Is al Qaeda seeking nukes, as a British official says:

“We know the aspiration is there. We know attempts to gather materials are there, we know that attempts to gather technology are there,” the senior Foreign Office official told reporters.

Or is the terrorist threat

??

I link. You decide.

John Ridley, who is black (you need to know that to get the gist of the story: sorry if anyone is offended), wrote a provocatively titled piece in Esquire, “ The Manifesto of Ascendancy for the Modern American Nigger,” extolling black high achievers.

I have no qualm about using the word nigger. It is a word. It is in the English lexicon, and no amount of political correctness, no amputation into “the n-word”—as if by the castration of a few letters we should then be able to conceptualize its meaning without feeling its sting—will remove it from reality.

So I say this: It’s time for ascended blacks to wish niggers good luck. Just as whites may be concerned with the good of all citizens but don’t travel their days worrying specifically about the well-being of hill billies from Appalachia, we need to send niggers on their way. We need to start extolling the most virtuous of ourselves. It is time to celebrate the New Black Americans�those who have sealed the Deal, who aren’t beholden to liberal indulgence any more than they are to the disdain of the hard Right. It is time to praise blacks who are merely undeniable in their individuality and exemplary in their levels of achievement.

The piece was linked on HuffPo, and the response of the commenters (many of whom were so offended by his use of the word “nigger” that they didn’t read his provocative piece) prompted Ridley to follow up:

s it possible that in 2006, generations after we as a people survived slavery, an abandoned reconstruction, Jim Crow and the tumult of the civil rights era some in our community would allow themselves to be cowed by six letters and two syllables?

Yes.

And this manifestation of timidity is formed at the nexus of a gross symbiotic relationship between the paternalistic left and the racist right.

The left wants to wield the righteous sword of politically correct censorship in a hamfisted attempt to protect what they perceive as the otherwise “weak” and “helpless” black man. They wish to neuter the word nigger so that it will not shatter blacks’ fragile nature. You do not see the word in print in mainstream media. And though entertainment companies make serious bank pimping “niggaz” to middle America, you do not hear the word associated with true discourse in the media.

Yet, how many media executives or newspaper publishers who made the decision to amputate nigger into “the N-word” are people of color themselves? Or is it merely “them” deciding what’s best for “us?”

Well, yes, I would say it is a case of “us” deciding for “you.” Check out what happened to Hitchens on Hardball recently when he was talking about wordplay and political speech:

Asked by Chris Matthews on his Hardball TV show why many liberals think that Republicans are dumb, I try to explain that it goes back to John Stuart Mill describing the Tories as ‘the stupid party’. I add that the Tories used ironically to borrow this description of themselves, as indeed they did the word ‘Tory’, which was originally an insult. Warming to my theme, I list the other slanders that have been reversed by their original targets - from ‘Impressionist’ to ’suffragette’.

I also mention a famous rude word for black people that begins with ‘N’ but has been annexed back by its victims. Suddenly, there is a break and the studio fills with grim-faced executives who tell me that I’m cut from the rest of the show. I say I want it in writing. From discussing a non-story to becoming a non-story of my own is a short step.

We need more provocative ideas like Ridley’s and fewer nannies deciding what we can and cannot discuss like adults seeking to understanding one another.

The other day, as a way of pre-empting the painful, embarrassing, and shameful accusations by bigoted and/or overheated critics that American Jews who have an interest in seeing Israel remain Jewish (not to mention secure and safe from existential threats) have dual loyalties—i.e., that they are traitors to America—I called for an open discussion of the role of the Israel lobby in U.S. foreign policy (and the role of all lobbies in American government policies).

Today the subject gets exposure in a wide-ranging and thorough going-over of the current relations between Israel and the U.S. in the New York Times, in a must-read piece by Steven Erlanger. (It’s too long to summarize, but it is rich and deep with information and subtext. Read it while the link is still active; I think you can get free access to the article for 7 days after publication.)

For those of you bird-dogging subtle shifts in the wind and the impact of the Walt and Mearsheimer paper, here are the relevant passages:

In September, Israel was abuzz over a speech by an American official that got little coverage in the American news media. Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Ms. Rice, had addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, considered sympathetic to Israel’s interests, on “Building Security in the Broader Middle East.”

Mr. Zelikow, in the last of 10 points, suggested that to build a coalition to deal with Iran, the United States needed to make progress on solving the Arab-Israeli dispute.

“For the Arab moderates and for the Europeans, some sense of progress and momentum on the Arab-Israeli dispute is just a sine qua non for their ability to cooperate actively with the United States on a lot of other things that we care about,” he said.

The message seemed perfectly clear to Israelis: the Bush administration would demand Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue to hold together an American-led coalition on Iran. American officials were quick to insist that there was no change in American policy, and that Mr. Zelikow was speaking on his own.

