Currently viewing the tag: "Edward"


Here come the Jihad Watch readers

Greetings, zombies! Terry Glavin writes so elegantly and compellingly, it is seems almost a shame to disagree with him. Unfortunately, expressing something beautifully does not make it so.

“Middle East myths drop like dominos,” by Terry Glavin in the National Post, February 28 (thanks to Gilles):

[...] Along with the now lifeless Edward Said there are also the undead. Consider Robert Spencer, whose biography reads a little like Edward Said’s, in its way. Like Said was, Spencer is a scholar, a widely published author, and an American of Middle Eastern Christian extraction with legions of fans. Like Said, Spencer is widely regarded in his circles, as was Edward Said in his own, as an authority on the imaginary frontiers that cleave the world between “west” and “east.” The Czar Gaddafi insists that the Libyan protests are the result of Al Qaida putting hallucinogens in everybody’s Nescafe. Not to be outdone:

They may be pro-democracy insofar as they want the will of the people to be heard, but given their worldview, their frame of reference, and their core assumptions about the world, if that popular will is heard, it will likely result in huge victories for the Muslim Brotherhood and similar pro-Sharia groups.
- Robert Spencer, on Libya’s revolutionary democrats, 2011.

In light of everything we are witnessing from Casablanca to Isfahan, the miserable and allegedly “progressive” viewpoint taken by Edward Said’s followers is matched by and coupled with Spencer’s lurid “conservative” cynicism in a symbiotic death grip, each parasitic upon the other, both offering nothing but the ravings of demented Americans. Everything is being swept away – it is 1989, it is 1917, it is 1848, as you like. As it is with Edward Said’s followers, Spencer’s fan base now betrays itself as an assortment of specimens from the Upper Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era. They are yesterday’s men. They are zombies.

It is not just to the price of oil that the rebellions are proving so terribly inconvenient. All the evidence, from Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt and Iran, shows that democracy, freedom, work, wages and a “normal” life are exactly what the people are demanding. The people are not clamouring for the immolation of the Jews anymore than they are hollering for the appointment of Norman Finkelstein as the defence minister.

They aren’t? Really? Demonstrators interviewed in Egypt during the uprising against Mubarak said that they hated him because “he is supporting Israel. Israel is our enemy…If people are free in Egypt…they gonna destroy Israel.” Video here. Also, attackers in Tahrir Square shouted “Jew! Jew!” during their brutal sexual assault of “60 Minutes” reporter Lara Logan. These open-minded secular democratic protesters also drew Stars of David on photos of Mubarak, thereby demonstrating their considered rejection of Islamic antisemitism.

In Egypt, the April 6 Movement that started it all is root and branch a movement of trade unionists, secularists, and young intellectuals, all committed democrats. The Muslim Brotherhood was completely marginalized by it. The Ikhwan failed utterly in its attempts to hijack the uprising and now the aging Brethren sit in their solitary chairs with the rest of the Egyptian establishment, studying ways to mollify the revolt.

And yet Sheikh Qaradawi, godfather of the “marginalized” Brotherhood, recently made a triumphant appearance in Tahrir Square to a massive crowd, while secular liberal Wael Ghonim was barred from the stage. So which group is really marginalized?

In Libya, the February 17 movement has been consistent in its intentions for a secular democracy. The Libyans who have been pleading for our help have heard only cynical incoherence and self-gratifying expressions of outrage, but even so, even the Libyan imams have pleaded for the February 17 demands and continue to assert their faithfulness to the same secular cause.

Yeah, they “continue to assert their faithfulness to the same secular cause” in between drawing Stars of David on images of Gaddafi, chanting “no god but Allah,” and establishing an Islamic Emirate.

In Tunisia last week, 15,000 demonstrators gathered to condemn the Islamists who mobbed a synagogue and murdered a Polish Catholic priest in an obscene attempt to hijack the Tunisian uprising. The pro-democracy banners in Tunis read: “Nous sommes tous Musalmans, nous sommes tous Chretiens, nous sommes tous Juifs.” On it goes like this, in Morocco, across Iran, and in little Bahrain….

And yet also in Tunisia, demonstrators swarmed outside a synagogue, chanting a genocidal Islamic battle cry, and jihadists recently murdered a Catholic priest. Evidently not quite tous are Chretiens or Juifs.

Look, I would love to be proven wrong here, and Terry Glavin proved correct. I’d love to see genuine secular democracy blossom all over the Middle East. But Glavin cannot, unfortunately, point to any organized secular democratic movements of any significance in any of the countries in question, while in all of them, Islamic supremacist pro-Sharia groups are sizable, organized, and energetic.

I can’t see how this will end well, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised, and retire back to my undead coffin in peace.

Kaffir Kanuck weighs in on this here.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

During the Sunday talk show, CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell called for an “early detection system” designed to keep mentally unstable individuals from buying guns. So we are going to arbitrarily commit people to mental institutions who we perceive as mentally unstable? Really? Who makes that deceision and where to start. Rendell might want to start with 3/4th of those that post on Left-wing moonbat websites. As Weasel Zippers stated, “Does he realize that under this system liberals won’t be able to buy guns?”

