Opening the Aperture...

Straying slightly from the thus far sports based posts this morning.

Some national furor has erupted this week over newly inflammatory comments from right wing conservative commentator and all around crazy bitch, Ann Coulter. Appearing on CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, Coulter stated that the country would be better off if everyone were Christian. Deutsch, who is Jewish, asked if she wanted to get rid of Judaism, to which Coulter responded, "We just want Jews to be perfected."

Even more stunning, in the face of this blatant anti-semitism, spokespersons from each of the major networks would not rule out future appearances by Coulter on their platforms. From Matea Gold at the Los Angeles Times:

"The decision to put someone like Ann Coulter on our air is not one we would ever take lightly," said NBC News spokesman Allison Gollust. "However, when you talk about banning someone from the airwaves because of their views -- whatever they may be -- you are getting into dangerous territory."

ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said the network has "to cover the news, so it's nearly impossible to say you won't ever have someone on. That said, we certainly don't have any plans to have her on."

CBS News also does not plan to interview Coulter in the near future, although spokeswoman Sandy Genelius added, "It seems as though no news organization could justifiably say 'never.' "

Fox News did not rule out having her on as a guest again, but a network executive said if she came on she would be pressed about her statements. A CNN spokeswoman said bookings are left up to each show's producer.

Why not take a stand? Coulter comments on news and is not necessarily a newsmaker (except when she is seeking publicity for her myriad of conservative publishings and making comments such as this). There is no need to "cover" her. However, Coulter inspires outrage and garners attention and ratings for these networks, which is the prime driver for news networks, supplanting the desire to present journalistic value.

*******************************************************************

The Associated Press is reporting that Ammar al-Hakim, a member and purported future leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the country's largest Shiite party, has initiated debate for Iraq to potentially move away from a central, multi-party government to one which splits the country into regions based upon ethnic and religious lines. This call comes amid perceived growing frustration with the stops and stalls of the current institutions led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

This call for change from a party leader in the Iraqi government is could be a step toward the citizens of Iraq taking greater control over their political future. What is puzzling is the continued role the government of the United States is taking in determining the shape of that future. Last month, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution calling upon President Bush to make a push for a federalized system if the Iraqis called for it. Iraqi leadership pushed back against this, stating that this was a potential move against the sovereignty of Iraq, which, to me, seems to be a good point. Why Congress is pushing forward bills such as this, which is a successor to earlier debated resolutions which were to potentially call for the removal of al-Maliki from his elected role as Prime Minister. These are decisions that should and must be made by the citizens and elected leaders of Iraq in order for Iraq to assume the mantle of leadership once the US makes its inevitable drawdown and withdrawal from the country.

I am far from an expert in politics and public policy but, shouldn't a country where democracy is attempting to gain a foothold make it's own decisions in these arenas? And, shouldn't a domestic political apparatus that is struggling to extricate its military forces from Iraq avoid even the perception of undermining the fledgling democratic government of Iraq?