Woman to Woman

By Nike

September 16, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this

Hello, very nice site! Please also visit my homepages:

Thanks!

By discountpharmacyshop

September 16, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

Online discount pharmacy shop http://discountpharmacyshop.info

discount pharmacy shop [url=http://discountpharmacyshop.info]discount pharmacy shop[/url]

By loan

September 17, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

student loan consolidation or student loan debt consolidation needs federal student loan consolidation, student loan consolidation program, student loan consolidation center (student loan consolidation calculator) consolidation loan refinance student. I need student consolidation loan information, private student loan consolidation depends entirely on direct student loan consolidation and government student loan consolidation is required by college student loan consolidation is required for student loan consolidation calculatorStudent loan consolidation [url=http://video.ikit.org/Members/allpillsen/index.html]Student loan consolidation[/url]

By Lyrazel

September 18, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

O they cant swear but at least their hair will be perfect.

To be blunt I am really tired of all this 9/11 stuff. Its not like a tragedy did not happen and we grieved for it but this constant pull to the heartstrings by TV/NEWS/Politicians is wearing thin. If you compare the payouts the survivors were given and compare them to the sacrifices, salaries or sufferings of American military servicemen & women & their families now endure it puts in a different perspective. Can we ignore the true violence happening in Iraq that is rapidly gaining in death tolls to the number of people killed in New York on one day? Why no hit TV mini-series My Boy In Iraq? Maybe because no one (in Rumsfeld’s military) wants to keep THAT open wound fresh in our hearts. American men and women are dying on duty to guard a quagmire from becoming a sink hole because of faulty directives, covert operations that are only recently being revealed. This is the tragedy and sacrifice caused by 9/11! Doubt it will get a peep of a mention.

When they show this movie and all the feel-good cliches in place will we see beyond the special effects that this tragedy is just another cash cow that the TV industry will exploit for years? What products will they sell for this TV event? Autos? Those gas guzzling reasons for being in Iraq? Food? Strange to see happy people cowing down after a staircase explodes… Shaving equipment and insurance are my bets…betcha no airline ads.

By Brian Curtis

September 18, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Wow, more spam than usual today.

I’ll keep my initial post on this topic brief: parenting is the job of parents, nobody else.

My viewing choices, and those of the rest of the nation, should not be limited to what’s “kid-friendly.” Plenty of the real world is ugly, violent, and even sexy. It does a disservice to society to insist that our media pretend otherwise just because “kids might be around.”

By Scalia

September 18, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

I think Diane’s rebuttal was great. I never thought about all of the men that lost their wives, and have to raise their kids without them. She is true in showing the only footage was of families where the women lost their husbands.

It is like an article I read recently about military husbands, and how they are looked down on because their wives joined the army and they didn’t. The wives of the military personnel shun them, too.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Excellent comment as usual Brian.

It seems Shaunti and others like her want to walk around in this haze. I mean if the little kiddies do hear a bad word, what happens. I never cursed around my daughter (when she was little anyway lol) but she still heard bad words. And guess what nothing happened. I advised her that children do not say those words, and now I tell her there are words that you don’t use as a young lady. It’s about parenting.

We are about the ONLY country out there that spends all this time trying to censor everything. It’s actually quite nauseating. Especially, when the network is playing a movie, you know what they are saying, but this extermely cheesy voiceover comes on to cover up the curse words. It gets comical after a while. As if nobody knows what the actual word should be.

Lyrazel, while I understand where you are coming from, I can’t say I agree with you regarding 9/11. Not that this makes it right, but 9/11 was 3,000+ innocent people, including the heroes of the NYPD and Fire Department who were trying to save lives. Our brave soldiers who are overseas join the army and are over there, knowing full well there is a chance they won’t come home. They are willing to risk their lives for this country. Should there be more compensation for soldiers families? In my opinion, yes. But I don’t think the 9/11 families deserve any less. They actually deserve more.

The one thing that burns me up about 9/11 is this friggin memorial which is costing, if my memory serves me correctly, like 360 million dollars. Now this money could, and should, go to the survivors, the families, the children who lost parents…..something, anything. I mean the memorial has to cost THAT much. What is up with that??

By chuck

September 18, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Another stupid topic that will be exhausted in one day or less. There are FCC rules in place that cover this topic. If it is during the “family hours” they should not be showing stuff that has that kind of language in it. Most families are channel surfers. You should be able to flip channels among the “safe” channels with your little ones in the room without hearing the f word. Networks should abide by the rules. After that time, I’m not fond of hearing it and I tend to watch shows that don’t use that kind of language.

The best way to end those behaviors is to punish them economically. Ford for instance is losing billions of dollars in lost sales because of their support of homosexuality and the ensuing boycott by Christians. If you want to bring about change, economic pressure usually works better than anything else. If I see something objectionable, I almost always change the channel and then return and watch the commercials. Then I contact the sponsors of the program and express my displeasure.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Ford for instance is losing billions of dollars in lost sales because of their support of homosexuality and the ensuing boycott by Christians

~yawn~….Chuck, you are too predictable. But, you are wrong. Ford is losing billions of dollars because of rising gas prices. Please review attached cut and paste.

The central cause of Ford’s problems is that Americans are increasingly buying their cars from Japanese competitors such as Toyota. Ford has lost market share in the US for 10 successive years. It now has a share of only 16%, and said yesterday it expected that to drop to between 14% and 15%. Above all, it has been hit by falling sales of pick-up trucks such as the F-150 and sports utility vehicles (SUVs), once best-sellers that generated the bulk of profits, as petrol prices have hit $3 a gallon. “They get all their revenue from the F-150 and SUVs, and no one is buying them,” Mr Rubin said.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

although I’ve heard that some people still use “rabbit-ears” to pick up local television stations I would guess that it’s not how most of America gets its signal. With the move from analog to digital formats, that may not even be feasible anymore (I’m not an engineer so I can’t say that it’d be the death of “non-cable” television…). The whole concept of “cable television” was supposed to be what “pay-channels” or “movie channels” are now, a relatively non-regulated entertainment marketplace where you could swear and show nudity because everyone purchasing cable knew that these things would happen. I’m guessing that most television is “cable” so who’s Shaunti trying to fool with her references to “public airwaves”? The “public airwaves” were sold off a long time ago to make way for the digital-media pioneers and HDTV…

