And for the next big brain study, scientists will get these smart kids to figure out what this Nature study really means.

Like all brain and intelligence studies, this one is loaded with implications. If smart brains are biologically different from dumb brains, does that mean that genetics and therefore race determine intelligence?

Yes and no. That is, yes to the former to some degree (if you can define intelligence), and no to the latter. Regardless, dim-witted eugenicists will use the study to advance their cause of breeding super-intelligent humans.

The study, led by Dr. Philip Shaw of the National Institutes of Mental Health, found surprisingly that the brains of smarter kids developed more slowly than the brains of children with average to lower intelligence, based on standard IQ tests.

The scientists conducted a series of MRI scans of these children’s prefrontal cortex every couple of years as they grew up. The prefrontal cortex is the seat of memory, language and abstract reasoning. For those with lower measured intelligence, the prefrontal cortex grew thicker with neuron-rich gray matter more quickly and reached a peak thickness at age 8. For the smartest kids, the cortex was thinner early on and didn’t reach peak thickness until age 11.

Why the “smart” brains developed differently is an open question. This could have something to do with genes. But this could easily be from intellectual stimuli early in life that guided the brain’s development.

At best the study shows that people deemed smart by virtue of a test that some argue is culturally and gender biased have brains that develop differently from people who don’t do as well on that test. It’s a good study, but that’s all it really says about intelligence.

For myth-busters like myself, though, the study rules out the notion that smarter people have bigger brains. Brain sizes in the Nature report had nothing to do with IQ test performance.

Yet simple logic renders the “big brain equals big smarts” argument silly. Women have smaller brains than men, on average. And smaller people, particularly dwarfs, often have smaller brains. Unless you are prepared to defend the stance that women and short people are dumber, case closed.

There have been geniuses with tiny brains and idiots with huge ones. The average brain size is about three pounds, or 1,400 grams. The brain of the French writer Anatole France was only 2.24 pounds, well below average. Lord Byron’s brain was nearly twice this amount, over four pounds.

Our heads are swelled if we think humans have the biggest brains.

Whales and elephants have bigger ones. We don’t even top the list when comparing brain size and body mass. With our 1:44 ratio, yes, we beat out monkeys with a 1:70 ratio. But we don’t come close to mice and rats, at around 1:20, and small birds, at 1:15. An obese human likely has the same brain-to-body ratio as a monkey without suffering from a lack of intelligence. But maybe rats really are smart. They can navigate the New York City subway system far better than I can.

Logic also rules out the genetic argument. Australia was once a penal colony. Today it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. America was created from the forsaken, hapless classes from Europe and beyond. Today America is a technological leader.

Think of all the cultures that once ruled a good chunk of the known world. Mongolia, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece … What happened to those genes that gave rise to such intellectual superiority?

Shaw and his colleagues from the National Institutes of Health and McGill University sidestepped the question of genetics in their Nature report. That was pretty smart. As for IQ, I did rather well on an Internet-based test while the two eggs I was boiling for lunch exploded after the water evaporated. What an idiot.

Link

Most Colleges and Universities organise job fairs round about graduation time to allow students to meet new employers - it’s a fairly common method of recruiting recent graduates.

Job seekers can use job fairs to find out a bit more information about employers, working life and general industry information. This is what most people use job fairs for.

However, the opportunity exists for job seekers to use the brief few minutes they have with employers to create a lasting impression (er, a “good” lasting impression!) and sell themselves, for job fairs are also an opportunity for the cream of the crop to rise to the top!

So who are those people hanging about the tables?

Employers and recruiters tend to send HR personnel along to job fairs to either weed out unsuitable candidates or pick out some young potentials from the crowd.

Unlike trade shows (which have basically the same format), job fairs aren’t “staffed” by marketing people - they aren’t trying to sell you anything. They are there to be sold by YOU! (the obvious exception is where you are such an attractive prospect, you get them chasing you, but let’s face it - if that was the case, then you wouldn’t be reading this!)

You are a salesman competing for business amongst hundreds of others. You could leave your CV with the recruiter. Would they remember you?

Dress for an interview!

Yes, job fairs are interviews and you should treat them as such.

Simply sauntering along in jeans and a t-shirt to see what’s going on isn’t going to get you anywhere, regardless of your skills and abilities. There are literally hundreds of other people there with the same aim as you - finding meaningful employment!

So, go along to job fairs and be prepared to make an impression!

Do your homework on the fly!

You see those glossy brochures the recruiters have strewn all over their little tables? And the posters on the walls? And the conversation the recruiter is having with the other jobseeker next to you?

This is all valuable information! And you NEED to use it to make your impression!

Find out about the company. Find out about the jobs they are offering or their graduate programme. Listen to the questions the recruiter asks other people and the information he or she gives out.

If you wander on up and ask some vague question about health plan or holidays, the recruiter is simply going to answer you and will soon be distracted by someone else. There it was. That was your chance. It’s gone now.

You need to engage the recruiter - not simply hold a one sided conversation with them! At a job fair, a conversation is your best friend, because the longer you spend talking with the recruiter, the more likely they are to remember you.

At least….

The least you should leave a job fair is with some background about your industry (an idea of the types of jobs available), and some information about employers. At best you leave having made a positive impression on several employers and have a few job prospects to look forward to!

Good Luck!

Link

The failure of all thinkers of defining philosophy by a unique and complete sentence leads us to many suppositions. First of all, one may think that they do not know what philosophy is,although it exists for more than 2500 years, or that this concept is too complex to be enounced in a single definition. Another hypothese would be that of the existence of too many philosophical species and that each philosophy has its own definition. But a reasonable conclusion is that of having more different subjects gathered under the same name, a series of “philosophies” which cannot be either united or expressed by a single concept.

Aristotle said that there were 3 theoretical philosophies : mathematics, physics and theology. If his conception was right,it would be difficult to find a unique definition for all, a definition which could comprise the essence of all these subjects.

So we are compelled to conclude that we cannot find a distinct and general definition for the concept of philosophy, although we have so many philosophical works of art.

There are various definitions for this concept:

Kant said that philosophy was a rational knowledge through pure conceptions,the science of suppositions, of the conditions of knowledge and action and , in the same time, the system of philosophical knowledge.

He divides philosophy into:

1. the pure philosophy-knowledge through pure reason-“Erkenntnis aus reiner Vernunft”

2. the empirical philosophy-rational knowledge through empirical principles-“aus empirischen Prinzipien”

3. the philosophy of nature-which dealt with all that exists-“geht auf alles was da ist”

4. the philosophy of mores-which dealt with all that should be-“was da sein soll”

Schopenhauer said that philosophy was the science expressed into concepts, whose main attribute was to repeat the whole experience of the world into concepts(wiederholen), in an abstract, general and clear way.

For Herbart, philosophy is the processing of concepts. In exchange, the positivism gives up any expanatory character.

For A.Comte, philosophy is the entire system of human knowledge.
In Romania, the problem of the philosophical concept was the object of interest of well known thinkers, such as: Titu Maiorescu, whose definition of philosophy was “the hope to acquire wisdom”, Lucian Blaga, who thought that philosophy represented one basic human way to solve “what exists” and Constantin R.Matru, who believed it to be a conception of old truths in a new representation.

The philosophy appeared as an answer to people’s questions, such as:

What is existence?

What is the report between subjective and objective existence?

How are the beauty,the justice,the truth and the good valued ?

Which are the causes of human unhappiness on earth?

What is happiness?

Thus, philosophy tries to find answers about the human condition, the concept of human condition, the usual situations and the limits. In the same time, it helps man make a hierarchy of his world.

Philosophy helps man know himself,report himself to the social reality, form the conscience of his alterity-which is the conscience of the respect towards the ones he lives by.

Philosophy appeared during the Antiquity, first including knowledge from all domains, then separating the philosophical and the scientifical discourse.

“But her greatest worry is what other gym-goers might think about her weight.”

