In most respects, ABC seems to be in the tank for Obama more than just about any network besides MSNBC. Which leads me to my question: How is that Jake Tapper, who appears to be something of an honest to goodness reporter who, you know, actually asks the President tough questions and isn't afraid to poke behind the "official" versions of stories from the WH, not only still employed by ABC, but actually was able to land the job as the WH correspondent.
I'm not complaining, mind you. Tapper seems to be one of the few honest to goodness journalists left in big media. I just find it a curious juxtaposition.
His explanation of why Western nations must support the dissidents in Iran certainly doesn't hurt that impression. He expresses more moral clarity (and practical understanding) than either our current or last President are ever likely to muster.
North Korea is accusing the man who has trouble saying anything bad about Iran and anything good about the country he was elected to lead of plotting a nuclear war? I mean, I knew they were divorced from reality, but this is bizarre even for them.
During a previous round of protests and suppression in Iran, someone put together a show of support, in both English and Farsi, for bloggers to put up on their sites. It wasn't much, for sure, but it was something.
"The Palins have no intention of providing a ratings boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show. Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman," PalinPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said Wednesday.
So Letterman is a child abuser for making a tasteless joke?Sullivan seems to miss that Stapleton just made a child-rape joke. It's a joke! Well, it's a joke is not an apt excuse — is it? — when the joke is supposed to work based on a shared belief about the butt of it.
While I agree with Althouse's general point (assuming that her general point is that Andrew Sullivan is an idiot and a jerk), I've got to ask: What the @$%Q#$#$% is she talking about? How did she get anything about sex, to say nothing of rape, from Stapleton's comment.
I think it was pretty clear that Stapleton was saying it would be dangerous for Letterman to be in the same room as Willow Palin. In other words, Willow would kick the tar out of him.
I say a few comments to her post that indicated that some of her commenters saw things much the same way I do.
Reading this about Joe Biden's wife, a Ph.D. in Education, insisting on being referred to as "Dr." reminded me of a story. I remember hearing someone say once that they'd never met a Ph.D in physics who insisted on being called "Dr." and that he'd never met a Ph.D in Education who didn't.
No one has the right to act publicly while maintaining their anonymity. If a blogger chooses to blog under a pseudonym, that of course is entirely up to them. And, if they're pretty much leaving everyone else alone, I'd expect people to honor that. However, if a blogger attacks someone using a pseudonym, they shouldn't be surprised if that person "outs" them.
I find the idea that someone out another blogger's true identity is unethical, short of a known physical threat to the person if their identity is revealed, to be truly bizarre. If a someone ventures into blogging, they enter the public sphere. Claiming a right to privacy when you're out in public is just inane.
That's not to say I think anyone should be out there randomly outing anonymous bloggers. However, if you're not willing to attack people using your real identity, you shouldn't be attacking them at all. If you do, you shouldn't be surprised if they let the cat out of the bag.
Does that mean I think "outing" an anonymous blogger is the right thing to do? It's probably not the best course of action. However, I don't see anything wrong with it either.
I once said that Israel would never know peace as long as Arafat lived. That wasn't to say that Arafat's death would cause instant peace; it was just an acknowledgment that Arafat was an ever-present obstacle to lasting peace.
I'd now like to add that Israel will have to be willing to have the fortitude to do whatever they believe is necessary to eliminate the threats while directly defying the US government (which is never likely to give their blessing to a long-term all-out assault). I'm not saying this will guarantee success, but if they are unwilling to defy the US government, they are doomed in the long run.
If you refuse to comply with a court order, the police have the authority to force you to comply. If you tell the police the only way they're going to get a court-ordered DNA sample from you is to use a Taser on you, well, what do you expect?
Over the last 8 years, large parts of the left in this country went stark-raving mad. It started out small, but kept getting weirder and weirder.
I'm afraid I'm starting to see signs of this on the right. I've seen lots of stretching. I recall several blogs floating bizarre conspiracy theories about the ridiculous fly-over of NYC by Air Force One by people ignoring the old adage to never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Now comes people blasting Brian Williams for "bowing" to The One. I've watched the film. He nodded his head; that's it. A head nod. Over this I've already seen many pixels wasted.
Folks, there's going to be plenty of material to blast Obama with and goodness knows there's plenty to criticize the press over. We don't have to go blowing things out of proportion or imagine insane conspiracy theories to get out blows in. I promise they'll provide plenty of legitimate material on their own.