Also, if there are any other bloggers out there who want to do their own lists and then link back to this post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here later this week-end.
*** Update #1 **** Other blogs that have ranked blogs as well:
"The United Nations has sadly become a creepy organization. Its General Assembly is full of cutthroat regimes. The Human Rights Commission has had members like Vietnam and Sudan, regimes that at recess must fight over bragging rights to which of the two killed more of their own people. The U.N. has a singular propensity to find flawed men to be secretary-general — a Kurt Waldheim, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, or Kofi Annan. Blue-helmeted peace-keepers, we learn, are as likely to commit as prevent crimes; and the only thing constant about such troops is that they will never go first into harm's way in Serbia, Kosovo, the Congo, or Dafur to stop genocide. Even worse, the U.N. has proved to be a terrible bully, an unforgivable sin for a self-proclaimed protector of the weak and innocent — loud false charges against Israel for its presence in the West Bank, not a peep about China in Tibet; tough talk about Palestinian rights, far less about offending Arabs over Darfur. So U.N. anti-Americanism is a glowing radiation badge, proof of exposure to toxicity." -- Victor Davis Hanson
Quote Of The Day: The Problem With Marking Bullets
"If I'm ever shot in California, I'm glad to know that the cops can carve the bullet out of my body and use it's microprinted serial number to track down my killer. Assuming, of course, that they can still read the serial number on the mishapen and fragmented bullet. And assuming that the killer is using legally registered ammo. I mean, a guy that would shoot me in the face wouldn't use illegal ammo too, right?" -- Ravenwood
Do you like pop-up ads? How about pop-under ads? Do you want to pay a weekly fee to read a blog? Do you like blogs that sell the emails of their subscribers?
No, you don't like any of those lame advertising techniques, right?
The reason RWN has never used any of those irritating types of ads is because of my advertisers and, of course, like duh, the ads are just sooooo annoying. I did buy pop-under ads on a forum once though off of Ebay. Isn't it kind of ironic that I wouldn't want those sort of ads on my own web page but would consider buying them from someone else? Of course, I bought them on Ebay in like 2003 and got enormous amounts of traffic from them for like $10 a pop. Most of the banner ads on Ebay these days are scams that provide zero traffic for your money though, so steer clear of them.
Although, I do have to admit this one is intriguing. I mean buying advertising on the chest of a hot girl is an appealing idea. Just because it sounds cool though, I can't imagine that it gets that much traffic.
But, I'm getting off-topic.
Check out my advertisers below. They deserve it for advertising here, it would help me out, and believe it or not, these little boosts to their advertising traffic make a difference. I don't promise it to them, but they notice. In fact, I had one of my repeat advertisers actually ask if I were going to do one of these this week. So, hey, your clicks really matter....
PS: One of the banners I had sold fell through, so I have one slot available. If you're interested, contact me at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. Do keep in mind that banner ads tend to go VERY FAST so I'd advise you to email ASAP if you'd like a slot.
Here are the details on the ads:
You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month.
Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting For That "Moderate" Political Party
Ron Brownstein wrote a column a few days ago for the LA Times that I've been meaning to discuss. It's called "Internet, Polarized Politics Create an Opening for a Third Party" and here's the crux of Brownstein's argument:
"We are now moving toward a very dangerous place for both parties," (Joe Trippi) says. "It is becoming much more possible for an independent or third party to emerge because they are leaving so much space in the middle."
The hurdles for an independent presidential candidate remain formidable. Even one that attracted a competitive share of the popular vote might have trouble winning many electoral college votes; the strongest candidate could still face the syndrome of finishing second almost everywhere, trailing Republicans in the red states and Democrats in the blue. To have any chance, an independent would need to nearly run the table in battleground states — like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — that don't tilt decisively to either side.
Yet if the two parties continue on their current trajectories, the backdrop for the 2008 election could be massive federal budget deficits, gridlock on problems like controlling healthcare costs, furious fights over ethics and poisonous clashes over social issues and Supreme Court appointments. A lackluster economy that's squeezing the middle-class seems a reasonable possibility too.
In such an environment, imagine the options available to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) if he doesn't win the 2008 Republican nomination, and former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, now that he's dropped his flirtation with running for mayor of New York. If the two Vietnam veterans joined for an all-maverick independent ticket, they might inspire a gold rush of online support — and make the two national parties the latest example of the Internet's ability to threaten seemingly impregnable institutions."
First of all, third parties don't win in America, they just split the vote. For example, the McCain/Kerrey ticket? Their chances of winning? Zero. The only question worth asking would be: which party would they hurt more and it would probably depend on who is on the top of the ticket. If it were Kerrey, it would be the Democrats and if it were McCain, it would be the GOP.
There are multiple reasons why a McCain/Kerrey ticket would have no chance. Brownstein discusses the biggest one in his column: even a strong independent ticket would have little chance in a state that tilts significantly towards one party or the other and, quite frankly, that seems to describe most states these days.
But there are two other huge problems an Independent/Moderate party would face.
To begin with, the energy in politics isn't in the center, it's on the sides. Put another way, conservatives and liberals just tend to care a lot more about their politics, which is why they, not moderates, provide most of the ideas, money, volunteers, and energy for their parties. Numbers wise, there may be a lot of moderates, but there aren't enough of them with a passion for politics to carry a political party on their backs.
But even if the moderates were as jazzed up about politics on the whole as liberals and conservatives, there is no such thing as a "moderate" ideology. What it means to be a "moderate" literally changes from person to person. By that I mean, I can give you a pretty good description of what the conservative and liberal positions are on abortion, but what's the "moderate" position supposed to be? Ask 10 different moderates and they'll probably have 10 different answers. Same goes for foreign policy, gun control, judges, gay marriage, etc., etc., etc.. You simply can't build a lasting political movement in this country if you can't even explain what your "moderate party" believes in.
Independent/Moderate candidates can't win at the presidential level; they can only play the role of spoiler. That's not going to change anytime soon...
There are two things wrong with the [National Education Association's] claim that NCLB is an unfunded mandate: The law is neither a mandate, nor is it unfunded. The nonpartisan General Accounting Office dismissed the mandate claim last October. The law only provides funds to those states that wish to receive them. Any state that wants to reject the dollars -- and the rules that accompany them -- is free to do so. That no state has yet taken this route provides an on-the-ground basis for rejecting the complaint out of hand. As for funding, the law does contain this clause: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to ... mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.'"
I never get tired of being right... or correct.
This content was used with the permission of Blogs For Bush.
Major League Soccer Begs For Steroid Investigation -- Satire By Laurence Simon
WASHINGTON (IFOC) - After high-profile public appearances from baseball, football, and basketball commissioners before Congress, Major League Soccer repeated its demand to be subpoenaed to testify before the House Government Reform Committee.
"We really need the publicity," said commissioner Don Garber. "I swear, there are some games where you can hear a pin drop. And the worst part about that is that instead of making a few bucks for using Sprint's motto, they'll probably sue me for damages by associating their company with Major League Soccer."
Hoping to generate interest through the steroid abuse issue, Major League Soccer will soon be thumbing its nose at Congress and implementing a new steroid-use policy among players.
"I want to see overmuscled juggernauts out there on the field," said Garber. "And that means the referees, too. If you're going to red-card a juicer, you'd better have the 'Roid Rage to back that whistle up."
Satire used with the permission of Laurence Simon of The IFOC News. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Way back on Feb 22nd, I asked if there were anyone out there who wanted to do some web design for me.
Well, to make a long story short, the project I needed the web designer for isn't quite complete and I need help from a fresh designer to finish it....and ya know, not fresh in the 80s rap slang sort of way, fresh as in another designer.
What I'm looking for is someone who's familiar with HTML, PHP, MySQL, graphics, web page design, & maybe Movable Type. This person would have to work pretty much for free, although I'm open to talking about funneling some traffic your way for the help.
If you're interested, email me at johnhawkins --at-- rightwingnews.com. If possible, you may want to include some addresses of websites you've worked on in the past.
Hope to hear from some of you web designers out there soon.
Is Conservative Talk Radio Over? Nah, It's Just The Offseason
An article at the WAPO about declining talk show ratings has been drawing some attention around the blogosphere:
What a difference an election makes. No, we're not talking about the fortunes of a rich and powerful democracy. This is about talk radio. And even in the nation's capital, post-election, people seem to have had their fill of politically oriented talk on the airwaves.
