MOVABLE TYPE : TEMPLATE

November 15, 2008
Republican Religiophobia

As long as I'm dredging up golden oldies on space, I might as well do one on politics as well. I've talked to and emailed (and Usenetted) a few "moderate" Republicans who were turned off by McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, because they thought the choice was simply pandering to the religious right, and they bought the caricature of her sold by the MSM. I don't agree with that (I think that there was a confluence of factors, including the desire to pick off some of Hillary! supporters), but I really do think that a) he thought that she would be a reformer like him based on her record and b) he did and does have a high regard for her intelligence and capabilities, because most people who meet her, Democrats and "liberals" included, seem to.

Anyway, I really don't understand this fear of the religious right, though I am neither religious, or "right" (in the social conservative sense). I explained why in a post about six and a half years ago. I think that it's relevant today, and in fact wish that I'd reposted it before the election (not that the fate of the nation hinges in any way on my posts).

Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:
This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.

This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who's also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.

While I'm not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don't think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I'll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I've ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I'd like that one back.

There are at least two reasons for this.

First, I've found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I've never run into them. That's the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.

But the most important reason is this--while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions, and there's good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.

This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you're ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.

Who can be against a "living wage"? What's so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn't rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?--they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What's wrong with you? How can you be against social security--do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?

To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don't think any Democrats did.

[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it--John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]

On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they'll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they'd actually do about it if you voted for them?

The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they're very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they're very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.

Nothing has happened in the interim to change my views in this regard. The real disappointment was that the Republicans gave us the worst of all worlds this election--a Democrat (in terms of his populist economic thinking and his own antipathy to the free market, despite his Joe-the-Plumber noises about "spreading the wealth") at the top of their ticket, with a running mate who was perceived (falsely, in my opinion) as being a warrior for the religious right. But that's what happens when you stupidly have open primaries, and allow the media to pick your nominee.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:30 PM

The Wrong Lessons From History

Exploding the myths of Clintonomics:

The bull market took off precisely when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan took his foot off the brakes and hit the gas in 1995. It was also then that Republicans took control of Congress -- further blunting the effects of the Clinton tax torpedo that had taken effect the previous year.

Clinton also benefitted from innovations long in the making, including the Pentium chip released in March 1993 and Microsoft's Windows program released in August 1995. These together made the Internet boom possible.

As for the budget surpluses, they came as a complete surprise to Clinton economic forecasters, whose static models only predicted their tax hikes on the rich would narrow the budget gap, not get it into the black.

Their "deficit-reduction plan" didn't create the surpluses at all. They were a direct result of a tidal wave of capital-gains revenues generated by the GOP-led stock boom.

Relieved that Washington would no longer threaten to take over 14% of the economy by socializing medicine or raise taxes even higher, the market took off like a shot at that point. And capital gains tax receipts exploded, flooding federal coffers.

Clinton's own long-term budgets predicted no surpluses of any kind during his administration and beyond.

Bill Clinton never had a plan to end deficits. The Republicans and economic circumstances did it for him. But I'm sure that this myth that Bill Clinton balanced the budget will prevail in the minds of the media and Democrats, just as the false myth that Roosevelt, and not the war, got us out of the Depression continues to prevail many decades later. They have to rewrite history to justify their continued plunder. And of course, the near-term danger is that President-Elect Obama and the Congressional majority will use this mistaken history as a justification for tax hikes in a recession, which could be economically ruinous.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AM

November 14, 2008
"The War Is Over, And We Won"

That's the word from Michael Yon, reporting from Baghdad.

No thanks to the Democrats, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who tried to keep it from happening. I see that they still can't bring themselves to utter the word "win" with respect to the war. They continue to talk about "ending" it. Well, it looks like George Bush did that for them, and he won it as well. But winning wars is bad, you see, because it just encourages the warmongers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AM

Ominous

Stephen Green says that President-Elect Obama isn't off to a very good start.

And Brian Doherty is concerned about the cult of personality. Really? He just noticed?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AM

November 13, 2008
The Latest From Inside The Late Not-Great McCain Campaign

Rich Lowry has been talking to Rick Davis:

The split over Palin, of course, poisoned everything at the end. One of the dividing lines was between her communications team and the policy advisers. The communications team seemed to consider her a dolt, while the policy people--like Steve Biegun and Randy Scheunemann--were impressed with her and her potential. As one McCain aide told me, "It's the difference between considering her someone who lacks knowledge and someone who is incompetent, and they [the communications aides] treated her as the latter."
By many accounts, the relationship between Palin and the staff assigned by the campaign to travel with her on her plane was dysfunctional and even hostile from the beginning. "She would have been better served if she had asked a couple of people to be removed from her traveling staff," says one McCain aide.

Some McCain loyalists think the Bushies assigned to Palin let her down and then turned on her. This is a representative quote from someone from McCain world holding that view: "Look, she wasn't ready for this, obviously. Their job was to make her ready for this and they failed. So they unloaded on her. If they had an iota of loyalty to John McCain, they wouldn't have done it."

It was a mistake to bring "Bushies" into the campaign, given the competence level of "Bushies" as a general rule (unfortunately, the president seemed to value loyalty over competence, though there were notable exceptions). Yes, they won a couple previous campaigns, but only barely. Of course, there was something dysfunctional about a McCain campaign that didn't see this happening and do something about it. And then there's this:

On putting Palin out in big, hostile network interviews at the beginning: "Our assumption was people would not let us release her on Fox or local TV."

On the Couric interview, which Davis says Palin thought would be softer because she was being interviewed by a woman: "She was under the impression the Couric thing was going to be easier than it was. Everyone's guard was down for the Couric interview."

On the clothes fiasco: "We flew her out from Alaska to Arizona to Ohio to introduce her to the world and take control of her life. She didn't think 'dress for the convention', because it might have just been a nice day trip to Arizona if she didn't click with John. Very little prep had been done and if it had, we might have gotten picked off by the press. We were under incredible scrutiny. We got her a gal from New York and we thought, 'Let's get some clothes for her and the family.' It was a failure of management not to get better control and track of that. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing, what it was worth or where it was going. No one knew how much that stuff was worth. It was more our responsibility than hers."

What does that first graf mean? What "people" did they think wouldn't let them release her on Fox or local television? And as to the second, all I can say is...WHERE DID THEY FIND THESE IDIOTS?! They thought that hyperliberal hyperNOWist hyperidiot Katie Couric was going to be "soft" on her? In a taped, easily edited interview that could be dribbled out over days? On what planet have they been living? These are people who are supposed to understand media relations?

They deserved to lose, and as I've said before, I'm not unhappy that they did. But I'm quite unhappy that Senator Obama didn't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:30 PM

America The Illiterate

I don't generally think much of Chris Hedges, and the comments are nutty, but I largely agree with this piece:

The illiterate and semi-literate, once the campaigns are over, remain powerless. They still cannot protect their children from dysfunctional public schools. They still cannot understand predatory loan deals, the intricacies of mortgage papers, credit card agreements and equity lines of credit that drive them into foreclosures and bankruptcies. They still struggle with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit and insurance papers. They watch helplessly and without comprehension as hundreds of thousands of jobs are shed. They are hostages to brands. Brands come with images and slogans. Images and slogans are all they understand. Many eat at fast food restaurants not only because it is cheap but because they can order from pictures rather than menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. This is our brave new world.

Can democracy survive for long, with such an electorate? Of course, he doesn't finger the primary culprit--our fascist public school system which manufactures exactly the sort of people who will keep it in power.

[Late afternoon update]

Are individualists losing the IQ war with the left?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:04 AM

Shameful

That's how Beldar describes John McCain's post-election behavior:

John McCain has failed this test of his own character.

The would-be commander-in-chief surely still had the clout to summon the top twenty-five or so campaign aides into a room for a "Come to Jesus" meeting, a "we aren't any of us leaving this room until I know who leaked those comments" meeting, a "you aren't any of you ever going to work in politics again until we find out who's to blame for this" meeting.

Instead, he goes on Lenno and shrugs his shoulders, minimizing the whole episode. That didn't make anyone famous. That affirmatively encouraged this crap to continue, not just in this campaign but in future ones.

I practice a profession in which secrets are important. I understand the concept of fiduciary duty. I've employed people, professionals and staff alike, who -- simply by virtue of working for me -- have been made subject to the same bright-line, absolute standards that I'm subject to. Very, very rarely, someone in my employment has breached that trust -- and my reaction has been ruthless and thorough and instantaneous. Yes, there have been a few times when I've enjoyed firing someone, and have gone out of my way to make sure that anyone who cared to make future inquiries about hiring that person would find out exactly why they were fired.

McCain's background as a military officer ought to have acquainted him with high ethical standards and the need for their consistent and vigorous enforcement. He almost flunked out of the Naval Academy at the end of every year he spent there, based on conduct demerits, but he never once had an Honor Code violation.

Senator, this was an Honor Code violation by someone on your staff. And you just blew it off. There was no shame in losing the election. But there is definitely shame in this.

Also, thoughts on the willful gullibility of people who believe the idiotic lies about Sarah Palin:

People joked about "Bush Derangement Syndrome," and about "Palin Derangement Syndrome" as its successor. But at some point this kind of thing stops being a joke and becomes a genuine cognative disability -- an inability to process and deal in a rational fashion with objective data because of a bias that is so intense that it blocks out reality.

I can't explain it. I just hope it's a temporary, acute problem rather than something long-term or possibly organic, like the sort of brain tumors or lesions of which Dr. Oliver Sachs writes in his book, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." I'm not being at all snarky here. Rather, I'm entirely serious, because I have considered Dr. Joyner a friend, and I am genuinely concerned for his mental health. He, Andrew Sullivan, and others in their camp are completely persuaded that they can see a degree of ignorance in Gov. Palin which is utterly inconsistent with anyone's ability to function as the governor of any state, but to which hundreds of thousands of Alaskans were absolutely blind for many years despite a much better opportunity to assess Gov. Palin first-hand. That kind of thinking represents a break with reality, one that's not funny at all, but genuinely sad.

[Via David Blue, who has a number of other reasons to be glad that John McCain didn't win the election. But they don't, unfortunately, constitute reasons to be happy that Barack Obama did. We were screwed either way, primarily because the media selected both candidates.]

[Update a few minutes later]

I wonder how many people actually voted for John McCain (that is, voted for him because they liked him, and thought he would be a good president)? I suspect that the vast majority of McCain voters were either voting against Obama, or for Palin, or both, but they weren't voting for McCain. It seems to me that those people who actually like McCain, either personally, or on his eclectic policies, probably like Obama even more (e.g., many in the media). So hardly anyone voted for him. And this is also the reason that the Republican turnout was relatively low. The candidate had no attraction to them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AM

Why Libertarianism Matters

Now, more than ever. Self-styled "progressives" seem to continue to be unaware of their own shameful intellectual history.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AM

November 12, 2008
Buyer's Remorse?

Some thoughts on Obama, Weatherpeople, and Sarah Palin, from Camille Paglia:

...my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed...

...Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I think she gives the press too much credit for their ability to wake up.

[Update late morning]

It may have been politically incorrect for Michael Barone to say it, but I think he's right when he points to Palin's greatest sin in the eyes of much of the media and the left:

"The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby," Barone said, according to accounts by attendees. "They wanted her to kill that child. ... I'm talking about my media colleagues with whom I've worked for 35 years."

Barone, a popular speaker on the paid lecture circuit, is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and principal coauthor of "The Almanac of American Politics."

About 500 people were in the room, and some walked out.

Guess the truth hurts. That was obvious to me at the time as well, with all of the criticism of her for having the baby. She was a huge threat to the pro-abortion (and yes, that's what much of it is) movement.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AM

November 08, 2008
Chicago-Style Politics

In Minnesota. It looks like this election is being stolen, right before our eyes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:07 PM

Just Making It Up

This sort of thing is why I'm not inclined to believe any of the Palin smears. It's really astounding how polarized people are about her.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:44 AM

November 06, 2008
It's Not Too Early

To start fighting the "Fairness" Doctrine.

Yes, I know that then-Senator Obama said that he didn't support it, but do you think that he'd really veto it if it came to his desk? Really?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 AM

November 05, 2008
An Historic Moment

I was too tired last night to attempt to say much of anything intelligent, let alone eloquent. But I'll start by repeating my congratulations to President-elect Obama. From snippets that I've heard this morning, his acceptance speech was appropriately gracious to his opponent, but I have to confess that I didn't hear the whole thing because I had gone to bed. My impression is that it didn't differ a lot from his stump speech, except he left out the lies about his opponents.

As I noted last night, one thing that I am not unhappy about, and is a large silver lining in a larger dark cloud, is that we have elected an African American (in this case, quite literally) to the highest office in the greatest nation on the planet. I always expected the first black president to be a Republican (or at least a conservative of some stripe), because I didn't anticipate a Barack Obama, who between his apparent (not at all to me, but clearly to many) charisma and the aid of a fawning press that refused to discuss his history with any seriousness, managed to transcend not just his skin tone, but his far-left political history. I hope that Michelle is finally proud of America, and that we can finally get past race. But I fear that we're not yet there, for those who are more comfortable continuing to play the easy role of victim. Either way, Barack Obama is the next American president, which means, for better or worse, that he is my president. (As usual) I agree with Lileks:

I'm off to the Mall to sell razor blades so people can scrape off their "Question Authority" bumper stickers. Just remember: Dissent is still the highest form of patriotism. Except now it will be practiced by the lowest form of people.

Seriously, though: congratulations to President-elect Obama. Right or wrong - and I hope for more of the former, obviously - he's my President now, dammit, and I'm not going to spend four years treating him with the contempt the Kos side heaped on Chimpy McPretzelchoker. He could turn out to be a horrible President. He could turn out to be a great one. History pushes people in unexpected directions.

I am on long-standing record as calling him unelectable in this nation. How did I get it wrong?

I don't think that his election was at all inevitable. It was a combination of many factors--the country going crazy in the wake of the financial crisis, the overwhelming amount of money brought to bear (much of it raised illegally) in his support, the truly egregious bias of the press, and an awful campaign by John McCain. I have to confess that I also expected the Clintons to do more than they did to sabotage him. It's surprising, in retrospect, that it was as close as it was.

With regard to McCain's campaign, Jennifer Rubin has a list of the many things that McCain did wrong, though I don't know if he could have won it. But he could have made it a lot closer, and helped staunch the bleeding down ballot even more. The one thing she didn't mention (though she hinted at it with some of her particulars) was that he should have been running against the most unpopular institution--Congress--which makes George Bush look like a rock star in popularity by comparison. He should have pointed out all of the things that have happened in the two years since the Democrats took over the Hill. Indeed, he should have simply pointed out that it was the Democrats who were running Congress, because much of the electorate seemed to be unaware of that fact. He shouldn't have voted for the bailout bill. But he couldn't do it, because he is John McCain. He is a great man, but a mediocre candidate, and would not likely have been a great president.

I'm glad that part of the reason that he lost is because of his own atrocious (and yes, that's the word for it) and unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation, and that by completely blowing past it, Barack Obama has rendered it meaningless and irrelevant for future elections, even if it's not actually rescinded. I would also note that while I do think that the Obama campaign violated federal campaign finance laws on a massive scale, by deliberately disabling AVS on their on-line credit-card donations, I also think that they're bad laws. I hope that we can change them to remove contribution limits, but require full disclosure. Frankly, I don't even care if foreigners want to contribute to American political campaigns, as long as we know who is doing it and how much. That is information that the voters deserve to know, and should be a legitimate campaign issue. The Clintons played the same dirty game, with Riady and the Chinese, but the media refused to dig into it and point it out.

And as I've noted before, because the press refused to air Obama's dirty Chicago laundry during the campaign, we're going to have another Clinton-like presidency, in which scandals from the past continue to pop up. Will he pardon Tony Rezko? Why didn't anyone ask him? Will he replace Patrick Fitzgerald (indeed, every US Attorney, as Bill Clinton did)? I also fear that (as with the Clintons) the thuggery displayed in the campaign--against Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, anyone in Missouri who had the temerity to "lie" about the Obama campaign--will continue in the new administration, except this time with the full power of the Justice Department and the FBI behind it. It is going to be an interesting four years.

I'm glad that it wasn't the blowout that many hoped for, and many feared. He won convincingly, but not sufficiently to have a mandate (particularly considering how gauzy his campaign promises were). Neither the House or the Senate had the gains expected by the Dems, and while having Stuart Smalley in the Senate would be entertaining (though not deliberately so on his part), I'm glad to keep one more vote to staunch a Democrat tide. I'm also glad that any changes on SCOTUS are likely to replace leftist squishes, and not true liberals (such as Roberts, Scalia and Alito), thus preserving the status quo rather than shifting it further against freedom.

I don't envy the president elect. I pointed out when he won the nomination that it was almost an accident--he wasn't supposed to win this year; it was just a practice run. Now, he's in another moment of the dog who finally caught the car that he's been chasing--what does he do with it? He's got the choice of going with his leftist instincts (I'm assuming that he really does have these, and isn't as completely cynical as he would have to be in order to have hung out with vile people with whom he completely disagreed politically, such as Ayers, Dorhn and Klonsky) and alienating much of the country (which truly doesn't understand what they just elected), or moving to the center and being more politically successful, but outraging the Kossacks and Moveoners at his betrayal. That, too, will be interesting to watch.

My biggest feeling right now, frankly (and I'm sure that it's one shared by almost everyone), is relief that this ridiculously long campaign is over. It's time for defenders of human freedom to regroup, take stock of the world as it is, rather than as we'd like it to be, and figure out how to move it from the former to the latter. Whether the Republican Party will be the appropriate vehicle for this remains to be seen, but as has been clear to me for most of my adult life, the Democrat Party will never be. They remain children of Rousseau, though they don't realize it, and I will continue to follow Locke.

