SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (828601)1/8/2015 3:05:52 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Bill
FJB

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574683
 
Senior CNN Man in Bizarre Anti-Israel Tirade after Paris Attack

Veteran international correspondent Jim Clancy's responses to critics on Twitter has left many questioning his objectivity on Israel.


By Ari Soffer 1/8/2015
israelnationalnews.com

CNN's veteran news anchor and international correspondent Jim Clancy has provoked controversy after a series of bizarre anti-Israel tweets following Wednesday's deadly terrorist attack in Paris.

Journalists throughout the world and from across the political spectrum reacted with horror at the slaughter of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo's Paris offices yesterday. The satirical magazine was targeted by Muslim extremists wielding Kalashnikov rifles, after years of threats and previous attacks by Islamists over several cartoons it published which mocked Islam and Muslim leaders - in addition to countless others mocking other religious and secular figures.

Clancy, however, took exception to the claim that the magazine was attacked for insulting Islam, claiming instead that "The cartoons NEVER mocked the Prophet. They mocked how the COWARDS tried to distort his word."

A debatable position perhaps, given that some of its cartoons do indeed appear to directly mock Mohammed - and the fact that any representation of him whatsoever, in any context, is deemed "offensive" under Islamic law.

And indeed, several of his followers did in fact debate that point - but were then attacked as being pro-Israel, despite not having brought Israel up at all.



Screenshot

Various other responses were similarly aggressively rebuffed as "Hasbara"; Clancy's trigger-happy usage of the term even led him to similarly tweet that a virulently anti-Semitic neo-Nazi account was involved with "PR for Israel".

Several of his followers reacted with shock at his response, with some calling into question his objectivity as a journalist who frequently reports from the Middle East.







Following a hail of criticism, the CNN correspondent remained unrepentant though:

Subsequent to those posts, the CNN man subsequently retweeted of a quote by radical leftist Noam Chomsky which read: "Radical Islamic fundamentalists have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years."

French authorities meanwhile are still searching for the two shooters in the Paris attack, after the man believed to have acted as their getaway driver - 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad - handed himself in voluntarily after being publicly named as a suspect.

The remaining suspects, brothers Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both in their 30s, are still at large.




To: Bill who wrote (828601)1/8/2015 6:30:33 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1574683
 
Breaking: Grand Jury Recommends Charges Against PA Attorney General [Democrat]
.....................................................................................
PJ Media ^ | January 8, 2015 | J. Christian Adams


A grand jury has recommended criminal charges against Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The grand jury found that she leaked secret grand jury information to a newspaper in an effort to smear political enemies.

PJ Media has been covering Kane’s refusal to prosecute Pennsylvania Democrats who took bribes in order to oppose photo voter identification legislation in Pennsylvania. Philly News :

For about six months, Special Prosecutor Thomas E. Carluccio has been directing the grand jury as it has heard testimony from numerous witnesses, including Kane and many of her top aides, to determine how details of a long-ago investigation of a Philadelphia civil rights leader appeared in a Philadelphia Daily News article in June.

The article suggested that a former state prosecutor, Frank G. Fina, had fumbled that investigation, and the leak appeared to be designed to raise questions about his competence.

Kane had refused to pursue charges against four black legislators from Philadelphia for accepting bribes in exchange for votes.

Kane had said the investigation conducted by her predecessor was racially motivated. There was no dispute that the legislators took bribes to oppose voter ID legislation. Seth Williams, the local Philadelphia district attorney and fellow Democrat, took on the case instead. His investigation led to the indictment of legislators for taking the bribes.

On behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, I testified to the Pennsylvania House last year that Kane should be impeached. State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry) has long called for Kane’s removal from office for failing to enforce the law against political allies. Today’s grand jury finding serves as vindication for Metcalfe’s efforts.






To: Bill who wrote (828601)1/8/2015 6:57:03 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1574683
 
Insane TIME Magazine writer takes muslim side Against French Magazine
.............................................................................................................................

Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr


Time ^ | Nov. 02, 2011 | Bruce Crumley

A police officer stands in front of the headquarters of satiric French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, where a fire broke out overnight, November 2, 2011. (Photo: Thibault Camus / AP)


Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good.

