ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Form 180

ShortFinal is reminding everyone of a promise that Senator Kerry made recently on Meet the Press which he has failed to keep. Kudos to SF for reminding us how dishonest this vapid senator from Massachussetts is. I would like to see him sign Form 180 (releasing all of his military records, especially those regarding his discharge), but I won't be holding my breath.

SF also provides a nice link, where you too can remind the Senator of his pledge.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Someone doesn't understand the Bush Doctrine applies to them

Looks like the Mullah's didnt' pay attention over the past 2 years.

Did they forget that they were part of the axis of evil? Did they see how fast the US military made it to Baghdad? And the tanks are already over there. Wouldn't have to ship them from Diego Garcia for 4 months, while Jesse Jackson offers to negotiate for 'peace'.

***EDIT - St Wendeler***

"Americans and Europeans will be the first to lose in that case," he told more than 50 nuclear scientists and experts attending the Tehran conference. "It will cause problems for regional energy and for the European economy.

(AP) Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization,..."And it will cause additional problems for America. Therefore, no one will benefit from this. It's playing with fire."

Iran suspended its uranium enrichment activities last year to create confidence in its negotiations and avoid Security Council referral. But Tehran says the voluntary freeze depends on progress in ongoing talks with the European Union.

Rowhani said Tehran will call off the talks entirely if it sees no signs of progress by the time a committee of Iranian and European negotiators meets March 17-18.

***END EDIT***

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

DailyKossacks at the Gate

It appears that the Kossacks have truly lost what little intelligence they had. Now they're openly calling for smear campaign against Greenspan for his comments in support of Personal Retirement Accounts and Social Security Reform. Not only are they looking for dirt on Greenspan, they're also seeking out dirt on his family and ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM. In one instance, Greenspan was honored by the American Enterprise Institute.... the Kossack that highlighted this also listed other recipients of honors from AEI, suggesting that they should focus on them as well. What in the hell is going through their minds? Are they this dense? (Methinks the answer is Yes.)

Well, Sortapundit (recently added to ARC's blogroll because he referenced our fledgling site on his due to the unbelievable content served up) suggests that we dig into the personal lives of the Kossacks. My gut tells me that this will get ugly... And I'm not sure that this will EVER result in them awakening from their current idiocy, but... what the heck? Sometimes tit for tat is all about the fun of the tit... or something like that.

With regard to Social Security Reform in general, nevermind that my 3 year old recognized that S.S. was doomed when I explained the basic structure of the system... I mean, he dropped his washable crayola marker, looked at me and said "Sosh seckooty... POOOOO POOOOO!!!" Of course, he's recently potty trained and yell POO POOO after almost anything, but I digress. Now, for some reason, those at DailyKos and anyone with a "D" after their name fails to admit this unalterable truth - the current system is unsustainable because it relies on current workers to pay for current retirees lifestyles - instead of relying on current workers to pay for their own future retirement (which has the benefit of compound interest and the return on investment in a continually progressing economny). Only if you think that another Dark Age or nuclear annhiliation is at hand would you disregard the long term returns on private sector investments - but if either of those come to pass, it won't matter whether Social Security is reformed or not.

Well, back to the main point.... The Kossacks are at the gate of asininity... and I say, let's give 'em a push. Let's ENCOURAGE THEM to dig deep into the personal lives of Greenspan, his family, and his colleagues. and smack 'em hard in the nose when we find that one of the DailyKossacks is a closet capitalist with millions of dollars invested RJR...

Links galore!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Litigating instead of Innovating

BusinessWeek online has an article entitled, "A Linux Nemesis on the Rocks". Interesting analysis of the current status of the SCO v. IBM case.

The most interesting paragraph:

Microsoft, which helped finance the SCO lawsuit by paying $13 million to SCO for a Unix license, claims that Linux, which is available free of charge, costs more to maintain than its own Windows operating system. That tactic doesn't seem to be working, either: In 2004, Linux server computer sales grew 51%, to $4.9 billion, according to Gartner. Microsoft would not comment on SCO but has said in the past that it bought a SCO license to make sure Unix worked with Windows -- and not as a way of financing SCO's suit
If SCO had just invested the $13 million in developing, oh, I don't know, an actual product, instead of what appears to be extorting Big Blue out of billions, maybe they'd be in better shape.

