OH, THE IRONY!!!

Is it just me
or is it just ice.

It certainly seems ironic that terrorists are confessing while politicians are pleading their case on the tortured field of justice. Irony may be in the eye of the beholder, yet the competition for finding the logic in both cases is staggering, and maybe stronger in the case of martyrdom. Maybe after mentioning the irony, I have ironed this out, for was not Nixon a martyr of sorts? To what I don't know. But justice is the irony, in that both cases short circuit it. One from the top, the other from the bottom, the irony may be cut by the idea that they are getting their orders top down, while justice it seems is bottoms up and down the drain.
[Speaking of hot air and bubbles: OK it was hydrogen.]

ACTION ITEM !!! [
There is enough irony in the pardon situation, the confession situation may be more clear, as making martyrs will continue the war on terror. The irony is not in the terrorists, it is in the war, where justice would at least take away one recruitment tool. Not to mention if you are not with us, you are against us. If terrorists are for the death penalty, where are we? It is not irony that terrorist don't want justice, because in this case the process has been violated, which gets in the way of their martyrdom. By forgoing any change in the process, they risk progress being made, and one more recruitment tool lost. That may be the exception that proves the irony, in that the administration used exceptional logic.

Meanwhile: It might be wise to keep or promote Patrick Fitzgerald. Speaking of Nixon, there is irony in the Nixon to China concept. And hope in the Obama from Chicago process. And justice may be around the corner, but economics is the bigger picture.

Media Whores*

Media wars was my first thought for this post. My intended sabbatical, a break from my customary work for other matters, was to be one week. I indicated the difficulty it may be, to not post, and in fact not even work on related stuff, but here is one I noted and saved as a draft:

[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:

Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".

[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]

Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.

It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.

* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.

* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]

[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...