Posted on 10/22/2006 3:36:41 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, October 22nd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., John Warner, R-Va., Joe Biden, D-Del., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; business mogul Richard Branson.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C.
THIS WEEK (ABC): President George W. Bush; Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; professional bowler Kelly Kulick.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; former Secretary of State Alexander Haig; former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Saudi Jihad Sermons on US TV
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/10/saudi_jihad_ser.html
That is too bad..
Yes...they changed the method here for choosing jurors also..
I have been called twice....but, since I babysit my grandchildren, they let me out of it.
I really hate to hear what happened to your friend..
I've been stunned that Neal Boortz has been telling his listeners to vote dem in November. He is supposed to be a friend of Rush's, but this is not being done in jest like Rush, but in the spirit of "teach them (GOP) a lesson." The time for lessons is in the primaries that so few bother to show up and vote, never the general election. By the general election if we didn't make changes then it's nose-holding time.
That's it, i'm buying a burka.
West Point Opens Islamic Center
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/10/west_point_open.html
Best I can find, Mohammed's winged steed for the big ride to "the furthest mosque" (Al Aqsa, which in the last 200 years has been associated with the Temple Mount for political reasons) was named "Burak," so accounting for converting alphabets as well as languages, this sounds about right. According to the site I linked to
which literally means White Horse but seen as "Thunder-Lightning".
So that fits rigth in with out little conversation.
Of course, it's only coincidence. He couldn't be Mohammed's own smart bomb... a tool of satan... the anti-christ. Nah...... that's just crazy talk.
Isn't it interesting what you can find out by knowing trivia about the names of historic horses?
Atlas is on fire today! See it or weep. Complete with vid clips and excellent articles from Zell, the MSM destroying the US and others.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
Diebold??
I have a list of links I check but can only get through a few of them every week, that was a good one.
BTW, just heard a teaser on FOX (coming up next) that Obama has made a decision about running or the WH? What makes this man think he is qualified to be President?
LOL...If you are paranoid...you have company..ME!
We need the goods on Yvonne Ridley, buddy of Galloway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001259.html
UK "Racial Equality" Head: Criticism of Veil Will Cause Violence
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
A lot of groups in states still using their machines is encouraging people to all early or absentee vote on paper rather than electronically.
NYT's Calame: Oops. Our Bad.
The New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, initially supported the publication of the confidential national-security program that tracked terrorist financing through the Swift banking program. Now, at the end of his column and far past the "jump", Calame acknowledges that the Times made the wrong decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?ei=5090&en=53abf343d208208c&ex=1319169600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.
My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.
Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.
The story here is that there was no story. Calame comes to this conclusion a little late, and in this case, it's not better late than never. First, Calame puts this mea culpa at the bottom of his column, after a discussion of advertising in the newspaper industry -- another decision that calls into question the editorial competence of the Paper of Record. Second, this comes months after the revelation of the program and the damage it did, both to national-security efforts and to the Bush administration. An "oops" by Calame hardly addresses either.
Reading his effort here, Calame makes it clear that the publication of this story amounted to either incompetence or malice; no other explanation works. The Times knew that no laws had been broken, nor did they ever find any evidence that program officials abused the information gathered. The Times used mutually exclusive arguments to answer their critics after its publication; on one hand, they trumpeted the program as a secret that could lead to abuse (which they never found), and on the other they argued that everyone knew about it, including the terrorists. It took Calame almost four months to discover this rather transparent contradiction.
Calame says that his intial support came from an impulse to protect journalism from the "vicious criticism" of the Bush administration. "Vicious"? I'd like Calame to define that. The administration rightly condemned the Times for risking their ability to track terrorist financing, but I don't recall the administration calling anyone "traitorous", for instance, although plenty of bloggers did. And what kind of ombudsman decides to defend his paper simply because all the right people got angry? That's a mighty thin line of argument, and Calame should be embarrassed to make that admission on the pages of his own paper.
Michelle Malkin responds to this lame excuse:
Every last bit of that "vicious" criticism was deserved. Stop making excuses. It's Bush hatred that led to the reckless publication of the story. It's journalistic hubris that prevents the rest of Calame's colleagues from admitting the truth.
Instead of acting as Chief Apologist, Calame should take his job a little more seriously in the future. The Times blew an important national-security program just to pump up its anti-Bush credentials, regardless of the fact that the program operated within the law and never abused the information it gathered. Calame dislikes the administration as much as the rest of the people at the New York Times, and in the guise of detached analysis endorsed the publication of a non-story in his zeal to undermine the White House using any means at their disposal. Everyone else knew that this story had no merit; it took the Times and its public editor four months to figure it out.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the New York Times.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
LOL...the first name that came to mind was "kimosabe"..
Isn't that what the Lone Ranger called Tonto??
I don't know the name of any horses..except Flicka!!
Not me. The guy whose page I got that text from.
This guy, definitely not me. That's why I indented and italicized that bit. It was meant to indicate a quote or an excerpt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.