web posted December 20, 2004

Re: Rumsfeld, the troops, and the biased activist "reporter" by Charles Bloomer (December 13, 2004)

Thank you for the insightful article posted at Enter Stage Right. I am a crew chief on the F-15E stationed in the middle east. I think most educated people can differentiate between accurate, newsworthy information and bloated, paper-selling propaganda. What is it about our news media these days? I had to search to find your article. It seems mainstream news has become more tabloid than legit.

SSgt Mike Gaskins
379th EMXS / MXMT APO AE 09309

---

Many thanks for your intelligent assessment of this armor issue. Too many "reporters" writing about this subject that have no clue of what it takes to retrofit any kind of system or equipment be it military, industrial, or whatever. The extent of their mechanical aptitude is opening their automobile gas caps and pumping gas. Humvees were never engineered to carry the extra weight of the armor which will surely result in more problems via vehicle performance and maintenance problems.

Some "reporters and editors writing about this subject project the idea that the armor can be cut out with cookie cutters and screwed on in minutes. I believe most readers of the print media have the common sense to know better.

C. Wendel Plummer
Sarasota, Fl.

---

An "activist" reporter? Activist for whom? "Prompted" the soldier? How was he "prompted?" You make is sound like he's someone's puppet.

I can see that you think you're an "honest, objective" commentator, but of course, you're anything but. Take it from me, the story was about the soldier challenging Rumsfeld, not the resourcefulness of our over-extended troops betrayed to their deaths by Washington politicians and their apologists (that's right ... like you, fellah).

Jonathan Roberts

---

The facts are, that the incident triggered a process that demonstrated the armoring process was not occurring at a desirable rate and could fairly easily be increased. The bottom line, more soldiers are safer. I think that is smarter, more efficient than digging around junkyards. Give the soldier and the so-called activist some credit, I would want them in my corner, we are talking life and death. Your argument in my judgment is a distorted attempt to cover someone's? posterior. It fails, in my judgment.

Robert H. Pogue M.D.

---

You said:
Maybe one day this guy will grow up, conquer his embedded biases, and become an honest, objective journalist. I won't hold my breath.

Perhaps one day you will grow up, conquer your neo-con unpatriotic biases, and become an honest objective citizen. I won't hold my breath.

The "story" is not the "reporter" - it is that our soldiers are on the front lines without armor. This was an unnecessary war, waged on a false and shifting premise.

Grow up and pull your head out of that very dark place where you think that patriotism means support of a political party.

Why don't you go and fight on the front lines without armor?

Sincerely,
Bridget Gibson

---

Maybe one day you'll grow up, conquer your embedded biases, and become an honest, objective journalist.

I won't hold my breath, because -- of course -- what you're describing is a fiction. Your article wasn't very good, either.

Jack Olsen

---

Mr. Bloomer responds:

Many emails to me regarding this piece lead me to believe that many people missed the point. I'll chalk that up to my failure to make my point clearly enough. I had hoped to communicate my lack of patience with reporters who are either lazy or incompetent, reporters who think it is acceptable to make the news rather than report the news. The bias I identified is the liberal media's desire to portray all news coming out of Iraq as negative, a view that is not shared by the troops that are there or have recently returned.

Let me clear up a few points addressed to me in the responses I received.

First, I am not a reporter, nor am I a journalist. I am an opinion writer. What I write is my perspective on news reports I read and events I read about. I don't pretend to be unbiased.

Second, I said that Rumsfeld's response was reasonable. We have no option but to go to war with the military we have. We went to war in Afghanistan without armored Humvees and without body armor for every soldier. We went to war in Bosnia with what we had. Could we, should we have waited another 6 months before we invaded Iraq? Would that have been long enough to ensure our troops were properly equipped? How about a year? Two years? What about the eight years that the Clinton administration waited before turning over the problem to his successor?

Additionally, I do not expect the Secretary of Defense to know the details of every issue. So when someone asks him a question concerning a specific issue, it is not reasonable to expect the SECDEF to answer with specifics.

And, third, I think the armor story has been overblown for too long. That is not to say that providing the proper equipment to our troops is not important. The point is that the Department of Defense took prompt action to resolve the problem and has made great strides. Today, 77 per cent of the vehicles in use in Iraq are armored. The remainder are either scheduled to be armored soon, or are vehicles that are not used off base. Armor is an improvement, but not a panacea. Soldiers who ride in the high-end, up-armored Humvees are still at risk.

Charles Bloomer

---

web posted December 13, 2004

Re: The re-whitewashing of Alfred Kinsey by Selwyn Duke (December 6, 2004)

I deeply appreciate the article about so-called "sex researcher" Alfred Kinsey, who always seemed to be so well spoken of over the years when I was growing up. It seemed that magazine articles and news stories would ever so often come up, and sought to give credibility to this individual concerning his writings and "opinions" on the make-up of humans and their sexual practices.

Having grown up around a few individuals who gave in to the sick evil of their own lusts, and whose victims were scarred for life by the perversions carried out against them; I'm grateful that someone has finally stood up to both challenge and condemn the wickedness of Alfred Kinsey and his alleged "sex research".

Sex was designed by God to be enjoyed by a husband and wife alone, not just anyone and everyone who felt like engaging in sexual activities. This has been one of the most tragic deceptions known to the human race.

Kinsey was pure twisted evil wrapped up in a false cloak of so-called "education" and "respectability". The many victims of those who followed after his writings have shed a million tears for the wickedness committed against them by those whose acts were not, nor are not sexual, nor expressions of love, in any way, whatsoever; but whether heterosexual or homosexual, the people who felt their actions were "affection" or "love" are now proven to be nothing less than criminal; and Hollywood is most definitely an accomplice to Kinsey, and to the victimization of the innocent by any and all who gave credence to his "reports".

William Smith
Lancaster, Pa.