Thursday, September 14, 2006
The Pope: Uh-oh!
BBC NEWS Europe Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger: "Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only 'evil and inhuman' things."
No amount of couching can make these comments anything but offensive. We will see just how long it takes the terrorists to blow something up in the Holy See.
No amount of couching can make these comments anything but offensive. We will see just how long it takes the terrorists to blow something up in the Holy See.
The Pope: Uh-oh!
BBC NEWS Europe Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger: "Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only 'evil and inhuman' things."
No amount of couching can make these comments anything but offensive. We will see just how long it takes the terrorists to blow something up in the Holy See.
No amount of couching can make these comments anything but offensive. We will see just how long it takes the terrorists to blow something up in the Holy See.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Another Reminder on 9/11
Byron York on Terrorism on National Review Online: "In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. "Who else knows this?" Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. "That's just hearsay," Berger said. "No, Sandy," Freeh responded. "It's testimony of a co-conspirator . . ." According to Walsh's account, Freeh thought that "Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing."
Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that "by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration." Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the "masterminds" of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment."
On a day of remembrances, this may be the one we need the most. I chose this passage because it suggests that the intelligence community had to wait until this Administration took office to have any terrorist threat taken seriously/prosecuted, and that was before 9/11/01. That is really interesting!
Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that "by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration." Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the "masterminds" of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment."
On a day of remembrances, this may be the one we need the most. I chose this passage because it suggests that the intelligence community had to wait until this Administration took office to have any terrorist threat taken seriously/prosecuted, and that was before 9/11/01. That is really interesting!
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The Insane Insight of Susan Sontag
On Self - New York Times: "The fear of becoming old is born of the recognition that one is not living now the life that one wishes. It is equivalent to a sense
of abusing the present."
Rarely do you see a quote that is so true. This is the essence of aging humanity. 'I am not where I want to be, therefore I want to go back and do it over.' I am blessed not to feel this, but this is the feeling of the majority.
of abusing the present."
Rarely do you see a quote that is so true. This is the essence of aging humanity. 'I am not where I want to be, therefore I want to go back and do it over.' I am blessed not to feel this, but this is the feeling of the majority.
Friday, September 08, 2006
He's a Smart Guy and So Are His Viewers
Matthews: Plame Story Too Complicated to Cover Now NewsBusters.org: "Last night, I went to a party held by MSNBC and National Journal celebrating a new venture the two media outlets are launching together. Quite a few NBCers were there, including Chris Matthews. I struck up a conversation with the host about the topic of Plame and why he hadn't talked about the story at all. Here's a rough transcript of our discussion which I wrote down shortly thereafter:
Q: So I've noticed you haven't done anything on the whole Valerie Plame story since the Armitage story broke. Why not invite Joe Wilson on the show to defend himself?
A: Because he'd say basically the same thing he always says. 'My wife had no involvement in getting me the mission.' He'd just repeat it over and over.
Q: Maybe, but isn't it at least worth showing your viewers that this guy has no credibility considering how much you talked about the story before? Shouldn't he be held accountable for wasting all our time? Why not invite one of his representatives or defenders on the show?
A: Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. Because what if it's true that Armitage was the source, but those other guys [presumably Rove and Scooter Libby], also were leakers, what then?
Q: Isn't that a question worth exploring on your show?
A: It could be but the problem is that Dick Cheney has so many apologists it's ridiculous. So many journalists like Bob Woodward will say or do anything just to get access to him. And then all the people in the administration too.
Q: I don't see why this is stopping you from mentioning the story at all. The viewers at least need some sort of closure don't they?
A:Hey listen I need to get out of here"
--
CB: This is wild. Matthews is smart and the viewers can understand the "complicated situation". What is "complicated" is that it makes him and others who would not shut up about it before the truth was known now look a bit dopey. At least on this one, Sheffield should be commended. I am a former fan, real fan of Matthews. I read all of his books and watched him every day, but this is indicative of why I have chosen against him for several years now.