But Mr. Zelikow’s close ties to Ms. Rice are well known, and the furor over his comments was amplified because they appeared to some to echo criticisms published in March in The London Review of Books by two American scholars, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

They suggested that from the White House to Capitol Hill, Israel’s interests have been confused with America’s, that Israel is more of a security burden than an asset and that the “Israel lobby” in America, including Jewish policy makers, have an undue influence over American foreign policy. In late August, appearing in front of an Islamic group in Washington, Mr. Mearsheimer extended the argument to say that American support of the war in Lebanon had been another example of Israeli interests trumping American ones.

The essay argued that without the Israel lobby the United States would not have gone to war in Iraq and implied that the same forces could drag the United States into another military confrontation on Israel’s behalf, with Iran. It urged more American pressure to solve the Palestinian question as the best cure for regional instability.

Some Israelis worried that the implicit charge of dual loyalty would be underlined by the trial of two former officials of the prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, on charges of receiving classified information about Iran and other issues from a Defense Department official and passing it on to a journalist and an Israeli diplomat. The trial is scheduled to begin early next year.

Mr. Walt, in an interview, argued that the first President Bush had worked to restrain Israel, and that Mr. Clinton worked to attain diplomatic concessions to achieve a peace. But when this Bush administration took office, “they first had no use for the Mideast, then took a more balanced position, calling for a two-state solution, and then were completely won over by Israel’s argument that it is simply fighting terrorism.”

Former Israeli ambassadors to Washington like Mr. Rabinovich, Mr. Arens and Mr. Shoval all scoff at the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, which echoes criticisms of Jewish influence as far back as the presidency of Harry S. Truman.

But given the intensifying debate in Washington about Iran, Mr. Rabinovich said, the essay is “disturbing,” as are the echoes of part of the argument in Mr. Zelikow’s speech. Mr. Arens said that 9/11 created “an objective reality” of an antiterrorism coalition, led by President Bush, in which Israel is a crucial member. Mr. Bush is seen here as less interested in being an honest broker than in supporting Israel as a crucial strategic partner in the region.

The Iran confrontation, Mr. Arens said, will bolster that partnership. “The president said that he sees a clear and present danger with Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons and it’s obvious that this is a clear and present danger for the state of Israel,” he said. “Although a small country, we are not a minor party. When people talk about the possibility of a military option, what are they talking about? The U.S. or maybe Israel to take that move, not the U.S. or Germany or France.”

He acknowledged, however, “That inevitably will lead people who are critical of the position of the president to be critical of Israel, because we are seen as a partner in this campaign, and it is not a very big step to say that Israel is leading the U.S., or misleading the U.S., by the nose in this thing.”

The piece is a two-parter. Tomorrow’s article promises to include the role of evangelical Christians in the “special relationship” (JFK’s term).

I’ll have more to say after I’ve read both.

According to the Sun, Sacha Baron Cohen got beaten up here in New York the other day for pulling a Borat prank on an unsuspecting passerby:

[Cohen]approached the man and said: “I like your clothings. Are nice! Please may I buying? I want have sex with it.”

But the bystander didn’t see the joke. He took one look at Cohen and punched him in the face.

The funnyman — known for his Borat catchphrase “Jagshemash!” — yelled for help but was slugged again and again.

He was rescued by actor pal Hugh Laurie who had been on his way to a New York bar with Cohen.

True or not, it makes a great story!

A special report from the home district of the new Majority LeaderSpeaker of the House.

Give San Francisco school board members your support for their initiative to discontinue their JRTOC program in area high schools. Here’s why [emphasis mine]:

A majority of board members say the benefits of the 90-year-old program are not worth the association with the U.S. military, an institution they consider discriminatory, homophobic and at odds with the mission of public education.

And the mission of public education? Why, to teach children that the military is “discriminatory” and “homophobic.” Perfect reasoning!

Hey, wasn’t Kerry in California when he made that ha-ha not-funny joke?

Brian at TVNewser reports that the folks at Dateline, which supposedly was decimated of its personnel by NBC, are, well, traumatized.

“We have no voice; please publish this,” an NBC staffer writes to TVNewser. “Dateline producers are being asked to create hour-long primetime programs for the network, yet they’re walking around the halls not knowing if they are the next one fired. Does that really help the creative process?? The execs need to WAKE UP.”

Get a grip. There is nothing creative about your show. It sucks. If it didn’t, you wouldn’t be getting the ax.

Keith Olbermann’s pompous, childish, outrage-filled “special comments” over on Countdown seem to have made him more popular, if you believe this incredible puff piece:

A little over a year ago, as the White House fumbled and botched the Hurricane Katrina recovery, Olbermann finally blew up.

