Cheney with Wolf Blitzer is on course. McCain and Cheney must stay the course so that the rest have a line to hit and run from. [The Situation Room]
[submitted from an email exhange]
... looking into the matter more fully myself. [Watch Cheney's response to questions about his daughter] I'm afraid I can't characterize the players the way others would.
[[ I "fundamentally disagree" with Cheney, and agree with Wolf that it was a "reasonable, fair question." It was a poorly framed question ending with, "Do you want to respond to that?" Cheney replied: "No". And before Wolfe could rephrase or follow up, Cheney interupted him with his response which I firmly believe was out of line. ]] *
On the whole issue of fair play I agree with your so called "naive" view but it seems more to my point, which I won't jab at again. [but the quote was from "Focus on the Family"]
The whole "Situation Room" is suspect in my book for having any of the Cheney's on. It must be for ratings or to serve the purpose of media whipping boy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/30/lynne-cheneys-slapdown/
The old saying "if you can't stand the heat" sure takes on new meaning these days. http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/ifyoucantsta.html
When it comes to an interview we should all be served.
By the way, from the transcript p.6 (third from last paragraph): "Well, Wolf. If the history books were written by people who are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure, including many of our friends in the media, the situation obviously would have been over a long time ago." This is some piece of rhetoric which if it says anything seems to endorse my theory on the "Situation Room" if not that others could and should be in "the kitchen".
Roger
P.S. Did I start this? Sorry. Really, remind me.
* The bracketed section was inserted last as I seemed to be less than straghtforward in that area. Then I decided to read the whole transcipt but could not. It was out of line 2 1/2 pages into the 9 1/2 page PDF. It is a shame that this distracted from what was more of the same.
[ A full read of the transcipt seems to support this surmise, and today even the senior Bush has joined the chorus about the media being "out of line"(in other words)]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wolf. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wolf. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, January 29, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Bring 'em On!
Guests like Michael Moore that is!
As reported on THE STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW(not yet a link there), Michael Moore made quite a scene on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer over the "track record" of mainstream media, in particular CNN. To his credit, Wolf Blitzer maintains his cool under a blistering but righteous attack by Michael Moore, and promised to tape a segment to be aired unedited today. [see Crooks and Liars]
Having seen Sicko this weekend, I highly recommend it, along with remembering that this is his fourth docudrama. Roger and Me. Bowling for Columbine. Farenheit 911. and now Sicko. Now that is a track record. As for Dr. Sanjay Gupta, his bias as a journalist has been apparent to me, and now his accuracy has been questioned. In particular he points to a $7000 per person for health care in the U.S. in the movie countered by actually $6096, while pointing at Moore's $25 per person in Cuba should be $229. But I recall and Moore confirms that the movie used the figure $251, not $25.
So "bring 'em on". Along with the likes of Stephanie Miller and the rest progressive crowd.
As reported on THE STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW(not yet a link there), Michael Moore made quite a scene on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer over the "track record" of mainstream media, in particular CNN. To his credit, Wolf Blitzer maintains his cool under a blistering but righteous attack by Michael Moore, and promised to tape a segment to be aired unedited today. [see Crooks and Liars]
Having seen Sicko this weekend, I highly recommend it, along with remembering that this is his fourth docudrama. Roger and Me. Bowling for Columbine. Farenheit 911. and now Sicko. Now that is a track record. As for Dr. Sanjay Gupta, his bias as a journalist has been apparent to me, and now his accuracy has been questioned. In particular he points to a $7000 per person for health care in the U.S. in the movie countered by actually $6096, while pointing at Moore's $25 per person in Cuba should be $229. But I recall and Moore confirms that the movie used the figure $251, not $25.
So "bring 'em on". Along with the likes of Stephanie Miller and the rest progressive crowd.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Descartes Be4 D...
...hoRsemen.
i.e.
* a tangent for vulnerables minds? (i.e. different ePH words)
~
Wait, I just may have fallen into a legend trap***, ergo Decartes grid-Locke[?]
Anyway, this 3-Minute Philosophy on St. Thomas Aquinas to my listening three times, did not have the -uck word, but might still be awkward to some.
OW
~
ergo: Link 1, Decartes wiki, 2, grammar-monster 3. R-rated 3mPh "Decartes" 4. B.S. on E. G.
*1. PG-rated 3mPh "Aquinas" 2. G-rated YouTube "Mill" 3. :-) -rated YouTube "Mill" 3. P
** inserted link on hold.(The pun was a Wolf in Hitchens form)
e.g.
