Kim Jong ILL: Nukes and North Korea

Kim Jong Il: Wanted for being awesome. (Image courtesy of www.boingboing.net.)

In news that would have the Team America: World Police officers in a frenzy, the United States revealed that North Korea assisted Syria's secret nuclear weapons program and that the reactor that Israel destroyed was "not for peaceful purposes."

Like, 0MGZ REALLY?!

Seriously people, let's think back a little. Hell, we don't even have to--the Associated Press did for us. Since December 2002, we've had reason to believe North Korea was up to no nuclear good when they tried kicking U.N. inspectors out of the country, then in January 2003 when they withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, then in July 2006 when it launched missiles into the Sea of Japan and in October of that same year, when they admitted to conducting their first nuclear test.

Can someone explain to me why we invaded Iraq for maybe having nukes (then taking it back and saying we wanted to liberate their people) when North Korea has made it clear since well before March 20, 2003 that they actually have the materials and the drive to produce chemical weapons?

John McCain's closed fist shows the kind of foreign policy he favors. (Image courtesy of Reuters.)

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that McCain is subtly attacking Obama's stance on North Korea and other foreign policy, saying that unconditional talks with dictators like Kim Jong-Il won't really help U.S. foreign diplomacy. But since when do we care about diplomacy anyway? Take a look at Iraq. They didn't even have weapons materials, and yet we gave up diplomatic efforts in favor of what was supposed to be a quick, easy war in spite of U.N. opposition. And look how far that's taken us!

Oh, wait...



*By Jessica Sager, who promises she will never die.

Perceptions of Peanut President's Peace Prattles

Jimmy Carter on April 17, 2008. Who could reject that face? (Photo courtesy of Fox News.)

Once you've recovered from the aneurysm accompanying all that alliteration in my headline, take a gander at these two takes on pretty much the same story. For those of you too lazy to click the links, here's a quick summary: Jimmy Carter met with Hamas leaders in Syria to discuss peace with Israel. The leaders said they'd respect Israel as a neighbor. Jimmy Carter expressed some frustration with the U.S. and Israel's refusals to speak to the leaders themselves to attempt at rectifying the ongoing conflicts in the region.

With that said, I'm going to dissect their headlines and closing graphs specifically to compare and contrast, because even Dubya himself can find pretty clear differences in these, and he can't even adequately chew pretzels. The headlines and closing paragraphs are what, respectively, catch the readers' attention and help them draw conclusions on what they just absorbed.

I'll begin with The Daily Mail. Their headline reads "Hamas would let Israel 'live as a neighbour next door in peace', says former U.S. President Jimmy Carter." The Daily Mail closes their article with a non-descript telling of Israeli President Shimon Peres's scolding of Carter for meeting with Hamas officials.

Fox News's headline reads: "Hamas Leader Vows Not to Recognize Israel After Carter Trumpets Terror Group's Willingness to Be Good 'Neighbor'." Fox ends their piece with Carter's expressing disappointment over Hamas' rejection of a proposed truce. Fox ends on a note of failure on behalf of Carter, who said he "thinks they're wrong."

The Daily Mail doesn't go out of their way to point out that Hamas is a militant group in their headline; if their readers didn't know what Hamas was before, they have to look farther down into the story to find out. For all they know, it could be an Islamic bridge club. Fox, however, leaves little doubt as to how they view Hamas, citing them as a terrorist organization in the headline--before readers can interpret for themselves just what the group stands for.

In addition, The Daily Mail refers to Jimmy Carter as a former U.S. president, likely to cater to their U.K. audience (because really, how many of you can name former U.K. prime ministers off the top of your head?) and uses the verb "says;" Fox simply calls him Carter (while most of us assume better, how do we know he doesn't mean Shawn Corey Carter, or perhaps the Samuel L. Jackson Coach of the same surname?) and claims that he "trumpeted" the group. Fox also uses strategically placed quotation marks soley around "Neighbor," while The Daily Mail encloses more of the direct quotation within the marks. It seems that The Daily Mail is taking the statement at face value and somewhat more objectively--at least on the surface--than Fox News, because encapsulating a single term indicates a bit of skepticism, or at least some irony, in said term.

For example: Fox News is fair and balanced.
That reads quite differently from what I actually feel, which is: Fox News is "fair" and "balanced." Insert cough.



*By Jessica Sager, who thinks you should take a peek at her music blog.