Modest Mouse, 3rd Planet.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Friday Night Fun
Out to enjoy my fair city. I'll leave you with a Matt Pond PA video, because in the 21st century every rock band needs a cellist.
Against Objectivity
Let me basically endorse what Yglesias says here while adding a couple of things. First is that the existence of an actively hostile and partisan/idelogical media on one side of the political debate tends to push me much more in the direction of abandoning the current model of journalism we have.
The second point is that while it's true that UK newspapers don't aspire to that particular model of journalism, the BBC news empire does, so the UK does in fact have the kind of institution Tomasky discusses.
The second point is that while it's true that UK newspapers don't aspire to that particular model of journalism, the BBC news empire does, so the UK does in fact have the kind of institution Tomasky discusses.
They Write Letters
A letter writer to Romenesko notes the bizarre view the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has of journalism.
It's time for those in the mainstream media to understand that even as they invited conservatives into their homes, those conservatives were waging a war against them. Tim Russert will give them another chance on Sunday.
The media wars are on, and the respectable media seems to be surrendering.
It's time for those in the mainstream media to understand that even as they invited conservatives into their homes, those conservatives were waging a war against them. Tim Russert will give them another chance on Sunday.
The media wars are on, and the respectable media seems to be surrendering.
Respectable Discourse
Really, there's literally nothing a conservative can say which will prevent them from getting invited back to respectable mainstream news outlets, where respectable hosts and respectable journalists will take them seriously.
nothing.
nothing.
Sunday Bobbleheads
- Meet the Press hosts Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The roundtable includes author Bill Bennett, CNBC's John Harwood, Washington Post's Dana Priest, and New York Times' William Safire.
- Face the Nation hosts Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) and New York Times' exec. ed. Bill Keller.
- This Week hosts Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The roundtable includes ex-Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), Cokie Roberts and Time's Joe Klein.
- Fox News Sunday hosts Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jack Reed (D-RI) and NASA Admin. Michael Griffin.
- Late Edition hosts Reps. Peter King (R-NY) and Barney Frank (D-MA) and Griffin.
The funny thing is I'm sure the Meet the Press producers/bookers saw absolutely nothing odd about a roundtable featuring Dana Priest, John Harwood, William Safire, and Bill Bennett. Nothing odd about that at all.
Still, the real mystery isn't why Meet the Press does this, the real mystery is why people like Priest and Harwood agree to participate in such a thing.
CNN
Um, does anyone know why CNN is re-running Larry King Live apparently in full?
Is Star Jones really that important?
Is Star Jones really that important?
Sending Lee Siegel to the Guillotine
Better put your baseball caps away.
...Scott Lemieux ably captures Lee Siegel's basic schtick with a Simpson's quote:
I suppose there's an audience for this kind of thing, and it's apparently people who subscribe to the New Republic.
...Scott Lemieux ably captures Lee Siegel's basic schtick with a Simpson's quote:
Dear Mr. President: There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot.
I suppose there's an audience for this kind of thing, and it's apparently people who subscribe to the New Republic.
All of It
Eugene Robinson writes:
Finally.
It seemed almost too much to hope for, but the Supreme Court finally called George W. Bush onto the carpet yesterday and asked him the obvious question: What part of "rule of law" do you not understand?
The Creation of Bullshit
The easy ability to insert false stories into the media bloodstream is tremendously beneficial to the conservative movement, because irresponsible hack journalists never feel the need to correct the record, and the Zombie Wingnuttery lives on long after it's been killed.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Realities of Warfare
Typical Republican chickenhawk attacking a bronze star recipient:
In a just world, Thomas would resign in shame and spend the rest of his life tending to the needs of disabled Vets.
We don't live in a just world.
Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare”; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service.
In a just world, Thomas would resign in shame and spend the rest of his life tending to the needs of disabled Vets.
We don't live in a just world.
Nedrenaline!
New ad.
Still time for an end of the quarter donation.
...the Cook Report says Lieberman has "vowed to run as an independent." That's quite the scoop, if true.
Still time for an end of the quarter donation.
...the Cook Report says Lieberman has "vowed to run as an independent." That's quite the scoop, if true.
Trash Talk
I think it behooves the fine people at TAP to keep pointing out how craptacular TNR often is. Remember, it wasn't long ago that they sent out an email which said:
God they're wankers.
You may want clear opinions from The New Republic or from any magazine of political commentary. But you certainly don't want predictable opinions or simple opinions, which, alas, is what you get from The Nation and the National Review, The Weekly Standard or The American Prospect. Why, I bet that you could write their articles in advance. No challenge, no mystery, no surprise, no puzzling through of argument. Not like The New Republic.
God they're wankers.
Nothing
As I've said numerous times, there's literally nothing that a conservative can say which will cause the mainstream media to decide that perhaps they shouldn't have a regular platform on their "respectable" news shows.
It's long past time for respectable journalists to stop giving legitimacy to these outlets. They have no standards for truth or decency.
It's long past time for respectable journalists to stop giving legitimacy to these outlets. They have no standards for truth or decency.
Rebuke
Greenwald looks at the SCOTUS decision.
My quick take is that it's certainly an important symbolic victory, but this administration's contempt for the law, the constitution, and the balance/separation of powers that our system rests on isn't going to be very affected by what 5 people in black robes say. They've ignored Congress and they'll ignore the Court too, leaving our mainstream media with more time to deal with the impending threat of blogofascism.
My quick take is that it's certainly an important symbolic victory, but this administration's contempt for the law, the constitution, and the balance/separation of powers that our system rests on isn't going to be very affected by what 5 people in black robes say. They've ignored Congress and they'll ignore the Court too, leaving our mainstream media with more time to deal with the impending threat of blogofascism.
Can Lee Siegel Read?
It looks like I'm going to have to hurl some blogofascism at him. He writes:
Neither the misleading Post story nor the study itself claimed the Daily Show "has the effect of making viewers so disgusted with politics on both sides of the aisle that they feel too discouraged to vote." The Post reported only that it "could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls." More than that, the authors of the study didn't come to any conclusions about the impact on voting.
As for the question of whether young people have been voting more, whether or not Jon Stewart has anything to do with it, there's a way to answer that question. Siegel apparently doesn't understand that if you want to know whether or not young people voted in greater numbers in 2004 then you should ask the question, "Did young people vote in greater numbers in 2004?" and then go consult some appropriate data source which will hopefully answer your question. Apparently anti-blogofascist Lee Siegel has determined that such answers can be pulled delicately out of a place us blogofascists term "your ass" while the delicate flower Siegel would probably call it his "bottom."
And, yes, young voter participation was up sharply in 2004 over 2000.
Advantage, blogofascism!
Wait! I'm not the one who said that. According to The Washington Post--yes, yes, MSM "douchebags," I know, I know--a new study by two researchers at East Carolina University found that Stewart's cynicism has the effect of making viewers so disgusted with politics on both sides of the aisle that they feel too discouraged to vote. Constant ridicule seems to have the effect of turning the political system into one gigantic self-parodying freak show, with no sign of imminent change or relief.
That could be why all the pre-election talk about Jon Stewart sending his young viewers--though the average age of a "Daily Show" viewer is actually 47--to the polls in great numbers to vote for Kerry was just that--talk. It simply never happened.
So maybe ridicule and invective, though entertaining, and a refreshing alternative to the mainstream media's passivity and reserve, isn't the boon to democracy it's cracked up to be? Anyway, don't despair, and don't get enraged because that's just the bad news about Stewart. The good news is that he's not a fascist.
Neither the misleading Post story nor the study itself claimed the Daily Show "has the effect of making viewers so disgusted with politics on both sides of the aisle that they feel too discouraged to vote." The Post reported only that it "could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls." More than that, the authors of the study didn't come to any conclusions about the impact on voting.
But if you actually read the academic paper, or the interview with the authors in the not-so-much-MSM Daily Reflector, you'll see another angle. It turns out that Stewart fans also trust their own knowledge of politics more than do network watchers. Young Daily Show viewers blame the elites who run the political-media system for the mess we're in, not themselves. They think they really get what politics is actually all about. And, says the study, here's an idea worth entertaining: "citizens who understand politics are more likely to participate than those who do not."
In other words, the cynicism and discontent that the Daily Show breeds could "spawn greater involvement," say the authors; Stewart watchers could actually "become more active voters."
Yes, the study also contemplates the other possibility: that cynicism is a voter-turnoff. "Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing," say the authors, "we just don't know."
As for the question of whether young people have been voting more, whether or not Jon Stewart has anything to do with it, there's a way to answer that question. Siegel apparently doesn't understand that if you want to know whether or not young people voted in greater numbers in 2004 then you should ask the question, "Did young people vote in greater numbers in 2004?" and then go consult some appropriate data source which will hopefully answer your question. Apparently anti-blogofascist Lee Siegel has determined that such answers can be pulled delicately out of a place us blogofascists term "your ass" while the delicate flower Siegel would probably call it his "bottom."
And, yes, young voter participation was up sharply in 2004 over 2000.
Advantage, blogofascism!
Journamalism
CNN:
Roberts, of course, ruled for the government in that case. It's kinda how he got his current job.
(thanks to reader d)
Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the Hamdan case. He had ruled against the government last year when the case was argued in a lower federal appeals court.
Roberts, of course, ruled for the government in that case. It's kinda how he got his current job.
(thanks to reader d)
Bill Keller to the Gas Chamber
Melanie Morgan is, of course, a fairly regular guest on MSNBC.
I remember when sending subpoenas to Judith Miller was considered by the media insiders to be a threat to democracy itself. The press largely seems to be treating this as just another story.
Where's the outrage now?
I remember when sending subpoenas to Judith Miller was considered by the media insiders to be a threat to democracy itself. The press largely seems to be treating this as just another story.
Where's the outrage now?
Projection
Juan Cole has a post about the recent smear jobs which is quite good. It concludes:
Cyberspace itself, though, is a distributed system, not a centralized one. That is why the charges against Kos are so silly. In essence, creatures of the old choke-point hegemonies are projecting their own hierarchical system inaccurately on Kos. Of course you wouldn't expect people like Peretz or David Brooks to understand what a distributed information system is, dinosaurs as they are, of both politics and media.
Hope?
