What Kind Of Rule Tells A Marine Not To Engage An Attacker?
Jun 24, 2011 Political
Three US Marines in St. Louis were mugged by two unarmed men who got away with a wallet. Two unarmed muggers punched one Marine and took a knife from another and stabbed him with it (reportedly a minor wound) and made off with a wallet while a third Marine looked on. The Mayor is trying to figure out how this happened and perhaps the story will change but, as it stands, the story is shameful.
How did this happen? Because the Marines have specific rules of engagement:
“Marines have been given rules of engagement not to engage in any violence except to protect their lives,” said Marine Spokeswoman Capt Kate Vanden Bossche.
When asked if the Marines have essentially been told to hand over their wallets in St. Louis, rather than fight to protect their property, Vanden Bossche said: “If someone is in such dire need that they need to rob someone, I don’t think that’s a fight Marines need to get into.” CBS St. Louis
It would seem to me that if one is attacked then there is always the possibility of losing one’s life. It is also unconscionable to say that if a person is so desperate that they need to rob someone then the person, in this case the Marines, should not do anything to stop them. Or, as the spokesperson put it, it is not a fight the Marines need to engage in. What kind of politically correct nonsense is this? Are we to extrapolate this further and say the police should not pursue anyone who is in dire need and robs a bank? How about if a thug is in dire need to rape a female Marine? Should she just submit because this is not the kind of fight Marines want to engage in?
How about we take it further and say that if some entity is in such dire need to attack our country well, its not a fight the Marines should engage in?
These Marines should have engaged the attackers, neutralized them and called for the police. That would be the honorable thing to do and would have kept with the long, proud tradition of the Marines. In addition, that Marine who had his knife taken away should be ashamed of himself. Would he allow the enemy to take his rifle? HELL NO. That mugger should not get that weapon unless he is taking it out of the Marine’s cold, dead hands.
As for the third Marine who looked on. Shame on you young man. You are duty bound to have the backs of your comrades in arms. You are obligated to defend them with your life and you failed miserably at this.
I wonder how this spokesperson would be reacting had the Marines turned over their property and been killed anyway. It is absolutely a travesty that these young men did not defend themselves and their property.
The few, the proud, the Marines. Somehow I have a hard time believing anyone in uniform would be proud of this.
If this story changes and new facts come to light I will reconsider my position but as it stands right now I am ashamed that these men and their spokesperson represent the US Marines.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Fairey Dust- Up
Oct 17, 2009 Political
Shepard Fairey, the man who could use Adobe photoshop, in order to change an image of the then candidate B. H. Obama into a propaganda poster, has been sued by the AP and its photographer for using that image without permission- a copyright infringement.
Then, to make matters worse, he has now admitted that he lied when he, and his little army of attorneys decided to counter- sue the AP- I am guessing in a bid for more publicity, as well as money. When you employ attorneys, there is expected to be money, and the more the merrier. In a giant “oops” moment, Fairey, a former graffiti vandal, had to admit he lied.
Fairey, 39, said in a statement that he was wrong which photo he used and that he tried to hide his error.
“In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images,” said Fairey, who has been involved in countersuits with the AP, which has alleged copyright infringement.
“I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment and I take full responsibility for my actions which were mine alone. I am taking every step to correct the information and I regret I did not come forward sooner.”
Fairey had claimed he based his “HOPE” drawing on a photo of then-Sen. Barack Obama, seated next to actor George Clooney. The photo was taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia, on assignment for the AP, at the National Press Club in Washington.
Fairey now says he started with a solo photograph of Obama — taken at the same event, by the same photographer — a picture seemingly closer to the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama, underlined with the caption HOPE. The AP has long maintained that Fairey used the solo shot.
foxnews.com
Yeah, that’s an “oops” moment alright- also known in more conservative circles as a lie, and an intentional lie at that. What is worse, is that he involved his attorneys in this lie, (but forgot to tell them it was a lie)- attorneys do not like surprises like that . If there are lies to be told, they will tell them.
Attorneys for Fairey have withdrawn and, in papers filed Friday in federal court in Manhattan, stated that he misled them. They also amended the original court documents, reflecting that Fairey used a different picture.
“Mr. Fairey was apparently mistaken about the photograph he used when his original complaint for declaratory relief was filed on February 9, 2009,” the papers say.
“After the original complaint was filed, Mr. Fairey realized his mistake. Instead of acknowledging that mistake, Mr. Fairey attempted to delete the electronic files he had used in creating the illustration at issue. He also created, and delivered to his counsel for production, new documents to make it appear as though he had used the Clooney photograph as his reference.”
Fairey sued the not-for-profit news cooperative in February, arguing that he didn’t violate copyright law because he dramatically changed the image. The AP countersued in March, saying the uncredited, uncompensated use of an AP photo violated copyright laws and signaled a threat to journalism.
foxnews.com
Well, I personally don’t know about that “threat to journalism” the AP was talking about, especially considering how the MSM and the AP have bent over backwards to become the propaganda arm for our Resident. But in this society, money still triumphs over ideology. And the image has made a destitute vandal a lot of money. He may be a one trick pony, but this pony is still paying.
”Shepard Fairey has now been forced to admit that he sued the AP under false pretenses by lying about which AP photograph he used to make the Hope and Progress posters,” Kasi said. ”Mr. Fairey has also now admitted to the AP that he fabricated and attempted to destroy other evidence in an effort to bolster his fair use case and cover up his previous lies and omissions.”
Kasi said the AP would continue to ”vigorously pursue its countersuit alleging that Fairey willfully infringed the AP’s copyright in the close-up photo of then-Sen. Obama.”
The AP plans to donate any proceeds received for past use of the photo to the AP Emergency Relief Fund, which assists staffers and their families around the world who are victims of natural disasters and conflicts.
The ”Hope” image has appeared on countless posters, stickers and buttons. It has appeared in several books and in numerous museums, including a mixed-media stenciled collage version added to the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.
Fairey also used the AP photograph for an image designed specially for the Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist.
Fairey has said that he first designed the image in early 2008, after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork.
nytimes.com
Well, shades of the NEA propaganda conference call- you mean this wasn’t “original inspiration”? Of course it wasn’t, the only surprise being that this image, which a monkey could have done, was shopped out to a graffiti artist, instead of coming out of a PR art department, where it would have cost less and been the property of the campaign, as I am certain that the AP would have given over permission to use that image.
But even the AP has to get a little chapped when some broke- down Andy Warhol wannabe gets kudos for such a lame piece of propaganda, and money to boot. After all, all Shepard Fairey did was trace the image and put in some sick pastel colors- a third grader could do that- and probably will, if the NEA has their way, but that is for another column.
Personally, as a former graphic artist, I was offended at the amateurish poster he had created- it was obvious that he had traced it, and I was amazed at the liberals swooning over this hack job. When I found out that the “artist” was a vandalizing paint huffer, I thought that this was some liberal’s feel- good mentoring of a throw-away person.
But when the money began coming in, so did the truth.
Now, perhaps, Fairey can go back to the walls and resume tagging.
And the AP can get the money it is due.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: copyright violation, poster, shame, shepard fairey
Don’t take Flight 93 to Mecca 5-15-08
May 15, 2008 Political
Crescent shapes with and without Islamic intent: the Obama logo example
The two most widely recognized symbols of Islam are the crescent and the sword. Kind of amusing that Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign logo can be seen to feature both a crescent and a curved Islamic scimitar:
The crescent shape in Obama’s logo has the round part on top, just like a traditional crescent shaped mihrab (the Mecca direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The animation shows the two most famous mihrabs in the world: the mihrab from the Great Mosque in Cordoba, and the Prophet’s mihrab in Medina.
The lighter vertical column in the center-bottom of the logo, presumably meant to indicate reflected light, even conveys the full vertical shape of a traditional mihrab. The scimitar in the animation is from the flag of the Bosnian regiment of the Nazi SS.
If Obama himself had come up with this crescent logo, one might suspect Islamic intent, given his Islamic heritage. But the logo was not designed by Obama. It was designed by a Chicago based branding firm named Sender, which claims credit for coming up with: “a white sunrise against a blue sky, over a landscape implied by red and white stripes.”
