The Spectacle Blog
Lady G., I daresay an opinionholder like Joel Stein, with the forthrightness required to step out into the light of public scrutiny, ought to be taken in the spirit that he's given. It takes guts to declare oneself a fundamentalist pacifist. Taking ridicule from one's own side is second only to taking a bullet from one's enemies as the most courageous thing a true pacifist can do.
I suspect, however, that Stein is not really a true pacifist. I suspect his pacifism is a false positive. He would not fold his arms and watch a genocide, I bet. He might feel outrage. And how did he feel about Kosovo? The whole bravery of saying "I don't support the troops because I don't support troops, period" is, unfortunately for Stein, irretrievably tarnished by the likelihood, not disproven in his op-ed, that Stein rather appreciates the accomplishments of the Civil War, World War Two, and perhaps even a handful of other military actions, carried out by troops in the 1990s with only the best of intentions.
Report this evening from the Financial Times re the unusually familiar melodrama that the international scoundrel Wolfowitz -- last seen at the DOD wrecking the planet with his kindred of Cain the Neocons -- is now leading a coup d'etat at the serenely sluggish and strangely non-transparent yet unnoticed World Bank. First reports from the backstairs where these sorts of coups get played out -- daggers, emails, Walsingham codes -- is that Wolfowitz's sinister scheme involves bringing in political ops from the baldly Republican administration in Washington and letting them vet the senior help that have been selflessly involved with enterprises that appear wildly overbudget and unexplained. Wolfowitz is said to have approved the use of accountants to study the books. Do gentlemen examine other gentlemen's books??? Veteran World Bank international civil servants are said to be in such disrepair that they are blogging their upset in foreign languages.
Prepare for the worst -- see key words: vanished billions, mystery, U.S. Attorney.
Six dead and two dozen wounded in two explosive device attacks this news cycle, the day of a scheduled visit by the chief executive officer. Sound like U.S., France, Israel? Wrong. The report is from the Iran southern city of Ahvaz. One explosive device in front of a bank; the second in front of a government natural resources office. Ahmadinejad's visit was scheduled for January 24, today; but had been cancelled because -- the expedient explanation after the plane crash at Tehran last weeks that dispatched the high command of the IRGC -- of bad weather.
You will recall the strange report some weeks back of a gunfight attack on a presidential convoy in southeast Iran, when a presidential bodyguard (driver) and a so-called bandit were killed by gunfire. The explanation at the time was that the attack was ignorant, random Baluchi bandits (Baluchistan is a beggarly, abused stateless chauvinistic enterprise spread over three countries [Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan]), and that we were not to leap to theories based on the fact that Ahmadinejad was some many air miles away at the time.
NBC axed the poorly performing show about the Episcopal priest and his dysfunctional family today.
Bill Donahue of the Catholic League is ecstatic in an email: "This is good news for Christians and bad news for those who get their jollies trying to disparage them. ... Hollywood could save itself a lot of money if they simply asked us to vet their shows. Our fee is high -- obscenely high -- but we're worth it."
This L.A. Times op-ed is quite possibly the most disgusting piece of "journalism" written to date about our military, the war, and our values. If his piece weren't so offensive, Mr. Joel Stein, who is credited as guest hosting E! Entertainment's "101 Hottest Hot Hotties' Hotness," could easily be dismissed. But I fear many-a-lib actually thinks this way -- and just don't have the guts to speak it, or put it into words.
Dave: Some expert Stephen Gillers turns out to be. He's a staunch leftist who has over the years has written frequently for the Cominternish Nation magazine, which is where I first made his acquaintance. By rights he should have recused himself for commenting on Scalia, having attacked Scalia in the Nation's April 19, 2004 issue for duck-hunting with Dick Cheney. If the Sierra Club, which Gillers quoted approvingly, could request recusal of any federal judge like Scalia whose "impartiality might be reasonably questioned," shouldn't the same standard apply to a hostile source like Gillers?
ABC News goes after Justice Antonin Scalia today for attending gratis a Federalist Society conference last year in Colorado.
What's the charge? After trumpeting the story with an eye-catching "EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Ethics Problem?" headline and the byline of ABC's "chief investigative correspondent" (my! this must be hot stuff!), Brian Ross, ABC doesn't have the guts to make one.
Instead, following a grand journalistic gotcha tradition, Ross reports that the trip "raises questions" and then finds someone else to suggest the charge that he won't make himself: "according to some legal experts." Actually, Ross has only one legal expert: quote master (he shows up in major newspapers and wires 119 times in the last year) and law professor Stephen Gillers.
Gillers was one of the so-called experts who said Judge Alito's investment in Vanguard mutual funds was a conflict of interest. He has also whined about Scalia in the past, saying, "He's combative. He's in your face....He does not have what most people think of as a judicial demeanor."