When it comes to making excuses, I think fat people are the second most adept at it, after German ex-soldiers. Seriously, they will try and think up any reason that doesn’t involve blaming themselves to explain why they are so humungously fucking fat. While we were gathering discussion topics for Station Nation, Danman came across an article detailing the latest fatty excuse, and it’s a doozy. It’s such a doozy, in fact, that I’ve decided to write a whole response to it on these fair pages. A link to the article can be found here, but I will naturally provide you with the pertinant information so you don’t have to exhaust precious energy in clicking a link:
“Another hurdle to exercise: embarrassment
Fear of looking fat, silly prevents many people from breaking a sweat.

Tripping and falling off the treadmill at the gym has made Debbie Holman self-conscious about working out in public. She’s afraid she’ll humiliate herself again by flubbing up on the equipment.

But her greatest worry is what other gym-goers might think about her weight.”

Ladies and gentlemen, fat women are not losing weight because they’re scared of looking like they need to lose weight. This is truly the pinnacle we’re seeing now, the pinnacle of the pathetic. Of all the “barriers” that these greedy, lazy fuckers can think of, actually being afraid of… looking fat is the latest and greatest excuse they can pull out of their cavernous, gargantuan behinds. There is just so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin. It’s a huge responsibility, having this much stupidity to set right, and I want to make sure I do it right. Human civilisation as we know it as stake! I think I’ll start with the most important fact that needs to be said -
YOU FAT FUCKERS HAVE ONLY YOURSELVES TO BLAME FOR BEING FAT YOU FAT FUCKERS!
I don’t know if you guys ever noticed, but I’m fat. I really am quite, quite fat. There’s a reason why I’m fat, too, a perfectly valid and rational explanation. It’s because I am very greedy and very lazy. I like to eat vast quantities of food and I absolutely abhor excercise. Does it worry me sometimes? Yeah it does, but I’m not going to do anything about it in the near future, because I’m so disgustingly lethargic. I’m so lazy that sometimes I’ll actually expend energy in not doing something. I could get in shape if I felt like it, and probably not only be healthier, but look a darn sight more attractive to boot. Yet I won’t. I won’t because I can’t be bothered. But when I die of my heart attacked at thirty two, you know who I’ll blame? I shan’t blame Pizza Go Go, I won’t blame Coke, I’ll blame me. It’ll be my fault and mine alone. It’s my fault that my clothes cost more than normal people’s, it’s my fault that a flight of stairs is a cause for concern, just like it’s my fault if I don’t fight the urge to have another LP-sized disc of dough dripping in cheese and sordidly delicious corruption.

The point is, I have no excuse. My body is my responsibility, and while I don’t have to like it or I don’t have to enjoy having things thrown at me from passing cars just for the way I look, I do at least have to accept that the way I look is down to me and me alone. There’s no reason why I can’t work out and cut down on my food, other than the fact that I don’t want to. This is something that all these other fat fucks need to admit to themselves. By all means, feel bad about it, go right ahead and lament the unfair judgment of fat people, but accept that something can be done about it. One just has to get off their ever-growing arses and do it.
“”My big old tree-trunk legs are [an] embarrassment,” says Holman, 28, of Lockport, Ill. “When I go to a kickboxing class or aerobics class where there are walls of mirrors, I just want to be sick, especially when I am hiding in the back of the class and the skinny little girls up front, who are not afraid of the mirrors, look at me with disgust.”"
Oh cry me a fucking river. A river of grease, because I assume that’s what squeezes out of your tear ducts, you wobble-bottomed sow. Wow, you’re embarrassed about your weight, what a bloody surprise. I’ll have to telephone The News of The World and let them know that some fat bitch who’s heading toward her thirties is embarrassed about what a big fat fucking bitch she is. But this stupid whore really isn’t making things easier on herself. If you’re fucking fat, don’t go to aerobics and kickboxing classes. KICKBOXING! Are you fucking stupid as well as grotesque? Listen, the problem here isn’t because you’re fat, it’s because you’re fat and you’re doing KICKBOXING AND AEROBICS. If you need a visual guide to the issue at hand, then here, from me to you…

YOU LOOK LIKE THIS…

AND YOU ARE WEARING ONE OF THESE…

Do you think, maybe, you understand now why it might be a problem for you? You’re fucking asking for trouble if you’re overweight in spandex. This brings me to my other important point here - You don’t have to go to a gym to lose weight, you stupid sheep. You wanna do some excercise? That’s what 3am was invented for, you idiots. Put on some sweats and go out for a run under cover of darkness so nobody can see your flabby cheeks bounce up off your face and hit you in the eyes. It’s free of charge, it’s easy to do, and there’s barely any chance of getting yourself judged. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going out for a run, or at the very least a walk. You don’t have to wear a leotard, you don’t have to stand in a room full of judgemental skinny females and you don’t have fall off a treadmill in a scene that could probably only have been described as hilarious.

