Filed under: Are you kidding me?, Family Values, Health, Media, Parenting, War on Women
It’s my understanding that Time Magazine’s sales have gone down considerably over the years. Looking at this cover, one has to wonder if it’s because gravely, huge world news is relegated to a tiny upper left corner of the magazine while a provocative, exploitative photo takes the center.
“Are You Mom Enough?” According to whom?
Why is it exploitative? Everyone is talking about the cover photo, fighting about the cover photo, debating the appropriateness of an older child breastfeeding, however very few are truly discussing Attachment Parenting in a beneficial light. The mother and son on the cover have been exploited to sell Time and it worked. In addition, extended breastfeeding has been made to look ridiculous because of the unnatural pose.
Nancy Mohrbacher, an officer with the Chicago Area Breastfeeding Coalition, said the cover has sparked the wrong questions.
“The question is not are you mom enough, but is our culture family friendly enough,” Mohrbacher said. “The question is not how should we parent, but how do we support and value parenting in our society.”
“One of the reasons there can be a conflict with attachment parenting in our culture is we don’t have family-friendly environments. It’s not part of our culture. We’re expected to have a strict dichotomy between family and the rest of our lives.”
But is the Time cover attempting to promote those conversations, or just trying to stand out at a tough time for magazines? Or both?
“The point of a cover is to get your attention,” Stengel said on MSNBC, “and this gets your attention.”
Pointing out this article that I read on Barbara Curtis’ Mommy Life blog this morning. She must be a carpenter because she hits a lot of nails right on the head. Here’s a snippet, but please read the entire article for yourself:
As Americans, we really need to ask ourselves how much of our opinions are due simply to media distortion. We all need to humble ourselves and pray that God will help us see through the constant manipulation of our minds to get to the truth. You must read what candidates say and never forget to measure that against what they do.
I will say one thing: the leftist media favors light-skinned liberal black people – especially those with more Anglo features. They cannot handle someone like Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas because they look more black and they do not conform to the liberal agenda. Blacks are not allowed to think for themselves in this country.
In bygone days uppity blacks did not know their place and they were lynched. Today uppity blacks do not know their place as defined by the left and they are lynched in the media.
Alan Keyes was guilty on three counts: dark black color, Christian, and conservative – so he was even more villified by a media which thrives on savaging any Christian conservative – white or black or brown.
Karl from Leaning Straight Up, hips us to a little time switcharoo at William Arkin’s blog. The post that appeared mysteriously this morning, now has a new timestamp. Instead of 5:31 AM 02/01/07 – It is now 5:31 PM. Amazing – and now all is right with the world.
Come to think of it, there is a resemblance.
Where did that come from?
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
New Middle East Commander Correctly Stays in His Lane
See that post tucked in the middle – it wasn’t there yesterday. In fact, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out, only appeared on his side bar on the front page for a short time yesterday and the post itself was on the front page for a very short time.
I popped over there today and see the Arrogant post along with this new mystery post A Note to my Readers on Supporting the Troops. And the timestamps make it VERY interesting.
Arrogant timestamp: Posted at 09:39 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
Note to my Readers timestamp: Posted at 05:31 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
First comment under Note to my Readers:
You’re a jerk, Arkin.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 05:47 PM
First comment under Arrogant:
Being subjected to such things isn’t fun, is it?…
…Keep in mind how all your words affect them, not just the ones you direct at them.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 04:08 PM
Now, it’s not so much that the timestamp of the comment on Arrogant comes before that of the Note to my Readers first comment – it’s the question of where are all the comments that were there before 4:08 PM yesterday for Arrogant and why were they removed? Is it because they want us to think that the “apologetic” Note to my Readers came first?
Leaning Straight Up analyzes the apology more closely.
William Arkin is more evidence of the left’s opinion of our armed forces. He has no respect for them, though he feigns it in his own off-balanced and self-serving way. After all, he was one of them – he served from 1974 to 1978, and like John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam), he will pull it out of his ass when it’s convenient.
In his January 30th Washington Post blog entry, Arkin responded to an NBC Nightly News video of soldiers’ disheartenment at the mantra “We support the soldiers but not the war:”
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don’t see very man “baby killer” epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
Mr. Arkin, other than nut-cases that threatened you for your views (ask Debbie Schlussel for advice on that), who is telling you to give up your right to free speech? Seriously! Yes, people will tell you to “shut up” when they don’t like your message. And in your accusatory words, you also told our men and women of the military to shut up – afterall, we’re paying those rapists and taking care of their families.
Did you attend the Dixie Chick academy of whining about supposed loss of free speech?
