Some thoughtful thoughts on a Jewish response to the greeting “Merry Christmas!”
More on Wallace and Jennings: a war reporter is not a nature reporter
I’m pressed for time, so I’m writing this quickly and might have more to say later on the subject, but I urge you to read the comments section of yesterday’s thread.
One of the many interesting comments there was by Mitsu, who wrote:
…A sort of non-interference principle of reporting, that reporters should be out there to observe but not interfere with what they’re observing…Of course, this principle it seems ought to be superceded by the principle of saving lives ”” however, you might consider this argument (I’m not saying I believe it, but I am offering it). One reason reporters are often allowed into dangerous areas, even enemy territory, is that they are seen, basically, as uninvolved observers. For this reason reporters have managed to get information to the public in a wide variety of very dangerous situations. If reporters started to regularly get involved in an active way with what they were reporting on, this information flow might stop. They might become much more active targets than they already are, in war zones, etc. This would have the effect of making it much harder for us to find out what is going on especially in parts of the world where we’re not ordinarily very welcome.
I submit that, although this sounds very reasonable on the surface, on reflection it does not conform with reality. For starters, it is a fiction (born of arrogance and/or ignorance and/or wishful thinking) that journalists can cover a story by accompanying enemy soldiers on a mission and not affect that story. Their mere presence affects it by giving the enemy an opportunity for propaganda. Furthermore, in order to continue that presence and get further access in such situations, the journalists must be careful not to be too negative towards those who are kind enough to grant them the access, the story, and possibly the scoop (don’t discount the factor of the reporters’ own ambitious professional ends, either). Continue reading →
It wouldn’t hurt…
…to go over to Gay Patriot and vote for me. Once a day, like flossing.
There, is that diva-esque enough?
[ADDENDUM: You’re released from this Sisyphean task. The contest is over and congrats to the winner, Sondra K.]
No higher duty: “You’re a reporter!”
We now know a bit more about the charges against Iraqi AP photographer Bilal Hussein. It seems that he was tipped off to a planned IED attack against US forces, and that:
…he was standing next to the I.E.D. triggerman at the time of the attempted attack, and that he conspired with the I.E.D. triggerman to synchronize his photograph with the explosion.”
“Abominable,” you say, “if true.”
Agreed. But I wonder what Mike Wallace would have to say about it.
Mike Wallace? Multiple award-winning elder-statesman journalist, he of “60 Minutes” fame? That Mike Wallace? Why on earth do I ask? Continue reading →
The perils of being a frontrunner
Ah yes, the election. It seems I can’t ignore it after all. The news is all about the decline of the old frontrunners (Clinton, Giuliani) and the rise of the new challengers to frontrunner status (Obama, Huckabee), the candidates de jour.
What’s it all about? I think it’s about the incredible length of the campaign these days. This means there’s plenty of time for the following principles to be played out: Continue reading →
Listen to the Squad, live
Click here at 8 PM this evening to listen to the Sanity Squad live. Or click later and listen to the recorded version. But if you listen live, you can call in with a question—and maybe even get an answer.
Tonight’s topics will include the recent murder of a teen age girl in Canada by her religious Father, who was upset because she wouldn’t wear a hijab; and the reaction of Islamic groups to her killing. If there’s time, we’ll switch topics to the national political scene and talk about Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain, Huckabee’s rise and Hillary’s descent.
Doing my non-Christmas shopping
I’m still unpacking in my new apartment, but even though I carefully numbered each packing box, and kept a list of what’s where, I apparently wasn’t specific enough. So now, in all those boxes labeled “kitchen” and sub-labeled things like “pots and pans” or “vases,” where oh where is my kitchen clock? Or that little knick knack that was so handy for this and that and the other thing? And why doesn’t my old bathroom wastebasket fit in the new bathroom? And, and….
All of this means it’s still rather chaotic around here, boxes and boxes and boxes, packed, unpacked, stacked, crushed, intact. And it also means that, in addition to whatever Christmas shopping I’ve been doing this year (minimal), I’ve also been shopping for apartment supplies.
