60 Minutes hasn't been a credible source of news for a long time; at least the mid 1980s. They are very good at marketing themselves, and selling 'infotainment', which is why they're still on the air.
What's worse than a lie? A clumsy lie. Of course President Obama knew what was going on. He is briefed every morning on important events and revelations. When Hoover was engaged in domestic spying, he was careful to inform sitting Presidents of what he'd uncovered. No competent intelligence organization is going to leave themselves open to retaliation by failing to inform (and thus involve) their 'superiors'. By telling them, it makes them accomplices in the acts.
Different culture, different customs, different society. Apples and oranges. Michael Moore covered this ground pretty well in 'Bowling for Columbine'.
Removing firearms is the simple, easy solution to the problem. Just like removing violence from the comics would solve juvenile deliquency, and removing alcohol would end the evils of inebriation. There are far too many examples of the 'simple solution' failing to actually do anything about the initial problem, and people insisting on maintaining those solutions despite that failure.
"Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki warned that unnamed sinister forces were attempting to divert the legitimate demands of the people to unstated nefarious purposes."
Ah yes, those sinister 'outside agitators' who seem to mysteriously appear during any social movement and cause trouble. Who lead the honest, common (but simple and not too bright) citizens astray. But manage to avoid the best efforts of secret police and internal security forces to ferret them out.
Because clearly the "legitimate demands" of the people would never be an issue for those in power or the status quo...
But that's different; Don Imus was bad, Juan Williams is good. Translation: Imus' speech offended Juan, so it was 'bad' and should be stopped (along with rap music); whereas what Juan said was just 'common sense' and 'good' and should be permitted. Nat Hentoff's "Free Speech for Me; but not for Thee" comes to mind...
It's amazing how those who claim to be against 'Big Government', 'Socialism', and 'government handouts' are often those who benefit the most from what they're against. You left out 'hypocritical' in their list of sins, though. Are they rushing to hire Juan Williams, since they seem to be so concerned about his fate?
I'm not sure that stifling free speech; even if that speech is racist; is the right thing to do. Was his comment racist, ignorant, and offensive? Of course. But firing Mr. Williams for having opinions, even wrong-headed ones, from his employment with a radio network strikes me as both ironic and wrong. Freedom of speech means tolerating the bad as well as the good. It's better for this sort of thing to come out and be confronted, rather than be stifled in public and yet whispered and hinted about in back rooms. Since Mr. Williams was not 'on the job' at the time he made his ill-considered comment, the punishment seems extreme. In fact, it would seem to support the idea that employers may punish employees for exercising their Constitutional rights (no matter how foolish it may be) when the employer feels those 'rights' are inconvenient.
I find your site to be informative and entertaining; a welcome change from the tirades of second-rate demagogues which seem to dominate the airwaves these days. I hope you do not find my disagreement with you on this matter to be a sign of disrespect or lack of regard for your informed comment.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
60 Minutes hasn't been a credible source of news for a long time; at least the mid 1980s. They are very good at marketing themselves, and selling 'infotainment', which is why they're still on the air.
What's worse than a lie? A clumsy lie. Of course President Obama knew what was going on. He is briefed every morning on important events and revelations. When Hoover was engaged in domestic spying, he was careful to inform sitting Presidents of what he'd uncovered. No competent intelligence organization is going to leave themselves open to retaliation by failing to inform (and thus involve) their 'superiors'. By telling them, it makes them accomplices in the acts.
Different culture, different customs, different society. Apples and oranges. Michael Moore covered this ground pretty well in 'Bowling for Columbine'.
Removing firearms is the simple, easy solution to the problem. Just like removing violence from the comics would solve juvenile deliquency, and removing alcohol would end the evils of inebriation. There are far too many examples of the 'simple solution' failing to actually do anything about the initial problem, and people insisting on maintaining those solutions despite that failure.
"Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki warned that unnamed sinister forces were attempting to divert the legitimate demands of the people to unstated nefarious purposes."
Ah yes, those sinister 'outside agitators' who seem to mysteriously appear during any social movement and cause trouble. Who lead the honest, common (but simple and not too bright) citizens astray. But manage to avoid the best efforts of secret police and internal security forces to ferret them out.
Because clearly the "legitimate demands" of the people would never be an issue for those in power or the status quo...
The U.N. is a paper tiger. Even if President Obama was willing to take a stand, I doubt U.N. sanctions would have any noticeable effect.
"God gave Noah the rainbow sign;
No more water, the fire next time"
Drier summers = more wild fires. (Among other things.)
But that's different; Don Imus was bad, Juan Williams is good. Translation: Imus' speech offended Juan, so it was 'bad' and should be stopped (along with rap music); whereas what Juan said was just 'common sense' and 'good' and should be permitted. Nat Hentoff's "Free Speech for Me; but not for Thee" comes to mind...
It's amazing how those who claim to be against 'Big Government', 'Socialism', and 'government handouts' are often those who benefit the most from what they're against. You left out 'hypocritical' in their list of sins, though. Are they rushing to hire Juan Williams, since they seem to be so concerned about his fate?
I'm not sure that stifling free speech; even if that speech is racist; is the right thing to do. Was his comment racist, ignorant, and offensive? Of course. But firing Mr. Williams for having opinions, even wrong-headed ones, from his employment with a radio network strikes me as both ironic and wrong. Freedom of speech means tolerating the bad as well as the good. It's better for this sort of thing to come out and be confronted, rather than be stifled in public and yet whispered and hinted about in back rooms. Since Mr. Williams was not 'on the job' at the time he made his ill-considered comment, the punishment seems extreme. In fact, it would seem to support the idea that employers may punish employees for exercising their Constitutional rights (no matter how foolish it may be) when the employer feels those 'rights' are inconvenient.
I find your site to be informative and entertaining; a welcome change from the tirades of second-rate demagogues which seem to dominate the airwaves these days. I hope you do not find my disagreement with you on this matter to be a sign of disrespect or lack of regard for your informed comment.