Who said you have to subscribe to classes and regimes in order to lose weight? You wanna lose weight, stop fucking eating. It’s that simple. Stop eating, do a little exercise. That’s all you or I would ever have to do, but we really, really don’t want to, do we? The difference between me and Mrs. Fern Gully Legs is that I’m willing to accept my blame for being a fat bastard and she isn’t. Unless you have a legitimate medical complaint that leads to weight gain, then you have nothing but lame excuses to hide behind. About the only thing you could hide behind too, you fat fuck.

I’m sick of talking about these idiots. I’m going to get another glass of coke.

Every time I promise myself that I will work on controlling my temper, I always end up making a scene.

This time, it wasn’t my fault. All I wanted was a bagel. A bagel, a cup of coffee, and perhaps a spot near a window where I could idly watch the traffic go by as I browsed through the newspaper and licked cream cheese from my fingers. But apparently the Gods were not on my side.

Today I got in line behind a middle aged woman in a fur coat who was barking orders at the poor bagel girl like she was a dumb misbehaving dog. Fur Coat was ordering multiple bagel sandwiches from a list, but instead of ordering them in such a way that would make sense, she was attempting to order them all at the same time. The Bagel Girl was obviously confused and you could tell by her shaking hands that Fur Coat’s harsh tone was intimidating her. Finally, Fur Coat snapped, “I said light butter on that bagel! Light butter! Jesus!”

I couldn’t stand it anymore. I cut in, “You don’t have to be such a bitch about it.”

Fur Coat glared daggers at me and stated, “I’m not.”

“Well, I beg to differ.”

With a disgusted ‘Hrmph,’ Fur Coat went back to her overly complicated order, but she did so quietly and even managed to begrudge the poor girl a ‘Thank you’ after she was finished.

I have a theory about asshole customers: I think they only act that way because no one ever calls them on their bullshit. The poor kids behind the counter can’t stand up for themselves lest they lose their jobs and other patrons look the other way claiming ‘it’s none of my business.’

Fuck that. When I see some self important asshole verbally degrading a teenaged kid with dead eyes behind a counter, it ruins my day. So, I say some shit. Besides, I feel that if I stay silent, I am almost giving an abuser permission to act like a raging asshole. Ignoring their behavior suggests to them on some sick level that what they’re doing is Ok.

It’s not OK.

The phrase ‘The Customer is Always Right’ is the single worst philosophy that has ever been adopted by American culture. It gave an entire generation of people the green light to be as impolite, unreasonable, and demanding as their little hearts desired because they were always going to be considered right. It destroyed the entire concept of courtesy and rendered manners obsolete. People began to treat their peers in the service industry like incompetent morons, lacking in feelings or human dignity, who deserved to be browbeaten and abused for no other reason than they had the audacity to run out of a particular brand of coffee. Furthermore, instead of suffering negative repercussions for their appallingly disrespectful behavior, they are awarded with free coupons and plenty of ass kissing. In reality, they should be shunned and humiliated for behaving like such self absorbed little children.

Speaking of respect, another idea that has ruined American culture is the one that states, ‘I don’t give respect freely. You have to earn my respect.’ This one is most often uttered by punk kids with bad attitudes and black fingernail polish.

Fucking gag me.

I mean, how egotistical does one have to be to automatically assume that their respect is so fucking important that one must jump through multiples hoops in order to earn it? How about we give people respect because they are humans with lives and feelings just as important as our own? Why not give people a default level of respect and more or less can either be won or lost based on the behavior of the individual in question? The loss of respect is something that should be based on individual actions. The idea that that one must win basic respect in the first place is incredibly belittling. How narcissistic can you be to embrace that ideology?