So who is William Arkin? Hugh Hewitt wrote this column in 2003:
For starters, he is the scribbler who launched the assault on Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin a week ago by providing NBC with tapes of Boykin speaking in churches, and then followed with a Los Angeles Times op-ed that accused the general of being “an intolerant extremist” and a man “who believes in Christian ‘jihad’” (Arkin later admitted on my radio program that Boykin never used the term “jihad”).
Arkin also wrote that “Boykin has made it clear that he takes his orders not from his Army superiors but from God–which is a worrisome line of command.” This statement, like the “jihad” quotation appears to be pure fiction.
But we can’t know for sure because Arkin hasn’t released the full transcripts of the talks Boykin gave. Arkin promised to do so when I interviewed him, but has since told my producer he won’t be providing them because I have misquoted him on my website–another lie from Arkin, to go along with his broken promise of full disclosure.
SO WHO IS ARKIN? That has proven to be a difficult thing to determine, for while Arkin is a prolific writer, his biography is hard to assemble, and maybe intentionally so.
“The war against terrorism,” he said, “if it is a war at all, is not World War II or the Cold War, and it is grasping at empty patriotism to claim that it is.” He warned of “our tendency to fall back upon secrecy and government control.” And he concluded by warning that our foreign policy “convey[s] the wrong message, which is that we have no values, that we are for sale”:
Bush and company call the war on terror open ended. Such a characterization reveals a lack of ability to foresee an outcome and betrays a muddled sense of strategy, strategy that is based on American values and our aesthetic and our way of life. It is for that reason that they need help in seeing what they are doing. They hardly have all the answers.
You can read the lengthy speech here. I was tempted to leave out the link in the hopes that Arkin would claim his quotes were taken out of context, but I’m willing to let the audience judge for itself, a courtesy that Arkin is unwilling to do for Boykin. I continue to suspect that there is much in the Boykin transcripts that would undercut Arkin’s story line, and thus that he intends to conceal. The Los Angeles Times, so much ridiculed in recent weeks, doesn’t appear in a hurry to produce the full transcripts either.
ARKIN SET OUT to damage an administration he unquestionably loathes, and found an exposed target in Boykin. The usual
suspects have gathered round to stone the general on the basis of edited reports compiled by an obvious ideologue, and despite the fact that the his talks were expressions of a deeply-felt faith delivered to audiences of fellow believers. There is no evidence that these talks had caused even a ripple of controversy until Arkin launched his well-orchestrated–and quite manipulative–campaign to bring the general down.
If the assault on General Boykin is successful, it is the beginning of the end for expressions of personal faith by public officials.
Arkin is a veteran of four years in the Army (he served from 1974 to 1978) and many of his bylines from the past two decades described him as a “military intelligence analyst” during his service (his rank and units are not readily apparent). He received his BS from the University of Maryland.
His employment since leaving the service is easier to trace. Arkin cut his teeth with the lefty Institute for Policy Studies, and went from there to positions with Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. He has been a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In recent years he has taken more mainstream work as a senior fellow at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (he appears to do most of his writing not from the SAIS campus, but from his home in Vermont).
He is also the regular military affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times (what a surprise that the Times employs a Greenpeace alum as its military guru) and a commentator for MSNBC.
ARKIN TOLD ME he got his tip on Boykin’s faith talks from a Pentagon source, which suggests that the general has an enemy inside the Pentagon. But if, as most of Boykin’s critics have argued, the danger presented by the general’s private talks about his faith is their effect on the Islamic world, then why did Arkin rush to publicize these private, little-noticed talks that he believes will hurt the U.S. abroad?
The answer is best found in Arkin’s own speech to an audience at the U.S. Naval War College on September 25, 2002. In this lengthy and vitriolic attack on the Bush administration, Arkin admitted to feeling “cynical about the fact that we are going to war to enhance the economic interests of the Enron class,” and declared that “the war against terrorism is overstated.” Arkin believed, in fact, that the war “is not the core United States national security interest today.” He rhetorically asked the audience: “Aren’t I just another leftist, self-hating American?” and condemned the administration for taking “enormous liberties with American freedoms.”
Of course Cartoon Network and CNN are owned by Turner Broadcasting. How can a story receive so much coverage all day on CNN and its “brother” station, Cartoon Network, is oblivious that the news stories are about its own “marketing campaign?”
How long did the Cartoon Network people know that Boston was in an uproar before someone got enough of a clue to call the authorities in Boston? There is also some speculation that calls may have been made to the police as part of the marketing campaign.
The first device to raise alarm in Boston was found by a transit worker at a subway and bus station underneath Interstate 93 on Wednesday morning, leading to the temporary shutdown of the station and the highway.