Rendell might want to start with these folks from a moonbat march

Two high-profile politicians today called for sweeping reforms to the nation’s mental health system that would prevent individuals deemed ill from legally purchasing firearms.

Had numerous concerns about alleged gunman Jared Lee Loughner’s mental status placed him on a list restricting his ability to buy a gun, his Jan. 8 rampage might have been prevented, said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, and Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a Democrat.

During a “Face the Nation” appearance, Rendell called for an “early detection system” designed to keep mentally unstable individuals from buying guns.

Giuliani said among the problems that led to the shooting spree, which left six dead and 19 injured, is the nation’s “inability to deal with mental illness.” He urged policy “adjustments” that balance things like an individual’s constitutional right to own firearms with keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people.

Wonder where the ACLU would stand on this one, the guns or the mentally unstable?

Share This

Scared Monkeys

Tagged with:
 

Filmmaker/actor says merger will drive new distribution…
B&C - Breaking News

Tagged with:
 

Jon Stewart has received a considerable amount of attention in recent days for his role in advancing the 9/11 first-responders health benefits bill, including a shout out from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Now the New York Times asks whether Stewart’s advocacy on The Daily Show is the “modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow.”

“Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart’s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played…the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him… But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire

Tagged with:
 

Jon Stewart has received a considerable amount of attention in recent days for his role in advancing the 9/11 first-responders health benefits bill, including a shout out from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Now the New York Times asks whether Stewart’s advocacy on The Daily Show is the “modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow.”

“Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart’s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played…the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him… But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire

Tagged with:
 

When conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck take stands against Obama-care or amnesty for illegal immigrants, the New York Times is quick to raise concerns. But certain correct causes and personalities not only get a pass but receive heroic treatment. A prime example is comedian-activist Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central and main news source for many young liberal hipsters.

Stewart is celebrated once again by the Times, this time on the front of the Monday Business section by media reporters David Carr and Brian Stelter, for his latest crusade, a push to fund the health care of 9-11 responders who became ill. The online headline “In ‘Daily Show’ Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow.” A comparison to Murrow, the vaunted journalist slayer of Sen. Joe McCarthy, is a deep compliment in liberal media circles.

Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?

And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart — despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism — the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?

read more

NewsBusters.org blogs

Tagged with:
 

When conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck take stands against Obama-care or amnesty for illegal immigrants, the New York Times is quick to raise concerns. But certain correct causes and personalities not only get a pass but receive heroic treatment. A prime example is comedian-activist Jon Stewart, host of “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central and main news source for many young liberal hipsters.

Stewart is celebrated once again by the Times, this time on the front of the Monday Business section by media reporters David Carr and Brian Stelter, for his latest crusade, a push to fund the health care of 9-11 responders who became ill. The online headline “In ‘Daily Show’ Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow.” A comparison to Murrow, the vaunted journalist slayer of Sen. Joe McCarthy, is a deep compliment in liberal media circles.

Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?

And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart — despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism — the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?

read more

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with:
 

Is Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart the new Edward R. Murrow? That question has been coming up in the wake of his increasing impact on the media and, some say, even helping whip up the momentum for the bill to help 911 get passed in Congress. Some will say it’s the times: a lot of young people find news shows boring and get their info from a show such as Stewarts. Some will say it’s due to his talent: going back to the time of Will Rogers there have been entertainers whose comments on politics got people not just laughing but thinking. And some (such as yours truly) will argue it is also due to the battered mainstream media — trying to keep audience share as it tries to compete with ideological talk shows, Internet websites that attract people who go to them because they already agree with the viewpoint and take on the news, the increasing trend in narrowcasting, new info technologies and news budget cutbacks.

For a good roundup on the question of whether Stewart is the next Edward R. Murrow GO HERE.


The Moderate Voice

Tagged with:
 

When Republicans in the Senate used parliamentary procedure to block a bill to provide health benefits for 9/11 First Responders, a story that the media all but ignored, Jon Stewart used the last 2010 episode of The Daily Show to bring the full force of ridicule to the story:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Worst Responders
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart also interviewed several of the First Responders involved in advocating for the bill:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Today, The New York Times compares Stewart’s role in getting the bill passed to the journalism of Edward R. Murrow:

Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?

And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart — despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism — the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?

Certainly many supporters, including New York’s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.

But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what — and who — turned the momentum around.

“I don’t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,” said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.

That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian’s effort to right what he called “an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.”

Mr. Specht said in an interview, “I’ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.”

Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on “The Daily Show,” also recognized Mr. Stewart’s role.

“Success always has a thousand fathers,” the mayor said in an e-mail. “But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington’s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.”

Though he might prefer a description like “advocacy satire,” what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night — and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill — usually goes by the name “advocacy journalism.”

There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue — but not recently, and in much different circumstances.