The latest quarterly audience ratings spell it out: Local talk stations -- both on the right and on the left -- saw their audiences dwindle during the January-March period, according to Arbitron Inc.
WMAL-AM (630), home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other mighty righty talkers, was one of the big losers in the latest survey. WMAL lost nearly 30 percent of its core audience (adults ages 25-54) from the preceding three months, when the election was the dominant story. What had been an up-and-coming station a few months ago (WMAL ranked 11th among all stations during the fall) is now a middle-of-the-pack afterthought (it tied for 16th in the latest survey).
"For those of us in news and talk, there's nothing like an election," says Chris Berry, WMAL's president and general manager. "It's like the Super Bowl. For us, the Super Bowl wasn't in January; it came in November."
WMAL was at least able to record some ratings. Two of its AM talk competitors, WTNT (570) and WRC (1260), barely registered. WTNT -- which features conservatives Laura Ingraham and Joe Scarborough -- captured an average of just 0.5 percent of the Washington area's 2.3 million adult (25-54) listeners; it finished in a tie for 26th. WRC, which turned to a liberal talk format in January by adding Al Franken and some of his "Air America" crew, was nowhere to be found. It captured less than 0.1 percent of the audience, too low to be counted.
What happened? "It's a good question," said Bennett Zier, regional vice president of radio giant Clear Channel Communications, which owns WRC and WTNT. "You would think that 90 days after an election, a lot of topics would still be very [hot]. . . . People are very passionate, but it's difficult sometimes to tell where that passion is."
Another possible theory: Conservative talk, the most popular kind on the radio, has long been driven by a passionate "us vs. them" underdog mentality. In case you missed the last election results, conservatives now dominate national and state politics. With fewer "thems" to bash, right-wing ranters may be finding it harder to maintain their traditional put-upon posture."
So what caused talk radio ratings to plummet in the first quarter of this year? Is conservative talk radio over? Is the blogosphere siphoning off traffic?
Nah.
It's a post election dip, nothing more, nothing less. Here's proof from traffic logs of two right-of-center blogs: one medium sized (Right Wing News) and one huge (Instapundit). Here are our stats from July of 2004 (right before election traffic really started to pick up), from October of 2004 (where people were really paying attention to election coverage) & from March of this year (as a point of comparison).
Instapundit ( Numbers may be off just a bit because they're taken from a chart)
July, 2004: 3.84 million visits
October, 2004: 7 million visits
March, 2005: 5 million visits
Right Wing News (2004 Numbers may be off just a bit because they're taken from a chart)
July, 2004: 305,000 pageviews
October, 2004: 510,000 pageviews
March, 2005: 338,000 pageviews
As you can see, the traffic on both of our blogs got big bumps from the election and then dropped back down afterwards. This isn't all that unusual or surprising; it works that way with everything. You wouldn't expect a championship football team's web page to pull as much traffic in the offseason as it did during the Super Bowl, right? You would expect the number of people reading a band's web page to go up when they released a new album and drop while they take a break from touring, right? It works the same way with politics. When there's a big event or an election, traffic goes up, then it drops after the event.
Whether it's political blogging, talk shows, Cable TV, you name it, there are highs and there are lows; you just have to keep plugging through them and building an audience slowly but surely over time. Conservative talk radio has done that and despite the temporary lull, it's not dying out or going away....Now Air America on the other hand? They MIGHT be gone in a year...
If The False Alarm Had Been Real, There Could Have Been A Lot Of Dead Reporters
Yesterday, W. was evacuated to the White House bunker after a false alarm:
President Bush was rushed to a secure underground White House bunker and Vice President Dick Cheney was whisked outside the compound Wednesday because of a ''radar anomaly'' -- perhaps a flock of birds or pocket of rain -- that was mistaken for a plane flying in restricted airspace."
This is of course the part of the news that everybody focuses on. However, there was another part that I found grimly amusing, although the press core probably won't be getting a lot of chuckles out of it:
Some White House staff members were evacuated from the West Wing. Tour groups were hustled out of the executive mansion and a park across the street from the White House was cleared.
Some parts of the compound, such as the area where the press is housed, were not notified of the threat or moved.
So there may be a plane heading for the White House and they get the President and the Veep to safety, they start getting the White House staff clear, they look out for the tour groups -- but the press? Screw those guys, they're on their own =D
In all seriousness, I guess they really couldn't notify the press because you know, 5 minutes later they'd all be on the air telling the world that they were live at the White House where the President has fled because of a possible terrorist attack! Meanwhile, if there actually were an airplane full of terrorists in the air and they heard that, they'd probably swing the plane around and head for a softer, unprepared, secondary target, which would put a lot more lives at risk.
The Bush Administration and the White House press core should discuss this and come up with some sort of gentleman's agreement to make sure that in the future, this sort of thing doesn't happen again. The White House is a target for terrorists and it could genuinely be under attack at any time. If that were to ever happen, it would be tragic if reporters were injured or killed because the White House couldn't trust them not to risk other lives by immediately blabbing what was happening on the air.
Abu Ghraib; One Year Later -- Satire By Liberal Larry
I watched Senator Kennedy's historic speech on C-SPAN yesterday morning in awed silence.
"...A man in dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes hooked to his body. Naked men simulating lewd acts on each other. Naked civilians being chased by dogs. Rape. Murder. Sexual deviance. Free balloons for the kids. Everyone's invited out to Martha's Vineyard this Saturday for a traditional Kennedy Family weekend. But now, on to more serious business - the one-year anniversary of the horrible atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib."
It took him eleven tries to pronounce "Abu Ghraib". He finally settled on something close to "Abba Bin Babba" and concluded his momentous speech by accidentally knocking his cocktail off the podium and staggering out of the room. I sat there staring at the TV for several moments, moved to tears by his effluvial oratory, before I was suddenly overcome by a wave of panic.
"Occupied Iraq?" "Deepest fall from grace in our history"? Good Goddess, the troops are going to think we're all bunch of slavering, America-hating moonbats! That drunken, yet factually correct imbecile is going to completely blow our cover! We'll never convince the murderous troops to desert now!
I had to do something and quick. I picked up the phone and called all my Support Our Murderous Troops buddies for an emergency meeting at my place. Together, we'd devise a way to repair the damage that Senator Kennedy had wrought and show our murderous troops there were no hard feelings. Several hours of discussion and about 40 bongs hits later, we decided to send a care package to a random murderous troop, along with letters of support and encouragement (although such support and encouragement must in no way be construed as support for Bush or his illegal and immoral war on terror).
This was no easy task. Many of us are still suffering from Post-Wedgie Stress Disorder, thanks to the very same bullying jocks who are now serving in Iraq. Some of our more sensitive members break into high-pitched, feminine shrieking at the mere mention of the troops. But once I had finally shrieked myself hoarse, it was decided that I would write one letter for all of us, and everyone else would sign their name to it provided they could stop trembling with fear long enough to grasp a pen.
After a few rough drafts, I produced a final version that everyone was happy with, one that expressed the love we have for the brave men and womyn fighting overseas, while effectively conveying our patriotic disgust for the job they are doing:
Dear Mindless Drone of the Military-Industrial Complex,
We the members of Support Our Murderous Troops would like to express our thanks for your courageous service, although it must in no way be construed as support for Bush or his illegal and immoral war on terror. Unlike the kneejerk jingoists who think that "patriotism" means slapping a yellow ribbon on the back of their SUV, Support Our Murderous Troops believes that the best way to show support for our murderous troops is to bring them home as quickly as possible, preferably with their tails tucked between their legs.
Today marks the one-year anniversary of the Abu Ghraib attrocities. You're probably already getting ready to torture a few innocents in celebration, but we're not here to judge you. Support Our Murderous Troops fully understands that low pay, the lack of basic armor and equipment, poor training, and general incompetence is a severe strain on your morale. With expressions of artistic freedom frowned upon, and consensual, same-sex relationships strongly discouraged if not expressly forbidden, the Pentagon has essentially denied you the means to relieve the everyday stress of battle. As a result, the primitive, neanderthal beserker bloodlust you developed in basic training has manifested itself into ghastly acts of brutal, inhuman aggression against the innocent Iraqi peoples, jeopardizing our standing in the international community as well as our crediblity with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is by no means your fault, but rather symptomatic of failed leadership at the highest level.
