- No Recommendations yet - go add some!
- What I wrote about your station's monetary interests in booking guests did not mention your personal integrity at all. (Do I resist the observation that it is usually as noticeable factor in your confabulations as in Mr. Daisy's monologues?) It's there for all to see. They will judge for themselves.
And maybe, perhaps, wonder: What is your station's/show's policy on accepting financial contributions from "guests". (When music was the main product showcased on the radio, they used to call it "payolla".)
- It seems you're not willing to "fact check" the statements of your "guest"
(not that I'm accusing a commissioner of the NYPD of testi-lying or anything like that).
One of the subjects seemed to be the fabled "gun show loophole". The commissioner seemed to be offering an anecdote to illustrate one of the pernicious effects of that much ballyhooed loophole. The only problem with the anecdote was that it made no mention of any gun sale. Rather it seemed to illustrate that actual NYPD case investigation may be "buffaloed" by something like "the dog ate my homework" as an alibi. "Semper ita ad indocti"
I'm sure there is at least one case, in the known universe, that can serve to illustrate the "scapegoats" you seek to establish. I wonder why I never hear one?
- Admittedly, I'm a little obsessed over this Daisey thing.
I'm wondering what his appearance on Mr. Lopate's show portends for next week's guest schedule. Are we going to hear from some salesperson of mortgage backed bonds, well compensated from the government's TARP monies, who seeks to be rehabilitated as he launches a new investment vehicle? Does this show or WNYC have a policy about airing interviews with persons who have made financial contributions or donations to WNYC or public radio? Is Joe’s Pub somehow arranging this "puff" piece as a way of ginning up the gate for for Daisey's upcoming prevarication? "Semper sic ad imposturis."
- I thought other listeners might like have some truthful (what a strange concept) information about Daisey's fraud. This is, I believe, damming:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction
- How does Daisey explain the way he exposed his Chinese translator to jeopardy by leaving her in China, while using her real name in his personally lucrative, albeit bogus, theatrical "performance", which purported to describe the acts of fraud he committed, with her assistance, against a powerful institution of the Chinese economy. Did he get her permission to use her real name? Did he initially promise her anonymity in China, but later, when he himself was ensconced in the relative safety of the United States, decide that the "artistic narrative" require that he reveal her true identity? (N.B. I saw early copies of a notice that advised that some of the "names" in Daisey's prevarication might be change.) Did she share any of the proceeds of from the "show"? Since escaping the jurisdiction of Chinese law has he returned to China to follow-up on his "stories"? Has he contacted the Chinese translator? BTW: How much did the show actually earn? "Semper sic ad imposturis", eh?
- Of course Lincoln never thought of the Civil War as a "transnational conflict".
- It is monstrous for anyone to require our soldiers to risk their lives or limbs to perform tasks required by the war we are engaged in. I expect this type of effete "pettifogging" accompanied the abandonment of hand-to-hand combat in favor of long distance firearms. Why didn't we have a representative from the rehabilitation ward of a veteran's hospital to have someone with skin in the game.
This seems to be the same pettifogging discussion that accompanied the abandonment of hand to hand combat as the primary means for the folly of war.
(? Was Lincoln somehow at fault for allowing Grant to slay American citizens on American soil without obtaining individually court vetted warrants?
- It is monstrous for anyone to require our soldiers to risk their lives or limbs to perform tasks required by the war we are engaged in. I expect this type of effete "pettifogging" accompanied the abandonment of hand-to-hand combat in favor of long distance firearms. Why didn't we have a representative from the rehabilitation ward of a veteran's hospital to have someone with skin in the game.
This seems to be the same pettifogging discussion that accompanied the abandonment of hand to hand combat as the primary means for the folly of war.
(? Was Lincoln somehow at fault for allowing Grant to slay American citizens on American soil without obtaining individually court vetted warrants?
- It is monstrous for anyone to require our soldiers to risk their lives or limbs to perform tasks required by the war we are engaged in. I expect this type of effete "pettifogging" accompanied the abandonment of hand-to-hand combat in favor of long distance firearms. Why didn't we have a representative from the rehabilitation ward of a veteran's hospital to have someone with skin in the game.
This seems to be the same pettifogging discussion that accompanied the abandonment of hand to hand combat as the primary means for the folly of war.
(? Was Lincoln somehow at fault for allowing Grant to slay American citizens on American soil without obtaining individually court vetted warrants?
- It is monstrous for anyone to require our soldiers to risk their lives or limbs to perform tasks required by the war we are engaged in. I expect this type of effete "pettifogging" accompanied the abandonment of hand-to-hand combat in favor of long distance firearms. Why didn't we have a representative from the rehabilitation ward of a veteran's hospital to have someone with skin in the game.
This seems to be the same pettifogging discussion that accompanied the abandonment of hand to hand combat as the primary means for the folly of war.
(? Was Lincoln somehow at fault for allowing Grant to slay American citizens on American soil without obtaining individually court vetted warrants? I'm sure the "law student" guest would consider that a worthy intellectual question - they usually have mentalities suited for counting how many billable hours can be fitted onto pinheads such as themselves.)
- More
