Well, there is a lot more to this interview. There is a haha moment when he discusses Rep. Grayson’s use of the word, “whore.”
Tidbits:
Bret: Charles what about this guy he makes for a lot of headlines. Charles Krauthammer: I love the apology in which he says I apologize for using a word that he said is often seen as disrespectful. Well you know, really now? Now but the often is intriguing because it leads to the question.. “Under what circumstances is it not disrespectful to women?” Perhaps if you said to him, “Representative Grayson I hear that your sister is a superior whore” would that qualify as a non-perjorative use? I mean how else can the word be used? This guy is obviously acting like a clown because it gets him attention and it gets him fundraising. If you’re going to issue an apology don’t use the word often.
Later in the video at 8:50 in Krauthammer discusses White House transparency:
Bret: Charles is this a problem for this White House? A candidate Obama that said he was going to change the way this whole thing is operated
Charles Krauthammer: He was being so obviously disingenuous last year. I know that millions of people believed him, but if this did then deserved what they got. I mean the idea that he was going to remake our politics..politics from below..banish the money-changers from the temples was ridiculous. Here’s a guy who went out and raised the most money in the history of humanity and now he’s giving favors. That’s how it works there was never going to be any change. And I’m not shocked, surprised or in anyway dismayed. I expected no better or worse. He’s sorta the way all of our Presidents are. But the idea that he was going to be a revolutionary in bringing clean government was preposterous from the very beginning. You really had to be a swooning college student to believe it and apparently we have a lot of them in the country.
Whether coincidence or smackdown, the phrase contained in Schwarzenegger’s Oct. 12 veto message could be seen as retaliation for Ammiano’s behavior during a local Democratic Party fundraiser earlier this month in San Francisco.
But wait — there’s a real message, an actual missive from the Gov to Tom, embedded in this text. And it’s not hard to find — in fact, it’s hard to believe it could have been a coincidence.
Read down the letters on the left side of the message
Well, maybe Arnold is still mad at being told to “kiss my gay ass”, but this is a rather puerile way for the governor of California to be spending his time.
So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.
The book’s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press’s decision not to publish the cartoons. But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that “Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.”
The university told Yale Press to eliminate the cartoons from the book, along with all other images of Muhammad. And Klausen was told she’d have to sign a nondisclosure agreement if she wanted to read the experts’ comments. She declined to do so. But she says she was even more dismayed to learn that the panel had not read her book.
“It was fairly overwhelming that the people who knew the most about this kind of situation said ‘Don’t do it,’ that this was likely to provoke violence,” Yale Press director John Donatich said.
Are Muslims really that “excitable” that they can go off the deep end and rein hell on earth over a cartoon? How about growing some thick, calloused skin? Freedom of speech people: it is a right in this country. No one is forced into reading the book.
Someone else said it best, if Yale is concerned publication of a book with cartoons in it will lead to violence, by which they mean Muslim violence, the problem is not with the book. The problem is Islam, the religion of peace.
People are unconsciously fairer and more generous when they are in clean-smelling environments, according to a soon-to-be published study led by a Brigham Young University professor.
