I’ve now watched two episodes of Aaron Sorkin’s new show, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Well, to be completely honest, I sort of watched two episodes, sinced I slept through most of the second.

The show has the usual Sorkin trademarks — incredibly rapid-fire dialogue, some of it clever; a camera that likes to spin and zoom; and speeches, lots of speeches. This time, the speeches meld Sorkin’s two primary concerns: studio control over show content and Evangelical Christians.

In Sorkin’s world, the studios are constantly bowing down to the Evangelical Christians and bleaching “cutting edge” content from the brilliant work done by writers and directors. Sorkin is remarkably unconcerned by the fact that the studios are business-making entities and that their obligation to their shareholders isn’t to be cutting edge, but is to appeal to the greatest number of advertisers — which means attracting, not attacking, the largest audience demographic.

In the 24 hour a day cable world, if Sorkin has something burning to say, he can find a venue. As it is, despite his attacks on the studios, NBC seems happily to have assumed the martyr’s roll of hosting a show savaging its own approach to TV (although I’m sure the network bigwigs console themselves with the thought that, since they’re hosting the show, NBC must be considered a network that doesn’t pander in the way Sorkin describes).

[Read more and discuss...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Lovely, lovely writing from Jonah Goldberg:

Every serious analysis of the Islamic world today describes a genuine tectonic shift in a vast civilization, an upheaval that cuts across social, religious and demographic lines. This phenomenon dwarfs transient issues such as the Iraq war. Are we to believe that once-moderate and relatively secular Morocco is slipping toward extremism because we toppled Baathist Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that those mobs who burned Danish embassies in response to a cartoon wouldn’t have done so if only President Bush had gone for the 18th, 19th or 20th U.N. resolution on Iraq? Millions of young men yearning for meaning and craving outlets for their rage would have become computer programmers and dental hygienists if only Hussein’s statue still towered over central Baghdad? Would the Pope’s comments spark nothing but thoughtful and high-minded debate from the Arab street if only Al Gore or John Kerry were in office?

Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it’s a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you’ve basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process.

[Discuss over at Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

“Something clearly worked, because the voters decided to do what our Founding Fathers envisioned; they are trusting me to rock the boat down in Washington…voters are idiots.” - Ned Lamont 08/16/06

“I’m not planning on staying there forever, I said 12 years on purpose, I don’t see this as being a life-long thing. Unless I die before my two terms end.” - Paul Wellstone 1990

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

What do these three quotes have in common?

None of them actually exist. One of them, however, is used tirelessly by either shameless propagandists or ignorant tools of shameless propagandists. For bonus points, guess which one it is?

All three are basically manipulated quotes with the intent being maliciousness rather than accuracy. It would be understandable if a couple of fly-by-night commentators used a made-up quote accidentally and then ceased doing so once they were informed of the error. But what I witness instead is a deliberate use of the Bush quote by people who should and probably do know better.

So why would someone have to stoop to continuously referencing a quote that doesn’t exist? Particularly a quote that can easily be looked up and shown to not exist? The Bush quote in question is attributed to a press conference. It’s true - Bush did give a press conference on 3/13/02. And yes, he did discuss Osama bin Laden. In fact, here is what he said, along with some passages that put his words in the context that the left never wants to talk about when citing their deceptive quote:

So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

That’s just a wee bit different than “I have no idea and I really don’t care”. If you want to make the case that this is indeed what he is saying then the obvious response is why not quote him accurately then if the meanings are the same? Why diminish your own integrity to promote a false quote if the much more effective measure of producing the accurate quote leads to the same conclusion? Well, because it doesn’t. Bush went on in his speech to say:

Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.

Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins.

Funny how the context changes when we look at what he actually said rather than what we try to convince people he did say. If you still want to make the case that Bush said that he didn’t give a damn about Osama, then fine. Make your case, but then that’s even more reason to quote him accurately. Context is important and can be debated but not if it’s based on something undeniably false.

The reality is that many are perfectly willing to check their integrity at the door if they think they can get away with it. Mistakes are mistakes. Continuing to quote this non-quote is blatant dishonesty and those who insist on parroting this lie and have no shame about doing so needn’t be taken seriously on anything! If the substance of your views depends on pathetic deceptions like using quotes that don’t exist, then it may be time to question those views.

It certainly would seem to be time to review whatever source you may have found this quote on and reconsider using them in the future.

[Discuss this Topic with Otto at The Otto Show]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The squeaky clean friends of Saddam Hussein killed more people related to the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein.

The brother-in-law of Mohammad Oreibi al-Khalifa, the new chief judge in the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein, has been shot dead, police sources say.

Gunmen opened fire on Kadhem Abdul Hussein’s car as he was driving in West Baghdad on Thursday evening, they say.

Reports said his son was with him at the time and may also have died.

In case some people of certain political persuasions weren’t paying attention; Saddam Hussein’s existence has left nothing but death and destruction in its wake.

A police source told Reuters news agency the attack happened in a large Sunni Arab neighbourhood in the Iraqi capital at 1900 local time (1500 GMT) on Thursday.
Kadhem Abdul Hussein was the husband of the judge’s sister, sources said.

Chief Judge al-Khalifa, a Shia, was appointed to the Saddam Hussein trial last week after the government asked the court to sack his predecessor over concerns about his neutrality.

I question the wisdom of prosecuting him before the government is completely stable. This probably isn’t the best of moves. It has been dragging on, at times thanks to U.S. lawyers, and is a distraction to the more pressing need to stem the violence in Baghdad and show that the government is capable of ruling the country independent of U.S. help.

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Mexico’s President Vicente Fox is calling the U.S. efforts to stem the flow of Illegal Aliens from Mexico to the United States “shameful”. Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department is threatening that a fence will harm our bilateral relationship.

MEXICO CITY - Mexico warned Thursday that the U.S. proposal to build miles of border fence will damage relations between the two countries.

The Foreign Relations Department said it was “deeply worried” about the proposal, which is working its way through the Senate, adding it will “increase tension in border communities.” - AP News via Yahoo

Pretty strong words from a nation that facilitates the flow of its citizens over the border so they can work in the United States illegally and send their money back home to Mexico. Imagine what they would be saying if the U.S. Congress was really serious about immigration reform.

The amount of money sent back to Mexico totaled $20 Billion dollars last year. Thus it is no surprise that the threats and name calling are starting to fly.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department said that only a comprehensive immigration reform would stop millions of Mexicans sneaking across its northern desert and swimming over the Rio Grande into the United States.

“A partial measure that is exclusively focused on security does not deal with reality and represents a political answer rather than a viable solution,” it said in the statement.

President Vicente Fox has rallied against the wall, calling it “shameful” and comparing it to the Berlin Wall, which divided Germany.

President-elect Felipe Calderon, who takes over from Fox on Dec.1, has also spoken out against the measure.

There are an estimated 11 million Mexicans in the United States, about half of whom are illegal. Last year, Mexican migrants sent home more than $20 billion in remittances, providing Mexico with its second biggest source of foreign income after oil.

The Berlin Wall reference, besides being a tired old cliché, is particularly ridiculous. We are not trying to keep Americans in as the Berlin Wall was designed to do in Germany. We are trying to keep illegal immigrants out.

A normal leader would be thankful for the reduction in human trafficking, the drug trade and cross border violence that puts his citizens in harms way. A disingenuous person, such as Vicente Fox is simply greedy, as is everyone else who has a stake in maintaining the status quo.

See Also:
A Lady’s Ruminations: Illegal Immigration: Another American Family Torn Apart
Stiknstein: Illegals with fraudulent documents stopped at Army Base

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Oh oh. This should rile the worker ants on the left. President Bush launched his big ol’ foot into the middle of the anthill today at a GOP fundraiser when he said “The greatest danger to America is not the U.S. military presence in Iraq, but rather a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn nation”.

Why does it take a major election to call the dems to the mat? This is the kind of message the Republican leadership should have been pounding for the last two years.

President Bush wasn’t done.

Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing,” Bush said. He said the Democratic Party — the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman — has become the “party of cut-and-run.”

If Democrats really believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has made America less safe, then they should make that case to the American people, Bush said.”

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a serious threat,” Bush said, adding that had he not been removed from power, the former Iraqi leader would still be killing innocent people, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and firing at U.S. pilots.”

Meanwhile, Democrats were busy looking to make Iraq a bigger issue for November. Rep Jane Harman, minority leader Nancy Pelosi and the always bloviating Ted Kennedy went on the attack by accusing the administration of dragging their feet on an upcoming assessment of Iraq. Apparently the NIE didn’t quite do the trick so the Democrats are looking for another report to cherry pick all the bad news out of.

“With Iraq on the brink of a full-scale civil war, preparation of this intelligence assessment of Iraq cannot be delayed any longer,” Kennedy said. “With more than 140,000 Americans under fire every hour of every day in Iraq, it’s wrong to slow-roll this assessment.” - Ted Kennedy

Tony Snow had an answer for the frothy democrat suggestions that they were shelving the report until after the election.

“No, they don’t have one on the shelf,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said Thursday, adding that John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, just started it a month ago. “You don’t pull an all-nighter,” Snow said. “It’s not like a college term paper that you slap together.”

It is hard to take the Democrats seriously nowadays. They don’t have a plan, can’t quite cope with good news on any front and their view of Iraq is one of defeat. The President was correct, put up or shut up.

