Pajama Pundits

John Kerry on Meet the Press. Videos here.

via The Roth Report

UPDATE: I guess the title of this post applies here too.

Iraqi Voting Disrupts News Reports of Bombings
by Scott Ott

(2005-01-30) -- News reports of terrorist bombings in Iraq were marred Sunday by shocking graphic images of Iraqi "insurgents" voting by the millions in their first free democratic election.

Despite reporters' hopes that a well-orchestrated barrage of mortar attacks and suicide bombings would put down the so-called 'freedom insurgency', hastily-formed battalions of rebels swarmed polling places to cast their ballots -- shattering the status quo and striking fear into the hearts of the leaders of the existing terror regime.

I've watched Fox, CNN, and MSNBC off and on tonight. It's been a bit of a nail-biter. Some of the reporters' optimism seemed forced, some were typically pessimistic, and the cameras were not getting views of what I'd call large crowds. I reassured myself by thinking not allowing too many news crews was for the safety of the Iraqi voters.

What's with this "Can you give me a sense of ............" question always being asked of those on the scene of the news? It is so annoying. What's wrong with "Tell us what's happening there." In fact, it's an insulting question. It really means "Can you make any sense of what's happening there?" or "Can you make sense of that mess for our uninformed viewers?"

Ah, I'm grumpy and need sleep.

Be sure and follow the link under the photo on Scrappleface to read a first hand report of an Iraqi voter and her take on one representative of the press. Oh heck, here's the link: The Mark of Freedom

I'm relatively new to the blogosphere, but this is the longest post and most emphatically stated opinion I've read on Instapundit to date.

I don't think Glenn Reynolds likes Ward Churchill very much at all.

This article is posted by participants of the January 27, 2005, BlogBurst (see list in the right sidebar), to remember the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, sixty years ago, on January 27, 1945.

On January 20th, we marked the anniversary of the 1942 Wannsee Conference. In the course of that Conference, the Nazi hierarchy formalized the plan to annihilate the Jewish people. Understanding the horrors of Auschwitz requires that one be aware of the premeditated mass-murder that was presented at Wannsee.

Highlighting these events now has become particularly important, as the press reports that '45% of Britons have never heard of Auschwitz' (Jerusalem Post, December 2, 2004)

The Holocaust, symbolized by Auschwitz, the worst of the death camps, occurred in the wake of consistent, systematic, unrelenting anti-Jewish propaganda campaign. As a result, the elimination of the Jews from German society was accepted as axiomatic, leaving open only two questions: when and how.

As Germany expanded its domination and occupation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Poland, parts of the USSR, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Italy and others countries, the way was open for Hitler to realize his well-publicized plan of destroying the Jewish people.

After experimentation, the use of Zyklon B on unsuspecting victim was adopted by the Nazis as the means of choice, and Auschwitz was selected as the main factory of death (more accurately, one should refer to the “Auschwitz-Birkenau complex”). The green light for mass annihilation was given at the Wannsee Conference, January 20, 1942, and the mass gassings took place in Auschwitz between 1942 and the end of 1944, when the Nazis retreated before the advancing Red Army. Jews were transported to Auschwitz from all over Nazi-occupied or Nazi-dominated Europe and most were slaughtered in Auschwitz upon arrival, sometimes as many as 12,000 in one day. Some victims were selected for slave labour or “medical” experimentation. All were subject to brutal treatment.

In all, between three and four million people, mostly Jews, but also Poles and Red Army POWs, were slaughtered in Auschwitz alone (though some authors put the number at 1.3 million). Other death camps were located at Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec (Belzek), Majdanek and Treblinka.

Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army on 27 January 1945, sixty years ago, after most of the prisoners were forced into a Death March westwards. The Red Army found in Auschwitz about 7,600 survivors, but not all could be saved.

For a long time, the Allies were well aware of the mass murder, but deliberately refused to bomb the camp or the railways leading to it. Ironically, during the Polish uprising, the Allies had no hesitation in flying aid to Warsaw, sometimes flying right over Auschwitz.

There are troubling parallels between the systematic vilification of Jews before the Holocaust and the current vilification of the Jewish people and Israel. Suffice it to note the annual flood of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN; or the public opinion polls taken in Europe, which single out Israel as a danger to world peace; or the divestment campaigns being waged in the US against Israel; or the attempts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. The complicity of the Allies in WW II is mirrored by the support the PLO has been receiving from Europe, China and Russia to this very day.

If remembering Auschwitz should teach us anything, it is that we must all support Israel and the Jewish people against the vilification and the complicity we are witnessing, knowing where it inevitably leads.

I remember the thrill of occasionally being allowed to stay up late and watch The Tonight Show. Johnny Carson was always funny, even (perhaps especially) when one of his jokes bombed. His wit had grace, style, and class... three elements missing from the flippant Leno and condescending Letterman, the current latenight placeholder hosts.

Snippets of eulogistic thoughts from around the blogosphere:

Will Collier writes:

His blend of great good humor, high taste, low comedy, and refusal to condescend to anybody, regardless of who they were or where they came from, almost certainly can't be duplicated in today's mass media.

Wizbang commenter Jim Hines:

Old Hollywood is officially dead. Someone save us from the new one.

Speed of Thought:

I bought my first TV because of Johnny.  It was a little B&W TV.   I still have it.    I was in High School and did not want to miss 'The Tonight Show'.

Jeff Jarvis:

He was, of course, the original Jon Stewart, who showed so much of news to be what it was: a joke. He and other, edgier comics of the day made comedy relevant.

Slant Point quotes Johnny on Democracy:

Democracy means free television, not good television, but free.

Argghhh!

