Balanced and a good comment on the current state of MSM. However, I can easily envision the blogosphere's own hystericalist, Andrew Sullivan, manufacturing a mountain out of essentially a mole hill.

Do those colors seem overly saturated? The foreground appears much yellower than one would expect. Objects hanging on the interior walls are redder. The contrast is certainly boosted.

That may be the reason other photographers didn't notice the flag. It is probably so faded that it is near-unrecognizable; an old, pale rectangle of cloth covering a broken window in a garage.

Not incidentally, this is Union Vale, New York we're talking about - not exactly a remote bastion of the old Confederacy.

And the 'place of honor'? Raise your hand if you keep valued possessions nailed to the inside of the back door of your garage.

I have to agree with Sharpton, Cheney should get right on apologizing for being at this hunting preserve. Right after Sharpton publicly apologizes to the Duke Lacross team and the young man who took the beating in Jenna, and...Al Sharpton a racist? Who knew?

Oh horrors! Dick Cheney went hunting at a club where some low-level worker hung a "forbiden object" in an out-of-the-way employees-only area.

This is such a non-story, I hadn't heard about it until now.

The Thought Police are out in force again, I see.

Dutchess County? Isn't that where Tawana Brawley claimed she was raped by white men and Al Sharpton accused DA Steve Pagones of rape?

The VP should state he'll apologize when "Rev" Sharpton pays the judgement against him in the Brawley slander/libel.

I don't imagine Bill Clinton was ever, EVER in the vicinity of a Confederate battle flag. Nosirree, no chance of that in Arkansas.

Cordially...

"Speed to press will never save the print media."

Agreed. But, I might add, speed is not always the blogger's friend. Haste to post has sunk many a blogger, with Dread Pundit Bluto being the most recent example.

Bob:
O.T.
Email me at the provided email addy. I'm currently Stateside on R&R and headed back on the 8th. I might be able to do a fist...er.. face-to-face with Beuachamp as I am taking a new contract up North.
Best Regards
BC

That appears to be an Army of Tennessee flag from the 1863-1865 period. The Army of Virginia flags look somewhat similar, but would be square rather than rectangular.

Confederate flag vexillology is non trivial and rather involved. The majority of confederate battle flag types DID NOT contain the stars and bars. Those that can vary greatly depending on the state/unit. Sometimes there's a star in the middle, sometimes not. Most battle flags that used the stars and bars put them in the upper left corner with the bulk of flag area designated for other symbology.

It would be easy to mistake some confederate naval flags for abbreviated versions of the current day US flag.

I feel safer at night knowing there are 'eagle-eyed' photographers out there who can spot things 'in plain view'. They are probably real good at tying their shoes as well.

Those stories read like a game of telephone where with each pass they are embellished or distorted. In telephone, however, the excuse is that the statement is misunderstood or mis-heard. What's the excuse for changing details when the details (though incorrect) are in print?

CY, unless you get data from someone who has actually measured the door, you're engaging in precisely the same kind of uninformed speculation you accuse the reporters of conducting.

nunaim, have you ever seen such a door that's 5 feet wide? Have you seen many doors? I haven't and I have. Uninformed? I think not.

nunaim, as someone who has in the past held a real job in construction and remodeling, and in that area of New York (in Orange County, just across the Hudson from Dutchess) to boot, I assure you, that is not "uninformed speculation."

I know you're trying to score a cheap "point" here or there when you can, but please, stop embarrassing yourself.

nunaim will grasp at any straw to make a conservative look bad.

That's why he virtually always ends up looking bad himself, cause he doesn't bother to investigate before grasping those straws.

But, he is good for a laugh, and as a poster child for the absolute idiocy of the hard-core left. I guess that's why CY keeps him around.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 10/31/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Ah, yes: fake but real.

Yes, yes, nunaim, we know that you know more about construction in that part of the country than someone who's actually lived there and worked in construction.

You also know more about military strategy than the Pentagon, more about economics than the Federal Reserve, and you even know more about everything than God Himself does.

We all bow to your incredible intellect.

Please go away now.

we know that you know more about construction in that part of the country than someone who's actually lived there and worked in construction.

Remember how the opinions of generals who had served in Iraq as recently as last year were discarded by CY and others on this site because they weren't "on the ground?" (Oh, and because they said things CY didn't want to hear, of course.)

It's interesting how, when it cuts your way, "I did this thing one time" is sufficient proof; when you disagree with the ideas, the only thing that will suffice is up-to-date eyewitness testimony backed up by video--and even then, some yahoo is going to see a conspiracy in the fact that the image seems oversaturated.

Consistency? That must be for weeners, right?

Actually, nunaim, it is consistent.

CY is basing his opinion on his personal experience of the topic at hand.

CY has dismissed the opinions of people who lack personal experience of the topic at hand.

Too bad you can't comprehend that.

My problems with Cheney's hunting escapades is that his impression of hunting (raised birds, private lands) shield him in his hobby from the consequences of this administration's policies have on the rest of the hunting population.

Those of us who hunt public lands (or would like to) have seen the environmental disinterest of this presidency and the wholesale auctioning off of public lands for mining interests without regard to the impact in the quality of the life we have.