***
/ ->A Tale of Two Manicheans.
Cultural Threads are Fine.
Know B.S ? ! Evangelii Gaudium !
Friday, March 27, 2015
Remembering Rorty!
Or is it dis~membering?
The point? The Clash?
Unfortunately, links don't last, but that is not the point. Or maybe that is physics. The issue is...
Hegelian and Straussian, and maybe Wittgenstinian* and Nietzschian, let alone Manichean.
The point is the ongoing project. **
* (spell check later)
[Lost in the draft: Crying Neo-Wolf?]
(~) - / - ?
** having now actually read the Rorty piece, I will simply note a Kantian judgement, to be parsed later.
The point? The Clash?
Unfortunately, links don't last, but that is not the point. Or maybe that is physics. The issue is...
Hegelian and Straussian, and maybe Wittgenstinian* and Nietzschian, let alone Manichean.
The point is the ongoing project. **
* (spell check later)
[Lost in the draft: Crying Neo-Wolf?]
(~) - / - ?
** having now actually read the Rorty piece, I will simply note a Kantian judgement, to be parsed later.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Summary of a Flap.
Bailout or Meltdown? [UPDATE: above expired link with likely replacement.]
Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.
LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.
* not to mention George or Will
[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.
Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.
LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.
* not to mention George or Will
[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Great Segue!
After Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention,
my first comments are:
So far, so good!
"No way! No how! No McCain!" Now that is a flip-flop.
Seriously...
From "Faint Praise/Criticism" to Progressive Narratives.
Not to mention pragmatism...
but I would like to note belated congratulations
to Rachel Maddow (nfry*) on getting her new show on MSNBC. Rachel refers to herself as a liberal not a partisan. Righteously so.[*] It is really hard to criticize Rachel, but she is the perfect flip-flop of Pat Buchanan. He is sometimes valid in his criticism of Republicans and praise or suggestions for Democrats, only the better to eat you my dear. Said the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood. While Rachel may be the same for Democrats, only the better for the country.** (Embedded in these asterisks are references to their work. Earlier encounters with Howard Kurtz, long time agitation by Pat Buchanan and recent enthusiasm tempered with caution for Rachel. Let me just say that her liberal enthusiasm and hopes may be cast as negative shadows on the pragmatism needed for progress.*** But criticism of Democrats and our process, taken in the right light, can be good for all.)
*The segue is filled with the likes of Howard Kurtz, and Patrick Buchanan.
** not a perfect flip-flop, the Democrats not the country.
*** it might have helped, yet it might not have, to remember the particular comment that I had a problem with, but it was only a comment on the progress of the convention or one of the speakers that caused me to wonder about her perspective as she makes progress. Had it changed or is it what got her where she is?
[A regressive update, meaning only a thought that I had when Biden was announced: That he should well vet humor and plagiarism. Now that is a well contained line. Of attack, for us, and by us, not necessarily of us. And depending upon McCain's VP a wonder of the Republican vetting process.]
[John McCain: An Experience We Don't Need! Thanks to Thom Hartmann.]{Not to mention: Breaking the Yalta Conspiracy}
[* 9-3-08 Update link]
my first comments are:
So far, so good!
"No way! No how! No McCain!" Now that is a flip-flop.
Seriously...
From "Faint Praise/Criticism" to Progressive Narratives.
Not to mention pragmatism...
but I would like to note belated congratulations
to Rachel Maddow (nfry*) on getting her new show on MSNBC. Rachel refers to herself as a liberal not a partisan. Righteously so.[*] It is really hard to criticize Rachel, but she is the perfect flip-flop of Pat Buchanan. He is sometimes valid in his criticism of Republicans and praise or suggestions for Democrats, only the better to eat you my dear. Said the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood. While Rachel may be the same for Democrats, only the better for the country.** (Embedded in these asterisks are references to their work. Earlier encounters with Howard Kurtz, long time agitation by Pat Buchanan and recent enthusiasm tempered with caution for Rachel. Let me just say that her liberal enthusiasm and hopes may be cast as negative shadows on the pragmatism needed for progress.*** But criticism of Democrats and our process, taken in the right light, can be good for all.)
*The segue is filled with the likes of Howard Kurtz, and Patrick Buchanan.
** not a perfect flip-flop, the Democrats not the country.
*** it might have helped, yet it might not have, to remember the particular comment that I had a problem with, but it was only a comment on the progress of the convention or one of the speakers that caused me to wonder about her perspective as she makes progress. Had it changed or is it what got her where she is?