Although Linux adoption is probably not affected in large part by the SCO case, its dismissal should only strengthen the case for Linux on the server side of things. As a long time Linux user (Slackware pre-1.0 release back in '94 or so) I'm happy to be hearing good news.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Communists identified

Interesting article, it turns out that communist indoctrination is in Junior College these days too.

The stars, which unnerved some instructors, were accompanied by a copy of a state Education Code section prohibiting the teaching of communism with the "intent to indoctrinate" students.

"It makes me a little anxious," philosophy instructor Michael Aparicio said.
I really like the line in the Education Code at the school:
The code's first sentence says: "No teacher giving instruction in any school ... shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism."
Even if it appears that the professors didn't even know it was in there!
Faculty members were outraged by the stealthy posting and surprised to find the code prohibition on the advocacy of communism, he said.
How unprofessional do you have to be to have not read the Education Code of a school when its your job to teach there?
"The accusation of teaching communism in the classroom is laughable," Giordano said, noting communism is not illegal and the U.S. Constitution is "indifferent" to both communism and capitalism.
Um, Mr. Giordano (an English teacher) we're not talking about the legal nature of teaching Communism, we're talking about the school's right to set standards for education. If you'd like to teach communism (in an English class?) feel free to do it on your own dime.

I expect we'll start to see more of this sort of thing, as the academy gets closer scrutiny based on Ward Churchill's comments.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Daily Kos diary highlights the Canadians

Short version: "Canada can't share your foxhole, sorry, but please send money, oh and do what we tell you to ok?"

Somehow I don't think Condi is fret with worry.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Jeff Jarvis does a play-by-play on Churchill

Jeff does a play-by-play of Ward Churchill's appearance on Bill Maher's show. Must read, check it out.

This part had me echoing Jeff:

Instead, Churchill says that, OK, this poor man's brother wasn't guilty but then he says, "Would you make the counter argument that there was no one who fit the description... that there was immaculate genocide?"

Immaculate genocide? What the F does that mean?
Exactly, what does that mean? It kind of illustrates the talking of the left these days. Just string together two big words and you think you're profound.

---UPDATE - ARC: St Wendeler---
Video of the insanity
Crooks & Liars
Political Teen

My two cents:
  • I love the enthusiastic, talk-show-host introduction...
  • Maher likes Ward's transcript in full, but feels that Ward was taken out of context.
  • I love the way Ward tries to express himself in his normal, post-modernist speak and Maher realizes this isn't going to fly and jumps in to bring him back to reality.
  • Why they hate us? Rather than recognizing that the ideology of fascistic, radical Islam is evil and insane, we have to understand why it causes them to hate us? I can't believe Maher actually thinks they have some valid reasons to hate us... (Bill - They're probably not the reasons you're thinking of... they're probably more closely related to things such as sex on TV, the "liberated woman" (and I'll recognize here that you've consistently been a male chauvinist pig in this dept, so perhaps you agree with OBL on that one), etc.) Did we seek to understand why Hitler hated the Jews? Why he hated democracy? Who the @#$k cares, BILL!

Question 2: As Maher and the entertainment elite who partially agree with Ward (perhaps in spirit, but not in tone), does this spell the recognition of the moderates that the Left really seeks the destruction of the US? (i.e. what is the political impact of this issue as those on the Left such as Maher begin to embrace this nutjob?)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Friday, March 04, 2005

Step away from the Cheetos!

Sortapundit is creating a petition to demand that Oliver Willis stand down... step away from the Cheetos and cease with his idiocy once and for all.

Well, Sortapundit... we may not bring much traffic (ARC has only been online for a short while), but you can add Another Rovian Conspiracy to your list. Besides, it'll put the bajeebers into tubby Ollie when he realizes that Rove is after him.


Your Co-Conspirators,
ARC: St Wendeler / Brian

H/T - The high quality blog known as Protein Wisdom

Why the silence on Byrd?

