Here is the Tokyo Rose Page Scrubbed Off of Wikipedia

Tokyo Rose died. The left tries to rewrite history. The following wikipedia page got scrubbed off the site for some politically correct reason:




Iva Toguri D'Aquino (July 4, 1916 – September 26, 2006), a Japanese-American, was identified as Tokyo Rose, an identity dubbed by Allied soldiers for a series World War II propaganda-radio hostesses broadcasting from Japan. Identified as Tokyo Rose by the press after the war, she was detained for a year by U.S. military before they decided she had not committed a crime worth prosecuting. Upon return to the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation charged her with eight counts of treason. Her 1949 trial resulted in a conviction on one count, making her the seventh American to be convicted of treason. In 1974, investigative journalists found that key witnesses had lied during testimony and other serious problems with the conduct of the trial. She was pardoned by U.S. President Gerald Ford, becoming the only US citizen convicted of treason to later be pardoned.[1]

Early life
She was born Ikuko Toguri in Los Angeles, the daughter of Japanese immigrants. Her father, Jun Toguri, had come to the U.S. in 1899, and her mother in 1913. Ikuko, who went by the name Iva, was a Girl Scout as a child, and raised in the Methodist religion. She attended grammar schools in Calexico, California, and San Diego before returning with her family to Los Angeles. There she finished grammar school, attended high school, and graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles with a degree in Zoology. A registered Republican, she then worked in her parents' shop.

On July 5, 1941, she sailed for Japan from San Pedro, ostensibly to visit an ailing relative and to possibly study medicine. The U.S. State Department issued her a Certificate of Identification; she did not have a passport. That September in Japan, Toguri applied to the U.S. Vice Consul for a passport, stating she wished to return to the U.S. for permanent residence. Her request was forwarded to the State Department, but the answer had not returned by the attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941), and she was declared an enemy alien in Japan.
[edit]

Zero Hour

Toguri in December 1944 at Radio Tokyo
Following American involvement in the Pacific War, Toguri, like a number of other Americans in Japanese territory, was pressured by the Japanese central government under Hideki Tojo to renounce her United States citizenship, which she refused to do. She gained work as a typist at a Japanese news agency and eventually worked in a similar capacity for Radio Tokyo.

In November 1943, Allied prisoners of war forced to broadcast propaganda selected her to host portions of the one-hour radio show The Zero Hour. Under the stage name "Orphan Anne" and possibly "Your Favorite Enemy, Anne", reportedy in reference to the comic strip character Little Orphan Annie, Toguri performed in comedy sketches and introduced newscasts, with on-air speaking time of generally about 20 minutes. Though earning only 150 yen, or about $7, per month, she used some of her earnings to feed P.O.W.s.[2]

She married Felipe D'Aquino (last name sometimes given only as Aquino), a Portuguese citizen of Japanese-Portuguese descent, on April 19, 1945. The marriage was registered with the Portuguese Consulate in Tokyo, with Toguri declining to take her husband's citizenship.

A Rose By Any Name That Isn't Spelled 'Treason'

[Update: Did Wikpedia get scrubbed? The Tokyo Rose page referenced below, URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri_D - somehow won't link......]

***
Wikipedia says this about Tokyo Rose:

"In November 1943, Allied prisoners of war forced to broadcast propaganda selected her to host portions of one-hour radio show The Zero Hour. Under the stage name Orphan Anne' and possibly 'Your Favorite Enemy, Anne' ... Toguri performed in comedy sketches and introduced newscasts, with on-air speaking time of generally about 20 minutes."

American military. War. A woman who is not white. An American court convicts a collaborator for treason. THIS CANNOT STAND.

The LA Times kicks into gear, to re-write history. Tokyo Rose is no longer a treasonous criminal broadcasting discouraging propaganda to 19-year old American sailors and marines, far from home. Nope. She is a HERO who "received honors" -- from whom, exactly, is of course not stated. The LA Times obituary creates the false impression that the Attorney General (who prosecuted her) knew she was innocent, as did "forces under MacArthur." (So.....One Allied sailor who later came to sympathize with her after the war - is that who the LA Times refers to as "forces under MacArthur...?)

But the LA Times must attack the "treason" word head-on. American military. War. A woman who is not white. An American court convicts a collaborator for treason. THIS CANNOT STAND.