More at Hot Air : World to end shortly: Senate vote on detainee bill forthcoming; Update: Bill passes

| Trackback URL | Comments (3 Comments)

Israel, which is that oddity, a free society in the Middle East, is finally figuring out that a free press is one thing, a corrupt, dishonest press another:

The Government Press Office held a meeting with heads of foreign news agencies earlier this month to protest the doctoring of photographs of the recent Lebanon war and the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, and warned them that action could be taken against them if this practice continued, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman, told the Post Israel reserved the right to act against any media outlets working out of Israel if they “fail to conduct themselves in a professional manner.”

The foreign journalists’ coverage of the Lebanon war was discussed, with the meeting focused on doctored photographs used by news agencies, Seaman said.

“This was something new to the world, but we’ve seen it before,” he said. “We expect them to take precautions in the future. If they are not taking the necessary measures to maintain professional standards then we reserve the right to take action against their offices in Israel.”

The GPO cannot act directly against foreign press services, but it can make recommendations to the Communications, Foreign and Defense ministries, Seaman said.

The only action taken by the government against the news agencies during the recent war was to send complaints to their main offices.

Although the news agencies, so free with other’s leaks, shut down their representatives entirely from talking about the meeting, an AP spokesman nevertheless freely patted his organization on the back:

Speaking on behalf of AP, international editor John Daniszewski said if one of their photographers was caught doctoring photographs, he would be fired immediately.

“I heard about it in regard to the Reuters stringer,” he said in a phone interview from New York. I think they’re trying to tar everyone with the same brush.

He said both Israelis and Palestinians often criticized the way they were covered, but that the agency had its own “gold standards” of accuracy and fairness to meet.

“It’s such a contentious part of the world and other organizations and parties are going to want to pull coverage into one area or another,” said Daniszewski. “We try to go straight down the middle. If anyone wants to raise issues, we are always willing to talk about it.”

This would be the same AP, of course, that recently saw one of its reporters arrested for terrorist activity, a story it sat on for months.

[Discuss this Topic with Bookworm...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Site Publications just broke with the message.

The initial report indicates that the tape is a calling to arms for the jihad in Iraq. He also calls for the kidnapping of “Roman dogs” so they can be used as leverage to secure the release of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman. The tactic is very similar to what has been done against Israel by taking hostages in return for release of prisoners.

A new audio message from the Emir of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, was issued to the Internet today, Thursday, September 28, 2006, by the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq. The speech, 20:31 in length, is titled: “Come to a Word that is Just Between Us and You,” which is taken from the Qur’an, Surah al-Imran, verse 64.

On the occasion of the month of Ramadan, al-Muhajir calls upon every “free Mujahid” to come to Iraq and engage in jihad, which the emir hopes to increase in ferocity. He states: “It pleases me at the end of my speech to announce the beginning of a great militaristic campaign by the name of the clear conquest, by it we will eradicate the limb of the infidel and the apostate”.

In the middle of the speech, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir reminds of the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdul Rahman, and encourages the Mujahideen to capture some of the “Roman dogs” so as to secure his release from the “darkness of his prison, gratitude, loyalty and love.” He then calls upon the sheikhs of the Sunni tribes in Iraq to not slacken in their support for the Mujahideen and thanks them for their public stance, finance and men.

Last time I checked the Blind Sheikh wasn’t captured or “imprisoned” because of the war in Iraq.

Update: The Site Institute just added the latest translation synopsis:

Concluding the message, the Emir of al-Qaeda in Iraq, asks Muslims who have experience in physical sciences, electronics, media, and “deep specialties,” in particular nuclear science and explosive engineering, to come to the Iraqi jihad battlefield for they are in need. Al-Muhajir tells them that American camps may best serve as experimental fields for their knowledge. Further, he announces a military campaign called the “Clear Conquest” to eliminate the “infidels” and “apostates”, and destroy the strongholds of those who act against the Mujahideen.

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi was referring to this when she talked about the United States treating the terrorists the same way we would want them to treat us?

“This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field. - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi speaking from the House floor on September 27, 2006

In other words we should go easy on the terrorists at a time when they are calling for nuclear engineers with backgrounds in explosives. I think she has it a bit backward. We need to take them out before they treat us the way we wouldn’t dare to treat them. Would you feel safer with Nancy Pelosi in charge? I wouldn’t.

Related: Shocker: Pulling out of Iraq Won’t Stop Jihadists!

Others:

• Hot Air: Iraqi AQ leader releases new tape, calls for release of “blind sheikh”
• The Political Pit Bull : AQ Leader In Iraq Calls For Capture Of Foreigners
• Michelle Malkin: “Eradicate the limb of the infidel“
• Texas Rainmaker: Clinton’s Actions Increasing Terrorism

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I have noted many times that those on the left can’t help themselves. They will take any opportunity possible to loosely connect one of their pet agenda items with any given tragedy.