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

al-Qaida Warns Pope He, West Are Doomed

Published: 9/18/06, 9:26 AM EDT by MAAMOUN YOUSSEF

Related Stories al-Qaida Warns Pope He, West Are Doomed AP - 9/18/06 Iraq Shootings, Bombings Leave 8 Dead AP - 9/18/06 Bomb Kills 4 NATO Troops in Afghanistan AP - 9/18/06 Rebel Group Wants Peacekeepers in Sudan AP - 9/18/06 Pope Remarks Worry Christians in Mideast

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were “doomed” and proclaimed that the holy war would continue until Islam dominates the world.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum about the pope’s remarks last week on Islam. The authenticity of the statement could not be immediately independently verified.

“You infidels and despotic, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations,” the statement said.

The group said Muslims will be victorious and addressed the pope as “the worshipper of the cross” saying “you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere … We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword.”

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.

The statement said that the Quran tells Muslims in many occasions that “jihad continues and should never stop until dooms day where this religion ends victorious.”

The group also accused U.S. President George W. Bush of initiating the “new Crusades campaign against Islam by his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq while the servant of the cross, the pope of the Vatican, is continuing this path by his blatant attack on Islam, its prophet … and especially his talk about jihad.”

Benedict on Tuesday in Germany had quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said.

“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,’” he quoted the emperor as saying.

The pope on Sunday said that he was “deeply sorry” about the angry reaction and said the remarks came from a text that didn’t reflect his own opinion.

By Wikipedia

September 18, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Hezbollah1 is a Shia Islamist organization in Lebanon comprising a militia, a political party, and an extensive program of social development. [3] It was formed during the 1982 Lebanon War, and officially announced on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group’s manifesto, which included three goals: the eradication of Western imperialism in Lebanon, the transformation of Lebanon’s multi-confessional state into a Islamic state, and the complete destruction of the state of Israel.[4]. [5] Hezbollah has abandoned the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic republic [6], but continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah has received arms, soldiers, and financial support from Iran, and many other sympathizers [7] and has “operated with Syria’s blessing.”[6] Hezbollah currently has achieved seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television station, and has engaged extensively in front programs for social development. [8]

Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.[9] The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.[10][11] Even 74 percent of Lebanese Christians viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization.[12] All countries in the UN do not consider Hezbollah a “terrorist” organisation with the exception of the United States, Israel and Canada. Australia and the UK consider only the External Security Arm of Hezbollah to be “terrorist”. Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah “terrorist”.

Since 1992, the current leader and Secretary-General of Hezbollah is Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

I didn’t watch it and I really don’t care whether they censor the curse words or not. Can’t get all flipped out about this … I can’t watch much tv. It almost always gives us an unreal view of the world and life. Most of the content is written for the lowest common denominator and it’s highly unusual to have anything with intellectual content. The commercials drive me crazy. Bless the person who invented the mute button! I worked in tv and radio and the bottom line is totally about the bucks. I’m not surprised at all that they skew the truth and lead people to believe only men were killed and only men were heroes. That is nothing new for anyone who has ever studied media or feminism. Same old, same old.

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Hamas: Hizbullah funded us

In report on its website, group admits it received funds, assistance in training activists from Hizbullah, boasts Lebanese-trained cell was most prominent in West Bank

Ali Waked Published: 02.15.06, 08:50

The Hamas organization officially announced for the first time that it has received funding and assistance in training from the Lebanese Hizbullah terror group.

A report posted on Hamas’ website recently, describes the establishment of the organization’s first cell in Ramallah, immediately following the outbreak of the intifada.

According to the report, after the cell was founded, its members began looking for appropriate funding for their activity. Two funding channels were consequently opened, one vis-à-vis Hizbullah, by sending activists to Lebanon to train and return with money, and the other internal – money raised in the West Bank.

Until recently, Hamas has denied all claims that it received funds from Hizbullah. Other Palestinian terror groups have done the same, charging the reports were “Israeli propaganda” aimed at implicating the Lebanese group with responsibility for the intifada, in a bid to generate international – and mainly American – pressure on Syria and Iran.

However, in the current report on its website, Hamas boasts the cell sponsored by Hizbullah was one of the group’s most prominent wings in the West Bank.

In the same article, Hamas also denies it has begun confiscating weapons from its members, and states activists continue to hold on to their arms, “and continue to improve them in order to provide protection for the Palestinian people.”

By Scalia

September 18, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

The sad part is that most people just by it. In the movie “The World Trade Center” there wasn’t one woman shown in the preview. When the interviews are done, they never show the men that lost their wives. It is like these group of people are silent.

And as for cable, you still can’t see a bare bottom on MTV or VH-1 or any of these channels. And you also can’t see a woman’s torso on these channels.

So are MTV, etc. considered “public airwaves”?

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

funding Hizballah’s Money Pipeline in the Crosshairs Via the Little Green Footballs news feed on Tue, 2006-07-25 22:04. url: (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/…) Little Green Footballs

At last, the infrastructure of world terrorism is coming under serious attack, as the banks and charities that funnel money to genocidal groups like Hizballah are on Israel’s target list: Hezbollah banks under attack in Lebanon. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Like we did not already have enough primitives foaming at the mouth about how RIGHT their chosen religion is. geezz, Flava.

While I think all these ‘swear’ words, most of which have to do with such discomfort for many uncomfortable with sexuality and the associated mechanical parts, are merely Standard American English, I feel people should be able to watch the public airways and not hear it if they wish to raise their children with falsehoods about the world around them, after all, that is their right. So let’s dub with “good Golly, miss Molly, a plane just hit the tower, dangitt” since we know that is how people REALLY talk.

Mara - I am a rabbit ear, well, technically a fancy 2-band(vhf and uhf) mounted on a telephone pole outside, so those people DO still exist that only get what comes over the public airwaves. Of course I would not be writing the FCC about content and bad words. And many sitcoms especially nowadays are filled with sexualy innuendo.

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Hezbollah Finances: Funding the Party of God By Matthew Levitt Chapter from Terrorism Financing and State Responses in Comparative Perspective, February 2005

Matthew Levitt contributed this paper to the project “Terrorism Financing and State Responses in Comparative Perspective,” sponsored by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. This paper and others will be published in a forthcoming volume edited by Jeanne Giraldo and Harold Trinkunas.

Introduction

It is a painful reality that no counterterrorism technique or effort, however extensive, international, or comprehensive, will put an end to terror attacks or uproot terrorism. There will always be people and groups with entrenched causes, an overwhelming sense of frustration, a self-justifying worldview, and a healthy dose of evil, who will resort to violence as a means of expression.

The goal of counterterrorism, therefore, should be to constrict the environment so that it is increasingly difficult for terrorists to carry out their plots of destruction and death—making it harder for terrorists to operate at every level, such as conducting operations, procuring and transferring false documents, ferrying fugitives from one place to another, and financing, laundering, and transferring funds. This includes cracking down not only on operational cells, but on their logistical and financial support networks as well. In fact, one can so constrict a terrorist group’s operating environment that it will eventually suffocate.

September 11 drove home the central role logistical and financial support networks play in international terrorist operations. Clearly, individuals who provide such support must be recognized as terrorists of the same caliber as those who use that support to execute attacks.

Since September 2001, America—together with many of its allies—has spearheaded a groundbreaking and comprehensive disruption operation to stem the flow of funds to and among terrorist groups. Combined with the unprecedented law enforcement and intelligence efforts to apprehend terrorist operatives worldwide and thereby constrict the space in which terrorists can operate, cracking down on terrorist financing denies them the means to travel, communicate, procure equipment, and conduct attacks. Though the amount of money frozen internationally remains negligible, the impact of freezing terrorists’ assets can be significant if the right accounts, companies, or front organizations are shut down. Denying terrorists access to their preferred means of raising, laundering, and transferring funds complicates their efforts to conduct their activities.

However, al-Qaeda is not the only international terrorist network that poses a serious threat. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage identified Hezbollah as “the A team of terrorism,” and warned “their time will come, there’s no question about it.” (2) Semantics aside, such statements are more than just tough talk. Highlights of Hezbollah’s record of terror attacks include suicide truck bombings targeting US and French forces in Beirut (in 1983 and 1984) and U.S. forces again in Saudi Arabia (in 1996), its record of suicide bombing attacks targeting Jewish and Israeli interests such as those in Argentina (1992 and 1994) and in Thailand (attempted in 1994), and a host of other plots targeting American, French, German, British, Kuwaiti, Bahraini and other interests in plots from Europe to Southeast Asia to the Middle East. (3) As discussed in greater detail below, Hezbollah cross-border operations have spiked since the Israeli withdrawal to the “Blue Line” in May 2000, as has its proactive support for Palestinian terrorist groups targeting Israel.

According to U.S. authorities, concern over the threat posed by Hezbollah is well placed. FBI officials testified in February 2002 that “FBI investigations to date continue to indicate that many Hezbollah subjects based in the United States have the capability to attempt terrorist attacks here should this be a desired objective of the group.” (4) Similarly, CIA Director George Tenet testified in February 2003 that “Hezbollah, as an organization with capability and worldwide presence, is [al-Qaeda’s] equal, if not a far more capable organization.” (5)

Still, some maintain that Hezbollah is merely a “resistance” organization responding to Israeli occupation of disputed land. The distinction is, appropriately, lost on most Western experts, given that the “resistance” groups in question employ acts of terrorism such as suicide bombings to achieve their goals and that many of the operatives go back and forth between serving in guerilla units fighting in South Lebanon and international terror cells plotting bombings abroad. (6) In any event, no goal, however legitimate, legitimizes the use of terrorist tactics and the killing of innocent civilians.

US intelligence officials have also expressed concern over possible links between Hezbollah and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, highlighting the ad hoc tactical relationship brewing between Iran’s shi’a proxy and the loosely affiliated al-Qaeda network. In September 2003, when US authorities designated Zarqawi and several of his associates as ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorist’ entities, the Treasury said that Zarqawi not only had “ties” to Hizbullah, but that plans were in place for his deputies to meet with both Hizbullah and Asbat al-Ansar (a Lebanese Sunni terrorist group), “and any other group that would enable them to smuggle mujaheddin [sic] into Palestine.” (7) The Treasury claimed that Zarqawi received “more than $35,000” in mid 2001 “for work in Palestine,” which included “finding a mechanism that would enable more suicide martyrs to enter Israel” as well as “to provide training on explosives, poisons, and remote controlled devices. (8)

Similarly, while the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah had advance knowledge of the September 11 plot, the commission’s report does note that Iran and Hezbollah provided assistance to al-Qaeda on several occasions. For example, al-Qaeda operatives were allowed to travel through Iran with great ease. Entry stamps were not put in Saudi operatives’ passports at the border, though at least eight of the September 11 hijackers transited the country between October 2000 and February 2001. The report also noted a “persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures” and drew attention to an informal agreement by which Iran would support al-Qaeda training with the understanding that such training would be used “for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.” Indeed, al-Qaeda operatives were trained in explosives, security, and intelligence on at least two occasions, with one group trained in Iran around 1992, and a second trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Beka’a Valley in the fall of 1993. (9)

In the final analysis, whether suspected ties between Hezbollah and global jihadist elements such as Zarqawi and the 9/11 plotters are proved or not, Hezbollah warrants being designated a terrorist group of global reach on the merits of its own activities. The means by which the group finances its vast and varied activities is therefore of paramount concern to U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Chilao - do you think that a majority, or even a large minority, of people get their television using your method? (btw, isn’t putting stuff on utility poles a violation of their easement!? :^D) All I can go by is my own experience and I’ve found that on one of our sets we can get a “public” signal, albeit a fuzzy and scratchy signal, with the “rabbit ears” type of receiver, but on our other “cable ready” television we can’t get anything.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Flavor Flav

another psuedonym from our off-putting troll?

