September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Reformation of Manners | Main | Mary's Not the "Master" After All »

March 20, 2007

Comments

It's been a really, really weak season so far.

A friend of mine has been doing excellent reviews of the show since S1. Not sure when last night's ep will be up, but the link is here:

http://www.mediablvd.com/magazine/News-51.html

Sorry Melinda, preemptive strikes don't always work.

Would a Cabinet stand by while a President (or acting President) committed the nation to unjustified aggression on another nation? Yes.

Would a General Staff roll over while a delusional SecDef wrecked the nations armed forces? Seems to be.

Would a congressional majority put party ahead of country and ignore its oversight obligations for six years? We saw it happen.

Would the MSM turn into clueless cheerleaders? Yep.

Now who would vote for folks like that in the first place? Hummm?

And what do the producers of "24" have against the Santa Clarita Valley? last season a train wreck and how Valencia gets nuked. "24" has simply jumped the shark. All programs eventually run their course (except BTVS).

Seriously, while going off the rails in one sense, the series must be hitting too close to home for some. The most serious threats to this nation aren't from a handful of religious nuts in far away places.

I continue to be thankful that I got rid of TV in my household.

As Alan seems to imply, real life is entertainment enough.

Me too William we tossed the TV out about a year ago and it has been the best decision ever. My 3 boys who are 6 4 and 2 don't even miss it!

What is funny is I keep reading all the hoopla about 24 and it makes me want to watch it but then again i think I would just get sucked back into our old ways.

I AM FREE! LOL

Despite 24's weaknesses, it still opens up opportunities to talk about important topics. Even at its worst moments, it's more intelligent than most of what I see on television.

Just because there is some junk on TV, it doesn't mean everything is.

Alan
"Would a Cabinet stand by while a President (or acting President) committed the nation to unjustified aggression on another nation?"
You mean because it turned out Saddam didn't have WMD's? Congratulations! your hindsight is a perfect 20/20! What real evidence do you have that the president KNEW that this was unjustified, if indeed it was, before the war began? If, and I mean IF the president acted on intelligence that turned out to be false, how do you know he KNEW it was false?
MSM as cheerleaders? Really? Where has there been one positive story about the war? Oh, wait, that would require their reporters to actually LEAVE the Green Zone.

This season of "24" seems to be losing some steam in my view as well. It started out promising with the extremely volatile and complex issue of national security versus civil liberties with regard to Muslim Americans, but the writing has obviously shifted gears to depict the impending nuclear retaliation against some perpetually unnamed Arab country. (I wonder if it's the same unnamed Arab country from Season 2.)

I'll probably stick with it until the end of this season. Beyond that, maybe not.

Does anyone else here happen to watch NBC's freshman drama "Friday Night Lights"? It is an excellent show, not only due to its solid acting or its realistic writing and visual style, but also in the way it shows authentic characters who have a strong faith in Christianity without depicting them as intellectual buffoons or arrogant jerks (two common sterotypes that keep coming ad nauseum out of Hollywood).

Like others who've commented here, I agree that there's way too much negative content on television. But rather than toss the baby with the bathwater, I'd like to suggest to anyone who reads this to give "Friday Night Lights" a chance. It just satisfies me to see something on TV that reminds me of the numerous common graces we have in our everyday lives.

"Friday Night Lights" airs Wednesday evenings at 8:00PM (PST) on NBC. Although the season is now almost over, you can still check out every full episode online through NBC.com at the following URL:
http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/friday_night_lights.shtml

I think the folks at STR would appreciate this program... and I'm sorry if this endorsement is off-topic.

Hats off to anyone who throws out their T.V.

stay strong.

I'm weak, it's the sports you know.

later Todd

I don't know what you're talking about but my wife and I just finished the first season (prior to now we hadn't seen a single episode) and are totally enthralled with the series. Season one, disc one just arrived today via Netflix. We can't wait to dig in and catch up!

>I think the Vice President on "24"
>is a terrorist. No, he's not
>working for the Islamists or
>Russians.

Well, the Russian leaders could be compared to terrorists; with their actions in Chechnya and beyond they are breeding more terrorists in their Muslims midst.

>A terrorist by >definition.
>(Please spare me the
>comparisons to Pres. Bush and
>V.P. Cheney.)

