Hi there, !
Today Thu 03/09/2006 Wed 03/08/2006 Tue 03/07/2006 Mon 03/06/2006 Sun 03/05/2006 Sat 03/04/2006 Fri 03/03/2006 Archives
Rantburg
531695 articles and 1855968 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 125 articles and 534 comments as of 13:09.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT           
Bangla Bhai bangla nabbed
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
1 00:00 Cyber Sarge [2] 
6 00:00 Cyber Sarge [] 
21 00:00 Frank G [] 
4 00:00 Xbalanke [1] 
0 [] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
14 00:00 SPoD []
6 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [1]
6 00:00 mhw []
6 00:00 Throlugum Shuter9373 [1]
0 [2]
18 00:00 Duh! []
4 00:00 .com [1]
2 00:00 Nimble Spemble [1]
0 []
0 []
9 00:00 anymouse []
0 []
12 00:00 3dc []
1 00:00 Xbalanke []
16 00:00 Old Patriot []
0 [1]
0 []
6 00:00 RD [1]
0 []
1 00:00 liberalhawk []
5 00:00 anon []
4 00:00 mojo []
3 00:00 Throlugum Shuter9373 [1]
1 00:00 trailing wife []
7 00:00 Grunter []
1 00:00 49 pan [1]
0 [1]
5 00:00 SR-71 []
0 []
2 00:00 Frank G [1]
1 00:00 Admiral Allan Ackbar []
0 []
9 00:00 Nimble Spemble []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 gromgoru [1]
2 00:00 Grerens Javiling1282 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 trailing wife []
6 00:00 sHaKeY [1]
0 []
1 00:00 liberalhawk []
0 []
Page 2: WoT Background
4 00:00 3dc [1]
1 00:00 3dc [1]
4 00:00 lotp []
7 00:00 trailing wife [1]
1 00:00 john [1]
0 []
3 00:00 Visitor []
2 00:00 .com [2]
14 00:00 JosephMendiola [1]
5 00:00 DepotGuy []
3 00:00 john []
10 00:00 Pappy []
7 00:00 lotp [2]
17 00:00 Jackal []
6 00:00 JosephMendiola [1]
10 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 BH []
24 00:00 RD [1]
1 00:00 .com []
0 []
14 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 ARMYGUY [1]
5 00:00 Anonymoose []
37 00:00 Matt []
0 [1]
7 00:00 Zenster []
1 00:00 gromgoru []
7 00:00 JosephMendiola [1]
1 00:00 tu3031 []
2 00:00 lotp []
1 00:00 DepotGuy []
10 00:00 Bobby []
7 00:00 Darrell []
0 []
0 []
3 00:00 Frank G []
0 []
1 00:00 .com []
0 []
4 00:00 Zenster []
0 []
1 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 JosephMendiola []
1 00:00 SPoD []
4 00:00 Frank G []
2 00:00 N guard []
1 00:00 ed []
1 00:00 Zenster []
1 00:00 Perfesser []
0 []
3 00:00 DMFD []
5 00:00 Frank G []
15 00:00 Darrell []
3 00:00 Desert Blondie []
Page 3: Non-WoT
8 00:00 Frank G [1]
6 00:00 eltoroverde []
3 00:00 .com []
5 00:00 JosephMendiola [1]
12 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [2]
2 00:00 Perfesser []
4 00:00 Fred []
7 00:00 3dc []
8 00:00 Carl in N.H. [1]
5 00:00 Steve []
5 00:00 JosephMendiola []
3 00:00 6 []
0 []
4 00:00 Grerens Javiling1282 [1]
0 []
1 00:00 JosephMendiola []
6 00:00 RD []
9 00:00 6 []
3 00:00 CrazyFool []
Britain
British Media More Impressed With Gitmo Detainees Than British Public
(from EURSOC)

Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Moazzam Begg is guest of honour on the BBC's World Service today. Begg, who confesses to having attended two terrorist training camps, has had an easy ride from the British media. Commentators have spluttered with indignation at every mention of the US prison camp, but have failed to call the released prisoners up on what they were up to in Afghanistan - and what they would have done in the west, had they not been captured by the Americans.

The BBC offered its online viewers the opportunity to put some questions to Begg. Unfortunately for terror supporters, the comments posted suggest that sympathy for Guantanamo detainees is in short supply among members of the public, compared to their counterparts in the media and theatre professions. Even allowing for the fact that the survey is moderated, and the editors are certainly trimming the number of attacks on Begg in the interests of "balance", at last count the score was 5 percent messages of support, 95 percent tough criticism.

Does he count himself lucky he was not executed as a traitor, as in previous wars? Is he aware that he got off lightly, as under the Geneva accords his captors could have executed him? How does he square British citizenship with support for the Taliban? Would he like to see his sisters and mother treated with the same disdain as women were treated in Afghanistan? How does his treatment by the US authorities compare with the treatment of western prisoners by al-Qaeda, or the treatment of any dissent by the Taliban? Why does he continue to live in Britain, if he finds the climate so hostile?

It's exhilarating to read that despite the BBC's shameful grovelling, readers are unafraid to speak the truth.

Has the mainstream media ever been so disconnected from the people?
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/06/2006 15:08 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I just knew our British cousins had more common sense than their MSM. Good Show Mates!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/06/2006 17:16 Comments || Top||


Europe
Economic patriotism will be Europe's undoing
yup, if they insist on going down the route that France is driving.
Posted by: lotp || 03/06/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Home Front: Politix
No substantiated rights violations under Patriot Act
Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations.

Six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations.

Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the Patriot Act provisions Congress is renewing.

Building upon this stellar record, congressional negotiators added more than 30 civil liberty safeguards not included in current law to ensure that the Patriot Act's authorities would not be abused in the future. Remarkably, that's still not enough for some.

So what has the Patriot Act done? It has been a tremendous asset in helping thwart other terrorist attacks. The Justice Department and other agencies have properly utilized these new tools to detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist cells in New York, Virginia and Oregon before they strike. Since 9/11, the Justice Department has charged hundreds of defendants, of whom more than half have been convicted or pleaded guilty, as a result of terrorism-related investigations.

Most important, this renewal would permanently tear down the pre-9/11 "wall" that prevented the FBI and CIA from communicating. This law recognizes the vital importance of sharing information to "connect the dots." The Patriot Act has made it much more difficult for America's enemies to live openly among us as they plot to murder innocent Americans.

Regrettably, some criticizing the government for weak port security tried to block the Patriot Act renewal, which helps law enforcement strengthen port security. The law also combats terrorism financing networks and enhances penalties for attacks against railroads and mass transit. In short, the Patriot Act is an essential tool in the war on terror.

WE must never forget we are a nation at war with an enemy determined to extinguish our nation, our values and our civil liberties. The Patriot Act has kept us safer and has not violated anyone's civil rights. It deserves to be renewed.

F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Posted by: lotp || 03/06/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  woop-woop-woop...
Posted by: .com || 03/06/2006 0:59 Comments || Top||

#2  Big audience for this article -- in USA Today.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/06/2006 7:22 Comments || Top||

#3  Unfortinately this won't stop the MSM and LLL from claiming rights violations. They will continue to claim the government is stomping over everyone's privacy and rights regardless...

After all, not have a single credable shread of evidence hasn't given them pause in their 'Bush Lied' bullshit we hear nightly.
Posted by: CrazyFool || 03/06/2006 8:25 Comments || Top||

#4  Just because they're unsubstantiated doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
Posted by: Xbalanke || 03/06/2006 17:30 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
Why Bush was frosty in Pakistan
The law of diminishing returns has set in on the relationship between the United States and Pakistan. One can already discern incipient signs of American disenchantment with Pakistan in general and President General Pervez Musharraf in particular. These signs became noticeable to the people of Pakistan and even to outside observers during President George W Bush's 24-hour visit to Islamabad.

The lack of warmth during his interactions with the Pakistani leaders in general and Musharraf in particular stood in sharp contrast with the geniality displayed by the American President during his interactions with everyone, big and small, he met in New Delhi and Hyderabad. Bush's admiration -- which he expressed frequently -- for India, its democracy, its civil society and its people stood in similar contrast with his noticeably pro forma remarks in Islamabad.

A US rethink on Musharraf?
His words of praise in India were spontaneous and came from his heart. His restrained words of praise in Pakistan were uttered out of politeness by a guest to a host. The change in Bush's demeanour was very striking and took his Pakistani hosts by surprise. The bonhomie that he had displayed towards Musharraf at Camp David two years ago was no longer there. The American president that Musharraf encountered in Islamabad was disturbingly different from the Bush he had met earlier in New York, Washington and Camp David.

Even before embarking on his tour of South Asia, Bush had many warm words of praise for Musharraf in the media interviews given and statements made by him at Washington. He even referred to Musharraf as his buddy. What happened between his departure from Washington and his arrival in Islamabad, which led to this change in attitude?

Reliable sources in Pakistan and Afghanistan attribute this to the briefings on the ground situation in Afghanistan, which Bush received in Kabul on March 1 from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his officers, as well as from American military officers. Since the beginning of this year, Afghan Army and intelligence officers had been openly criticising Pakistan for helping the Taliban to stage a comeback in Afghanistan, for giving sanctuaries to Mullah Mohammad Omar and other Taliban leaders and cadres in Pakistani territory and for providing them with training and arms assistance. The Afghans were also pointing out that the majority of the suicide bombers in Afghanistan since the middle of last year were Pakistani nationals.


The Afghans also claimed that trained and jihad-hardened Al Qaeda members were being sent by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from Iraq into Afghanistan through Pakistani territory to help the Taliban. Afghan intelligence officials also said that whereas the jihadi terrorists observed total communication silence while they were in Afghan territory, they resumed communications with each other and with their headquarters once they retreated into Pakistan. This, according to them, reflected their confidence that no action would be taken against them in Pakistan even if their communications were intercepted.

During a trip to Pakistan before Bush's visit, President Karzai had brought these reports to Musharraf's notice. The Afghan president had also handed over to Musharraf a summary of these reports prepared by Afghan intelligence officers and a list of Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistani territory. After Karzai returned to Kabul, the Pakistan foreign office spokesman dismissed these reports as unreliable and out of date. In interviews to the BBC and other Western television channels, Musharraf made sarcastic references to these reports as inaccurate and unreliable. Musharraf also alleged that Karzai was trying to cover up the incompetence of Afghan intelligence agencies and security forces by blaming Pakistan.

Musharraf's references were reported to have angered Karzai and his officers, who gave Bush a detailed briefing on the Pakistani involvement with the Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants operating in Afghan territory from Pakistan. President Karzai and Afghan Foreign Minister Abdulla Abdulla reportedly accused General Musharraf of insincerity and told President Bush that so long as the Pakistani involvement continued, the ground situation would not improve in Afghanistan. The Afghan briefings were totally corroborated by American field officers in Afghanistan during their separate briefings for Bush.

It is said that Bush was taken by surprise and disturbed by the details of the Pakistani involvement. Before his departure from Kabul for New Delhi, he had told the media that President Karzai had mentioned to him about the activities of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Pakistani territory and that he would be taking this up with Musharraf. This set off some concern in Islamabad, which immediately thumped Fortress Waziristan initiated some corrective action.
Rantburg News Service was all over this story a few days ago...
Last year, the Pakistani Army had made all Taliban leaders and cadres based in the Pashtun majority areas of Balochistan shift to the Waziristan area of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where the remnants of Al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Jundullah (Army of Allah) and other components of the International Islamic Front were already based. The Pakistani Army concluded an informal ceasefire with them. It agreed to suspend its operations against them in return for their assurance that they would confine their operations to the Afghan territory. Following this agreement, many of the Pakistani troops deployed on counter-terrorism duties in Waziristan, including the helicopters given by the US, were moved to Balochistan to start a military offensive against the Balochistan Liberation Army, which has been fighting for the independence of Balochistan. After coming to know of the statement made by Bush in Kabul, Musharraf ordered a resumption of the counter-terrorism operations in North Waziristan.
"And make it fast. This cowboy boot in my bum is killing me!"
The operations were resumed and over 40 people -- mainly Chechens, Uzbeks and a bunch of some locals -- were killed on February 28. The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the IIF retaliated against it. The Taliban captured the telephone exchanges in North Waziristan and cut off all communications with the rest of Pakistan. It also attacked posts of the Pakistani Security Forces in the area. The fighting is still going on with over 100 casualties suffered by both sides.

In view of the continuing activities of the BLA in Balochistan, the Pakistan Army has not yet been able to move back to Waziristan all the troops it had shifted to Balochistan.
"But we're working on it, effendi!"
The Pakistani security forces are facing great difficulty in repulsing the attacks of the Taliban, the Al Qaeda and the IIF. Meanwhile, the Jundullah, which had suspended its operations in Karachi in return for the suspension of the Pakistani Army's operations in Waziristan, resumed them on March 2. It carried out a suicide bomber attack on a car of the US consulate in Karachi in which three officers of the consulate, including the head of the physical security set-up of the consulate, were going to work. The explosion killed the head of security. This shook up the American officers responsible for Bush's protection, who were then in New Delhi.

It is said that even Musharraf was shaken up and worried over Bush's security in Islamabad. He reportedly told his officers that they should accept -- without making it a prestige issue -- whatever suggestions their American counterparts had for strengthening Bush's security. In New Delhi, the American officials reviewed the situation and decided that Bush should go ahead with his visit. At the same time, they ordered a number of additional security measures. Bush's plane arrived and took off from Pakistan Air Force's Chaklala airport at night in total darkness -- with all its lights switched off. Pakistan was told that it would not be necessary for Musharraf or Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to come to the airport to receive or see off Bush since the American officials were afraid that their movement to the airport in their security convoys could alert the terrorists.

Bush stayed in the American ambassador's house instead of a local hotel, which had been reserved for him and his party. The American President was taken by the US Air Force in one of its helicopters to the ambassador's house and back as well as to the place of his meeting with Musharraf and back. The air cover over Islamabad was provided by planes and helicopters of the US Air Force based in Afghanistan with officers of the Pakistan Air Force sitting in them to assist the American crew. The Pakistan Air Force was asked to ground all its planes and helicopters till the Bush visit was over. American secret service officers took over all the responsibility for the close-proximity protection of Bush. Their Pakistani counterparts were not kept in the picture.

These developments and the additional security measures necessitated by the Karachi explosion reportedly made Bush and his advisers realise how fragile the situation is in Pakistan and how unsatisfactory Musharraf's much-vaunted counter-terrorism operations have been.

Another development, which took place even as Bush was in South Asia, contributed to the onset of the disenchantment. Since 9/11, Musharraf has repeatedly reiterated his determination to close down the jihadi madrasas in Pakistan, expel all foreign jihadis studying there and to modernise the curriculum in the madrasas not associated with the jihadi terrorist organisations. He has not implemented any of these commitments under some excuse or the other despite receipt of liberal grants from the US and other Western countries for modernising the education system. The US and the United Kingdom again took this up strongly with Musharraf after the London explosions of July last year.
Not that the US is helping, with more Fulbright scholarships going to Pakland than any other nation.
The General reiterated his promise to close down all jihadi madrasas and expel the over 1,400 foreign students studying there -- the majority of them from Southern Thailand followed by jihadis from South Africa -- by December 31 last year. This was not done. The madrassas continued to flout his instructions without any action being taken against them.

Just before Bush's visit, the Pakistani interior ministry decided to keep in abeyance the orders expelling the foreign jihadis on the ground that at a time when violent demonstrations were taking place all over the country over the Danish cartoons, the expulsion of the foreign jihadis could further provoke fundamentalist elements. The seriousness with which Bush viewed the situation -- and his stern rebuke to Musharraf -- became evident in the US President's remarks at the press conference in Islamabad jointly addressed by him and the general on Saturday. Bush said part of his mission was to determine whether Musharraf 'is as committed as he has been in the past to bringing these terrorists to justice -- and he is.'

'He understands the stakes, he understands the responsibility and he understands the need to make sure our strategy is able to defeat the enemy,' Bush added. Well-informed Pakistani sources say that for the first time Bush and his advisers have started nursing misgivings about Musharraf's sincerity and his willingness or ability to help the US against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Has Musharraf outlived his utility for the US as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism? That is the question which must be troubling the minds of Bush and his advisers now.
Posted by: lotp || 03/06/2006 10:08 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Hmmm...could this be nuance?
Posted by: Grunter || 03/06/2006 10:41 Comments || Top||

#2  Misunderestimation on Musharraf's part, methinks. Dubya's cowboy boots have steel reinforcements and extra pointy toes.
Posted by: Seafarious || 03/06/2006 10:45 Comments || Top||

#3  Interesting article, lotp.