A few Sundays ago, my husband and I went out to breakfast. If anyone has ever attempted to go out to breakfast on a Sunday morning, they know that restaurants are usually packed around then. We were finally seated and our server was not only very busy, but also a new employee according to her ‘Hi! I’m new!’ nametag.

I’d like to say that everyone in her section was very understanding. The place was a madhouse and she was obviously out of her element. I wish I could say that the patrons in that restaurant were mannerly and polite and treated her with even an ounce of dignity and respect. But, if I did, I’d be fucking lying.

Nearly everyone yelled at her or condescended to her like she was a stupid little child. One guy ordered a side of ‘home fries’ and reamed her ass when she brought him French fries. Had he looked at the menu a little closer, he would have seen that ‘home fries’ weren’t listed. This particular restaurant only served French fries or hash browns. Her mistake was understandable and he was basically yelling at her because she didn’t read his mind accurately enough.

But let’s all forget about that for just a moment. Instead, I want to point out that there are a multitude of things that can go wrong in one’s life. Death, illness, and poverty just to name a few. Yet, here I was watching a grown man lose his fucking shit because he was going to have to wait 5 minutes for a side of hash browns. Suddenly, I lost my appetite.

At this point, the angry little man demanded to speak to a manager and a kowtowing corporate whore scuttled over with free coupons and many apologies. The angry man furiously demanded that his waitress be fired right that instant. Over hash browns.

I couldn’t take it anymore. I leaned over and interrupted, “When you’re finished talking to this man, I’d like to speak to you. I have the same server.”

The angry man smiled smugly, no doubt convinced that I was going to back him up on his quest to get a new girl fired because he had to wait 5 fucking minutes.

The manager finished with him and moped over to my table ready for his second tongue lashing off the day. I surprised him by loudly saying, “I just want you to know that our server is doing the best that she can. She’s been trying very hard and has been very sweet to us even though that asshole has treated her so poorly.”

The manager suddenly looked panicked and started shooting terrified looks at the table that just finished reaming him out. “I know,” he whispered fearfully, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to fire her.”

And while I was pleased to learn that this particular manager wasn’t going to fire the new girl based on the whim of some fat ass piece of trailer trash, I was disappointed that he rewarded said trash’s temper tantrum with free food. I long for the day a manager walks up to a table and says, “How dare you treat my employee this way. Get out now.”

I’m sure they want to, but that ridiculous policy ‘The Customer is Always Right’ silences them. So until we banish that phrase from American culture forever, I suggest we quit looking the other way when people behave like scumbags.

After all, technicalities may suggest that they are always right, but that doesn’t make them any less an asshole.

Dana G. Smith

The alarm should of been sounded a very long time ago. When the internet was first out, I was living in another city. The system was new then and the companies where I live did not have good phone lines, and used only 1200 mps download. It was a time when signing up was new and AOL was one of the first ones in our area to put up lines in different cities for everyone to access the net.

Then my next door neighbor put a system in his house for connecting to the internet. I was one of the first ones to sign up on his little system. As time went on, software became better, along with installation methods for the whole internet business system. In time my neighbor moved it all to an office. Today, he is the largest provider in our state. He grew with the net.

As the net has progressed, the government has always wanted to know what we all do on the net. Spending hours a day in front of the computer chatting with someone from across the world is new. As an ardent website developer, writer, and net evangelist, I do allot online. The government, though, with technology can trace all we do. From cookies to spy ware, our job to stay unrecognized is harder to do.

With all this, we have people who want to take our information, credit cards, and privacy information and make it theirs. The boon in the internet has been tremendous. The problem is with success, the governments of the world want their share. They want your money and want to know what you are doing. They don’t like your reporting, writing articles, and blogging that you do. They don’t like you telling it like it is for all to read.

In short, the government has become the biggest enemy you have online. The latest report from the Committee to Protect Journalists in its newest research shows that:

“as of Dec. 1, 2006, there were 134 journalists imprisoned, up nine from one year earlier, with China, Cuba, Eritrea and Ethiopia the top four prison-keepers”.