“The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,” said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.

Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow’s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich’s reinstatement.

Walter Cronkite’s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.

Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart’s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. “He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,” Mr. Thompson said.

There were a lot of factors at play in the debate over the First Responders Bill, of course. Not the least of them being the pledge that Republicans had made to block any legislative action until a deal had been reached extending the Bush tax cuts. Nonetheless, it’s largely true that the media was ignoring the bill itself as well as the GOP filibuster. Once Stewart did a show on it, though, that changed, although it was largely the case that the media was reporting on Jon Stewart doing a show about the bill rather than the bill itself. Would the bill have passed without Stewart getting involved? We’ll never know that, of course, but it certainly seems likely that it’s true

There is a problem with Stewart’s approach to this issue, of course. both segments from the December 16th show are little more than a emotional appeal that boils down to the question how dare we not give money to these people? As James Joyner noted earlier this month, though, there are some serious questions about a bill like this notwithstanding the emotional resonance of September 11th:

I happen to think that the costs for city workers whose health was damaged in the line of duty ought to be the responsibility of the city rather than federal taxpayers. And I opposed the massive compensation package we paid to the families who were the victims of the attacks, reasoning that they’re no more deserving of federal money than other murder victims.

I tend to agree. Of course, given the emotionalism of the Stewart argument, that just makes someone sound like a heartless bastard. That’s not journalism, it’s activism. I happen to be a huge Daily Show/Colbert Report fan, but when people start mistaking what they do for serious journalism, we’ve got a problem.




Outside the Beltway

Tagged with:
 

by Javier Manjarres

Palm Beach GOP Chairman candidate Edward Lynch has hit a very rough patch on the road to the County Poobah’s seat.  Lynch’s troubles are stemming from the attack he made on Chairman Dinerstein within his annoucement for the chairmanship.  In an earlier Shark Tank article, Lynch attacked Dinerstein for a comment made about Governor Rick Scott, only to trip over himself after Lynch was guilty of making similar remarks. 
Via Twitter:
Edward Lynch Rick Scott backed out of the forum. He avoids the people every chance he gets. He is a coward.
August 7 at 7:04pm @EdwardLynch on Twitter

Via Facebook:
Edward Lynch SR.
When a candidate has nothing good about themselves to say they have to engage in cowardly, negative politics. It says a lot about the person. I, for one, really hate that. Rick Scott is trying to buy the governorship and has engaged in nothing but negative politics and has proven the type of governor that he would make which is one of the many reasons why I am supporting Bill McCollum.June 25 at 9:44am

To add insult to injury, the Sun Sentinel broke the story that showed Lynch in two pictures where he was supporting local Democrat leaders. Lynch later explained to the Palm Beach Post that the reason he was wearing the questionable t-shirt was because he had spilled BBQ sauce on his other shirt, and changed into the t-shirt.


And now there’s another blunder. Lynch was openly supportive of Attorney General candidate Jeff Kottkamp, and at an event for Kottkamp which included former Broward GOP Chairs Charles LaMarca and Cindy Guerra, Lynch made an off-color sexist remark about now Attorney General -elect, Pam Bondi. ” Pam’s pretty, not alot of substance, but she is pretty, and that’s working well for her”-  (See video below and forward to the 8 minute mark).

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13169935/Rally%20for%20Jeff%20Kottkamp%20in%20Boca%20Raton%201_3.wmv

The Shark Tank

Tagged with:
 

Talk about being thankful …

Three teenage boys set out on October 5, 2010 in their 12-foot long aluminum boat from their home island to one nearby. Their outboard motor broke along the way and left them stranded and adrift in the South Pacific Ocean. The family members of the three boys reported them missing and the New Zealand air force launched a sea search to no avail.

Three teenage boys who spent 50 days adrift in a tiny boat in the South Pacific walked ashore on shaky legs Friday after their chance rescue — celebrated on their home island hundreds of miles (kilometers) away as a miracle that brought them back from the dead.

The trio — Samuel Pelesa and Filo Filo, both 15, and Edward Nasau, 14 — told rescuers they survived on rainwater they collected, a handful of coconuts, raw fish and a seagull that landed on their 12-foot- (3.5-meter-) long aluminum boat.

Samuel Pelesa and Filo Filo, both 15, and Edward Nasau, 14 drfted 800 miles from their place of orgin, Tokelau, a bucolic collection of coral atolls north of Samoa that is New Zealand’s territory, before they were found by a tuna boat San Nikuna.

Tai Fredricsen, first mate aboard the tuna boat San Nikuna, said a crew member spotted a small vessel bobbing in the open sea northeast of Fiji on Wednesday. “We knew it was a little weird,” he said.

As it edged closer to investigate, the crew saw three people aboard waving frantically and asked them if they needed help.

“All they could say was ‘thank you very much for stopping,’” Fredricsen told New Zealand’s National Radio. “In a physical sense, they look very physically depleted, but mentally — very high.”

Share This

Scared Monkeys

Tagged with: