Rumsfeld (Finally) Slaps the Press
No More Mr. Nice Guy
Unlike every other white-boy pundit, I?m no Islamic scholar, but given that, as I understand it, during the holy month of Ramadan Muslims are expected to live in simple fashion, it?s hard to see in what way taking out the water lines, the food warehouses, the electric supply, etc., is disrespectful. Quite the contrary, one would have thought: Happy Holidays from the Great Satan!
and
But where are the American Civil Liberties Union lawsuits when you need them? If B52s taking Ramadan off isn?t in breach of the separation of Church and State, what is? As Joshua Micah Marshall put it in a droll commentary, ?Some of my conservative friends must be wondering something like this right about now: if we wanted a war fought from the air, with strategy dictated by politics and not the military, we might as well have given Bill Clinton a third term.?
Though it’s a little early in the morning for it out here in La La land, our compatriots in Europe might want to enjoy it with a little snifter of fine cognac.
We Can Dish It Out, But We Shouldn’t Have To Take It
“The largest publicity about a boycott has come from the mayor appearing on national television and talking about it,” huffed Councilman Kriss Worthington. Brij Misra, general manager of the Radisson Hotel Berkeley Marina, lost a banquet because organizers were angry about the vote. He wonders “how much business we’ll lose because people will not come to Berkeley.” Throwing a leftist cliche back into the faces of the politically correct, Misra said, “We need to think locally before we act globally.”
We Can Dish It Out, But We Shouldn’t Have To Take It
“The largest publicity about a boycott has come from the mayor appearing on national television and talking about it,” huffed Councilman Kriss Worthington. Brij Misra, general manager of the Radisson Hotel Berkeley Marina, lost a banquet because organizers were angry about the vote. He wonders “how much business we’ll lose because people will not come to Berkeley.” Throwing a leftist cliche back into the faces of the politically correct, Misra said, “We need to think locally before we act globally.”
We Can Dish It Out, But We Shouldn’t Have To Take It
“The largest publicity about a boycott has come from the mayor appearing on national television and talking about it,” huffed Councilman Kriss Worthington. Brij Misra, general manager of the Radisson Hotel Berkeley Marina, lost a banquet because organizers were angry about the vote. He wonders “how much business we’ll lose because people will not come to Berkeley.” Throwing a leftist cliche back into the faces of the politically correct, Misra said, “We need to think locally before we act globally.”
Brits Getting Wobby?
Taliban Emigration Halloween Update
Downing Street said that anti-terror laws would be used to punish Britons who fought for Osama bin Laden, but pointedly added that most would die in action.
[Emphasis mine…]
Apparently, the UK doesn’t require a formal declaration of war to allow trials for treason. I believe that we do, but I am still awaiting word from the lawyers.
[Update update]
Jim Bennett, UPI columnist, informs me via email that
“here’s the short answer — you can prosecute for treason in the UK in peacetime, but to hang ’em, you need to declare war.
Another good reason for declaring war. Actually, there are so many international treaties and war crimes whatnots these days that we really ought to think about a declaration of war to keep our armed forces and policy-makers from being legally harrassed for the rest of their lives. Case in point: the survivers of the Argentine cruiser Belgrano are trying to sue the Brits for sinking them.”
Of course, this doesn’t resolve the issue of the American ability to try for treason. Do we need a declaration of war? My understanding is that we do.
Just what are the pros and cons of a declaration of war?
Pro:
- It will concentrate our minds even more fully on the task at hand, and make clear in a way unseen in sixty years, just what we are up against.
- It will allow us to exert marginally more propaganda pressure on Taliban/Al Qaeda when they inevitably fail to follow Geneva.
- It will allow us to arrest and try people for treason who express sympathy for Taliban/Al Qaeda.
- It will put more pressure on wavering “allies,” forcing them to either commit to being with us, or take an official neutral position, but not allow them to fence straddle any longer.
Con:
- We may have less freedom of action, being more firmly bound by the Geneva Convention (though this is probably only a theoretical disadvantage, as we’ll be much more constrained by politically-correct handwringers on the home front than by Geneva, in any event.)
I can’t think of any other cons, and still have not heard a good explanation of why Congress has not declared war. Is it because they fear giving Bush too much power? Is it because they don’t want to be in the position of being able to prosecute Taliban sympathizers for treason? Or have we simply gotten out of the habit, having sent troops into battle on so many occasions since 1945 without such a declaration, that it is now viewed, like much else in the Constitution, as a quaint old unnecessary procedure, irrelevant to the modern world?
I’ll welcome any corrections or additions to the above listing.
Missed Iranian Opportunity?
Moral Confusion at ABC
In a related story, he also said,
“Pearl Harbor as a legitimate target? I actually don?t have an opinion on that and it?s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. The way I conceive my job running a news organization, and the way I would like all the journalists at ABC News to perceive it, is there is a big difference between a normative position and a positive position. Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we?re not doing a service to the American people. I can say they attacked without warning on a Sunday morning, I can say this is what the Japanese position is, this is what our position is, but for me to take a position this was right or wrong, I mean, that?s perhaps for me in my private life, perhaps it?s for me dealing with my loved ones, perhaps it?s for my minister at church. But as a journalist I feel strongly that?s something that I should not be taking a position on. I?m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be.”
and
“Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, homosexuals as legitimate targets? I actually don?t have an opinion on that and it?s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. The way I conceive my job running a news organization, and the way I would like all the journalists at ABC News to perceive it, is there is a big difference between a normative position and a positive position. Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we?re not doing a service to the American people. I can say they were herded into railroad cars, I can say they were gassed, I can say this is what the Nazis’ position is, this is what our position is, but for me to take a position this was right or wrong, I mean, that?s perhaps for me in my private life, perhaps it?s for me dealing with my loved ones, perhaps it?s for my minister at church. But as a journalist I feel strongly that?s something that I should not be taking a position on. I?m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be.”
[End Satire]
Is this really what they teach in J-school these days?
What really frustrates me about this is the conceit and self deception. Journalists seem to value “objectivity” but they are unable or unwilling to recognize that it’s not an achievable goal–they’re human. I much prefer a reporter who is honest about his biases and preferences, to one who pretends to be “objective” but is in actuality blind to his own bias. The former makes it much easier to appropriately filter the output.