It seems Johnny was popular in the Blogosphere. He's getting a lot of mention. I wonder if any of his successors will enjoy the same level of notice when they shuffle off this mortal coil?

Infinite Monkeys:

He was a great entertainer, and even more impressive, he retired with grace.

QandO:

I remember one of the great thrills of my young life was sneaking out of bed and watching Johnny Carson.

DGCI:

Despite all of those entertainers who have sought to fill his late-night shoes, the Lenos and Lettermans and O'Briens of the world could never compare to Johnny.

Ryne McClaren:

In a racket where there are few true legends, Carson is the one they all have to aspire to be.

Inaugural Speech

It can all be summarized by these two paragraphs:

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source.  For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.  There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

and

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure.  Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon.  Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom.  And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men.  It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

Rehnquist looked better than I expected, but this is not to say he looked healthy. Everyone had to be freezing, and I my lips stung in sympathy with the brass players of the Marine Band and the Army Herald Trumpeters.

Sissy Willis has a great screenshot of Denyce Graves singing a song completely unfamiliar to me. Does anyone know the details? Who wrote it? When did it become the American Anthem? I feel so out of touch.

UPDATE: Denyce Graves' American Anthem (thanks to Sissy Willis' comment!)

UPDATE II: On a completely different note, Right Wing Duck has surprisingly interesting (according to Wizbang) details on inauguration expenses.

... that talking to the New York Times can be a mistake.

Officials ID Alleged Terror Threat Suspects:

"The nature of the threat that has been provided is an uncorroborated, unsubstantiated threat. The source is anonymous, but it is specific in that it mentions a location where individuals will be dropped off -- that location is New York, and it defines a location where missing a threat might be directed, and the location is Boston," Romney said before he left Washington.

Backcountry Conservative is keeping tabs on this.

(via The Roth Report)

UPDATE: After looking at the photos released, reading that these people are not on a watch list, I'm wondering if the photos are those given to the authorities by the smuggler. They look like passport, driver's license, or some other type of ID photo. Why did the smuggler have them?

UPDATE: Revenge eyed as motive in terror tip

Congratulations to Dean and the Queen of All Evil!
Photos here.

I'm signing up for some service on the web and I'm asked to select a security question. This is just fine and dandy and, of course, I don't want them emailing my username and password to nefarious sorts, but this list is just useless:

What is your pet's name?
What if I have more than one pet? Which to use?

What is your favorite color?
What is this... a Playboy interview? Maybe my favorite color for wall paint is white, but it's dark green for carpet, and red for cars.

Who was your childhood hero?
Even here, the obvious choice of father or mother would be useless. Which did I choose? Did I type Mom or Dad?

Who is your all time favorite celebrity?
Like that choice couldn't change tomorrow even for people who are so shallow as to have a favorite celebrity.

What is your favorite sports team?
Just another way of rephrasing the celebrity question.

The only sensible way for those of us who may have many "memberships" to use these questions without keeping a personal database of our various choices is to make up a nonsensical answer and always use it. That way, I'll only have to remember one answer. No matter the question, it will always be right.

I'm going to choose my standard answer to these questions from the list below (or maybe not);

42
White Satin
Purple Velvet
Air Force Blue
SpongeBob SquarePants
Instalanche (okay... wishful thinking. It could happen!)

Sarah: Chrenkoff rounds up commentary on her thoughtless smear of Iraq the Model bloggers.

Barbara: Sissy Willis explains how Condi rules! and why Senator Boxer should have her ears boxed.

see also Ankle Biting Pundits (previously known as Crush Kerry) bust Barbara on a blatant lie.

BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. it was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for tath, you know, particular vote.

Neither of these Boxers are interested in anything beyond promoting themselves.

UPDATE: I don't think La Shawn Barber likes Barbara Boxer very much.
UPDATE II: ouch

What a jerk. I'm sure Rumsfeld has some real deficits in his performance. Find them and we'll talk, okay?

Why Rumsfeld has to go (according to Kerry and some or his friends):

1. Rumsfeld Blamed The Troops for Problems in IRAQ.

Rumsfeld's statement about going to war with the army you have was not blaming the troops for problems in Iraq, and that anyone could interpret it that way proves to me that they are simply out to denigrate the administration, but definitely not interested in identifying real problems and their solutions.

2. Rumsfeld Admitted Bush Administration Was Not Propared for Iraqi Resistance.

Everybody (on the left) has been screaming for someone in the Bush administration to admit they made a mistake, but considering the reaction is 'off with their heads' when they do admit a mistake, why should they? I can totally understand why Bush said "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections." That is apparently the statement that Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher chose to interpret as "there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgment in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath."

3. Rumsfeld Failed to Equip Troops in Iraq

The charge is that one in four of the U.S. casualties "might" have been prevented if the vehicles they were riding in had stronger armor. This doesn't mention the possibility that if the vehicles were different, the nature of the attacks would also have been different. See Wizbang here, here, and here.

4. Rumsfeld Failed to Plan for Iraq War

See number 2.

5. Rumsfeld Failed to Sign Condolence Letters to Families of Soldiers Killed in War on Terror

This is nothing more than silly partisan nitpicking.

Would somebody please tell John Kerry that the election is OVER and he LOST!

See the entire email in the extended entry.

Dear Donna, I have just come back from Iraq. After several months consumed by the campaign trail, I wanted to make contact with our soldiers on the ground there. The first thing I want you to know is that, in very difficult circumstances, our brave soldiers are serving America with enormous skill and great courage. In the Senate, we have a duty during times like these to hold our Defense Department accountable for the well-being of our troops. It's one of the ways that our democracy makes our military the strongest in the world. And I can't tell you how comforting it is as a soldier to know even if you don't have a say over your own situation, the folks back home do. I knew our soldiers were still facing hold ups getting the equipment they need, but I wanted to see it for myself. American troops deserve the best gear and equipment we can provide. But adequate vehicle armor remains in short supply. A soldier who spoke up about these problems was told by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, "you have to go to war with the army you have, not the army you want."1 Well, it's been over two years since Rumsfeld planned this war. And whether he has the army he wants or not, he should at least have basic armor for army vehicles. I'll say this in the Senate, but I'm asking you to add your voice to mine: "President Bush, for the sake of our troops, replace Rumsfeld now." http://www.johnkerry.com/replacerumsfeld More than 500,000 called for Rumsfeld to resign during the presidential campaign. I'm renewing my call now -- please renew yours too, and forward this email to friends to bring them on board. Add your name to mine here, and add your voice to mine by speaking out in your community as I will do in the US Senate for as long as it takes to remove Secretary Rumsfeld from his post: http://www.johnkerry.com/replacerumsfeld It's a question of competence. Poor planning at the Pentagon is letting American soldiers down. According to the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, Iraq is now providing the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, [and] the opportunity for enhancing technical skills."2 Our troops need a capable Secretary of Defense. At the very least, they absolutely need that. I believe that together, the three million of us who worked together on the campaign can help the troops. We not only have a right to speak out against failed Bush policies: we have a duty to defend this country from a President who refuses to recognize the total inadequacy of his own Defense Secretary. That's how democracy works. And that's why America has worked all these years. The campaign season is over, but our citizenship continues. I know from personal experience that citizens and Senators standing up for the truth can be a powerful combination. Now, with email and the Web as citizenship tools, we can make ourselves heard even more clearly. And I can't tell you how inspired I am that you and I are using these tools to fight side-by-side for the things we believe in. One more time: please join me in my call for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. He's the man responsible for the well-being of our troops. He's neglected his duty. He's made excuses. It's time for him to go. Add your voice to mine in the Senate in calling for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld today. http://www.johnkerry.com/replacerumsfeld Thank you, John Kerry. _______________________ WHY RUMSFELD HAS TO GO! 1) Rumsfeld Blamed The Troops for Problems in IRAQ Rumsfeld: "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." [CNN, 12/9/04] 2) Rumsfeld Admitted Bush Administration Was Not Prepared for Iraqi Resistance Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that "I am saying that -- if you had said to me a year ago, 'describe the situation you'll be in today, one year later,' I don't know many people who would have described it -- I would not have described it -- the way it happens to be today. ... I certainly would not have estimated that we would have had the number of individuals lost that we have had lost in the last week." [Rumsfeld News Conference, 4/15/04] 3) Rumsfeld Failed to Equip Troops in Iraq Army Study Suggests One-Fourth of Casualties in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented If Troops Were Properly-Equipped at Beginning of War. Newsweek reported, "A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs." [Newsweek, 5/3/04] 4) Rumsfeld Failed to Plan for Iraq War In August 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a secret report assessing the post-war planning for Iraq. The report blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process." It also said "planners were not given enough time" to plan for reconstruction. [Washington Times, 9/3/03] 5) Rumsfeld Failed To Sign Condolence Letters to Families of Soldiers Killed in War on Terror ABC World News Tonight, "Now on the home front here, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is under fire from some military families and members of the Congress. They're upset that he has used a machine to attach his signature to some letters of condolence. More than a thousand of those letters have been sent to families who have lost sons and daughters in the global war on terror." ABC (Yang) added, "After Ivan Medina's twin brother Irving an Army Specialist was killed in Baghdad last year he got a letter of condolence from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Today, Medina himself a veteran of Iraq said he was angered to learn that Rumsfeld never actually signed the letter or even saw it." Medina: "Our commanders here in the United States who include the President and the Secretary of Defense don't care about the troops. We're just a number to them and that's the wrong message to send back to our troops." Yang: "In a statement Rumsfeld said he used a machine." [ABC World News Tonight, 12/19/04] Notes: 1. MSNBC, January 13, 2005 2. CNN, December 9, 2004 Paid for by Friends of John Kerry, Inc.

I bought a Hyundai Elantra for my daughter in 2000 to replace the 1993 Beretta that her older sister bequeathed to her around her 15th birthday (without discussing it with me, I might add! I've since forgiven her.) The Beretta saw a lot... 3 1/2 years of college with the older daughter, 3 1/2 years of high school with the younger. If only it could have talked, the tales it could have told...

I was mocked by my husband who wanted to get her a Ford, by my father who said the Beretta was still a good car (the only time in 80 years he's ever been wrong about a car) and I think the Hyundai may have been an occasional source of embarrassment for my daughter, though not more than the Beretta had become. Shall we say it didn't age gracefully?

But, it's still on the road. It's carried her back and forth from Louisiana to Colorado to Virginia to Illinois to Texas to South Carolina to D.C. to Indiana more times than I can count. There were some annoying problems but never any that left her stranded on the side of the road (not any that were the car's fault, that is!) It's bound to be close to the end of its 100,000 mile warranty, maybe it's already expired.

The biggest problem was the availability of Hyundai dealerships where warranty work could be done. Oh, and it had this strange magnetism for parking tickets which, sadly, were not covered under the warranty. Speeding tickets, being issued to the driver instead of the car's registered owner, didn't always find their way back to me.

We chose the Hyundai after test driving several Hondas and Toyotas, all used, because new, those makes were not in our budget. The Hyundai won on features, comfort, ride, roominess, warranty, and price. The most worrisome aspect of the deal was getting the trade-in Beretta to the dealership without a tow truck.

We were so grateful that the Hyundai salesman saw the humor in my literal statement that the Beretta would make it to the lot under its own steam.

So, I wasn't quite as surprised as Wizbang's Paul to read Hyundai Now a Contender.

Total, complete, and repetitive journalistic transparency probably isn't as necessary as Hewitt suggests. He laments that Kos's disclosure was inadequate... but I disagree. Kos put his readers on notice. From what he wrote, the reader should have been able to discern how much of Kos' opinion is worthy. In fact, the reader should be able to do that without the disclosure.

Journalism doesn't take place in a void - the reader/viewer has a role too. If the reader is careless, non-thinking, and inattentive, their conclusions are likely to be wrong no matter what the writer discloses.

The troubling part of Kos's disclosure is where he states there were candidates who did not want anyone to know he was working for them. THAT, I have a problem with. What were they ashamed of? Kos? Well, maybe. But the point is that the candidate was actively trying to hide an affiliation. That Kos went along with it speaks to his ethical ideals, but those show themselves in his writing anyway.

The Armstrong Williams case is quite a bit different with the biggest problem being where the money came from. I consider the Dept. of Education to be at much greater fault that Williams (though his subsequent statements have shown him to be a fool). We have, as citizens, a right to know when it's the official government line we're reading. Whether Williams or I or anyone else agrees with it is irrelevant. The backlash from Williams' cupidity and the Education department's probably illegal stupidity to people like Michelle Malkin is appalling.

Consider that this backlash is coming from readers who apparently think they must have placed in front of them all the details about a writer's life and who pays them before they can decide whether they agree or disagree with what's written.

No amount of disclosure is going to help those folks.

But no matter who pays Kos, or Armstrong, or Hewitt - I'm capable of reading their works and deciding for myself whether their opinions have merit. If I don't think critically about what I read, does it matter who wrote it or if anyone paid them to do it?

Hewitt writes:

Tell me who is paying you, and tell me what you think about the world in general, and I can read the green.

Since he's painted himself into this total transparency corner, he almost has to state it's necessary for Hewitt, the reader, to receive fully transparent disclosure in order to fully understand or critique an article. Otherwise, he would sound elitist.

Then there's the problem of whether he's the kettle or the pot. If Hewitt, the writer, is going to be as transparent as he wants everyone else to be then shouldn't his disclaimer be permanent at the top of his blog above the book ads. And he needs to include what church he goes to and how often... Certainly he wants a prospective reader to know everything about him before considering a purchase of one of his books... doesn't he?

I think Hewitt has some good thoughts and great insights on some topics, but his overly dramatic, feverish insistence on total and absolute transparency is becoming sanctimoniously tedious.

UPDATE: More on Kos' role for the Dean Campaign
UPDATE: More from Zephyr Teachout
UPDATE: Bigwig has a better idea - Readers Beware (on a similar theme to my thinking, but said so much better). And, dang it, perhaps I wasn't all that polite above, but it is my honest reaction.
And yet another UPDATE: Blogging for Dollars, (via LGF)Slate's Chris Suellentrop:

The hanging offense is that Moulitsas took money from other, undisclosed, political clients. And while he may have disclosed—in 2003—that he wouldn't disclose them, that's not good enough. DailyKos raised money for a dozen congressional candidates this past election. Which, if any, of them paid Moulitsas for the honor of directing his grassroots minions to part with their wallets? If you gave one of Moulitsas' preferred candidates money, wouldn't you like to know if Moulitsas' endorsement was purchased?

The New Democrat is calling for a revolution in the Democratic Party to replace its "old worn out vision" spouted by the "looney leftists" of the party. He defines that wing of the party as the one belonging to Ted Kennedy, Maxine Waters, and Barbara Boxer, bought by George Soros and touted by Michael Moore.

Finding this blog (via Wizbang) shortly after my brother finally admitted that Michael Moore "may" have had a role in costing Kerry the election gives me hope that the Democratic Party isn't dead yet.

Some choice examples:

Soros' millions, aimed at the extreme left wing of the DNC, didn't buy him the American voter. It bought him the DNC, which became one big brothel of paid for left wing activism. His millions turned sensible Democratic politicians into hookers, parroting extreme leftist tripe. His millions created thousands of professional Deaniacs. But they never persuaded one American voter to vote Democratic.

Soros' millions might have been good for the gay lobby, the treehuggers lobby and the anti-war movement, but it corrupted our Party.

Sometimes I have this feeling that Soros didn't want our Party to win. His millions tuned our Party into an unelectable collection of extreme left wing lobby groups, which were so far away from the center, that it made us unelectable. Was that by design? Soros is a smart man, a chess player. Maybe it was by design.

I wondered about that during the campaign also. I also wondered which side Michael Moore, Dan Rather, and Terry McAuliffe were on. Kerry was a lousy candidate, but these guys managed to make him look worse. The real problem is that the screaming lunatic fringe kept the Democrats from nominating a viable candidate in the first place.

I don't mind if Dean gets some sort of token role in the Party hierarchy as an organizer or fundraiser. He is popular amongst the militant left, but it should be outside of the eye of the American public. Howard Dean and his Deaniacs are bad for our image. Dean should never be allowed to play a role in writing our political platform.

This made me laugh. I like the acceptance factor here. He may be a lunatic, but he's our lunatic. 

The dangerous thing about the lunacy coming from the Democratic Party is that it has shut down (shouted down?) reasonable discourse about the direction of this country. That has the unfortunate consequence of giving George Bush a free ride without valid criticism outside his own party. Critique of the President's actions and policies within the Republican Party are also subdued somewhat because of the acidic, mocking reaction to them from Democrats.

Some will say, perhaps rightly so, that blaming the Democrats for Republican failings is going overboard. Yeah, maybe. The point is that when rational people can't be heard over the bellowing of lunatics - regardless their party affilitation - the country loses, not just a party.

UPDATE: via Instapundit - Zell Was Right

Way back in September 2004, when I was immersed in reading about RatherGate (and just before I started this blog), I wrote the following email to a friend:

The exciting part - BIG paradigm-earthquake exciting part - of the whole affair is that the internet (specifically bloggers) was instrumental in exposing the hoax. All Dan needed was to get away with it for 6 weeks, but the decentralized, spontaneous intelligence of a 100,000 people with modems, MS Word, and Google called his bluff in less than 2 hours, presenting irrefutable proof in 24. Maybe people will now read Hayek again, maybe even his treatise on the difference between liberals and conservatives, discovering along the way that Dan Rather and John Kerry were never, ever liberals.

This has the possibility of changing our political system because the Fourth Estate has just extended its membership dramatically, though involuntarily. It was a bloodless coup - the big black eye of CBS replaced by a 100,000 eyes of our peers. ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, the Times on both coasts, all the Tribunes in between, and even NPR are on notice.

Now that’s democracy - by the people and for the people. Watch for movements in Congress to regulate and/or tax the internet, and shout them all down. Even rampant pornography and Viagra spam is worth this ;-)

(Heavens… Word just auto-corrected Viagra for me! Don’t tell me those guys in Redmond aren’t on the ball!)

Maybe in 2008, we won’t have to try to figure out which is the lesser of two evils and finally get to choose the better of two goods. Maybe someday we’ll even have three goods and get to pick good, better, and best.

Today, IMAO, explains where I went wrong. But, I really do wear pajamas while blogging. You'll never see a picture of them here (trust me, you really don't want to) so you'll have to take my word for it. I almost typed "use your imagination" but that might not be a good idea.

At first, it seemed like a crazy wild idea worthy of a brand new shiny tin foil hat. However, a series of posts at Dean's World has caused me to question everything I thought I knew about AIDS. This post, Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, has links to the other posts.

UPDATE: Dr. Rusty Shackleford is confusing questioning and wondering with being duped. I'm still reading links provided in the posts and comments, and have found out for sure that some of the things I thought I knew about AIDS were wrong - the first being that there are any cases at all where HIV is not present.

I find the correlation between rates of illegal drug use and AIDS rates interesting and wonder if it due simply to the fact one is more likely to do something stupid (like have unprotected sex with someone you just met) when high, or if it might play a larger role. Is wondering being duped?

Instapundit links to this very interesting post on the difference between bias and direct financial interest:

There’s no laws on this stuff – all we have is culture. Its early enough in the self-publishing community to work on building a culture where financially interesting blogging is publicly rejected. Its also early enough to untangle the debate, so that bias (which is unavoidable) and financial interest (which is highly avoidable) are seen as completely different topics, not all moshed together in part of an old and overly catholic regime.

The culture of blogging includes commenters (at least on some blogs!) which leads me to wonder if someone will attempt to hijack their role in the conversation as well. A talented hack (ala Armstrong Williams) could spread a lot of paid opinion that way. I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that the vast majority of readers skip the comments.

Why Did Dick Thornburgh Lie?

A. Protect future income from CBS for his law firm
B. Protect his client (CBS) against possible legal action
C. A & B

Jeff, at Shape of Days (now I understand the "shape" reference better) actually read an article in Playboy.

Will anti-RKBA lawmakers and gun control advocates SayUncle now?

Laws in New York and Maryland require that a fired cartridge case from each handgun sold in the state be provided for entry into the respective state's IBIS database. Extremist gun control groups supported this requirement because it amounts to a de facto gun registry in the guise of a crime-fighting tool.

"By admission of the Maryland State Police, ballistic imaging doesn't work, and appears to be a waste of money," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "Technicians with the California Department of Justice said as much two years ago. The Citizen's Committee and other gun rights groups have been saying all along that ballistic imaging was a fraud as a crime-prevention tool, and now it's also being proven as an ineffective crime-solving tool.

Who should pay?

[D.C. Mayor] Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security. City officials said they can use an unspent $5.4 million from an annual federal fund that reimburses the District for costs incurred because of its status as the capital. But that leaves $11.9 million not covered, they said.

Comparing the cost of the privately funded inauguration with publicly funded tsunami aid doesn't make a lot of sense, but I assumed (yeah, I know the saying) that part of that private money would be going to pay for increased security, public services and other logistical costs of throwing a big party, like the construction of reviewing stands.

Considering that the city will benefit from the influx of inaugural guests, paying for the entire cost with private money is not necessary. Allocating some federal funds for it is appropriate also. I'd be happy with private costs covering 2/3.

See also: Sticking D.C. With the Tab

Pajamahadeen vindicated. Sorta.

My initial response is mixed. Mary Mapes is getting the axe, but I do not understand the reluctance to call the memos fake, or to acknowledge a political agenda. No 'courage' there. What agenda is served by avoiding these two issues? Maybe I'll find the answer as I wade through the complete report and other commentary.

More to come...

Ha! A commenter at Smoking Gun sums it up quite well: Report accurate, Conclusions fake

Links, also updated as I read them:

Report of the Independent Review Panel (pdf)
Report, exhibits, appendices (pdf)
CBS News: CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story
Wizbang: CBS Ousts 4 Over Bush Memo Story, Panel Found Dan Rather Lied, Snippets from the CBS PDF
Rathergate.com
RatherBiased.com
INDC Journal: CBS Report: Anticipatory Ennui (Updated with Cautious Optimism)
Instapundit: Rathergate Update
Scylla & Charybdis: CBS Legal: Memogate vs. DishonorGate They don't even know they're biased.
The Moderate Voice: CBS' Memogate Report Comes Out But it Won't Stem the Controversy
Silflay Hraka: Pajamaheddin 4, CBS 0
Betsy's Page: How lame is this explanation?
Jeff Jarvis: Here goes the CBS axe, More Rathergate
Captain's Quarters: CBS Coughs Up the Report, More on the CBS Report, The Buck Stops...Back There
sisu: "Just the wrong thing to do", "Bloggers are just like a bar"
TVNewser: White House Reaction (via Artitumis)
Vodkapundit: Rather Lied, Careers Died
NRO: TKS (The Kerry Spot), The Corner
Power Line: The Thornburgh Report: What It Says, And What It Doesn't Say
Patterico: Here's a Recommendation for you: Report the Truth
Polipundit: Rathergate Report Cites "Myopic Zeal"
Michelle Malkin: start here, but read all of her entries today.