Howie Kurtz today:

By the way, I've seen nothing in the major papers, and only a few mentions on cable, of Robert Byrd appearing to liken GOP tactics to Hitler, which he now denies, even though Jewish groups have demanded an apology ("Hideous" and "outrageous," says the ADL.) Why is the press giving Byrd a pass?
Hmm.. psst. Howie, it might have something to do with his party affiliation. What's Byrd's party affiliation anyway? Doesn't seem to be reported much.

(H/T Glenn)

ARC: Brian

Rather answers tough questions

From Media Research Center's March 4th CyberAlert - transcribed appearance of Dan Rather on David Letterman's Late Show. I saw this and recognized that this deserved a comprehensive fisking... In an effort to perhaps bring Dan back to reality. If only Dan would appear on a real forum and answer real questions. Nope - I'll go on Late Night!

(Invaluable service that the MRC does, btw... Kudos to L. Brent Bozell!)

Letterman: "Now, some time before the election on, I believe it was 60 Minutes Wednesday, is what it's called now, there was the report that CBS had in their hands documents, some sort of affidavits that indicated that during his service in the National Guard, George Bush was given preferential treatment. Is that so far what happened?"

Rather: "That's true. And we had other people, including the one-time Speaker of the Texas house saying that he intervened to get special treatment, but basically that's true."
Speaker of the Texas house = Ben Barnes, Dem "partisan" (as Dan would say) and campaign fundraiser for John F. Kerry.

Strike ONE, Dan fails to question the credibility of this source, nor does he identify by name the person that is corroborating the story - Journalism 101, Dan.
Letterman: "Yeah, now, just taking that story in and of itself, would
that have been a damaging story? Was it a damaging story? Is it, I mean,
would it have caused people to change their votes? How big a story would
that have been if, in fact, it had been verified?"

Rather: "I don't know because we never reached that point. We put it on the air with what we thought was credibility. We had things besides the documents, but for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, the focus became the documents.
Strike TWO: Dan, you had other things besides the documents, but they had less credibility than forged documents. The wife/son of the colonel said that it didn't match his thoughts. You had to interview his secretary and she agreed that the docs look like forgeries and that the colonel wouldn't have typed anything himself. Other than information from democratic partisan political operatives out of Austin (where you daughter just happens to be a partisan political operative in the Democratic party...) you had zip, zero, nada.. nothing new to offer.
We were not able to authenticate the documents as thoroughly as I think we should have. Given a little more time, perhaps we could have.
Dan: Bill Burkett told me they were genuine and if a frog had sidepockets he'd wear a handgun. You ignored opinions of authenticators and then tried to present them on air as authenticating something which they had serious questions about.

Strike THREE (you should be fired after 3 strikes, Dan... but CBS didn't yank you at this point for some reason)
My experience with elections is no one thing turns events around. I think that in this case, in this particular election, whatever was going to happen, let me say, below the surface, that the American people were going to be very reluctant to turn out a President as Commander-in-Chief in wartime until and unless it was demonstrated to them that the war was unwinnable, which was not the case. So, bottom line is, I think that George Bush was destined to be re-elected pretty much whatever happened in August and September."
Dan: Although I sure tried hard to turn that mutha out. And besides, Kerry really needed some help with those partisan Swift Boat Vets for Truth or whatever those fascists called themselves. I mean, sure they had some Dems... ans SURE they had a guy from Kerry's boat, but they HAD to be lying because they were questioning a Democrat. So, we at CBS thought... well, what the heck? Let's see if we can resurrect this story about TANG. Let's get Burkett on the line! Oh, and give a heads up to Joe Lockhart... I know he's part of the Kerry campaign, but I'm sure there isn't anything unethical about that... you know... coordinating the message and all... It's just a friendly phone call!

Strike FOUR
Letterman: "But regarding that particular story, it was you and everybody else at CBS News felt that it was important to get that story on the air, right?"

Rather: "We did."
Dan: DAMNIT, DAVE! The Future of the Republic rested in my hands! This TANG story HAD to get OUT, regardless of its authenticity!
Letterman: "Yeah. But isn't it true that in all walks of life some people are going to, I mean, in college, for example, I was given passing grades that I could never have driven to, you know what I'm saying?"