This is a startling report because it also includes internet journalists. The report also said and WorldNet daily mentioned it in its article titled; ‘More Web reporters going to prison’, that:

“Of these 134 imprisoned journalists, Internet journalists now constitute the second largest category, with 49 cases.”

“Many of the claims against journalists, especially in China, Cuba and Ethiopia, include subversion, divulging state secrets, acting against the interests of the state and other similar counts.”

“But the CPJ also noted that a rising number of journalists are being held without any charge or trial, including at least two held by the United States.”

In the report, the Committee to Protect Journalists said on its website in an article titled; ‘Internet fuels rise in number of jailed journalists’ that a number were being held without charge. Further the CPJ report said:

“We’re at a crucial juncture in the fight for press freedom because authoritarian states have made the Internet a major front in their effort to control information,” CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said. “China is challenging the notion that the Internet is impossible to control or censor, and if it succeeds there will be far-ranging implications, not only for the medium but for press freedom all over the world.”

Over all, “anti-state” allegations such as subversion, divulging state secrets, and acting against the interests of the state are the most common charges used to imprison journalists worldwide. Eighty-four journalists are jailed under these charges, many by the Chinese, Cuban, and Ethiopian governments.

The new found freedom on the net is being challenged daily by governments all over the world. For those who want to speak and write the truth, it may be dangerous. Many around the world now face such trouble for doing so. This trouble is fomented by greedy power hungry people in government. Wicked men and women who see nothing at all wrong about creating a government power structure to crush opposition and imprison innocent people.

America also is on the forefront of this battle as well. For those in this nation, we have seen our own freedoms challenged by the terrorist act, and the attempts to make America into the North American Union. Add to this the Amero and the Super highway, and you have a recipe for destroying America. While America sleeps, wicked men aim to put this nation and others into a one world government where a few will have all the power. This few will also control the former free, world wide internet. Technology has made controlling the internet possible. Wicked men have taken this Technology and will use it to control what you and I say. The evidence is there, just look for it.
a href=’http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17768′>Link

Ray Robison

Kathleen Carroll, executive editor and senior vice president of The Associated Press has addressed the rising cacophony of bloggers and pundits insisting that the AP substantiate its recent reporting of six Sunnis being burned alive in Baghdad. They AP editor states:

Indeed, a small number of them have whipped themselves into an indignant lather over the AP’s reporting.

Well, I am not sure how the AP defines “a small number” (a surprisingly vague term for a statement expounding upon the accuracy of the AP), but let’s quantify this in a familiar term, the Google search. As of this writing, when I type in “who is Jamil Hussein”, a very specific search term in quotations that will only bring that exact question in the results I find 11,700 returns. A search for “Jamil Hussein” as of now will provide you with 162,000 returns. Sounds like quite a few more people than a “small number” are concerned about the AP’s reporting.

But for those looking for an answer to the questions about Jamil Hussein, don’t bother with the AP’s response. The AP only reiterates the same points it made days ago. In fact, the entire editorial provides little new information germane to the story. Here are the key points of the AP rebuttal:

It’s awfully easy to take pot shots from the safety of a computer keyboard thousands of miles from the chaos of Baghdad.

In other words, you who question us are safely behind your keyboards at home. Apparently the AP editor forgets that in her own piece she acknowledged that it was the U.S. military that called the reporting and source, Jamil Hussein, into question:

We have not ignored the questions about our work raised by the U.S. military and later, by the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

How can it be that those pursuing this matter are thousands of miles from Baghdad when chief among them is the US military? Apparently the AP has not so much ignored the US military’s questions as it has sneered at them. Why not provide evidentiary substantiation to the report in question instead of insulting those who ask for validation?

Perhaps that statement was meant for just us blogger types. Let’s give the AP a little break from specificity and just look at the bloggers. So what would us little old pajama wearing bloggers know about danger? Well the blogger who started this all with questions to the Public Affairs Office in Iraq is Curt at Flopping Aces, a former marine. Seeing as the AP visited my blog several times, maybe they meant me, a Gulf War/Kosovo vet and former army officer. Nice research AP.

