1953: Dan Rather receives his Bachelor of Arts in Journalism from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, TX. On October 21st, 1994, SHSU dedicated the Dan Rather Communications Building. That name's gonna be a real magnet for top-notch applicants now, eh?
FUN FACT: Huntsville is also the home of Death Row in the Texas prison system. Strangely, at an Al Gore appearance in 2000 discussing the 'troublesome' aspects of the Death Penalty, Gore was apparently expecting a call from Dan Rather. Proof that Rather was the power behind the Gore throne? Believe it...or not, makes no difference to me, either way...
Rather Excellent Tales: Birth of a Legend
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Miscellanea: Dissecting Mr. Chomsky Edition
Good conversation on one Noam Chomsky (maybe you've heard of him) at David Horowtiz's FrontPage Magazine (hat tip to Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite)...
The catastrophically horrible Maureen Dowd weighs in on the Lawrence Summers affair (and somehow confuses his statement with a commentary on attractiveness). Dowd tries to show how judging a woman by her looks is wrong by judging a man on how he looks (???!!!). Dowd also asks how Summers ever got to be the President of Harvard, when the real question on America's mind is how the hell Maureen Dowd got a newspaper column. Those must be some mighty incriminating photos you have there, MoDo. Whatever her point is eludes me. Try to find out for yourself, if you can stand it (of course, the Daily Kos is recommending it, and not for its comedy value)...
Ed Driscoll does a fine job rounding up some required reading on liberalism and its discontents...
Commonwealth Conservative picks up on the Virginia GOP's response to Howard Dean's racial slur...
Dean is sure to be in even MORE hot water after this...
A very interesting poll of attendees at CPAC on presidential preferences is up at Patrick Ruffini's blog (Hillary leads the Dems by a WIDE margin, Giuliani over Rice by a single percentage point for the Elephants)...
Remember the infamous John Kerry Meet the Press snoozer in the aftermath of the Iraqi elections? Wuzzadem has the transcript from the commercial breaks...
ScrappleFace has the latest Lawrence Summers statement...
Frank J tells the dark history of blogging (hat tip to the wonderful bebere)...
The catastrophically horrible Maureen Dowd weighs in on the Lawrence Summers affair (and somehow confuses his statement with a commentary on attractiveness). Dowd tries to show how judging a woman by her looks is wrong by judging a man on how he looks (???!!!). Dowd also asks how Summers ever got to be the President of Harvard, when the real question on America's mind is how the hell Maureen Dowd got a newspaper column. Those must be some mighty incriminating photos you have there, MoDo. Whatever her point is eludes me. Try to find out for yourself, if you can stand it (of course, the Daily Kos is recommending it, and not for its comedy value)...
Ed Driscoll does a fine job rounding up some required reading on liberalism and its discontents...
Commonwealth Conservative picks up on the Virginia GOP's response to Howard Dean's racial slur...
Dean is sure to be in even MORE hot water after this...
A very interesting poll of attendees at CPAC on presidential preferences is up at Patrick Ruffini's blog (Hillary leads the Dems by a WIDE margin, Giuliani over Rice by a single percentage point for the Elephants)...
Remember the infamous John Kerry Meet the Press snoozer in the aftermath of the Iraqi elections? Wuzzadem has the transcript from the commercial breaks...
ScrappleFace has the latest Lawrence Summers statement...
Frank J tells the dark history of blogging (hat tip to the wonderful bebere)...
Lawrence Summers and the Difference Between Observation and Stereotyping
One good thing that comes out of these periodic controversies is the opportunity they provide to hash out ideas and opinions. On that score, people are having a field day with Lawrence Summers and his suggestion that perhaps innate biological differences account for the relative parsity of women in the sciences.
Suppose I were to say, "Women are much more likely than men to sacrifice comfort for appearance." Suppose further that you are Nancy Hopkins and my statement causes you great anxiety bordering on a heart attack. On second thought, scratch that last sentence. Suppose you are the typical open-minded yet somewhat skeptical American, and you respond "Prove it." I might then point to the popularity of high-heeled shoes and other footwear women routinely torture themselves by wearing. You could then respond, "That's because society forces them into this role of seductress," and I could then say, "No, it would be one thing if high-heeled shoes were all this patriarchal society sold, but there are plenty of comfortable shoes on the market that men and women think look just fine," and so on.
This is called spirited debate. Surely it has a place, not just in academia, but in general society. Now suppose I am Ward Churchill, and I say, "I don't care one bit about spousal abuse in this country - all those little Eichmanns have it coming to them, for being such teases." That is an animal of a different sort altogether, and I think 98% of reasonable adults can see the difference.
The blogs on the right have recently been accused of being mean-spirited morons incapable of seeing subtlety, and behaving like a bloodthirsty mob in general. The shoe probably fits in some cases, but not in most. Harvard University and Lawrence Summers are surely not the darlings of the conservative set; the fact that the rights of Summers have been vigorously defended by the right, while Ward Churchill has been roundly condemned (but, strangely(?), not so much by the left), shows me we are a lot more 'nuanced' than we are given credit for. Lawrence Summers should never have apologized; in doing so, he gave up the moral high ground without much of a fight. Still, he has every reason to sit tight and wait out the storm. 'Witchhunt' is a word thrown out all too routinely, but in this case, it's the mot juste.
Suppose I were to say, "Women are much more likely than men to sacrifice comfort for appearance." Suppose further that you are Nancy Hopkins and my statement causes you great anxiety bordering on a heart attack. On second thought, scratch that last sentence. Suppose you are the typical open-minded yet somewhat skeptical American, and you respond "Prove it." I might then point to the popularity of high-heeled shoes and other footwear women routinely torture themselves by wearing. You could then respond, "That's because society forces them into this role of seductress," and I could then say, "No, it would be one thing if high-heeled shoes were all this patriarchal society sold, but there are plenty of comfortable shoes on the market that men and women think look just fine," and so on.
This is called spirited debate. Surely it has a place, not just in academia, but in general society. Now suppose I am Ward Churchill, and I say, "I don't care one bit about spousal abuse in this country - all those little Eichmanns have it coming to them, for being such teases." That is an animal of a different sort altogether, and I think 98% of reasonable adults can see the difference.
The blogs on the right have recently been accused of being mean-spirited morons incapable of seeing subtlety, and behaving like a bloodthirsty mob in general. The shoe probably fits in some cases, but not in most. Harvard University and Lawrence Summers are surely not the darlings of the conservative set; the fact that the rights of Summers have been vigorously defended by the right, while Ward Churchill has been roundly condemned (but, strangely(?), not so much by the left), shows me we are a lot more 'nuanced' than we are given credit for. Lawrence Summers should never have apologized; in doing so, he gave up the moral high ground without much of a fight. Still, he has every reason to sit tight and wait out the storm. 'Witchhunt' is a word thrown out all too routinely, but in this case, it's the mot juste.
Bloggers vs. MSM - And the Winner is...
...capitalism. The true beneficiary of the somewhat contrived Texas Death Match between the upstart blogs and the established media titans is the consumer. By adopting the totally arbitrary convention of a top ten list, I intend to show you how. Starting with:
- Number Ten: the MSM's bias problems, and solutions, lie inside their own organizations. Despite our (often valid) complaints of liberal media bias, the networks and newspapers of our nation are staffed with intelligent, discerning professionals who share a love for their professions and a devotion to performing their jobs to the utmost of their abilities. The job of the journalist has remained remarkably consistent over time: get at the truth, and report it, and no one can perform such a job without being affected by his own biases as to what the 'truth' might be. Put another way, there is only one truth, but many ways of perceiving it. It is the role of the editor to shape the resulting piece in such a way as to (a) strip out the bias, (b) proclaim it and present opposing viewpoints, or (c) leave it in and label it analysis or opinion, rather than news. The executives and editors are largely failing us, not the grunts in the trenches, as witnessed by the refusal of the CBS Three to leave without an admission of guilt by the top dogs at CBS, and the quite proper forced removal of a Chief News Executive who had such a craven opionion of the U.S. military that he felt safe accusing them of murder in a public setting without offering a shred of proof.
- Number Nine: If the MSM falls, it will be cable that slays the dragon. In its own way, cable television was as remarkable a paradigm shift as the Internet. No longer would it be possible for a nation to listen to an anchor as respectfully as it once had Ed Murrow or Walter Cronkite, for the market had put choice in front of the consumer, and the consumer wisely used it. This is a most welcome development, as the recent rantings of Cronkite and Bill Moyers suggest our trust may have been gravely misplaced. To achieve ratings in the cable era, a network must retain viewers who want to watch that station, not viewers who watch in the absence of alternatives.
- Number Eight: Large news organizations provide a service even the best blog cannot. Because of their large budgets and staff, the MSM can cover a story with state-of-the-art cameras, satellites, and professional journalists with decades of experience. They can also afford to pay top dollar to obtain the services of journalists with proven investigatory experience (surely a different animal that merely writting well, or else many bloggers would have Pulitzers on our shelves already).
- Number Seven: Blogs are a democratic medium by nature. As one who has engaged in the fruitless endeavor of watching tracking sites obsessively, I can state with authority that no blogger has the power to decide he will have a large audience for any piece, or more to the point, for any particular piece. In their lifetimes, most blogs will see days with only dozens of visitors, others with thousands, a lucky few with tens and hundreds of thousands, but not even the Daily Kos or the Instapundit can predict with any accuracy what particular post will garner the large audience. It is only by writing well, with originality and consistency, on topics that fulfill a need of the audience, that a blog will succeed.
- Number Six: Blogs both serve and flush out the 'niche'. Take a comprehensive look at the blogosphere and you will be dazzled at its diversity. There are religious blogs, thousands of political blogs, blogs on skateboarding, bodybuilding, economics, law, philosophy - any activity that humans enjoy is sure to have its blog(s). Equally importantly, there are blogs that have sprung up to serve needs that didn't exist prior to blogs, i.e. blogs on blogging, blogging directories, blogging tools, a veritable calvacade of Godelian self-reference available at the click of a link. A cable franchise with thousands of available slots couldn't begin to identify, let alone service, the niches that feed traffic to the blogoshere in a never-ending stream.
- Number Five: Blogs and the MSM both correct, and feed, one another. Until recently, the watchdog function was pretty much a one-way street, with blogs obsessing over every word of the MSM, and the MSM pretending there was no such thing as a blog, for the most part. With Eason Jordan's resignation, that has changed in a pretty significant way. I think the future will see the evolution of the watchdog function in all four channels; (1) bloggers correcting MSM, (2), MSM correcting blogs, (3) blogs correcting other blogs, and (4) MSM outlets correcting other MSM outlets. How can the consumer possibly lose from such an arrangement, if the truth is the item he wishes to consume?
- Number Four: Both blogs and the MSM have strong incentives to get it right. Many have noted the self-correcting nature of the blogosphere, but it applies no less to any other enterprise that seeks credibility. Ultimately, the only way to have credibility with an audience is to, first, try with all your might to get it right the first time, and second, when you get it wrong, say so at least as loudly and proudly as you did the first time.
- Number Three: Blogs provide a forum for discussing issues at great length. One inherent flaw with the nightly news format is the inability to provide any sort of context or true debate in a thirty-minute format, a third of which is commercials. Blogs and MSM websites can and do serve as a corrective to this marginalization of national discourse to the soundbite size. If you want to delve into the arcana of Social Security reform, you will need a month to digest what's out there already.
- Number Two: Blogs provide an outlet for otherwise silent voices to be heard. I wonder how little we would know about such things as the yearning of ordinary Iraqis for freedom without Arthur Chrenkoff, Iraq the Model, and similar sites. How many geniunely talented writers would have no audience but their small group of friends? How many people have taken up a blog for fun and grew into great writers, just by exercising the skill daily? There's no way of knowing, but every one of the above leads to a healthier, better informed world.
- Number One: By providing an outlet for minority voices, blogs are as democratic a medium as we have (yet) devised. Our number one point is really a summation of much of the above. I love blogs because I love to read, I love to be challenged, I love to be enlightened, I love to be outraged, and I love freedom and democracy. Some bloggers make money, but very few; and even for the ones that do, in the end, the blog remains a labor of love, and for once, that which should be, is - and what could be wrong with that?
Friday, February 18, 2005
Miscellanea - Title of the Day Edition
Hands down, this article has the best title I've seen in a while: Dems Were Lemmings, Greenspan the Cliff (content's good, too) (hat to RealClearPolitics)...
News Flash! Rumsfeld Smarter Than the Average Bear (or California Congresswoman) (hat tip to Pejmanesque)...
Speaking of dumb Democratic Congressmen (do I smell a trend?), Betsy's Page is all over Mel Watt...
Meanwhile, while Josh Marshall beats Social Security reform to within an inch of its life, tort reform has passed both houses and is heading to Bush for a signature...
Time Magazine asks who's more liberal, Kerry or Hillary? You already know the answer...
Lots of people grooving on this today (just click it...there is no try! Only do - or do not...) (hat tip to the Jawa Report)...
The great Chrenkoff adds psychic abilities to his repertoire...
News Flash! Rumsfeld Smarter Than the Average Bear (or California Congresswoman) (hat tip to Pejmanesque)...
Speaking of dumb Democratic Congressmen (do I smell a trend?), Betsy's Page is all over Mel Watt...
Meanwhile, while Josh Marshall beats Social Security reform to within an inch of its life, tort reform has passed both houses and is heading to Bush for a signature...
Time Magazine asks who's more liberal, Kerry or Hillary? You already know the answer...
Lots of people grooving on this today (just click it...there is no try! Only do - or do not...) (hat tip to the Jawa Report)...
The great Chrenkoff adds psychic abilities to his repertoire...
Rather Excellent Tales: Birth of a Legend
October 31st, 1931 - Dan Rather born in Wharton, Texas. Dan's Halloween birth has led to whispering campaigns about 'supernatural' involvement, but Rather dismisses such talk as 'wilder than my Aunt Hattie's billy goat'.
FUN FACT: Wharton was also home to Horton Foote of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' fame, while Rather was often spoken of in a mocking tone. Coincidence or proof of a vast right-wing conspiracy? You be the judge...
FUN FACT: Wharton was also home to Horton Foote of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' fame, while Rather was often spoken of in a mocking tone. Coincidence or proof of a vast right-wing conspiracy? You be the judge...
Miscellanea - Answering the Condi Critics Edition
Matthew May responds to those who frown on a Condi candidacy...
In other 2008 news, the Mark Sanford movement has a new blog up...
More on Harvard's attempts to brainwash visiting Iraqis here (hat tip to No Left Turns)...
Power Line has a good roundup on that other Harvard controversy...
An article in Popular Mechanics that is essential political reading? Believe it (hat tip to Cheese and Crackers)...
In other 2008 news, the Mark Sanford movement has a new blog up...
More on Harvard's attempts to brainwash visiting Iraqis here (hat tip to No Left Turns)...
Power Line has a good roundup on that other Harvard controversy...
An article in Popular Mechanics that is essential political reading? Believe it (hat tip to Cheese and Crackers)...
A Quick One: Biting the Hand That Feeds You
Only have time for a short post now, but wanted to alert you to this absurdity (not the model UN, though some would view that as absurd enough, but the conference) at that little school called Harvard (from Arthur Chrenkoff via Vodkapundit)...
Our Long National Nightmare Draws to a Close
In honor of Dan Rather's imminent departure from the anchor chair, starting this weekend, Decision '08 is proud to kick off a series of tribute posts, "Rather Excellent Tales", celebrating the greatest moments in the career of this national icon. I do hope you'll stay tuned, it promises to be great fun...
Thursday, February 17, 2005
JFK the Sequel - Part Four: Act One, Scene Two
Fade in on a long, imposing staircase covered in snow; as we pan upward the facade of the Massachusetts Supreme Court is revealed. The camera lingers on the motto newly sketched in granite: "Justice? I'd settle for a good haircut..."
In a long tracking shot that will stun the critics, we follow the camera through the entrance and race down the corriders, up three flights of stairs, then back down the flights of stairs, where we pick up the wallet that we dropped earlier, now back up one flight of stairs, and into the courtroom where the scene's main action takes place.
Oddly, Gavin Newsom is the lone justice; even more oddly, Johnnie Cochran is addressing a jury:
"So we see that there has been a grave injustice committed unto this grand ol' lady of liberty, an injustice even greater than that visited upon my former client Orenthal James Simpson, an injustice even greater than Pauly Shore's last movie..."Cochran turns to his notes.
Newsom, helpfully: "Mr. Cochran, would you say there was a rush to judgment?"
Cochran slams his fist down on the table and winces. "I would indeed! Indeed, there has been a rush to judgment...ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in this most hallowed land of ours, one shining beacon, one embiggening thought has kept our hopes alive in the darkest of hours: the knowledge that if the system's broke, we must revoke."
Cochran wheels around rapidly, realizes he has done a complete circle and is facing the wrong way again, then turns back 180 degrees: "If the system...is....broke...., WE MUST REVOKE! I say to you today, if the founding fathers had intended Jesus freaks and wing-nuts to vote, they'd have expressly given them the franchise...no, my friends, and no again - there need be no religious nut-jobs in this land of ours, there need be no so-called 'faith-based initiatives'...oh, we have faith, Mr. Bush, you so-called President, we have faith alright - FAITH THAT YOUR TICKET HAS BEEN PUNCHED! IF THE SYSTEM'S BROKE, YOU MUST REVOKE!"
Newsom jumps up quickly and high-fives Cochran. "I think we've heard enough - no need for this one to go to the jury. I hereby rule John Forbes Kerry the 44th President of the United States of America - and furthermore, I sentence George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to four years hard labor in a hair salon in the Soho district!"
Chaotic scenes flash in front of us: first, the pandemonium in the courtroom as the reporters rush to their Blackberries; next, the chaos in France as every living citizen rushes into the streets and lies prostrate, tears of joy streaming down the cheeks of one and all; then a quick shot of the the Daily Kos accepting a large sum of money from Howard Dean; then back to Paris, where Michael Moore has spontaneously been named President of France; then a short clip of Theresa Heinz Kerry spitting on an effigy of Laura Bush and lighting it on fire; finally, back to France again, where a group of Frenchmen tries valiently but unsuccessfully to heave President Moore onto their shoulders, then settles for throwing cheeseburgers at him.
As the montage ends, we see a figure in the shadows...he rises, slowly, impossibly tall, incredibly handsome, oozing vitality from every pore, his noble visage a sight almost too powerful for human eyes - the mysterious figure turns slowly, looks at the camera as the darkness lifts, and snaps a perky salute to his bathroom mirror:
"I'm John Forbes Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!"
...to be continued....
JFK the Sequel: Cast and Crew
JFK the Sequel - Part Two: Prologue and Opening Credits
JFK the Sequal - Part Three: Act One, Scene One
In a long tracking shot that will stun the critics, we follow the camera through the entrance and race down the corriders, up three flights of stairs, then back down the flights of stairs, where we pick up the wallet that we dropped earlier, now back up one flight of stairs, and into the courtroom where the scene's main action takes place.
Oddly, Gavin Newsom is the lone justice; even more oddly, Johnnie Cochran is addressing a jury:
"So we see that there has been a grave injustice committed unto this grand ol' lady of liberty, an injustice even greater than that visited upon my former client Orenthal James Simpson, an injustice even greater than Pauly Shore's last movie..."Cochran turns to his notes.
Newsom, helpfully: "Mr. Cochran, would you say there was a rush to judgment?"
Cochran slams his fist down on the table and winces. "I would indeed! Indeed, there has been a rush to judgment...ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in this most hallowed land of ours, one shining beacon, one embiggening thought has kept our hopes alive in the darkest of hours: the knowledge that if the system's broke, we must revoke."
Cochran wheels around rapidly, realizes he has done a complete circle and is facing the wrong way again, then turns back 180 degrees: "If the system...is....broke...., WE MUST REVOKE! I say to you today, if the founding fathers had intended Jesus freaks and wing-nuts to vote, they'd have expressly given them the franchise...no, my friends, and no again - there need be no religious nut-jobs in this land of ours, there need be no so-called 'faith-based initiatives'...oh, we have faith, Mr. Bush, you so-called President, we have faith alright - FAITH THAT YOUR TICKET HAS BEEN PUNCHED! IF THE SYSTEM'S BROKE, YOU MUST REVOKE!"
Newsom jumps up quickly and high-fives Cochran. "I think we've heard enough - no need for this one to go to the jury. I hereby rule John Forbes Kerry the 44th President of the United States of America - and furthermore, I sentence George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to four years hard labor in a hair salon in the Soho district!"
Chaotic scenes flash in front of us: first, the pandemonium in the courtroom as the reporters rush to their Blackberries; next, the chaos in France as every living citizen rushes into the streets and lies prostrate, tears of joy streaming down the cheeks of one and all; then a quick shot of the the Daily Kos accepting a large sum of money from Howard Dean; then back to Paris, where Michael Moore has spontaneously been named President of France; then a short clip of Theresa Heinz Kerry spitting on an effigy of Laura Bush and lighting it on fire; finally, back to France again, where a group of Frenchmen tries valiently but unsuccessfully to heave President Moore onto their shoulders, then settles for throwing cheeseburgers at him.
As the montage ends, we see a figure in the shadows...he rises, slowly, impossibly tall, incredibly handsome, oozing vitality from every pore, his noble visage a sight almost too powerful for human eyes - the mysterious figure turns slowly, looks at the camera as the darkness lifts, and snaps a perky salute to his bathroom mirror:
"I'm John Forbes Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!"
...to be continued....
JFK the Sequel: Cast and Crew
JFK the Sequel - Part Two: Prologue and Opening Credits
JFK the Sequal - Part Three: Act One, Scene One
Miscellanea - How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Blog the Ways Edition
Peggy Noonan has a virtual love letter to blogs in OpinionJournal (hat tip to RealClearPolitics)...
Speaking of the Wall Street Journal (and we were, indirectly), Bret Stephens and the WSJ editorial board have been behaving very strangely over the whole Eason Jordan thing. Michelle Malkin is all over the story like Garfield on lasagna...
The memory-implanting disease that convinced Lefties that they won the Cold War has resurfaced in Jon Stewart and Fareed Zakeria! No word yet on a possible quarantine...
In the great-minds-think-alike department, I'm far from the only one having a great time with Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich today...
Commonwealth Conservative has found a quite spicy example of the 'liberals are smarter' meme that I highly recommend...
Run, don't walk (well, click on it really fast) to this posting of Howard Dean in quotes (hat tip to Backcountry Conservative)...
Speaking of the Wall Street Journal (and we were, indirectly), Bret Stephens and the WSJ editorial board have been behaving very strangely over the whole Eason Jordan thing. Michelle Malkin is all over the story like Garfield on lasagna...
The memory-implanting disease that convinced Lefties that they won the Cold War has resurfaced in Jon Stewart and Fareed Zakeria! No word yet on a possible quarantine...
In the great-minds-think-alike department, I'm far from the only one having a great time with Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich today...
Commonwealth Conservative has found a quite spicy example of the 'liberals are smarter' meme that I highly recommend...
Run, don't walk (well, click on it really fast) to this posting of Howard Dean in quotes (hat tip to Backcountry Conservative)...
Life Imitates Art (or Rich Imitates Dowd)
Frank Rich jumps into a magic time machine and posts his February 20th column today; amazingly, it is an exact replica of the Maureen Dowd piece I referenced earlier...who's copying who here, and why are both of you covering yesterday's news today? The Jeff Gannon affair is a complete non-story for those of us who aren't credentialed 'journalists' like the 'columnist' Frank Rich.
I suspect the glee the liberals get from the whole thing is partly forced joviality in the light of the real scandalous behavior of such luminaries as Eason Jordan. If you care to read about the Gannon story, you can find out more than you ever wanted to from the lefties - but here's the barest of sketches. Gannon is apparently a pseudonym for a guy with Republican ties who got to ask the President a few questions in news conferences. Oh, and somehow, he's linked to gay porn sites (see my earlier commentary on liberal intolerance). That's it - not quite accusing America's military of murdering journalists, is it? Yawn...time to move on, progressives...
I suspect the glee the liberals get from the whole thing is partly forced joviality in the light of the real scandalous behavior of such luminaries as Eason Jordan. If you care to read about the Gannon story, you can find out more than you ever wanted to from the lefties - but here's the barest of sketches. Gannon is apparently a pseudonym for a guy with Republican ties who got to ask the President a few questions in news conferences. Oh, and somehow, he's linked to gay porn sites (see my earlier commentary on liberal intolerance). That's it - not quite accusing America's military of murdering journalists, is it? Yawn...time to move on, progressives...
Life, Why Do You Mock Me?, or Maureen Dowd Strikes Again
She's back, and (not worse, she already was at the bottom) as bad as ever. How this low-talent Bush-hater gets national column space is one of the true mysteries of existence, up there with 'action at a distance' and relativity. Maureen Dowd is to journalism as Corey Feldman is to acting. Is there (seriously, is there?) anyone in the country who says: hey, did you see that latest Maureen Dowd column? She really sticks it to Bush, doesn't she?
Sadly, I must answer my own query in the affirmative. This pathetic waste of space is today's most e-mailed item in the New York Times...I shouldn't be surprised. After all, people watched Sex and the City, too (a lot of the very same people, I bet)...
Sadly, I must answer my own query in the affirmative. This pathetic waste of space is today's most e-mailed item in the New York Times...I shouldn't be surprised. After all, people watched Sex and the City, too (a lot of the very same people, I bet)...
