Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
"Bush may find himself with the epitaph penned a century ago by an old imperialist who knew the region well:Give up? Find him HERE.
"A fool lies here/Who tried to hustle the East."
"White House-credentialed fake news reporter "Jeff Gannon" from fake news agency "Talon News" was cited by the Washington Post as having the only access to an internal CIA memo that named Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA agent. Gannon, in a question posed to Wilson in an October 2003 interview, referred to the memo (to which no other news outlet had access, according to the Post). Gannon subsequently has been subpoenaed by the federal grand jury looking into the Plame outing."
"Jeff GannonWow! I mean, why would he quit just because someone was "paying attention" to him?**
A Voice of the New Media
The voice goes silent.
Because of the attention being paid to me I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life.
Thank you to all those who supported me."
Yes, we're talking about "Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief, Talon News" -- Talon News being the rinkydink wingnut "news service" chaired by the same guy who runs GOP USA (the wingnut site that is less upscale than Renew American, but slightly more professional than BushCountryUSA, and apparently run by various members of the Texas GOP).Open Letter To Rep Louise Slaughter
"An argument that judgment matters but knowledge does not is profoundly anti-intellectual. It implies that we do not need ever to learn anything in order make mature decisions. We can just proceed off some simple ideological template and apply it to everything. This sort of thinking is part of what is wrong with this country. We wouldn't call a man in to fix our plumbing who knew nothing about plumbing, but we call pundits to address millions of people on subjects about which they know nothing of substance."Can I get an AMEN?
"Goldberg is hoping to Kerryize me because my position on the war can't be reduced to a sound bite. I don't really care. I'm not running for office and I'm not making any money to speak of from this punditry gig. If people can't imagine that you can hate Saddam and also think a unilateral war and long-term occupation of an Arab country are bad ideas, that is their problem."Professor Cole, you are not alone. The problem is, because of the way the Right artfully frames their ideas, people actually believe that anything less than black and white is not to be trusted. Falling in with those Right-wing frames and talking points, the mainstream media failed to spark any meaningful debate before the Iraq war. In essence, they did lack the imagination and curiosity necessary to keep the Bush administration from dragging our nation into this unjust disaster. If we aren't on our toes, they'll be allowed to do it again. The Right is attempting to make intelligent and knowledgeable people look like devils. I was amazed that David Brooks offered such a destructive anti-intelluctual manifesto in the NY Times this week. Brooks basically says that if you're not Barney Rubble, you're Beelzebub. Heaven help this country. Do we really want it run by Barney Rubble, Ralph Kramden, Al Bundy, Jonah Goldberg, and Company?
Is TimK really the face of the “right wing bloggers”? Or was he the most convenient example Camwell could find of a person on the right who used four-letter words and who is promising Jordan “a world of [excrement]”? Is it conceivable that TimK’s comment fits a bit of a stereotype of a knuckle-dragging, inarticulate bully of the right? It’s easy to portray that comment as “blog-thuggery.” Fortunately, its tone and tenor is worlds apart from what you find on most blogs.Convenient? Well, the only thing I will say is that it wasn't very hard to find such a statement.
Look, if Eason Jordan has his facts right, then the guys who committed the crimes he described ought to face the fullest consequences of the law. And Jordan – at least in his initial comment – apparently described outright premeditiated murder. Of course journalists ought to be concerned about that. Everyone should be.
But if it’s not true, and a network’s top newsman is irresponsibly spreading rumors… then journalists ought to be concerned about that, too.
How do you define it when a group of people regularly show only the side of the story that makes America look bad? What do you call it when ‘journalists’ just happen to be on hand, cameras rolling, as terrorists execute Iraqi election workers in broad day light in the middle of the street? What do you call it when ‘journalists’ are right there to film a staged suicide bombing? What do you call it when journalists are so eager to get one more kidnapping on the wire they are duped by pictures of a child’s action toy? Are all journalists the enemy? Of course not. Are there people calling themselves journalists who are clearly against the American effort? Obviously.I'm not saying Steve is right or wrong. I'm saying that we need to have this discussion. If we agree, as a civil society, to make our support conditional for the protection of journalists at war-time, I believe we are neglecting a value that is crucial to our traditional defense and promotion of free speech, regardless of where the journalists are from. If we promote democracy, we must show Iraqi journalists (for example) of all ideological stripes that they are free to speak their mind. Otherwise, our support for democracy in other countries is all a sick joke and the world will easily see it.
From the folks at Easongate
"Tell-A-Friend" Day at Easongate: Today is "Tell-A-Friend" Day. Your mission today is to call, email or otherwise contact at least two friends whom you don't believe are aware of the Easongate story!
"Howard Kurtz takes a dispassionate look at what occurred at Davos. Read it (at the bottom) and ask yourselves how a seasoned newsman's passion for the protection of the lives and safety of those who carry out their work in the most dangerous of situations (to show YOU the truth) is, by any standard, "unprofessional". I would have to say just the opposite. The values Eason Jordan appears to espouse involve a concern, caring, and a call for the utmost protection for those who serve in the field of journalism. We all know that war is a risky place for journalists.
The Iraq war is a public action carried out, in my name and yours, by our government. The lives of those who serve the journalism corps in the middle of a war zone deserve every bit as much care and respect as the soldiers (the ones with the guns, I'd like to remind you).
I don't think Jordan Eason should be professionally crucified for what we can liken to a motherly nature when discussing a delicate matter (out of the public eye, for the most part - the Jan. 27 Davos session was supposed to be off the record).
Those who are hot on Eason's trail are only those who wish to inflict some political damage on the few in the mainstream media who still possess the extreme courage of conviction. This is not a case of Dan Rather using fake documents. This seems to be more of a case where a professional journalist has called, in his own fumbling way, for better judgement and a higher degree of care and liability on on the part of U.S. military in choosing their targets.
After what we saw happen at the Palestine Hotel, I don't think that's an unreasonable plea..."
"...as a News Executive on a panel discussing the safety of journalists in Iraq I fail to see why I should not discuss any of these incidents. Unless they are properly, fairly and openly discussed, as I said in my original note to Jay [Rosen], it will simply feed prejudice on all sides. Responsiblity for the safety of journalists in war zones rests with the news organisations. But unless we can have a full and open discussion with the military about how journalists have been killed we cannot understand what more we may be able to do to protect them. You are all entitled to your personal opinions about CNN, the BBC, me, Eason, the Iraq War and anything else. However this started with the question of journalists safety in war zones and the high number who have been killed. For those of us with friends and colleagues out there, we will continue to try to understand why the casualties among journalists are unusually high and what more we might do to protect them."
"This culture of "closing ranks" coupled with hostile comments about the media from senior politicians and others, has led some in the media community (not necessarily Eason or myself) to believe the military are careless as to whether journalists are killed or not and to no longer respect the traditional right to report.
As yet, for example, there has been no adequate explanation for the attack on the media hotel in Baghdad, the Palestine, which killed one Ukrainian Reuters cameraman and one cameraman for Spanish TV in 2003. The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building. That is now clearly not the case; it was well known, including in the Pentagon, that the Palestine was used by the media and yet it was attacked directly and purposely. Why? An absence of explanation unhelpfully feeds suspicion in some quarters.
More than sixty journalists and media workers have been killed in Iraq since march 2003.
I am leading an international committee of inquiry into the reasons for the major increase in journalist fatalities around the world. It will make recommendations for improving safety and reducing risk and possibly suggest some changes to international law which ensure that when journalists are killed we can get a proper and open investigation and sense of accountability.
Finally, some people say, if it's so dangerous don't go. I'm afraid I believe that bearing witness, first hand reporting from wars, is a fundamental duty of news organisations. We need to do all we can to ensure we can continue to bear witness, but to do so without carelessly losing lives."
"Every argument against this war has proved to be a fact. That is why Bush spent the majority of his inauguration speech blathering on about spreading liberty and freedom throughout the world. It is his only excuse left for war with Iraq..The war cost is hundreds of billions more than Bush was willing to admit. Saddam Hussein wasn't even a threat to his neighbors. There was no link between Hussein and al-Qaida..The Arab world hates us more than ever before. Bush has made bin Laden a prophet in the Arab world.. The Republican Party was conservative once, but, now, under the leadership of George W. Bush, it has become neoconservative.
I am out. Just don't call me a liberal or a Democrat. If you did, you owe me an apology."
"The invasion of Iraq has put the possibility of the end to American democracy on the table and has empowered groups on the Right that would acquiesce to and in some cases welcome the suppression of core American freedoms. That would be the titanic irony of course, the mother of them all—that a war initiated under the pretense of spreading democracy would lead to its destruction in one of its very birthplaces. But as historians know, history is full of ironies."