Later, police said four calls, all around 1 p.m., reported devices at the Boston University Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, at a Boston street corner and at the Tufts-New England Medical Center.
Two devices, at the Longfellow Bridge and the medical center, however, turned out to be unrelated to the marketing campaign, Police Commissioner Edward Davis said.
The rash of calls around the same time is being investigated, Davis said. When asked if the calls were coordinated as part of the marketing campaign, he said: “There’s no indication it came from panicked residents.”
Or is it possible that Lara Logan of CBS got the video from and actual Al Qaeda member?
The following was just posted by Bryan at Hot Air:
This story bears a little more fleshing out than we were able to do in Vent. If you’re not familiar with it, here’s the gist: CBS News reporter Lara Logan, currently the network’s correspondent in Baghdad, used clips in a story about fighting on Haifa Street in Baghdad that apparently came from a video that Al Qaeda’s media arm also used. In her story she didn’t attribute the video to Al Qaeda, but described it as “gruesome pictures obtained by CBS.” They’re gruesome indeed, depicting slain Iraqi Army soldiers after the battle, and showing people walking around the room where the dead men are laying and even apparently picking through their uniforms. In looking at both the Logan report and the video that Al Qaeda released after the January 7 battle, I’ve come to the conclusion that not only did Logan use the same video that Al Qaeda used, but that she worked from the same source tape as well. That means that in all likelihood her source and the source from which Al Qaeda obtained the video (which may be someone actually in AQ or merely connected to it) are one and the same. Background on all this here and here and here. You can download the Al Qaeda video here, but be forewarned–it takes forever even on a cable hookup. And it’s very graphic. Logan’s CBS report is here. She has made a big deal out of CBS only putting it on the web and not broadcasting it on CBS News. It’s her “call for help” to her friends in the media to pressure CBS into broadcasting the story that made this whole thing gain some traction, though it’s going in a direction now that she probably didn’t anticipate.
Lara Logan is on a campaign of her own to get “her” video on CBS Evening News with “Katty” Couric:
From: lara logan
The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this istakingplace verysingle day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.
Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.
I would be very grateful if any of you have a chance to watch this story and pass the link on to as many people you know as possible. It should be seen. And people should know about this.
If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS – about the story – not about my request, then that would help highlight that people are interested and this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.
Many, many thanks.
Media Channel and IraqSlogger among other blogs are trying to come to her rescue, but please go to HotAir, or one of the other blogs linked to in the quoted paragraph above for more accurate details of this story.
Michelle Malkin is looking for answers from CBS.
Or has he been beaten up enough by Lynne and Dick? How could I have forgotten about Lynne Cheney’s own run-in with Wolfie from last October?
I think, perhaps, Mr. Blitzer has had enough of the Cheneys
The full written transcript is here – below is an expanded version of the YouTube video.
BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?
CHENEY: No, I don’t.
CHENEY: Because she’s a Democrat. I don’t agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.
BLITZER: Do you think she will be president?
CHENEY: I don’t.
BLITZER: Who do you think will be?
CHENEY: I’m not going to speculate.
BLITZER: Will it be John McCain?
CHENEY: I’m not going to speculate.
BLITZER: He’s been very critical of you, John McCain.
CHENEY: Well, John’s a good man. He and I have known each other a long time and we
agree on many things and disagree on others.
BLITZER: He said, the other day — he said, “The president listens too much to the vice
president. Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he’s been very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense.” That was John McCain.
BLITZER: No reaction?
CHENEY: I just disagree with him.
BLITZER: He said, about the former Defense secretary, “Rumsfeld will go down in history,
along with NcNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of Defense –”
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree. You heard my speech, when Don retired. I think
he’s done a superb job.
BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your daughter, Mary. She’s pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to have another grandchild. Some of the — some critics are suggesting — for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, “Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean that it’s best for the child.” Do you want to respond to that?
BLITZER: She’s, obviously, a good daughter –
CHENEY: I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate –
CHENEY: I think you’re out of line.
BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I’m very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I
like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.
BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
Let’s wind up with the soft stuff (ph)– Nancy Pelosi. What was it like sitting with her last
night as opposed to Dennis Hastert?
CHENEY: I prefer Dennis Hastert, obviously. I like having a fellow Republican in the
Speaker’s chair. Nancy’s now the speaker of the House. We had a very pleasant evening.
BLITZER: But it’s different to have a Democrat–
CHENEY: Sure, it’s different. They have — yeah, but it’s the way it’s been during most of my career in Congress. I didn’t find it all that surprising or startling.
BLITZER: How do you feel?
BLITZER: Mr. Vice President, thank you