And is this because you have broken down and have seen the light, that your leaders are terrorists as well?

chris, vancouver, bc

I don't think that part of the script has been written yet so the producers may not yet know the VP's motivation.

Chris, lay off the Russians, you seem not to remember that our fearless leader, who is an excellent judge of character, looked into their leader's eyes and read his soul?

Thank you, Daniel. I was going to take on Alan's comments, but I am so tired of the same old thing over and over and over.

As for Chris' comment:
'And is this because you have broken down and have seen the light, that your leaders are terrorists as well?'

Again, same old story, with nothing to back it up.

I tire of this in the usual blogosphere. I was hoping to stay away from it here on STR, but I see that's impossible.

J.D. - S1 of '24' is the best! There are other good storylines/seasons as well.

It comes and goes, and I still have hope for the rest of this season. What can I say? I'm a hard-core fan and have been since the very first day.

Hi Daniel and Mo, read the stories Judith Miller wrote before the war for the NYT and the editorial page of the WP as well as the mea culpas from assorted members of the press. Search around a little.

There was no green zone prior to the war. I am talking about press coverage prior to the war. If the media had done its job there would have been no war.

Part of the Administration's over-reaction to Wilson's article was the flimsiness of the evidence.

"I tire of this in the usual blogosphere. I was hoping to stay away from it here on STR, but I see that's impossible."

It's called the truth will out.

Alan
You mean the press coverage that didn't report what Saddam was doing to his own people, but were afraid to report? You mean the coverage that didn't mention the scam that was the "Oil for Food" program? You mean the coverage that was silent about how the French and Russians were making money hand over fist selling weapons and other material in violation of all the UN sanctions?
BTW, I'm still waiting for a response to my call for your evidence that the president KNEW Iraq was not a threat to the US that could not be ignored in the post-9/11 world.

Hi Daniel, go read Judy's stories and then get back to me. None of your other points even approach a casus belli and, as I was aware of all of them and more, they seem not to have been suppressed.

I am more concerned with what Cheney, Rove, et al knew. Your grasping at a mighty thin reed if Bush's knowledge about anything is what you are relying on.

Dig around the center-left blogs and stories by pincus that wound up on page 20 in the WP.

Daniel if you think upon current affairs you would be aware that Cheneys chief of staff was convicted for crimminally releasing the name of a top CIA employee. Who's husband was oposing the war based on her knowledge of the best information. She knew that the war was fought for exaggerated reasons. I would suggest that the presidents were aware of the same information as the CIA.

"Chris, lay off the Russians, you seem not to remember that our fearless leader, who is an excellent judge of character, looked into their leader's eyes and read his soul?"

One more quote that is worth remembering is the one when Bush said that there are those who will never give up on finding ways to harm America and neither will we. A mistake or maybe a peek into his mind (or his soul perhaps).

Jonathan, on the contrary--if you thought upon current affairs, you would know that Libby was NOT convicted of criminally leaking the name. The name was, in fact, leaked by someone in the state department (Richard Armitage) who had no love for Pres. Bush, and certainly did not have the motivation to cover for him.

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation

Hi anonymous, Libby was convicted for committing perjury, an act which may have foreclosed other prosecutions. What the trial made clear was that there was a concerted effort to discredit Wilson. Libby was the only one involved to lie. Why?

I belive this is a funny way of putting a real situation.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2FF21A1D-2ED5-4889-9A52-8A22B7A3C6E0.htm

Since this is a Christian site I would like to point out that if the war in Iraq had resulted in better conditions for the Christian community it would be hard to oppose. But the Christians are fleeing by the 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands. Is that a war worthy of support? The Nazis oppressed churchs, so Christians were better off after the war, but Saddam gave Christians a better life than they have now, in Iraq.

This is one of the dangers of politicalized religion. Iraqi Christians can't vote so they aren't part of the base, so who cares?

You said: "What the trial made clear was that there was a concerted effort to discredit Wilson."

That would be the right thing to do if Wilson was, in fact, wrong. And he was.

His report itself -- although not very conclusive -- was determined to support the claim that Saddam had sought yellowcake in Africa. his claim after the fact was untrue in most of the particulars.

Well William was outing his wife the way to do it?

