran up against the 100K per month limit for this blog. (Any more than that and you have to pay.) Two of my posts did not make it up, and one was cut off in the middle. The offending posts were deleted and simply posted today. No harm, no foul. Proof that Patterico is as prolific as he can afford to be!


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:09 am

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST QUESTIONS ACCURACY OF WEEKLY WORLD NEWS: In this story in the “Breaking News” section of the Kansas City Star, a professional journalist has debunked a story about an alien baby — a story first broken in the Weekly World News. Apparently the New York Times is not the only major media publication out there with credibility problems! (Thanks to Dave Barry for this story, as well as the one reported immediately below.)

WOW: Here is a weird

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:09 am

WOW: Here is a weird story. Some guy shot himself dead, sitting in his car. Hours later, as rigor mortis set in, “his foot either fell off the brake or hit the accelerator” and his car then crashed into the wall of a mini-mart.


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:08 am

REUTERS LIES TO YOU AGAIN: This article in the Washington Post, by way of the Reuters News Service, says: “Blair has recently raised fresh justifications for toppling Saddam, pointing to his oppressive regime and its documented atrocities. But his political opponents will continue to hound him over the original reason he gave for war.” (Emphasis mine.)

Interesting. I could swear that one of the first entries in this blog was a link to Tony Blair’s speech, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, making the case for action against Saddam in February of this year. It almost seems like that speech might have pointed to Saddam’s “oppressive regime and its documented atrocities.” If I didn’t know better from reading Reuters News Service, I would think that the link to that speech (dated February 17, 2003, well before the war actually started) is still active, and can be accessed here. Here is a quote from what that speech might have said, if I didn’t know from Reuters that it is a figment of my imagination:

“If I am honest about it, there is another reason why I feel so strongly about this issue. It is a reason less to do with my being prime minister than being a member of the Labour Party, to do with the progressive politics in which we believe. The moral case against war has a moral answer: It is the moral case for removing Saddam.”

Blair (so I thought) went on to make the humanitarian case for removing Saddam. Referring to a peace march, he said: “If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.”

How, Reuters, is this a “fresh” justification?

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1601 secs.