"These developments and the additional security measures necessitated by the Karachi explosion reportedly made Bush and his advisers realise how fragile the situation is in Pakistan and how unsatisfactory Musharraf's much-vaunted counter-terrorism operations have been.”

It shouldn’t have taken this for us to realize it, but thank God we're coming around.

“The madrassas continued to flout his instructions without any action being taken against them.”

We're being played.
Posted by: Jules || 03/06/2006 10:48 Comments || Top||

#4  There was a really good article on rantburg around 2003, about the rise of the Taliban and Musharraf was quite the double-dealer back then as well. He's basically a Hillary Clinton. He'll do whatever he needs to do to stay in power. The reason he cooperates with the US is that he uses the power of the US to his advantage. I think that's why he's a bit shook up now. He knows we have the power to keep him in power or get him out. I bet we'll see more cooperation from him now that he realizes the game is going to turn hardball.
Posted by: 2b || 03/06/2006 10:56 Comments || Top||

#5  back then ... meaning way back then, not 2003
Posted by: 2b || 03/06/2006 10:56 Comments || Top||

#6  Musharaff is indeed the man in the middle, with everybody gunning for him. Unlike the typical dictator who spends all of his time cultivating his loyal underlings like a mob boss, Musharaff doesn't seem to have as much juice. He can only push so far in any direction before he gets pushed back, and harder than he can push.

Were he to have studied his dictator manual better, he would have known that he could never, ever stop reinforcing his position *or* oppressing his enemies. He can never have friends or allies, only those that either work for him, and those he seeks to eliminate.

It doesn't matter what Bush offers, beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter, it will neither strengthen Musharraf's hand nor weaken his enemies. The only alternative left to Bush is to do that himself, directly. Which is not easy.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/06/2006 13:17 Comments || Top||

#7  Was W offereing anything or just sending a message?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/06/2006 13:49 Comments || Top||

#8  Mushie only goes on the attack when it is policially expedient for him to do so.

I predict a hugh build-up in the relationship between the ChiComs and Paki-Waki.
Posted by: Captain America || 03/06/2006 14:08 Comments || Top||

#9  CA, possible, but. Will he still have access to his nukes? Will the Chinese help him when the newly allied Indians get fed up? Does he really want the Afghan Army to get technical support when they pursue Taliban in hot support? There's a lot of down side for Perv and Pak if they lose our friendship. They'd love to, but they can't.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/06/2006 14:47 Comments || Top||

#10  THe problem is that Pakistan is notb a real state. It exists only because of a religion. Were its citizens stop becoming fanatic muslims then part of them would start looking either to India or to Afganistan. It would implode and its elites would lose provileges. That is why from its creation they have pandered to Islamists, have supported the Deobandi inspired madrassas and tried to help them in brainwashing the population.

The end result is that Pakistan is a enemy.

Since Pakistan only reason to exist is opposing India it goes without saying taht it is the structural ennemy of India but it is also a structural ennemy of Afgahnistan both because part of its territor belongs legally to Afghanistan after the expiration of the Durand treaty but also because its conquest or at least its subjugation through a puppet regime (read the Taliban) would greatly increase its strategic depth against India, an obssesion of Pakistani generals.

So Pakistan is our ennemy, and it has two other ennemies India and Afghanistan. The ennemy of my ennemy is my friend. Could be a good idea to support Adganistan about those Durand treaty territories. After all I cannot see how Afghan rule on tyhe North Western Frontier Provinces could be worse that Pakistani unrule. I suspect that Afghns would hold them with atighter leah and not allow it to remain a terrorist nest.
Posted by: JFM || 03/06/2006 15:38 Comments || Top||

#11  Let's finish with Iran before we go getting Pakistan as an enemy. Every country in south west Asia and north Africa is a potential enemy. It'll be easier if we deal with them serially rather than in parallel.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/06/2006 15:49 Comments || Top||

#12  It would not be us who would be dealing with Pakistan but Afghanistan, India and Pakistan's own minorities.
Posted by: JFM || 03/06/2006 17:36 Comments || Top||

#13  JFM, There's nukes in them thar hills. we'll be involved.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/06/2006 17:38 Comments || Top||

#14  It would not be us who would be dealing with Pakistan but Afghanistan, India and Pakistan's own minorities.
Posted by: JFM || 03/06/2006 17:43 Comments || Top||

#15  This is one of those fights that can be started without us, but I suspect needs us to finish.