Actually Wilson was correct in his article and the underhanded manner of the attacks as well as the panic in the Administration demonstrates that. The Papers were a forgery, I don't know where you are getting your info but Wilson was spot on.

Oh, humm, anyone catch the Hugh Hewitt segment with Lileks today? They seem to think that the V.P. nuking a remote corner of some wog country is appropriate as well as being quite funny.

The whole issue came up because Alan was being mocked for his hindsight, the piont is for those in the Know they should have known ahead of time.

Alan, "This is one of the dangers of politicalized religion. Iraqi Christians can't vote so they aren't part of the base, so who cares?" Not sure if I get this piont?

Off topic, I guess, since I have never seen 24!

My understanding is that the claim made in the State of the Union address was not based on the forged documents.

I also understand J. Wilson did not have access to information on the forgeries when he made his report to the C.I.A.

I have heard that the C.I.A. did conclude from Wilson's debriefing that it was reasonable to think that Iraq officials did approach officials in Niger giving them the impression by implication that yellowcake was being sought.

If you have lots of free time, you can get more detail and links than you will ever need on Wilson, Plame, Libby etc. etc. from one perspective at Just One Minute.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/


There is a huge archive of posts on the Wilson issue at this blog, start here and work back in time:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/plame_on.html

or maybe better, for a timeline of the issue with links go here:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/the_joseph_wils.html

alan: "Well William was outing his wife the way to do it?"

No! But they didn't do that, and apparently Fitzgerald agreed that they didn't. (A pity that prosecutors in these highly politicized cases don't have to release any information when the case turns up empty, as this one did.)

She worked at the CIA building, hardly the right place to work if one was keeping CIA employment secret.

alan: "Actually Wilson was correct in his article and the underhanded manner of the attacks as well as the panic in the Administration demonstrates that."

Nonsense. He was incorrect in his article, as shown by the incorrect and impossible chronology of his claims, the actual conclusions reached by the people who saw his report, and the actual contents of his reports (insofar as I've seen the contents paraphrased).

You say "the underhanded manner of the attacks", but that's a pure interpretation. There's nothing underhanded about contradicting an assertion made by someone by providing concrete facts. You say "the panic in the Administration" -- again, purely the most aggressive and remote interpretation would see the response as panic, and again only aggressively political interpretation would read the (interpreted) panic as evidence of guilt.

More later, but I guess we are headed for the tall grass. BTW, Jonathan, you pointed that things don't seem to have worked out so well for Iraqi Christians; I was just pointing out that some Christians are part of the Republican base and some aren't and as in "Animal Farm" some may well count for more than others.

"My understanding is that the claim made in the State of the Union address was not based on the forged documents."

"Contrary to arguments that there was lots of independent evidence of uranium sales between Iraq and Niger, US government sources have told us that almost all of the important evidence derived from the phony documents. Specifically, it came from summaries of the documents Italian intelligence was distributing to other western intelligence agencies -- including those of the US, Britain and France -- in late 2001 and 2002."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_01.php

Hi Daniel, Interesting e-mail on Sullivan:
Money quote:

"On the issue of WMDs, the answer is clear. Anyone who thought that Saddam's WMDs presented a significant risk after reading, with care, Blix's reports in early 2003 was not paying attention. I refer you especially to the Wall Street Journal's coverage of this issue, which included a summary of the materials Blix declared unaccounted for, and the possible significance of those materials' survival."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/why_we_went_to__4.html

I stand by my assertions and refer to the links previously mentioned. I believe that the British government still stands by this information as well. I couldn't follow the link Alan supplied.

Be that as it may, J. Wilson was not in a position to know any of this.

I linked to "Talking Points Memo, going there and searching the archives. I'll stand by my reading of the case. This case is quite complicated and, as with too much of our political life, there are different versions.

I understand your point now Alan.
I guess I am saying that for a true Christian as opposed to one saying they are a Christian for votes, a long hard look must be taken regarding support for the Iraq war considering the situation over there.
To expand using the title Christian for votes, does anyone still view Bush as a dedicated Christian? Hard to do when we consider that he is opposed to gays and then we find them working in the administration. Or how does a Christian come up with stuff like 'I looked into his eyes and saw his soul'. Amazing stuff!

The comments to this entry are closed.