Obama definitely deserves to be made fun of for having a fairly obvious crescent shape in his logo, given his efforts to convince the public that he is not Muslim. This is already an uphill climb, when both his grandmother and his cousin are telling documented lies about their religion, claiming to be Christian in one venue while professing themselves Muslim in another. Lying about being Christian: it’s an Obama family tradition!
Still, there is no indication that the crescent and scimitar shapes in Obama’s logo are intended to convey any Islamic meaning. A genuine coincidence apparently. At the opposite pole is the Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 memorial:
Contrast 1: Architect Paul Murdoch CALLS his crescent shaped memorial a crescent
The Crescent of Embrace name proves that the Flight 93 crescent was and is intended to be seen as a crescent. Only very reluctantly did the Memorial Project change the name, and the changes they made to the design are purely cosmetic. Every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign.
Contrast 2: The Islamic symbolism is overt
It is not plausible that an architect, designing a memorial to people murdered by Islamic terrorists, could be oblivious to the fact that his memorial design is laid out in the shape of a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag, readily identifiable as a crescent and star flag to airliners like Flight 93 passing overhead.
The Memorial Project simply assumes that the Islamic symbol shapes CAN’T be intentional, which is about like seeing an airliner fly into the World Trade Center and assuming it CAN’T be intentional. Do these people even remember the day they are supposed to be memorializing?
Contrast 3: The Flight 93 crescent contains still further Islamic symbolism
It turns out that the giant crescent points to Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is a well known structure in the Islamic world. It is a mihrab (as seen in the above animation), which gives the direction that Muslims are to face for prayer.
Everyone at the Memorial Project is fully aware that a person facing into the giant crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca. This according to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird. Again, they all just assume that this MUST be an innocent mistake (the equivalent of seeing as SECOND airliner fly into the Trade Center, and STILL assuming it can’t POSSIBLY be intentional).
Contrast 4: Proof of intent
Paul Murdoch PROVES that the Mecca orientation is intentional by repeating it in the crescents of trees that surround the minaret like Tower of Voices. Below is an animated run-through of the repeated Mecca-orientations (2 minutes).
You can restart the animation by refreshing the page:
Animated GIF: copy and paste. You can email it! (Animation restarts each time email is opened.) Click image for larger animation, if your connection is fast enough (1MB).
Crescent of Embrace site-plan, showing both the central crescent and the Tower of Voices, here.
Contrast 5: the designer’s own thematic description is clearly terrorist memorializing
The designers of Obama’s logo offer a clearly innocent thematic description of their creation. You can tell just by looking at it what it is MEANT to signify: a white sun coming up into a blue sky over red and white rows of fruited plain. Even the uncanny intimation of the vertical sides of a traditional mihrab are fully explained by the “sun” reflecting off the red and white “landscape.”
In contrast, Paul Murdoch’s thematic account of his design is as nakedly pro-terrorist as his crescent and star layout. Murdoch says that the crescent comes from the terrorists breaking the circle. That is, they broke our liberty-loving circle, and turn it into a giant Islamic-shaped Mecca-oriented crescent.
As Tom Burnett Sr. put it in his letter to American people, asking for help with our petition to keep the crescent design off of his murdered son’s gravesite:
I don’t want to celebrate the terrorist’s circle-breaking crescent-creating feat.
And lest anyone thinks that the giant crescent is no longer present, the Park Service website makes clear that, while the redesign looks more like a circle, the circle is still broken:
The circle is broken in two places that mark the southeastern path of the plane to the crash site. The circle is broken at the entry to the memorial and at the crash site.
The breaks are in the exact same places as before and the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains completely unchanged. It it still points to Mecca. It is still the world’s largest mihrab by a factor of a hundred. The only difference is that now a chunk of the broken off part of the circle is included in the design, which is perfectly consistent with its original terrorist memorializing theme. The terrorists still break our liberty-loving circle and still turn it into a giant Mecca-oriented crescent.
So there you have it. Dueling crescents! Obama’s crescent logo exemplifies innocent coincidence (however guilty Obama may be of lying about his religion). In contrast, the Flight 93 crescent exemplifies proven intent. (More of architect Paul Murdoch’s endless proofs of intent here and here.)
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.