The tone of this article, though... I find it very hard to believe that, while Rantburgers have been discussing Musharref's double dealing for years, President Bush was unaware until after he landed in Afghanistan. I think he's actually been playing Pakistan, waiting for India to come around. After all, he's had India in his sights since before he started his first run for the Presidency, by all accounts.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/06/2006 19:02 Comments || Top||

#16  TW, this is coming from an Indian newspaper and I doubt their media are as objective and factual as ours.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/06/2006 19:05 Comments || Top||

#17  *beverage alert*!!!

f&*king Spembles...
Posted by: Frank G || 03/06/2006 19:33 Comments || Top||

#18  The author is B. Raman, a former Indian spymaster.
He has close links with his fellow spooks throughout the world.



Posted by: john || 03/06/2006 20:08 Comments || Top||

#19  His contacts in Pakistan are unrivaled.. this is a man who used to run spies and forment trouble within Pakistan.

Posted by: john || 03/06/2006 20:12 Comments || Top||

#20  Pakistan ever needed outside help to brew trouble?!?
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/06/2006 21:23 Comments || Top||

#21  john - I was questioning the credibility NS (sarcastically) gave to our MSM....purely
Posted by: Frank G || 03/06/2006 21:48 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Why Jon Stewart isn't funny
THE SELECTION of Jon Stewart as the host for Sunday night's 2006 Oscars undoubtedly marks a career milestone for the aspiring king of late-night comedy. Unfortunately, however, the ascension of Stewart and ''The Daily Show" into the public eye is no laughing matter. Stewart's ever-increasing popularity among young viewers directly correlates with the declining influence of progressive thought in America. Coincidence? I think not. Let me explain.
Please do
Meet Joshua Goldberg, a fictional composite of the typical apostle of ''The Daily Show." Born in Newton, Goldberg attended Newton South High School where he played an integral role in securing the school's debate championship. His 3.8 grade point average and impressive array of extracurricular activities earned him a scholarship to Vassar, where he majored in political science and joined a Jewish fraternity. Throughout his formal education, Goldberg stayed up-to-date on national politics through nightly coverage on ''The Daily Show" and even led a petition to protest the genocide in Darfur.

Many of Stewart's die-hard supporters might use this persona as proof that ''The Daily Show" engages disillusioned viewers who otherwise could not be reached. This argument, however, fails to consider the ultimate career path of Josh Goldberg: Upon graduation in 2004, he accepted a prestigious job as an analyst at Morgan Stanley. Although he no longer follows Washington's daily political squabbles, Goldberg gives a significant annual contribution to the Democratic Party.

The tragedy of this portrait is not that investment banking corrupts young souls (although one could argue otherwise), but rather that the students who abandon politics out of a naive self-consciousness often represent our country's most idealistic minds. Stewart's daily dose of political parody characterized by asinine alliteration leads to a ''holier than art thou" attitude toward our national leaders. People who possess the wit, intelligence, and self-awareness of viewers of ''The Daily Show" would never choose to enter the political fray full of ''buffoons and idiots." Content to remain perched atop their Olympian ivory towers, these bright leaders head straight for the private sector.
The horror!

Observers since the days of de Tocqueville have often remarked about America's unique dissociation between politicians and citizens of ''outstanding character." Unfortunately, the rise of mass media and the domination of television news give Stewart's Menckenesque voice a much more powerful influence than critics in previous generations. As a result, a bright leader who may have become the Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson of today instead perceives politics as a supply of sophisticated entertainment, rather than a powerful source of social change.

Most important, this disturbing cultural phenomenon overwhelmingly affects potential leaders of the Democratic Party.
Bwahahahaha!
The type of folksy solemnity brandished by President Bush does not resonate with ''The Daily Show" demographic. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, only 2 percent of the show's audience identify themselves as conservatives. At a time when the Democrats desperately need inspired leadership, the show's self-conscious aloofness pervades the liberal punditry.