I'm anxious to read Charles Johnson's reactions, but it's reported the LGF server has thrown a drive on reboot... sounds messy.

UPDATE: Charles is posting at Discarded Lies while LGF is down. Start here.

A short while back (though it feels so long ago due to the enormity of other events) I wrote in protest of Hugh Hewitt's defrocking (see The MSM Emperor's New Clothes) of Michael Powell and his objections to Powell's article, Evolution Shares a Desk With 'Intelligent Design'.

Though I haven't had any feedback from Hewitt, Powell was kind enough to respond:

I much appreciate your defense of the overall thrust of my piece on Intelligent Design and Dover, PA.

Recognition! I almost deleted the email unread because it came amidst a rasher of spam and didn't have a subject line. It's tempting to credit an Intelligent Designer with giving me the extra bit of curiosity that made me open it.

If I could, I'd like to add a few more points, and a quarrel with just a point or two. There were at least three and probably four members of the board who resigned specifically because of this motion passed. That's the very definition of several. (From Webster's New World Dictionary: "more than two but not many; of an indefinite but small number; few").

Second, and more broadly, as an out of town reporter with a relatively limited amount of space to explain months old disputes, I must, of necessity, compress lots of information. If I were the York Dispatch reporter--and they do a fine job--I would most certainly give precise numbers and names of board members and the like. As an out of town reporter, there is simply not room for that level of detail--and arguably not the interest for the average out of town readers.

Powell's use of 'several' was not a detriment in my opinion, but upon re-reading my original post I see that I did not make that clear. The point I so eloquently fogged up was that Hewitt's questioning how many is "several" was irrelevant to any point either was making.

So how then to write about these controversies? I talk to lots and lots of people and read lots of lips. In this case, I talked to a number of the past and present board members, some on the record and more off. I also spoke to a dozen town residents, a few teachers, six recent high school graduates and several of the candidates for the board. That's how I came to determine that only Rehm--and perhaps one other applicant, who was also against Intelligent Design—was asked whether he had ever abused a child. As Rehm is a school teacher, and therefore had to pass a state mandated background check, he was arguably the ONLY applicant whose background was unequivocally clean. And the board members knew this.

(That said, I agree--and I emailed Hewitt this--that in retrospect I should have mentioned that the board asked this question of no other applicant. It only would have strengthened my point).

This information illuminates the atmosphere of the selection of new board members and the thinking of those doing the interviews. I would find it hard to defend such a process regardless my views on the origin of humans. I would like to know if Hewitt considers the treatment of the candidates to be in line with Christian teachings.

Hmmm. what else? You mention that one of the new board members indicated she has an open mind. Perhaps, but she has also said, on the record, that she will support the board.

I find that an admirable quality in this individual. I can understand the consternation of the board as a whole when members in the minority refuse to abide by the outcome of the process they signed on to be a part of. Those members who resigned in protest forfeited not only their voice but also their credibility to some extent. They are as guilty of demanding their way or the highway as those who apparently corrupted the process of selecting their replacements.

I should note that I've gotten no complaints about this piece from the people in York, on either side of this controversy.

More to the point, I take particular issue with the notion that certain paragraphs are "unfavorable to people of faith." You cite, for instance, paragraph two, which is nothing more than a colorful quote, from a person who favors the motion.

Yep. I cannot count. It was paragraph three I intended to refer to as the most unfavorable:

Charles Darwin, squeeze over. The school board in this small town in central Pennsylvania has voted to make the theory of evolution share a seat with another theory: God probably designed us.

In addition to poor counting, my writing should have been clear enough to make the point that none of Powell's paragraphs, especially the ones quoted by Hewitt, rose to the heinous level of "crafted to put proponents of intelligent design into a box marked "snake-handling yahoos," and to elevate their opponents to the position of rational science enthusiasts."

I know we haven't arrived at the point where any criticism is seen as "unfavorable to ... faith."

Hopefully, Powell's assessment is correct. I responded to Hewitt's post because it appeared to me that he was getting too close to such a point, especially when combined with his idea that a writer is not capable of having a valid disagreeing viewpoint unless his background is exposed and judged to be 'worthy'.

There are, as you know, many tens of millions of people of faith who believe in Darwin's theories. There are no doubt people of no organized religious faith who believe in Intelligent Design. And there are tens of millions of people (Young Earth Creationists and fundamentalist Hindus, to name two) who hold beliefs about the origins of the world that have no grounding in science.

By writing that last sentence, I'm not belittling them. I have great respect for people's varying beliefs, and I would agree that we have an obligation not to caricature those. But that can't entail suspending our critical faculties, no?

The world would be such a boring place without varying beliefs. I agree that we absolutely must not suspend our critical faculties, and that is at the crux of the debate over what to teach about our origins in public schools. If either side is successful in eliminating discussion of the other, we've done our children a great disservice - we've made up their minds for them and failed to give them access to the tools they need to make their own decisions. 