The AP has been transparent and fair since the first day of our reporting on this issue.

Transparent? I would have to agree. Considering that the AP has provided no further information or physical evidence other than anonymous man-on-the-street sources, as though this story were about a fire in downtown Tulsa, without apparent thought or concern to the use of its pages for agenda driven reporting (not by the journalist I am sure, but by the sources) it has become transparent that the AP doesn’t expect you to question the great questioner, the AP. And you are not supposed to be smart enough to understand that the streets of Baghdad are as riddled with lies and propaganda as they are bullet holes. Perhaps the AP considers it a better use of its newspaper articles to roll it up and smack you on the nose for being a bad reader.

Some of AP’s critics question the existence of police Capt. Jamil Hussein, who was one (but not the only) source to tell us about the burning.

This is a little misleading. Most of us do not believe that the AP has made Jamil up for literary purposes. Many of us believe there is a source in Iraq who calls himself Jamil Hussein and that the AP writers communicate with him. But since this source reported a story that the AP has spectacularly failed to substantiate with any kind of physical evidence, and since we can not verify his status through official Iraqi or American documentation or that the reported event even took place, it is a supremely fair question to ask if he is who he purports to be. And the fact that the AP doesn’t understand the importance of getting an answer to this question, when it is presumably its job to get answers to questions, some might take this as a sign of a level of incompetence at the editorial level.

The editor also tells us that this region of Baghdad is dangerous and horrors in the neighborhood have been reported before:

No one from the Iraqi Interior Ministry or the U.S. military complained about those descriptions.

So what? This is a straw-man that the AP is using to sweep the whole event under the rug. It reminds me of when I hear people say “Nixon was a good president, he just got caught”. My thought is always that the two are mutually exclusive. You can not be a good president and a criminal since justice is a cornerstone of leadership. Neither can the AP be a trustworthy news organization and report information that can not be substantiated under scrutiny.

The AP is a good news organization for the most part, it just got caught. It got caught reporting a massacre that did not happen. It got caught using a source that provided false information. But once should be enough for it to admit and investigate how its internal processes failed at a minimum. Now, I will say, I still leave room for the AP to be proved correct but each passing day and each meager attempt to protect its reputation through dissembling instead of discovery makes me more and more skeptical of its story.

A large part of the rebuttal concerns tales of peril with AP reporters and the dangers they face.

AP’s Lauren Frayer, embedded with the 172nd during the Hurriyah deployment, described their efforts in early November. Capt. R. Tyler Willbanks, from Gallatin, Tenn., said “there were 25 dead bodies a day before we got here…” a number they got down to three a day before the latest eruption at the end of November.

I couldn’t agree more. They face dangers, they have been killed, and they have been maimed. Just like the many US servicemen and servicewomen that have been killed or maimed. But does the AP expect us to hold our fire, so to speak, because its reporters are in danger? If so, it seems pretty brutal of the AP to go after soldiers and marines when it senses wrong doing on their part. Am I saying they shouldn’t? Of course not, but neither should the AP expect absolution because its reporters face danger.

The Iraq war is one of hundreds of conflicts that AP journalists have covered in the past 160 years. Our only goal is to provide fair, impartial coverage of important human events as they unfold. We check our facts and check again.

Here is a tip. If the only people testifying to an event occurring are people who have a significant stake in the reporting i.e. propaganda, and you or nobody else can turn up any other evidence of four burned mosques and six burned bodies, then you have probably not checked your facts with the right people. And checking them over and over again with the wrong people will still give you the wrong conclusions. As we say in my business, bad data in- bad data out.

Speaking for me, there is one motivation for investigating the accuracy of the AP. That is the fate of the military members in Iraq. Every new massacre begets more violence and thus endangers our soldiers a little bit more. So while pining away about the fortunes of writers in a dangerous place, consider the fate of the soldiers there as well. If the AP falsely reports a massacre, and there is some reason to believe they have, it only makes it that much more dangerous for our men and women in uniform in Iraq. This simple truth should be obvious. It makes me shudder when I read an AP editor who says nothing about this reality, as if it never even entered her mind.

� Link