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Charities and Front Organizations

Hezbollah uses charities and front organizations to conceal their fundraising activities. Take, for example, the al-Aqsa International Foundation, a terrorist front organization banned by the United States, Germany and Great Britain (though not the European Union). While al-Aqsa primarily served as a Hamas front organization, Sheikh Moayad, the head of the the al-Aqsa office in Yemen, was arrested in Germany and extradited to the United States for providing financial support to al-Qaeda. Moayad proudly told an undercover FBI informant that he not only funded Hamas but also raised millions of dollars, recruited operatives, and provided weapons to al-Qaeda. According to one report, one of the foundation’s offices in Europe also raised funds for Hezbollah. (61)

The “Martyr’s Organization” (Bonyad-e Shahid), headed by Mohammad Hasan Rahimiyan, admittedly supplies charitable funds for the family of suicide bombers. In 2001, Paraguayan police searched the home of Hezbollah operative Sobhi Mahmoud Fayad in Ciudad Del Este, a town along the Tri-Border area where the borders of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay meet. Searching Fayad’s home, police found receipts from the Martyr’s Organization for donations Fayad sent totaling more than $3.5 million dollars. (62) Authories believe Fayad sent over $50 million to Hezbollah since 1995. According to press reports, Iran has traditionally funded Palestinian dissident groups in the Lebanese refugee camps, including al Maqdah, through the Institute of the Palestinian Martyrs. (63)

Another example is the Al-Mabarrat Charity Association headed by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. Formerly the spiritual leader for Hezbollah, Fadlallah maintains intimate ties with the organization and remains on the U.S. Treasury’s list of Specially Designated Terrorists. In 2003, Lebanese Finance Minister Fuad Siniora was barred from entering the United States because of a donation he made to the Al-Mabarrat Charity Association in 2000.

In some cases, the foreign remittances discussed above are funneled to Hezbollah though the group’s charities. Members of the Hezbollah cell in Charlotte, North Carolina, received receipts from Hezbollah for their donations, including receipts from the office of then-Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammad Fadlallah. (64) One receipt, signed by Ali Abu Al Shaer, the financial manager of “the office of his Excellency Ayat Allah Mr. Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah,” thanked “brother Mohammed Hammoud,” the subsequently convicted leader of the Charlotte cell, for a $1,300 donation. (65)

According to a declassified research report based on Israeli intelligence Hezbollah also receives funds from charities that are not directly tied to Hezbollah but are radical Islamist organizations and donate to Hezbollah out of ideological affinity. “Besides operating a worldwide network of fundraisers, funds are also raised through so-called ‘charity funds.’ Some of these are extremist Islamic institutions that, while not directly connected to Hezbollah, support it, albeit marginally, in view of their radical Islamic orientation.” (66) The report cites many such charities worldwide, including four in the Detroit area alone: The Islamic Resistance Support Association, the al-Shaid Fund, the Educational Development Association (EDA) and the Goodwill Charitable Organization (GCO). Also cited are the the al-Shahid Organization in Canada, the Karballah Foundation for Liberation in South Africa, the Lebanese Islamic Association and al-Shahid Social Relief Institution in Germany, and the Lebanese Welfare Committee, The Help Foundation and The Jam’iyat al-Abrar (Association of the Righteous) in Britain.

While some of these funds undoubtedly paid for Hezbollah’s military and terrorist operations, other funds enable the group to provide its members with day jobs, to drape itself in a veil of legitimacy, and to build grassroots support among not only Shia but Sunni and Christian Lebanese as well. For example, Hezbollah runs the al-Janoub hospital in the southern Lebanese city of Nabatiyah—one out of a network of some fifty hospitals the group runs throughout the country. The hospital receives $100,000 a month from Hezbollah and is run by Ahmad Saad, the hospital director who is also a member of Hezbollah’s “national health committee.” (67)

In light of its support from Iran, Hezbollah needs not rely on charities to raise funds as much as other groups like al Qaeda or Hamas. Nonetheless, as Assistant Secretary of State E. Anthony Wayne testified before Congress in September 2003, donating money to charities affiliated with terrorist groups like Hamas or Hezbollah frees up existing monies to support the group’s terrorist activities. “If you are funding the organization, even if there are many charitable activities going on, there is some fungibility between funds. You are strengthening the organization.” (68) Moreover, such funds are objectionable in their own right when they build grassroots support for terrorist organizations and subsidize the families of suicide bombers.

According to US intelligence officials, “Hizbullah maintains several front companies in sub-Saharan Africa”. (69) Little information is available on these purported fronts, though they are widely assumed to include import-export companies (an established terrorist modus operandi). These officials say that many Hizbullah activists in the tri-border region relocated to Africa and other locations as a result of the increased attention drawn to Hizbullah activity after the group’s role in the 1992 and 1994 truck bombings in Argentina. In an effort “not to have all their eggs in one basket”, one analyst adds, some Hizbullah operatives have “moved on” from locations in South America and Europe and set up shop in Africa, Asia and less conspicuous parts of South America. (70)

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Flava- can you get a cut/paste about all the terroristic activities people like Menachem Begin, for example, engaged in against the British, say upper 1940s, before Israel became a nation? Kinda do a Fox Fair and Balanced thing.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

No, Mara, this is a cutter and paster troll, not to be confused with our usual self-indulgent, super macho intelligent troll.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Mara - it is a personal pole, just happens to be a telephone pole, prior-owner worked for the power company and had access to alot of their wooden/lumber stuff, including bracing for fence-poles.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Oh, f——-k! DOG do0-doo is back using a different name with each long-winded cut and paste post! Anybody read any of the crazy wild-eyed christian stuff about how Islam has to be destroyed? Maybe I’ll post some of that tripe.

By Archie

September 18, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

I say yes to the topic question because rules are rules and we make too many exceptions in this society and I don’t think it’s necessary to hear profanity to really understand what went on during 9/11, but I also don’t agree with Shanti’s idea of censorship. Diane is right to suggest that there are sitcoms that are offensive but profanity is not some great food that a person needs to experience so if you don’t get any profanity for certain hours a person won’t be lacking culturally,etc.

