Friday, May 28, 2010
Why Is Michael Jordan Sportin' A Hitler Mustache These Days?
I can almost guarantee you there is more to this story.
A person doesn't get up every morning looking at that dumbass mustache and decide to keep it unless there is a fuckin' reason.
There's no way he doesn't know his shitstain of a stache looks like a Hitler mustache.
Fuck Michael Jordan. He deserves to get his ass beat.
UPDATE - Well, at least, he's in good company. Check out this photo of Robert Mugabe, wearing a similar shitstain stache:
WHITE HOUSE GETTING READY TO THROW RAHM EMANUEL UNDER THE BUS?
Nope!
I got that wrong. Instead, the White House is attempting to spin the job offer to Sestak as being an "Unpaid Advisory Position". Imagine a Congressman deciding to no longer be a Senator so he can go work as an Intern in the White House.
I wonder if he would have been offered the opportunity to give Obama a Lewinsky too?
After all, Bill Clinton was the negotiator on this offer.
BREAKING NEWS: White House Asked Bill Clinton to Talk to Sestak About Possible Job
Fox News is reporting that the White House will shortly issue a report on the Sestak Job Offer. Sources say the report will say that former President Bill Clinton was asked by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to talk to Sestak about what might be able to convince him to get out of the Pennsylvania Senate race. . . DevelopingWashington Post: Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he’d be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.
But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton’s involvement.
According to the sources, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked Clinton and his longtime adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to talk to Sestak about the race. It’s unclear right now whether the White House will say that Clinton was asked to suggest specific administration positions for Sestak, whether Clinton floated positions on his own, whether Clinton discussed other options not related to the adminstration, or whether employment even came up at all in the talks.
Meet The Jews And Christians Behind The Planned Mosque At Ground Zero
The Jews and Christians Behind the “Cordoba Initiative”The concept of an “interfaith dialogue” is an alluring one. It assumes that people of faith are, by definition, virtuous, honest, tolerant, soft-spoken–and, hopefully, more committed to peace, reason, and morality than non-religious people are.
But is this true?
What if some religious people who are involved in such seductive dialogues are also crafty, evil, double-dealing hypocrites, more interested in money, power, sex, and war than in embracing lives of poverty, powerlessness, chastity, or even self-restraint? What if they are liars? Or addicts? Or, like so many others, merely addicted to the “high life”?
I myself believe in talking to and working with Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists—some of whom are religious Muslims, many of whom are secularists or apostates, but none of whom are powerful imams or sheikhs. I also believe in talking to and working with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and atheists who are anti-Islamist—not necessarily anti-Islam or anti-Muslim—and who support universal human rights. By definition, we are all opposed to Islamic gender and religious apartheid, misogyny in general, and the demonization of Israel, America, and the West. These are my kind of “interfaith” allies.
Jews are especially tempted by the idea of an “interfaith dialogue.” Why? Because it means that as long as one is still talking, the pogrom has not yet started. Also, despite a long and terrible history of being persecuted and murdered, Jews still continue to believe that reason, ideas, charm, even cleverness still have the power to triumph over genocidal hatred. Jews also believe that listening to the “other,” trying to understand his pain, will lead the lion to lie down with the lamb.
Thus, any number of prominent (and non-prominent) religious Jews are involved in “interfaith dialogues.” They fly around the world (they are often in constant motion) as they meet with their counterparts. Some stay at five star hotels or in palaces; others reside in more modest lodgings. Some are pillars of their communities; others seek to overthrow those very pillars. Some are clean-shaven, others fully bearded. Some sport ponytails and long, flowing hair. Some are seen as radically progressive, others as radically conservative. Mainly, all are men. Rabbis Arthur Waskow and Michael Lerner immediately come to mind. I bear a residual sentimentality towards them, (we go way back), but I certainly do not agree with their views about Israel, America, jihad, global warming, or the “Palestinian” question.