NO! It WAS your fault! I know it was you, Mike Jankowski! You're the one who snuck up behind me outside 4th Period English Lit and yanked my underwear all the way up over my head! Don't try to deny it, you fascist b@stard! You were a violent, aggressive cro-mag then and you are NOW!!!!!
In conclusion, the members of Support Our Murderous Troops pray in a completely non-proselytizing manner that you come home safe, although this prayer must in no way be construed as support for Bush or his illegal and immoral war on terror.
In the sincerest hopes that we can, in some way, boost your morale and assuage some of the guilt you must be feeling for all your crimes against humanity, we offer the enclosed items as a token of our undying gratitude:
A photo mosaic of Bush made from the faces of your dead buddies.
A signed copy of Jane Fonda's autobiography.
Some rainbow stickers for the back of your humvee.
A transcript of John Kerry's heroic Winter Soldier Testimony.
A G.I. Joe doll with a black hood over its head and electrodes attached to his body in a fashion reminiscent of Jingus Khan.
In addition, the three young womyn in our group asked to include some very special polaroids to "remind ya'll what you're fightin' for." So enclosed, please find several photographs of an oil derrick in Texas.
Chin up and goddess bless,
Support Our Murderous Troops
P.S. aforementioned "undying gratitude" must in no way be construed as support for Bush or his illegal and immoral war on terror.
We addressed the package to "Any Murderous Troop in Iraq", with the added disclaimer: "This care package must in no way be construed as support for Bush or his illegal and immoral war on terror" written in small print.
Unfortunately, it never made it to Iraq. I dropped the package off at the post office at 3 o'clock yesterday, and at 7 o'clock this morning the Postal Nazis were banging on my door, demanding to know why I was trying to send a half-wrapped bong to someone named "Abba Bin Babba".
D@MN THAT BUSH!
Satire used with the permission of Liberal Larry from BlameBush! You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Andrew Sullivan's writing has clearly veered from deep confusion and inconsistency into the fringes of moonbat territory:
"But in my darker moments, I wonder whether the war wasn't a cover to persuade good, open-minded folk like Glenn (Reynolds) to enable the theocratic impulses of the Republican base. Of course, Glenn can wait and see. Gay couples who have had basic rights taken away from them since November, might feel more aggrieved. -- Andrew Sullivan
The war was really about Republican "theocratic impulses?" Gay couples have had "basic rights taken away from them since November"? What?
Sullivan started intellectually collapsing sometime around the start of 2004 and it has been downhill ever since. His obsession with gay marriage was bad enough, but he's gotten to the point where he's seeing theocrats behind every tree, and getting furious with anyone who doesn't think the Pope's motto should be "If it feels good, do it!"
Sully is nothing but a still articulate parody of himself and if anyone hoped that he'd become coherent again after the election was over, they must be bitterly disapointed right now...
Quote Of The Day #2: Hey You Liberals, When's That Draft Supposed To Start Again?
“I think the only people who could conceivably be talking about a draft are people who are speaking from pinnacles of near-perfect ignorance." -– Donald Rumsfeld
"Here is the undeniable, irrefutable truth of the whole controversy over John Bolton's embattled nomination for the job as America's ambassador to the United Nations. If John Bolton had been the nicest, sweetest, let-me-help-you-with-your-groceries, you-can-sleep-on-my-couch, I'll-get-the-thorn-out-of-your-paw teddy bear to everybody he ever worked with or met, not a single Democratic senator on the Foreign Relations Committee would change his vote from "no" to "yes." And, if Bolton were an H.G. Wellsian lover of one-world government who believed that the United Nations was America's last best hope, all those "no" votes would switch to "yes" votes - even if it turned out that Bolton had a Skipper complex that compelled him to swat every wayward staffer in the head with his hat.
In other words, all of the "controversy" of the last couple weeks is bogus. It's a kabuki dance. Whether the allegations against Bolton are true or not is almost entirely beside the point, because if a completely unrelated set of facts were not in play, no one would care. In short, this is borking pure and simple." -- Jonah Goldberg
The Democratic Underground Vs. Laura Ingraham: The Elizabeth Edwards Edition
As many of you are no doubt aware, Laura Ingraham had surgery for breast cancer yesterday. Luckily, it sounds like everything went well and of course, I wish her a speedy recovery.
Someone called "nonews" also wished for Laura Ingraham to return to health....on the Democratic Underground Message Board. Doesn't seem like a wise idea, but who am I to judge?
One of the people who responded to the thread, believe it or not, was John Edwards wife, breast cancer survivor Elizabeth Edwards (Emphasis Mine):
ElizabethEdwards:"I have been a Democrat for a long time, and part of the Democratic principles that attracted me as a young person and kept me a Democrat all these years is our compassion. Democrats are simply good and decent people. And good and decent people want everyone to do well -- those who agree with them and those who do not. We fight for the right of voices with which we disagree to speak out, for the right of people to say things we don't believe to be true, even for the right to be malicious and mean-spirited. If we fight for the right for LI to say what she says, how in the world can we use our disagreement with those words as an excuse not to be compassionate in her fight with cancer. Being willing to have her voice muted by illness is the same thing as not wanting her voice to be heard. It is not Democratic or democratic.
I hope others will join me in wishing her Godspeed in this fight, for the easiest road that she can have, and even for the development of compassion about others who have faced hardship and disease without the support network she -- and I -- have. As I go through treatment for this same disease, I think often about the women who fight breast cancer without health insurance, without a supportive husband, with a physically demanding job that doesn't know or doesn't care that she is exhausted and weak and aching, with children but no child care. I find it absolutely impossible that LI won't also have those thoughts run through her head or that she won't rethink her position on health care or the social safety net. Pray for her health AND her enlightenment, if you must. But pray, with me, for her good health."
On the one hand, I think it's nice that Elizabeth Edwards wished Laura well, although I found her speculation about Laura now supporting socialized medicine and "the social safety net" now that she's gotten sick to be incredibly condescending.
On the other hand, is it not more than a bit disturbing to find the wife of a man who could have been Vice President hanging out in a moonbat pit like the Democratic Underground? Ya know, it sort of makes you wonder: is she wearing a tinfoil hat right now? Does she think Bush is Hitler? Is she loonier than Teresa Heinz Kerry, but just better at hiding it?
When I make fun of the Democratic Underground at RWN, usually I have angry liberals falling all over themselves in the comments section to claim that the DU Is full of lunactics and totally unrepresentative of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the wife of the man who could have been the Democratic VEEP apparently hangs out there. It's scary.
Anyway, because this thread has started getting some attention, the DU mods have cleaned out the most embarassing replies (something that appears to have become standard procedure for them over the last few months). In this case, 15 different comments were deleted. But here are a few that they decided to leave alone:
Ex_Catholic:"She Probably Gave it to Herself...All that Hate, Lies, Anger..."
TheDebbieDee:"I'm sure that in her case it's because of all the hate she carries....around - it must be eating her up! (No pun intended.)"
Marnieworld:"She's another Ann Coulter. David Brock wrote much about Ingrahm in "Blinded by the Right." She is part of everything evil in the GOP since the revolution in the late 80s. F*ck Laura Ingrahm. F*ck her."
warrens:"Me too, but I hope she goes bankrupt. And they take her house and slap a lien on all her future earnings to pay off all the medical bills. And I hope the doctor operating on her is one of the gay students she outed at Dartmouth and he remembers her and makes little jokes about scalpels slipping...you get the idea."
CO Liberal:"I'm Not Surprised. Judging by the amount of hatred she spews on a daily basis, I'm surprised her body has lasted THIS long."
Dawgs:"I hope she gets better, but I hope her career is ruined by this...She is scum."
*** Update #1 ***: For those of you wondering, yes, it is THE Elizabeth Edwards and she has posted at the DU before. See this interview where she admits to reading the DU, this post by her at the DU where she speaks to the "doubting Thomases," and finally this previous post by a DU admin who confirms it is the real Elizabeth Edwards posting at the Democratic Underground.