UK: "The Ministry of Defence will accept liability for the death of the first British soldier to die in action in Iraq, his widow’s lawyer confirmed today.Election Complaints Emerge in Iraq
Sgt Roberts was shot when trying to quell a riot in Az Zubayr, near Basra, within days of the start of the conflict in March 2003.
An internal MoD report later established that he would have survived if he had been wearing ceramic plates inside his flak jacket. He had been issued with the plates, but gave them to another soldier because his regiment did not have enough for everyone.
Mrs Roberts has already received a personal apology from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon after she released tapes of her husband voicing his concerns over equipment shortages.
"He saw a young Iraqi girl with her arm horribly burned and blackened, standing helplessly on a roadside as Benderman's convoy rushed past. He saw dogs feasting on civilian corpses dumped into pits. He saw young American soldiers he believed were treating war like a video game, with few apparent qualms about killing or the effects of the invasion on ordinary Iraqis.22 Iraqi Police Officers, Soldiers Killed Near Baghdad; Gunmen Kidnap 4 Egyptians Technicians
Benderman said he begged an officer to stop and help the girl, but was told the unit couldn't spare its limited medical supplies.
"I had to look at that little girl, look into her eyes, and in her eyes I saw the TRUTH. I cannot kill.."
"Shiite clerics, who, confident they have a popular mandate from the elections, are advocating for Islam to be recognized as the underpinning of the government.....more conservative leaders are insisting that Shariah, or Islamic law, be the foundation for all legislation. Such a constitution would be a sharp departure from the transitional law that the Americans enacted before appointing the interim Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. One focus of the U.S. effort then was to secure equal rights for women and minorities. Under Shariah, for instance, daughters would receive half the inheritances of sons.[..]
[..]..The alliance of Shiite politicians in the national assembly could splinter as its members vie against one another for power and trade favors with rival politicians like the secular Allawi and the Kurds, who are Sunnis. Too strong a push for a Shiite religious state could also prompt violent opposition from Sunni Arabs, the formerly dominant minority that already feels disenfranchised, or from the Kurds, who can exercise veto power over the new constitution.[..]"
"As Iraq's president, [Kurdish leader and candidate] Jalal Talabani said he could play a mediating role between Sunni Arabs and Shiite Muslims, who apparently scored a landslide victory in the Jan. 30 national elections."
"...the November 2004 [NPT Safeguards] agreement will amount to little unless the Americans join the negotiations, offering advantages such as security guarantees, a deal on Iranian assets in the US, and the prospect of normal economic relations. The Americans are wary of committing themselves to such policies unless the Europeans and others, especially Russia and China, consent to taking punitive action if Iran progresses further toward a fuel cycle that could produce nuclear weapons. What is needed to deal with Iran and its nuclear ambitions is the formation of an international coalition including the US, and that is not George Bush's strong point."
"The Senate Intelligence Committee has launched what its chairman called a "pre-emptive" examination of U.S. intelligence on Iran as part of an effort to avoid the problems that plagued America's prewar assessments on Iraq."
"...it is never too late to re-make yourself, and a step off the cliff might save you.
I challenge you to find your safety zone and leave it behind in the pursuit of your life in the sun."
"I've asked myself the same question and I think I've found the answer that satisfies me. And it is that I am here to pursue what I am meant to do, which brings contentment in my life, and if I ignore my truth, I will live a life filled with uncertainty and negativity. And so, I know that my purpose in life is to write, and to help people.I hope you'll read the post in its entirety. It's great food for thought.
But how do we know what to pursue? Ask yourself, at this very point in your life, are you happy? Is there a long-forgotten dream that you cherish? And if such a dream exists, what's stopping you from pursuing it? Bills? Family? Fear of failure?
..[..].. I believe that when one has reached a certain level of discontent, something has to happen, whether good or bad. But if one ignores the signs, then wrong choices or bad decisions are made, leaving one in a quagmire of boggy malcontent."
"..Jordan said something in a public on-the-record forum that he clearly regretted saying. There are really two questions here: First, what did he really say? That's going to get cleared up soon enough. The second more interesting question is: what does he really believe? Clearly he is frustrated and angry at the way in which the U.S. military deals with (or fails to protect) non-embedded journalists in Iraq. Why? Does his anger and frustration have any justification? Is the source of his problem the behavior of individual soldiers on the ground who happen to hate MSM because they think it's anti-military? Or is the source of his problem more systemic and part of a policy - spoken or unspoken - coming from the top?.."
-- Rebecca MacKinnon, from an interview with Hugh Hewitt