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Executive Director Robert Satloff

In August 1985, I was fortunate to join what was then a small, hardy band of Middle East experts who were motivated by the idea that scholarship could have an impact on the making of U.S. policy in the region. Over the years, one of my greatest sources of satisfaction has come from seeing how often the wisdom of that simple idea has been proven correct.

Our nation faces an extraordinary moment of challenge “Our nation faces an extraordinary moment of challenge in the Middle East.” in the Middle East. We are at war on multiple fronts, looking toward adversaries who confront us and our allies in many ways and in many places. For that reason, the Institute is currently expanding its core agenda to address this new series of threats.

One of the most menacing of these threats is ideological—a competition for the hearts, minds, and hopes of Muslims around the world. While this is, at its core, a struggle among Muslims, the United States cannot be a disinterested observer. The universal ideas of freedom, democracy, peace, and security that America has embraced and defended are under threat from the creeping totalitarianism of Islamist radicalism. For an Institute founded on respect for the power of ideas, this is a momentous struggle, and you will see a growing percentage of our research and programming directed toward that effort.

The launch of this website reflects another powerful idea.

Until now, access to the Institute’s “product”—the prodigious research of its scholars, the exchange of expert views in our Policy “Accessing this website should be part of your daily routine.” Forum seminars, and other exceptional programming—has been restricted to a tightly held circle of “consumers”: the several hundred government officials, analysts, journalists, diplomats, scholars, and experts who comprise the Middle East foreign policy elite. The motivating factor was exclusivity.

This website represents the most visible example of a new approach: inclusivity.

Middle East issues are now the central focus of American foreign policy and the pivot of international affairs. As such, discussion about U.S. Middle East policy is no longer the province of a small elite, but rather the stuff of front-page news and regular debate on the op-ed pages, radio waves, and talk shows of the national and global media. The goal of this website is to enrich this growing debate by welcoming informed citizens throughout the country—indeed, throughout the world—to access our “product” in much the same way that high-level Washington-based officials, prominent journalists, and senior diplomats have been able to for years.

Whether your hometown newspaper is the New York Times, St. Petersburg Times, Jordan Times, or London Times, accessing this website should be part of your daily routine. I promise that you will gain a deeper understanding of Middle East politics and U.S. policy. And you—along with the cause of a secure peace in the Middle East—will be better off for it.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036 Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2006 All rights reserved

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

n 1985, a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East founded The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Their mission was simple yet powerful: to inject the power of ideas and the discipline of scholarship into the making of U.S. Middle East policy. (In the spirit of policy relevance, they chose the term “Near East” rather than the more popular “Middle East” because they wanted the Institute’s name to reflect the U.S. State Department’s “The founders envisioned an institution that would reject romantic notions of what outside observers want the Middle East to be, and instead embrace what the region actually is.” own geographic designation). The founders understood that American interests in the region emanate from a handful of core ideas: security, peace, prosperity, democracy, and stability. But they also recognized that these interests can be best advanced through policies rooted in inquiry, debate, and research. Most of all, the founders envisioned an institution that would reject romantic notions of what outside observers want the Middle East to be, and instead embrace disinterested assessments of what the region actually is.

The Washington Institute accesses the policy process from many angles: the written word, the spoken word, and personal contact. The Institute’s senior research staff includes experts on a wide array of political, military, security, and economic issues that cover every corner of the Middle East. They speak the region’s languages, have lived and worked there, and often hail from the region itself. We are proud of the long list of Institute “We are proud of the long list of Institute alumni who have gone on to serve in virtually every arm of government that plays a role in Middle East policymaking.” “alumni” who have gone on to serve in virtually every arm of government that plays a role in Middle East policymaking—including the National Security Council, State Department, Pentagon, and intelligence community.

Every business day, Institute scholars and associates are quoted in major American or international media, appear on the op-ed pages of elite newspapers, or are interviewed on network television and radio news programs. Interpreting the complexities of the Middle East for both general and elite audiences is one of our most important functions.

And Institute publications—from policy briefs to full-length monographs—are widely recognized as “must-reading” for officials, diplomats, and journalists in Washington and around the world. They provide “instant analysis” of breaking events as well as thoughtful, long-range assessments of trends in the shaping of future policy.

Through “In the post–September 11 era, the Institute is dedicating new resources to assist the U.S. government in countering the destructive elixir of Islamist extremism, terrorism, and proliferation.” all of these avenues of access, the Institute seeks to inject dispassionate, research-driven analysis supported by fact and expertise—into the making of U.S. Middle East policy.

Originally, the organization’s research agenda focused on Arab-Israeli relations, political and security issues, and overall U.S. Middle East policy. In the 1990s, prompted by the fall of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War, and changes within the regional strategic make-up, the Institute’s research breadth grew, this time to include a special focus on Turkey and the rise of Islamic politics as the dominant leitmotif for understanding political trends across the “expanded” post-Soviet Middle East.

In the post–September 11 era, the Institute’s research agenda is once again undergoing an expansion. This growth is driven by the emergence of the Middle East as the central U.S. foreign policy concern, as well as by the daunting multiplicity of regional issues that today affect America’s most profound security interests. In addition to an ongoing focus on our traditional research areas, the Institute is dedicating new resources to assist the U.S. government in understanding and countering the destructive elixir of Islamist extremism, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—particularly nuclear weapons. Each one of these ingredients is dangerous; two combined are menacing; all three working in concert are potentially cataclysmic.