Quotes Of The Day: The Inaccuracy Of The New York Times
"The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one." -- New York Times
First of all, if Bush's claim that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq wasn't just wrong, if it was a lie, if it was "fictitious," then when will the Times uncover the vast conspiracy that must exist to explain why Democrats like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, & Ted Kennedy -- among many others with access to data from our intelligence agencies -- came to exactly the same conclusion about Saddam's WMDs?
While they're at it, perhaps they can explain this February 27, 2003 quote from their own editorial board which refutes the revisionist idea that Bush started talking about Democracy in Iraq only after the WMDs didn't turn up:
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ''free and peaceful Iraq''..."
In a recent column, William Raspberry worried about Fox news reducing people's confidence in the rest of the MSM and opined that:
" As a friend remarked recently, time was when if you found it in the New York Times, that settled the bar bet and the other guy paid off. But if the Times and The Post or any other mainstream news outlet -- including the major networks -- come to be seen as the left-of-center counterparts of Fox News Channel, why would anyone accept them as authoritative sources of truth?"
It isn't Fox News that's killing the credibility of papers like the Times, it's the liberal bias and dishonest spin -- that you see day in and day out in the Times and all around the MSM -- that has and will continue to undermine the public's trust in their accuracy.
Hat tip to Instapundit for the New York Times quotes.
I was pleased to get an opportunity to do a phone interview with Byron York, a columnist at National Review & author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. We discussed a number of topics including Air America, Michael Moore, soft money, and a George Bush run theocracy =D
Do Drooping Poll Numbers Mean There's A Revolt Brewing?
Liberal E. J. Dionne Jr. has noticed the drop in Bush's approval ratings and is optimistically predicting a "Revolt of the Middle"against the Republican Party...
"But something important has happened since President Bush's inauguration. America's moderates may not be screaming, but they're in revolt. Many who reluctantly supported the president and the Republicans in 2004 are turning away. The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand. Worse for Bush and his party, most moderates have a practical, problem-solving view of government and think these issues are far less important than shoring up a shaky economy and improving living standards.
The moderates have rebelled before. This period in American politics is beginning to take on the contours of the years leading up to the 1992 election. That's when Ross Perot led an uprising of the angry middle and Bill Clinton waged war on the "brain-dead politics of both parties." Bush's decision to read the 2004 election as a broad mandate for whatever policies he chose to put forward now looks like a major mistake. In fact, Bush won narrowly in 2004, and he won almost entirely because just enough middle-of-the-road voters decided they trusted him more than they did John Kerry to deal with terrorism.
The latest poll to bring home this message was released late last week by the Democracy Corps, a Democratic consortium led by pollster Stan Greenberg and consultant James Carville. Greenberg and Carville are not triumphalist. They are careful to note that "Democrats are not yet integral to the narrative" of American politics and that the decline in the Republicans' public image "is not accompanied by image gains for the Democrats." Democrats still have a lot of work to do.
When they were asked how they would vote if a congressional election were held now, Democrats led by 43 percent to 25 percent among independents, and by 57 percent to 31 percent among moderates. In 2004, according to the network exit polls, Kerry beat Bush by only one point among independents and by nine points among moderates."
The biggest (but not the only reason) George Bush's numbers have dropped is -- counterintuitively -- because of the wildly successful election in Iraq.
The primary issue George Bush and John Kerry duked it out on in 2004 was foreign policy and the Iraqi war. Bush was telling the American people to stay the course while Kerry -- although his position on the war was all over the place -- consistently argued that Iraq was about to implode, that elections should be postponed, and that Bush was screwing things up royally.
Then a funny thing happened: the Iraqi election in late January went really well -- so well in fact that I believe that it settled the issue of Iraq in the American people's minds. That's not to say that everyone agrees with Bush's policy, far from it, but it reassured the public that Bush had a pretty good handle on what was going on.
From that point on, Iraq started to drop off the radar screen and domestic issues -- where Bush's poll numbers were weaker all along -- came back to the forefront.
And what's happening on the domestic front? High gas prices are irritating the public and Bush has been pushing an unpopular Social Security plan that doesn't seem to be going anywhere for months now.
Meanwhile, the conservative base's anger at Bush & the Washington GOP crowd over the deficits, illegal immigration, and their wimpiness over judges has come back to the forefront now that foreign policy and a desire to beat Senator Flip-Flop isn't binding the Republican coalition strongly together anymore.
Basically, there's just a lot of dissatisfaction out there. Democrats don't like the fact that Republicans are running the show, Republicans are angry that the GOP isn't acting conservatively enough for their tastes, and everybody else is just sick of the squabbling.
That being said, the Democrats haven't come up with any hot new ideas to take advantage of the summer doldrums and if and when gas prices drop and Bush gets off of Social Security, I expect that you'll see his numbers (and those of Congress) start to go back up. Furthermore, if the GOP pulls the trigger on the nuclear option and the Democrats actually throw a hissy fit that lasts a few months as expected, it's likely their poll ratings will sink like they're caught in the La Brea Tar Pits.
So I wouldn't start looking for the "Revolt of the Middle" just yet or anytime soon for that matter. Of course, that's not to say Republicans have nothing to worry about. Do keep in mind that when the American people are generally displeased with how things are going, they tend to take it out on the Party in power. Bush and Congress would be well advised to take note of that fact and take action especially on issues like illegal immigration, border security, deficit spending, gas prices (if at all possible), and judges (for the base)...
Friday, in the midst of a heated lefty-dominated conversation regarding -- what else -- the "non-mythical" status of global warming and how Bush & Co. are destroying the earth, the part of me that just can't shut up happened to win the mental tug-of-war and blurted,
"I suppose now would be a bad time to mention that I emptied my ashtray out the window on the 405, while pushing my 20-year-old sports car up to 90 MPH..."
The lefties laughed.
"No, no no. Don't laugh. I'm not kidding."
This type of right-wing honesty is something far too subtle and nuanced for a liberal to understand.
We on the right DO want to destroy the earth -- who's pretending not to have an orgasm over one melting glacier? Raise your hand. It's okay, this is a private forum.
The amusing thing is, liberals constantly want to debate us on our utter disgust for the ground we inhabit.
Lefty: You right wing nuts hate the earth! Righty: Pretty much. Lefty: Why do you pretend not to be controlled by big oil? Righty: Hey, just the other day I used a Halliburton stock certificate as a cocktail napkin.... Lefty: Bush & Co. want to rape our earth! They want to abort civilization. Tell me I am wrong. Righty: You are exactly right. Lefty: So you won't admit you want to destroy our environment? Righty: I refuse to say that I don't want to destroy your environment. Lefty: Righty: The Earth's destruction is a priority, mainly because we have these little parasitic clumps of cells called liberals living in these horrible places called blue states. Lefty:
I'm not a believer in god -- because if he existed, each time I typed -- somewhere in Amerika a hippie would die a little inside. At the very least, a little fuzzy creature would kick it. Either one would make a fabulous furry shawl.
This satire was used with the permission of the blogosphere's hottest woman, Moxie.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I LOVE TAXES! April 15th is like Christmas for Progressives, and I look forward to it every year. I admit that I sometimes become mildly miffed that my paychecks keep getting smaller and smaller, but I'm fully cognizant that it's because the wealthiest Americans refuse to pay my fair share. Unlike greedy conservatives who cling to the fruits of their labor as if they actually "earned" them, I'm also mature enough to know that in a functioning society, confiscatory taxation is necessary in order to fund social services for the poor and vulnerable. People like little Julio, the blind, double-amputee child from Costa Rica who earns minimum wage working as a foot stool for a wealthy Republican banker. Or little Ashley, the blind, quadraplegic grandmother who spends her days slithering around the railroad tracks for discarded pop cans. While selfish conservatives would prefer we abandon poor Julio and Ashley for the sake of a few extra pennies in their paychecks, we must not let the fact that neither of these individuals exist harden our hearts to their suffering. Military spending notwithstanding, every tax that a benevolent state places on it's people is for their own good. Simply put, taxation is a beautiful expression of a mother's love for her children.
With Washington democrats controlling both branches of the state legislature and the governor's mansion, they've been spreading the love like its going out of style. And there are so many ways to say "I Love You".
