Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Logos and Stuff
Thanks to all who sent in numerous logos and other merchandise designs... Looking over them all...
Reader Survey
It'd be great if you could take the time to fill out a brief reader survey. Results are completely unscientific of course, but they still make the advertisers happy.
Please enter "Eschaton" as the referring blog if you wish.
Please enter "Eschaton" as the referring blog if you wish.
Clue Stick
One wonders how low they'll sink in the ratings before CNN gets a clue.
One also wonders if they even care.
And, please please either kill or redo the blog reporting segment on Inside Politics. There's nothing more boring than watching other people look at computer screens. If you did a show about talk radio you wouldn't do it by showing footage of people listening to radios.
One also wonders if they even care.
And, please please either kill or redo the blog reporting segment on Inside Politics. There's nothing more boring than watching other people look at computer screens. If you did a show about talk radio you wouldn't do it by showing footage of people listening to radios.
Punditocracy Expanded
Regular readers know I've never engaged in serious (as opposed to tongue-in-cheek) blog triumphalism. And, while I haven't written about it all that much, I think the idea that bloggers will replace reporters is just a bunch of wankery.
But, I think it is true that bloggers, much like political talk radio, are a threat to the influence of the punditocracy. And, in the net that's a good thing. I don't endorse a system in which a few select individuals are granted license to pontificate authoritatively on an infinite number of subjects. Breaking the oligopoly by reducing entry barriers, even if doing so doesn't improve the average quality of commentary, has value in increasing diversity of commentators if nothing else.
But, I think it is true that bloggers, much like political talk radio, are a threat to the influence of the punditocracy. And, in the net that's a good thing. I don't endorse a system in which a few select individuals are granted license to pontificate authoritatively on an infinite number of subjects. Breaking the oligopoly by reducing entry barriers, even if doing so doesn't improve the average quality of commentary, has value in increasing diversity of commentators if nothing else.
Not Everything The Matter With Kansas
Kudos:
TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such protections for 10 years.
In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with 14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
Ipodilicious
About a week into owning my very own 40Gig Ipod (thanks to a generous if frequently annoying reader) and so far I'm fairly impressed. The sound quality with headphones is for some reason less than is desired (and worse than my flash mp3 player), as many critics have said -- though, piped into my fairly crappy stereo system via the dock the quality seems better. ITunes is overall pretty good software -- the autosync is a nice feature and unlike other such programs it doesn't seem to try to take over your entire system when you install/run it.
The clickwheel interface and menu system deserves the kudos it's gotten. Haven't had it long enough to know if some of my nitpicky interface complaints are just a result of my lack of familiarity.
The clickwheel interface and menu system deserves the kudos it's gotten. Haven't had it long enough to know if some of my nitpicky interface complaints are just a result of my lack of familiarity.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Better than Expected
I'm glad a significant portion of our country is still sane:
Finally, the option of using “nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities” drew the support of 27% of adults, with 72% opposing, which would shatter the taboo on using these weapons militarily since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Experts agree that the power of today’s weapons, their range of damage and the peril of drifting radioactive fallout far exceeds the bombs used against Japan. That support has declined 7% since 2001, however.
Winning
Link:
And, CNN just flashed up on the screen that Bush approval/disapproval on Social Security went from 43/48 a month ago to 35/56 now.
So, why would any sane Democrat even think about trying to give him a victory on this issue when there's no chance of a reasonable plan making it out of a conference committee?
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Friday to Sunday said 38 percent of Americans feel major changes must be made in Social Security within the next two years. In January, that number was 49 percent.
Bush has made reforming Social Security, which includes a contentious plan to put some of the program's money into the stock market, a key part of his second-term agenda.
Other numbers in the poll don't play out so well for the president, either. Forty-seven percent of those polled trusted the Democratic Party to deal with the issue of Social Security benefits, while 37 percent trusted Republicans.
And, CNN just flashed up on the screen that Bush approval/disapproval on Social Security went from 43/48 a month ago to 35/56 now.
So, why would any sane Democrat even think about trying to give him a victory on this issue when there's no chance of a reasonable plan making it out of a conference committee?
Purges
Ed Kilgore says:
Fine, I suppose. I never though Kilgore supported Lieberman's potential move, just that by downplaying its significance it provided cover. But, if that wasn't his motivation then I stand corrected. But, what's this about?
Perhaps the blogosphere is full of such talk, but it's not something you actually see any of on, you know, this blog or over at Big Media Matt's place, so I'm not sure what the relevancy is.
But, while it isn't coming from Ed himself, this kind of rhetoric is actually coming from, you know, his boss who is regularly and loudly chastizing the Dem establishment for not running screaming from everyone to the left of [insert favorite DLC Senator of the week], and who does advocate actively purging large portions of the party's activist base, writing "You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd." Note he's not talking about Michael Moore or MoveOn themselves but their "crowds." It isn't simply Moore and MoveOn which the party needs to purge, but their supporters!
Ed concludes with:
Well, if he does go ahead who is going to make sure that he does not speak for other Democrats? These things don't happen in a vacuum -- unless it's established beforehand that this is indeed an issue in which party discipline is required, and that the consequences of straying will be harsh. Ed may be right that we'll win anyway, but it's not just about winning the battle. "Bush social security" should replace "clinton health care plan" as shorthand for presidential domestic policy meltdown. This is about winning the war.
Finally, what is this "calmer climate" that he speaks of? The wheels on the bus go round and round...
My last, sunnily optimistic post about Bush's likely defeat on Social Security has already been interpreted by Matt Yglesias and Atrios as an effort to provide "political cover" for Joe Lieberman's reported effort to cut a bogus "deal" with Lindsay Graham. Wrong-o, folks.
What I actually said, not very ambiguously, is that one of two Dems ain't going to save Bush's bacon on this. After acknowledging that I might be right (or wrong) about that, Matt argues that the possible irrelevance of Lieberman's deal-sniffing is "no excuse for doing it." I agree entirely.
Fine, I suppose. I never though Kilgore supported Lieberman's potential move, just that by downplaying its significance it provided cover. But, if that wasn't his motivation then I stand corrected. But, what's this about?
Right now the blogosphere is full of talk about litmus tests and purges, whether or not they contribute to either of those goals. And if the email I'm getting about Lieberman is any indication, we're getting close to litmus tests and purges about litmus tests and purges ("Are you now, or have you ever been, opposed to kicking Joe Lieberman out of the party?").
Perhaps the blogosphere is full of such talk, but it's not something you actually see any of on, you know, this blog or over at Big Media Matt's place, so I'm not sure what the relevancy is.
But, while it isn't coming from Ed himself, this kind of rhetoric is actually coming from, you know, his boss who is regularly and loudly chastizing the Dem establishment for not running screaming from everyone to the left of [insert favorite DLC Senator of the week], and who does advocate actively purging large portions of the party's activist base, writing "You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd." Note he's not talking about Michael Moore or MoveOn themselves but their "crowds." It isn't simply Moore and MoveOn which the party needs to purge, but their supporters!
Ed concludes with:
Maybe the hellish pressure on Lieberman to step back from a bogus deal will work, maybe not. If he goes ahead, let's make it clear he does not speak for other Democrats, and minimize the potential damage instead of acting like Bush has already won. And after we win, there will be plenty of time to play back the tapes and pin the tail on errant donkeys, in a calmer climate.
Well, if he does go ahead who is going to make sure that he does not speak for other Democrats? These things don't happen in a vacuum -- unless it's established beforehand that this is indeed an issue in which party discipline is required, and that the consequences of straying will be harsh. Ed may be right that we'll win anyway, but it's not just about winning the battle. "Bush social security" should replace "clinton health care plan" as shorthand for presidential domestic policy meltdown. This is about winning the war.
Finally, what is this "calmer climate" that he speaks of? The wheels on the bus go round and round...
The Lie Factory
Robert Novak lies, and the RNC loves it so much that they post it on their site.
And, if I worked for the Cornell Daily Sun I'd be a bit annoyed that Robert Novak was lying about what was in my newspaper.
And, if I worked for the Cornell Daily Sun I'd be a bit annoyed that Robert Novak was lying about what was in my newspaper.
Winning
Ed Kilgore, presumably running defense for Lieberman writes:
But the point is to not let Bush and the Republicans run away. The point is to win the battle, make anyone who was on the losing side be embarassed to admit they had been on that side, and to publicly humiliate them (including Bush) as long as possible.
Any bipartisan cover makes that rather difficult, especially when it comes from one of the media's favorites.
Sure, no one should misunderestimate the ability of the White House to push this thing right up to the gates of delerium, but let's also remember Bush's M.O.--he'll act like he's headed for victory right up to the minute he suddenly decides tax reform or the budget or some other element of the "ownership society" is suddenly more urgent.
He's going to lose this fight, folks, whether or not one or two Democrats in the House or the Senate give him "cover" by offering some sort of deal that neither party will accept.
But the point is to not let Bush and the Republicans run away. The point is to win the battle, make anyone who was on the losing side be embarassed to admit they had been on that side, and to publicly humiliate them (including Bush) as long as possible.
Any bipartisan cover makes that rather difficult, especially when it comes from one of the media's favorites.
Times Replaces Safire With Tierney
Just what the Times needs. A columnist for the Tech Central Station crowd.
(via E&P)
Well, at least Media Matters will be kept busy...
(via E&P)
Well, at least Media Matters will be kept busy...
Al From - Man of the People
Don't bother getting mad about this - it's actually quite funny in a pathetic sort of way.
And, as for Marshall Wittman -- anyone who says "if he belonged to a party, it would be the McCain-Lieberman Party" is a very silly person indeed. Aside from success at being media hounds by portraying themselves as "mavericks" the two have very little in common.
And, as for Marshall Wittman -- anyone who says "if he belonged to a party, it would be the McCain-Lieberman Party" is a very silly person indeed. Aside from success at being media hounds by portraying themselves as "mavericks" the two have very little in common.
Bankruptcy Bill
I haven't said much about this because it's just too depressing to contemplate. I was shocked that they managed to put down this beast earlier, and don't imagine the Dems will block it. I wish they'd surprise me. Dionne writes:
This is a pure corporate whore bill. Unlike even "tort reform" which gives the GOP base orgasmic pleasure for some bizarre reason, there is no popular support for this thing. Not one voter is going to decide to vote against a Democrat because s/he voted against this thing. It's a horrible bill, and shame on anyone who votes for it.
If Democrats sell out on the bankruptcy bill, they will, alas, show which side they're on.
This is a pure corporate whore bill. Unlike even "tort reform" which gives the GOP base orgasmic pleasure for some bizarre reason, there is no popular support for this thing. Not one voter is going to decide to vote against a Democrat because s/he voted against this thing. It's a horrible bill, and shame on anyone who votes for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)