Hooks of all shapes and sizes. A new toilet paper roll holder (who knew they came in such variety?) And storage, because there’s not much here. Shelves for the closets. Little plastic bins. Medium plastic bins. Big plastic bins. Open plastic bins. Plastic bins with drawers. Something on which to hang pots. A paper towel holder. A smaller microwave. One of those clever things that fits into a kitchen cabinet door and vertically stores Saran wrap and aluminum foil.
They don’t make those anymore, you say? Ah, but you have to go to five stores to find out that sorrowful news. And because it’s Christmas, there are long lines in every store.
And so—at Home Depot, for example—you walk the wide and lonely aisles late one night looking for a certain kind of sink handle (faucet handle? what are those things called?) because yours are very hard to operate. Continue reading →
Hanson and the myths of Iraq
History will assess Iraq when it ends, writes military historian Victor Davis Hanson.
By the way, the “it” in that previous sentence refers to the war itself, not Iraq itself (hopefully), nor history itself (pace Fukuyama).
In his piece, Hanson deals with several myths of this war, including that old canard “there is no military solution.”
Of course there’s no military solution—if by “military solution” one means an approach that is solely of the traditional military type. But our attempts at solution there have always contained many other elements, some more or less successful than others. As Hanson points out, basic security—whether it’s called a military solution or a police action performed by the military—is the foundation for all the other possible approaches, which work in tandem with it, not separately.
Well, duh! Whether you hate Bush or not, whether you think Iraq is going well, poorly, or somewhere in between (I’m in that last camp), it’s hard to believe any well-informed person actually perceives our efforts there as having been solely military. And yet one hears that old canard again and again. Therefore I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point; or they are uninformed; and/or they are not thinking straight.
And they’re not reading Victor Davis Hanson.
“Diva, moi?” Apparently “non.”
I don’t expect to win. But if a just few more people would go over here and vote for me, at least I won’t be slinking away in disgrace.
[/shameless self-promotion]
[ADDENDUM: It seems to be permissible to vote once a day.]
Demonizing: never should be heard a discouraging word
It’s no surprise that a professor has written a piece that goes even further than the NIE in its assessment of the nuclear tameness of Iran. Cinnamon Stillwell reports that Dr. William O. Beeman, chair of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, says that Iran never had any nuclear weapons program at all.
Not a surprise, really. But what’s of much greater interest to me is the fact that Beeman has written a book entitled The Great Satan vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. I haven’t read the book, I must admit; it’s the title that fascinates me. Continue reading →
Say it isn’t so, Roger: steroids and baseball
The news is out, and it’s only the tip of the major league steroid iceberg. Roger Clemens, former Red Sox star pitcher and turncoat on joining the archenemy Yankees, has been named by the forthcoming Mitchell report as one of many baseball players using anabolic steroids to enhance performance.
It’s no surprise. Rumors have been rampant for years about Clemens and many other baseball players. The report seems to be based mostly on the testimony of two trainers who were their major suppliers.
I remember Clemens well; he was the beefy hope of Red Sox fans back in the Bad Old Days when all they had was hope—and hope dashed, over and over. Clemens was especially frustrating because he was so very, very good during the season, and yet often seemed to choke just when it mattered most. And then, playing for the Yankees! And even more infuriating was that the business of failing to deliver when it mattered most didn’t seem to follow him when he put on the pinstripes. Continue reading →
Behind the scenes at the NIE
This Washington Post article gives us a little bit of behind-the-scenes information on the background to the latest NIE report on Iran’s nuclear program.
What we find there isn’t especially reassuring. The agencies involved are connecting some mighty distant dots, which can lead to incorrect conclusions. As this piece in American Thinker puts it, the Left, the Right, and the Europeans are all quite skeptical of the findings:
When all these parties can agree on any topic whatsoever there are certainly grounds for curiosity. The NIE conclusions deserve scrutiny. Unfortunately, this analysis has been hampered by the intelligence community’s desire to keep their methodology hidden from public view under the pretext that disclosure of their sources of intelligence might imperil them.
I certainly see the need to protect sources. But it’s hard to analyze or trust a report without having access to the underpinnings of the conclusions drawn. Continue reading →