We have a wonderful new tax on SPAM, for instance. I recall with great fondness my financially lean college years, when many a Friday night would be spent alone in my dorm room, nibbling on slices of SPAM pressed between two saltine crackers. I remember thinking as I licked the thick, gelatinous, SPAM goo off my fingers, "Gosh, the only way life could be any better would be if this crap cost nine bucks a can." Besides, we had such a bumper crop of SPAM this year, there's no reason not to share a little bit of the wealth to help the poor, blind, inner-city children from which SPAM is made.
We were also just treated to a 10 cent gas tax hike to pay for road repairs they'll never make and a choo-choo train no one will ride. Republicans are of course complaining, as they always do. They don't mind the money we spend on gas going into the pockets of their Big Oil Buddies, but they throw a complete hissy if we keep a few measly pennies here at home so the poor, inner-city children of union bosses don't have to subsist on SPAM to survive.
A new tax on botox injections and cosmetic surgery probably wouldn't pass in Massachusetts or California, but it's gaining ground here in the Evergreen State where the funds could be used to help - of all people - poor, inner-city children. In the past couple of weeks, there have been almost as many complaints as there have been new taxes, but as long as there are exemptions for gender modification, I think its a great idea.
Gov. Christine Gregoire, who was reluctant to bless us with new taxes during her campaign, has promised to raise and reinstate some of the old taxes instead, so it'll seem like we're being anally raped by old friends. She has also proposed to close the dreaded Estate Tax Loophole, which has allowed untold rich people to use death as an excuse to avoid paying my fair share.
There's also a new tax on extended computer warranties, which I can't explain but I'm sure will go to help the poor, inner city children who so desperately need it.
All these taxes make me as giddy as a little girl, but my favorite revenue enhancer of all is the Sin Tax, because it perfectly illustrates the state's superiority over the church as the interpreter of morality. Indeed, whereas God and the Bible are hazy and ambiguous in regards to the definition of "sin", Our Loving Mother in Olympia sends a clear message through the use of taxation that activities such as smoking, gambling, drinking, and eating SPAM are unacceptable. Adultery and abortion, however, are not taxed and therefore aren't official "sins". And while the church demands you ask forgiveness for your sins and then "sin no more", the state encourages you to go right on sinning, for the funds from sin taxes go to help the poor, inner-city blind children and their quadruple amputee grandmothers. By turning an evil act into a good deed, the state effectively absolves you of the sin while you're in the very commission of it! Try to get a deal like that from Pope Hitler.
By the way, the state liquor stores will now be open on Sundays so be sure to stop by and pick up a bottle of Jack on your way home from Church. Do it for the poor, inner-city, blind children.
Satire used with the permission of Liberal Larry from BlameBush! You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Business Week wrote an article predicting a corporate takeover of blogs. Here are a couple of quotes from the piece:
"A prediction: Mainstream media companies will master blogs as an advertising tool and take over vast commercial stretches of the blogosphere.... Take a look at blog advertising today, and it's hard to see a glittering future. Sure, enterprising bloggers make room on their pages for Google-generated ads, known as AdSense, and earn some pocket change.
...Still, blogs could end up providing the perfect response to mass media's core concern: the splintering of its audience. Advertisers desperate to reach us need to tap niches (because we get together only once a year to watch the Super Bowl). By piggybacking on blogs, they can start working that vast blogocafé, table by table. Smart ones will get feedback, links to individuals -- and their friends. That's every marketer's dream.
...The big companies have what the bloggers lack. Scale, relations with advertisers, and large sales forces. They can use these forces to sell across all media, from general audience to bloggy niches."
Henry Copeland, the genius behind blogads, the guy who made blogging profitable (I'd unhesitatingly recommend blogads, which I use at RWN, to any blogger), strongly disagrees with Business Week.
"Umm. Guys? A number of indie bloggers already make more each month than you make. And their year-over-year growth trajectory is a lot greater than yours. And they don't have to worry what the boss thinks. And they've each got a brand name people adore. And they've got the lowest overheads in the publishing industry. Who do people want to work for -- your failing industry, or themselves?
Allow me a prediction: indie bloggers are going to kick corporate @ss."
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Henry here. It would be pretty easy for corporate America to take over "vast commercial stretches of the blogosphere" and eventually I expect it to happen.
Here's how it could play out:
Let's say Fox decides to get into the blogging game in a big way but they realize that most big name pundits who have gotten into the blogging haven't necessarily done very well with it (Of course, there are certain exceptions). When you think about it, that's understandable. If you're someone like Bill O'Reilly, do you have time to do your top rated television show, your radio show, write books, do speaking appearances, and run a blog that requires multiple updates per day? Probably not.
So what does Fox do?
Here's a concept: go to 20 conservative bloggers with audiences ranging let's say from 2500 readers a day to 20,000 readers a day and offer them a two year contract for a job with "FoxBlogs" -- 20 blogs set up off the main Fox webpage.
Let's say they offer a salary between $25,000-$40,000 a year, health care, vacations, the works -- plus, no restrictions on content & on staff web designers to handle any problems. How many bloggers would take that deal? Probably a lot of us, because that's the dream many of us have: to live off of our writing.
So let's say Fox has now committed 750k a year to get 20 bloggers who bring, let's say, 150,000 - 200,000 readers to the table initially.
Then Fox really gets to work.
They add links to these bloggers from their website, they cycle them into the guest lists on Fox, they get them slots on Hannity & O'Reilly's radio show. Give it a year or so and the same 20 bloggers who were pulling in 200,000 or less readers per day could be doing 1-2 million sets of eyeballs per day. If you can have 2 million readers after 1 year, are 3-4 plausible for year two? Sure. 5-8 million year three? Sure.
Think that's too much of a stretch? I don't think so. After watching how much success Nick Denton has had promoting blogs like Gawker & Wonkette, I've come to the conclusion that a moderately talented blogger can become a big name in a hurry based on little more than marketing.
Fox has a much bigger megaphone and much deeper pockets than Denton. When it comes to promoting blogs, they would be on a whole different level. If they chose to take 20 blogs and really focus on them for a year, 500-1000%+ growth over the course of the first 12 months is entirely possible.
Then if Fox succeeded, you might see CNN do the same thing with liberal blogs. Then Microsoft might try something similar with tech blogs, etc., etc., etc.
When all was said and done, you'd end up with a few really big independent blogs and everybody else with any kind of audience at all working for corporations. The rest of the blogosphere would be reduced to sort of a "farm team." You go out, you prove yourself by building an audience, and one of the big corporate blogs snaps you up and gives you a salary.
Again, this might seem like a stretch. But keep in mind, you could probably capture 80%+ of the audience of the entire blogosphere (left, right, tech, personal, you name it) by snatching up a few hundred key blogs and money is no problem for the big boys.
The only thing stopping the corporations from taking over the blogosphere is that the corporations haven't decided to do it...yet.
A college professor teaching a wacky course? How could it happen here -- here in "Police State USA:"
"The classroom where North Carolina Wesleyan College's only political science professor is teaching a course titled "9/11; The Road to Tyranny" has become the latest battlefront in the ongoing campus culture war.
On Tuesday, the six students enrolled in the elective course taught by Jane T. Christensen were to attend the course's final session: "Police State USA (Where Do We Go From Here?)"
Christensen's course has conservatives raging against campuses loaded with unaccountable liberals. The president of N.C. Wesleyan, a school of 1,800 students 50 miles east of Raleigh in Rocky Mount, is defending her right to academic freedom.
"Slander and anti-Semitism are permitted by a bigot posing as a scholar," Mike Adams, a criminal justice professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, wrote in an online critique on Frontpagemag.com.
...One text required in Christensen's 9/11 course holds that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States were orchestrated and carried out by U.S. government elites. The course teaches that the official story about Sept. 11 is the result of "government involvement in the cover-up."
The attacks were used by neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, acting on behalf of pro-Israel Zionists, as "a catalyst for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the attack on civil liberties in the United States," according to the course's syllabus.
"I teach the truth about 9/11 in all of my courses," said Christensen, who also teaches classes on research methods and the American political system.
...Ian Newbould, N.C. Wesleyan's president, defended Christensen in an interview.
"We don't tell professors what to think. We don't tell professors what to teach. The Eastern European Communist regimes, or Saddam Hussein for that matter, that's what they did," Newbould said Monday. "What makes America great is we don't do that. I've often used a quotation that they say comes from Voltaire, 'I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to your death your right to say it.'"