It was 10 years ago today

Anonymous commenter writes: "My favorite thing my pediatrician ever told me was that if I thought something was wrong, it was, no one knows my babies like me, what is normal and what isn't."

It was over 20 years ago that a pediatrician told me the same thing when I apologized for calling in the late evening over what sounded like nothing more than a fussy baby with a very slight temp. She met me at the ER, and almost immediately ordered a spinal tap. It was meningitis, but thanks to her trusting my instincts as well, all turned out well.

The reason I'm linking to Army of Mom's story and telling a bit of my own, is the horror I felt when I read a medical advice column a few weeks after my baby was out of the hospital. It said, in effect, that parents shouldn't rush to doctor for every little thing, that slight temperatures and fussiness were normal occurrences and most would disappear normally.

I was horrified, because I realized that if I'd read that article before the meningitis, it would have been in my head and I would have been even more reluctant to call the doctor. How much longer would I have hesitated? I am grateful that I don't know.

The Shape of Days: October called; they want their stump speech back
This blog is full of crap: Available domain of the day
Silflay Hraka: Cutting And Spricing
Samizdata: Quote of the Day
Riehl World View: Priceless and Hey Ya'll
Marginal Revolution: Stupid product warnings (via Pejmanesque)
Patterico: Whuhd I do??

120th Edition of the Carnival of the Vanities

That should keep you occupied for a while.

The Disenchanted American

...an American consensus is growing that envy and hatred of the United States, coupled with utopian and pacifistic rhetoric, disguise an even more depressing fact: Outside our shores there is a growing barbarism with no other sheriff in sight. Any cinema student of the American Western can fathom why the frightened townspeople — huddled in their churches and shuttered schools — almost hated the lone marshal as much as they did the six-shooting outlaw gang rampaging in their streets. After all, the holed-up 'good' citizens were always angry that the lawman had shamed them, worried that he might make dangerous demands on their insular lives, confused about whether they would have to accommodate themselves either to savagery or civilization in their town's future, and, above all, assured that they could libel and slur the tin star in a way that would earn a bullet from the lawbreaker. It was precisely that paradox between impotent high-sounding rhetoric and blunt-speaking, roughshod courage that lay at the heart of the classic Western from Shane and High Noon to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Magnificent Seven.

This Michael Moore Moment Brought to You by Bill Whittle

I would correct those who have said I am the anti-Michael Moore. I deeply appreciate the sentiment, but the fact is, he is the anti-Bill Whittle.

He is a great TV guest however.

Funny, self-deprecating, animated, interesting.

Some 2005 predictions that make sense.

The one I can't wait for:

Under pressure from liberal groups, Disneyland changes the name of the Mad Hatter to the Obsessive-Compulsive-Disorder Hatter. It also adds a carpool lane to the Autopia ride.

BoingBoing links to a Science News article about the future of concrete. There's a stronger mix that bends, there's a mix that doesn't require vibration to eliminate air bubbles, and there's a mix that is translucent.

The most fascinating new mixes to me are the self-cleaning ones. Structures built with these will not only stay clean, but can actually clean the air.

The material has applications beyond keeping concrete surfaces bright. Cassar's group has found that the concrete can actually clean the air. The company is investigating coating buildings and roads with the photocatalytic material. Computer models of the material and urban pollution predict that covering 10 to 15 percent of the roads and building surfaces in a city such as Milan, Italy could reduce air pollution by 40 to 50 percent, Cassar's group calculates.

Imagine that... in L.A. and Houston, for example. And I'm thinking concrete floors and wall in my house too!

Who Was That Masked Man?

Compare the actions of Bill Cooper to those of Staples. Personally, I much prefer the way Cooper promotes the ideal of free speech over the way Staples folds to a little political pressure.

Really. "Kerfluffle" is the way I've always spelled it. (via Pejmanesque)

I'm tired of the global tsunami fund-raising telethon. Is there a phone bank backstage taking calls from heads of state?

"This is Kuwait. We'll match China's pledge 2 for 1."
"This is Germany... how much has France pledged? We're still beating them. Good."

How about some informative reports on the logistics of finding survivors, building roads, treating water, treating the wounded, and maybe an interview with a mahout? I know it's hard for you big media guys to accentuate the positive, but it's time to try harder.

Note to self: buy batteries for the remote so you can change channels.

If a graphic of one of those big painted thermometers hits the screen, I won't need batteries... I'll use the shotgun.

UPDATE: It's not too surprising that sisu says it better: To give and let give
A slightly different take via Real Clear Politics: Time to End the Compassion Competition

UPDATE II: NBC to air tsunami benefit special ::loading shotgun::

All Right You Slackers

I think I've been dissed by the Instapundit!

AP (Assorted Pricks)

Euro-Trash, noun, circa 1980. Descriptive shorthand term for smug but morally vacuous left-wing European hedonists. Characterized by extremely superficial values, self-concious avant-garde pretensions; open disdain for traditional morality, and the ostentatious chasing of wealth and status. Often includes an element of active and resentul anti-Americanism. A status-seeking and social climbing subset of the more general Euro-peon category. (See: "Euro-peon")

Euro-peon: noun, time immemorial. A mass member of the contingent class of the European population. Once, it was the largest subgroup of the European population: which was composed primarily of the Euro-peons, and the aristrocrats and nobles who lorded over and farmed them. With the advent of socialism in Europe, the legal status of all persons there has become equalized, and all now may be considered as Euro-peons regardless of the their family origins. Psychologically this class is characterized by a strong but mindless herd instinct, an attraction to faddism, militant materialism, extreme moral relativism, and an unlimited capacity for self-justification. (See also "Euro-Trash")

We're just too risky. Yep, if you saw an ad for a Cadillac on this site, you'd immediately think to yourself that Cadillac was associating itself with pajamas and since you always get dressed before heading out to the dealership to get a new car, you'd never pay attention to that ad, even if you were seriously thinking about buying a Cadillac.