Q: So I've noticed you haven't done anything on the whole Valerie Plame story since the Armitage story broke. Why not invite Joe Wilson on the show to defend himself?
A: Because he'd say basically the same thing he always says. 'My wife had no involvement in getting me the mission.' He'd just repeat it over and over.
Q: Maybe, but isn't it at least worth showing your viewers that this guy has no credibility considering how much you talked about the story before? Shouldn't he be held accountable for wasting all our time? Why not invite one of his representatives or defenders on the show?
A: Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. Because what if it's true that Armitage was the source, but those other guys [presumably Rove and Scooter Libby], also were leakers, what then?
Q: Isn't that a question worth exploring on your show?
A: It could be but the problem is that Dick Cheney has so many apologists it's ridiculous. So many journalists like Bob Woodward will say or do anything just to get access to him. And then all the people in the administration too.
Q: I don't see why this is stopping you from mentioning the story at all. The viewers at least need some sort of closure don't they?
A:Hey listen I need to get out of here"
--
CB: This is wild. Matthews is smart and the viewers can understand the "complicated situation". What is "complicated" is that it makes him and others who would not shut up about it before the truth was known now look a bit dopey. At least on this one, Sheffield should be commended. I am a former fan, real fan of Matthews. I read all of his books and watched him every day, but this is indicative of why I have chosen against him for several years now.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Hard to Find More Ridiculous Than This
Some stations want cursing out of '9/11' - Yahoo! News: "NEW YORK - Broadcasters say the hesitancy of some CBS affiliates to air a powerful Sept. 11 documentary next week proves there's been a chilling effect on the First Amendment since federal regulators boosted penalties for television obscenities after Janet Jackson's breast was exposed at a Super Bowl halftime show.
'This is example No. 1,' said Martin Franks, executive vice president of CBS Corp., of the decision by two dozen CBS affiliates to replace or delay '9/11' which has already aired twice without controversy over concerns about some of the language used by the firefighters in it.
'We don't think it's appropriate to sanitize the reality of the hell of Sept. 11th,' Franks said. 'It shows the incredible stress that these heroes were under. To sanitize it in some way robs it of the horror they faced.'"
To even consider bleeping out the F-word or not playing this documentary is absolutely sad and wrong. I can see it from the perspective of the small stations as this article suggests. The fines can be overwhelming for them. The Churchies that send the letters into the FCC on this film just plain don't get it. People curse. In real life, we curse for much less than seeing people jump out of buildings in large numbers, knowing that people are burning alive, and not knowing what to do to help. In fact, I am not sure that I could keep from cursing. I would imagine that a long stream of curse words would flow from my lips for the entirety of the affair and days and weeks after. To edit this based on the biblical definition of profanity is unfair to the rest of the viewers. Maybe the rest of us should try and flood the FCC with letters praising the airing of the unedited version and a plea not to fine stations for it.
'This is example No. 1,' said Martin Franks, executive vice president of CBS Corp., of the decision by two dozen CBS affiliates to replace or delay '9/11' which has already aired twice without controversy over concerns about some of the language used by the firefighters in it.
'We don't think it's appropriate to sanitize the reality of the hell of Sept. 11th,' Franks said. 'It shows the incredible stress that these heroes were under. To sanitize it in some way robs it of the horror they faced.'"
To even consider bleeping out the F-word or not playing this documentary is absolutely sad and wrong. I can see it from the perspective of the small stations as this article suggests. The fines can be overwhelming for them. The Churchies that send the letters into the FCC on this film just plain don't get it. People curse. In real life, we curse for much less than seeing people jump out of buildings in large numbers, knowing that people are burning alive, and not knowing what to do to help. In fact, I am not sure that I could keep from cursing. I would imagine that a long stream of curse words would flow from my lips for the entirety of the affair and days and weeks after. To edit this based on the biblical definition of profanity is unfair to the rest of the viewers. Maybe the rest of us should try and flood the FCC with letters praising the airing of the unedited version and a plea not to fine stations for it.