So courtesy of the LA Times, one sympathetic left-leaning journalist tells the world:

"They wound up prosecuting the myth instead of the person," said Bill Kurtis, the broadcast journalist whose 1969 documentary for CBS, "The Story of Tokyo Rose," first told Toguri's side of the story.

"It was not propaganda, so to speak. It was produced by POWs for POWs and their parents," Kurtis said. "Her voice sounded like an American teenager, and that's what they wanted."

****

Yes, that's what "they" wanted, alright.

Let's review:

Wikipedia - not known for leaning right of center:

In November 1943, Allied POW's forced to broadcast propaganda selected Tokyo Rose to host portions of The Zero Hour.

The LA Times'* version:

It was not propaganda, so to speak. It was produced by POWs for POWs and their parents.

Compare and contrast. Papers due tomorrow morning.


_______
* - American military. War. A woman who is not white. An American court convicts a collaborator for treason. THIS CANNOT STAND.

Big Fricking Liar

Bummer started a website (which never went live) back in the day - 1996 - entitled, "BigFuckingLiar.com."

The site was aimed at persons with public licenses and/or positions -- doctors, publicists, etc. -- who would step forward and cash in their legitimacy to tell a lie which was transparent. The lie had to be so egregious that Bummer would be happy under libel law to call them a liar, in public, no ifs, ands or buts.

The breaking point was when the doctor for actor Martin Lawrence issued a statement to the entertainment trades that the actor was being treated for "dehydration and exhaustion" after he went on a drug-induced, gun-waving tirade in the middle of a Valley intersection. For those who were not in Hollywood at the time, Mr. Lawrence had joined the Bobby Brown bad boy club and was "well-known as a big partier."

Why would a medical doctor cover for an overdosed star, caught on video in the middle of a street whacked out? What possible legitimacy could the doctor ever have again, when saying anything in public? He cashed in his lifelong credibility for that? The doctor should have just shut up - said nothing. So when he chose to lie, then he was fair game.

It was what it was, but Bummer wanted to offer a disincentive to the middlemen who have some measure of legitimacy, from simply lying for thugs. MonicaGate pretty much swamped the idea... .

With celebs, the drug overdose code words are: exhaustion; dehydration; prescription; doctor's care.

Anyway, if BigFuckingLiar.com were active, the site would surely feature this piece today, targetting the publicist:

A source close to Owens told ESPN's Ed Werder early Wednesday morning that Owens was suffering an adverse reaction to painkillers taken for treatment of this fractured hand.

"This is not serious," Owens' publicist Kim Etheridge said in Wednesday's online edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Average Everyday Sane Psycho

L.F.:

You think that I go home at night
Take off my clothes, turn out the lights
But I burn letters that I write
To you, to make you love me

Yeah, I drive naked through the park
And run the stop sign in the dark
Stand in the street, yell out my heart
To make, to make you love me

I am extraordinary, if you'd ever get to know me
I am extraordinary, I am just your ordinary

Interlude

F.S.F.:

In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since. "Whenever you feel like criticizing any one," he told me, "just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."

He didn't say any more, but we've always been unusually communicative in a reserved way, and I understood that he meant a great deal more than that. In consequence, I'm inclined to reserve all judgments, a habit that has opened up many curious natures to me and also made me the victim of not a few veteran bores. The abnormal mind is quick to detect and attach itself to this quality when it appears in a normal person, and so it came about that in college I was unjustly accused of being a politician, because I was privy to the secret griefs of wild, unknown men.

Most of the confidences were unsought — frequently I have feigned sleep, preoccupation, or a hostile levity when I realized by some unmistakable sign that an intimate revelation was quivering on the horizon; for the intimate revelations of young men, or at least the terms in which they express them, are usually plagiaristic and marred by obvious suppressions.

Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope. I am still a little afraid of missing something if I forget that, as my father snobbishly suggested, and I snobbishly repeat, a sense of the fundamental decencies is parcelled out unequally at birth.

And, after boasting this way of my tolerance, I come to the admission that it has a limit. Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don't care what it's founded on. ...

If personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life, as if he were related to one of those intricate machines that register earthquakes ten thousand miles away. ... it was an extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness such as I have never found in any other person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again.

That Hollywood Insider Thing

..back later.....