Our hope is to see the emergence of a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous Middle East. American leadership—animated by the power of ideas and the talents of those dedicated individuals who can transform them into sound, workable policies—will bring us closer to that reality.

pdf Director’s Message Our Mission Our History Our Programs Our People Board of Advisors Experts in the Media Fellowships & Internships Contact Us Support Us

Site Design and Development by Matthew Schwartz Design Studio
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036 Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2006 All rights reserved

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Experts by Subject

Arab and Islamic Politics Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Mehdi Khalaji Visiting Fellow

Martin Kramer Wexler-Fromer Fellow

Hala Mustafa Keston Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Seth Wikas Visiting Fellow

Arab-Israeli Relations Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Energy and Economics Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Simon Henderson Baker Fellow

Military and Security Michael Bauer National Defense Fellow

Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Michael Eisenstadt Director, Military & Security Studies Program

Andrew Exum Soref Fellow

Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

Michael Knights Associate

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Peace Process Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Proliferation Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Michael Eisenstadt Director, Military & Security Studies Program

Raymond Tanter Adjunct Scholar

Terrorism Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

Emily Hunt Soref Fellow

U.S. Policy Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Andrew Exum Soref Fellow

Martin Kramer Wexler-Fromer Fellow

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

Raymond Tanter Adjunct Scholar

Beyond the Middle East Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

Egypt David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Hala Mustafa Keston Fellow

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

Iran Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Mehdi Khalaji Visiting Fellow

Raymond Tanter Adjunct Scholar

Iraq Soner Cagaptay Director, Turkish Research Program

Michael Eisenstadt Director, Military & Security Studies Program

Michael Knights Associate

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Israel Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Jordan Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Lebanon Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Andrew Exum Soref Fellow

Robert Rabil Adjunct Scholar

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Seth Wikas Visiting Fellow

North Africa Robert Satloff Executive Director

Palestinians Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Persian Gulf States Simon Henderson Baker Fellow

Michael Knights Associate

Syria Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Robert Rabil Adjunct Scholar

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Seth Wikas Visiting Fellow

Syria & Lebanon Robert Rabil Adjunct Scholar

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Turkey Soner Cagaptay Director, Turkish Research Program

Mark Parris Counselor, Turkish Research Program

Site Design and Development by Matthew Schwartz Design Studio
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036 Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2006 All rights reserved

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Board of Advisors

“I congratulate The Washington Institute for the quality of its work, which I admire.” —Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

The Washington Institute’s Board of Advisors includes luminaries from the diplomatic and policymaking arena, the business world, and the media. This bipartisan group of statemen provides ongoing advice and counsel both collectively and individually to our staff and leadership.

Warren Christopher Secretary of State

Lawrence S. Eagleburger Secretary of State

Alexander Haig Secretary of State

Max M. Kampelman Senior Diplomat

Jeane Kirkpatrick U.S. ambassador to the UN

Samuel W. Lewis U.S. ambassador to Israel

Edward Luttwak Center for Strategic and International Studies

Michael Mandelbaum Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Robert McFarlane National Security Advisor

Martin Peretz Editor in Chief and chairman, New Republic

Richard Perle Assistant Secretary of Defense

James G. Roche Secretary of the Air Force

George P. Shultz Secretary of State

Paul Wolfowitz* Deputy Secretary of Defense

R. James Woolsey Director of Central Intelligence

Mortimer Zuckerman Publisher, U.S. News and World Report

• resigned upon entry to government service, 2001

By Hey you

September 18, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Does everybody recognized Flavor Flav as Dog? Notice how he keeps posting those log posts one right after the other? I guess it’s easy to say you’re leaving if you just change your name and come back. Oh well, maybe next week.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

so we’ll sanitize 9/11 so the kiddies won’t be shocked by cursing firefighters, cops, or terrified civilians. We’ll sanitize WWII (i.e. Saving Private Ryan) so that the kiddies won’t know that soldiers (gasp!) curse. What kind of whitewashed fantasy world do these people want their children to think we live in? Shall we go back to putting two beds in the sit-com bedroom of a married couple because having only one bed might make a child wonder about what goes on when mommy and daddy sleep together? It’s just silly to censor in the name of “protecting the children”. They hear it every day. They already *know that people curse. That’s the reality they hear on the street, the playground, the ballgame. It’s rediculous to think that they need to be “protected” from the “bad words” on television.

And no, we don’t need to hear the profanity to understand 9/11 but it does add a certain impact to the realism of the narrative.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Let’s censor everything. The government can control what we see and hear in the media. That is the best thing for society. Ignorance is bliss is it not?

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Anybody read any of the crazy wild-eyed christian stuff about how Islam has to be destroyed?

They’ve tried that before, (Christian Crusades), and all they got for it are more people who hate Christians.

*”I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mathatma Ghadi *

By chuck

September 18, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

The whole point Jack, is that if the FCC creates a set of rules, parents should be able to trust that so they don’t have to explain to their 6 year-old’s teacher why he all of a sudden started using the F word in class.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Now ain’t that the truth? “Your christians are so unlike your christ.”

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Maybe my last post got censored because of bad language. Sometimes it’s so appropriate. Like when some bozo high-jacks the blog and fills up space with a list of double spaced names that noone cares about. What a egomaniacal a$$.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

can anyone tell me which channels are considered “public airwaves” and which are “cable”? I’m guessing that in the Metro area Channels 2, 5 , and 11 along with the PBS stations….

By Jack

September 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

I know the point Chuck. Parents should trust no one when it comes to what they should or shouldn’t see. If they are over-sanitized, they have no idea of what the real thing may be. 9/11 and war are both things that should be shown as it happens. If Mommy & Daddy don’t want Junior to see it, they shouldn’t let Junior see it. Why leave it to the govt? You homeschool your children. Do you also control what they watch on TV or do you let govt censor for you?

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Public airwaves would be NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, FOX, WB. some uhf stuff, like 50-series stations as well.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Mara. I would guess those that you can get without cable or dish.

By Scalia

September 18, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

And if it is left up to the government to censor, that leaves a lot of power in somebody’s hands. That can easily get carried away. Besides, where is the checks and balances? Are we supposed to check the government on what they censor?

By Jack

September 18, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Bla should be a Daddy by now.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

I finally saw “Brokeback Mountain” yesterday. What a sad movie. I didn’t know it was going to be so sad. How sad for the men who loved each other but could not be true and honest in that love. How sad for the women who married/loved the men who couldn’t love them. That’s the way it was in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s. Chuck and many others would love to see it that way again. So I guess that’s one reason I can’t care too much about obscenities (definition, please?) on primetime 9/11 coverage.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

The whole point Jack, is that if the FCC creates a set of rules, parents should be able to trust that so they don’t have to explain to their 6 year-old’s teacher why he all of a sudden started using the F word in class.