Although Stewart's comedic shticks may thus earn him some laughs Sunday at the Oscars, his routine will certainly not match the impact of his greatest irony: Jon Stewart undermines any remaining earnestness that liberals in America might still possess.
Damm, is Karl Rove a genius or what?
Michael Kalin is a 2005 graduate of Harvard College.
And is no doubt a very earnest individual
Posted by: Steve || 03/06/2006 13:59 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  To put it another way, sarcasm and arrogant naivete don't mix. In a way, it depends who you are if you think Jon Stewart is funny or not.

It has been said both that humor has to have a grain of truth in it, or it is not funny; and that humor can have a lot of anger it in, but when it tips the balance and becomes more anger than humor, it is not funny.

That being said, if you can accept that grain of truth, you can get the joke built around it. If you deny that truth, the joke will never be funny.

Otherwise, the joke is constrained by the anger involved. Not just by the anger of the teller, but importantly, the anger of the listener. If either of them are filled with rage and hate, they have no room left for humor, and the joke will always fall flat. Unless it is not humor, just hate disguised.

And this is the humor of much of the left: nothing more than bitter hatred that they call humor. To someone not consumed with rage and hate, such humor falls flat, be it on Air America or in a Michael Moore movie.

And, not surprisingly, it also dies because it does not contain the essential grain of truth. And without that core, it is nothing from nothing.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/06/2006 14:55 Comments || Top||

#2  maybe it is because only the Democratic party is such a joke.
Posted by: 2b || 03/06/2006 15:19 Comments || Top||

#3  ...and doesn't Michelle sound like a fun date?
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/06/2006 15:26 Comments || Top||

#4  1. Stewart's show gets very good ratings by the standards of the comedy channel - and it is relatively cheap to produce.

2. So what if Stewart's show has left wing demographics. It's a niche show. If it weren't it might get better ratings but then again it might not.

3. Stewart's poor performance last night wasn't the result of 'lefties can't sustain comedy'. It was the result of 'almost no one can sustain comedy at the Oscars; the big egos and the puffed up medocrities who get awards suck the energy out of any host'. The job of Oscar host is very tough; that's why it was tough to recruit anyone.
Posted by: mhw || 03/06/2006 16:09 Comments || Top||

#5  Hmmm... Rather like Bill Cosby's humor, where the joketeller uses common experience and self-deprecation which allows everybody to identify with him - and laugh at themselves... versus Don Rickles' "humor" where someone else is always the butt of the joke - and half the audience laughs, while the rest cringe.
Posted by: .com || 03/06/2006 17:25 Comments || Top||

#6  I like the Daily show and the Cobert report. But after the opening monologues I kind of lose interest and change the channel. Trust me, the first 10-12 minutes of every show are great but the interviews or skits fall flat most of the time. I didn’t watch the Oscars (I never do) and the only winning movie I saw was Wallace and Grommet.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/06/2006 17:25 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
124[untagged]
1al-Qaeda

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Mon 2006-03-06
  Bangla Bhai bangla nabbed
Sun 2006-03-05
  Ayman issues call for more attacks
Sat 2006-03-04
  EU3 Begin To Realize They Were Duped
Fri 2006-03-03
  Leb Army seals Syrian border
Thu 2006-03-02
  JMB chief Abdur Rahman nabbed
Wed 2006-03-01
  US journo trapped in Afghan prison riot
Tue 2006-02-28
  Yemen Executes American Missionaries’ Murderer
Mon 2006-02-27
  Saudi forces clash with suspected militants
Sun 2006-02-26
  Jihad Jack Guilty
Sat 2006-02-25
  11 killed, nine churches torched in Nigeria
Fri 2006-02-24
  Saudi forces thwart attack on oil facility
Thu 2006-02-23
  Yemen Charges Five Saudis With Plotting Attacks
Wed 2006-02-22
  Shi'ite shrine destroyed in Samarra
Tue 2006-02-21
  10 killed in religious clashes in Nigeria
Mon 2006-02-20
  Uttar Pradesh minister issues bounty for beheading cartoonists

Better than the average link...



Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
204.236.220.47
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (47)    WoT Background (54)    Non-WoT (19)    (0)    (0)