Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 5 (since 2012-11-21 01:56:49)

worried we're doomed

Showing comments 5 - 1

  • Jodi Rudoren intentionally obscured reality in her recent piece on Beit Ommar
    • Beginning at 0:26, and while gesturing with her left hand, Rudoren says something to Hashlamon, who's holding a camera. It sounds like "keep it [the camera] down." This comes after what appears to be a somewhat hostile exchange with the tall male settler in the white shirt [the driver of the silver van?] and is immediately followed by the soon-to-be attacking female [Shvat?], looking directly at Awad, who's video recording her from several yards away as she sits in the van's passenger seat.

      In the next scene, as the attack begins, Awad is recording the female from even further away. Along with what I take to be Rudoren's remarks after the earlier exchange with the male settler, I'm guessing both the soldiers and Rudoren had every reason to expect the settlers would retaliate against anyone filming the incident, and that they would do so, in broad daylight, before numerous witnesses, including soldiers, with no regard for the consequences. Because there wouldn't be any.

      But maybe we shouldn't complain. After all, had Rudoren mentioned the settler's attack in her piece, one would expect she'd have managed to explain it away. Because it's so unfair these people are forced to do battle with stone throwers and D.W. Griffith-wannabes while their pizza gets cold.

  • In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president's speech
    • What Kathleen describes suggests to me that we're only spurred to act on our professed commitment to basic human decency when the perceived benefits of action outweigh the perceived costs.

      And that's nothing to shout about.

      Defend the victims as much as you can. But if you stand in the way of them leading their own cause, then you're leading for yourself, and not for them.

    • When do you suppose was the last time the man who makes his living speaking from a podium began his address without a prepared rebuttal to any potential hecklers?

  • Biden says Jewish 'influence' behind American cultural politics is 'immense... immense'
    • The problem with Philo-anygroup is that no collection of human beings constitutes an unqualified good, given that human beings are by their very nature flawed, corrupt, and corruptible. So if we feel compelled to attribute to the humans of Group A certain virtues, what then are their vices?

  • No balance: CNN slobbers over Peres, grills Meshaal
    • I wish someone would ask Amanpour whether her reluctance to fawn over Meeshal in the manner displayed by Blitzer in his segment with Peres had anything to do with avoiding an indictment under the Patriot Act. I think her answer could kickstart a very interesting discussion.

      In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 08-1498 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Patriot Act making it a felony to provide "material support" to a "foreign terrorist" organization. In doing so, the court swept aside an advocacy group’s First Amendment challenge to the law, namely, that it impermissibly burdened their efforts to train the PKK and Tamil Tigers to use non-violent legal means to resolve disputes.

      Under § 2339A(b)(1) of the law, "material support or resources" includes any “service, including . . . communications equipment [or] facilities . . ." Because the U.S. defines Hamas (but not Israel, despite what 3 out of 4 Goldstone Report authors say) as a foreign terrorist organization, I’m betting CNN’s producers, editors, and correspondents have at some point been reminded by their legal department that claims made by Hamas are to be met with deep skepticism, if not outright hostility. Meanwhile, CNN can offer Peres, Netanyahu, et al., a worldwide platform from which to spew their terroristic inanities (Dahiyeh Doctrine, anyone?), and no one loses a wink’s worth of sleep over it.

      That said, I don't believe for a moment that Amanpour would have been anything other than hostile to Meeshal in the absence of the HLP decision. Rather, that in the aftermath of HLP, it should surprise no one that talking heads perceive even less of an incentive to accord any legitimacy to Hamas. After all, why invite an inquiry by the DOJ into whether your communications facilities have supported the purposes of “terrorism” if you don’t have to?

Showing comments 5 - 1

Comments are closed.