But there are other prominent, religious Jews who are more directly involved with the Cordoba Initiative, otherwise known as the mosque at Ground Zero, and with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, its chairman. (Abdul is part of his last name, which means “servant of The Kind One.”)The Great Mosque of Cordoba, originally a Christian Visigothic ChurchRabbi Bradley Hirschfield, the director of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership (CLAL), has been working with Imam Abdul Rauf for awhile. In fact, Rabbi Hirschfield is on the Advisory Board of the Cordoba Initiative. In 2007, Rabbi Hirschfield spoke on a panel together with Abdul Rauf for the Cordoba Initiative. The panel was also sponsored by CLAL and the American Society for Muslim Advancement—and took place at UC Irvine (the very university where Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech was disrupted). Their subject? “Why Should/Would Israel & Palestine exist? …How Cultural Narratives Compete.” For all I know, it was a principled and moving moment. I have no sure way of knowing. All I can say is that these two men — Hirschfield and Abdul Rauf — are in each other’s orbit, talking, presenting and working together publicly.
Rabbi Hirschfield was also involved with Buffalo-based Muzzammil Hassan, the founder of Bridges TV, who turned out to be a serious and serial wife batterer and wife killer. He is the man who beheaded his wife Aasiya when she dared to leave him. Bridges advertised itself as committed to interfaith dialogue and to the presentation of a positive image of Muslim-Americans. Amazingly, Hirschfield, an author and radio personality, (whom I have met twice, but briefly), has not dropped his association with Bridges, at least as shown on Wikipedia.
American Academy of Pediatrics Reverses Decision on Female Genital Mutilation
The American Academy of Pediatrics has reversed its decision last month regarding the practice of female circumcision by immigrants from some African, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures. The academy had suggested in a policy statement that doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or nick on girls if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.
Ignoring al Qaeda’s ideology is a threat to US national security
Ignoring al Qaeda’s ideology is a threat to US national security
By Walid Phares
In preparation for the publicizing for the new National Security Strategy by the Obama Administration, Mr John Brennan, White House Advisor on Counter Terrorism said the President’s strategy "is absolutely clear about the threat we face." From such an announcement one would project that the new narrative would be as precise as it should be. That is to define the ideology and the goals of the forces we're facing, namely the Jihadists, either Salafists or Khomeinists. Unfortunately, it was just the opposite. M. Brennan said the Obama Administration doesn’t "describe our enemy as 'Jihadists' or Islamists," because (as he argued) Jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community." He added that "the use of these religious terms would "play into the false perception" that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are "religious leaders and defending a holy cause, when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers." In reality, abandoning the use of terms such as “Jihadists” or even “Islamists” in defining the threat is a strategic set back in the war of ideas fought against al Qaeda, the Taliban, Shabab al Jihad, Hezbollah, the Pasdaran and all other adherents to Global Jihadism. It is the equivalent in a classical war, of banning the use of radars, AWACs and broadcast. In short, this is a shortcut to utter self defeat.
The premise of the new national security doctrine regarding the identification of the threat and the appropriate names to use is flawed in its root. Linguistically Jihad doesn’t translate into “Holy Struggle,” for the latter in Arabic is “al Nidal al muqaddass.” In its substance Jihad doesn’t mean a purification of oneself in abstract, like Yoga. Theologically it is a call for efforts on behalf of Allah (Jihad fi sabeel Allah) which could take different forms, some of which could be in the battlefield. It is originally a theological notion that US Government officials have no business in defining or redefining as M. Brennan and the national security doctrine of President Obama are attempting to. The United States secular Government shouldn’t enter the fray of stating that Jihad is legitimate or illegitimate from a theological standpoint. Instead they should identify if a particular ideology self described as "Jihadist" is or isn't a source of threat and radicalization.
