I'm going to be on "Week in Review" at 8 AM, Central Time, today. This is the Wisconsin Public Radio show where we go over the week's news stories, and I count as the conservative. On the left will be Isthmus news editor Bill Lueders. You don't have to be from Wisconsin to call in with a question.
Go here to listen on-line live. Remember, we're on Central Time. If you go at 8 Eastern, you can hear about "The Simpsons" from Steven Keslowitz, author of "The World According to The Simpsons: What Our Favorite TV Family Says About Life, Love, and the Pursuit of the Perfect Donut" (Source Books). Both shows will later be streamable at the archive here.
ADDED: Stream it here.
AND: Here's Lueders' book "Cry Rape" -- and his website on it, which includes the underlying documents in the case the book is about.
UPDATE: Read far enough into the comments to see why I mistrust Lueders' judgment and fairness. I should emphasize that I haven't read his book, so please don't take my reference to it as a recommendation.
२७ जुलै, २००७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
You're the conservative voice?
Voted for Clinton and Gore, but conservative. Well, that's plausible I suppose, but only if Ted Kennedy is a moderate and Marx is "progressive".
I was on an NPR radio show in NY last March, discussing national health care. The 4 other panelists included 2 Democrats, a socialist, and a Marxist (I mean a real one, one who wrote about adopting Marxism in the US).
You know, a balanced panel.
It's weird that there are still people who admit to being Marxists. They remind me of the scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" with the body collector.
"I'm not dead yet! I'm getting better!"
Pogo - "balanced" in the sense in which it's a Madison term of art. ;)
Anyone else having difficulty with the stream? I can't get any of them to play correctly on two different computers.
Got it working. Just in time to hear how badly the other guest (and indeed the host) kicked and squealed when someone tries to explain merely that it isn't by any means certain that the administration broke the law -- not even asserting that he hasn't! Just saying it's a question!
And I loved the guy who says "I'm a hardcore moderate. The war has been a travesty." Self-satirization.
Here's a hint on why Republicans might want to ramp down funding for public radio: Because their idea of a "balanced debate" casts Ann Althouse as the "conservative" side. Get the picture, Joy?
That Joy and the other guy think you're a conservative demonstrates how uncomprehending they really are of how profoundly skewed they are.
I like NPR, I listen to NPR, but it is liberal talk radio. For someone to say otherwise reveals them as deeply, profoundly unselfaware.
Wow. I just heard your rationalization of this administration's "cheese bomb" scare tactics. You stated that the "wires and other electronic devices" were connected to the cheese. This is not true. Where did you even hear that? Why do you think no one was arrested after these "dry runs" that you spoke of?
How long will you be telling people about the "dry run" in Long Beach,CA yesterday? It was a video game in a suitcase that caused the airport to be shut down and planes diverted. I hope you strong republicans will stand up to the dangers that are video games.
BOO!
Wily, the AP report said:
"- Milwaukee, June 4. A U.S. person's carryon baggage contained wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese. The bulletin said block cheese has a consistency similar to some explosives."
So what are you talking about?!
Ann,
The AP are in on the conspiracy. Rove paid them off. Duh. ;) "BushitlerHaliburtonAP."
I loved Bill's attempt to rationalize that story by mocking and dismissing it, without offering any coherent explanation of what would be a legitimate explanation. I want this guy in TV. National TV. He should be on the News Hour filling in for Mark Shields. The more people hear this guy, the fewer people are going to take the democrats seriously on national security. That was a genius move on Karl's part, planting a sleeper agent as editor of the Ithsmus!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baIr7genvAc
Why do you believe that they would not have arrested someone that was carrying an electronic device that they could not fully explain? I am assuming that no one would have a good explanation for having electronic cheese.
LMAO. You're going to link to Keith Olberman? You think that has some credibility? You might as well link to Sean Hannity! Come off it. At least pretend to mount a serious argument.
Simon: Look at the right-hand column of this blog. Annie is pitching for "conservative" ads. Maybe you can explain why she is doing this, since you apparently think that it would be more appropriate for her to sell liberal ads.
What I love most about conservatives is how desparately they try, especially if they grew up in the 60s, to deny that they are conservative.
Yeah right, Annie is a liberal! She just pitches her ad selling to conservatives.
Follow the money, Simon. It always tells a story.
AJD, you're an idiot. Believe what you want, preferably quietly.
OK simon. Keep your head in the sand until it is on FOX news. It will just make you look even more gullible than you already do.
Here are a couple other sources debunking the San Diego story. The AP article dated 7-25-07 describes the San Diego story this way:
"San Diego, July 7. A U.S. person checked baggage containing two ice packs covered in duct tape. The ice packs had clay inside them rather than the normal blue gel."
The July 25th Signon SanDiego article says "But local TSA Security Director Michael J. Aguilar – and the chief of the police agency that patrols the airport – said Wednesday that while screeners initially thought the packs held a clay-like substance, it was quickly determined they contained the usual blue gel."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070725-1207-bn25false.html
How do you think TSA HQ came to write that description of the item when the TSA security director in San Diego says that "it was quickly determined they contained the usual blue gel"?
This link has a picture of the terrorist from San Diego.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Travel/story?id=3418155&page=1
Aren't you afraid of her and her ice packs? Why do YOU think no one was arrested over any of these instances?
Wily, given that my previous reply to you specifically slammed Fox's credibility, your suggestion that I follow their lead is pretty silly.
Not as silly as your response.
Who's lead are you following then? I gave you links to msnbc, abc news and a local SanDiego paper. You still have never answered why you believe no one has been arrested for these "dry runs"?
Has the lead you are following not told you yet?
Wily: I don't see anything debunking the MIlwaukee story, the only one I talked about.
My 11:35 comment really shut down the debate!
Pogo: "You're the conservative voice?
Voted for Clinton and Gore, but conservative."
I hope you listed to the show and heard me talk about the way liberal bias on WPR and specifically using me as the conservative.
Actually there's no such thing as power. It's like phlogiston, ``the cause of fire,'' a reification. It makes it seem like you could acquire power, steal it, or lose it.
As I recall, the word is a confusion of potestas, auctoritas, imperium and officium, from some essay on the matter.
It's better to talk about what you really want to talk about, than ``power.''
All male liberals sound like the same person to me. Maybe it's the NPR audio channel.
I disagree on the terrorist threat and the popular conception of it; losing a few malls or airliners isn't a big deal. It would just be a media event like always.
The threat is letting any group get big enough to do serious damage, like taking out an American city. That's what all the financial tracking, message interception and so forth mean to head off, to keep the groups too small to do serious damage. And of course it's what the NYT wants to undermine, and now Congress.
Will you fear mongers admit you were 100% incorrect now that CNN and the TSA has admitted it?
'"The FBI now says there were valid explanations for all four incidents in that bulletin, and a US government official says no charges will be brought in any of these cases," Todd reported.'
"The FBI maintained "they were right" putting the bogus reports on the TSA bulletin, which is distributed to law enforcement agencies nationwide, Todd reported. Airport security officers must be trained in identifying suspicious packages, even when those packages turn out to be innocuous."
I really do not understand how SO many people could have been fooled by this. Why do you think it took almost a year from the date of the 1st of these 4 incidents to issue this bulletin? Do you think these were the only 4 suspicious things seized by the TSA in the past year?
This administration has been lying since day 1. Do you remember that lie about all of the W keys being removed from the typewriters in the executive office building by those mean Clinton workers before they left? That was the test lie to see how gullible people are. Turns out about 30% of you people will believe anything.
Oh, here is the TSA's explanation for this lie
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/ mythbusters/tig_security.shtm
They have changed their story 3 times in the past 48 hours regarding this issue. I am sure you gullible people will believe their current line of BS now.
Have a nice day in gullible world and be sure to keep your eyes peeled for any suspicious activities.
The airport screening thing is a roust, namely making enough of a nuisance of yourself when helpless to give the impression you're doing something.
That's not the terrorist threat in the first place, though bomb sniffing dogs are a good idea, so long as the media will make a fuss over a downed airliner, thus making them attractive targets.
I'd say train the dogs a little more so that they can work at liberty in the crowds, and thereby make airports a little more attractive to be stuck in.
I suppose you could add cats for cat loving passengers too.
Wesley Pruden right away said that the airport stuff was a roust. My own instant proposal on 9/11 was search the passengers for weapons, and if they don't have one, give them one. Hunting knives in every seat pocket.
But the government instantly develops little kingdoms, and what can you do.
The actual terrorist threat is something else, and serious. Would that 43 weren't the most inarticulate President in history.
Wow, Bill, you wrote about me in an awfully disrespectful way. I feel icky after reading that. Whatever information comes out later about those discoveries, your attitude, on hearing about them, before more information came out, was still dismissive in a way that exemplifies not taking terrorism seriously.
And since you know I voted for Feingold, your insistence that I'm a Republican is outright lying. And you're a journalist? Incredible. Well, at least Isthmus readers now know that the newspaper regards "Republican" as a high insult. Not much point being fair and balanced in Madison, though, is there?
I like this part:
" In fact, a U.S. government official, familiar with the investigation, now says there were valid explanations for all four incidents in that bulletin and no charges will be brought in any of these cases."
Now, remember that the whole premise of a good portion of the Olbermann-sphere firmly believes that the administration, made up of people, lies left and right.
Here, we have a single unnamed government official making a statement. It never dawns on them that this quoted anonymous source might be a partisan who might be pursuing an agenda. Or this person might be distributing spin for another nefarious reason-- that we want to avoid the hit our economy would take if people avoided flying.
Here's what I think-- if this anonymous source wants us to believe that there were valid explanations for all four incidents in that bulletin, let's have him provide those explanations so we can make our own judgment as to if we find them to be credible. I am sure many newspapers would print them (heck, this guy probably would to try to claim you are a partisan hack, Ann). And if no newspapers would, I am sure many bloggers would. And there are plenty of message boards where one could post them as well.
But I doubt we will ever hear these 'innocent' explanations. We'll just have to take it on faith that this unnamed source, whose motives and credibility we have no way of knowing, is telling it exactly like it is.
Don't believe your eyes and your reason, after all. Believe in a "U.S. government official." Because he says he is familiar with the investigation.
Well put. Yes, I'd like to know what could explain the cheese contraption described.
Wow! You are such a dishonest person, Ann Althouse.
You said:
"And since you know I voted for Feingold, your insistence that I'm a Republican is outright lying."
I searched Bill's article for all incidents of "Republican" and here they are:
"who voted for Bush and spews Republican talking points while claiming to be an ideological virgin,"
He's not calling you a Republican there.
"No wonder she votes Republican."
Nor is he calling you a Republican there.
It's true you might just be an idiot, but I think you're a liar.
You owe Bill Leuders and apology! You're the one who is so big on apologies. Let's hear it!
p.s. You were wrong on your cheese bomb hysterics.
Sorry, Ann, I just saw this post from you. I'm not well versed in the use of these blogs.
How exactly would I know you voted for Feingold? Do you think I followed you into the booth? Or that I study your writings in such depth that I would have gleaned this from the record?
I wasn't trying to put a huge value judgment on anything. I just think it's interesting that you reject the lable "conservative" when you adopt the positions, as far as I can tell. Certainly, you had no problem labeling me a "Democrat" and a "liberal," when I would never use either term to describe myself.
Why do you think my post was "icky" or "disrespectful"? Was it any more so than your attack on me -- on air, with thousands of listeners -- for not automatically concluding that some curious items in luggage represent a confirmed terrorist plot?
P.S. Thanks, Alphaliberal, for standing up for me. Given the other chain on this, it's a scream that you spelled my name wrong. Bless you.
Oh, God. I'm listening to this interview and you defended Alberto Gonzalez. Most Republicans won't do that!
Let's hear the apology to Bill!
This is priceless:
"You and many Democrats and Liberals do not take the terrorism threat seriously."
Yes, going into hysterics (as Ann does on this show) over vague assertions of threats is taking "the terrorism threat seriously."
p.s. Oh, good news! You will be a Professor of Law from Brooklyn for the next year. Well, that's good news for Wisconsin.
"There is no intelligence that indicates a specific or credible threat to the homeland,' states the TSA in response to media coverage of an intelligence bulletin.
Pogo, Prof A
Who’s Conservative, who’s Liberal according to the MSM?
In the '60s there was a book entitled
"Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me."
(Never read it all the way through; never will, but that's not the point.)
With the Media, the reality is
"Been Left So Long It looks Like Center To Me"
So “Center-Right” seems to them “Conservative” & “Right” seems to them "Arch" or "Ultra" Conservative & not welcome to our show, my dears. And to these Leftists posing as Centrists, any Communist, Marxist, etc. i.e., anyone more to the Left than them, no matter how far, is just "Left" or "Liberal" (Hard to find an "Arch" or "Ultra" Liberal in their worldview, unless the guy insists that he is an honest-to-goodness Marxist & will not be called merely a “Liberal”.)
And MSM TV looks carefully for Economic Conservatives who are Social/Cultural Liberals to fill the token "Conservative" talkinghead slot. This results in everyone on the MSM panel knocking President Bush & all GOP candidates other than Rudy & declaring that all Republicans who are hung up on social/cultural ideas are yucky. And even the Economic Conservative token must be someone who is not, gasp, Friedman-esque (Milton, of course, not Tom or Kinky), or believes that Tom Sowell or Pogo’s Hazlitt have said anything of value. In other words, these faux centrists don’t want someone who will dispute “facts” like simply dividing a shrinking pie equally is a sign of progress & that there is a free lunch & that, scientifically speaking, partial birth abortion is, um, suspiciously like infanticide.
I’m sure that you have already read Orwell’s Homage To Catalonia which makes all this MSM unthought clear.
Even Fox News' idea of fair & balanced often consists of having either an ultra liberal & an ultra conservative or, worse, a GOP Flack & a Dem Flack, arguing talking points. Balanced, but not helpful.
I exempt Brit Hume’s hour from the last snide remarks. In fact, when my Left/Liberal friends chide me for limiting my TV news to Fox, I tell them that I learn the Left/Liberal line from Mara Liasson & Mort Kondrake & a few others, so why bother.
In her other thread, Ann says this:
"And since you know I voted for Feingold..."
How is Bill supposed to know that, Ann?
"How is Bill supposed to know that, Ann?"
If you'd listened to the radio show, you wouldn't ask that question.
Bill said...
"I just think it's interesting that [Ann] reject[s] the lable [sic.] "conservative" when you adopt the positions, as far as I can tell."
But she doesn't, Bill. What are these core conservative positions you think she's "adopted"?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा