Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.
March 11, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.
Continue reading …Bill O’Reilly Compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and then tries to deny it and then re-compares it again.
March 11, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly pulled another one of his I didn’t it, but I really didn’t because it’s me, that’s why. C&L Flashback: O’Reilly defends his use of Nazi analogy because it’s different when HE does it:UPDATED with the KKK Yes, a familiar tune he’s played before. Instead of the topic being Nazis, Bill is saying that a NY Times piece was misleading when it said that O’Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf because he only meant “the books.” Do you understand now? O’Reilly: In July 2002 we criticized a professor who wanted to require incoming freshman to read a book explaining the Koran. In the body of that discussion I said this: I wouldn’t read the book and I’ll tell you why. I wouldn’t read Mein Kampf either. If I was going to UNC in 1941 I would have said with all due respect you professor said read Mein Kampf all do respect I would have said shove it. I ain’t reading it. I looked at the Koran and I have nothing against it the Koran by the way. There are some things in it that are good and there are some things in it that aren’t good. Same thing in the Old Testament … So obviously I wasn’t comparing Koran, the book to Mein Kampf, the book. What I did do was criticize the mandatory reading of a controversial book in the face of the war on terror. Professor Ahmed and the NY Times absolutely took the situation out of contex t. That’s his defense. Aren’t they both books? If he wasn’t making a comparison to Mein Kampf, then why didn’t he use a bad romance novel? At least a bad romance novel isn’t evil and while it still wouldn’t be cool to do, I don’t think the love story of Melody and Drake was responsible for millions of people to be gassed. Mein Kampf was not considered a religious holy book by billions of people. It was a sick and twisted vision of Hitler that only the Nazis were required to read and forced to follow. The Koran is the Muslim equivalent to the Bible and it’s treated with reverence around the world. And by the way, the professor was trying to get students to get an understanding of the Koran after the attacks because of what he feared Peter King would be doing years later with his McCarthyesque hearing. Then he went on to attack the NY Times op-ed section and complained that the piece attacking him wasn’t vetted. Just like the WSJ’s op-ed’s aren’t vetted. have you ever heard him complain about their lunatic op-eds? PHD, Professor Ahmed joins The Factor and Bill asks him if he should be apologized to by the Professor. Ahmed: Bill, you owe me one because I was brought up by some wonderful Catholic priests who taught me in my boarding school in Pakistan, something that they drummed into our heads was ‘never say anything that will be painful or hurtful to anyone who thinks something is sacred and I think that’s a lesson in life so you know even comparing or hinting at the Koran which is a sacred book to millions and millions of Muslims to this vile evil book Mein Kampf, written by an evil man really was very hurtful and upsetting. I’m glad you corrected the record Bill. I’m glad you said you did not compare the Koran to Mein Kampf and I am grateful Wow, the segment should be done, The controversy is over. Ahmed accepted Bill’s apology so that should end the segment, yes? O’Reilly: But I’m not apologizing because I think you absolutely took the situation out of context and I think you’re smart enough to know it and I’m not being condescending. I was actually saying, you heard my own words alright, that a mandatory reading of the Koran in the face of the war of terror , remember this is 2002, was akin to after WWII started a mandatory reading of Nazi propaganda. Again, it had nothing to do with the Koran itself, it had nothing to do with Mein Kampf itself. It was the act of forcing students to read something that obviously was flying in the face of what the times were, you know that. Oh, sh*t. He just compared the Koran to Nazi war propaganda now. Dammit Bill, and you almost escaped unscathed. What flew in our faces on 9/11 were Muslim extremists led by Osama Bin Laden and not Prof. Ahmed’s. Maybe Bill doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘akin”. That’s what Colbert would say anyway.
Continue reading …
Last night you couldn’t walk down the street in New York City without becoming seriously soaked and breaking your umbrella, but you didn’t really think that would stop those crazy Apple fans, did you? Oh yes, the iPad 2 lines are in full effect in NYC and around the country — we’re hearing there are already close to 150 at The Cube in Midtown Manhattan and scores of others in line in Austin, Fort Lauderdale, Palo Alto and more. And with reports of online orders not shipping for 2 to 3 weeks now, we’re assuming those queues are only going to grow in the next few hours. It is, of course, our time-honored tradition to bring you photos of those incredibly brave line-sitters, and we’ll be doing just that this afternoon and evening. We’ll be heading out to grab some shots of our own soon and bring you the smiles and tears, but until then hit the break for a few we’ve been sent so far. Oh, and good luck everyone! Continue reading iPad 2 line watch: the few, the proud, the soaking wet iPad 2 line watch: the few, the proud, the soaking wet originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:30:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …
Video inside a store at the Mitsui Outlet Park in Sendaiko, Japan shows employees struggling to keep merchandise from shaking off grocery store shelves during the earthquake that struck Japan. (March 11)
Continue reading …A fraternity email from a member of USC’s Kappa Sigma chapter details how to be an effective “cocksman” and breach a woman’s “pie”—vagina—or “gullet”—mouth and throat. “I will refer to females as ‘targets,” notes the author in his missive to his frat bros’. “They aren’t actual people…
Continue reading …
Fashion experts reveal what they feel about Kate Middleton’s style and how she will fare as a fashion icon. (March 11)
Continue reading …Naomi Klein: Wisconsin ‘An Assault On Democracy,’ A ‘Corporate Coup D’etat’