CNN breaking sez:
I'm not in front of a teevee so those who are can chime in with more details.
Of course, Bush has said he can do what he wants so who knows.
...Drudge sez 5-3 decision finding them "illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention." I'm glad the Geneva Convention is in there, it's nice that the Court recognizes there is this bit about treaties being the supreme law of the land.
The Supreme Court rules President Bush overstepped his authority with military war crimes trials for foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay in a case involving a former driver for Osama bin Laden.
I'm not in front of a teevee so those who are can chime in with more details.
Of course, Bush has said he can do what he wants so who knows.
...Drudge sez 5-3 decision finding them "illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention." I'm glad the Geneva Convention is in there, it's nice that the Court recognizes there is this bit about treaties being the supreme law of the land.
What Is Success?
Nobody knows. Nobody knows why we're in Iraq, so it's rather hard to define.
June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about a report that Sunni insurgents have made a conditional offer to halt attacks in Iraq, said the U.S. won't set a timetable for withdrawing troops from the country.
The Associated Press today said 11 Sunni insurgent groups offered to stop attacks on U.S.-led military forces in Iraq if the Iraqi government and President George W. Bush set a two-year deadline for withdrawing all foreign troops.
Rumsfeld told reporters that while he hadn't seen the report, ``the president's view has been and remains that a timetable is not something that is useful.'' A schedule for a pullout ``is a signal to the enemies that all you have to do is just wait and it's yours,'' he said.
``The goal is not to trade something off for something else to make somebody happy, the goal is to succeed,'' Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon press conference with Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson. ``And that means exactly what the president has said: It's condition-based.''
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Murtha
While it isn't actually a surprise to most of us (that is, we knew it) that the conservative military Democrat from rural PA probably isn't on Barbra Streisand's rolodex, contra Aravosis and bogus email publisher Zengerle thus far there has been no confirmation that Murtha tried to discourage Keller from publishing the SWIFT story. As Media Matters explains, while Murtha was one of the people Keller says the Times talked to, Keller also asserts that not all of them tried to discourage them from publishing the report.
I don't especially care either way, but those are the facts.
I don't especially care either way, but those are the facts.
Crazy Curt
We're not exactly blessed here in Pennsylvania. We have two awful senators, but even the freakishness of Rick Santorum pales in comparison to the nuttiest guy of all, Curt Weldon.
Let's just hope the voters of his district recognize that maybe Joe Sestak would be a better option.
Let's just hope the voters of his district recognize that maybe Joe Sestak would be a better option.
Murthal Infallibility
Fresh from publishing a bogus email, Jason Zengerele decides to turn back to TNR's most successful campaign - their ongoing war against straw.
Given that whatever popularity the conservative Murtha has on the Left has to do with his aggressive desire to leave Iraq, and he was once a proponent of the war I'm pretty sure most people on "the Left" recognize that he is not, in fact, infallible.
Given that whatever popularity the conservative Murtha has on the Left has to do with his aggressive desire to leave Iraq, and he was once a proponent of the war I'm pretty sure most people on "the Left" recognize that he is not, in fact, infallible.
Swift
Froomkin writes about the "secrecy" of the Swift program.
It's important to make clear that this line of argument isn't about defending the New York Times' right to publish such a story, which they should have regardless, it's about pointing out what a bunch of lying scumbags their critics are.
It's important to make clear that this line of argument isn't about defending the New York Times' right to publish such a story, which they should have regardless, it's about pointing out what a bunch of lying scumbags their critics are.
Beck
Looks like CNN Headline didn't do such a smart thing. Why these cable networks believe that chasing the shrinking Fox audience is a smart thing to do I have no idea.
Fox does do some things that a ratings-conscious network probably should think about emulating. But isn't the market for conservative assholes saturated?
Fox does do some things that a ratings-conscious network probably should think about emulating. But isn't the market for conservative assholes saturated?
Grand Old Police Blotter
Woops.
(June 28, 2006)--A South Texas jury has found a 44-year-old political consultant guilty of four counts involving the sexual molestation of children.
...
The 44-year-old Cramer was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, two of indecency with a child by contact and one of indecency with a child by exposure.
Cramer, who now lives in Tucson, Ariz., gained national attention during the 2000 presidential election.
His McAllen company created a TV ad accusing the Clinton-Gore administration of giving away nuclear technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions.
...
Cramer faces a maximum of 149 years in prison for the four felony charges.
Just Do It
Dear Senator Obama,
If you think it's important to court evangelicals, then court them. If, on the other hand, you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing. It won't help the Democrats, and it probably won't even help you, but whatever makes you happy.
Love and kisses,
Atrios
P.S. What Stoller says.
If you think it's important to court evangelicals, then court them. If, on the other hand, you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing. It won't help the Democrats, and it probably won't even help you, but whatever makes you happy.
Love and kisses,
Atrios
P.S. What Stoller says.
Malaria
What Yglesias says. I'll be happy to hand the procurement responsibility over to the Defense Department and let them give the contract to Halliburton for cost+1000% if that's what's necessary to get the war-obsessed on board.
Not Only the Times
It shouldn't fall on Greg Sargent, toiling away on his blog, to point out that aside from the frightening precedent that the Bush administration is setting by going after a media outlet, they are, in fact, completely full of shit on the issue.
Stand up, media, stand up... I've watched too many in the media stand by or even cheer it on when the right manages to collect a media scalp. Even if you "behave," they'll still come for you.
Stand up, media, stand up... I've watched too many in the media stand by or even cheer it on when the right manages to collect a media scalp. Even if you "behave," they'll still come for you.
um, ew?
Roll Call.
The woman in question.
Rush Job. Rumors were swirling around Capitol Hill and beyond Tuesday that Rush Limbaugh is dating actress Mary Lynn Rajskub, who plays Chloe O'Brian on the Fox series "24." Though that still doesn't explain the unauthorized bottle of little blue pills (shhh, Viagra!) that customs agents found in Limbaugh's luggage at Palm Beach International Airport on Monday.
The conservative radio talk show host hinted on his show Tuesday that he went on a boys-only trip with the cast of "24." Chloe is no boy. If you saw the papers over the weekend, including The Washington Post, there were photos of Limbaugh planting a big kiss right on Rajskub's lips during a dog-and-pony event at the Heritage Foundation.
No one at Heritage seemed to know whether Limbaugh and Rajskub were more than photo-op kissing buddies. A spokeswoman for Heritage who asked not to be named told HOH, "Nobody knows. Several people have been asking today. I have no idea."
Our guess is, probably not. Though why would Rush take Viagra on a boys-only trip?
The woman in question.
Wanker of the Day
Assrocket.
I'll add that Gore's movie is already the #7 documentary of all time, and will almost definitely take the #5 spot, if not higher, before its run ends.
I'll add that Gore's movie is already the #7 documentary of all time, and will almost definitely take the #5 spot, if not higher, before its run ends.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Flag Burning
I've been hoping common sense prevailed and this thing wouldn't pass, which it didn't.
The narrow issue of "flag desecreation," while troubling and stupid, isn't that important. Still, putting into the constitution the notion that congress has an explicit right to regulate political speech opens up many creepy doors I don't really want to open.
And, yay Republicans! You get to prove you're dumbassess yet again in 2 years.
The narrow issue of "flag desecreation," while troubling and stupid, isn't that important. Still, putting into the constitution the notion that congress has an explicit right to regulate political speech opens up many creepy doors I don't really want to open.
And, yay Republicans! You get to prove you're dumbassess yet again in 2 years.
498-2
No time to pull a clip, but Cafferty just read a bunch of scathing emails about Bush's signing statements. He said out of 500 emails, only 2 were supportive of them.
C-i-C
I think the most interesting recent poll results were from this Gallup Poll
People understand that the president is in charge of the armed forces - they've been told that enough over the past few years - and they obviously no longer trust him to do so. Sure they're not leaping to hand things over to the Democrats, but they nonetheless want Congress to step in and do something to stop the boy king.
The percentage of Americans who say the president has "a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq" has dropped to 31%, a new low. That's still higher than the 25% who say congressional Democrats have a clear plan for Iraq.
The telephone survey of 1,000 adults has an error margin of +/-3 percentage points.
In the poll, 57% say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops; 39% say that decision should be left to the president and his advisers.
People understand that the president is in charge of the armed forces - they've been told that enough over the past few years - and they obviously no longer trust him to do so. Sure they're not leaping to hand things over to the Democrats, but they nonetheless want Congress to step in and do something to stop the boy king.
Oh My
Now this is funny:
Needless to say we're talking about the Lieberman campaign here. The cluelessness on display is almost charming, though it's also a bit creepy. Whatever value blogs add (or detract) from the world, much like talk radio they have have an influence and sizeable audience. How a political campaign thinks they can ignore such things, especially when their opponent's campaign has largely been driven by those blogs, is truly weird to me.
I don't think blogs are the most important thing in the world, but they are a "thing" that exists and it's frightening that people running campaigns just want to pretend they don't exist.
That was the same kooky press secretary who called me up recently and asked me what kind of radio show I do and how she could listen to it and whether my newspaper column is exclusively political. I sort of figured this was one of their improv skits, so I went along as though these were perfectly reasonable questions to ask me. I then suggested that she could better understand one of my takes on Lieberman by reading a certain posting elsewhere in this blog, whereupon she told me she makes it a point never to read any blogs because they get things so wrong. I love this press secretary.
The mysterious and spooky campaign manager is very funny too. He has kind of exploded the old crypto-truckling stereotype of political operatives dealing with members of the press. Here is how he concluded an email to a local TV reporter: “If you distort the truth and report that we are running a negative campaign and Ned is not, I will not forget it.” Ooh! It’s only June, and they’re already propping up pony heads in our percale, those scamps!
Needless to say we're talking about the Lieberman campaign here. The cluelessness on display is almost charming, though it's also a bit creepy. Whatever value blogs add (or detract) from the world, much like talk radio they have have an influence and sizeable audience. How a political campaign thinks they can ignore such things, especially when their opponent's campaign has largely been driven by those blogs, is truly weird to me.
I don't think blogs are the most important thing in the world, but they are a "thing" that exists and it's frightening that people running campaigns just want to pretend they don't exist.
Blogofascism
The Editors answer all your questions.
I'm glad Lee Siegel showed up when he did. I was getting bored with the same old faces in our pantheon of uber-wankers.
I'm glad Lee Siegel showed up when he did. I was getting bored with the same old faces in our pantheon of uber-wankers.
Dingbat Self-Parodies
Josh Marshall has some fun with Lee Siegel.
I will never stop finding the fact people who work in traditionally print-oriented outlets have gotten such little reader feedback over the years fascinating, and how shocked they are when they get some. Even when this blog only got a few hundred hits a day I still got a substantial amount of reader feedback, either in comments or email. And while as Josh says not all of it is friendly, and some of it is just annoying, without the immediacy of feedback I would've gotten bored with blogging long ago. When the comments go down my own blog bores me.
I will never stop finding the fact people who work in traditionally print-oriented outlets have gotten such little reader feedback over the years fascinating, and how shocked they are when they get some. Even when this blog only got a few hundred hits a day I still got a substantial amount of reader feedback, either in comments or email. And while as Josh says not all of it is friendly, and some of it is just annoying, without the immediacy of feedback I would've gotten bored with blogging long ago. When the comments go down my own blog bores me.
Big Fundraising Day
According to a Move On email in one day their fundraising email raised $300,000 for Ned Lamont, Patrick Murphy, and Diane Farrell, with the bulk of it presumably going to Lamont.
Speaking of fundraising, for local folks there's reception for Patrick Murphy at theHappy Rooster supporter's house on Wendesday.
Speaking of fundraising, for local folks there's reception for Patrick Murphy at the
Astrology
I'm certainly going to regret going here, but I've been somewhat amused or bemused by the scorn heaped on Jerome Armstrong over his foray into the world of astrology, with one commenter at Tapped asserting it makes him a "nutcase" and Garance implying that belief in astrology should disqualify someone for working on a political campaign.
As another Tapped commenter stated, "I'm no believer in astrology, or in virgin births, transubsantiation, or any number of very mainstream religious beliefs..." And, indeed, belief in astrology is quite mainstream. In 2003, 31% of the population, including 27% of Christians were believers (down from 37% in 1998 with 37% of Christians believing). I'm not entirely sure how to classify astrology, but presumably it falls under the general umbrella of religious/spiritual beliefs.
For an agnostic/atheist like myself lots of religious beliefs sound pretty nutty to me, but as Amy Sullivan keeps telling us we keep losing elections because people like me aren't sufficiently respectful of religious beliefs even though, you know, we generally are. And, now, from left to right, from Tap to TNR to the wingnutosphere, people are falling all over themselves to mock someone who had a perfectly mainstream belief apparently shared by millions and millions of Americans.
I find that rather odd.
As another Tapped commenter stated, "I'm no believer in astrology, or in virgin births, transubsantiation, or any number of very mainstream religious beliefs..." And, indeed, belief in astrology is quite mainstream. In 2003, 31% of the population, including 27% of Christians were believers (down from 37% in 1998 with 37% of Christians believing). I'm not entirely sure how to classify astrology, but presumably it falls under the general umbrella of religious/spiritual beliefs.
For an agnostic/atheist like myself lots of religious beliefs sound pretty nutty to me, but as Amy Sullivan keeps telling us we keep losing elections because people like me aren't sufficiently respectful of religious beliefs even though, you know, we generally are. And, now, from left to right, from Tap to TNR to the wingnutosphere, people are falling all over themselves to mock someone who had a perfectly mainstream belief apparently shared by millions and millions of Americans.
I find that rather odd.
Bounced
Well, I guess the "Bush Bounce" story is dead for at last another 2 weeks when they'll bring it back.
Stand Up
Yglesias writes:
Torturing people, jailing journalists for treason, the president being allowed to disobey the law at whim... The mainstream media has made all of these things a part of the normal conversation. They've allowed "two sides" to all of these things to be debated on equal footing. Left wing bloggers on the internets complain about the media and they get ignored and accused of "blogofascism." Conservatives call for the New York Times to be blown up and their reporters and editors jailed and they get treated seriously on MSNBC's flagship political talk show.
There's a problem here. You've been playing this game for years, letting these people control the terms of the debate. This is where it has brought you. Congratulations.
...video here, for those with the stomach.
Tragically, I walked through the door yesterday and my roommate already had Hardball on. There were two people debating the issue of . . . whether or not The New York Times should be brought up on charges of treason. Seriously. Treason. For publishing an article in a newspaper. Treason. And there was Chris Matthews happily presiding over the whole thing as if this was a serious conversation that people should be having. This all taking place on a network that, allegedly, does journalism.
Torturing people, jailing journalists for treason, the president being allowed to disobey the law at whim... The mainstream media has made all of these things a part of the normal conversation. They've allowed "two sides" to all of these things to be debated on equal footing. Left wing bloggers on the internets complain about the media and they get ignored and accused of "blogofascism." Conservatives call for the New York Times to be blown up and their reporters and editors jailed and they get treated seriously on MSNBC's flagship political talk show.
There's a problem here. You've been playing this game for years, letting these people control the terms of the debate. This is where it has brought you. Congratulations.
...video here, for those with the stomach.
The Company You Keep
TNR's got a pal in Annie, who just loves their stuff. Ann considers criticism of the Bell Curve, by noted left-wingers such as James Heckman and Thomas Sowell, to be an example of a war on science by the left. From The Mayor of Loonyville's show last night:
(tip from cursor)
COULTER: Right, this idea of the conservative war on science has just become this cliche that`s drummed into people, like, you know, "Bush lied, kids died," when, in fact, a casual, a cursory review of history shows, really, a 30- 30-year war by the left on science, because what science is, is looking at the world as it is, which is not always the way liberals would like it to be...
SCARBOROUGH: Give me some example, a quick example...
COULTER: ... from their cancer clusters, the breast implant litigation turned out to be false. Anything that ever shows a difference between races, between gays and straights, between blacks and whites, between races, the attack on Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein`s "The Bell Curve," which was...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: I was just going to say -- I was just going to say, it`s like "The Bell Curve." I remember the controversy that caused in the late -- I think late 1980s.
(tip from cursor)
More Like This
Good. No one can come up with any sensible reason private insurers should be involved in the Medicare drug plan. It just adds another layer of bullshit to the whole thing, so let people choose the a plan administered by the feds. Let them negotiate, save money, and kill the donut hole. The trifecta!
Think about the advantage when you're negotiating on behalf of 43 million elderly and disabled Americans. That's the image painted by Democratic lawmakers who want the federal government to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare recipients.
The Democrats envision using the money that is saved to close a gap in coverage, called the "doughnut hole," that will affect an estimated 6.9 million people this year.
"Democrats fought against Social Security privatization, and we are now working to fix the flaws in the Republican prescription drug program," said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader.
The Democratic proposal, being introduced Tuesday, provides an alternative viewpoint to how the drug benefit should be shaped. Currently, seniors and the disabled select from dozens of plans offered in their state by private insurers, who negotiate prices.
The Democratic proposal would let beneficiaries choose a plan administered by the federal government.
Stand Up
As treason charges against the New York Times (but not, oddly, the Wall Street Journal) are getting thrown around on various "respectable" news outlets by people working in "journalism" I think it's probably time for the serious reporters at those outlets to inform management that their resignations will be forthcoming if it doesn't stop.
Silly people like me have been trying to warn you for years - you created, cultivated, nourished, and promoted these people. They're one of you. Take a stand, because pretty soon it's going to be too late.
Silly people like me have been trying to warn you for years - you created, cultivated, nourished, and promoted these people. They're one of you. Take a stand, because pretty soon it's going to be too late.
Wanker of the Day
Baby Kean:
Oh my.
the most dramatic exchange occurred when Mr. Kean sought to contrast his own background and record in Westfield, a wealthy suburb, with Mr. Menendez's in Hudson County.
"I invite people to come to Westfield, look at my hometown, and look at my actions. Are you willing to invite people into Hudson County, Bob, to look at this record, because we need to make sure we have real leadership in the future?"
There was a gasp from the audience.
"Are you casting an aspersion upon the people of Hudson County?" Mr. Menendez asked.
"You know better than that, Bob."
"That's the way your question sounds," Mr. Menendez said, adding, "They're hard-working, they're blue-collar people."
"You're right," Mr. Kean said, before continuing to criticize Mr. Menendez.
Oh my.
Responsbility
Gilliard writes:
A frequent complaint about bloggers is that because no one hires us there's no accountability, but I rarely see much accountability in journalism. People tend to get fired for relative stupid and inconsequential stuff, while the larger sins and sinners just sit there festering. I'd like to think the Times couldn't get away with their bullshit Whitewater reporting now, but 14 or so years later we're still waiting for them to print that "correction."
Personally I was astonished by the movie Shattered Glass and TNR's response to it. They were promoting the damn thing, and they were right to. Somehow it made them look good! Everyone managed to be a bit of a hero except for Glass himself. No one else was responsible.
This is about a moral and ethical choice. Yes, burning a source is a very big deal, but why would they protect a liar? They're reading the comments here, and half my posters think Zengerle made this up on his own. Talk about a hanging curve ball. Frank Foer knows he's gonna face this again, and his refusal to do the right thing now is going to haunt him and TNR. Zengerle's credibility and a $1 will get you a dirty water dog near Central Park. But it won't get you a credible story.
If TNR thinks their pathetic, cowardly apology is acceptable, that is their choice. But they will be renminded of that choice many times in the future, by many different people, for many different reasons. Hiding behind a liar is a short term solution with a long term consequence.
A frequent complaint about bloggers is that because no one hires us there's no accountability, but I rarely see much accountability in journalism. People tend to get fired for relative stupid and inconsequential stuff, while the larger sins and sinners just sit there festering. I'd like to think the Times couldn't get away with their bullshit Whitewater reporting now, but 14 or so years later we're still waiting for them to print that "correction."
Personally I was astonished by the movie Shattered Glass and TNR's response to it. They were promoting the damn thing, and they were right to. Somehow it made them look good! Everyone managed to be a bit of a hero except for Glass himself. No one else was responsible.
Uh, Billmon?
My memory is quite fuzzy but I have no recollection of this:
Who knows, maybe it's true, but I honestly don't remember anything like that. I remember Billmon being on my blogroll until he left blogging for an extended period.
In any case, the rest of the linked post is worth reading.
Don Atrios blackballed me for not showing the respect to Howard Dean -- a.k.a. the Boss of All Bosses.
Who knows, maybe it's true, but I honestly don't remember anything like that. I remember Billmon being on my blogroll until he left blogging for an extended period.
In any case, the rest of the linked post is worth reading.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Top 10 Books On the Bookshelf Immediately Facing Me
Obviously that reduces it from the universe of "all books" or even "all books I've read" to "all books in my current line of sight."
So, in no particular order:
George Eliot, Middlemarch.
Salman Rushdie, Midnight's Children.
AS Byatt, Still Life.
Nabokov, Lolita.
Richard Powers, The Prisoner's Dilemma.
Robertson Davies, The Cornish Trilogy.
Margaret Atwood, Alias Grace.
Graham Greene, The Quiet American.
Kazuo Ishiguro, The Unconsoled.
Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men.
So, in no particular order:
George Eliot, Middlemarch.
Salman Rushdie, Midnight's Children.
AS Byatt, Still Life.
Nabokov, Lolita.
Richard Powers, The Prisoner's Dilemma.
Robertson Davies, The Cornish Trilogy.
Margaret Atwood, Alias Grace.
Graham Greene, The Quiet American.
Kazuo Ishiguro, The Unconsoled.
Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men.
"Privacy Purposes"
Well, Roy Black's spinning hard and I don't know what the relevant law is but I'd be a bit surprised if mere mortals were allowed to get away with this:
But if that is something doctors and their patients can legally do then fine by me. And, if it is, then I'll actually feel bad for the bloated one. Grabbing people in airports 'cause they have a bottle of Viagra is pretty silly, assuming that's all it was about.
He said he had the Viagra in his possession for his use and that he did obtain it from his doctors," Miller said.
Sheriff's investigators confiscated the drugs, and Limbaugh was released around 5:30 p.m. without being charged.
However, the sheriff's office plans to file a report with the state attorney's office.
"We believe there may be a second degree misdemeanor violation, which is possession of certain drugs without a prescription, because the bottle does not have his name on it," Miller said.
A doctor had prescribed the drug, but it was "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes," Roy Black, Limbaugh's attorney, said in a statement.
But if that is something doctors and their patients can legally do then fine by me. And, if it is, then I'll actually feel bad for the bloated one. Grabbing people in airports 'cause they have a bottle of Viagra is pretty silly, assuming that's all it was about.
Howie's Headlines
Greg notices that a topic on Howie Kurtz's show last Sunday was whether or not the "media" committed the capital crime of treason.
FEEEL THE BUSH BOUNCE
Bush stuck at 37% in new Gallup, down a point from the last time, and has been below 40% for 4 months.
In addition, "57% say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops," a fact which will not be able to penetrate the 46 tons of pig shit which protects the world headquarters of The Note from actual reality.
In addition, "57% say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops," a fact which will not be able to penetrate the 46 tons of pig shit which protects the world headquarters of The Note from actual reality.
They Write Letters
Dennis Persica writes to Romenesko.
What he leaves out is that the mainstream media has long given a platform to - and continues to do so - people who advocate their jailing and death. The "respectable media" created and nourished them.
But liberal bloggers are mean! And call people wankers!
What he leaves out is that the mainstream media has long given a platform to - and continues to do so - people who advocate their jailing and death. The "respectable media" created and nourished them.
But liberal bloggers are mean! And call people wankers!
Journamalism
Well, apparently sources can hand over horseshit to willing stenographers and those stenographers don't think there's any need for consequences. This of course lets journalists be simple information launderers for those who wish to libel others. Gilliard:
Burning sources who mislead you just seems like a nobrainer to me. Aside from punshing someone who aided and abetted your screwup, it also sends a signal to other would-be bullshitters that their attempts may not be consequence free.
Nice little racket they've got.
I have just received an e-mail from TNR editor Frank Foer which said they thought the apology is adequate and "they had nothing more to add". It was bad enough they tacked on Gilliard-gate to their mistake on their reporting. But now, they're defending a dishonest source, who sends e-mails withour any proof of their accuracyMy question is simple: why are they protecting a dishonest source on a story? They know the person in question lied to them about my words, yet they continue to protect them. Why would they do this? Apology or not, this is about credibility and their lack of it. How can anyone trust Jason Zengerle's words again? If they were to face legal action in the future, from an issue unrelated to this, counsel would surely contact me about this matter, as well as use it against them. This isn't about me, except for those words. It is, however, about how badly and dishonestly this whole affair has been handled. It was sloppy, an embarassment and TNR cannot wish it away. Until they deal with this in a forthright manner, their critics will always say "how can you trust them, they posted that fake e-mail", regardless of the facts of the story.
Burning sources who mislead you just seems like a nobrainer to me. Aside from punshing someone who aided and abetted your screwup, it also sends a signal to other would-be bullshitters that their attempts may not be consequence free.
Nice little racket they've got.
Snark On
Yglesias:
In the weeks and months after September 11, the nation was afraid. And confused. We faced a new enemy, an apparently brutal and skillful one, that we little understood. A grateful nation's eyes turned to Christopher Hitchens, whose neologism "Islamofascism" established a key precedent for the age: in this new era one would not be expected to know what one was talking about in order to have strongly held opinions as to what needed to be done.
As Ron Rosenbaum explained in a classic January 2002 New York Observer article, Hitchens was, along with Andrew Sullivan, a George Orwell for our times. Coining the term "Islamofascism" was a "brilliant stroke . . . devastatingly effective in describing who the terrorists, the al-Qaeda/Taliban nexus, really are." Yes, yes. Paul Berman did us the further favor, in his book Terror and Liberalism, of revealing that, despite appearances, not only were Islamic jihadists the same as Nazis, but both were also the same as secular nationalist Baathists. For that matter, despite decades of superficial rivalry, Syrian Baathism was the same as Iraqi Baathism. And, of course, as Hannah Arendt taught us long ago, if something is the same as fascism (as many things are these days) then it's also the same as Communism.
This was all very enlightening, needless to say. But the threats of the past are now obsolete -- since the liberation of Iraq, neither Islamofascism nor Baathofascism nor even Naziofascism need trouble us much.
Wishes are Not Ponies
I disagree with The One True Keeper of the Flame Tomasky. More than that I think that whether you're concerned about Iraq from a practical perspective or a political one it's thinking like that which is going to doom us. The belief that we'll be mostly out of Iraq in 3 Friedmans is the compainon of the belief that things will get better in one Friedman. If I'm correct, as I think I am, there will not be significant troop reductions this year, or next year, or the following year. It's possible there will be minor troop reductions, with perpetual promises of more to come between one and three Friedmans from "now," but they plan to stay and while civil war rages they can't stay with a small number of troops.
The belief that eventually Iraq will improve and we will leave is part of the reason why there hasn't been until recently significant political pressure for there to be any change. Absent significant popular and political pressure nothing will change in Iraq. Not this year, not the next, not the next... I'm not optimistic that such pressure will lead to changes absent new political leadership, but at least we can try to bring the debate back to where it needs to be.
The presidential primary season will be heating up less than a year from now, and Iraq will likely be even a more central issue in that election - and the general in 2008 - than it was in 2004.
It's dangerous to assume it will just go away. It won't.
The belief that eventually Iraq will improve and we will leave is part of the reason why there hasn't been until recently significant political pressure for there to be any change. Absent significant popular and political pressure nothing will change in Iraq. Not this year, not the next, not the next... I'm not optimistic that such pressure will lead to changes absent new political leadership, but at least we can try to bring the debate back to where it needs to be.
The presidential primary season will be heating up less than a year from now, and Iraq will likely be even a more central issue in that election - and the general in 2008 - than it was in 2004.
It's dangerous to assume it will just go away. It won't.
Lieberman Lies
What a wanker.
Shocking, especially since all these Washington insiders keep saying how awful it is to be mean to this man of integrity.
Shocking, especially since all these Washington insiders keep saying how awful it is to be mean to this man of integrity.
Into the Media Bloodstream
I'm glad it's okay to write things like this now:
Bush wants to stay in Iraq forever. We don't know what the presumed benefits of that are because they won't tell us why, and nobody will ask. We have some sense of how costly the ongoing occupation is, and how costly it will be in the future.
We can't have a sensible public debate about this issue until the public understands what the issue is. Our pundit class is blissfully unaware of why we're in Iraq. No one has yet been able to answer the question.
The Bush administration is actively working against the wishes of the elected Iraqi government and the expressed preferences of the American public to pursue an indefinite occupation of Iraq. This is a perpetual deployment on behalf of no stated goals, no wish-list of accomplishments, and no obvious purpose. I can't say whether we want the military bases, the oil, the regional foothold, or anything else; but invading a country, overthrowing their government, and then remaining against the wishes of the elected successors is the very definition of an occupying power, and in any international context, the neocons would be quick to define it as a hostile occupying power. Folks sometimes wonder why we don't have an exit strategy. The answer, now obvious, is because we don't want one.
Bush wants to stay in Iraq forever. We don't know what the presumed benefits of that are because they won't tell us why, and nobody will ask. We have some sense of how costly the ongoing occupation is, and how costly it will be in the future.
We can't have a sensible public debate about this issue until the public understands what the issue is. Our pundit class is blissfully unaware of why we're in Iraq. No one has yet been able to answer the question.
Morris v. Morris
Dick Morris then and now.
People certainly can change their opinions (flip-flop!) as either new information comes or even as they just reconsider their thinking. I write a hell of a lot so I'm certain Little Russ could subject me to the dreaded Russert treatment on some issue or another. Still, when pundits radically change their position it'd be nice if more often we'd get an acknowledgment of that change and more importantly an explanation for the change in thinking.
People certainly can change their opinions (flip-flop!) as either new information comes or even as they just reconsider their thinking. I write a hell of a lot so I'm certain Little Russ could subject me to the dreaded Russert treatment on some issue or another. Still, when pundits radically change their position it'd be nice if more often we'd get an acknowledgment of that change and more importantly an explanation for the change in thinking.
More on Division
I asked the question below because it really seems as if there's no consistency for when news stories assert that issues are "dividing the country" and when they aren't. During Schiavopalooza it was regularly claimed that the issue "divided the country" with the Mayor of Loonyville going so far as claiming, "There's something about this issue, this Schiavo issue, that's divided America more than any other that I‘ve experienced."
Almost every issues divides the country, in that some people fall on one side and some people on the other. In the case of Schiavo, which was hailed as a very "divisive" issue, in one poll an astounding 82% of people said the feds should stay out of it. Yet, somehow, the issue "divided America."
Almost every issues divides the country, in that some people fall on one side and some people on the other. In the case of Schiavo, which was hailed as a very "divisive" issue, in one poll an astounding 82% of people said the feds should stay out of it. Yet, somehow, the issue "divided America."
Um
I'm certainly one who thinks that reporters often have an exaggerated sense of their personal right to keep their private lives private - especially those in the celebrity press (for which Waas hardly qualifies) - but if anyone can explain to me why there's any legitimate news hook over the fact that Murray Waas had cancer 20 years I'd really appreciate it. Kurtz
How about:
or:
or:
It's hard to say where the line should be drawn when it comes to such an intensely personal disclosure. Did Waas's near-death experience, and subsequent complications, affect his journalism? How could such a searing experience not change your outlook on work and life?
Waas, who works for the National Journal and has drawn attention lately for several scoops in the CIA leak investigation, sued George Washington University Medical Center for failing to diagnose his cancer, winning a $650,000 judgment. But over the years he has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of his medical history on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.
How about:
But over the years he has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of his serial adultery on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.
or:
But over the years he has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of his numerous encounters with hookers on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.
or:
But over the years she has persuaded other reporters to steer clear of her past experience as a rape victim on grounds that it was private -- an interesting stance for a journalist who asks probing questions for a living.
Division Metrics
Is the country "more divided" over an issue when it's 51-49 or when it's 75-25?
I don't know the answer, but I wish we could come to some agreement.
I don't know the answer, but I wish we could come to some agreement.
Paradise is Just Another Friedman Away...
It'd be funny except it isn't:
Dec. 14 2005 NYT:
(tip from reader d)
Mr. Khalilzad said he and the American commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., would began talks with the Iraqis in the coming weeks on the topic, but reiterated that any reduction would depend on progress in Iraq. "We will adjust our forces, but we'll do it based on conditions, and the condition is that Iraqis can take care of themselves," he said. "The next five to six months are critical for this government."
Dec. 14 2005 NYT:
The election, Mr. Bush said, would be followed by ''days of uncertainty'' and perhaps weeks of vote counting that could leave the outcome unknown until next month. He made no claim that the vote on Thursday would allow the United States to start reducing its military presence. Instead, he alluded obliquely to a feeling among many foreign policy analysts and some administration officials that it could be six months before it was possible to say whether the Iraqis had established a workable government that could lead to a gradual American disengagement.
(tip from reader d)
Time Flies
It's already June 26. The Lamont primary is August 8.
It's probably pretty much the best time to give a contribution.
It's probably pretty much the best time to give a contribution.
Kissy No Kissy
Hilarious:
Watch the kiss here.
Connecticut party officials were particularly incensed when President Bush kissed Lieberman on the cheek following his 2005 State of the Union address. In meetings with state Dems, Lieberman tried to assuage their concerns, but also kept reminding party officials he had a 70% approval rating. Even so, the attacks on the kiss became so vocal that an exasperated Lieberman told one group of Democrats "I didn't kiss him back," a response that didn't exactly hearten them. (The incident has become so radioactive that Lieberman now denies Bush actually kissed him, telling TIME last week "I don't think he kissed me, he leaned over and gave me a hug and said 'thank you for being a patriotic American.'")
Watch the kiss here.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Omerta
So, Zengerle and the gang won't burn a source who fed them bullshit.
Time for a blogger ethics panel.
Time for a blogger ethics panel.
Fact Free at the Corner
K. Lo writes:
While Durbin expressed support for Lieberman in the primary, he didn't take a position on what would happen if Lieberman jumped.
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos a few minutes ago, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic Party Whip, was asked repeatedly if he would support the winner of the Connecticut Democratic Primary, whether it was despised incumbent Joe Lieberman or anti Iraq War upstart Ned Lamont. He was reminded that Lieberman might as an Independent if he lost the primary. Durbin said regardless of the outcome of the primary, he would support Lieberman.
While Durbin expressed support for Lieberman in the primary, he didn't take a position on what would happen if Lieberman jumped.
Also on the homefront, Durbin pledged his support for his Democratic colleague, Sen. Joe Lieberman, who faces a tough primary challenge in his bid for reelection in Connecticut. Just six years ago, Lieberman was tapped by then-Vice President Al Gore to join the Democrat's presidential ticket; now Lieberman faces an intraparty challenge from Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate who says Lieberman's positions have drifted too far right.
"I'm going to support Joe Lieberman and I hope that he wins the Democratic party," Durbin told Stephanopoulos, before continuing, "I'm going to support Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary."
But, the Illinois Democrat demurred when pressed by Stephanopoulos as to whether Durbin would support Lieberman if he loses the primary and begins an independent campaign for the Senate; "I'm not going to accept your premise," Durbin offered, insisting his statement of support in the primary is all he would say for now.
How Gracious
Holy Joe graciously promises not to run a covert petition campaign, even though it would be impossible for him to do so.
I hope he jumps. As soon as he does I bet he'll be surprised at how quickly his Republican pals will forget his name. Anything can happen in a 3-way race, and unless Joe jumps all the way to their camp, they'll be quite interested in the possibility of taking that seat.
Kudos to Russ Feingold for understanding that as a Democrat the right thing to do is to support the wishes of the Democratic voters of Connecticut.
I hope he jumps. As soon as he does I bet he'll be surprised at how quickly his Republican pals will forget his name. Anything can happen in a 3-way race, and unless Joe jumps all the way to their camp, they'll be quite interested in the possibility of taking that seat.
Kudos to Russ Feingold for understanding that as a Democrat the right thing to do is to support the wishes of the Democratic voters of Connecticut.
Your Media
It was bad for Democrats when they couldn't get Republicans to agree with them and now it's bad for Democrats now that Republicans do agree with them.
Crazy world.
Crazy world.
Wolcott
Funny:
...and then go read watertiger for a full roundup of snark.
Lee Siegel has it all figured out. Lee Siegel has everything figured out. He's been unwrapping the bows and ribbons of his intellect on websites for years, including a preening Slate diary a few years ago that nearly got him laughed out of the lodge, yet he disassociates from the other riffraff online, behaving as if has nothing in common with the amoebic nonentities who presume that they too have something to say. TNR Online features a column called "Lee Siegel on Culture," which seems like a naughty thing to do to culture, but let that go for the mo. Here, he has quite a go at those revolting peasants climbing over the hedges and tramping across the petunia beds. "It's a bizarre phenomenon, the blogosphere. It radiates democracy's dream of full participation but practices democracy's nightmare of populist crudity, character-assassination, and emotional stupefaction. It's hard fascism with a Microsoft face. It puts some people, like me, in the equally bizarre position of wanting desperately for Joe Lieberman to lose the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont so that true liberal values might, maybe, possibly prevail, yet at the same time wanting Lamont, the hero of the blogosphere, to lose so that the fascistic forces ranged against Lieberman might be defeated." A writer chiding bloggers for their incoherent rage ought not to be so glib about lobbing characterizations of fascism around. It sounds as if he’s lashing out, doing what he laments others doing, only with fancier language and rhetorical footwork. A lot of those who oppose Lieberman are longtime liberals who are tired of him being the Republicans' pet Democrat, and fed up with his unctuous mushmouth pieties in support of Bush initiatives. I suspect that part of the peevishness Siegel and his fellow epicureans of ideas feel towards the angry amoebas of the blogsphere is rooted in the uncomfortable knowledge that sites such as Daily Kos, Atrios, and Steve and Jen’s News Blog proved a helluva lot more right about the debacle in Iraq than the battle cries of the Beltway intelligentsia.
But we all lapse into overstatement from time to time, and Siegel should not be pilloried for a single ill-thought out post.
Unfortunately, he has followed that up with an even ill'er thought out post, putting his foot in it up to his hip socket. His attempt to enlarge the frame of his argument and isolate the fascist gene that makes the Kossacks and their ilk so dangerous to democracy and discourse is an embarrassing display of smarmy sophistry the likes of which I haven’t seen since Jonah Goldberg last tried to form a serious, non-Captain Kirk thought. Siegel begins by recounting some of the vile insults and suggestions he received after his first post. It’s no fun being at the receiving end of one of these pile-ons. I’ve been the subject of threads on some of the rightwing sites where no aspect of my well-crafted persona went unvilified; it’s true that there are a lot of gnomes lying in the weeds out there spreading fumes. But there’s quite a difference between mouthy malcontents and fascist fodder, a distinction lost on Siegel, who absurdly writes, “Two other traits of fascism are its hatred of the processes of politics, and the knockabout origins of its adherents. Communism was hatched by elites. Fascism was born along the drifting paths of rootless men, often ex-soldiers who had fought in the First World War and been demobilized. They turned European politics into a madhouse of deracinated ambition.”
...and then go read watertiger for a full roundup of snark.
Speaking of Fascism
CNN brings Bill Bennett on many mornings, with a camera in his radio studio, to give us a sense of what his listeners are saying. There's no liberal counterpart, and he's often simply described as a radio host and CNN contributor, with no indication that he's as conservative. Here's what he had to say on Friday:
It's long been a mystery to me why the free press embraces people who want to destroy them. One would think this is a bit more important than the fact that Markos can be a bit strident sometimes, I use bad words, and the elite's general horror at popular participation in the discourse.
BENNETT: They were talking about that, for sure. We started with the Miami story, of course, of this plot -- supposed plot -- to blow up the World Trade Center. The people were angry about that, bothered by it -- a little afraid. A lot of talk about our kids, the next generation, we have working kids in cities like Chicago and New York, fear for them. So that was quite apparent.
But the fury this morning was about the "New York Times," and it wasn't fury about people having their bank records looked at. It was hundreds of people calling and saying, Look, we're in a war on terror. This program, the SWIFT program, at the Treasury Department, apparently doing a lot of good. We captured this guy who was responsible for the bombings in Bali because of this program. And it also led to the arrests of some of the people last July 7, and people are wondering about the "New York Times" and other outlets as to when they will stop interfering with these intelligence programs. O'BRIEN: So you think a lot of the rage from your listeners is directed at the "New York Times" for sort of outing this previously secret program?
BENNETT: Yes; the question as posed by one of our listeners was this -- here's the government. Now, we know the government may overclassify. We know the government keeps secrets it shouldn't, but this is a government that we've elected. They are responsible and accountable to us. And they are our first line of defense, through the military and through intelligence operations, in the war on terror. They said the "New York Times" cloaks itself in the First Amendment, but it's a profit-making media behemoth which is out to make headlines and make profits. And the government is entitled to have its views respected over that of the editors of the "New York Times."
So this thing continues to build. We had Pete Hoekstra on, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who is extremely frustrated about this. Something is going to happen before long. I know we've had hearings on this, but people don't appreciate just how angry a lot of the public is, in what they feel is an interference with the program. Here you have the Miami story, where the FBI, Soledad, penetrated this group. This depends upon having intelligence that remains secret, and if it is always being spilled out in the papers, people are worried, we're going to be putting ourselves and our kids in jeopardy.
It's long been a mystery to me why the free press embraces people who want to destroy them. One would think this is a bit more important than the fact that Markos can be a bit strident sometimes, I use bad words, and the elite's general horror at popular participation in the discourse.
Good Start
Biden on Blitzer:
That's a good response from Biden, and it's the same response Democrats should be making not just for anything that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth but anything which comes out of George Bush's mouth. Dems seem to generally lack the understanding of how effective general dismissive disdain and contempt can be. Bush has been in the 30s for about 4 months now. No one except the people who write The Note listen to him or think he has any credibility. He is, indeed, ridiculous.
And, contra Joe Lieberman, undermining the credibility of the president is the best hope we have for improving the situation in Iraq and everywhere else in the world.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The worst possible thing we could do is what the Democrats are suggesting, and no matter how you carve it, you can call it anything you want, but basically, it is packing it in, going home, persuading and convincing and validating the theory that the Americans don't have the stomach for this fight.
BLITZER: All right. You want to respond to the vice president, Senator Biden?
BIDEN: No, I don't want to respond to him. He's at 20 percent in the polls. No one listens to him. He has no credibility. It's ridiculous.
That's a good response from Biden, and it's the same response Democrats should be making not just for anything that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth but anything which comes out of George Bush's mouth. Dems seem to generally lack the understanding of how effective general dismissive disdain and contempt can be. Bush has been in the 30s for about 4 months now. No one except the people who write The Note listen to him or think he has any credibility. He is, indeed, ridiculous.
And, contra Joe Lieberman, undermining the credibility of the president is the best hope we have for improving the situation in Iraq and everywhere else in the world.
Blogfascism
There are of course fascists among us and it would serve the media well to start reacting with the appropriate level of outrage, instead of continuing to provide people who want them imprisoned a prominent platform to advocate this position.
Wanker of the Day
Joe Lieberman, for scrubbing his web site.
There's literally no mention of Iraq on his website now. Hilarious. Presumably fresh off opposing Democratic proposals for troop withdrawal Joe will turn to supporting Republican proposals for troop withdrawal.
There's literally no mention of Iraq on his website now. Hilarious. Presumably fresh off opposing Democratic proposals for troop withdrawal Joe will turn to supporting Republican proposals for troop withdrawal.
BoBo's World
In which BoBo finally comes clean about his meth addiction and goatfucking obsession.
This new obsession with bloggers is rather funny, and like Stoller I don't quite get it. One would think there's nothing else important going on in the world. I also find it amusing the right wing bloggers apparently no longer exist anymore, locked in the attic like the crazy granny or something.
BoBo's long displayed a willingness to just make shit up, to present the world as it exists in his warped little imagination rather than as it actually does exist. Since, like Assrocket, he's a dorky middle-aged harmless looking pasty white guy people automatically assume he's "reasonable" when in fact he's basically a third-rate propagandist uninterested in facts which trouble his beautiful mind.
One gets used to criticism, but it's hard to let it just roll over you when you see yourself or your wider world being utterly misrepresented by the mainstream media which is supposed to be committed to telling the truth.
The notion that Markos is sitting around telling bloggers what to do is just ludicrous. There are bloggers who spend time try to herd the cats somewhat through organization and discussion - not through any top-down control efforts - but Markos isn't even one of those people. And, contra Jedmunds, this doesn't involve attempts to manipulate the "sheep" who are our readers, but rather how to sometimes influence the wider media-poltical bloodstream through emphasis and fact-based messaging. You know, sometimes bloggers discuss stuff. The horrors.
But, to reiterate, the reason Brooks's column is so funny is because it's so wrong. Markos has a big megaphone on his site. If there are bloggers out there who fear being mean to Markos because maybe he won't link you then perhaps you need to rethink your whole relationship to the blogging thing. But otherwise Markos is not one to spend his time controlling the blogosphere. Markos barely reads blogs, let alone tries to tell people what to put on theirs.
But, hey, it's BoBo's world, the world of a goatfucking methaddict, so what do you expect.
For the record, Supreme Overlord Kos didn't send me a single dictate telling me how to respond to BoBo.
This new obsession with bloggers is rather funny, and like Stoller I don't quite get it. One would think there's nothing else important going on in the world. I also find it amusing the right wing bloggers apparently no longer exist anymore, locked in the attic like the crazy granny or something.
BoBo's long displayed a willingness to just make shit up, to present the world as it exists in his warped little imagination rather than as it actually does exist. Since, like Assrocket, he's a dorky middle-aged harmless looking pasty white guy people automatically assume he's "reasonable" when in fact he's basically a third-rate propagandist uninterested in facts which trouble his beautiful mind.
One gets used to criticism, but it's hard to let it just roll over you when you see yourself or your wider world being utterly misrepresented by the mainstream media which is supposed to be committed to telling the truth.
The notion that Markos is sitting around telling bloggers what to do is just ludicrous. There are bloggers who spend time try to herd the cats somewhat through organization and discussion - not through any top-down control efforts - but Markos isn't even one of those people. And, contra Jedmunds, this doesn't involve attempts to manipulate the "sheep" who are our readers, but rather how to sometimes influence the wider media-poltical bloodstream through emphasis and fact-based messaging. You know, sometimes bloggers discuss stuff. The horrors.
But, to reiterate, the reason Brooks's column is so funny is because it's so wrong. Markos has a big megaphone on his site. If there are bloggers out there who fear being mean to Markos because maybe he won't link you then perhaps you need to rethink your whole relationship to the blogging thing. But otherwise Markos is not one to spend his time controlling the blogosphere. Markos barely reads blogs, let alone tries to tell people what to put on theirs.
But, hey, it's BoBo's world, the world of a goatfucking methaddict, so what do you expect.
For the record, Supreme Overlord Kos didn't send me a single dictate telling me how to respond to BoBo.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Blasphemous
I do not think that word means what Marshall Wittman thinks it means.
Or, even scarier, maybe it does.
Or, even scarier, maybe it does.
Trolling
One does wonder why it's TNR's new internet business model, though I guess thinking back over the years the equivalent has often been the basic business model of the print magazine as well. Still waiting for answers from Zengerle. Lindsay writes:
It's all fun and games until someone starts fabricating sources. Glenn Greenwald notes that Zengerle claims that three sources sent him the same Steve Gilliard email. Unfortunately for Zengerle, the letter turns out to be a fake. Gilliard didn't write that letter and no such missive was ever posted to the Townhouse listerv.
So, how did Zengerle get ahold of three copies of the same fake email? The most charitable explanation is that he got egregiously burned by the same forger who sent him three copies of the fake, purporting to be different people. If so, Zengerle should burn that source, or if he doesn't know the source, admit that he'll publish anything from anyone. The second-most charitable explanation is that he got one fake email and lied about how many sources he had. The most disturbing possibility is that Zengerle fabricated the letter himself. It's time for Zengerle to burn his source, or resign. Somebody's gotta show Jason Leopold how it's done, and it might as well be Stephen Glass's old fact-checker Jason Zengerle.
Sunny, Sunni, What's the Diff
I have no idea what these guys actually intended to do if anything, though it doesn't seem as if they were too likely to succeed in blowing something up.
It's interesting that while the indictment claims one is called "Brother Sunni" his sister says her brother is Roman Catholic, and that his nickname since childhood was "Sunny." It's a small but rather significant detail, and it seems like something our crack media could probably clear up fairly easily.
It's interesting that while the indictment claims one is called "Brother Sunni" his sister says her brother is Roman Catholic, and that his nickname since childhood was "Sunny." It's a small but rather significant detail, and it seems like something our crack media could probably clear up fairly easily.
Permanent Bases
I think Drum has the right idea. First, I believe there are a nontrivial number of elected Democrats who have, to some degree, bought into the benevolent empire notion with respect to the Middle East. Second, it isn't enough to raise the specter of permanent bases in Iraq. We have permanent bases all over the world. Maybe having permanent bases in Iraq is a grand idea, or would be if they were actually operating in a peaceful environment. I don't really have an opinion on that as I don't really have an opinion on the appropriateness of the dozens of other military bases we have around the world.
Still, I think it is necessary to point out that Bush's desire to stay in Iraq forever, while largely dominated by the fact that his ego is entirely invested in the project, is actually due in part to Bush's desire to stay in Iraq forever. That's a rather costly choice we're making as it isn't exactly a peaceful environment. People should be made to understand that.
Still, I think it is necessary to point out that Bush's desire to stay in Iraq forever, while largely dominated by the fact that his ego is entirely invested in the project, is actually due in part to Bush's desire to stay in Iraq forever. That's a rather costly choice we're making as it isn't exactly a peaceful environment. People should be made to understand that.
The Picture of Dorian Grey
I'm really starting to worry about them over there at TNR. Maybe they need a nice big group hug or a nice glass of wine or something to calm them down.
Yes this pissing match is getting boring for all of us, but what can we make of a guy who, after calling bloggers fascists, defends the charge based on Markos's childhood experience in wartorn country and shrieks that people dared call him a "moron."
I do suspect, however, that Gizmo is a felinofascist.