Rather: "I do. I made some of those grades."

Letterman: "That's preferential treatment. And if somebody wanted to do a story about that, okay, you know, I guess that did happen. So I'm trying to separate the two events. How big a story would that have been, and you're saying probably not to the extent of affecting the election. Now, the credibility, the veracity of the documents comes into question and then what happens?"

Rather: "Well, a panel was appointed by CBS News to look into this-"

Letterman: "An independent panel?"

Rather: "An independent panel."
Well, I think the panel is a bunch of partisan political operatives, but anyone who doesn't have a D after their name or who doesn't vote for progressive thought in America is clearly a fascist... you know what I mean, Dave? I mean, you know how important it is to help the poor as you drive past them in your limo on your way up to Connecticut each night, right? We're FOR THE PEOPE for Christ Sakes!
Letterman: "Is this a big thing for a network news organization to have endured?"

Rather: "I think the answer to that is yes, yes. And Richard Thornburgh, former attorney general who was in the Nixon administration, says the Bushes are good friends of his, both President one and two Bush. He headed the panel. They took the better part of four months, they spent several million dollars, some people say as much as $5 million, and came out with a report which I've read, thought about, absorbed it, take it seriously, move on and carry it with me into my work. Among the things, they concluded a lot of things, and many of them not complementary about our work. They concluded that whatever happened, whatever you thought about it, it was not motivated by political bias, and they said that, although they had four months and millions of dollars, they could not demonstrate that the documents were not authentic, that they were forgeries. They said they couldn't make that conclusion.
Perhaps they just needed to get out of their suits and ties, put on some pajamas and get the @#$K out of Black Rock to figure out whether they're real. Try to find Lucy Ramirez. Interview Burkett for more than 30 minutes and grill him on where he got them. They probably could've saved, ohhh.... 4.5 Millino dollars if they would have just listened to their document authenticators on the original story (instead of Democratic partisan political operatives), visited a website or two (such as Little Green Footballs),, , etc.

They also encouraged CBS News to rededicate itself to aggressive investigative reporting when warranted and not let this discourage them from doing so. That's a summary, it's a short summary. This panel report is big enough, you know, if you want to read it, it's, I don't know, is big enough to make a door stop."
If CBS is rededicating itself to aggressive, investigative reporting, I guess that DOES mean that you'll be out on your keister, Dan. Perhaps the doorstop is to keep the door from hitting your @ss on your way out?
Letterman: "I need a door stop. So let me go back to these two points. They said, one, that it was not motivated by political bias?"

Rather: "That's right."

Letterman: "So CBS News and yourself and others cleared of that, and that seemed to be a great point of criticism, did it not, that there was political bias here, that-"

Rather: "Well, there were people with their own political motivations and agendas, and some people who didn't have that, who were asking the question. That's one reason the panel was appointed. That was one of their conclusions."

Letterman: "But that charge has been erased by the committee, the fact-finding committee?"

Rather: "That was their conclusion."

Letterman: "That did not exist. That evaporated. And secondly, they could not prove that the documents were false. They could not prove that they were true and accurate, but they also could not prove that they were false."

Rather: "That's correct."
Welcome to my magical land of make believe, Dave. Pretty warm and friendly in here. Nevermind the 800 pound gorilla in the corner... it's NOT THERE! I realize that guy over there in the pajamas keeps screaming that it's there, but he's a partisan political operative, so ANYTHING he says is a lie. BTW, have you met Senator Kerry? Fine fellow! Tried to help elect him as President in the last go round. Public just didn't respond to him for some reason... *sigh*
Letterman: "So that's a push right there."

Rather: "Well, some people would not regard it, but you've summarized it correctly. They had a lot of other findings, but those were among the findings."

Letterman seem befuddled: "So with that in mind, and it seems to me like those were certainly the fire points of this investigation, why then were there people let go? Why was it recommended that people be fired?"

Rather: "Well, because Les Moonves, who heads CBS, read the panel report. He had some tough decisions to make. And he said that it was his conclusion that on the basis of the panel's report and finding that four people, and I hope it won't be lost sight of that these are four people who worked hard for CBS News and Les Moonves acknowledged that, and in some cases they helped us break one of the most important stories in
recent years, the Abu Ghraib story, but it was his judgment that he needed to do this for the good of the organization, for the good of CBS News, and that's a decision he made."

Letterman: "But I still don't understand, if the committee investigating this cleared people of the most weighty issues, the political motivation did not exist and the fact that we couldn't determine that these documents were fraud, why did anybody have to lose a job? Why isn't this just, as they say in racing, just one of them racing deals?"
Ummm, Dave? I realize I'm saying these things... giving you the corporate line and all, but perhaps you should consider the fact that the report is BS and that CBS and Les Moonves recognize it as such. They know that this WAS partisan, that it's not JUST "partisan political operatives" that think these docs are forgeries, but everyone who doesn't get a paycheck with Viacom/CBS written on it. Maybe... JUST MAYBE... that has something to do with it.

[audience laughter]

Rather: "The committee didn't say it was just one of those racing deals. Well, first of all, we've summarized the committee findings and summarized what I think are some of the most important, but the panel was critical, in some cases very critical, of the way the story was handled. But again, Les Moonves had some difficult decisions to make. He read the report, thought about it. He had it well ahead of time, he had it a week or eight days ahead of time, thought about it. And, you know, he had difficult decisions to make, and he made them, gave his reasons for making them. You come back to it, well, you know, since these were two of the most important findings, I think the best answer, I'm not answering for Les Moonves, you have that close endearing relationship with him.

[Letterman laughs]

Some of the rest of us are somewhat more removed. That there were other findings of the committee, of the panel on which Les just looked at it and said I think I need to make this move."
Dan: I just read the teleprompter, man... leave me alone!

Letterman: "Did you agree with his decisions for the dismissals?"

Rather: "Whether I agree with it or not doesn't matter. It was his decision to make. He made 'em. I respect that he had some tough choices to make. And that's where I have to leave it."

Letterman: "Were you sorry that these people were let go or did leave? I guess some quit, some were let go, right?"

Rather: "There were four, and three were asked to resign and one was let go at the end of her contract. The fact that a process, perhaps a necessary process resulted in four friends, colleagues, people who give in good work had to be let go is never very far from my mind."
Dan: Because, although I wasn't fired or asked to resign, I have a feeling that I'll be moved to a cubbie position within the organization very shortly. So, these ppl getting fired is certiainly on my mind....
Letterman: "And in a situation like this, it was so public, right or wrong, left or right, people early on make up their minds about it, such a high-profile story and such a great journalistic institution, should the President of CBS News have stepped down? Should he have stepped forward and taken the bullet and stepped down?"

Rather: "He's on vacation right now, but when he gets back, you can ask him."
Dan: Whew! For a second there, I thought you were going to ask me if I thought I should've been fired... Not sure how I would've answered that one. Perhaps with one of my witty and incomprehensible Texas sayings.

[audience laughter]
Letterman: "Do you think that all of this has been handled fairly? Do you think it was too much about something that was later disproved or that evaporated? Or how do you feel about the proceedings after the fact?"

Rather: "Dave, this is exactly how I feel: It's behind us. We have to look forward. At some point, you know, you've had ups and downs in your career. You had criticisms. Sometimes you think it's justified and sometimes not. But at a certain point you have to say, the committee, the panel has spoken. The corporate leadership has spoken. This is how it is. Put a period. I take it with me and let's go forward in the work. That's exactly how I feel about it."
Dan: Dave, I was caught red-handed. Now, I DO have this ridiculous report which doesn't pass the smell test that I can hold up, saying that this wasn't about political bias or that the docs can't be proven to be fakes, but... come on.... everyone outside of MoveOn.Org and CBS knows that we're a bunch of partisan hacks who salivated over Burkett.

