As I read Margaret Talbot's profile of Oriana Fallaci in the June 5, 2006 issue of the New Yorker magazine,  I could not help be reminded of how today's conservative (neocon) female writers lack not only true courage but more important real substance.  I refer to Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, both destined to remain in the eternal hell of mediocrity. Oriana Fallaci now in her seventies and living in New York, demands respect for her outrageous courage.  Every interview she did of a well-known political figure during the time she was in the forefront of her profession was at great risk to her, professionally and personally.  Love or hate her, Fallaci's work always added value and information to current discourse.

 "For two decades, from the mid-nineteen-sixties to the mid-nineteen-eighties, Fallaci was one of the sharpest political interviewers in the world. Her subjects were among the world’s most powerful figures: Yasir Arafat, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Haile Selassie, Deng Xiaoping. Henry Kissinger, who later wrote that his 1972 interview with her was “the single most disastrous conversation I have ever had with any member of the press,” said that he had been flattered into granting it by the company he’d be keeping as part of Fallaci’s “journalistic pantheon.” It was more like a collection of pelts: Fallaci never left her subjects unskinned.

Whatever your politics, this profile is worth a read.  Fallaci is currently in trouble with Italian government because she has spoken out against what she refers to as Islamofascism.  In her view, Muslims have overtaken Europe and no one seems to care.

In times, past Fallaci has spoken out against right-wing dictatorships - in Greece for example; however she has turned to the right in her dotage.  She is dying of cancer but keeps kicking.  While I may not agree with her politics these days, I find her to be an amazing and unforgettable journalist who makes just about anyone today calling themselves either writer or journalist, male or female, pale into insignificance by comparison. 

Well, well what have we here. It's not news that Cheney tried to head off Arlen Specter's hearing on NSA domestic spying. What is news is that Specter isn't keeping it secret. See Froomkin today for details.  And here's the best part:

 "His decision to confront Cheney represents an unusually public rupture between a senior GOP lawmaker and the White House. It also provides a rare public glimpse of the tactics employed by a vice president who prefers to operate behind the scenes."  [in secrecy] emphsis added.

Jon Carroll of the SF Chronicle puts it this way in his column today:  As Andy Warhol might have said: In the future, everybody will be swift-boated for 15 minutes.

Carroll's column is about privacy in the brave new world of anything goes on the internet.  Referring to the front page story the NYTimes ran on the Clinton marriage (how many evenings they spend together) and by way of riposte, blogger Atrios who asked what about  NYTimes Executive Editor Bill Keller's marriage (what do we want to know about that), the column goes on to discuss the option of legal redress for invasion of privacy.

"..., one of the curious things about invasion of privacy suits is that, by their very nature, they give greater visibility to statements that the plaintiff in theory wants to keep quiet. X 's sexual tastes would have been very old news by now, but his lawsuit seems certain to keep all the juicy details in the public eye -- lawyers at least are following this case very closely -- for quite some time."

The blogosphere doing what it does best?