MediaPost: Blog Readership Up in '04; Advertisers Not Sold

"A company has to seriously ask themselves: 'Do we really want to associate ourselves with the greatest natural disaster of the last quarter century?'"

So, no one's advertising during CNN's reports on the tsunami?

Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro collegues tossed this little turd out to no one in particular:

" See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, theres a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."

After which he and many of my Euro collegues laughed out loud.

and then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster.

I'm afraid I was "unprofessional",  I let it loose -

Or Meltdown, if you prefer.

This time it's Corey Pein's Blog-Gate in the Columbia Journalism Review. Others in the blogosphere are all over this one. Wizbang, Lindgren at Volokh, Meryl Yourish, Roger L. Simon,  Charles & the Lizardoids at LFG, Instapundit, and... more. So what do I have to offer? A suggestion that, like the NYTimes used the Democratic Underground to help them get it all wrong in their recent attempt to smear the blogosphere, Corey Pein may have done a little sleuthing there too. When I read:

One of the story’s top blogs, Rathergate.com, is registered to a firm run by Richard Viguerie, the legendary conservative fund-raiser.

I immediately remembered the many laughs I got reading this DU thread. If you're going to specialize in "getting it wrong," DU is a great place to start.

UPDATE: PowerLine - Journalism in Decline - "Pein tries to indict the bloggers for possibly having been wrong in a small minority of the questions they raised on September 9. On the other hand, he has not a word of criticism for CBS."

John Schwartz is a crafty con artist running wild with words. He crafts a fiction based on real incidents in Myths Run Wild in Blog Tsunami Debate. He starts off by retelling the event in a fairly straightforward and factual manner. But then, like a quilter, he cuts several truths into pieces then reassembles them into a design of his own, telling a different story.

Paul at Wizbang authored one of the posts mentioned in this New York Times article. His subject was some craziness being posted at Democratic Underground about the cause of the tsunami. The glow of recognition momentarily blinded him to 'true' nature of the article, fully revealed in the last paragraph.

Not content to merely characterize the DU posts as odd, ill-informed rumor-mongering by cranks, the article praises the 'self-correcting' mechanism of feedback that is inherent in the blogosphere as working wonders at the Democratic Underground, while leaving the impression that the mechanism failed, but backfired, at Wizbang.

This is a message to the Wizbang guys and the rest of the blogosphere that has been fact-checking the MSM and questioning its conclusions. He's trying to say "My newspaper is bigger than your blogs and you can't insult me or I'll get my revenge." Bullies always bluster, don't they?

A Small Victory is hosting the Ninth Storyblogging Carnival and it's a beauty to behold.

First, via Drudge: Mr. Heyward Goes to Washington
Second, today's Day By Day cartoon.

While I can agree that Matthew Parris is insensitive and obtuse in Imagine there were no cataclysms - what a dull world it would be, I think perhaps Tim Blair and T.W. Andrews overlooked the conclusion of his article and have possibly maligned his motives.

Maybe I'm stretching the comparison here, but when I read:

A small, insistent voice in the back of my head says: “Isn’t this amazing!” A minor but insuppressible part of me has almost relished — yes, relished — those huge numbers. As the newspaper headlines spoke greedily of the numbers of dead “approaching” twenty, then fifty, then eighty, then a hundred thousand, something undeniable twitched in the back of my brain. It was a sort of excitement as the figures mounted; as though some great auctioneer of calamity were taking bids from the media floor, and I was willing the bidding to carry on upwards. When will it reach a hundred thousand? Could it reach a quarter of a million? Was this a record? How did it stand in the history of these disasters? That high! Wow!

I realized that I had probably sublimated that little voice in my head to relish the idea of "How much money can we raise" for the victims. His words made me question my own thoughts and motives, and from the overall tone of the article, I think that was his intent.

When I read this:

Suppose it within your power to usher in instead an age where the seasons and the harvests were regular, the oceans calm, the Earth’s crust quiescent, the weather predictable; an age when mankind lost its former nervous respect for a planet which could smash lives without warning; would you welcome such an age? Would you banish random, man humbling catastrophes?

Well, would you? I think you hesitated.

Like Andrews, I didn't hesitate. Unlike Andrews, I would not act to ensure those things and my lack of hesitation comes from the firm conviction that utopias - social or environmental - are not a very good idea for humans. This is not to say that I do not believe we should do everything we can to reduce the human death toll of natural disasters. Nor do I see any suggestion to do nothing in Parris' article.

My gut feeling: Yep, it's a bad idea. But, my gut also wrenches at the thought of letting possible terrorists go free to reorganize. As a friend pointed out recently, freedom involves risks. We can think of something better than lifetime detention based on "intelligence" issues.

Updates: As I run across them, I'll add other blogosphere opinions below.

Ace is supportive of the idea, as is The American Mind.
Glenn Reynolds thinks the idea may be dodgy and points to Joe Gandelman's reservations about the idea at Dean's World.
Ms. Althouse thinks Colin Powell may be screaming in outrage over the idea.
TurkeyBlog Talks Turkey (of course) about the problem:

If the human rights groups and sensational journalists want to take a breather and focus on how a democracy can reasonably deal with those committed to its destruction, respecting their humanity but not their cause, there's room for dialogue. Too often, though, these groups seem less concerned about the prisoners than about knocking Bush, the U.S. and the war on terror.

NewsHog thinks it's heinous and wants the "Right" to speak out against it. I wonder if he spoke out against the dangers of Michael Moore type thinking on the "Left".

For those who say Hillary isn't thinking about the White House. (takes a bit to download)