Of course, if you are sitting on a stool with a glass of single malt, holding your custom 28 gauge shotgun while waiting for a low paid hick to kick a few tame birds your way, you might be too preoccupied with the luxuries of your life to care that the rest of us don't see it the same way. Be then, I'm not a cyborg, and can still walk through the woods with my dog and old savage automatic.

But then, i forgot your mantra "Cheney Good/ Bush good/ facts bad."

nunaim,

Do you suppose the opinions of generals who served in Iraq in Sept. of 2007 might be more indicative of current conditions than those whose last service in Iraq was 2006?

Or is Iraq a static situation where nothing changes?

M. Simon, your question presupposes that generals who are not actually standing on Iraqi soil are totally cut off from all information about Iraq. Following your own reasoning, then, Bush should not be allowed to make any decisions about Iraq because he's not there.

This whole thing has happened at other times, as well. Remember the photos that CY declared worthless because the people in them "were aware of the photographer?" And then I found several photos on Yon's site with people--including Iraqi kids and American soldiers--lined up and staring into the camera? But that was different, of course, because you agree with Yon and you disagreed with what you perceived to be the agenda of that other photographer.

Of course, nunaim is too brain-dead to realize that by dismissing the opinions of those generals that are actually in Iraq, he is himself doing what he accuses CY and others--including myself--of doing: giving weight only to those opinions he agrees with.

Hypocrisy, thy name is nunaim.

What CCG is too brain-dead to realize is that I'm not dismissing the opinions of the other generals and I never have. He made that up in order to fit his own personal narrative about me. Backing up his assertions about me positions would take some thought and effort on his part, however, and this is something he is unlikely to do. It's far easier to make up my opinions for me, I guess.

I'm commenting on the reasons for which the generals' opinions were dismissed, and the lack of consistency of the Right's general approach to things this highlights.

(By the way, CCG, I'm flattered that you care enough about me to have a "Nunaim Narrative" shelf in the cluttered crawlspace that you call your brain. BFF!!!!!)

He better not enter the State Capitol of Mississippi, then.

So, nunaim, you agree with General Petraeus' report on the status of things in Iraq, then?

And I've already addressed your consistency point. Please read carefully.

I'm willing to accept the idea that there's less killing in Iraq now than there was before, but holy shite! There'd better be! Look how long we've been there! Also: less killing doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Finally: mentioning the word "consistent" in your post does not mean that you've addressed the underlying issue, any more than simply mentioning the name "Petraeus" would mean that I'd answered your question.

nunaim, I truly pity you. You clearly cannot comprehend even a three-line response of less than 100 words.

Please seek professional assistance immediately, before you do yourself harm with a dull butter knife.

Good day, Sir. I said, Good day!

Good day, Sir. I said, Good day!

Well, it doesn't get any lamer than that, does it?

I read but don't comment often here - nunaim, you are special, as in special olympics. Change topics to cover for your ass-spanking on door size speculation? sucks to not have state-supplied self esteem, no?

First: I received no spanking, assward or anywhere else. CY and others here have established what they consider to be a baseline for credibility: anybody who's there (wherever the "there" happens to be) is credible, and anyone who's not there is not credible, no matter how much experience they have. Fine. By that standard, "I worked in construction one time" has to rate at least as low as "I was a general in Iraq up until last year." Probably less, don't you think? Let's be honest. And consistent. That's the standard CY has established. He's not even going with the measurement of someone who was there (and, by God, why can't we send Michael Yon over there to measure that door?!); he's making stuff up.

I don't care about how many nails he has pounded in the past; using his standard of proof, the fact that he is not actually standing in front of that door with a tape measure invalidates his speculation about the size.

Let's follow this through to the end. If the generals aren't to be listened to, why on God's green Earth should we listen to the bloviating of CCG, CY, or any of the other people here who have never been to Iraq (and quite possibly couldn't find it on a map)? They haven't been on the ground; what they say means nothing. Right? Isn't that the logic?

If the generals who served in Iraq are to be dismissed because they are not right this minute standing in the Green Zone, then the lip-flappage of those who've never even served means less than nothing.

Second, there was no subject change. This "subject change" bushwah is something you wingnuts fall back on when you can't think of anything else to say. It's as predictable as the change of seasons. Unless there's an actual subject change, you just wind up looking like someone who has just pissed his pants in public.

I'm done with you nunaim.

Unlike Iraq, which has multiple religious sects, tribal influences, political vendettas, and cultural differences that change constantly, a 2'8" door is always a 2'8" door. That is finite and does not change; it is not a 5' door one day and 1'11" door a month or a year later.

You seem to exist only to argue and so you are welcome to do so: somewhere else.

You will not be missed.

I am sure nunaim can still read here, even if he can't reply, so one parting shot for the lefty who can't figure out that a door doesn't change size.

As far as the generals go, we're taking the word of a general who is in-theatre right now as opposed to the words of generals who left the theatre months or in some cases years ago.

In fact, one of those generals who has already left is the one responsible for the situation that the one that's there now had to clean up!

nunaim obviously looks at last month's paper for the weather report as well, rather than today's.

Good day, nunaim. I said good day, and it is a good day, cause I won't have to put up with you anymore.