Survivor: Race Riot
Responding to calls of increased ethnic diversity, the producers of Survivor just announced, the next season of Survivor will divide people into tribes by races. The island will contain Black, White, Latino and Asian tribes whose members will struggle with each other for dominance before trying to drive the other tribes off the island.
That’s certainly reality TV in the sense that the situation applies to many LA neighborhoods. I suppose this message of tolerance and inclusion is what America is most receptive to these days.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Probably nothing more than an attempt to get people talking about -and possibly interested in- the lame old show again. I bet they never intended to go through with it.
By the way, now that Michael Isikoff and David Corn figured out that the Plame “leak” was Richard Armitage and not Scooter Libby, and that the whole thing was nothing more than a notorious gossip instead of an organized attack on Wilson and Plame, are you going to write a blog entry admitting how wrong you were to base your conviction of Libby soley on Fitz’s indictment?
Well?
August 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Not sure what post you are referring to or where your logic is coming from. Novak said he had a source inside the White House. Cheney, Rove and Libby have admitted to discussing the release of the information in order to discredit Wilson’s article. Rove and Libby have both admitted to phoning not just Novak but many reporters in order to get the information out and blow Plame’s cover.
The fact that Novak may have had another source as well does not change the actions of these men. I’m not sure what you think I was wrong about.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:05 am
I’m referring to your posts on Japan Today/Crisscross, where you emphatically stated that Cheney (and Cheney’s office) deliberately outed Plame. Now it turns out that Armitage told Novak, after he told Woodward. Perhaps if you don’t like reading about it on David Horowitz’s site (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24098), you’ll wait for Isikoff and Corn’s book, Hubris, to come out.
“Rove and Libby have both admitted to phoning not just Novak but many reporters in order to get the information out and blow Plame’s cover.”
Really? Where did they do that? And if they did, why weren’t they (or anybody else, for that matter) charged with outing Plame?
To wrap it up, you insisted that Cheny’s office was solely responsible for the -alleged- leak and that the leak was intentional and designed to discredit Wilson and Plame. You were wrong.
Besides, it’s not like Wilson and Plame need any help in the discrediting department. Wilson has contradicted himself over and over again during sworn testimony invloving his infamous Niger junket.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Ah yeah. I remember you now!
Far be it for me to get between you and your delusions, but all the information I mentioned can be found in Fitzgerald’s statements the text of Libby’s indictment and the statements of the journalists themselves. A simple Google search will turn up more than enough references to the information.
September 1st, 2006 at 9:49 am
Yeah, how ya been, Tim?
My delusions? You’re the one who considers Fitz’s indictment to be concrete proof. It’s an INDICTMENT, not a CONCLUSION.
And again, why was Libby charged with lying to investigators (which might have to be dropped) but not for outing Plame? Ultimately, why has NOBODY been charged with outing Plame, especially if the case has already been “proven”?
I mean, besides the fact that it’s only been proven in your mind.
So to recap, you stated that Cheney’s office was solely responsible for the leak and that it was intentional, and it turned out to be a gossiper -who was opposed to the Iraq invasion- who leaked it to two journalists (Woodward and Novak) who were also opposed to the invasion. Thus, you were wrong.
Pardon me if I seem to be enjoying this.
September 4th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Well man, like I said. I remember you now. I also remember your rather creative interpretations of reality. I still don’t know exactly what you are talking about, so I’ll make you a deal.
1) Post the quote of my saying whatever it is you think I said. Don’t paraphrase, don’t tell me “what I was really thinking.” Just quote me.
2) Post a link to a primary source that directly contradicts my statement. No speculation. No ranting screeds about “what this fact really means.” Just something that shows my quote above is factually incorrect.
If you can do that, I will happily admit I was wrong.
P.S. No need to apologize for enjoying yourself. Everyone has a right to be happy.