tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post114862878656765676..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Merry, But Quite ContraryHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149091941099459582006-05-31T12:12:00.000-04:002006-05-31T12:12:00.000-04:00I'm writing a parody of the Right Wing Punditry th...I'm writing a parody of the Right Wing Punditry these days. I've seriously considered trawling the comments section of this site and just using Buzz's comments. They're far funnier than any parody could be. One would almost think he was a performance artist caught in a vicious web of his own performance but for the utter seriousness of his tone. But then, it's their very earnestness - combined with their utter ridiculousness - that makes them so funny.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149036957343909462006-05-30T20:55:00.000-04:002006-05-30T20:55:00.000-04:00Thanks, James, I think we cleared it up, and in a ...Thanks, James, I think we cleared it up, and in a civilized manner, without requiring 43 comments.<BR/><BR/>And thanks, too, for agreeing with my point that there is nothing wrong with searching a Congressional office with a warrant.<BR/><BR/>Surprisingly, no one seems to have picked up on my other point: that I don't like the idea of an executive "freezing evidence" in any sort of investigation.Jay D. Homnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14714671338316275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149035972236832502006-05-30T20:39:00.000-04:002006-05-30T20:39:00.000-04:00While I love to see the words "James Elliot is cor...While I love to see the words "James Elliot is correct" - especially here at the Reform Club - I certainly didn't want to start a "let's play whack-a-mole with Jay's column" thing. I just wanted to point out what he may or may not have known about the "triggering event."<BR/><BR/>And ditto with Tlaloc's point. I don't see anything in the "speech and debate" clause that prevents the FBI from conducting a legitimate search in a criminal investigation, so long as they have a warrant (which they did).James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1149008194268041812006-05-30T12:56:00.000-04:002006-05-30T12:56:00.000-04:00I wrote it in good faith based upon the news sourc...I wrote it in good faith based upon the news sources extant at the time.<BR/><BR/>If the story is not true, then the specific criticism of the Iranian government is automatically canceled.<BR/><BR/>I never claimed to have special information on the subject; if it is true or not will be determined by reporters in the field, as in any other story. If, as you suggest, it is now clear that it was false, I obviously am not continuing to make any accusation.<BR/><BR/>What I said to James, and quite correctly, is that my opinion piece has value to a reader quite apart from the specific issue of Iran. It offers an insight into areas of consensus within global society and areas of dispute.Jay D. Homnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14714671338316275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1148664010549859222006-05-26T13:20:00.000-04:002006-05-26T13:20:00.000-04:00Thanks, James. If you look at the Letters section...Thanks, James. If you look at the Letters section of the Spectator, people have called attention to this question.<BR/><BR/>In fact, that's why I described my piece in the post by saying that it was an analysis of the dichotomy between purposes and tactics. That is an enduring insight of my article, transcending any one particular event.<BR/><BR/>And thanks for those other links. Valuable info.Jay D. Homnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14714671338316275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1148662546029904842006-05-26T12:55:00.000-04:002006-05-26T12:55:00.000-04:00Um, Jay, I hate to be the one to do this, but this...Um, Jay, I hate to be the one to do this, but <A HREF="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9863" REL="nofollow">this</A> piece is predicated on a story that appears to be <A HREF="http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24079" REL="nofollow">not true</A>.<BR/><BR/>Tahieri, the Iranian dissident journalist who started first "broke" the "story" has begun backpedaling quite swiftly. Aaron Breitbart of the Simon Weisenthal Center, who so recently "confirmed" the story, is also doing some linguistic gymnastics of late in order to avoid his pants catching on fire.<BR/><BR/>Canada's National Post <A HREF="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/24/canada.iran.reut/" REL="nofollow">admits</A> that the story was false.<BR/><BR/>However, please accept <A HREF="http://raminj.iranianstudies.ca/index.php/archives/45" REL="nofollow">this</A> and <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1781406,00.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> as examples of the kind of state-sponsored crap going on in Iran. The image associated with the second story is <A HREF="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1272/1330/1600/irancartoon.jpg" REL="nofollow">here</A>.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.com