He concluded a broadcast of his MSNBC cable news show, “Countdown,” with an indignant rant in the rat-a-tat-tat cadence of his idol, Edward R. Murrow. He called it a “Special Comment.”

And just like that, Olbermann found his voice — the angry everyman. He became a liberal counterpoint to conservative media ranters like O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and an Internet star, too.

The result has been a cultural earthquake.

According to Olbermann, it’s because after 9/11, he was one of the few brave Americans who was willing to criticize the administration:

“Here’s what happened,” Olbermann said in a phone interview this week. “Five years ago (on Sept. 11), 50 percent of the country went quiet. There was this self-imposed censorship. Suddenly it became unimaginable to criticize the administration. And no one else was brave or stupid enough to say, ‘I don’t remember signing that document.’ ”

I don’t know whom to loathe more—Olbermann or the “journalist” who is the author of this celebrity profile. He is oh-so-impressed that Olbermann throws around some WWII buzzwords:

Conservatives may hate his attacks, but no one doubts that he comes across as one of the smarter guys in the room. When he laid into then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Aug. 30, he threw in references to Neville Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement. Let’s see NBC network anchor Brian Williams pull that off.

A long time ago, I wrote on this blog that you’ll never hear me complaining about the dumbing-down of the culture:

You will rarely hear me complain about the dumbing-down of culture. All that worried talk about the sorry state of TV, the movies, music videos, video games, hip-hop, whatever. My position on this is: that’s not culture–that’s pop culture. And it’s supposed to be dumb, or dumb enough for a mass audience to get it

In principle, someone who calls her blog Infotainment Rules shouldn’t complain about the dumbing-down of the news, either. Yeah? You think? Well, I’m complaining. But it’s not the infotainment format and packaging that’s the problem. It’s the fucking ignorance of our “journalists”—from Olbermann, who seems to be riding high (I’m doubtful) to the sycophants who profile him—that’s got me down.

Meanwhile, it appears I was wrong. I predicted it would be curtains at MSNBC for Olbermann, who was so grotesquely partisan for the Democrats. Instead, the cable network rewarded him with a seat at the anchor desk on election night. That counts as a trend I’ll have to watch.

Yesterday, I mentioned Howard Kurtz’s remarks on Reliable Sources regarding the coming interplay between the media and politicians now that the Democrats have taken control of the Congress.

let’s face it, journalists were bored with one- party rule and they hope the Democrats conduct plenty of investigations in Congress and issue subpoenas so that they can feast on the conflict.

True or false?

Interestingly, Kurtz (who’s a champion of journalism and serious news and who puts down cable sleaze every time he can find a way to elevate network news—as if network news organizations are any better at informing people about the news of the day and every reader of this blog knows I think that is patently untrue) seemed to throw this down as a challenge to the media to be entertaining (something I welcome, because it attracts audiences, who learn something about the issues) rather than as an indictment of his colleagues, who were so obviously in the Democrats’ corner in the run-up to the election.

Today, Kurtz follows up with a column in the Washington Post. that is much more of an indictment (though that’s not how he means it to be taken, I’m sure, and he includes bloggers in the mix):

The media kept saying the war was going badly. The Bush administration said progress in Iraq was being obscured by relentlessly negative coverage.

The media kept saying the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was badly botched. President Bush initially said his administration was doing a heckuva job. …

The biggest change may be in store for liberal commentators, radio hosts and bloggers, some of whom enjoyed a good long gloat last week. For years now, they have been on offense against the administration and the war, and taking potshots is plenty of fun, as conservative pundits learned during the height of the Clinton scandals. But now the lefties will have to spend time defending the Democratic leadership for any missteps and failures. And if Reid and Pelosi compromise with their more moderate colleagues, will hard-driving liberal bloggers turn on them?

As I said the other day, things are going to stay interesting. Meanwhile, McQ, at QandO, quotes Kurtz and comments:

Now the question is whether a press corps that has been openly at odds with the president will hold the newly empowered Democrats to the same tough standards.

As those trying to buy a little time while casting about for an answer might say, “good question”.

If I were to speak strictly on gut feeling, I’d say “no”. While Republicans may be out of power in Congress, as Kurtz points out in his question, the media has been openly at odds with the president and he hasn’t gone anywhere. Why would that relationship change now? Seems to me that piling on is in more in order, and the Dems can only help them in that endeavor.

He predicts how things will play out:

Again, as Kurtz mentions, the problem the media has focused on has been Bush, not so much Congress, so you can almost make book on the premise that anything which happens now will remain Bush’s fault. Gridlock will be the unwillingness of Bush to compromise. Nominees will be “too extreme” and ethics reform will be wonderful, regardless of how cosmetic.

Mark my words.

I do, and I did. And I’ll be watching with bated breath.