Letterman: "I mean, if you take a look at the New York Times, a few years ago and for quite a lengthy period of time, it looked like that newspaper was falling apart. All they had left was the classifieds pretty much. [audience laughter] I mean, it was one
thing after another, guys making up stories and phony headlines and on and on and on, but yet still I think it's regarded as the finest newspaper in the country. So you do, you have to accept and make changes and continue and that's what you and the network are doing."
at least, those at MoveOn.Org feel it's the finest newspaper in the country. (If Dave thinks that the NYTimes have corrected their mistakes, he's either a fool or a liar.) And this is coming from a FAN of Dave's... a fan of the wrestling-shoes-dave.
Rather: "I agree with that completely, but I would want to point out something that is unquestionably true, and that is in the case of the Times, somebody, a particular somebody, had lied for a very long time, and it lasted over a long period of time. In the case, whatever one thinks of what we did or didn't do with the story in question here, nobody broke the law, nobody lied. Depending on your point of view, it was a mistake, and who hasn't made a mistake somewhere along the line? So there's that difference. But I think the Times handled their situation very well, and I agree with you that they're probably the world's greatest newspaper."
no one broke the law? How about forging government documents to affect the result of our democractic process? See Scylla & Charybdis for more info on what laws were broken.

STRIKE NINE!!! Nine instances where you fail to graps reality, report the facts, and show that you're IQ is anywhere above room temperature (which I understand is a pretty low bar in the Ed Sullivan theater). Your thoughts on this matter haven't changed since you aired the piece. You continue to obfuscate, obstruct, and place blame on others within CBS and outside of the network. If I were the head of Viacom, you'd have a nice little pink slip in your hand right now. You're doing more damage to the network and we can't find a job for you anymore.





Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Must Read....

Holy Crap... if only this blog were as good.

IowaHawk's take on the recent USSC decision about the death penalty:

Court Backs 3-Oxen Dowries

WASHINGTON, DC - In a far-reaching decision that will likely create complicated consequences for the American livestock and wedding-planning industries, the Supreme Court this morning ruled 5-4 that all US marriage dowries "must include three non-diseased oxen."

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited "the weight of the expansive penumbra surrounding the historically emerging and prevailing opinions of tribal shamans from Lesotho to Myanamar" in issuing the historic ruling in American Cattleman Association vs. Modern Bride, Helverson, et al.

In a scathing and sometimes caustic dissent, Judge Antonin Scalia wrote that "Holy. Freakin'. Shit."
This is the point that Scalia made in that rather uncommon discussion with Stephen Bryer about referencing foreign opinions for USSC decisions. Scalia made a very significant point when he said that the most likely use would be to cherrypick decisions from certain countries in order to support your already arrived at decision and ignore those countries that disagree with you. Scalia asked Breyer whether he would look to a ruling in Mozambique or Saudi Arabia, or would he just be content to focus on European decisions. When Breyer stipulated that it was helpful in making a decision, Scalia retorted: "That's FINE... Just DON'T REFERENCE IT IN YOUR OPINION!"

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

TT: What Happened?

It looks like CNN is in the cr@pper with the latest ratings that have come out. FOX News continues its ascension as the leader in cable news. I think this can all be traced back to the multiple changes that CNN made to Crossfire, specifically when they:

  1. dropped the black background;
  2. invited Paul Begala (aka the Forehead) and James "Lizardface" Carville onto the show
  3. decided it'd be fun to host the show infront of a live audience of liberal at Georgetown.
  4. moved the show from 7.00 pm EST to 4.30
The Unpopulist (Nice Banner Graphic!) has more info:
CNN posted steep viewer losses during the month of February, slipping 21% in primetime and 16% overall, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Fox News was the only cable news network to see gains in primetime during February and beat all other cable news outlets combined for the sixth straight month.

FNC averaged 1.57 million viewers in primetime, up 18% from the same period last year, while CNN fell 21% to 637,000 viewers from the same time period.
How tough is it to run a cable news division... I mean, seriously? I think Eason Jordan's worldview (detached from reality based on his comments in Davos) had a contributing effect to CNN's downfall. Oh, and don't get me started on Rick Kaplan...


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Oh goody.....

Drudge links to info about a new show called "Commander in Chief". This should be good.