The Left IS Soft on Islamo Fascism...

Kudos to the left-spun Los Angeles Times for printing the following opinion piece by a Sam Harris:

Head-in-the-Sand Liberals - Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists

September 18, 2006

TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political
persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral
high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

Berlin 1935, Islamabad 2006

Was the Pope incorrect? How? Fascist totalitarianism. Then, and now.

MSM Slant-A-Thon IX

The 9/11 anniversary arrives.

The Bush administration presses the case that the War on Terror is important.

Al Qaeda warns on 9/11 that it will strike at US interests in the Gulf.

On 9/12, Al Qaeda attacks the US Embassy in Damascus.

And what headline does the MSM run with?

Gunmen repelled at U.S. Embassy in Syria

Got it? Not an Al Qaeda attack. Not a terrorist attack. But rather, "gunmen are repelled."

MSM. "Rooting for the Other Guy (TM)"

PlameGate: Contrition and the Deep Freeze

The MSM went bananas over PlameGate. Some of us - like 'ole Bummer - were spot on from the start. The MSM simply refused to address the obvious 900 lb. gorilla that the affair was a partisan hack job by a guy who wanted a job in the [Kerry] State Department.

The Effete Thugs of the MSM, at their worst.

Bummer's 23 readers know that Bummer continually pointed out the strong evidence -- including the unanimous conclusion of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- that Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, was a serial liar.

So today, David Broder, writing in Washington Post, calls for the MSM to apologize to Karl Rove, for the MSM's factually incorrect indictments of Rove as the mastermind of PlameGate:

"These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts."

What are the chances of this Act of Contrition actually happening?

Forged TANG Memos, Meet the Fake Photos

Forged memos as a MSM/DNC play effort to swing an election were one thing.

Now, staged/fake photos as an MSM-enabled effort to swing a war.

I don’t exaggerate. If you’ve been away, you've gotta check it out:

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident: How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War

New Sitcom: The Forgery Family

Interesting that the true leftist colors of Mapes and Rather will now get an unexpurgated narrrowcast:

The team that gave you Memogate is back in action.

Former CBS News producer Mary Mapes has rejoined her old running partner Dan Rather at Mark Cuban's HDNet channel. Rather, 74, is starting all over at hi-def cable network with a weekly one-hour show that will translate the day's events into awkwardly-worded homespun similes. It debuts in October.

Mapes, of course, was at the center of the scandal that triggered Rather's abrupt retirement from CBS. ... Mapes was canned like gooseberry jam, and Rather was put out to pasture like a draft horse with a busted fetlock.

Mapes, who says she's "thrilled to be on board," told Radar she will primarily be working on documentaries for Rather, as well as the occasional news feature.

Crapicola (aka Evolution Ignorance) II

Let's see ... nonsense sticks its head into a science convention ...:

Dietary supplements and alternative treatments promising weight loss have minimal or no effect because they cannot match evolutionary influences that cause the body to conserve energy in times of famine, Dr. Anne-Thea McGill senior lecturer in Population Health at the University of Auckland [not a professor - ed.] told the conference.

"Early humans sought energy-dense food with high levels of fats, starches and sugars. We are genetically programmed to find foods with these qualities appealing," said McGill. [Classic Lamarckian error. This lady sells snake oil. Giraffes don't have long necks because they stretched to get food. They have long necks because when the catastrophic drought came, the mutant freak with the longer neck was the only one that survived, thereby passing on its genes - ed.).

"However, highly energy-dense Western diets have had many of the flavor and
micronutrients processed out of them. The artificial replacements in starchy, fatty and sugary foods make them over-palatable and easy to eat quickly."

But too much processed food results in an excess energy intake deficient in micronutrients, producing a state of "malnutrition", which in turn sees the body
react to a "famine stress" by storing fat around the upper body, said McGill. [As opposed to the 4500 calorie per day diet?]

Ms. McGill is wildly off-base. She claims that humans store fat. OK, yep. She claims that the human trait of storing fat is the cause of modern obesity.

Ummm.....yeah, right. And "not eating" is the cause of starvation.

***

Ms. McGill doesn't understand the meaning of genetics, evolution or heredity. She appears to be a nutrition/cooking teacher in waaaay over her head.

Modern universities - home of the irrelevant.