Summers Controversy Continues
The Academic Left continues to pound Harvard President Lawrence Summers for suggesting that perhaps innate biological differences are the cause of fewer women in the sciences. You can find a good deal of background material here; here is an article discussing the free speech implications.
This is the exact opposite of the Ward Churchill snafu; Summers was engaging in a lively academic discussion, and highlighting a theory that could proven or disproven by experimentation. There was no hint of the polemical in Summers' remarks; he was not suggesting that women weren't smart, just that they disproportionately choose other areas of study, and perhaps we should find out why.
Summers has caved and apologized multiple times, but clearly some radicals on the Harvard faculty want his head. Bloggers vs. Eason Jordan was called a witchhunt by many, but was not - this, however, is quite another matter. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this.
This is the exact opposite of the Ward Churchill snafu; Summers was engaging in a lively academic discussion, and highlighting a theory that could proven or disproven by experimentation. There was no hint of the polemical in Summers' remarks; he was not suggesting that women weren't smart, just that they disproportionately choose other areas of study, and perhaps we should find out why.
Summers has caved and apologized multiple times, but clearly some radicals on the Harvard faculty want his head. Bloggers vs. Eason Jordan was called a witchhunt by many, but was not - this, however, is quite another matter. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Miscellanea - Someone's Got the Big Head Edition
I link to the Daily Kos a lot because he's a jerk, and he provides great fodder - case in point: today he reveals he has the fate of all Democrats in the palm of his hand:
Sadly, reading the Kos can take its toll and often sends me to the Therapist...
If you wanna know more about the Iraqi election results, including a nifty map, then Patrick Ruffini is your man...
Speaking of Patrick Ruffini (and who isn't?), he's got a nifty little calculator that tells you about how much extra you would make under Bush's Social Security plan, based on inputs and assumptions you provide; I came up with $75,000 extra. We simply MUST pass this legislation!...
JustOneMinute has a post I wish I'd written on how the Lefties can win the blogosphere wars - and why they won't...
Former Weekly Jackass Eric Alterman posts on Kyoto and (are you sitting down?): he's not happy, and it's all Bush's fault. Using our refusal to sign this misguided treaty as a metaphor to suggest that, well, basically, that we suck in every possible way, Alterman then bashes the United States and its foreign policy for serving the interests of the United States. I'm not joking - honest...
The Jawa Report is just having loads of fun with Atrios and his 'progressive' habit of 'outing' Republicans...
Switch or die. I'd rather we didn't have to spend the money to take out Chafee if we could get him to switch. But if we must take him out, we will.These 'progressives' are such pleasant types, aren't they? And so humble...
Sadly, reading the Kos can take its toll and often sends me to the Therapist...
If you wanna know more about the Iraqi election results, including a nifty map, then Patrick Ruffini is your man...
Speaking of Patrick Ruffini (and who isn't?), he's got a nifty little calculator that tells you about how much extra you would make under Bush's Social Security plan, based on inputs and assumptions you provide; I came up with $75,000 extra. We simply MUST pass this legislation!...
JustOneMinute has a post I wish I'd written on how the Lefties can win the blogosphere wars - and why they won't...
Former Weekly Jackass Eric Alterman posts on Kyoto and (are you sitting down?): he's not happy, and it's all Bush's fault. Using our refusal to sign this misguided treaty as a metaphor to suggest that, well, basically, that we suck in every possible way, Alterman then bashes the United States and its foreign policy for serving the interests of the United States. I'm not joking - honest...
The Jawa Report is just having loads of fun with Atrios and his 'progressive' habit of 'outing' Republicans...
The Hitch Strikes Out
So greatly do I value the journalistic skills, integrity, and writing ability of the great Christopher Hitchens that I must admit getting a bit of a sinking feeling when I read that he had joined the chorus of those who smell a rat in Ohio's 2004 presidential election. Unable to resist any longer, but with a heavy heart, I put even more money into Graydon Carter's pockets and bought the new Vanity Fair today.
Rest easy - the mighty Hitch has whiffed this one. There's no meat on this bone - just the same strange 'coincidences', the odd undervoting patterns, the innuendos about Diebold and its Republican boss, the anecdotal evidence that falls apart when put to the test by the experts. The same warnings about the lack of a paper trail were being sounded by progressives way before Ohio (see this February 2004 article by the Austin Chronicle). This is not to say that there might not be merit to some of these stories, but no one is offering any proof of any sort whatsoever, other than sentences that begin with "Doesn't it seem strange..."
Despite scare headlines from some progressives, Hitchens doesn't argue that the election was stolen, in Ohio or elsewhere, but he does make a (pretty weak) case that it could have been. I expect more from the Hitch - but this time, I'm glad to be disappointed.
Rest easy - the mighty Hitch has whiffed this one. There's no meat on this bone - just the same strange 'coincidences', the odd undervoting patterns, the innuendos about Diebold and its Republican boss, the anecdotal evidence that falls apart when put to the test by the experts. The same warnings about the lack of a paper trail were being sounded by progressives way before Ohio (see this February 2004 article by the Austin Chronicle). This is not to say that there might not be merit to some of these stories, but no one is offering any proof of any sort whatsoever, other than sentences that begin with "Doesn't it seem strange..."
Despite scare headlines from some progressives, Hitchens doesn't argue that the election was stolen, in Ohio or elsewhere, but he does make a (pretty weak) case that it could have been. I expect more from the Hitch - but this time, I'm glad to be disappointed.
2008 Poll Numbers
CNN/USA Today/Gallup has some poll numbers for 2008 for both the Dems and Republicans. They're pretty worthless, though - they just named three candidates for the Donkeys, and four for the Republicans, then gave the respondents the additional choices of other, any, none, or no opinion. For what it's worth, the numbers for the Dems:
Hillary Clinton: 40%
John Kerry: 25%
John Edwards: 17%
For the Elephants:
Rudy Giuliani - 34%
John McCain - 29%
Jeb Bush - 12%
Bill Frist - 6%
Hat tip to RealClearPolitics...
Hillary Clinton: 40%
John Kerry: 25%
John Edwards: 17%
For the Elephants:
Rudy Giuliani - 34%
John McCain - 29%
Jeb Bush - 12%
Bill Frist - 6%
Hat tip to RealClearPolitics...
Condi '08 - A Dissenting View
Carpe Bonum takes issue with the notion of Condi as the Republican candidate for 2008. He also references this longer anti-Condi article by Steven Warshawski in The American Thinker (anti-Condi as a candidate; everyone seems to love the job she's doing - at least on the right side of the aisle). My thoughts have been laid out in detail, but I want to deal briefly with a couple of the objections presented.
One objection to a Condi candidacy is that she has never run for elective office before, and you just don't start at the top (Craig at Carpe Bonum points out the exceptions that prove the rule). I don't find this argument very persuasive - certainly Condi has held major executive-level positions, despite Warshawski's dismissal of her credentials as unpresidential. I will grant the dissenters, though, that it's hard to gauge how well an untested candidate would handle the grueling primary and campaign seasons.
Warshawski also presents a demographic argument - she's black, and a woman, with no obvious constituency. I suppose that perhaps I am guilty of too-hopeful expectations in assuming that these matters would not be crippling. Certainly, they shouldn't be - but we live in the world that is, not the world that should be.
Here's the bigger issue that troubles me, though. All of the obvious candidates with national recognition at this time (granting that the ground will shift in the next three years) are going to have problems if we as Republicans don't live up to our big tent rhetoric. Giuliani and McCain are going to face opposition on social issues; Condi has the aforementioned problems; Jeb is going to face opposition on the sheer fact that he's another Bush. At this point, one is tempted to root for one of the more acceptable dark horses like Mark Sanford just to avoid what looks to be a brutal primary season.
We'll have much more on these issues in the months ahead.
One objection to a Condi candidacy is that she has never run for elective office before, and you just don't start at the top (Craig at Carpe Bonum points out the exceptions that prove the rule). I don't find this argument very persuasive - certainly Condi has held major executive-level positions, despite Warshawski's dismissal of her credentials as unpresidential. I will grant the dissenters, though, that it's hard to gauge how well an untested candidate would handle the grueling primary and campaign seasons.
Warshawski also presents a demographic argument - she's black, and a woman, with no obvious constituency. I suppose that perhaps I am guilty of too-hopeful expectations in assuming that these matters would not be crippling. Certainly, they shouldn't be - but we live in the world that is, not the world that should be.
Here's the bigger issue that troubles me, though. All of the obvious candidates with national recognition at this time (granting that the ground will shift in the next three years) are going to have problems if we as Republicans don't live up to our big tent rhetoric. Giuliani and McCain are going to face opposition on social issues; Condi has the aforementioned problems; Jeb is going to face opposition on the sheer fact that he's another Bush. At this point, one is tempted to root for one of the more acceptable dark horses like Mark Sanford just to avoid what looks to be a brutal primary season.
We'll have much more on these issues in the months ahead.
A Wictory Wednesday We Can ALL Take Part In
Alright, no excuses this time; for Wictory Wednesday this week, all you have to do is join an online petition (no money, no significant time involved), so please check out this week's post at PoliPundit, and the petition is here.
Not so fast, you say - what am I signing? It's a petition at the GOP's website in support of President Bush's Social Security reforms. I know there are some on the left who claim there is no crisis, but that's immaterial to me - I like it because I believe in the vision of an ownership society. If you do, too, sign the petition - and please, check out a couple of random links from the blogroll at bottom right.
Not so fast, you say - what am I signing? It's a petition at the GOP's website in support of President Bush's Social Security reforms. I know there are some on the left who claim there is no crisis, but that's immaterial to me - I like it because I believe in the vision of an ownership society. If you do, too, sign the petition - and please, check out a couple of random links from the blogroll at bottom right.
Today's Must-Read: The Return of Rathergate
The New York Observer has an article up on the refusal of the CBS employees asked to resign in the wake of Rathergate to shuffle offstage without the top brass taking their share of the blame for the fiasco. More on this later...
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Weekly Jackass Number Eleven : Keith Olbermann
You know you've reached the height of jackassdom when you make so many boneheaded, outrageous, and just plain wrong statements that entire websites are devoted to watching your every move. Olbermann gained fame on ESPN's Sportscenter, where his droll delivery was actually pretty funny, for about ten minutes; then you grew to dread his visage from the depths of your being - but it got worse. He decided he was too smart for sports, and went into the pundit business, and the world has never been the same.
You can easily find a ton of crappy Olbermann material without searching too hard: his obsessions include Bill O'Reilly, who routinely pounds him in the ratings, the Ohio vote 'fraud', the 'myth' of liberal media bias, and of course, the totalitarian state America has become under the Bush administration. Keith's made it easy on us, though, by summing up his entire warped outlook in his reaction to the Eason Jordan affair. Let's go fisking with Keith:
Irony is in short supply in the Weekly Jackass world, but Olbermann, who at least looks kinda smart, might appreciate this: in automatically assuming the worst of the bloggers, mischaracterizing our arguments, and giving extra 'leeway' to those on his side of the aisle, Olbermann has become the very thing he claims to be against: a partisan hack. Oh, cruel life, why do you mock us so?
Enjoy it, Keith - it's yours for a week.
You can easily find a ton of crappy Olbermann material without searching too hard: his obsessions include Bill O'Reilly, who routinely pounds him in the ratings, the Ohio vote 'fraud', the 'myth' of liberal media bias, and of course, the totalitarian state America has become under the Bush administration. Keith's made it easy on us, though, by summing up his entire warped outlook in his reaction to the Eason Jordan affair. Let's go fisking with Keith:
Eason Jordan makes a remarkable gaffe, implying that the U.S. military is hunting journalists. He backs off within moments of the remark, apologizes, and still gets forced to resign from CNN.Of course, Olbermann is playing to his ever-diminishing base of hard-core lefties, so he's gonna swallow their talking points; it's worth saying again, though of course no one on the 'progressive' side is listening, that part of apologizing for doing something stupid is admitting that you did the stupid thing you are apologizing for. Neither Rather nor Jordan (nor Clinton, until the devil in the Blue Dress forced him) made that crucial step, and that's what did them in.
Wow, Keith, you're off to a bad start. Eason Jordan hardly backed off within moments - what little backing he did was days later, after the blogstorm hit. Nor did he 'imply' the U.S. military was hunting journalists, anymore than I am implying you are our Weekly Jackass; he said it. Of course, no one will release the transcript or the videotape, but impeccable, liberal, Democratic sources have said it is so.
While some bloggers are parading his head around on a pike as another example of victory over the MSM, they � and the MSM � seem to have entirely forgotten, and excluded from their coverage, the fact that Eason Jordan had sealed his own doom as long ago as April, 2003. It is one thing to acknowledge that your news organization may have buried stories that would�ve illuminated the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, in order to preserve your access (and perhaps the lives of your staff) in Baghdad � it is another to have voluntarily written those facts up as an Op-Ed for The New York Times.
I'm truly laughing out loud as I write this. I know of NO ONE - no blogger, no mainstream journalist, absolutely no one, who excluded the coverage of Jordan's earlier idiotic admission that he shilled for Saddam Hussein. It's called context, Keith, and everyone provided it, college boy. I mentioned it, and all the bloggers before and after me, and all the newspaper articles - say, you don't get out much, do you, Keith?
Between the misguided idea to boast in The Times about what he called �The News We Kept To Ourselves,� and the stomach-churning, much-publicized news that he�d left his wife and family to take up with Daniel Pearl�s widow, Jordan had become a resignation waiting to happen. The irony of the right-wing bloggers� delight over Jordan�s resignation from what they perceive as the left-wing CNN, is that by publicizing his faux pas in Davos, they did CNN executives� dirty work for them. They enabled CNN to squeeze him out.
I'm still scratching my head over the Left's straw man of Jordan's affair with Marianne Pearl. Sour grapes, if you ask me; it can't be that those right-wing nutty bloggers had the truth on their side, so it had to be this affair. Why is Eason Jordan committing adultery with Daniel Pearl's widow more stomach-churning then, say, the President of the United States fooling around with a 20-year-old intern in the Oval Office? If we did CNN's dirty work for them and gave them a reason to force out a most egregious exemplar of bias (but wait, I thought it was the affair, not the bloggers - no fair changing your argument in mid-sentence), then so be it. I don't have a problem with that; do you? You kinda just threw this together at the last minute, didn't you, Keith? Come on, you can tell us...
Irony is in short supply in the Weekly Jackass world, but Olbermann, who at least looks kinda smart, might appreciate this: in automatically assuming the worst of the bloggers, mischaracterizing our arguments, and giving extra 'leeway' to those on his side of the aisle, Olbermann has become the very thing he claims to be against: a partisan hack. Oh, cruel life, why do you mock us so?
Enjoy it, Keith - it's yours for a week.
Pessimism Is A Hard Sell in the Land of Optimism
Why is Howard Dean a bad choice for DNC chair? Why do I have such a high time spotlighting the antics of the Angry Left? Why did I begin this post by asking multiple questions?
We'll never know the answer to that last one, but the first two are easy: you can't win elections if your politics is based on hatred, ridicule, and opposition to authority, never mind the source. The Dems have lost touch with this crucial part of the American spirit. While Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd assure us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a tragic mistake, the vast majority of Americans say, "Why throw in the towel so quickly?"
When the response of a good portion of the blue-staters to their latest loss was to look aghast at the American heartland and dub it 'Jesusland', when people like Markos Zuniga devote their entire lives to fighting George W. Bush tooth and nail, never mind the merits of a particular issue, when every message being promulgated by the American left is a negative one - "Prevent Social Security Reform", "Prevent Judicial Confirmations", "Give Up on Iraq", "He's Not My President" - then the line has been crossed from partisanship to fanaticism.
Much as a cornered animal will turn vicious and snap at anything, the American Left is thrashing out in anger and denial. It wasn't always this way. FDR - "...nothing to fear but fear itself". JFK I - "...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty" (does that sound like the second Inaugural Address of anyone you know?).
This is the same American spirit that was captured on the right by Ronald Reagan ('it's morning in America'), and George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism and stirring orations on liberty and freedom. Against it we have - what? JFK II's waffling and droning? Howard Dean's screeching? John Edward's pessimistic 'two Americas' snoozer? When there is a voice of reason on the left, such as Joe Lieberman, he is vilified and cast out - "not mean enough", "not sufficiently radical", "doesn't turn beet red with anger when the name of George W. Bush is uttered" - I exaggerate only ever so slightly. Contrast Laura Bush's demeanor with the spiteful braying of Mrs. Heinz-Kerry to see the left - right divide in a microcosm.
The reason Bill Clinton is the only successful Democrat on a national level is that he knew that Americans want to hear about our promise, not a condemnation of our founding principles; don't tell us about our mistakes, tell us what you want to do differently. There's a reason why Hillary Clinton may yet be the Democrat to beat in '08 - for the most part, she has been very careful not to fall into the radical trap since the nationalized health care debacle.
The angry voice often gets the most attention - we love our righteous indignation, and we like to say I told you so; God knows we aren't perfect. At the end of the day, though, Americans believe America is exceptional because it is exceptional (how many American radicals have moved to France since the election? Can you name one?). The lesson isn't that hard - you have to wonder what it is that keeps the Democratic Party's leadership from learning it. If I had given any money to the other side lately, I'd be looking for a refund.
Beltway Traffic Jam link
We'll never know the answer to that last one, but the first two are easy: you can't win elections if your politics is based on hatred, ridicule, and opposition to authority, never mind the source. The Dems have lost touch with this crucial part of the American spirit. While Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd assure us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a tragic mistake, the vast majority of Americans say, "Why throw in the towel so quickly?"
When the response of a good portion of the blue-staters to their latest loss was to look aghast at the American heartland and dub it 'Jesusland', when people like Markos Zuniga devote their entire lives to fighting George W. Bush tooth and nail, never mind the merits of a particular issue, when every message being promulgated by the American left is a negative one - "Prevent Social Security Reform", "Prevent Judicial Confirmations", "Give Up on Iraq", "He's Not My President" - then the line has been crossed from partisanship to fanaticism.
Much as a cornered animal will turn vicious and snap at anything, the American Left is thrashing out in anger and denial. It wasn't always this way. FDR - "...nothing to fear but fear itself". JFK I - "...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty" (does that sound like the second Inaugural Address of anyone you know?).
This is the same American spirit that was captured on the right by Ronald Reagan ('it's morning in America'), and George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism and stirring orations on liberty and freedom. Against it we have - what? JFK II's waffling and droning? Howard Dean's screeching? John Edward's pessimistic 'two Americas' snoozer? When there is a voice of reason on the left, such as Joe Lieberman, he is vilified and cast out - "not mean enough", "not sufficiently radical", "doesn't turn beet red with anger when the name of George W. Bush is uttered" - I exaggerate only ever so slightly. Contrast Laura Bush's demeanor with the spiteful braying of Mrs. Heinz-Kerry to see the left - right divide in a microcosm.
The reason Bill Clinton is the only successful Democrat on a national level is that he knew that Americans want to hear about our promise, not a condemnation of our founding principles; don't tell us about our mistakes, tell us what you want to do differently. There's a reason why Hillary Clinton may yet be the Democrat to beat in '08 - for the most part, she has been very careful not to fall into the radical trap since the nationalized health care debacle.
The angry voice often gets the most attention - we love our righteous indignation, and we like to say I told you so; God knows we aren't perfect. At the end of the day, though, Americans believe America is exceptional because it is exceptional (how many American radicals have moved to France since the election? Can you name one?). The lesson isn't that hard - you have to wonder what it is that keeps the Democratic Party's leadership from learning it. If I had given any money to the other side lately, I'd be looking for a refund.
Beltway Traffic Jam link
A Word on Trolling
Much as I hate it, I've just banned the second person from commenting at this site. The first one was just a case of profanity-laced screeching - I'm not a prude, but this isn't that kind of site. God knows, if you want to call someone a nasty name, you don't have a shortage of places to do it - but you won't do it here.
Now, I quote Professor Stephen Bainbridge a lot at this site - I like his site, I like his views, I think he makes a good contribution to the blogosphere. You may disagree - and that's great. However, the person I banned has posted three or four times on here berating Prof. Bainbridge for being a Catholic (guess you gave someone a bad grade, professor - she's carrying a HUGE chip on her shoulder). If an atheist wants to get on here and give a good argument for atheism, or just wants to say I think religion is a crock, that's not a problem with me, either.
But I won't let it get personal. I ridicule a lot of 'progressives' on here, but it's because of what I see as outrageous political views (others would disagree). I don't ridicule anyone because of their sexuality, religion, gender, or any of that nonsense.
Thanks for your support - I've really enjoyed this blog immensely, and I hope you have, too - and I welcome any dialogue, and any dissenters - just keep it relatively clean and stay away from bashing someone just because they're a little different from you (there's that famous progressive 'tolerance' again)...
Now, I quote Professor Stephen Bainbridge a lot at this site - I like his site, I like his views, I think he makes a good contribution to the blogosphere. You may disagree - and that's great. However, the person I banned has posted three or four times on here berating Prof. Bainbridge for being a Catholic (guess you gave someone a bad grade, professor - she's carrying a HUGE chip on her shoulder). If an atheist wants to get on here and give a good argument for atheism, or just wants to say I think religion is a crock, that's not a problem with me, either.
But I won't let it get personal. I ridicule a lot of 'progressives' on here, but it's because of what I see as outrageous political views (others would disagree). I don't ridicule anyone because of their sexuality, religion, gender, or any of that nonsense.
Thanks for your support - I've really enjoyed this blog immensely, and I hope you have, too - and I welcome any dialogue, and any dissenters - just keep it relatively clean and stay away from bashing someone just because they're a little different from you (there's that famous progressive 'tolerance' again)...
Miscellanea - I Just Can't Wait Edition
I have been dying all day to post on tomorrow's Weekly Jackass; it should be a dandy (hint: he's bigger than a breadbasket, but smaller than a barn)...
I was going to say something about this jerk, but deacon at Power Line did such a good job, I'll just say: ditto...
Professor Bainbridge on Dean and Krugman...
Tim Blair fisks that NY Times article you might have noticed I keep plugging (because *cough* it features me *cough*) (hat tip to Jessica's Well of Midland, TX - just 60 miles from where I grew up)...
I think all of you should tell everyone you know to go visit the Daily Kos - well, daily - because the more influential he gets, the better off the Republicans get...today, he praises Donna Brazile's hagiographical piece on Harry Reid. The Kos is mighty impressed that Reid is stridently belligerent - because, after all, the biggest problem America has with liberals is that they're not strident enough. More belligerence, please; could you be a little more 'in-my-face'? Yes, Markos, that's the ticket...
I was going to say something about this jerk, but deacon at Power Line did such a good job, I'll just say: ditto...
Professor Bainbridge on Dean and Krugman...
Tim Blair fisks that NY Times article you might have noticed I keep plugging (because *cough* it features me *cough*) (hat tip to Jessica's Well of Midland, TX - just 60 miles from where I grew up)...
I think all of you should tell everyone you know to go visit the Daily Kos - well, daily - because the more influential he gets, the better off the Republicans get...today, he praises Donna Brazile's hagiographical piece on Harry Reid. The Kos is mighty impressed that Reid is stridently belligerent - because, after all, the biggest problem America has with liberals is that they're not strident enough. More belligerence, please; could you be a little more 'in-my-face'? Yes, Markos, that's the ticket...
It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This
Paul Krugman, in today's New York Times, defends Howard Dean as a centrist moderate! The inevitable question is - who qualifies as a liberal with Krugman? With three years to go, I love our chances in '08 already (hat tip to RealClearPolitics)...
Preparing for March Madness
In what has to be the biggest win for my Texas Tech Red Raiders since the glory run to the Elite Eight during the Tony Battie era, Bobby Knight's club defeated the No. 2 Kansas Jayhawks 80-79 in double-overtime at the United Spirit Arena in Lubbock. Way to go! Hopefully, that will get us off of that pesky bubble...
Monday, February 14, 2005
Miscellanea - In Other News Edition
Okay, enough of the vanity posting (did I mention I was in the New York Times today?). Here's another Times article that has increased my growing hopes about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Let's hope this newfound warmth continues...
I haven't mentioned the Day by Day cartoon strip by Chris Muir yet. I should have. I'm rectifying that now...
Congratulations to Jayson at PoliPundit on replacing Mickey Rourke as the Pope of Greenwich Village...
The 21st installment of Good News from Iraq by Arthur Chrenkoff - holy cow, the guy's good...
Good to see Howard Dean hasn't lost any of his politesse...
CBS has called Ohio for Bush - may I be the first to say, congratulations, Mr. President?...
I haven't mentioned the Day by Day cartoon strip by Chris Muir yet. I should have. I'm rectifying that now...
Congratulations to Jayson at PoliPundit on replacing Mickey Rourke as the Pope of Greenwich Village...
The 21st installment of Good News from Iraq by Arthur Chrenkoff - holy cow, the guy's good...
Good to see Howard Dean hasn't lost any of his politesse...
CBS has called Ohio for Bush - may I be the first to say, congratulations, Mr. President?...
Why No Link? I Smell a Rat
After buying the city of Austin's entire supply of today's New York Times, I returned home to find this article by Captain Ed, in which he says, and I quote:
UPDATE 8:06 pm central: Well, Captain Ed was nice enough to trackback, so I'm officially clearing him of conspiracy charges...but if any of the rest of you thinks my silence can be bought, I also like late model sports cars, preferably of German heritage...
NOTE: The Times also provides links back to the blogs it mentions. Nice touch; not all newspapers remember to do that.Not ALL of the blogs got links back, Captain Ed! I'm starting to think I'm the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy - one hatched in the deepest bowels of the earth by Maureen Dowd, Michael Moore, Eason Jordan, and Barbra Streisand - and what about you, Captain Ed? Et tu, mon capitan? Why haven't we ever seen you and Dan Rather in the room at the same time? Well, this is one voice you can't silence or buy out (but if anyone wants to try, I'd really like one of those giant screen plasma high-definition televisions)...
UPDATE 8:06 pm central: Well, Captain Ed was nice enough to trackback, so I'm officially clearing him of conspiracy charges...but if any of the rest of you thinks my silence can be bought, I also like late model sports cars, preferably of German heritage...
I Get Mentioned In - The New York Times???!!!
My post on the meaning of Easongate has received far more attention that I ever would have dreamed of - including this mention in the New York Times:
Some on line were simply trying to make sense of what happened. "Have we entered an era where our lives can be destroyed by a pack of wolves hacking at their keyboards with no oversight, no editors, and no accountability?" asked a blogger named Mark Coffey, 36, who says he works as an analyst in Austin, Tex. "Or does it mean that we've entered a brave new world where the MSM has become irrelevant," he asked, using blogger shorthand for mainstream media. His own conclusion is that the mainstream media "is being held to account as never before by the strong force of individual citizens who won't settle for sloppy research and inflammatory comments without foundation, particularly from those with a wide national reach, such as Rather and Eason."Oddly enough, I happened across the link quite by accident. Needless to say, I'm flattered to be in the Times, but they didn't put the name of my blog or the link! This, despite giving Jeff Jarvis and Captain Ed some nice traffic. Ah, well, it's not every day you make a national paper, so I won't complain...
Is the Jordan Affair a Blow to Free Speech?
The bringing down of Eason Jordan by the blogosphere continues to spark broad-ranging debate on its meaning. James Miller has an article up at Tech Central Station arguing that the Jordan affair may have a stifling effect on free speech, though he doesn't quite have the nerve to say it in so many words. I find his argument to be riddled with flaws.
Miller begins by asking us to imagine that we could read everyone's thoughts, and all the bad things that lie therein became known; eventually, says Miller, we would have to learn to forgive evil thoughts that didn't lead to evil deeds. He uses this example to suggest that Trent Lott, Lawrence Summers, and Eason Jordan are victims. To begin with, exclude Lawrence Summers from this trio - his only sin was to dare to utter a sentiment that was politically incorrect. Perhaps the same argument could be made of Lott - but Eason Jordan is another story entirely.
Miller seems to long for the good ol' days pre-accountability. I quote:
I suppose Miller's point is to compare the watchdog function of blogs with the intolerance of 'political incorrectness'. What happened to Summers was indeed wrong. When Miller says, however, that "I suspect most of us have made comments at work more offensive than the statements that got Lott and Jordan fired", I can only respond that most of us should have been fired, too, if that's the case. I certainly have never accused the United States military of killing innocent civilians on purpose, in private, public, or while talking in my sleep. It would be impossible for me to utter such odious sentiments because they would not cross my mind, nor, I wager, yours.
I shed no tears for Eason Jordan. He made a reckless remark, without foundation, about men and women who are dying to preserve the security of this nation, in public, in front of highly influential people, and not for the first time. If the blogosphere found that offensive enough to force him out, then God bless the blogosphere.
Miller begins by asking us to imagine that we could read everyone's thoughts, and all the bad things that lie therein became known; eventually, says Miller, we would have to learn to forgive evil thoughts that didn't lead to evil deeds. He uses this example to suggest that Trent Lott, Lawrence Summers, and Eason Jordan are victims. To begin with, exclude Lawrence Summers from this trio - his only sin was to dare to utter a sentiment that was politically incorrect. Perhaps the same argument could be made of Lott - but Eason Jordan is another story entirely.
Miller seems to long for the good ol' days pre-accountability. I quote:
Senators often praised old racists [sic] colleagues and the media had never previously cared. Jordan was speaking off camera to mostly like-minded fellows and he must have assumed that the media would never turn on one of its own for the politically correct sin of savaging the U.S. military. Both men were brought down by blogs that continually discussed their comments until enough Americans were angered such that the two could not keep their positions without harming their colleagues.And that's a bad thing? We should give these people a pass because it didn't use to matter? People used to gather around the T.V. and watch Amos & Andy, but it wouldn't pass muster today. Does that mean we have regressed?
I suppose Miller's point is to compare the watchdog function of blogs with the intolerance of 'political incorrectness'. What happened to Summers was indeed wrong. When Miller says, however, that "I suspect most of us have made comments at work more offensive than the statements that got Lott and Jordan fired", I can only respond that most of us should have been fired, too, if that's the case. I certainly have never accused the United States military of killing innocent civilians on purpose, in private, public, or while talking in my sleep. It would be impossible for me to utter such odious sentiments because they would not cross my mind, nor, I wager, yours.
I shed no tears for Eason Jordan. He made a reckless remark, without foundation, about men and women who are dying to preserve the security of this nation, in public, in front of highly influential people, and not for the first time. If the blogosphere found that offensive enough to force him out, then God bless the blogosphere.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Micheal Moore Hates America - A Review, Not A Statement
Does Michael Moore hate America? That's a hard question to answer - he certainly hates America as it is. I doubt seriously if there ever was or ever will be the America the Left wants to reach or go back to. Michael Wilson is a young filmmaker who had a clever concept - turn Roger & Me on its head, and film himself trying to get an interview with Moore. The resulting movie, Michael Moore Hates America, didn't set the box office on fire, and it's not perfect, but it raises some good questions, and provides, for a change, some decent answers.
A few things need to be said up front. Mr. Wilson needed to drum up interest in the project, and he doubtless intended his title to be 'controversial', as he himself says in one of the many excellent snippets of an interview with documentarian Albert Mayles, a true legend (among his great films is the remarkable Gimme Shelter, the documentary of the Stone's '69 tour and its horrific culmination). The narration tends to be cloying at times, and despite the title, this is not (primarily) an expose of Moore so much as it is an affirmation that Americans are not the pathetic dupes that Moore seems to believe we are, but rather an optimistic people who know that into every life, a little rain must fall, but that just means you try harder.
The real heart of the movie is not Wilson's quest to get an interview with Moore, but two interviews that are excerpted heavily, one with the aforementioned Mayles, and one with Penn Jillette of the comedy/magic duo Penn & Teller. Jillette seems to think he's an extra in Goodfellas, so frequently does he drop the f-bomb, but he serves as one half of the movie's conscience, by discoursing on the techniques of propaganda, as used by Moore and others, and the false goal of catching 'reality' once a camera rolls (as anyone who's watched ten minutes of the execrable trend of 'reality' television can attest).
Mayles is the true anti-Moore, though, not in his politics (he makes it clear he liked Moore's notorious Oscar speech), but in his approach to the documentarian craft. Moore's 'documentaries' are anything but; instead, they are crafted set pieces that play to the faithful and confirm the prejudices already held by the filmmaker and his audience. The Mayles approach is different; to paraphrase his own words, he starts from the base of a love with his subject, but then he lets the chips fall where they may; the film is as honest as a documentary can be (given the parameters discussed by Jilette), and the conclusions are neither foregone nor telegraphed to the audience.
In fact, that is the Achilles' heel of Michael Moore Hates America. Wilson knew the kind of movie he wanted to make, and he set out making it (that's all well and good for a work of fiction, but as Mayles shows us, that's no way to make a documentary). To his credit, he lets the camera show things Moore would never show, including his own occasional deceptiveness towards his interview subjects. Moore, of course, looks like the complete jackass that he is throughout, and that's fun to watch. As you've no doubt surmised, it is the interview footage with Jillette and Mayles (and a fidgety David Horowitz) that provide the real reason to watch this flawed, but still quite interesting, labor of love.
A few things need to be said up front. Mr. Wilson needed to drum up interest in the project, and he doubtless intended his title to be 'controversial', as he himself says in one of the many excellent snippets of an interview with documentarian Albert Mayles, a true legend (among his great films is the remarkable Gimme Shelter, the documentary of the Stone's '69 tour and its horrific culmination). The narration tends to be cloying at times, and despite the title, this is not (primarily) an expose of Moore so much as it is an affirmation that Americans are not the pathetic dupes that Moore seems to believe we are, but rather an optimistic people who know that into every life, a little rain must fall, but that just means you try harder.