A year ago, Newbould participated in a panel discussion at a convention of independent college administrators about whether college presidents should express personal opinions on controversial national issues. He said presidents should stay in the background, while providing opportunities for campus discussion."
Now, there's no need to blow this out of proportion since we're talking about a class with 6 students in it at a university most people have never even heard of. But, it's still a great example of how ridiculously all-encompassing the concept of academic freedom has become at colleges in 2005.
Here we have a course that features bizarro-world conspiracy theories and sounds like it's being taught by a lunatic. The title of the course's final session is practically self-refuting. If it's really "Police State USA" then why hasn't Christensen been dragged off to a gulag already? Isn't that what police states tend to do when people complain about how things are run publicly?
But what do we hear from Ian Newbould, N.C. Wesleyan's president:
"We don't tell professors what to think. We don't tell professors what to teach. The Eastern European Communist regimes, or Saddam Hussein for that matter, that's what they did. What makes America great is we don't do that."
This is like reading one of the cockeyed Hitler comparisons that you come across on the internet so often:
"Well, ya know. Bush fought wars and Hitler fought wars. Plus, did you know Nazis were patriotic, just like Americans are? Therefore, Bush is Hitler and America is Nazi Germany!"
Nobody is asking universities to actually make professors read every word off of some script prepared by Commie bureaucrats at the "Central Planning Office." But, is it too much to ask that the teachers be sane? Does that make us like Saddam Hussein, too?
Every time something like this happens, we get lectured about academic freedom & about the responsibility of the University to make sure that the teachers' views aren't unfairly squelched.
The problem is that the concept of academic freedom isn't being weighed against the fact that there are young, easily-influenced students, paying the university to get an education, and they're not being well-served by being taught this sort of garbage. Why isn't the education of the students -- which should be the number one job at a university -- being treated as if it's as important as the right of professors to get paid to profligate nutball theories to students? The priorities at a lot of universities in this country, not just North Carolina Wesleyan College, are out of whack...
Look for the next update around 6 PM EST today -- roughly. I'm going to be tied up until then.
*** Update #1 ***: First of all, all of you readers in my comments section are pervs. Like I'd let some chick tie me up...yeah, right. I mean look, I think Ann Coulter is hot, but would you want to be tied up and at her mercy? But, I guess if on the other hand that was the only thing that worked for her...if it was be tied up or hit the road, you know, what are you gonna do? I am a guy.
Then there's Jennifer Anniston. What single guy would be like, "Hey Jennifer, I know that's what you like, but no way. Get lost, honey."
Anyway, all the people who brought that up? Freaks, they're all freaks I tell you =D
Senate Democrats have made a sudden shift in tactics over judicial filibusters. It is no coincidence that just as it is reported that Republicans have the votes to ban judicial filibusters that the Democrats suddenly want to compromise.
As we reported earlier, David Broder suggest a "compromise" in his column in the Washington Post: all seven of Bush's nominees get up-or-down votes, but Bush has to promise not to make any recess appointments.
Joe Biden proposed a "compromise" on ABC's "This Week," that the Senate Democrats would allow five out of the seven judges Bush re-nominated to get up-or-down votes.
Harry Reid is also talking "compromise." He proposes that only two of Bush's nominees are given votes, in exchange for the Republicans to drop threats of banning judicial filibusters.
All of these so-called compromises are bad. From Broder's column (likely to be the source of the compromise idea to the Senate Democrats), to Biden, to Reid, we go from all seven, to five, to just two.
They are offering to compromise because they know they are going to lose. Bush can get all of his nominees to have their up-or-down votes without any compromise. Biden and Reid have not offered any real compromises. They want the Republicans to give up on banning the judicial filibuster, in exchange for a small number of judges... Why?
They want this compromise to leave them the opportunity to block any judge Bush might nominate to the Supreme Court. Reid and Biden never said they'd stop threatening to filibuster other nominees by President Bush. They want to give him two, or five of his nominees, dump the rest, get the Republicans to drop attempts to ban the judicial filibuster, all the while they still can use the filibuster on any other judge Bush might nominate through the rest of his second term?
Not going to happen.
We've got the Democrats cornered. We can get all of Bush's nominees—the ones in limbo right now and all future ones, including a nominee for the Supreme Court—without agreeing to the Democrats lousy compromises.
This content was used with the permission of Blogs For Bush.
The Top Ten Signs Your Nominee For The U.N. Ambassador May Have An Anger Problem -- Satire By Frank J.
There has been lots of charges of John Bolton having an anger problem. This is quite common, and I came up with a list to tell whether your nominee for the U.N. ambasador has an anger problem. Luckily enough, the items are ten in number.
TOP TEN SIGNS YOUR NOMINEE FOR THE U.N. AMBASSADOR MAY HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM
10. Upon his employment, there was a simultaneous increase in drywall repair and employee leave because of concussions.
9. Notch on his desk for every time he sent someone running out his office crying.
8. When he quickly raises his hand to scratch his temple, everyone in the office ducks and covers.
7. Has a slasher movie loosely based on his office conduct.
6. Chooses his office chair based on how easy it is to throw.
5. A disgruntled employee with an AK-47 was scared away when he saw your U.N. nominee berating a subordinate for improper stapling.
4. Has been known on bad days to walk around with a live grenade missing a pin in one hand.
3. Every time there is a paper jam, he smashes the laser printer against the copier.
2. Has never fired anyone, but has numerous former employees the police are still searching for.
And the number one sign your nominee for the U.N. ambassador may have an anger problem...
1. On rare, super-angry occasions, will stare someone down with his hands on his hips.
This content was used with the permission of Frank J. from IMAO. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
The Collapse Of The Soviet Union Was Anything But A Tragedy
This must be very reassuring to all of the former satellite states of the USSR that spent the entire war pinned to the ground under the iron boot of the "Evil Empire:"
"Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" and had fostered separatist movements inside Russia.
In his annual state of the nation address to parliament and the country's top political leaders, Putin said the Soviet collapse was "a genuine tragedy" for Russians.
"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," Putin said. "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."
Listening to Putin call the demise of the Soviet Union a "geopolitical catastrophe" would be like listening to Gerhard Schroeder talk about Lebensraum and Germany's "historic claim" on the Sudetenland. Maybe the sort of rhetoric Putin was offering up is what passes for political pandering in Russia, but it's still creepy...
"I’m torn on “going nuclear.” I totally agree with John that, morally and intellectually, it’s the right thing to do. The president, no matter who he is or what party he is from, has the power, as specified in the Constitution, to appoint judges. Barring some gross level of incompetence, the president should get his choice. The judges Bush has nominated so far are perfectly qualified for their respective posts, and the only reason the Democrats are going insane over this is because their paymasters in the abortion, trade union, and trial lawyer professions have so much at stake.
That being said, I don’t think I can support going nuclear because there will undoubtedly come a time at some point in the future, when President Hillary and the Democratic Senate are going to appoint some real commie @sshole to the SCOTUS, and the filibuster might be the only option the GOP has for keeping them off the bench. It’s definitely a point of concern, and not something that should be brushed off lightly. If the GOP assumes this power for itself now, are they prepared for the consequences of the Democrats having it at some point down the road?"
From what I've seen around the blogosphere, Lee's objection is probably the one most often cited by conservatives opposed to the nuclear option.
Certainly, I can understand where Lee and other conservatives who worry about that are coming from, but I'm not troubled by this facet of the issue. Let me tell you why:
First of all, since Lee mentioned the Supreme Court, it's important to remember the stakes we're playing for here. Judge Rehnquist is one of the "real" conservatives on the Scotus and as we all know, he's in poor health. Should he step down with the unconstitutional judicial filibuster still in place, we could be in a situation where the court could become MORE ACTIVIST AND LESS CONSERVATIVE despite the fact that we have a Republican President and 55 Republican Senators. This isn't just about judges like Miguel Estrada & Priscilla Owen being unfairly treated -- although they both deserve up and down votes and I would be pleased to have either of them on the Supreme Court (Estrada would personally be my first choice). This is about whether Rehnquist is going to be replaced with a judge like Antonin Scalia or a judge like Anthony Kennedy and, make no mistake about it, this is a choice that could have a huge impact on our country for DECADES.