I'm a big fan of the West Wing. In the beginning it was for comedy, because it was always just a bunch of political talking points about the liberal issue of the day. They were always talking about how they weren't going to sacrifice their true principles, and how the people would respect them more... right before they did some totally off the wall leftist thing. Because of course the people in their hearts are all in lockstep with them ideologically. Witness the episode where Josh and gang were stuck in the cornfields of Indiana to see an example of how they viewed the heartland. Like I said, hilarious.

Nowadays, the West Wing is more a process story, which has heightened the drama a whole lot. Its about the process of getting stuff done, building coalitions, getting your candidate elected, the chess game of politics, etc. Karl Rove, eat your heart out. Sure they still spout off DNC talking points, but its more subtle than it was before. For the better.

With Geena Davis as the President, I'm sure it will be farce as far as the eye can see.

ARC: Brian

That wasn't so tough

That wasn't as tough as I thought it would be. 'Course its easier knowing nobody's reading. Ah another protoplankton in the blogosphere stream.... (Ed: Wow you even blockquoted and linked!)

Who's this Ed guy anyway?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Id be pissed....

Austin Bay reviews Peggy Noonan's column in the WSJ today and is spot on in his analysis of the things CBS News could do to rise again in the news business.

One that specifically stands out:

(1) Find Lucy Ramirez (the unicorn in the Dan Rather fraud
documents scandal). If they can’t find Lucy R., then the revived CBS can tell us
who fabricated her. You find Lucy Ramirez Frankenstein’s creator and it’s a good
bet you’ll discover who produced the fraudulent National Guard
Thats one of the things that has always bugged me about CBS's reaction to the National Guard story. If I were rather I'd be pissed. Pissed at Mary, pissed at management, pissed at Bill Burkett, pissed at originator of the forgery, pissed that I was made to look like a fool. (Ed: Even if you deserved it?) And the outlet of that anger would be directed at the originator of the fraud.

I'd have 60 Minutes II (Ed: its 60 Minutes Wednesday now... Oops) do one of those things that made 60 Minutes famous. The "drop-in" interview. I'd have camped out at Bill Burkett's house. He certainly doesn't seem like a whiz at the media game. I'm sure he'd crack in pretty short order.

Then move on to the Kerry Campaign: "What did you know and when did you know it?"

Of course they can't do as Austin Bay suggests, because it would likely stop with Burkett, and CBS would demonstrate to the world what the blogosphere already knows. They are just partisan political teleprompters.

ARC: Brian

Everybody in..... the waters warm.. or so they told me

But do you really want to jump in with everybody if the waters warm? I mean what is it thats causing the warmth? Ewwwwww....

Well, I'm putting in at least a toe to start off. After much harangue from my co-consipirator the St., here goes.

ARC: Brian

Monday, February 28, 2005

Al Qaqaa - or NYTimes as Kerry Campaign Hit Squad

Byron York does a great job on NRO in bringing back to life a subject that seemed to get soo much ink in the final days of the campaign, but which has sense evaporated into the ether. Al Qaqaa put the Bush campaign on its heels and could've been a deathblow, had the Kerry campaign not been so inept. Their criticisms weren't focused, the actual facts on the ground were difficult to assess, and (oh) the blogosphere fisked every report about the subject with plausible refutations.

Byron points out that (interestingly), there have been ZERO substantial Al Qaqaa stories since November 2nd, while there were at least 2 per day in pre-Nov 2. This is especially troubling when you compare this news to the news of the Swift Vets and the NYTimes unwillingness to cover the allegations - that is until they strapped on their superhero "D" (for Democrat) outfit, complete with red cape and decided to attack the Swifties. Readers who hadn't paid attention to the blogs probably were wondering why the paper was criticizing a group that they'd never heard about.

Imagine what the result might've been without the late hit by the NYTimes...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Citizen Journalist talks to "real" Journalist

Brain Terminal (Evan Coyne Maloney) has done a written interview with Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Apparently in response to an interview that Dana did with Kos.

I just hope that Evan doesn't have a past involving male prostitution, or Aravosis/DailyKos will be all over it. How dare he interview a serious journalist like Dana Milbank!