But I have to say that this one caught me off guard. Who would have possibly expected a New York Times reporter to tie No Child Left Behind in with the tragic shooting death of a Colorado school girl at the hand of the man who took her hostage yesterday?

But that is exactly what Kirk Johnson did and the New York Times editors who are always looking for some liberal activist angle let him get away with it.

Experts in school safety, who monitored the evacuation of the Bailey high school and the adjoining middle school — with a total of about 800 students — said that improvements in emergency preparedness across the country and in Colorado had been uneven, but that the Bailey system appeared to have worked fairly well.

After Columbine, the Colorado Legislature required all districts in the state to create enhanced information systems so that the police and school officials could better share reports that might head off violence. A statewide hot line for anonymous tips about potential school violence was set up with help from a foundation.

But many schools, burdened by budget cuts and pressures to improve test scores, have let evacuation and preparedness plans grow dusty on the shelves.

I usually don’t like to quote Sean Penn but all I could think of was that 2 word response that Spicoli gave when Mr. Hand sent him to the front office after ripping up his homework.

What a complete and utter shame that people still buy the New York Times. Stuff like this goes beyond shame. Liberal politics is all about spring boarding tragedy for political gain. But not all tragedies are political in nature. Some things just happen.

But this belief that schools are sacrificing safety because of NCLB is a classic example of liberal politics. It did not surface in the minds of the reporters at the New York Times; they are simply the tool used to push it. Scare people into maintaining the status quo. Manufactured outrage is not a plan; it is a tactic.

While it is true that the 2007 budget is less than the 2006 budget there are some points to consider when asking why. Many of the reductions in spending are due to one time expenses such as Katrina funding, a 2006 increase to make up shortfalls in Pell Grants last year and elimination of some redundant and failing programs. God forbid we try and streamline the unbelievable amount of money being poured into failing programs. Take a look at the budget and note how many billions of dollars are spent on Indian Education, Migrant Education, Education for Native Hawaiians, Alaska Native Education Equity and English Language Acquisition. Are all of these programs necessary? Look at the whole budget and decide for yourself.

In any event even the reporter noted that lack of funding was not the case for this particular school. So why mention it at all? It really has no place in this article.

The New York Times reminds us repeatedly that their mission goes way beyond reporting the news. Activist journalists have taken over the newspaper. This is by design. Unfortunately it is also a disservice to all people who may use the news in an objective manner to form their own opinions. We can’t let that happen now, can we?

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

At Least they call the blogosphere “others”!

This is a good sign. The blogosphere is providing a check that the mainstream media just doesn’t do anymore. Thanks to the keen eye of Espresso pundit and the strength of the blogosphere we will likely see the anti-war (read anti-American) political statements removed from the Arizona 9-11 memorial.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano

PHOENIX — A state commission that authorized placement of the Arizona 9-11 Memorial in Wesley Bolin Plaza will review controversial laser-cut inscriptions “and see if some of them could be removed,” the panel’s chairman said Wednesday.

Former state Sen. Tom Smith, chairman of the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission, also said the commission hadn’t made it a practice to review the wording of any memorials. “We sure as heck will do it in the future,” he told The Associated Press in an interview.

Also Wednesday, Gov. Janet Napolitano said she didn’t pre-approve the wording criticized by Republican gubernatorial nominee Len Munsil and others as containing “blame America” messages and lacking enough sentiments related to faith, unity and patriotism. - KVOA TV News

I am not sure if the memorial needs anything related to faith but I am sure that it doesn’t need any blame America slogans. That is a slap in the face of those whose memories it was meant to serve. They should keep it simple. Just memorialize the victims. There were 3000 of them!

My bet is that the commission spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to study how to put this together. They probably filled the commission with a who’s who of politically connected members and some well funded businesses and in the end nobody bothered to check the finished product.

I could have saved them thousands of dollars. Here’s an idea, instead of all these unnecessary quotes how about engraving likenesses of each of the victims into the memorial and their image would show up on the sidewalk when the sun hit the imprint. That would have impact. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t have educational materials at the site, you could. School trips could be arranged and discussion could ensue.

Why do politicians always get these things wrong?

The whole incident shows how underhanded the American left is. There is no way that these inscriptions would have gone unnoticed forever. The people responsible, who have not been named, probably had a good ol’ time elbowing each other and giggling when they saw their inscription on the sidewalk. A few high fives for the big coup!!!

Fortunately the outrage is real at least in half of America. There is no reason to protest against the war in Iraq or embed polarizing anti-American slogans into a memorial for victims of terror when that view is not shared by all the victims’ families. That is just dumb.

At least a difference may be made in this case.

Others: Michelle Malkin - Arizona 9/11 memorial to be reviewed

Hot Air: State commission to review AZ 9/11 Memorial inscriptions; Update: Video of all 54 inscriptions added

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)