I'm just saying keep in mind that the importance of who gets on the Supreme Court almost cannot be overstated.
Now, let me hit what I believe are three mistaken assumptions that many conservatives make about the nuclear option.
#1) That the Democrats will get "really liberal" judges in without a Republican filibuster. The problem with this is that the Democrats have had no problem getting "really liberal" judges approved as it is.
For example, what's the difference between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and -- let's say -- Ted Kennedy, supposed to be? They're both liberals, they both believe in a living constitution, & they both believe in making rulings based on their liberal ideology and then calling it constitutional law. In other words, if you tell me that without the filibuster being around, liberal judges would get even worse than they were during the Clinton years, I don't believe it.
#2) That Republican Senators would filibuster Democratic judges. Let's say a nightmare scenario for Republicans occurs and in 2008, we get President Hillary Clinton and 55 Democrats in the Senate. That means that the only way Republicans can stop...I don't know, let's say Nancy Pelosi just for the heck of it -- from becoming the next Supreme Court Justice is the filibuster.
Well, you have two problem groups of Republicans.
The first is the large group of spineless, wimpy Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, & John McCain whose knees buckle at the faintest whiff of controversy. Any and/or all of these Senators are as likely as not to vote with Democrats on any big issue.
But then, you have an even bigger problem group: principled Republicans who've been telling anybody who'll listen that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional. I don't know how many of them there will be, but there will certainly be a block of GOP Senators who will oppose any Republican filibuster of a Democratic nominee. That's certainly how I feel about it. If we have a Democratic nominee in 2008, you can count on me to be opposed to a Republican filibuster of their judges based solely on constitutional grounds. If it's unconstitutional today, it's going to be just as unconstitutional in 2008.
Between these two groups of Republicans, my guess is that there won't be any filibusters of Democratic judges. But even if there are....
#3) Don't believe the Democrats would be as benevolent when they're in charge. Whether the GOP pulls the trigger on the nuclear option or not has no bearing on whether the Democrats will do so when they take over again. As I explained in #2, I doubt if the Democrats will ever need to stop filibusters to get their judges through (1968 is debatably the only time the GOP has ever filibustered a judge), but if they do, they have proven to be much more disciplined and ruthless than their Senate counterparts in the GOP, particularly when it comes to judges. So if we're being honest here, we have to admit that it's entirely possible that the Democrats will use the "nuclear option" if they have need of it.
What it comes down to here is that the judicial filibuster isn't equally useful to both parties today nor will it be in the future. The judicial filibuster is an unconstitutional tactic that runs counter to more than 200 years of Senate tradition and primarily benefits the Democratic Party. The Republicans need to step up and stop giving the minority party in the Senate the final word on which judges are allowed to be confirmed.
More Evidence Against Bolton -- Satire By Are You Conservative?
Democrats would probably be more supportive of Mr. Bolton's nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations if, in the above cartoon, Mr. Bolton:
A) Was chasing Tom DeLay.
B) Was chasing Pope Benedict XVI.
C) Was clutching a fistful of oil-for-food vouchers.
D) Was trying to catch the woman so he could remove her feeding tube.
E) Didn't have any pants on.
F) Any, or all, of the above.
Perhaps you're wondering what the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville WV wants to do with $3,638,000 of your hard-earned tax dollars. Maybe you want to know why animal waste management in Bowling Green KY costs the federal government $2,300,000. (What are those animals eating -- too much of that Appalachian Fruit?) Possibly you just want to know why $100,000 of the money you send to the IRS is going to teach Iowans who want to plant trees in the Trees Forever Program about the injuries snow can do to those trees. I'm more concerned with the damage pork-barrel projects like these are doing to my budget. I'm afraid to say that out loud, however... someone might convince a politician to give him my tax money to study it.
The bottomless money trough in Washington DC is as full to the brim as ever, and so the Citizens Against Government Waste have released the 2005 edition of The Pig Book. Its pages detail all the myriad ways in which excess tax revenue is being misspent, in excruciating detail. Your tax dollars and mine are going to fund projects like Washington State's $250,000 appropriation for "asparagus technology." Is high-tech asparagus your cup of tea? Other examples of blatant waste are $11,450,000 for a Louisiana waterway that carries 0.1% of the nation's water traffic -- while getting 3.4% of all waterway funding -- and $3,973,000 for a multi-state research project on shrimp aquaculture which, according to the USDA, has already met its original objectives... scheduled to be completed in 1987.
Did you know that you donated $70,000 for the Paper Industry Hall of Fame in Appleton WI? Were you aware that you paid $25,000 to the Clark County School District of Nevada so that the students can study mariachi music? Do you like golf enough to pay $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation in Los Alamitos CA? Woods probably makes that much in a relaxing afternoon while playing a game -- can't he fund his own foundation? Were you asked whether you wanted to give $775,000 to the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables FL, which charges customers $350 per night? On the Biltmore's website, taxpayers can see where their money is going. "Coming Spring of 2005, The Biltmore will introduce a brand new, 12,000 sq. ft. destination Spa on the seventh floor of the hotel. Featuring spectacular views of surrounding Coral Gables, the Biltmore Spa will offer a luxurious and sophisticated setting for state-of-the-art treatments and services." Your tax dollars at work! As far as I'm concerned, all this pork spending is a load of fertiliser. If only I could get some of the $1,700,000 you gave to Alaska's International Fertiliser Development Center for saying so.
How often do we hear Democrats crying that tax cuts hurt vital programs like education and Medicare? As long as politicians can spend taxpayer money on bloated pork projects, there's certainly no shortage of money in Washington DC -- and don't let anyone tell you differently. Why don't tax cuts come out of the trough first? No politician from any major party would vote to stop pork altogether -- that's how they buy votes from special interests, and garner good publicity in local papers back home to influence swing voters. No politician is immune -- the top state for pork-barrel projects in 2005 is Alaska, the Republican Senator of which (Ted Stevens) is also the Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman.
It seems there are only two ways to slow down the mad rush to spend all that excess tax money politicians control. A line-item veto would allow a single person -- the President -- to be held accountable for passing pork project costs on to the taxpayers. Not many Presidents would risk falling poll numbers to buy new buses for Disneyland transportation, as one California pork project does with $300,000 of your money.
In 1996, Congress passed the line-item veto, President Clinton used 82 times alone. However, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the line-item veto was unconstitutional in 1998, putting pork back on the menu. Senator Bobby Byrd (D-WV) called the decision, "a great day for the US Constitution." Senator Byrd was named "The King of Pork" in honor of his "fiscal incontinence" by the CAGW in 1999, when he became the first Senator to amass a billion dollars in pork-barrel funding. Byrd has earned a lifetime rating of 17 from the CAGW, on a scale where 0 is considered hostile to taxpayers and 100 labels one a "Taxpayer Hero." As of last year, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) tied for the dubious honor of "most taxpayer-hostile Senator," each with a lifetime rating of 7.
The best way, however, to stop the politicians from picking your pocket to buy votes in their home states is: more tax cuts! If they don't have your money in the first place, they can't waste it. And DC politicians obviously have too much money for their own good... or yours.
Content used with permission of CavalierX from Guardian Watchblog. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Excerpt Of The Day: The Incredible, Shrinking Old Media
The circulation of daily U.S. newspapers is 55.2 million, down from 62.3 million in 1990. The percentages of adults who say they read a paper "yesterday" are ominous:
• 65 and older -- 60 percent
• 50-64 -- 52 percent
• 30-49 -- 39 percent
• 18-29 -- 23 percent.
Americans ages 8 to 18 spend an average of six hours and 21 minutes a day with media of all sorts, but just 43 minutes with print media.
The combined viewership of the network evening newscasts is 28.8 million, down from 52.1 million in 1980. The median age of viewers is 60. Hence the sponsorship of news programming by Metamucil and Fixodent. Perhaps we are entering what David T.Z. Mindich, formerly of CNN, calls "a post-journalism age."
Writing in The Wilson Quarterly, in a section on "the collapse of big media," he rejects the opinion of a CBS official that "time is on our side in that as you get older, you tend to get more interested in the world around you." Mindich cites research showing that "a particular age cohort's reading habits do not change much with time."