Wait…I thought that true conservatives didn’t believe in government control? I thought they were all about personal responsibility and the minimization of government? That’s what I keep hearing…

So…why is government control OK when it comes to validating their own personal prejudices and hangups? Shouldn’t lack of government control mean…lack of government control?

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

So I guess that’s one reason I can’t care too much about obscenities (definition, please?)

Obscenity - Can’t be defined but you know it when you see it.

Profanity - Words or phrases with blasphemous religious overtones (root word Profane)or taboo religious overtones. May have meaning within the framework of the particular religion that is being profaned.

Vulgarity - Words that society deems crude. They have no inherent meaning other than that assigned to them by society. Obsessing over them is silly.

By chuck

September 18, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

I control what they watch, Jack, but if you are flipping channels and you are looking for something to watch, you can’t control the F bomb coming out of the tv in that moment that you light on that channel. That’s why the FCC rules are in place. There is no substitute for Parental censorship, but the so-called family time from 7-10 is not supposed to have that kind of language in it. These networks should just follow the rules alread in place.

I used to get really mad when Fox first got NFL football. I could not watch it with my kids in the room, because of the COMMERCIALS promoting the trash they showed in prime time. There ought to be some relief from that kind of stuff.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

obscenities (definition, please?

I thought I got that; if it has to do with the area between the navel and the knees….or any of the things that might happen in that area…..natural or otherwise and is non-clinical terminology, then it is obscenities.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

obviously, “obscenities” are different things for different ppl.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

lozen - the movie is really sad, especially the ending. I watched it when I was already feeling sad (we rented a movie to cheer me up) and needless to say I was worse LOL.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

I finally saw “Brokeback Mountain” yesterday. What a sad movie.

OK I know I’m getting off the subject but…..

I saw it a couple of months ago too. What I didn’t understand about the movie was why didn’t the female character who played Heath Ledger’s wife leave him when she saw him kissing another man? She HAD to have known then that her husband was gay!!! Why did she stay for years afterward?!? Then the part towards the end when she said “I put a note in your tackle box asking you to please bring back some fish for me and the kids and you never did”, should’ve had her alarms ringing off by then!!!

And then, why did she wait years later after they were divorced and she had remarried to confront him on it? That part made no sense to me at all.

Yes it was really a sad movie, but the saddest part to me is that the main characters remained TRAPPED in this cycle of denial that they refused to escape from.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

control what they watch, Jack, but if you are flipping channels and you are looking for something to watch, you can’t control the F bomb coming out of the tv in that moment that you light on that channel

It’s funny - I have every channel available through my cable service, and the only times I ever, ever, ever hear the F-Bomb (and I watch Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, etc) are on pay-only movie channels.

Sounds like someone is manufacturing a problem that doesn’t actually exist in order to hide his real agenda. Comments like “I used to get really mad when Fox first got NFL football. I could not watch it with my kids in the room, because of the COMMERCIALS promoting the trash they showed in prime time. There ought to be some relief from that kind of stuff.” suggest that someone is really more interested in controlling all content for all viewers rather than just limiting what language is deemed acceptable.

I’m guessing that “the trash” in question would be beer ads, scanitly clad women, and suggestive advertising…I mean, who would have thunk that FOOTBALL would have beer ads and half naked women…

By Jack

September 18, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Chuck. if your children have friends, they will hear the “F” word and it’s definition before you want them to. I will agree that prime time TV is trash but that is what the people want, violence, death, and sex. sex being the worst. Funny how it is ok to watch a brutal murder but not 2 people making love. Ok children, murder is ok. Sex is not.

By chuck

September 18, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

con·ser·va·tism (kən-sûr’və-tĭz’əm) n. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

DuckTroll(and we know..LOL), the ads are probably for all those ‘terrible’ FOX shows.

cannot think of any off the top of my head, since any SOME people would get upset about would, to me, just be ‘real TV’ and I am not talking about RealityShows.

By Lyrazel

September 18, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Renee, good point.

My initial dismay is totally about how we will be getting 9/11 shows from now on IF we watch this mega-show. Its the mud holding a dam together and once it starts being televised we will see shows all taking place at 9/11. There lies the exploitation factor that TV is famous for and it does NOT know when to stop…almost as bad as the Twin Tower keychain and memorial plate…or say…now that they all have flubbed careers lets have a reunion episode of Friends where the gang are trapped on the roof…and they all jump together…or maybe Chandler joins the mile high club on Flight 93….

As far as language the FCC is under law to curb violence, language and ads geared at children. It tells cable channels nothing because cable is an optional service. It HAS to direct programs to change its content during certain hours children could be watching. Its the law. Breaking the law is not an option for the networks nor stations that could loose their license if they broadcast without warnings, so there will be language, nudity and adult situations.

I have 8 channels with rabbit ears. Its free which sums up my TV viewing…minimal. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS are public channels…

By Mara

September 18, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Chilao - from the neck to knee, not from the navel. I don’t know about you but just I can’t get past the absolute horror I feet every time I replay that 30-second glimpse of Janet’s nipple-cover on my TiVo…LOL!!

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Mara - I really must ask, exactly WHY do you replay it so much? (way too good to pass up..LMAO, that’s a touché)

By Jack

September 18, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

They should have fined janet instead of CBS.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

I have only seen that once(and not live), was it all of 30 seconds?

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

emphasizing respect for traditional institutions

I’m not sure what this has to do with language on television…to which “traditional institution” are you referring that relates to cable television?

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Mara, I just figured out why you would see it over and over. Perhaps you are on your community standards board and you have to remind yourself “Now this is obscenity, this is obscenity” so you will know it when you see it. Good job.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

There is a very interesting steel sculpture in a center-traffic island on one corner of the Federal Mint, downtown Philadelphia. Someone asked me what it was as we drove by, I replied “Must be Aht”.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

By the way, if we’re going to accept the dictionary definition of “conservative” going forward, surely we must agree to accept this definition of liberal:

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

By Zack

September 18, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

In response to a comment by Brian Curtis last week, Brian, it doesn’t matter whether you <—— agree <—— that abortion is murder. That isn’t the point. Abortion is murder. That statement isn’t up for discussion. It IS proven from an objective standpoint, and your radical, subjective opinion is irrelevant. The morning-after pill IS a form of abortion because it interferes with the process of life.