الجهاد Jihad is a Theological Notion
الجهادية Jihadism is an ideology
However, and that’s the Administration’s second intellectual mistake, “Jihadism” is not the same thing as Jihad: the first is an ideological notion while the latter is originally a theological notion. The Administration’s experts have tried to link Jihadism, and thus the “Jihadists” to the controversially debated concept of Jihad. This is academically flawed: For Jihadism is a movement in contemporary times and their ideology has been established for almost a century. There are geopolitical in nature and involved in conflicts, wars and radicalization. More importantly they’ve declared a war against the US and have waged it for decades. Whatever is the debate about Jihad as a notion, the Jihadists exist in reality and they are the foes of democracies.
An AP story posted on April 7 reported that President Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror. It added that “the change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." This means that the Obama Administration is saying there is no such thing as “Militant Islamic Radicalism” thus the US narrative should not talk about ideology as a threat to national security. But banning all terms that identifies the threat other than describing it as “extremist” or “violent” not only is scholarly wrong but would in turn constitute a threat to America’s national security. Extremism and Violence are abstract terms used to describe an ideologies, movements and organizations. But “description” is not “identification.” One can say the Nazis or the Bolsheviks are extremists but one must identify the threat before describing it.
For while it is positive to refine and improve the quality of US rhetoric, and thus select the best words to identify the enemy’s identity and doctrines, cleansing the official narrative from all words allegedly “Islam-related” would simultaneously eliminate the very words and terms that determine and specifies the particular network and world vision which are at war with the entire international community including the United States but also the moderate Arabs and Muslims. Arguing that abandoning terms such as “Muslim Terrorists” may be helpful in narrowing the identification process to the very movement and ideologies involved in the threat. Rejecting generalizations against communities is the right thing to do, but eliminating the naming of the actual enemy would be a disaster on many levels. Indeed, the Administration’s experts have accordingly advised for deleting terms such as Jihadists, Jihadism, Salafism, Khomeinism, Takfirism and even Islamists. But these are the vital identification codes for the entire web engaged in war, indoctrination, incitement and Terrorism first against Muslim societies and also against Western and American democracies. These are ideological and political identifications of the threat without which US national security would be as blind as if during WWII word such as Nazism and fascism or during the Cold war, words such as Soviets and Communists, would have been dropped from the rhetoric. The terms Jihadists and Islamists are not descriptive of Islam or Muslims but of the forces which claim to do so. If we drop these very words we would be doing exactly what the Jihadists want us to do: linking them to the entire community instead of separating them from the majority of Muslims. If we accept the premise advanced by some advisors that Jihadism is Islam and mentioning it negatively would offend the Muslim world, al Qaeda wins.
The AP says these revisions “are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change (…) how the United States talks to Muslim nations.” This is a worse argument as the public debate and narrative in the Muslim majority countries precisely uses this terminology 24/7. How is it arguable that terms such as al Jihadiyya, al Salafiyya, al Islamiyun, al Khomeiniyun, al Takfiriyun are used in on Arab airwaves, in print and in the blogosphere to depict the radicals, extremists and Terrorists from Morocco to Pakistan, and White House advisors claim such words would offend if used in that sense in English? There is something very odd here. If these terms define the enemy within the Arab and Muslim world, who are we trying to confuse here? The only possible answer is that these words would be banned, so that the American public doesn’t use them not that the Muslim world is offended. This looks like a war of ideas to disable American citizens' understanding by making them believe that the very words that Arabs and Muslims use to isolate the Terrorists also offend them.
MA Treasurer Cahill Rips Gov. Patrick For Pandering to Muslims
May 28, 2010 7:43 am US/Eastern
Muslim Leaders: Cahill's Remarks 'Bigoted'
BOSTON (AP)
Massachusetts Muslim leaders are firing back at gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill who accused Gov. Deval Patrick of "pandering" to the Muslim community.
Leaders said in a statement that Cahill's remarks are "bigoted ... undignified" and "anti-democratic."
Cahill on Thursday said Patrick's meeting last weekend with about 1,000 Muslim leaders from across the state represented "political correctness run amok," adding that the Democratic governor was "playing politics with terrorism."
Cahill is the state Treasurer and a former Democrat who has launched an independent campaign for governor.
Muslim leaders say they will be joined by Christian and Jewish leaders at a news conference Friday to further condemn Cahill, who is trailing Patrick and Republican candidate Charlie Baker in the polls.
Oh here's a shock : Islamists gaining influence within Egyptian Army
GERTZ:CAIRO -- The Egyptian Army has come under the steady domination of Islamists.Egyptian sources said Islamists have risen to mid- and high-level ranks in the Army and Navy. They said many of these officers pressure their soldiers to demonstrate a devotion and observance to the Muslim religion regardless of their faith.
"There is an acceptance in most of the military that fundamentalist Islam is legitimate and becoming the dominating trend," a source familiar with the Egyptian military said.
The sources said the Islamist trend in the military began in the Egyptian Navy during the 1990s. They said the Islamic influence spread to the Army and included pressure on non-Muslims to convert.
The Islamist officers were said to have reached senior levels of the Army. Sources said the officers have pressed for greater access to mosques, additional time for prayer and ritual as well as decreasing tolerance for secular and non-Muslim soldiers.
The main victims of the Islamization of military have been Coptic Christians, said to comprise about eight percent of Egypt's population. Coptic soldiers have reported Islamist harassment, beatings and pressure to convert.
In August 2009, a Coptic soldier was said to have shot himself amid pressure from Islamist officers in his unit. The body of Mubarak Zakaria, 22, was found badly bruised in what the sources said reflected severe beating and torture.
"My son sustained multiple gunshot wounds, and what the prosecutor told me is illogical," Zakaria's father, Masoud, said.
The sources said the Islamist pressure on Coptic soldiers to convert has become widespread. In most cases, they said, the Copts have refused to report the pressure in fear of reprisals.
The Egyptian Air Force has been deemed the last military service not dominated by fundamentalist Islam. But the sources said they expected the Air Force would be soon a target by creeping Islamization.
The sources said the regime of President Hosni Mubarak has ignored complaints of Islamization in the military. In many cases, they said, Islamist officers were also avoiding their counterparts in Western militaries.
In 2006, another Coptic soldier, identified as Hani Seroufim, was found dead after he refused orders by his commanding officer to convert to Islam. The sources said the Army claimed that Seroufim had drowned, but his body contained evidence of torture.
"They finally have realized that the crimes against them are not individual incidents but rather crimes against humanity planned by the Egyptian state itself," Coptic writer Magdi Khalil said.
Can anyone say ISI? Pakistan?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sFyeDubRf8s_Wc9YLCJVcBuWtfu8bTRk-1cJmXIWv4IRzKBomw6pG_HEOTKSBMev9_v78Z0ml49Da3r5sfAy4vlajxPmCmWxM63oCIqbVF9iUNrK7GCr1LiJpCB5JS6r0BCjhixz71cAhFFBZ-zJ07=s0-d)
Our Counterror head BRENNAN:Jihad is 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam'
John Brennan is the man who was PERSONALLY responsible for halting efforts AT TRIGGER POINT to kill Bin Laden in 1996 under Clinton (Michael Scheurer) , established new heights of impossible moral inversion by claiming he was doing a good job because recidivism rates among those trying to blow up anything with a lot of people in America were about the same as teenage car thieves in Secaucus. He now set a new mark with such a completely stratospheric demonstration of hyperbolicly suicidal logic, that words fails ..
And missed among these items is the almost EMBARRASSED admission by Sec Def gates that among our national security issues, moved near the top is CLIMATE CHANGE.FOXNEWS:The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.
"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.
Our defense dept has bought into the idea that climate change must be addressed in the same way as Islamism, China, Cyber warfare, and Kim?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vNOyHNARyzCuUWeNr8rOPswg4T9HhsH6eeLBNTKgyTnf25uyZXzw0Y-UtPL0uRYIuSktIMLf5vm1fUgjmsGVJYqJhfm0D_sqG8f6D-CO80mnp_iUZ74iLLZw42L7L2EOlEppoAylR_MYlBZlDBFOQ=s0-d)
"Yours is a peaceful faith, and I know that" Deval Patrick Gov of Mass
Deval Patrick Embraces Political Islam
Boston Herald:
Deval Patrick vows support for Muslims
By Marie Szaniszlo
In his largest meeting with Boston-area Muslims, Gov. Deval Patrick agreed yesterday to take aim at ensuring their rights and addressing racial profiling.