The real heart of the movie is not Wilson's quest to get an interview with Moore, but two interviews that are excerpted heavily, one with the aforementioned Mayles, and one with Penn Jillette of the comedy/magic duo Penn & Teller. Jillette seems to think he's an extra in Goodfellas, so frequently does he drop the f-bomb, but he serves as one half of the movie's conscience, by discoursing on the techniques of propaganda, as used by Moore and others, and the false goal of catching 'reality' once a camera rolls (as anyone who's watched ten minutes of the execrable trend of 'reality' television can attest).
Mayles is the true anti-Moore, though, not in his politics (he makes it clear he liked Moore's notorious Oscar speech), but in his approach to the documentarian craft. Moore's 'documentaries' are anything but; instead, they are crafted set pieces that play to the faithful and confirm the prejudices already held by the filmmaker and his audience. The Mayles approach is different; to paraphrase his own words, he starts from the base of a love with his subject, but then he lets the chips fall where they may; the film is as honest as a documentary can be (given the parameters discussed by Jilette), and the conclusions are neither foregone nor telegraphed to the audience.
In fact, that is the Achilles' heel of Michael Moore Hates America. Wilson knew the kind of movie he wanted to make, and he set out making it (that's all well and good for a work of fiction, but as Mayles shows us, that's no way to make a documentary). To his credit, he lets the camera show things Moore would never show, including his own occasional deceptiveness towards his interview subjects. Moore, of course, looks like the complete jackass that he is throughout, and that's fun to watch. As you've no doubt surmised, it is the interview footage with Jillette and Mayles (and a fidgety David Horowitz) that provide the real reason to watch this flawed, but still quite interesting, labor of love.
Eason Jordan: Is There More Than Meets the Eye?
Mickey Kaus at kausfiles has an interesting post up that suggests a resolution to the mystery of why Eason Jordan was relatively quick to resign. Kaus has been playing up the Howard Kurtz angle - i.e., the softball coverage on l'affaire Jordan provided by the Washington Post and CNN reporter, and the conflict of interest so transparently present. Howard has edited an article he wrote on the resignation to delete a reference to Jordan's personal life. The original article, available here, said of Jordan:
Mickey Kaus is a great blogger and one of the few Democratic voices that I enjoy reading, but this one doesn't pass the smell test. A high-powered news executive having an affair, even with the widow of a well-respected writer who, for those who don't know, was murdered in cold blood by Islamic terrorists - this is the reason CNN didn't come to his defense? I think Jordan resigned for a far simpler reason. The CNN execs saw a copy of the Davos videotape - and it backed up the version of Jordan's remarks given by his accusers. To paraphrase William of Occam: when in doubt, follow the easiest path to your destination.
...top executives are also said to have lost patience with the continuing gossip about Jordan, including his affair with Marianne Pearl, widow of the murdered reporter Daniel Pearl, and subsequent marital breakup.The new version, including a lot of quotes from big-time bloggers, is here, and the passage has been changed to:
Several CNN staffers say Jordan was eased out by top executives who had lost patience with both the controversy and the continuing published gossip about Jordan's personal life after a marital breakup.Frankly, the change is immaterial to me. Some have commented on the privacy of Marianne Pearl as a reason for the revision; Kurtz himself says space considerations were to blame (space considerations? It's not like we're talking about several paragraphs...). My problem is: I don't buy it.
Mickey Kaus is a great blogger and one of the few Democratic voices that I enjoy reading, but this one doesn't pass the smell test. A high-powered news executive having an affair, even with the widow of a well-respected writer who, for those who don't know, was murdered in cold blood by Islamic terrorists - this is the reason CNN didn't come to his defense? I think Jordan resigned for a far simpler reason. The CNN execs saw a copy of the Davos videotape - and it backed up the version of Jordan's remarks given by his accusers. To paraphrase William of Occam: when in doubt, follow the easiest path to your destination.
Miscellanea - Piling on Dean Edition
Professor Bainbridge on the Democratic Party under Howard Dean: "a political party is in bad trouble if its most plausible "centrist" is a left-liberal like Hillary Clinton." Of course, there's Joe Lieberman, but he needs to be a Republican anyway...
The American Mind has brought back the Dean Duck Hunt, and yours truly is featured in the latest installment...
Richard Cohen has an article on the 2008 hopefuls in the National Journal (hat tip to RealClearPolitics)...
Meanwhile, while apparently vacationing in an alternate universe, the New York Times talks about 'the journalistic tempest' that led to Eason Jordan's resignation, and Howard Kurtz tells us it was a bipartisan uprising...
Leftist hack Josh Marshall has apparently adopted an all-Social-Security, all-the-time format...
One Hand Clapping has some thoughts on North Korea's 'surprise' nuclear announcement...
The American Mind has brought back the Dean Duck Hunt, and yours truly is featured in the latest installment...
Richard Cohen has an article on the 2008 hopefuls in the National Journal (hat tip to RealClearPolitics)...
Meanwhile, while apparently vacationing in an alternate universe, the New York Times talks about 'the journalistic tempest' that led to Eason Jordan's resignation, and Howard Kurtz tells us it was a bipartisan uprising...
Leftist hack Josh Marshall has apparently adopted an all-Social-Security, all-the-time format...
One Hand Clapping has some thoughts on North Korea's 'surprise' nuclear announcement...
The Iraqi Elections: The Results Are In
Do you think Noam Chomsky ever gets tired of being so wrong all the time? (I doubt it; he probably just rolls around in his money bin like Scrooge McDuck whenever he gets down). In the latest edition of that liberal parlor game called 'moving goalposts', we were assured by Chomsky, Juan Cole and various other 'progressive' blowhards that even if the elections did occur, despite their dire predictions of failure, and even if they weren't a bloodbath, despite their Chicken Little warnings, they were still a failure becuase the Shiites were guaranteed a dominant majority that would align with Iran and present the U.S. with a nightmare worse than Saddam.
Wrong again, Chomsky! The results are in, and though the primary Shiite coaliton won 48% of the vote, they don't have the majority needed to govern in such an autocratic manner, which I doubt they would have done in the first place. The second highest vote share went to a Kurdish alliance, good news indeed, and an alliance backing the current Prime Minister came in third.
This is great news for the nascent democracy of Iraq. It means that internal compromise will be necessary to govern effectively, and guarantees a voice for minority viewpoints. The terrorists continue to murder innocent Iraqis daily, but there can be no doubt that, if they ever had an opportunity to define themselves as the saviors of Iraq's sovereignty, that time has long passed. My 'progressive' friends, I say to you - the battle may yet rage, but the war has been won.
Wrong again, Chomsky! The results are in, and though the primary Shiite coaliton won 48% of the vote, they don't have the majority needed to govern in such an autocratic manner, which I doubt they would have done in the first place. The second highest vote share went to a Kurdish alliance, good news indeed, and an alliance backing the current Prime Minister came in third.
This is great news for the nascent democracy of Iraq. It means that internal compromise will be necessary to govern effectively, and guarantees a voice for minority viewpoints. The terrorists continue to murder innocent Iraqis daily, but there can be no doubt that, if they ever had an opportunity to define themselves as the saviors of Iraq's sovereignty, that time has long passed. My 'progressive' friends, I say to you - the battle may yet rage, but the war has been won.
Miscellanea - How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Daily Kos Edition
VERY interesting Michael Barone piece in U.S. News (but then, Barone is always interesting). His thesis: 'progressive' blogs force Dems to the left, conservative blogs attack the liberal media with increasing success, and the Republicans have a clear shot at the end zone (hat tip to Instapundit)...
Meanwhile, over at paid Dean shill Markos Zuniga's place, this will either make you hurl your breakfast or die laughing...
This Byron York piece is laugh-out-loud funny for a whole 'nother set of reasons (hat tip to PoliPundit)...
Yet another reason why the UN is morally bankrupt noted here, here, here, and here...
Professor Bainbridge snarks out on Jimmy Carter...
If you haven't got your Eason Jordan fill yet, I recommend this roundup by Jeff Jarvis...
Meanwhile, over at paid Dean shill Markos Zuniga's place, this will either make you hurl your breakfast or die laughing...
This Byron York piece is laugh-out-loud funny for a whole 'nother set of reasons (hat tip to PoliPundit)...
Yet another reason why the UN is morally bankrupt noted here, here, here, and here...
Professor Bainbridge snarks out on Jimmy Carter...
If you haven't got your Eason Jordan fill yet, I recommend this roundup by Jeff Jarvis...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)