The raw obscenities being heard are offensive. However, I’m more offended by the crudeness of Hollywood and even your typical commercial. I’m not saying the former is okay. I’d rather hear the former than some punk like Jim Carrey cussing flippantly and unapologetically, which is one reason why I have no desire to watch any of his movies.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Jack, honey, you’re on a roll today! Yes, isn’t it amazing how it’s okay for kids to watch people blow other peoples’ brains out over and over and over again, but Janet’s boob getting exposed for one fast second is so terrible, so awful! And something has to be done to save our children! My friend has always let her son watch any movie and any tv show he wanted to see. She watches with him, they talk about it, and she gets her point across! I highly recommend that to other parents who are concerned about what their children may hear, see, watch.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

I’d rather hear the former than some punk like Jim Carrey cussing flippantly and unapologetically, which is one reason why I have no desire to watch any of his movies

So…you haven’t actually seen any of his movies, yet you feel qualified to judge the content of them?

By the way, I think you might be confusing the meaning of the words “objective” and “subjective”.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

and Zack rears his ugly head!

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Zack, in response to your comment of today, it doesn’t matter if you think abortion is murder. Abortion is NOT murder. That statement IS NOT up for discussion. A fetus is not a person, can’t exist on its own, isn’t counted in a census. Your radical subjective opinion is irrelevant. Get back to us when you grow a uterus and get pregnant.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Susie - don’t forget that the movie takes place in Wyoming in the early ‘60’s. Though Wyoming is called the “Equality State” for it’s traditionally liberal views on womens rights, they still were a god-fearin’ rural country. Homosexuality wasn’t even talked about. It was, at that time, still considered a mental illness. So she’d have “shamed” herself, her children, and her “husband” were she to apply for divorce in pre-No Fault Divorce America. Also, divorce was stigmatized and the female was generally considered “used” goods and a bad influence. It was thought better to stay married to a bad man than to not have a man at all. And don’t forget about the chil’dens. Does that old conservative whine about “Children need a mother AND a father…” ring a bell?

That was also before the laws prohibiting employment descrimination. It wasn’t til the ’70s that women began entering the workforce in any number, and those were in “traditionally” women’s jobs, perhaps not too plentiful in rural Wyoming.

As I said, I’m not speaking for the writer but all things being equal, perhaps she didn’t think divorce was an option…

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Yep, Zack slipped away from the guys in the white coats again today!

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Lozen: I’m glad I wasn’t an adult back then!! Everyone talks about the “good ole days” but what the heck was so good about them? I shiver everytime I see the civil rights marchers in the 60s getting set upon by dogs, cops and water hoses. When I read Sandra Day O’Connor’s bio about how she was the top graduate in her class at law school but couldn’t get a job as a lawyer, only as a legal secretary, when she first started out; I’m stumped!!! What was so dang special about that time that a lot of people wish to go back to it? Are they nuts?!?

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry — I meant to say Mara!! I must have Lozen on my mind……. (smile)

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Susie - the good ole days weren’t exactly that good, in fact if you were to go back there, everybody would be talking about some other even further way-back good ole days, which would mean those days not so good after all.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Susie. When you get older, you yern for ‘the good ole days”. Your “good ole days” may not be the same as others but still good to you.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

To Mara (again off the subject): I have a good friend of mine who is trapped in that “Cycle Of Denial” — and has been for years. He married a WOMAN five years ago, even though he KNOWS he’s gay and have known it for some time — but being gay and black in america was too much for him so he decided to deny who he is in order to fit in.

After all these years he STILL won’t admit out loud to me, (the woman who has seen him tonguing other men, in bed with other men, and hitting on other men), that he’s gay. He says he’s “open”. What the FUZZ?!? He’s married, has a wife and three kids and has been living this double life for years now. He’s very masculine, (and very proud of it because he can easily “pass” for straight), and he attracts as many women as he does men; but he is major unhappy and he doesn’t understand WHY he’s unhappy.

And no, I would NEVER tell his wife, (for a myriad of reasons one being that she thinks I want her husband and she’s very jealous of me and A* relationship. 2) she probably wouldn’t believe it even if Jesus came down off the cross and told her himself), but I feel like an accomplice to a gigantic lie.

Everybody is a looser in situations like this. You have people screaming rabid anti-gay hatred rhetoric, then you have people caught in the middle who have friends and family who are gay, then you have the other side screaming about the joy of being gay. I believe it’s only a joy, when you can come out and be who you are and stop hiding.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

It’s quite elementary, my Dear Watson: Once again the Loony Left and the (Self)-Righteous Right are foolishly wishing to return to the blissful ignorance of the Garden of Eden in their same predictable ways as shown in today’s discussion of the rightful use of obscenity.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Susie: It’s isn’t hard for me to understand the characters in the movie. I was a young adult in the 60’s and 70’s and I remember what it was like. What I didn’t understand about the movie was why didn’t the female character who played Heath Ledger’s wife leave him when she saw him kissing another man? She lived in denial? She couldn’t believe what she saw? There were no books or movies or tv shows back then about gay people. She loved him? She was working in a grocery store in a small town and didn’t want to try to raise the kids totally on her own? People in small towns didn’t get divorced back then because it was a disgrace? She was afraid to be alone? She wanted the kids to have a father? It was perfectly understandable to me why she stayed and why she couldn’t even face the facts until years later. the saddest part to me is that the main characters remained TRAPPED in this cycle of denial that they refused to escape from I think you’re putting the entire blame for these tragic lives 100 percent on the individuals involved and forgetting (or maybe you weren’t around back then) the political climate of the 60’s and 70’s. Ennis’ father made sure his sons got the message about what happened to “those men”! Can you imagine seeing that at that age and being told this is justified? It’s okay to drag a “queer” until you rip his penis off and leave him dead in a ditch? Ennis’ fear was perfectly understandable to me. (That was the first thing that we