[A regressive update, meaning only a thought that I had when Biden was announced: That he should well vet humor and plagiarism. Now that is a well contained line. Of attack, for us, and by us, not necessarily of us. And depending upon McCain's VP a wonder of the Republican vetting process.]
[John McCain: An Experience We Don't Need! Thanks to Thom Hartmann.]{Not to mention: Breaking the Yalta Conspiracy}
[* 9-3-08 Update link]
Monday, September 19, 2011
Nailed it[!]
Jon Stewart roasts Wolf Blitzer's Network.
CAUTION: Cable News Network R. rated [?]
Or mabye Un-Rated is the proper rating for Comedy Central. As I was lost in pun, I transposed the networks. I had to Wiki CNN to sort its acronym. Is it still C for cable, or conservative?
Speaking of mixed messages or ratings, the T-party could have a whole new spin. Now I may have transposed my spin. Don't ask how that works. (except noting links: but that is another Tangent)
[BTW: if anyone can help me flip-flop a character[?], till that time [!] must suffice for sarcasm punctuation. BINGO! Not yet.]
[Speaking of nailing it. The president right now*, is probably eliciting some expletives. And I don't mean Geez U.S. (My apologies for the rhetorical/satirical escalation: it's a culture war**!)]
* inserted later
** now then regarding CW: also "class warfare card" almost simultaneously but... in regards to "Federal Income taxes" or "nothing", the rich are paying exactly the same as the poor on their first few dollars, as I am fairly certain that the rich are allowed the same deductions and exemptions in determining tax brackets. If they are not then that is a matter that could be adjusted.
CAUTION: Cable News Network R. rated [?]
Or mabye Un-Rated is the proper rating for Comedy Central. As I was lost in pun, I transposed the networks. I had to Wiki CNN to sort its acronym. Is it still C for cable, or conservative?
Speaking of mixed messages or ratings, the T-party could have a whole new spin. Now I may have transposed my spin. Don't ask how that works. (except noting links: but that is another Tangent)
[BTW: if anyone can help me flip-flop a character[?], till that time [!] must suffice for sarcasm punctuation. BINGO! Not yet.]
[Speaking of nailing it. The president right now*, is probably eliciting some expletives. And I don't mean Geez U.S. (My apologies for the rhetorical/satirical escalation: it's a culture war**!)]
* inserted later
** now then regarding CW: also "class warfare card" almost simultaneously but... in regards to "Federal Income taxes" or "nothing", the rich are paying exactly the same as the poor on their first few dollars, as I am fairly certain that the rich are allowed the same deductions and exemptions in determining tax brackets. If they are not then that is a matter that could be adjusted.
Tuesday, May 07, 2024
Anti-semitism - remarks.
What anti-semitism?
What is a semite?
Or should the question be; what is palestine?
See wiki. Misnomer.
See this blog: Israel
See this:
https://www.facebook.com/naomi.wolf.author/posts/pfbid0R2tQbWZTH4VzZW36q6fjo24kEwiarNNmTK1pHFfhBWCgbpuD79RzQxiqX5uyJqJul?__cft__[0]=AZVb_eiU5a_cWCOA8N8A_LvZZ6kA9p_3rEefhRDo8jCsdEchYFSkdnX3O7Hfu1OhLCstB3Eu2y0wLc-UUbTH9B0PtAJQw36ezBO4PaWZk0KbLPG4TUiwWY0cORopOFG-b4d5kr8VJ2zkv-zCGYm-1nyF&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
Monday, April 25, 2005
Let's Do the Frist: or Onward Fristian Soldiers!
After the last post, I opened my local paper and read the AP report on Justice Sunday, and Frist does seem to be out of touch with the "Agenda" of the so called "choir" to which he spoke, but that is part of the plan.
He is probably their Sheppard in Fox clothing. His lack of connection to the reality for which they stand, makes him seem moderate and he is the likely standard bearer for the next crusade, while DeLay is the Wolf thrown to the Lambs or the "so called Lib media" that pulls the wool over the sheeple.
Sorry for running with metaphors but lets hope they trip up on this.
He is probably their Sheppard in Fox clothing. His lack of connection to the reality for which they stand, makes him seem moderate and he is the likely standard bearer for the next crusade, while DeLay is the Wolf thrown to the Lambs or the "so called Lib media" that pulls the wool over the sheeple.
Sorry for running with metaphors but lets hope they trip up on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)