Yes this pissing match is getting boring for all of us, but what can we make of a guy who, after calling bloggers fascists, defends the charge based on Markos's childhood experience in wartorn country and shrieks that people dared call him a "moron."
I do suspect, however, that Gizmo is a felinofascist.
Right Side of History
Congratulations, residents of New Jersey, for your majority support of marriage equality.
Wanker of the Day
Richard Morin. As Stoller writes:
First of all, the problem with the testing Morin cites is that it assumes that 'hard news' programs are truthful, that politicians are honorable, and that journalists are honest and helpful to public discourse. If none of those conditions are accurate, then what the 'Daily effect' really shows is that Jon Stewart is able to accurately describe our political world to young people. And in fact, Daily Show viewers not only have more negative feelings about the political system, but they are better informed than 'hard news' viewers. And that sounds about right; things aren't great, the political system took the country to war that is nearly universally acknowledged as a horrific mistake, and 2004 presented us with two wildly unappealing old white men as candidates, so why is it good for citizens to 'feel' good about the political system? How is that a test of civic virtue instead of simple delusion?
Morin and the researchers go on to bite their nails about what this negative attitude might mean for voting. Only, young people voted in record numbers in 2004 (and I believe 2005 in NJ and VA as well, though I don't have those numbers handy), when many of them were getting their news from the Daily Show. Some Daily effect.
Ok, so let's be clear with what Morin is fretting about. He thinks that the Daily Show doesn't make younger viewers feel good enough about politicians and media figures. It's not enough that Daily Show viewers are better informed than any other media consumer, that young people voted in record numbers, that, and that the choice in 2004 for President presented young people with two wildly unappealing old white men. No, it's all about young people not feeling good enough about the people who routinely lie to them.
Young people have very negative feelings about politics, and rightfully so. And they're voting anyway. That's amazing. I suppose what Morin doesn't like is that the Daily Show punctures the media's sense of self-importance (of which Morin displays an amply large amount), and that young people are watching Stewart instead of reading Morin.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Questions for Zengerle
Glenn Greenwald wonders where Zengerle got an email from Steve Gilliard to the now mythic Townhohuse list that Gilliard didn't send.
Sounds like he can:
a) Produce the email with correct header information and Glenn will have egg on his face (as will I)
b) Out the claimed "three sources" who sent him a bogus email
or...
Sounds like he can:
a) Produce the email with correct header information and Glenn will have egg on his face (as will I)
b) Out the claimed "three sources" who sent him a bogus email
or...
Meta
Because everyone loves these posts, picking up where Garance leaves off it's time to acknowledge a few things. First, lots of bloggers and blog readers have something against the nebulous club of "A-List bloggers." I'm not sure who is exactly in that club, but I imagine it's fair to assume it includes Markos and myself among others.
There are a variety of reasons people seem to like to get their hate on at us, especially Markos, and I'll try to spell them out as I understand them without bothering to argue with them.
1) A-list bloggers have shitty blogs that no one should read but people just read them because they've been around for so long.
2) A-list bloggers are supporting the wrong candidates/causes. They are doing X, but they should be doing Y.
3) A-list bloggers suck up all the attention from better bloggers who everyone should be reading.
4) A-list bloggers end up representing the "netroots" but they shouldn't.
5) A-list bloggers aren't generous enough with their links and should be providing more publicity for other bloggers.
6) A-list bloggers are stupid and they're ugly and nobody likes them.
Anyway, I'm sure there are more reasons. I won't bother going into more detail except to say that I do find it truly bizarre that whatever people think of Markos personally or the Daily Kos generally, he actually gets surprisingly little credit for the fact that he's provided a platform which allows literally anyone to reach immense numbers of readers per day in an almost entirely community-run platform. I find that rather weird.
Okay, time for cat blogging.
There are a variety of reasons people seem to like to get their hate on at us, especially Markos, and I'll try to spell them out as I understand them without bothering to argue with them.
1) A-list bloggers have shitty blogs that no one should read but people just read them because they've been around for so long.
2) A-list bloggers are supporting the wrong candidates/causes. They are doing X, but they should be doing Y.
3) A-list bloggers suck up all the attention from better bloggers who everyone should be reading.
4) A-list bloggers end up representing the "netroots" but they shouldn't.
5) A-list bloggers aren't generous enough with their links and should be providing more publicity for other bloggers.
6) A-list bloggers are stupid and they're ugly and nobody likes them.
Anyway, I'm sure there are more reasons. I won't bother going into more detail except to say that I do find it truly bizarre that whatever people think of Markos personally or the Daily Kos generally, he actually gets surprisingly little credit for the fact that he's provided a platform which allows literally anyone to reach immense numbers of readers per day in an almost entirely community-run platform. I find that rather weird.
Okay, time for cat blogging.
Not Just Coulter
As Pierce notes, it's rather laughable for a pundit universe which includes Ann Coulter to question whether Bruce Springsteen should just STFU because he's merely a musician.
But, more generally, there's no qualification or particular expertise or license one obtains to get to talk about politics on stage, on cable, on the radio, or on the internets. In outlets with barriers like TV and radio, some people magically enter the "pundit club" through various channels. Some people earn their key to face time by being on enough rolodexes. Some people are actually experts in some stuff. But, for a long time punditry has consisted of people who don't necessarily know what the hell they're talking about posing as experts in just about everything. That's not necessarily as bad as it sounds, but it's made better if we strip away the pretense that everyone invited to talk about stuff on the TeeVee is actually an expert.
But, more generally, there's no qualification or particular expertise or license one obtains to get to talk about politics on stage, on cable, on the radio, or on the internets. In outlets with barriers like TV and radio, some people magically enter the "pundit club" through various channels. Some people earn their key to face time by being on enough rolodexes. Some people are actually experts in some stuff. But, for a long time punditry has consisted of people who don't necessarily know what the hell they're talking about posing as experts in just about everything. That's not necessarily as bad as it sounds, but it's made better if we strip away the pretense that everyone invited to talk about stuff on the TeeVee is actually an expert.
Finally a Plan
Democrats find Republican plan for Iraq (.pdf.)
Joking aside, I wish we would abandon this "plan" frame. It's a mess, there's no good "plan." There's just a decision about how many people have to die because the president is too petty and too stupid to find a way to declare victory and go home.
Joking aside, I wish we would abandon this "plan" frame. It's a mess, there's no good "plan." There's just a decision about how many people have to die because the president is too petty and too stupid to find a way to declare victory and go home.
Wanker of the Day
Whiny ass titty baby Ernie Fletcher.
Content-based state censorship. That is, to put it bluntly, anti-American. What the hell country do these people want to live in anyway?
Content-based state censorship. That is, to put it bluntly, anti-American. What the hell country do these people want to live in anyway?
BRUUUUCE
Here's Springsteen on CNN discussing various things, including cable news and Ann Coulter.
Can get his latest here:
Can get his latest here:
War as Narcissism
Yglesias writes:
One wonders how many more people will die so that people like Andrew Sullivan can feel better about themselves and what they helped to cause.
They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. But, as Andrew also says, I suspect his point of view on this is fairly widely held in this town by the saner Republicans as well as your hawkish Democrats. It's also a little crazy.
I mean, consider what we're contemplating here. Twelve months from now the war will have lasted about as long as American participation in the second world war. Twelve months after that there will still be six months left in the Bush administration's lifespan. In January 2009 when a new administration takes office, the war will have been going on for five and a half years, virtually the entire span of time between Hitler's invasion of Poland and the Nazis' surrender. With the difference being that Andrew doesn't believe we'll actually make any serious amount of progress between now and then.
This gets us toward what is, I think, a fairly fundamental point of political morality -- it's wrong, seriously wrong and seriously irresponsible, to support military action that has no likely prospects of success. It's one thing to ask young men and women to kill and die for a good cause. It's another thing entirely to ask them to kill and die as a token of your support for a good cause.
One wonders how many more people will die so that people like Andrew Sullivan can feel better about themselves and what they helped to cause.
Geraldo
It's hard to hate Geraldo completely, as during Monica Madness he had the only show where you could occasionally get a semi-sane viewpoint on the subject represented, but it's still fascinating what an incredible asshole he is.
One of television's finest moments was when, on his brilliantly bizarre show on New York's channel 9, Howard Stern staged the "Scrapple in the Apple" - a boxing match between trash-talking Geraldo and Frank Stallone.
Unsurprisingly, Geraldo got his ass kicked. Good times.
One of television's finest moments was when, on his brilliantly bizarre show on New York's channel 9, Howard Stern staged the "Scrapple in the Apple" - a boxing match between trash-talking Geraldo and Frank Stallone.
Unsurprisingly, Geraldo got his ass kicked. Good times.
Some Other Way
Ah, the passive-aggressive thinly veiled called for violence, typical of cowardly pasty chickenhawks sitting in their cubicles.
Of course, the media will continue to invite the powerliners on, as CNN does Bill Bennett to express this basic view. It's truly bizarre why they continue to embrace those who want them dead, metaphorically and literally.
Of course, the media will continue to invite the powerliners on, as CNN does Bill Bennett to express this basic view. It's truly bizarre why they continue to embrace those who want them dead, metaphorically and literally.
MockSantorum
Don't forget, it's tonight! Article in local Metro:
Tonight at 8. Details here.
PHILADELPHIA — Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg wants to be Rick Santorum.
“It’s just crazy for gays to get married,” he said. “It’s like dogs getting married to a rock.”
Actually, Urevick-Ackelsberg wants to be the first-ever “mockSantorum.” Along with two other contestants, he’ll go for the crown tonight at an event sponsored by Philadelphians Against Santorum (PAS), a group that wears its hatred for the conservative junior senator from Pennsylvania on its sleeves and Web sites.
Tonight at 8. Details here.
Memories of Joe
Mark Schmitt contemplates Lieberman:
I think the "opposed the opposers" characterization captures quite nicely why anti-war people are still rather pissed off at a certain set of people. Too many pro-war people didn't just set out to win their argument (such courage, supporting the official actions of a sitting government), but actively joined in to marginalize those of us who disagreed. It was a highly discouraging time in history, it was a highly disheartening time to be partcipating (in the tiny way that I was) in the public discourse. Even those who who supported the war should've had the sense to notice that the active marginalization of dissenters, and the general way this war was sold, was something to be troubled about.