The session came little more than a week after two Bay State Muslims were arrested in a raid following an attempted car bombing in Times Square in New York.
More than 1,100 Muslims attended the forum at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center and Mosque in Roxbury, where Patrick was given one minute to answer "yes" or "no" to seven questions, including whether he would:
Have law enforcement agency heads and others meet with Muslims to discuss the need for cultural awareness training.
Designate a liaison to the Muslim community.
Urge the public and private sectors to accommodate Muslims' religious obligation to attend Friday afternoon prayers.
The governor answered yes to every question. Patrick said he had already named a liaison. When it came to prayer times, Patrick said he wants to promote overall religious tolerance.
Beginning his comments in Arabic by saying, "Hello, how are you. I speak Arabic a little," the governor said the forum was not his first exposure to Islam, noting that he'd lived in Sudan and Nigeria.
"Yours is a peaceful faith, and I know that. I know you are worried that others know that," he said. The head of one Muslim group said he was interviewed three times in recent years by FBI agents "fishing for something." A mother told of wa
lking with her baby in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and feeling terrified when a cab driver pulled up to them and said, "We should kill you all."
"We are here for power and for re
cognition," said Bilal Kaleem, president of the Muslim American Society of Boston. "We're against extremism and terror." [link]
Three years ago Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby wrote an important column about the Roxbury mosque:
SPEAKING AT the State Depa
rtment in 1999, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi sheik and leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, sounded an alarm about Muslim houses of worship in the United States.
"The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques . . . is the extremists' ideology," he said. "Because they are very active, they took over the mosques; . . . they took ov
er more than 80 percent of the mosques that have been established in the US." He warned ominously that "a danger might suddenly come that you are not looking for . . . we don't know where it is going to hit."
When Kabbani was condemned by other Muslim organizations, he stood his ground. His assessment of the leadership of US mosques, he said, was based on having visited scores of them, and in a subsequent interview he explain
ed the extremists' pattern of infiltration.
Muslim immigrants to the United States "came with a good heart . . . and they wanted a place to pray," Kabbani told the Middle East Quarterly. "They collected money and they built mosques in their community. Slowly, certain Middle Eastern groups seized the
se mosques, promoting political and ideological agendas rooted in their home countries' problems. . . . Slowly, such groups took over many mosques either directly or by unseen pressure on the moderate board members, and now an antagonistic mentality controls them. The extremists -- not ordinary believers -- changed the use of American mosques into centers of intolerant poli
tical dogma." [link]
Governor Deval Patrick knows who he is dealing with. He made a political deal. His is the face of ideological corruption of today's liberalism. Nothing with stop them in their quest for power.
Links provided very often provide the opposite point of view. Have you espresso, baby
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vEwoZkX_06UxsPjvbD7y6HPxj8TH3jk8i0Y3ogoqnamAxjmpkfwwWMZ5rFYXPqD36yL2S589IiqRmhzbp4KpA6-OHuCjs9f_Y-Q8MHzMtxDt6ZRtAmRcyVw0M3RHbUvEL2Q34mDvn-uZgWn2zrzuY=s0-d)
India train blast kills scores; toll to rise
MSNBC:
Sabotage suspected in collision near stronghold of Maoist rebels
By Bappa Majumdar
updated 19 minutes ago
NEW DELHI - Maoist rebels are suspected of sabotaging a high-speed train in eastern India on Friday, killing at least 65 people after it smashed into the path of a goods train, officials said.
Local television showed the mangled wreckage of capsized carriages across the tracks and the death toll could rise as many passengers were still trapped. At least 104 people were injured.
"So far we have recovered 40 bodies but the toll will rise further," N.S. Nigam, a senior local government official, told Reuters. Media reports quoting government officials said at least 65 people were killed.
Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee said a bomb had hit the train, but police said they were also looking at other sabotage methods such as the removal of the tracks' "fish plates".
"From whatever I have been told the apprehension is the Maoists were involved," Banerjee said.
The crash occurred in West Bengal state in an area known to be a stronghold of Maoist rebels. Maoists, who say they are fighting for the rights of the poor and landless, have attacked trains in the past and have stepped up attacks in recent months.
"The driver heard a loud noise which indicates there could be a blast. A detail investiogation will reveal more, but definitely there was lot of tinkering done to the tracks," Vivek Sahay, a senior railway offical, told reporters.
"It was definitely sabotage."
The Maoists number thousands of fighters across swathes of eastern and central India. In April, 76 police were killed in an ambush in one of the heaviest tolls in years.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has described the insurgency as India's biggest internal security challenge and his Congress-led government has been under increasing political pressure to deal with the insurgents.
Trapped passengers
The passenger train, which was going to Mumbai from the eastern metropolis of Kolkata in West Bengal state, was derailed in the state's Jhargram area at around 1:30 a.m. (2000 GMT).
"The cries of women and children from inside the compartments have died down. They (railway staff) are still struggling to cut through metal and bring out those trapped inside," Amitava Rath, a local journalist at the scene of the crash, told Reuters.
A reporter of the Telegraph newspaper described a scene of chaos and panic at the site. "Rescuers are struggling to save the survivors and get the bodies out," Naresh Jana told Reuters.
"I can see body parts hanging out of the compartments and under the wheels. I can hear people, women, crying for help from inside the affected coaches."
The incident comes days after a passenger airliner crashed in southern India, killing 158 people, underscoring safety issues and concern that India's ageing infrastructure was failing to keep pace with an economic boom.
The Maoists had called a "black week" to condemn what they call police atrocities against innocent villagers and for an immediate halt to an armed campaign against them in India.
In March, police suspected their hand in the derailment of India's most prestigious high-speed Rajdhani Express. Maoists have also taken over trains in past years in a show of strength, holding them for hours.
The rebels, who often attack police, government buildings and infrastructure such as railway stations, have in recent months stepped up attacks in response to a government security offensive to clear them out of their jungle bases.
The decades-old movement is now present in a third of the country. They are mostly spread in rural pockets of 20 of India's 28 states and hurt potential business worth billions of dollars.
Pamela Geller Debates The 9/11 Mosque Project With Daisy Khan On The Joy Behar Show
Pamela does a very good job here. Pamela makes it look easy to go on the air and talk/debate/respond extemporaneously. It isn't easy.
I'm very impressed.
Michigan Considers Law Requiring Journalists to be Licensed and Regulated by the State
From Weasel Zippers:
Creeping totalitarianism…
State Senator Bruce Patterson has an idea to help people sort out the media. He wants to create a state board to license and regulate reporters. Michigan Radio Jack Lessenberry has been thinking about that.
State Senator Bruce Patterson got to thinking about the media recently, and noticed something. Hairdressers and auto mechanics are regulated and licensed by the state.
So are lawyers, doctors, even those who give manicures. So, he reasoned, why shouldn’t reporters be as well?
Last week, Senator Patterson told MIRS, the Michigan Information and Research Service, that he was bothered because there are fewer full-time people covering Lansing.
And some who do show up don’t have adequate knowledge or background to understand what they are writing or broadcasting about. As a result, he says some “news sources” just aren’t credible.
He knows that a plumber legally has to be licensed by the state. So, he reasoned, why shouldn’t journalists be regulated as well? Accordingly, he has introduced a new bill, SB 1323, to add reporters to the list of occupations regulated by the state.
His bill would set up a board to review applications and license reporters. Candidates would have to demonstrate that they have a journalism degree, or, failing that, three years of experience, some published stories, and letters of recommendation.
….However, I was tempted to point out to the senator that one little phrase in his bill would automatically disqualify almost all of us. He wants registered journalists to be of “good moral character.