March 11, 2011 No CommentNaomi Klein warns us that Wisconsin is only the beginning of the attack on democracy: NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I just found out about this last night, and like I said, there’s so much going on that these extraordinary measures are just getting lost in the shuffle. But in Michigan, there is a bill that’s already passed the House. It’s on the verge of passing the Senate . And I’ll just read you some excerpts from it. It says that in the case of an economic crisis, that the governor has the authority to authorize the emergency manager—this is somebody who would be appointed—to reject, modify or terminate the terms of an existing contract or collective bargaining agreement, authorize the emergency manager for a municipal government—OK, so we’re not—we’re talking about towns, municipalities across the state—to disincorporate. So, an appointed official with the ability to dissolve an elected body, when they want to. AMY GOODMAN: A municipal government. NAOMI KLEIN: A municipal government. And it says specifically, “or dissolve the municipal government.” So we’ve seen this happening with school boards, saying, “OK, this is a failing school board. We’re taking over. We’re dissolving it. We’re canceling the contracts.” You know, what this reminds me of is New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, when the teachers were fired en masse and then it became a laboratory for charter schools. You know, people in New Orleans—and you know this, Amy—warned us. They said, “What’s happening to us is going to happen to you.” And I included in the book a quote saying, “Every city has their Lower Ninth Ward.” And what we’re seeing with the pretext of the flood is going to be used with the pretext of an economic crisis. And this is precisely what’s happening. So it starts with the school boards, and then it’s whole towns, whole cities, that could be subject to just being dissolved because there’s an economic crisis breaking collective bargaining agreements. It also specifies that—this bill specifies that an emergency manager can be an individual or a firm. Or a firm. So, the person who would be put in charge of this so-called failing town or municipality could actually be a corporation. AMY GOODMAN: Whose government they dissolve, a company takes over. NAOMI KLEIN: A company takes over. So, they have created, if this passes, the possibility for privatization of a whole town by fiat. And this is actually a trend in the contracting out of public services, where you do now have whole towns, like Sandy Springs in Georgia, run by private companies. It’s very lucrative. Why not? You start with just the water contract or the electricity contract, but eventually, why not privatize the whole town? So— AMY GOODMAN: And what happens then? Where does democracy fit into that picture? NAOMI KLEIN: Well, this is an assault on democracy. It’s a frontal assault on democracy. It’s a kind of a corporate coup d’état at the municipal level.
Continue reading …NPR Board Member Admits It Serves ‘Liberal, Highly Educated Elite,’ Wonders How to Justify Public Funding in Light of This
March 11, 2011 No CommentAt least one National Public Radio board member has a firm grasp on arguments against the organization receiving federal funding. Criticisms of NPR “do have some legitimacy,” she noted, and “we must, as a starting point, take on board some of this criticism.” Sue Schardt, director of the Association of Independents in Radio and a member of NPR's board, noted during the board's Feburary 25 “public comment” period that “we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite.” As a consequence, Schardt added, while the journalism NPR produces may be of high quality, the organization really only serves, by her telling, 11 percent of the United States. In light of that fact, she added, “we need to carefully consider whether we warrant public funding and, if so, what the rationale would be.” The following is partial transcript of Schardt's comment, posted at Current.org : After working in many parts of public radio — both deep inside it and now with one foot inside and one foot outside — I believe there's an elephant in the room. There is something that I'm very conscious of as we consider this crisis that I'd like to speak to. We have built an extraordinary franchise. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because we used a very specific methodology to cultivate and build an audience. For years, in boardrooms, at conferences, with funders, we have talked about our highly educated, influential audience. We pursued David Giovannoni's methodologies. We all participated. It was his research, his undaunted, clear strategy that we pursued to build the successful news journalism franchise we have today. What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. “Super-serve the core” — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone's intention to exclude anyone. But we have to accept — unapologetically — that this is the franchise we've built. We have to look at this because the criticisms that are coming at us — whether they're couched in other things — do have some legitimacy. We must, as a starting point, take on board some of this criticism. Before we can set a path, we have to own this. One choice, at this transformational moment, is to say, “We are satisfied with what we are doing. We — in radio — are providing 11 percent of America with an extraordinary service.” If this is our choice, we need to carefully consider whether we warrant public funding and, if so, what the rationale would be. Another choice is to say, “We have cultivated and built an extraordinary infrastructure of interconnected stations that's now adopting networked digital technologies. More important, we have created a culture of human beings who — in this building, at stations, and in my constituency of hundreds of producers — are fluent in a particular craft rooted in an idealism of service. Individuals whose intention at every step is to contribute to the greater good. Ours is a human endeavor. That is what differentiates us. This is what is at stake. This is what we must preserve.” I believe we need to say, in this moment, “You're right. We are not satisfied, either. Now that we have achieved this huge success over a 30-year incubation period, we now are poised to commit ourselves to translate and bring what we have to everyone in America. Within the next five years, seven years — we set the timetable. We are absolutely committed to serving — truly — and speaking in the voices — truly — of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public.” We set our numbers. No NPR detractor has thus far provided a case this compelling – due both to the force of its arguments and the significance of the person offering them – for a reexamination of the organization's federal funding. Hopefully its backers take it to heart.
Continue reading …
Neuroscience doctors are working to develop drug treatments that could erase traumatic memories form people’s minds. Robert Kinsley, an Iraq war veteran is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and could benefit form such a treatment. (March 11)
Continue reading …
Doctors for Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords say she is making ‘leaps and bounds’ in her recovery from a gunshot wound to the head. They also say her memory and speech are improving. (March 11)
Continue reading …