Oddly, give his later calls for a grand purge, during the pre-war period Peter Beinart was actually one of the few to be a bit less hostile, at least in his TV appearances, to those who were anti-war.
So I ought to be a Lieberman “dead-ender.” I’ve respected him for 30-some years, I don’t mind his idiosyncratic positions, I don’t demand party loyalty, and I don’t insist on any particular position on how to end the war. But I’m not. Because something happened to Lieberman, and it’s more than his position on the war. It is not, as John Dickerson wrote on Slate this week that he “symbolizes” all the other Democrats who voted for the war or won’t take a firm stand. Above all else, it’s simply his self-righteous anger, his hostility to those who differ. He alone among Democrats seem to think that opponents of the war are not just mistaken, but will cause us to lose. (Just as he alone can continue to describe the choice in the war as “winning” or “losing,” as if “winning” were somehow still possible, as opposed to salvaging a bad situation.) He alone would say something like, “”We criticize the commander-in-chief at our own peril.” And he alone would suggest, as he did to David Broder, that Democrats who criticized Bush on the war were acting from "partisan interest" while he was thinking of "the national interest." He alone seems more focused on what he sees as the errors of the war’s opponents than those who launched the war. As Michael Tomasky said of Peter Beinart’s New Republic position on the Iraq War, it was not so much that they supported the war as that they “opposed the
opposers.”
It seems to me that Lieberman is following the path, quite literally, of the neo-conservatives - not the Rumsfeldian nationalists who incorrectly wear that label now, but the original neo-cons of the 1960s, driven to the right above all by their irritation at the left, often based on domestic politics. (Hence the title of this post, an allusion to one of the most famous original documents of the neocons, Norman Podhoretz’s 1967 essay, “My Negro Problem - And Ours”.)
Is that enough of a reason to oppose Lieberman? Sure, because it’s a huge error on one of the most fundamental questions of our time. It’s an error not of policy or of political loyalty, but of attitude. And it is not an error that I see others making. I heard Ed Kilgore today, on a bloggingHeads sequence, argue that if “the bloggers” come for Lieberman today, tomorrow they’ll go after Steny Hoyer or Hillary Clinton. I can’t speak for everyone, but while I have disagreements with Clinton and probably Hoyer, I’ve never heard them say things as deeply offensive to my sense of what democracy and patriotism requires as I’ve heard from Lieberman recently.
I think the "opposed the opposers" characterization captures quite nicely why anti-war people are still rather pissed off at a certain set of people. Too many pro-war people didn't just set out to win their argument (such courage, supporting the official actions of a sitting government), but actively joined in to marginalize those of us who disagreed. It was a highly discouraging time in history, it was a highly disheartening time to be partcipating (in the tiny way that I was) in the public discourse. Even those who who supported the war should've had the sense to notice that the active marginalization of dissenters, and the general way this war was sold, was something to be troubled about.
Oddly, give his later calls for a grand purge, during the pre-war period Peter Beinart was actually one of the few to be a bit less hostile, at least in his TV appearances, to those who were anti-war.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Dilemma
I don't know who to pity more, Ann or Mickey.
Still, Mickey at least aims for respectability and presumably is generally against the concept of "murdering journalists" so it's puzzling that he's good pals with the woman who once said:
Oddly, few who commented on that seemed to understand what she actually said. She wasn't simply advocating the death of all who worked in the NYT Building, though of course she was doing that. She was also signalling her approval of what Timothy McVeigh did do - kill hundreds of federal workers and others, including children. His failure to take out folks at the Times was her "only regret."
Slate endorsed, slate approved.
Heh.
Still, Mickey at least aims for respectability and presumably is generally against the concept of "murdering journalists" so it's puzzling that he's good pals with the woman who once said:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.
Oddly, few who commented on that seemed to understand what she actually said. She wasn't simply advocating the death of all who worked in the NYT Building, though of course she was doing that. She was also signalling her approval of what Timothy McVeigh did do - kill hundreds of federal workers and others, including children. His failure to take out folks at the Times was her "only regret."
Slate endorsed, slate approved.
Heh.
Seeing the Future
Ann Coulter at the 2024 Republican convention, mocking the service of the Democratic presidential nominee, a decorated Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient.
Carville and Shrum
During the 2004 presidential primary season Bob Shrum was Kerry's media adviser. I don't actually know if he was hired directly or through Greenberg Carville Shrum. But, in any case, at that time a close associate of Carville's was in Kerry's camp, and during that time Carville was a regular on Crossfire, as well as being quoted repeatedly in newspapers about the primary campaign, generally labelled as a "political consultant" or "democratic strategist."
Carville was pretty negative about Dean through this period. I can't verify this anecdote - so take it with a grain of salt - but someone once told me that in the Iowa press area after the "Dean scream" the first words out of Carville's mouth were "put a fork in him - he's done" to a room full of typing journalists.
Now I'm not accusing Carville of any sort of "pay for play," that anything he said in the media was based on any financial considerations, but the point is these kinds of intersections between money, business, colleagues, friendship, and those in the media are pretty much standard in Washington. "Standard" doesn't mean "right" and these kinds of relationships in the lobbying/consultant/media world are crying out for some more press attention.
Generally, "political strategists" are quoted all of the time in the media, or have spots on cable news, and miraculously they never seem to have any clients. Or, more to the point, we are never told who their clients are. Perhaps they just stand on a soap box on the corner and announce their strategy to Washington pedestrians. Still, one assumes that they do have clients and that what they say is indirectly or directly motivated by that.
This kind of thing comes into play mostly during the presidential primary season, when people choose up sides, but that's quite a long season.
Carville was pretty negative about Dean through this period. I can't verify this anecdote - so take it with a grain of salt - but someone once told me that in the Iowa press area after the "Dean scream" the first words out of Carville's mouth were "put a fork in him - he's done" to a room full of typing journalists.
Now I'm not accusing Carville of any sort of "pay for play," that anything he said in the media was based on any financial considerations, but the point is these kinds of intersections between money, business, colleagues, friendship, and those in the media are pretty much standard in Washington. "Standard" doesn't mean "right" and these kinds of relationships in the lobbying/consultant/media world are crying out for some more press attention.
Generally, "political strategists" are quoted all of the time in the media, or have spots on cable news, and miraculously they never seem to have any clients. Or, more to the point, we are never told who their clients are. Perhaps they just stand on a soap box on the corner and announce their strategy to Washington pedestrians. Still, one assumes that they do have clients and that what they say is indirectly or directly motivated by that.
This kind of thing comes into play mostly during the presidential primary season, when people choose up sides, but that's quite a long season.
Some
I was struck by these comments by Bush for rather obvious reasons:
So, presumably Bush believes that "some" or even "most" are not "cold-blooded killers." In fact, it sounds like they haven't even committed offenses which would merit being tried in a court.
How long have they been there?
Mr Bush forestalled the Europeans by raising the issue of Guantanamo Bay at the summit, saying that he understood their concerns. He spoke of his "deep desire to end the program", adding: "I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with."
Some of the inmates would be returned to their home countries, he said. But "there are some that need to be tried in US courts. They are cold-blooded killers. They will murder someone if out on the street."
So, presumably Bush believes that "some" or even "most" are not "cold-blooded killers." In fact, it sounds like they haven't even committed offenses which would merit being tried in a court.
How long have they been there?
Slimy and Tabloidy
I look forward to adopting the "new republic" standard for dealing with private emails in the future. Then I too can be a real journalist!
Coulter Hearts Lieberman
By the "Belafonte standard" I'm sure Tim Russert will be asking Joe about what he thinks of Ann the next time he stops by Little Russ's place.
Why Don't Republicans Want the War to End?
It is truly bizarre. Bush is on the record is stating that there is no chance that the war will be over before he leaves office.
That's just under three years from now.
That means the war will go on for almost twice as long as it already has.
Why do Republicans want this?
That's just under three years from now.
That means the war will go on for almost twice as long as it already has.
Why do Republicans want this?
Woo Me
As ordered, this blog has become all about Markos all the time. The kitties do have to eat, after all. So, let me just echo something he writes here:
This is exactly right. I'm never comfortable with hierarchical relationships. I like hanging out with people who perceive me as a peer and vice versa. If, for example, I happened upon Al Gore in an airport bar and we got to shooting the shit and had a nice time that'd be great, but I have no desire to set up a formal meeting with Al Gore so he can pitch something to me.
There's really nothing they have to offer me. I'm not much of a star fucker, and whatever minor thrill of meeting politicians there was once has now mostly faded. Some politicians are pretty cool and interesting individuals who might be entertaining to shoot the shit with, but unless the conversation is at that level I'm really just not all that excited by it.
There's no doubt Hillary faces some hostility in the netroots. I've had several reporters ask me whether Clinton has "reached out" to the netroots, to which my answer is, "no". "Ahh", think the reporters, "So what Hillary needs to do is 'reach out' more and all will be well, right?"
Nevermind that "reaching out", in political terms, seems to mean "have a meeting with Markos", which is so freakin' stupid I can hardly stand it. I rarely do those kinds of meetings because frankly, I never know what to say. It's not like politicians will ever say anything juicy anyway. I'll talk to politicians when working on a journalistic endeavor (like Crashing the Gate or, early next year, my book on Libertarian Democrats). Other than that, I'd rather hang out with a staffer any day of the week. Staffers actually give you real information because they don't have to worry about "gaffes" or making a bad impression or whatever.
This is exactly right. I'm never comfortable with hierarchical relationships. I like hanging out with people who perceive me as a peer and vice versa. If, for example, I happened upon Al Gore in an airport bar and we got to shooting the shit and had a nice time that'd be great, but I have no desire to set up a formal meeting with Al Gore so he can pitch something to me.
There's really nothing they have to offer me. I'm not much of a star fucker, and whatever minor thrill of meeting politicians there was once has now mostly faded. Some politicians are pretty cool and interesting individuals who might be entertaining to shoot the shit with, but unless the conversation is at that level I'm really just not all that excited by it.
Markos is a Big Gay
And he likes gay things and his blog is gay and he's a big gayee gay gay gay, as gay as gay can be. But it would irresponsible to say so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)