Baby boomers who became adults in the 1970s consume less journalism than their parents did. And although in 1972 nearly half of those 18 to 22 read a newspaper every day, now less than a quarter do. In 1972 nearly three-quarters of those 34 to 37 read a paper daily; now only about a third do. This means, Mindich says, "fewer kids are growing up in households in which newspapers matter." -- George Will
On Friday, I posted on the Michele Catalano interview done by the Citizen Journalist Report radio show. Here's a short description of what happened from my previous post:
...Jeff & Bill really bent over backwards to pick a fight with her. Just about every question was goofball sarcasm.
... (Then) Michele went INSANE. I'm talking about a TOTAL MELTDOWN right there on the air. She goes on this wild rant, every third or fourth word she says is bleeped, and then says something about Bill's "Jew partner" and hung up."
There was some debate in the blogosphere over whether the interview was fake or not because it was recorded in advance and because Michele read her opening statement, but I didn't seriously consider that they faked it for several reasons.
Michele has a temper and I seem to remember Bill and her getting into a nasty little public "blog kerfluffle" a while back, so the idea of Bill asking irritating questions to her and Michele going nuts on the air definitely seemed plausible. Plus, none of it was funny (although Michele flipping out was certainly entertaining) and all three of them were publicly denying that it was faked:
---
Michele Catalano: "According to witnesses, I either a) have no sense of humor; b) am a good actress or c) was completely ambushed in the interview. Or all of the above.
And yes, it was pre-taped, but only because I was on the road at 3:30 today. It wasn't rehearsed, I promise you that."
---
Michele Catalano: "Had I known it was ambush radio, I would have declined the invite.
Like I said, the show was TWO D*CKS and a chick."
---
(From An Anonymous Poster):"Will everyone who cannot tell that all three of them are reading off of a script please raise their hand(s)."
Bill from INDC:"Actually anonymous, there was no script, unless by "script" you mean, "reading an outline of interview questions that are written down." This is standard procedure, in many interviews, I assure you."
(Reply from An Anonymous Poster):"Bill from INDC if you're trying to say that Michelle wasn't reading that run-on sentence after her introduction then you're making an @ss out of yourself. No surprise.
And if you're trying to say that the whole scenario wasn't planned ahead of time you're making a big @ss out of yourself."
Response by Bill from INDC:"My Gosh anon - you're really so dumb that you couldn't grasp the format? Can't you get NPR reception with your head up your @ss?"
---
Jeff G:"Well, anonymous, we've done this segment 3 times, and each time, the guest is introduced and reads an opening piece -- ala an NPR "report". Val Prieto did it last week; this week, Michele read an abstract from a longer blog piece. So in that sense it was "scripted," though Michele wrote her own "script" to read.
Beyond that, no script. And no rehearsal."
---
Well, I happened to see Michele Catalano online and checked to make sure that I didn't hit her too hard in my post. Well, after we talked a bit, I asked her just for the heck of it if the interview was fake. Michele gave me a couple of cutesy replies and after I pressed her on it a bit, she denied that she faked it (Of course, when I went back and looked at the transcript, it was more of a "non-denial" denial than I had realized at the time. In other words, she tried to give me the impression that it was real, but she didn't specifically say that).
Shortly after I finished talking to Michele, Bill from INDC Journal & Jeff from Protein Wisdom, asked me to come into a chat with both of them. In the chat was also someone they claimed was from RightTalk (an advertiser of mine that hosts their show), although I have no way of verifying that person's identity.
Apparently, Jeff & Bill took note of my response to My Pet Jawa saying Michele was "in on it" (From the comments section of the other post):
"Nah, I don't think so. Her opening spiel was read, but the rest of it didn't sound staged.
Besides, Michele and Jeff are openly denying that it was staged and I don't think they'd run that sort of hoax. You make something like that up once and your reputation is tarnished forever..."
After reading that, I'm guessing they decided to contact me and they verified right off the bat that it was a fake interview.
Apparently, it was supposed to be some sort of humor bit, which they say they do every show. However, I've heard them do interviews with Glen Reynolds, Jeralyn Merritt, Michelle Malkin, & John Cole and those were all straight interviews maybe with a couple of quips tossed in for fun (Incidentally, they were also pretty good). So, it never occurred to me that they would have another blogger on to do a fake interview.
Furthermore, even now, I really don't get the idea of running a "humor" interview that's not funny, with no warnings that it's satire, and then denying that it's fake when people speculate otherwise.
Jeff at least runs an oddball humor blog. Bill runs a serious blog that was actually an important player in the early part of the memogate scandal. Is running a hoax like this something that really mixes well with meaningful journalism?
Anyway, we discussed all this for something like 30 minutes and to be honest, they totally did not seem to get what I was saying and vice versa. Eventually, I told them I was going to post on this, Jeff kept incessantly asking me to be on the show despite the fact that I told him over and over I wasn't interested and the chat got rather unpleasant -- from the transcript (IM names changed):
Jeff: We can modulate your voice, JOhn Bill: lol Jeff: If it's high and squeaky, like a mouse's? Jeff: Can't we Liz? Jeff: Butch him up a wee bit? RightTalk: We do it so Bill sounds more manly, we can do that for John. Bill: he doesnt want to tarnish RWN's good name. John: Now if you could only get some joke writers to make the show funny you'd be in good shape. Bill: oh sh*t.
A bit later, I decided we weren't accomplishing anything and put an end to the chat.
In any case, I'd rather have skipped posting about this if it had been possible. RightTalk is an advertiser, Jeff is a content partner whose humor I use on the blog sometimes, and I've had both Bill and Michele in symposiums. But, since I posted on this initially and poo-poo'd the idea of the interview being fake, I thought I should at least set the record straight.
*** Update #1 ***: This post was edited slightly for clarity's sake & to add in another quote from Michele Catalano.
*** Update #3 ***: Will from MSNBC's Clicked took note of the post above and commented:
"Speaking of "blogs are mainstream media," I have no idea what the drama is around a recent RightTalk Radio show, but between this blog and this blog you can find a good number of links and opinions. What I gather happened is that the blogger hosts of an online radio show attacked a blogger guest on their show and sensation and drama erupted. For all the big talk about blogs, they really don't appear to have fall all that far from the established media tree."
I'm not going to do a new post on this because there are a relatively small number of people who seem to listen to the Citizen Journalist Report and it's difficult to explain what happened on the show to someone who hasn't heard it. But, here's the short version:
1) The radio show does interviews with bloggers. For some reason, they decided to run a fake interview segment with a blogger as well where they ask ridiculous questions and the interviewee improvs the answers. In this case, Michele was supposed to go along with their silly questions for a while and then explode on cue.
In retrospect, I think the general idea was that it was supposed to be funny in an Andy Kaufman sort of "Is this real or is it not" sort of way. The problem is that one of the guys who's on the show isn't funny & the other one is weird so you can picture them asking really dumb questions. Plus, the guest who was in on the hoax has a temper, so you could certainly believe that she'd blow-up after getting a bunch of goofy questions about atheism.
2) Anyway, they do the show and I, along with a few other blogs, commented on the segment. Some blog commenters thought it was real, others thought it was fake, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt because all three of them were publicly claiming that it was a real interview (The comments are above).
3) So, after Bill and Jeff admitted to me that it was a hoax, I posted on the subject and then all three of them claimed that obviously it was a joke, how could anyone think otherwise? Of course, judging by the comment sections around the blogosphere, a lot of people didn't get the "joke." On top of that, their attitude seems to be "So what if we lied about it being real afterwards, why would anyone be so dumb as to believe us in the first place?"
But when I read Michele Catalano, someone I've had in on symposiums, whom I had on Instant Messenger, who has been around the blogosphere for years building a reputation, saying: "Had I known it was ambush radio, I would have declined the invite," I didn't think "Maybe she's lying through her teeth as part of some hoax," I took her word for it. That was a mistake & I won't make it with any of the 3 of them again.
What I tried to get across here is that when you run a hoax like this, you create doubt in people's minds when you try to go back and do serious news. That doesn't matter much with Protein Wisdom or A Small Victory given what they write about on a day to day basis, but Michele is also with the The Command Post and Bill has actually done big stories at INDC Journal. If they come up with a big scoop in the future, do you buy it or take it with a grain of salt because they might be playing Andy Kaufman again?
That's hopefully a little better summary of what happened.
