| June 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Who Knew Pennsylvania Was One Of The States That Was Hippest To The Blogosphere?
Pennsylvania Tourism Sends Bloggers Afield
As part of a campaign to boost spring and summer tourism, Pennsylvania has asked a group of people to daytrip around the commonwealth and blog their travels.
The “Real People. Real Road Trips” effort from the Pennsylvania Tourism Office launched yesterday at VisitPA.com and is linked from Pennsylvania’s official site. It will be supported by a print, regional cable and online media campaign. Creative and media strategy are courtesy of Pittsburg-based Ripple Effects Interactive.
Pennsylvania’s tourism bloggers include a history buff, two female friends on a cultural tour, a Harley enthusiast, an urban “hipster” couple immersed in rural activities, a family in search of theme parks, and an outdoor sportsman. Each of these will take three trips each, and document their experiences via writing and video.
How dare the FEC consider telling bloggers—or mainstream media for that matter—what they can and can’t say?
The issue is, whether the FEC is to regulate the freedom of speech of a blogger who runs a political ad. From the Washington Times:
...the focus of the NPRM is to extend the definition of “public communications” to include paid advertisements placed on third parties’ Web sites. While appearing minor, this in fact carries some fairly onerous demands. As the Center for Democracy and Technology notes, assuming that NPRM is approved in its entirety, an individual planning to express his views on the Web would have to consult Chapter 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations to determine if his speech would be treated as a “public communication”; if his speech qualifies as “express advocacy”; if he qualifies under the news-media exemption; if his Internet activities count as contributions subject to limits; if his Internet activities count as expenditures for reporting purposes; if his use of an employer’s computer to access the Internet is permissible; if his bulk e-mail requires a specific type of disclaimer; and whether his plan to collaborate with someone else on the Internet qualifies as a “political committee” subject to registration and reporting requirements.
This is another way of saying, “If you want to talk about politics, we will damage you financially.”
You might as well tell the NY Times that if it runs ads for Ford it can’t print articles about cars.
...there’s a chance that the days of unbridled political discourse on the Internet are nearing their end.
The actions currently being considered by the FEC would be an unacceptable attack on freedom of speech in this country. In order to uphold our freedom of speech, the FEC must not pursue such a course.
A NEW ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN FOUNDED, of Jewish people who seek to defend Christians when they are attacked.
From Bob Woodward:
This was the moment when a source or friend in the investigative agencies of government is invaluable. I called Felt at the FBI, reaching him through his secretary. It would be our first talk about Watergate. He reminded me how he disliked phone calls at the office but said the Watergate burglary case was going to “heat up” for reasons he could not explain. He then hung up abruptly.
I was tentatively assigned to write the next day’s Watergate bugging story, but I was not sure I had anything. Carl had the day off. I picked up the phone and dialed 456-1414—the White House—and asked for Howard Hunt. There was no answer, but the operator helpfully said he might be in the office of Charles W. Colson, Nixon’s special counsel. Colson’s secretary said Hunt was not there this moment but might be at a public relations firm where he worked as a writer. I called and reached Hunt and asked why his name was in the address book of two of the Watergate burglars.
“Good God!” Hunt shouted before slamming down the phone. I called the president of the public relations firm, Robert F. Bennett, who is now a Republican U.S. senator from Utah. “I guess it’s no secret that Howard was with the CIA,” Bennett said blandly.
It had been a secret to me, and a CIA spokesman confirmed that Hunt had been with the agency from 1949 to 1970. I called Felt again at the FBI. Colson, White House, CIA, I said. What did I have? Anyone could have someone’s name in an address book. I wanted to be careful about guilt by association.
Felt sounded nervous. He said off the record—meaning I could not use the information—that Hunt was a prime suspect in the burglary at the Watergate for many reasons beyond the address books. So reporting the connections forcefully would not be unfair.
...I did not know then that in Felt’s earliest days in the FBI, during World War II, he had been assigned to work on the general desk of the Espionage Section. Felt learned a great deal about German spying in the job, and after the war he spent time keeping suspected Soviet agents under surveillance.
It’s a fascinating read.
Those watching the evolution of The Huffington Post might find this new wrinkle interesting. Here’s what’s on the top of their front page at the moment:
Clicking the link brings up some video footage from an unnamed date and location, of Bolton saying that America should do what’s in the best interest of America, and criticizing the U.N.—positions with which many of his supporters agree. However, the editors of this spot consider this to be an anti-Bolton ad, as shown by the concluding frame of this footage:
This is notable for a number of reasons:
By linking to such an ad from their news section, and failing to label it as such, the HP appears to be announcing that their news section will in some cases be untrustworthy.
Via Memri, come two surprising clips from Al-Jazeera TV.
This first one reveals a Syrian cleric who speaks out against the use of war in the service of Islam:
Clip #683: Syrian Cleric Jawdat Said against Jihad
Said: We should wage an ideological Jihad in order to change what’s in one’s soul. This cannot be done by force.
Host: But this ideological Jihad is not enough…
Said: It is enough.
Host: But we are talking about Jihad against the oppressor.
Said: Please, let’s make one thing clear: War is now dead, and its role is over. The only ones who still wage wars are the ignorant or those who take advantage of their ignorance.
In this second clip, Said Abu Ghannam of the Syrian opposition speaks out against the police state:
Clip 688: Said Abu Ghannam of the Syrian Opposition Slams Ba’thist Ahmad Al-Hajj Ali over Assad Rule
Abu Ghannam: : How much longer will we be controlled by the secret police? What kind of country is this, where you need a security permit to open up a hair salon or a falafel stand? I don’t know. I don’t know what this is. This has become a country in which Bashar Assad can give parts of it to his uncle and cousin…
Can anyone doubt that this astonishing movement in favor of freedom in Syria, would never have happened without GWB’s removal of Saddam Hussein from power?
A mini-blogstorm is developing over this one.
We’ve all heard allegations of abuse of prisoners at Quantanamo. The Washington Times has found that making false allegations of such abuse is part of al Qaeda training:
An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
...In a raid on an al Qaeda cell in Manchester, British authorities seized al Qaeda’s most extensive manual for how to wage war.
A directive lists one mission as “spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.”
If captured, the manual states, “At the beginning of the trial … the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.”
From In the Bullpen:
Perhaps the most interesting piece of information to come out of this is whether or not the world media will understand that they are in fact aiding and abetting the enemy by reproducing allegations of torture and not fully explaining they are in fact allegations and not the truth. While there have been some instances of abuse, they are few and far between, but that is not how the media has wanted to portray it.
From The Jawa Report:
This goes along way in explaining a lot of allegations. Especially from the likes of al Qaeda linked terror suspect Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who you will recall accused the US of torturing him.
From Say Anything:
Meanwhile, most in the media and on the anti-war left continue to swallow every unfounded accusation of abuse the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other places care to aim in their direction.