What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

The difficulty in answering that question is also what’s making it hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot. Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there’s no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

Though police say they still don’t know who staged the apparent strike, the (sorry) inflammatory religious theme of the new edition has virtually everyone suspecting Muslim extremists were responsible. Which, frankly, is exactly why it’s hard not to feel it’s the kind of angry response–albeit in less destructive form– Charlie Hebdo was after in the first place. What was the point otherwise? Yet rather than issuing warnings to be careful about what one asks for, the arson prompted political leaders and pundits across the board to denounce the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies. In doing so they weren’t entirely alone. Muslim leaders in France and abroad also stepped up to condemn the action–though not without duly warning people to wait for police to identify the perpetrators before assigning guilt, especially via association.

The reasons for such concern were as obvious as the suspicions about who had staged the strike: the coarse and heavy-handed Islamist theme of the current edition of Charlie Hebdo. As part of its gag, the paper had re-named itself “Sharia Hebdo”. It also claimed to have invited Mohammed as its guest editor to “celebrate the victory” of the Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia’s first free elections last week. In addition to satirical articles on Islam-themed topics, the paper contains drawings of Mohammed in cartoons featuring Charlie Hebdo’s trademark over-the-top (and frequently not “ha-ha funny”) humor. The cover, for example, features a crudely-drawn cartoon of the Prophet saying “100 Whip Lashes If You Don’t Die Of Laughter.” Maybe you had to be there when it was first sketched.

If that weren’t enough to offend Muslims sensitive to jokes about their faith, history helped raised hackles further. In 2007, Charlie Hebdo re-published the infamous (and, let’ face it, just plain lame) Mohammed caricatures initially printed in 2005 by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. As intended, those produced outrage–and at times violent reaction–from Muslims around the world (not to mention repeated terror plots to kill illustrators responsible for the drawings). Apart from unconvincing claims of exercising free speech in Western nations where that right no longer needs to be proved, it’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists. After it’s 2007 reprinting of those, Charlie Hebdo was acquitted by a French court on inciting racial hatred charges lodged by French Islamic groups over those and other caricatures—including one run as the paper’s cover cartoon depicting Mohammed complaining “It’s Hard To Be Loved By (expletives)”. When it comes to Islam, Charlie Hebdo has a million of ‘em—but they’re all generally as weak as they are needlessly provocative.

Editors, staff, fans, and apologists of Charlie Hebdo have repeatedly pointed out that the paper’s take-no-prisoners humor spares no religion, political party, or social group from its questionable humor. They’ve also tended to defend the publication during controversy as a kind of gut check of free society: a media certain to anger, infuriate, and offend just about everybody at some point or another. As such, Charlie Hebdo has cultivated its insolence proudly as a kind of public duty—pushing the limits of freedom of speech, come what may. But that seems more self-indulgent and willfully injurious when it amounts to defending the right to scream “fire” in an increasingly over-heated theater.

Why? Because like France’s 2010 law banning the burqa in public (and earlier legislation prohibiting the hijab in public schools), the nation’s government-sponsored debates on Islam’s place in French society all reflected very real Islamophobic attitudes spreading throughout society. Indeed, such perceived anti-Muslim action has made France a point of focus for Islamist radicals at home and abroad looking to harp on new signs of aggression against Islam. It has also left France’s estimated five million Muslims feeling stigmatized and singled out for discriminatory treatment—a resentment that can’t be have been diminished by seeing Charlie Hebdo’s mockery of Islam “just for fun” defended as a hallowed example of civil liberty by French pols. It’s yet to be seen whether Islamist extremists were behind today’s arson, but both the paper’s current edition, and the rush of politicians to embrace it as the icon of French democracy, raises the possibility of even moderate Muslims thinking “good on you” if and when militants are eventually fingered for the strike. It’s all so unnecessary.

It’s obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it’s just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they’re committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it’s just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn’t happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.

So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit, Charlie Hebdo’s current edition is all of the above, too.



Bruce Crumley
Crumley is TIME's Paris bureau chief and has covered French and European news since 1989.






To: Bill who wrote (828601)1/8/2015 6:57:16 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1574683
 
Guess what--The same Bruce Crumley now works for al Jazeera



To: Bill who wrote (828601)1/8/2015 7:20:03 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Bill
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1574683
 
, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "The international jihadist movement has declared war. They have declared war on anybody who does not think and act exactly as they wish they'd think and act," Harper told reporters when asked about Wednesday's attack. "We may not like this and wish it would go away, but it's not going to go away, and the reality is we are going to have to confront it."