This interview just proves that the MSM "just doesn't get it." Dana asserts that there's plenty of good diversity currently in the newsrooms. He also doesn't read blogs unless someone sends him a link (I'm sure the links are to DailyKos's GannonGuckert-gate stuff).

His example of how the press has to adjust given the blogosphere?

14. Have you seen any changes in the way that the establishment press operates since the blogs became popular? If so, what changes have you seen?

Seems a lot of stories bubble up that require us either to confirm them or knock them down. This happens on left and right, for example the Kerry mistress story and the Jeff Gannon story.
Hmmm, let's see... his two examples both benefit the left. In a story that would've damaged the Kerry campaign, the MSM was there to "knock it down." In the Gannon story, they're there to "confirm." No mention of RatherGate, SBVT, Eason, etc, etc. What a tool...

and Evan writes a nice post mortem, a highlight of which is:
Perhaps there's much more that the blogosphere can learn from the establishment press than vice versa. But if there is one thing that the old media can learn from us, it's this: objective reporting, as it is known today, is dead. It's been dead for a long time, it's just getting harder to ignore the stench. The future lies in open source reporting, where we reveal as much of our thinking as we possibly can, and we let the world judge us on the merits of our claims.
Kudos, Evan Coyne Maloney!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Barone: In-Depth Analysis on 2004

In Friday's National Journal. If you were a Dem, would you be excited by your prospects?

As usual, conventional wisdom about 2004 reflects the ideas inside the media bubble of NYC/DC. Michael Barone has done a great service with this article.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: StWendeler

IowaHawk: Scoobs and Hunter S

IowaHawk does it again.

Question: Is all of this just ether induced? Or does IowaHawk really have this much talent? Inquiring minds want to know ;-)

In closing, he sums it up pretty well:

Saturday morning in the late '60s was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe Roadrunner or Johnny Quest or Space Ghost or Lancelot Link Secret Chimp meant something. Maybe not, in the long run ...but no explanation, no mix of words or music or can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in front of that Zenith console color TV eating a gigantic bowl of Quisp. Whatever it meant.

And that, I think, was the handle--that sense of the inevitable victory, and that we were part of it. In the end we would unmask the ghost as the Old and Evil town banker, or kill those evil frogmen in a really cool explosion; our pre-sweetened, vitamin-fortified energy of youth would simply prevail. We were shooting the curl of a beautiful cartoon wave and nothing could stop us, except when our moms would yell at us and then we would have to go outside and maybe ride our minibike around for a while. Now, less than five years later, if you turn on Saturday TV and look at the cheap washed-out backgrounds in a certain way you can see where the wave broke and rolled back, and broke and rolled back, in an endless Xeroxed repetition.
With three or four 24-hour cartoon channels, will today's youth EVER have that same sense of joy? Getting out of bed and running to the TV just before the Bugs Bunny show theme song came on. I remember spending the first several hours of each Saturday, glued to the TV... and then the disappointment when the cartoons were over, knowing that it'd be another week before "the wave" would return. Sure, there were kids' shows on during the weekdays, but not the flood of cartoons that competed for our attention on Saturday morning. It was our block of TV. Most of all, I remember my Dad watching them with us, enjoying them just as much as we did (my brother and I). When I try to watch cartoons or kids' shows with my little guy, I just can't get engaged... with the exception of SpongeBob.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Amazon Prime

Sounds like a cartoon character, right?

Saw this on Insty... I've seen the Amazon Prime offer over the past few weeks (months?), but I always thought, "well, I don't order that much from Amazon (a few purchases a year) and if I do, it's always over the Free Shipping amount." Amazon's Free SuperSaver Shipping amount is pegged at $25/order.

However, since I don't normally think of buying items such as what Glenn refers to (low dollar), perhaps I would use Amazon more often for items like this and forego the trip to WalMart/Target/Costco. Question is... would I really order an amount < than $25? and is 2nd day shipping really necessary for most items you're going to buy online? Or can you wait for 3-5 days?

Anyone thought of joining Amazon Prime? When phrased that way, sounds a little too cultish(?).