| |
|
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
|
|
Interesting Washington Post story on a public disagreement between Donald Rumsfeld and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the duty of military personnel to intervene to stop inhumane treatment that they witness.
To quote Rumsfeld: "Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of."
Now wait just a minute: I thought that our fourth and final answer to why we invaded Iraq in the first place (#1: ties to 9/11; #2: ties to al-Queda; #3: WMD's) was because Saddam was a brutal dictator who was infamous for inhumane treatment of Iraqis (not to mention neighbors).
Is it time for a new answer?
9:22:31 PM 
|
|
This morning, the Bush administration released their plan for victory in Iraq. It's worth reading; we should all know what our government plans to do about Iraq.
Bush also gave a speech today on the topic. In it, he mentioned Cpl. Jeffrey Starr, killed in action back in April, who left on his laptop a touching letter for his girlfriend. As it turns out, Corporal Starr's letter was selectively quoted last month in the New York Times in their article discussing the milestone of 2000th service member dying in Iraq, and the Times was subsequently savaged by a conservative pundit for doing so.
Guess what Bush did this morning in his speech? Selectively quote from the same letter.
Here's a summary of the controversy. Here's the letter, in its entirety.
(Thanks to the Daily Kos for pointers and a summary of the controversy)
9:10:29 PM
|
|
Here's an interesting article (from a Christian news outlet) on a recent Senate hearing on "indecent" programming on cable TV and whether parents have enough control. A representative of the FCC made the point that cable TV companies could offer more "a la carte" channels rather than just preselected packages, so that people could make sure that their television doesn't receive material they would view as objectionable. The FCC rep also pointed out, however, that it would be more expensive to the cable companies to market such offerings, and of course those marketing costs would be passed along to us, the consumers.
In the commentary from religious representatives, it's pointed out that "a la carte" offerings are a double-edged sword; while you can very selectively remove objectionable material, it also means that many people would choose not to pay exta for all of those religious channels, decreasing their viewership. So don't expect them to be in favor of that option, opting instead for tighter regulation and enforcement of content restrictions.
11:57:45 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Kevin Schofield.
Last update: 12/1/2005; 3:08:03 PM.
|
|
|