[Update a while later]

Steven den Beste says it's not the end of the world, and has some predictions, one of which is quite disturbing. I loved this ending line:

...no one will be spinning grand conspiracy theories about this administration's Vice President being an evil, conniving genius who is the true power behind the throne.

If I were a praying man, I'd pray for Senator Obama's health every day. I'm continuously amazed at people who think that Joe the Biden is presidential material, or even of above-average intelligence. Or even average.

[Another update a couple minutes later]

John McWhorter says that it should be the end of racism as a political issue, and makes the same point that Thomas Sowell has been making for years:

The new frontier, however, is apparently people's individual psychologies: Not only must we not legislate racism or socially condone it, but no one is to even privately feel it.

The problem is we can't entirely reach people's feelings. The social proscription has changed a lot of minds, especially of younger people who never knew the old days. But an America where nobody harbors racist sentiment? The very notion goes against everything we know about human hardwiring: Distrust of the other is inherent to our cognition.

Psychology has provided us with no method for rewiring brains to eliminate that. After describing one of countless studies revealing subliminal racial bias, Nicholas Kristof recently intoned "there's evidence that when people become aware of their unconscious biases, they can overcome them."

Oh, really? "Can," OK--but how often do they? How do we reach everybody? Do we mean overcoming bias so thoroughly that a test looking for what's "out there" would not still reveal it? It's a utopian pipe dream.

Now, if this racism of the scattered and subliminal varieties were the obstacle to achievement that Jim Crow and open bigotry were, then we would have a problem. But yesterday, we saw that this "out there" brand of racism cannot keep a black man out of the White House.

Might it not be time to allow that our obsession with how unschooled and usually aging folk feel in their hearts about black people has become a fetish? Sure, there are racists. There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on.

It should be time, but as I said, it's a lot easier to continue to play the victim, and blame white racism rather than community pathologies for your problems. I was glad to hear Barack Obama tell young men to pull up their damn pants, and hope he continues to do so. I hope that he comes up with a job in the administration of some sort for Bill Cosby.

My ongoing fear of the Rousseauians is that they believe that they can remake man. They believe in thought crimes, and will attempt to both detect them, and stamp them out.

[Update a few minutes later]

One other thought on racism. Does anyone imagine that, with his resume, Barack Obama would be president elect if he were Barry O'Toole, a white guy?

[Mid-morning update]

Tim Ferguson has thoughts on the battle for individualism.

[Update a few minutes later]

I (as is often the case) agree with Mark Steyn:

Obama was wrong about the surge, and McCain was right. But, because he was right, Iraq went away, and his rightness and Obama's wrongness didn't matter. And, in his closing address in that final debate, McCain was left using tough, hard words like "honor" and "sacrifice" that seemed utterly ridiculous after an hour and a half in which the candidates had been outcompeting each other to shower federal largesse for those behind with a couple of mortgage payments. But that gets to my basic point: You don't want "issue" candidates. You want candidates who can place whatever the headlines happen to throw at you within an internally consistent worldview.

For what it's worth, I never want to hear the word "maverick" again as long as I live. As I said a while back, that's an attitude, not a philosophy.

I'm not unhappy that John McCain lost. He's an admirable man, but much less so as a politician. I'm just unhappy that the Republicans couldn't come up with someone better, and that the Democrat won.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:42 AM

November 04, 2008
Why Should They Have The Power?

I'm watching a rally in DC with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

What has Harry Reid done to justify his increase of the majority of the Senate?

What has Nancy Pelosi done to justify her increase in her House majority?

Why did no one in the MSM ask these questions during the campaign?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:58 PM

November 03, 2008
Beware The Bandwagon

Of all the dumb reasons to vote for Barack Obama (and they are legion, even if there are a few smart ones interspersed), one of the dumbest is simply because the media is telling you he's inevitable. The bandwagon effect is a classical logical fallacy, that many fall for nonetheless (because most people are untrained in logic).

Don't let them herd you like a sheep into voting for someone just because you want to vote for the winner. If you're going to drink the redistributionist koolaid, at least do it because you actually believe it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

You Couldn't Make This Up

Don't you think that, after all these years, even if New York Times copy editors continue to suffer from Alzheimers' on this issue, they would at least have had the prescience to program their final editing software to flag things like this?

Greg Packer, 44, of Huntington, N.Y., drove in for Game 5 of the World Series and stayed for the celebration. He arrived on Broad Street near City Hall at 5 a.m. to secure what he considered the best spot.

Simply amazing. (Link mine.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:59 AM

Why Isn't Detroit A Paradise?

Because long ago, it (and other parts of the upper midwest) embraced Obamanian policies. If things go the wrong way tomorrow, the nation will be Detroit writ large.

[Update a while later]

This reminds me of a post I wrote about the rise and fall of General Motors a while ago. As I noted there, my dad was a GM exec, and I grew up in southeast Michigan (well, to the degree that I've grown up at all...). In 1973, about the time I graduated from high school, we were deep in a recession (a real one--not what the people whining about today's economy are describing, with 20+ percent unemployment in Flint), and the golden era was over, never to really return to what it had been.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:42 AM

What Happens To The Posters After The Election?

Virginia Postrel has some thoughts:

In an interview Fairey assured Smith that his imagery "anti-propaganda propaganda" that, he suggested, is "coming from a position of moral integrity." In other words, he believes it, or at least believes it's in a good cause. The Obama posters were, of course, based on the famous propaganda image of Che Guevara. John McCain may suggest that Obama is a socialist. Fairey, a man of the left, literally paints Obama as a communist--which may involve much wishful projection as the belief in other quarters that the candidate is a secret free-trader.

Although campaign posters are surely a form of propaganda, the Obama imagery is so empty of specific exhortation that we do better to think of it as a manifestation of the candidate's glamour--a seductive illusion in which the audience sees whatever they themselves desire. Glamour is manipulative, but not coercive. It requires the audience to suspend its skepticism and the object to maintain his mystery, a tacit form of cooperation. Give the object the power to compel devotion, and glamour is suddenly neither sustainable nor necessary.

Yes, though there's actually a more accurate, more encompassing word than "socialist" or "communist" for this kind of political iconography (relating back to the thirties). It starts with an "F."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:53 AM

November 01, 2008
We Band Of Brothers

Bill Whittle has some waning-days election thoughts:

If we are mark'd to lose, we are enow
To do our party loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
Let he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not vote in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to vote with us.
This day is call'd the eve of Elect-ian.
He that votes this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Republican
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is the fourth of November'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his hands,
And say 'With these I moved yon levers on election day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What votes he did cast that day.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that shares his vote with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen and lady pundits now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their book deals cheap whilst any speaks
That voted with us upon election day.

As he says, the asteroid is only inevitable if we believe it is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 PM

October 31, 2008
Well, That's Refreshing

Usually, when a politician makes a gaffe, they try to explain it away, or say "what I meant was..."

Lawrence Eagleburger has a novel approach. He just said to Stuart Varney on Cavuto's show that "I was stupid," to explain his gaffe. He made up for it, by 1) pointing out that the Democrat presidential nominee is much less prepared than she is, and wrong on the foreign policy issues and 2) apologizing for to the McCain campaign and governor Palin.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:34 PM

The Pied Piper

...of Hyde Park:

The piper from Hyde Park has tougher work, not with rats with sharp teeth but with evil Republicans deserving of a death more painful than drowning. Humorless, self-righteous and immensely proud of himself, he employs his gift of "a unique ability to identify with children" to lure the grown-up children. His success as a spinner of "fairy tales," as Bill Clinton called them in a fit of unexpected candor, is a tale of credulity run amok. Americans who look like grownups swoon like pimpled teenagers at the mention of his name, and brook no criticism however mild or reasoned the reservations. Polite questions are verboten, as Joe the Plumber learned. Scholars will write about this weird delirium in decades to come; the prudent are saving string for their Ph.D. theses. For now it's prudent to hunker down and observe the disciplined march to the river.

Let's hope they stop at the river bank on Tuesday.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AM

Calming Down The Eeyores

Moral support for McCain supporters from Hizzbuzz:

The ONLY way McCain loses this race is if the media, operating as a full-fledged wing of the Obama campaign, breeds enough Eeyores amongst you to keep enough people home for Obama to squeak out wins. Hillary Clinton should have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, by larger margins that she did. Ohio should have been a 13-point win, Pennsylvania should have been a 12-point win, and Indiana should have been a 9-point win. Eeyores staying home, saying, "Oh bother, TV say me stay home, me sad, need dydee changed!" is what cost Hillary those extra points.
Don't be Eeyores on Tuesday! Get those Eeyore butts off your couches, away from toxic TV, and GO VOTE. Get everyone you know to vote -- tell them if they don't, then Obama will turn America socialist, and we're going to start with their house and bank account when we begin redistributing wealth. That should motivate them.

I don't know if McCain will pull it out, but it's going to be a lot closer than many have been predicting.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:24 AM

Don't Believe The Exit Polls

McCain supporters are less likely to be willing to be interviewed. That means they'll be significantly overstating the vote for Obama.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AM

October 30, 2008
The Obama Campaign Music Video

McCain should be buying air time for this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PM

Man Bites Dog

AP:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

That's not news, of course--he's been doing that since the campaign began. What is news, and shocking news, is that the AP reported it. Better late than never.

[Update early afternoon]

Wow. Has something gotten into (or out of) the MSM water? CBS is criticizing The One's proposals as well.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

If he can't do what he promises, what will he do?

Not that McCain is a lot better in that regard, of course. But unlike Obama, who has a consistent leftist philosophy, McCain is ideologically incoherent, so there's at least a chance that he won't screw us over.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:29 AM

Fondling Balls

Iowahawk breaks out the calculator on poll reliability:

So if the sample size is 400, the margin of error is 1/20 = 5%; if the sample size is 625 the margin of error is 1/25 = 4%; if the sample size is 1000, it's about 3%.
Works pretty well if you're interested in hypothetical colored balls in hypothetical giant urns, or survival rates of plants in a controlled experiment, or defects in a batch of factory products. It may even work well if you're interested in blind cola taste tests. But what if the thing you are studying doesn't quite fit the balls & urns template?

What if 40% of the balls have personally chosen to live in an urn that you legally can't stick your hand into?
What if 50% of the balls who live in the legal urn explicitly refuse to let you select them?
What if the balls inside the urn are constantly interacting and talking and arguing with each other, and can decide to change their color on a whim?
What if you have to rely on the balls to report their own color, and some unknown number are probably lying to you?
What if you've been hired to count balls by a company who has endorsed blue as their favorite color?
What if you have outsourced the urn-ball counting to part-time temp balls, most of whom happen to be blue?
What if the balls inside the urn are listening to you counting out there, and it affects whether they want to be counted, and/or which color they want to be?

If one or more of the above statements are true, then the formula for margin of error simplifies to
Margin of Error = Who the hell knows?

I think that the disparity among the polls is pretty good evidence of this. A lot of it, particularly the weighting is guess work, educated or otherwise. There's only one poll that matters (though with all of the chicanery going on, even that one is going to be in doubt, particularly if it's close on Tuesday). What a mess.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:24 AM

All Sham, No Wow

The One's infomercial last night got panned by infomercial experts. Well, they would know.

No, I had better things to do than watch. I wonder how many others felt the same way?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AM

October 29, 2008
Doing The Math

The Obama campaign has been lying about its donor base:

If, as Obama says, most donations are grassroots and in small amounts, the numbers do not match up. If this many people donated to his campaign he would be polling at well over 50%.

In a grassroots movement, you smell the green. He's raised $600 million, as you say, in small donations. So divide it by ten bucks apiece and there's 60 million donors. If 120 million people vote on Tuesday, and he gets 50% that equals ...60 million voters! Honestly, you cynical rightwing losers, what's so suspicious about that math?

On Fox Newswatch on Saturday, Jane Hall said that many of her (journalism) students couldn't even calculate a percent. Of course, in this case, they're not motivated to figure it out, even if they know how.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:59 AM

Aren't There Any Editors Left?

Sarah Palin is righteously demanding that the LA Times release the tape, but look at this transcript:

...she saved her hardest criticism for the newspaper that currently holds the tape, saying they was refusing to release it to aid Obama.

"It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that," Palin said. "In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public's right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed. And if there's a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in cow-towing, then the L.A. Times, you're winning."

I'm pretty sure that the paper has never towed a cow. And she didn't say that it did. She said that they kowtowed. But I guess neither the writer or editor (if there was one) knew what that word meant or at least how it was spelled.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:55 AM

Prove Me Wrong, LA Times

OK, since we're apparently free to use our imagination, here's what I think happened at that party.

There are PLO and Hamas flags decorating the room, along with Che and Mao posters. Khalidi, Ayers and Obama are slapping each others' backs, raising their glasses and toasting the upcoming destruction of the racist Zionist entity, all the while laughing at the thought of the final Final Solution. Obama says, "You know, when I take over, the first thing I'll do is withdraw all aid from those fascist kikes, and I'll give the Palis a couple nukes." Then he turns to Ayers, and asks him if he's come up with any fresh schemes for mass murder of the millions of recalcitrant capitalists, so that they can be implemented in the first one hundred days. After dessert, they get out an American flag, crumple it up on the floor, and jump up and down on it, shouting "Death to Capitalism, Death to America."

No?

That's not how it went down? Well, prove me wrong, LA Times. Show the tape.

[Late morning update]

Doug Ross writes that he has gotten a tip from a person who claims to have viewed it:

Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

Yes, don't want to have a little controversy disturb an upcoming coronation.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:53 AM

What Does Barack Obama Have Against Nazis?

In the furor (well, at least as much furor as could be expected, given how in the tank the mainstream media has been for Senator Obama) over his comments about the deficiencies of the Constitution (in regard for its lack of "positive rights") and the frustrating (at least to him) inability of the courts to deal with it, many have missed another snippet of that radio interview from seven years ago. In it, he also said, "There's a lot of change going on outside of the court. The judges have to essentially take judicial notice up, I mean you've got WW II, the doctrines of Nazism that we are fighting against that started looking uncomfortably similar to what's going on back here at home."

"...similar to what's going on back here at home."

What did he mean by that?

Well, most people know the characteristics of the Nazi regime (or at least imagine they do), so it's hard to imagine what he's talking about here, since he gives no specifics.

Was he referring to the fact that it was led by a charismatic man who gave speeches to mesmerized, adoring throngs in front of Teutonic war memorials?

Or is he talking about the Nazi policy of first registering, then confiscating weapons from private citizens, one of its first acts upon taking power?

Perhaps he was referring to the notion that work exhorted by the leader would set us free? That we need to have national service for all? And that the nation will be inspired by youth singing in patriotic uniforms?

Or was it demanding to see the papers of critics of the leader, and using the state apparatus to discover information that might expose him to ridicule?

No?

Well, was it the nationalistic racism? Or the plans to exterminate a large percentage of the citizenry after taking power?

OK, maybe I'm on the wrong track. Was he talking about the Nazi health care system, that so many here want to emulate? Or the need to spread the wealth around? I mean, isn't that what socialism is all about?

I just can't figure it out.

OK, maybe I'm just confused. Maybe this latest slur against Senator Obama of being a "socialist" is wrong. Maybe Senator Obama is something else.

Take away the genocide, and militaristic conquest of neighboring countries. Just what is it about Nazis that Barack Obama doesn't like?

It would certainly be nice if the Obama campaign would expand and elaborate upon his brief comments about Nazism in America a few years ago to the American people. He has another few days to do so before they have to decide who their next president will be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AM

October 28, 2008
A (Rare) Fit Of Sanity

On the part of Campbell Brown (which I've always thought a strange name):

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

Yeah, funny about that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 PM

Win Or Lose

McCain should be firing these people after the election:

McCain aides continue to go viciously negative--on their vice presidential candidate. Mike Allen has a McCain aide calling Palin a "whack job." This is part of the problem with Palin getting assigned aides with no loyalty to her.

There is no excuse for this kind of behavior--dishing dirt on background to a hostile press--in the last week of (or any time during) a campaign.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:52 PM

What's Wrong With The First One?

Does Barack Obama agree with Marcy Kaptur that we need a Second Bill of Rights?

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.

Sure he does. He already said in a debate that we all have a "right" to health care. No, I don't think that I, or anyone, has a "right" to stuff that requires taking from others. This is Eurosocialism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AM

Not New Ideas

Just bad ones:

Obama plans to resuscitate the welfare policies of the Great Society, but by stealth. It will be the same thing-the dole-but it will be called a "tax credit," which has a more emollient sound than "relief," "public charity," "the dole."

What I find depressing about this-as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut-is the extent to which it represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again. I've written about the "dÃ©jÃ -vu-all-over-again" phenomenon before in this space. Bill Ayers? Haven't we done that? Jeremiah Wright? Haven't we done that, too? Haven't we tried Obama's "soak the rich," anti-business economic policies? Haven't we tried his "can't-we-all-just-get-along" foreign policy? Don't we know that economics is about the creation rather than the redistribution of wealth, and that low taxes and strategies that encourage productivity and investment are best calculated to make the entire society, including the less fortunate, more prosperous? Don't we know where appeasement and capitulation get us in foreign affairs? Don't we remember Jimmy Carter? Haven't we learned anything?

We'll find out on Tuesday.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AM

October 27, 2008
Transcending Race

Gateway Pundit has a 1995 video of Barack Obama blaming white executives in the suburbs for not wanting their taxes to help black children.

I'm sure he's changed his mind since, though, right?

[Late morning update]

Barack Obama's redistributionist obsession:

I suggest henceforth that every time readers hear the word "change" from Team Obama, they insert the work "redistributive" in front of it.

Indeed. He said those words in 2001. Why should we think that he's changed since? Particularly after his Freudian slip with Joe the Plumber?

[Update early afternoon]

Goody. Here's some more race transcendance: white people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Whenever I hear nutty proposals like this, I always wonder, who will decide who is and isn't "white"? Does Barack Obama get half a vote?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AM

October 26, 2008
Tax Incentives

Greg Mankiw compares the Obama and McCain plans. Neither of them are great, but one is much better than the other.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:23 PM

Solidarity

I am Bill.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 PM

A Good Point

...by John McCain on Meet The Press this morning, though he didn't press it home--he only mentioned the name in passing, and didn't point out the connection, apparently assuming that most viewers would get it.

Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist (I'm not sure about the Senate, but as a member of the House he ran as one, but caucused with the Democrats). McCain pointed out that the number one, two and three senators listed as the most liberal are Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. How far are his votes or views from Barack Obama and Joe Biden?

A suggested McCain campaign ad: "Barack Obama, despite his statement to Joe the Plumber that the wealth should be "spread around," complains when he is therefore called a socialist. But his brief Senate voting record is to the left of that of Bernie Sanders, who proudly calls himself a socialist. So what does that make Barack Obama?"

He did something else that was good. He pointed out that Michigan is a poster child for the kinds of policies that will result from an Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime. High taxes, more power to unions, big-spending Dems in charge, and the state has (in many cases literally) gone south.

Put together an ad describing Michigan's straits and the causes, and point out that this is what the OPR regime has planned for the entire country. It would even help him in Michigan.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:32 PM

Some Thoughts On Unnamed Sources

Why should we believe CNN?

They, and much of the media, have done much to earn our distrust.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM

October 25, 2008
What Was Joe Biden Hinting At?

Bill Whittle wonders. So do I. You'd think that the media might spare a couple reporters from the Wasilla Library beat to ask him. At least you'd like to think.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:42 AM

I Would Be, Too

Michael Malone is ashamed to be a journalist.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:14 AM

Ayers And Khalidi

Someone needs to run some ads about the Obama's Khalidi connection in south Florida. Obama was a lot older than eight when Khalidi was expressing support of Hamas. I don't think that the Jews down here understand just what a disaster Obama may be for Israel. Worse than Jimmy Carter.

[Early afternoon update]

Stanley Kurtz has more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AM

October 24, 2008
The Obama Fundraising Fraud

If John McCain were doing this, the press would be crying bloody murder:

He may now be running the biggest underground finance operation since Nixon deployed the plumbers as his key operatives in 1972.

And there seem to be a lot of parallels with the voter registration fraud being perped by ACORN. I don't think that's a coincidence.

And of course, if McCain ends up losing this because he didn't have enough money, it will be justice, because it was his idiotic assault on the First Amendment that got us here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PM

October 23, 2008
For Whom The Bell Tolls...

I was in the majority of this poll.

Note the media that were absent.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 PM

Muggers For Obama

Well, I guess now we know what Senator Obama meant when he told his followers to "get in people's faces":

Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.

And they accuse McCain and Palin of inciting violence.

Well, it could have been worse (and it may become so if he's elected, and in control of the Justice Department). She should consider herself lucky.

[Update on Friday afternoon]

It turns out to have been a hoax. What a stupid woman. Normally it's leftists who stage things like this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:24 PM

Fraudulent Credit Card Donations

Why wouldn't the Obama campaign prevent them?

John Galt of Ayn Rand Lane (zip code: a nonexistent 99999) was able to donate with no problem.

Despite the fact that the card holder's name and address do not match the name he provided.

John McCain's website? Rejected the same non-matching-information donation.

I guess when you're gathering up tens of millions from the Saudis and Gazans you have to be a little lenient on matching up credit card donations.

Incidentally-- when I f***ing order cheesesteaks from my local deli, I get dinged when I forget my current zip code and give them my old one.

Again, though: If Obama were demanding that credit card information matched donor information, he couldn't draw in $150 million largely from fraudulent overseas donors.

Oh, such suspicious minds.

Why isn't this as big a story as the Palin family wardrobe?

More at Powerline.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mark Steyn has further thoughts:

I was interested in the subject because I also have an online credit-card operation over at my website (obviously a little smaller than Senator Obama's), and so I looked into what our CC processing requires. In order to accept financial donations from "John Galt" and "Saddam Hussein", whoever runs the Obama website would have to modify the default security checks required by their merchant processor.
Now sometimes you do have to do a bit of modifying. My website has a lot of customers from overseas, and the default security settings can sometimes be a bit too eager to reject credit cards from countries where the "state or province" box is non-applicable or the postal code is in a non-American format. In other words, the default settings on a US online processing operation (with their bias toward US address formats) should be just what a legitimate US political campaign (anxious not to accept illegal foreign donations) is looking for. Instead, the Obama site appear to have intentionally disabled not only all the address checks (thereby facilitating overseas contributions) but the most basic criterion of all: the card name match (thereby enabling entirely fake contributions).

Yes. This doesn't happen by accident.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:05 AM

A Waste Of Time And Money

That's what a bachelors degree has become.

I'd like to see those statistics broken down by major, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:36 AM

Have PUMAs Gone Extinct?

I don't think so. In any event, this one is still roaring, and connecting the Obama dots in a way that the press refuses to do.

[Update an hour or so later]

The proof continues to pile up that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party in the 1990s. Why should we think that his socialist views have changed?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM

October 22, 2008
Thoughts On Sarah's Wardrobe

From Lisa Schiffren:

...a few days before Labor Day, lightening hit. The governor of Alaska turned into a vice-presidential candidate, who had to show up in front of the nation for the next 60 days, several times a day, always looking camera-ready, and impeccably turned out. She also had to project that new, somewhat amorphous thing: female power. We, as a nation, have not yet been led by a woman, and we aren't sure what it looks like. It will, of course, vary from woman to woman, depending on her personal needs and style, but not so much. Can't be too sexy, too severe, or too casual. For sure it requires perfectly fitted, constructed jackets, with a serious shoulder line, in good quality fabrics. Nowhere are those cheap. Palin had to look at least as good as the women we see on TV all the time. You may not realize it, but you don't see Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer or any of the on-camera female talent at the networks, CNN or Fox in off-the-rack stuff from Macy's. It is all upscale designer stuff, and at the low end it costs a couple of thousand per outfit. Always. Hair and make-up is done, professionally, any time you see them, at the cost of much time and money. That is the visual standard women at the upper end of politics must meet. Condoleezza Rice, who needed to project power, figured it out. Others have not. If Palin hadn't bothered with any of it, we would have heard about that too.

Had she been a creature of Washington, Palin would have had closet full of suits, unexciting, perhaps, but appropriate. Had she been a former First Lady running for president, whose husband has raked in $109 million in the last 8 years, she could have called Oscar de la Renta, and and had him come for a fitting. He did well with Hillary's jewel-toned pantsuits, (at a few grand a pop?). She might already have collected some of those great Gurhan necklaces, which accentuated Hillary's suits all election season. (Look up for yourself what they cost.) Were she Speaker of the House, and the wealthiest Democratic lawmaker, she could have called Georgio Armani himself -- and worn the Pelosi pearls that cost more than the Palin's house.

I think that this is a stupid and trivial issue. Can you imagine what the press would have made of her had she made campaign appearances in jeans and parkas?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:51 PM

Thoughts On "Himbos'

From Dr. Helen.

I've never been one, but not because I didn't want to be (at least when I wasn't in a relationship). I am, after all, a guy. But other (attractive) women have always governed my urge for promiscuity. It might be because I was never the "bad boy."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 PM

The Polls Are Wrong

D. J. Drummond explains.

Obviously they have to be, since they're all over the map. At most, only one of them can be right. Of course, knowing they're wrong doesn't tell us what's right.

[Mid-morning update]

Michael Barone has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:10 AM

October 21, 2008
Good News On Global Warming

...but bad news for those determined to use it as an excuse to impoverish ourselves.

Oh. Sorry. I meant "climate change."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:36 PM

Is There Any Word Or Phrase

...that isn't a code word for "black"? Yes, that's right, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was just chock full of black folks.

This is a piece by a stupid, stupid man.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PM

The Ayers Ad That 527s Should Run

Kathy Shaidle has put one together.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:57 AM

Another Obama Ayers Question

The Obama campaign (and its press enablers--I was particularly disappointed to hear Kristen Powers do this Saturday night) treats us like morons by continually repeating the "I was eight years old" mantra. Well Victor Davis Hanson has a question:

...why would anyone in a post-9/11 climate continue to communicate with such a loathsome character for four years, when it was common knowledge that Ayers had approved (no, was proud) of his past terrorist tactics of bombing buildings?

Someone should ask him at a press conference. They should also ask him if he's going to pardon Tony Rezko.

Oh, wait. He doesn't do press conferences any more. That's Sarah Palin's thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:36 AM

Libertarian Beatdown

Jonah Goldberg has a roundup of links criticizing Jacob Weisberg's brainless piece about the death of libertarianism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AM

The "New" Obama

Stanley Kurtz has been looking more deeply into Barack Obama's politics and political alliances:

While a small group of bloggers have productively explored Obama's New Party ties, discussion has often turned on the New Party's alleged socialism. Was the New Party actually established by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? Was the New Party's platform effectively socialist in content? Although these debates are both interesting and important, we needn't resolve them to conclude that the New Party was far to the left of the American mainstream. Whether formally socialist or not, the New Party and its ACORN backers favored policies of economic redistribution. As Obama would say, they wanted to spread the wealth around. Bracketing the socialism question and simply taking the New Party on its own terms is sufficient to raise serious questions about Obama's political commitments -- questions that cry out for attention from a responsible press.

Yes. Well, as (Democrat) Orson Scott Card points out, we haven't had a responsible press in quite a while.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AM

October 20, 2008
Taking Sanctuary

...in Saint Barack.

People, wake up.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:01 PM

Stupidity

I'm getting a little tired of things like this.

Let me state, to attempt to prevent any future comments in this vein, that (apparently) unlike many people, there is no one whose opinion I have sufficient respect for who could convince me that Barack Obama would be a better president than John McCain (not to imply, of course, that I think that John McCain will be a great president). Only those who have no time to evaluate the candidates and the issues rely on endorsements, from anyone, and to do so is a short cut and an intrinsic logical fallacy.

I have abundant information on both candidates at this point, and while (in theory) I could be persuaded to change my mind, this seems unlikely. What I will not be persuaded by is an endorsement by anyone, absent new facts. All that I will be convinced of is that the endorser is either an idiot, ignorant, or on the take (e.g., Colin Powell). I would like to think that this is the case with (at least the intelligent) readers of this blog as well. And (I would like to think that this would go without saying, but apparently it doesn't, because it keeps happening) I will have a similar opinion of the commenter who informs me of the endorser.

I hope I have made myself clear about this, because I have no more to say on the subject.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 PM

Inevitability

So, is Obama as inevitable as Hillary! was?

Just a cautionary note for those who don't think the obituaries in the press on the McCain campaign premature.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:55 AM

A Response To Some Of My Foolish Commenters

Treacher (who has been on fire lately--scroll around the site), in response to the "argument" that the Annenberg Challenge was funded by Republicans:

"Well, how about that. Did you know the planes used on 9/11 weren't built by terrorists?"

Yup.

[Update a while later]

If the Obama campaign think that the Senator's relationship with Bill Ayers is no big deal, why are they trying to hide the evidence?

[Update at 11:30 AM EDT]

Fact checking factcheck.org (which it's becoming increasingly obvious is badly misnamed). And this seems part of a pattern:

The press seems more interested in attacking Rep. Bachman than in doing its job by asking Obama the many legitimate questions that flow out of his past dealings with Bill Ayers.

Can't disrupt the narrative, particularly two weeks before an election.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:24 AM

Shocking News

There was a total lack of accountability at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And as is point out, this makes Powell's endrsement of Obama particularly clueless:

The mistake in bringing up Ayers was not in doing so per se, but in focusing on his sixties activities, and not paying more attention to their partnership in attempting to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren in the 90s. Not to mention the ongoing dissembling and (yes) lying by Obama about the relationship.

And of course, the biggest mistake with all of this "negative" (i.e., truthful) focus on Obama was not doing it last summer, because now it does have the appearance of desperation.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 AM

The Old Scout Gets Older

Lileks has the thankless job of once again deconstructing his fellow ten-thousand-lakes scribe:

It's the usual Keillor twaddle - a humorless, scattershot ramble of run-on sentences and unsourced assertions, and I didn't see anything that set it apart from the dozens of sour broadsides that preceded it. He doesn't like Sarah Palin, although if she was on the Obama ticket he would have found a few nice words before falling silent on the matter, just as the wisdom and august judgment of Biden seems to hover beneath his radar. He is also angry about Republican economics, because, as he stated in a previous column, they deregulated everything and caused the whole mess. In his imagination, sixteen GOP Senators dressed like the fellow from the Monopoly game took a break from playing polo - with slaves dressed up as horses, of course, ha ha, capital idea, Smidley - and somehow did something which was totally unrelated to the sub-prime mortgage issue. I suspect he believes that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd woke nightly from sheet-soaking nightmares in which the loan standards were loosened just a bit too much, and every time they went to the office intent on fixing this mess, gol dang it, John McCain dragged them into a coatroom and administered ether. Amazingly strong fellow.

It doesn't matter what Clinton signed; it doesn't matter that Bush and McCain tried to raise alarms; there's not an jot of responsibility on Keillor's side, because if anything goes wrong it can be traced to the one simple fact that shapes his world: the other side is composed of despicable, cowardly, dishonest, cynical bastards still upset that Jolson's reputation is sullied by his use of blackface. On his side: angels. The man makes a Manichean look like an agnostic Unitarian.

You have to ask yourself how the media would cover a long-standing association between John McCain and a fellow who, in the hurly-burly-mixed-up-folderol of the Civil Rights Era, went a little too far and burned some Black churches, or led a group devoted to blowing up abortion clinics. Mind you, he was never convicted - technicalities, which was ironic, because Conservatives hate those - but he went on to serve on school boards and charity foundations that advocated for States' Rights, an issue dear to conservative hearts. Imagine the deets are the same - cozy fundraisers, serving on the same boards, McCain's name on Bomber Bob's memoir. Add to that some other parallels - say, McCain attended a church that praised a fellow who believed black people were descended from the devil, and believed Jesus was an Aryan.

John McCain wouldn't be the nominee, and if by some chance that happened, this association would be draped around his neck every day.

You may disagree with this, but I don't think I've attempted any deceit here. Deceit would entail lying about what Ayers did, and insisting they had a connection when there was none. You could say it's almost deceitful to say there's nothing there whatsoever, but that's up for debate. But you can imagine Keillor writing 14 pre-election columns that never mentioned the McCain friend who tried to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic. I think it would matter, and it wouldn't be "desperation" to point it out.

Of course, Keillor's been full of this nonsense for years. What's really appalling is that the so-called "objective" media have given up the pretense this year.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 AM

October 18, 2008
False Claims By Defeated Slaves Undermine Their Campaign

71 BC*

ROME (Routers) Diligent investigative reporters were shocked to learn today that many, indeed most of the captured slaves in yesterday's battle in Lucania who proclaimed "I am Spartacus" were actually misleading military authorities, and not the famous rebel leader at all.

One of the investigators, Probius Ani, lead chiseler at the Tempora Romae, shared the details. "We looked into their backgrounds, and while they were all slaves at one time or another, few of them had formal gladiator training, nor did they universally use the Thracian style of combat for which he was well known."

After the defeat, when authorities demanded to know which of the defeated was the leader, at first one of them jumped up and declared himself Spartacus**. But the situation quickly grew confused as another, and then another, and then dozens and hundreds of the defeated curs shouted out the same claim. Legitimate demands of proof of identity, gladiators' licenses, and tax and divorce records from them were met with a sullen resistance, making it impossible to tell which to properly punish.

"These slaves have no credibility," noted a proconsul on the scene. "Why should we grant any respect to a campaign based on false pretenses? Why should we not just spread their wealth around, and crucify them all?"

Given their duplicity against the news media and other legitimate authorities, it is increasingly difficult to argue otherwise.

[Hat tip to Mark Hemingway]

*Yes, before you comment to correct me, I know they didn't really have datelines dated BC)
**Yes, before you comment to correct me, I know it was only a movie.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 PM

A Rarity

A non-humorous post from Iowahawk: "I am Joe."

There are two Americas: one that is Joe, and one that thinks that Joe should have to show his papers to question the Dear Leader.

[Afternoon update]

"I am Joe. Flush Socialism."

I can see this really taking off.

[Update a while later]

Mark Steyn says that Joe must be punished because he didn't go with the flow.

And McCain used the S-word in his radio address this morning. Why not? When you take money from high earners, and hand it over to low earners, and say that you're doing it to "spread the wealth," in what way does that differ from "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AM

Sharing The Talking Points

Of course there's no relationship between Barack Obama and ACORN.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:45 AM

The Fascist MSM

Treacher nails it:

The whole "He's not a licensed plumber!" non sequitur is really fantastic. So, if you happen to be standing in front of Obama when he publicly reveals his socialism, what does the media do? Demands to see your papers. That's just delicious, is what that is.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AM

October 17, 2008
"Vetting" The Media

Ace has had enough, and thinks that it's time to start.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 PM

Not Just Registration Fraud

ACORN defenders are tellling us that the fake registrations are no big deal, because they don't result in actual fraudulent votes. Oh, no?

Today, news out of New Mexico, the state GOP looked at information for 92 newly-registered voters in one district, and found 28 had "missing or inaccurate Social Security numbers or birth dates. In some cases, more than one voter was registered using the same Social Security number. In others, people who the Republicans said had no Social Security number on public record were registered." All of these are of individuals who have already cast ballots in the June New Mexico state legislative Democratic primary.

Now, unless A. Serwer thinks that there is actually a registered voter named "Duran Duran" in New Mexico, he ought to refrain from sputtering that those who disagree with him are 'racist' and 'paranoid.'

The person who is "Duran Duran" almost certainly voted under their real name, and thus got two votes in the primary. God knows how many of those 27 others exist; for all we know, one person might have cast all of them. Anybody who voted once had their vote diluted by the guy who cheated to vote two to twenty-seven times.

As usual, the people who project, and accuse Republicans of stealing elections are about to do it on a massive scale.

[Update mid afternoon]

Good line. I heard that Governor Palin just said in Ohio, "Don't let them turn the Buckeye State into the ACORN State."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:17 AM

Let's Hope "Temporary" Isn't Temporary

Jonah Goldberg has thoughts on the financial crisis.

My big concern is that some slopes are very slippery, with nasty things at the bottom of the hill, and that politics can often be like a ratchet. If Obama wins, I fear that it will be very difficult to undo the damage of the most left-wing, "progressive" government since the nineteen thirties.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AM

Joe Isn't The Point

SInce some commenters are too stupid to get it, Betsy Newmark writes that this may have been Barack Obama's "macaca" moment:

For those on the left who think that this whole story is about Joe's personal background, let me put in in terms they should understand. Think of Joe as a symbolic construct whose situation is "fake but accurate." The left always seems to like that sort of approach to what they regard as underlying truths. Think of him as the left thought of Rigoberta Menchu, the Guatemalan writer who won the Nobel Prize for literature with her autobiography of how, as an indigenous Mayan, she and her family had suffered at the hands of the Guatemalan army. Except it turns out that many of the details in her autobiography were fabrications. That didn't matter to the left or the Nobel Prize Committee because they regarded her story, true or not, as an essential expression of suffering that could have been true.

It doesn't matter if Joe is secretly a multimillionaire plumbing magnate or an apprentice plumber with unrealistic dreams. What matters is how Obama answered his question and what it revealed about his approach to redistribution of wealth. We're not about to elect Joe the Plumber.

She has another thought:

I would have thought that Democrats would have learned the dangers of going too far in sliming an opponent or anyone who doesn't support their guy. They helped promote Sarah Palin to a phenomenon by their relentless pursuit of anything that could be used against her. Questioning whether or not she was really the mother of her baby and if she could serve as vice president with a Down Syndrome infant set her up not only for a backlash among ordinary people but helped innoculate her against more substantive criticisms.

Obama suffered some of his biggest setbacks in the primaries after he was taped describing Pennsylvanians as bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Now John Murtha is having to backtrack after calling his own constituents in western Pennsylvania racists because they might not support Barack Obama. And Obama's followers are now all outraged that a guy asked the senator a question that evoked a revealing answer when Obama popped into his neighborhood for a photo op. It wasn't Joe's question that was so important, but Obama's answer.

Are they trying to demonstrate that they have actually no real care for ordinary people unless those people are falling in line to vote for The One? They really ought to be more careful not to let that mask slip before the election is over.

The thing is, they never learn. Smearing and sliming comes naturally, and is always their first resort. And of course, like their lies and racism and generally fascist tendencies, they project it on their political opponents.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:21 AM

October 16, 2008
The Press And The Plumber

Instapundit:

They've done more investigations into Joe the Plumber in 24 hours than they've done on Barack Obama in two years...

They've also had more interviewers with him lately than they have with Bill Ayers. Aren't they curious at all as to what he thinks? I mean, he was brought up in the debate, too...

[Friday morning update]

Is Joe the Plumber the forgotten man?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 PM

What We Should Really Be Angry About

I fully agree with Iain Murray:

While conservatives are angry about a number of things at the moment, they should be at least as angry that the Congressional Democrats who helped stoke the mortgage crisis are getting away with blaming everyone else for it. Today, Senator Chris Dodd, the prime recipient of GSE lobbying funds and proud holder of a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide, is holding hearings where the witnesses will blame everyone but Dodd, Barney Frank and their cronies. Republicans asked to invite witnesses but were barred from doing so.

The notion that this mess is the fault of Republicans, and "deregulation" and the free market, is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people. And as a result, we could be heading toward both electoral and economic disaster.

[Update early afternoon]

Peter Schiff says don't blame capitalism:

Just as prices in a free market are set by supply and demand, financial and real estate markets are governed by the opposing tension between greed and fear. Everyone wants to make money, but everyone is also afraid of losing what he has. Although few would ascribe their desire for prosperity to greed, it is simply a rose by another name. Greed is the elemental motivation for the economic risk-taking and hard work that are essential to a vibrant economy.

But over the past generation, government has removed the necessary counterbalance of fear from the equation. Policies enacted by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which were always government entities in disguise), and others created advantages for home-buying and selling and removed disincentives for lending and borrowing. The result was a credit and real estate bubble that could only grow -- until it could grow no more.

Prominent among these wrongheaded advantages are the mortgage interest tax deduction and the exemption of real estate capital gains from taxable income. These policies create unnatural demand for home purchases and a (tax-free) incentive to speculate in real estate.

Similarly, the FHA, Fannie and Freddie were created to encourage lending by allowing primary lenders to turn their long-term risk over to the government. Absent this implicit guarantee, lenders would probably have been much more conservative in approving borrowers and setting interest terms, and in requiring documentation of incomes and higher down payments. Market forces would have kept out unqualified buyers and prevented home-price appreciation from exceeding the growth in household income.

Read the whole thing.

I disagree, though that the solution is to take away the home-mortgage interest deduction and the capital gains break. It would be much better to restore the deduction for all interest (as it is for business, and was for individuals until the tax "reform" in 1986). It's not fair to have to pay tax on interest earned as income, but not be able to deduct interest paid.

Also, rather than treating houses preferentially, peg all capital gains taxes to inflation, to eliminate having to pay a tax when the actual value hadn't increased.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM

October 15, 2008
Frustrated At McCain

How many times is he going to let Obama get away with this bullshit that he's going to cut taxes for people who don't pay income taxes? He's done it twice now. It's a frickin' handout and redistribution. As I said, John McCain could win this election if he weren't John McCain.

Sounding a little better on spending cuts. Talking about ending ethanol subsidies and tariffs on sugar (writing off Iowa...). He should have point out how he was going to veto spending bills that Bush wouldn't (another missed opportunity). Another missed opportunity was to point out that while earmarks are small, it's how Congress logrolls other members on big spending bills.

[Update]

McCain is actually doing much better now. But he really should stop talking about the "overhead projector in Chicago." People like planetariums, and it makes him look clueless about science.

[Update]

McCain just pointed out that Obama's solution (increase taxes, restrict trade) was Hooverlike. This is good in two ways: it helps separate him from Republicans and it's true.

[Update]

McCain is on fire on health care. Obama seems to think that having an employer providing health care is a wonderful thing, and that everyone agrees on that. But McCain had a great (non?)-Freudian slip. He called his opponent "Senator Government."

[Update]

The discussion on Roe almost veered into a discussion on federalism. But not quite. But McCain went after him on his vote on the bill to allow failed aborted babies to die. And Obama is obfuscating on his vote.

[Final update]

Not a great debate for McCain, but it was his best. And he's not out of it.

What was missing? Gun control. It would have been a big issue in key states.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 PM

Good Question

Would anyone care to explain to me why Sarah Palin is less qualified to be vice president than John Edwards was four years ago?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:11 PM

A Vote For Civility

Winning over the undecideds:

Think about it. With Barack Obama in office, assholes like us will fade into a distant unpleasant memory. Don't get us wrong, we'll still be hanging around, probably as junior staffers in some federal arts agency. But you have our word on it -- we'll be practically invisible. No more C-word t shirts, no more intersection blockades, no more vandalism until the next election cycle. Nosirree, we'll be timid and well-behaved and quiet as church mice, working away on grant proposals. We think you will also be pleased to know that under Obama, negative news stories and the steady flow of shitty anti-American war movies will virtually disappear overnight.

We know what you're thinking -- "that sounds awesome, but what about the angry right wingers? Won't they suddenly start storming congressional hearings and vandalizing military recruiting stations? Won't they start producing Obama assassination fantasy plays at the local college?" Don't worry, as members of the incoming Administration, we will identify any potential troublemakers and prosecute them to the full extent of President Obama's new civility laws. And with the re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine, you won't have to worry about accidentally tuning into right wing hate radio.

I can't wait.

Plus, true Grit.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 AM

She's Come Undone

Katherine Manju Ward says that Naomi Wolf has been driven completely around the bend.

She could have walked. Based on her previous writings, it was always bound to be a short trip.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 AM

October 14, 2008
Obama And Odinga

OK, are we allowed to talk about this? Or is that racist?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:35 AM

Connecting The Dots

Between Obama, Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright:

Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected "the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation," a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See "No Liberation.")

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC's Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard's or Carruthers's names, SSAVC's proposals are filled with references to "rites of passage" and "Ptahhotep," dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed "Collaborative" to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as "awful." (See "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years," p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

If McCain won't go after this, some 527s need to.

John McCain could win this election if he weren't John McCain. By that, I mean that some candidate with John McCain's history and record could win it if he were really willing to take the gloves off. But he's constitutionally incapable of it. Too many years "reaching across the aisle." Which is one of the reasons in general that Senators have a tough time being elected president. Unfortunately, we have no choice this year.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AM

October 13, 2008
Without A Shot Being Fired

Scott Ott has a depressing satire.

We're all fascists now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:21 PM

"Spread The Wealth Around"

It's too bad that Senator Obama seems indifferent to actually creating wealth. This is the critical distinction between collectivists and classical liberals. The former think that it's a fixed (or growing, but according to supernatural forces unaffectable by human intervention) pie to be justly distributed, whereas the latter think that it's something to be created by maximizing freedom and minimizing how much of it is confiscated by those who want to "spread it around."

And don't expect many in the MSM to criticize him for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:02 PM

The Coming Counterrevolution

What we have to look forward to under an Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration:

A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.

Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if -- as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date -- it can't find any listeners or sponsors.

There's certainly nothing in Obama's current behavior to indicate otherwise, as the editorial points out.

Even ignoring the First Amendment issues (which are sufficient reason in themselves to fight it), it would be a nightmare for broadcasters to enforce. What is "balance," and who would decide? The model here is for the issue ad. If there's a proposition on the ballot, and you run an editorial on it (say) in favor, then it's fairly straightforward to say that it could be balanced by an editorial against it. But even there, who gets the opportunity? There might be multiple people or groups against it for different reasons, some more articulate than others. How would it be decided which of them got to "balance" it?

And once we get outside that narrow focus, into talk radio itself, it becomes a real nightmare, and a litigator's delight. Consider Larry Elder, who is mostly a libertarian. Who "balances" him? A socialist who disagrees with his economics? A "conservative" who disagrees with his views on pornography and drugs?

What single blog is the antithesis of this one, or Instapundit? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the television or radio program director who had to decide. All of this, of course, is predicated on the simpleton's assumption that political views and issues can be expressed on a unidimensional "left-right" scale. And even if that were the case, and political issues didn't fall into a hypercube of multiple dimensions coming from all points on the hyperspherical compass, it wouldn't be that simple, because the magnitude has to be calibrated as well. Is Rush Limbaugh as far "right" as Randi Rhodes is far "left"? Where is the pivot on the scale? Who determines what is "mainstream"? Ted Kennedy?

The First Amendment should have put a stake through the heart of this pernicious and anti-freedom nonsense years ago, but the fascist proponents of things like it have long abandoned principles like that.

[Afternoon update]

Treacher has some thoughts on the "Deathbed Media."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AM

October 12, 2008
The Hate And Rage From The McCain Campaign

...continues:

John McCain's bid for the Oval Office suffered another stunning blow yesterday when the Arizona senator referred to Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, as "my opponent." The campaign-shattering remark came during a vicious, Hitlerian speech before an audience of drooling right-wing drones in one of those states in the middle, possibly rectangular.

"I believe that we should do things one way," McSame sneered, his shrunken, twisted body and hideous visage producing overwhelming revulsion in all sane people who beheld him. "But my opponent feels we should do things a different way."

Yes, Treacher's ahead of the curve. My hat is off to him, because these people continue to get ever harder to satirize.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:37 PM

Irony Meter Meltdown

Joe Biden stood next to Hillary Clinton in Scranton, PA today, and said with a perfectly straight face that she never abused her power.

Tell it to Billy Dale. And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 PM

Hope, Change

...and Molotov cocktails. Will this get as much news coverage as the phantom cries of "kill him" at MCain/Palin rallies (of which there has only been one reported)?

[Update a couple minutes later]

Michelle Malkin has more leftist rage and hatred. Feel the love of the left.

As the first commenter notes, this is typical projection. They accuse others of doing what they are actually doing (lying, racemongering, hating).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AM

October 11, 2008
Rezko Is Singing

Is Obama sweating?

Probably not. Whatever happens won't happen until after the election, and at that point, he'll be untouchable, with the Dems in control of both houses. This is part of the point that I was making in my PJM piece yesterday. Because the media is covering for him, we're about to unwittingly (at least to much of the electorate--much of the rest, sadly, doesn't care) put another crooked but charismatic politician in the White House, just as we did in 1992.

And it goes without saying, of course, that if this were the Republican candidate, it would be headline news every day for the next three weeks. But it's not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:01 PM

The Coming Thugocracy

If the potential economic disaster of a Democrat regime doesn't concern you, consider the implications for free speech.

As Mark Steyn comments, don't be surprised to see an effort to establish "human rights" commissions, a la Canada.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:51 AM

The Enigma Continues

Part of the Kennedy myth that propelled him into the White House was that he wrote a Pulitzer-winning book. Only many years later was it revealed that the actual author, or at least ghost writer, was Ted Sorenson.

Well, now we have an interesting question.

Who wrote Dreams of My Father?

A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama's election as Harvard's first black president caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama's proposed memoir.

With advance in hand, Obama repaired to Chicago where he dithered. At one point, in order to finish without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. He was surely in way over his head.

According to a surprisingly harsh 2006 article by liberal publisher Peter Osnos, which detailed the "ruthlessness" of Obama's literary ascent, Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. Dystel did not give up. She solicited Times Book, the division of Random House at which Osnos was publisher. He met with Obama, took his word that he could finish the book, and authorized a new advance of $40,000.

Then suddenly, somehow, the muse descended on Obama and transformed him from a struggling, unschooled amateur, with no paper trail beyond an unremarkable legal note and a poem about fig-stomping apes, into a literary superstar.

...In 1997, Obama was an obscure state senator, a lawyer, and a law school instructor with one book under his belt that had debuted two years earlier to little acclaim and lesser sales. In terms of identity, he had more in common with mayor Sawyer than poet Brooks. The "writer" identification seems forced and purposefully so, a signal perhaps to those in the know of a persona in the making that Ayers had himself helped forge.

None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams.

The Obama camp could put all such speculation to rest by producing some intermediary sign of impending greatness -- a school paper, an article, a notebook, his Columbia thesis, his LSAT scores -- but Obama guards these more zealously than Saddam did his nuclear secrets. And I suspect, at the end of the day, we will pay an equally high price for Obama's concealment as Saddam's.

An interesting, and very plausible thesis. Much more so, in fact, than the official story. And if true, one more bit of evidence that Bill Ayers was more, much more, than "a guy in his neighborhood." It is also one more bit of continually accumulating evidence that Barack Obama is a fraud.

And as Andy McCarthy notes, given that Chris Buckley's insouciance about an Obama presidency is predicated on the intellectual brilliance evidenced by his books, he might want to reconsider, if his books are in fact those of someone else.

And no, don't expect the press to cover this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AM

October 10, 2008
I Agree With The WSJ

Chris Dodd should be the one on the stand, under oath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 AM

The Enigma Of Obama

I have a piece today at Pajamas media, on the lies and spin of the Obama campaign, and his enablers in the media.

[Update late morning]

I should note, of course (though shouldn't it go without saying?) that because I wrote this piece, like Roger Simon, I am a racist.

[Afternoon update]

I have to confess that I'm perplexed by the foolish comments that I, or John McCain, should be "going after" Walter Annenberg, or the Annenberg Foundation, or "charging them" with...something. What does that mean?

There is nothing illegal about funding leftist activities with philanthropy. I don't even think that it should be. But I do think that the voters are entitled to know when one of their presidential candidates is involved with it. If Walter Annenberg were running for president, and doing the same things that Barack Obama is, and has done, I'd be saying exactly the same things about him. But he's not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AM

October 09, 2008
An Idle Question

How widespread is the voter registration fraud that ACORN has been responsible for? How much has it artificially boosted Democrat registration numbers this year?

There are two factors that have increased Dem registration this year. One is the efforts by ACORN and similar groups. The other is the significant numbers of Republicans who switched to Democrat so that they could vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. The first group isn't going to vote for Obama because they don't exist, to a large extent. The second group is going to vote for John McCain.

All of the likely (and even registered) voter polls are skewed to sample Dems more because of this perceived increase in Democrat voters. But if much of that increase is illusory, due to the factors described above, are the polls overstating support for Obama?

[Update late evening]

Iowahawk is on the case in defense of a truly defenseless minority: ACORN files suit on behalf of the voting rights of Imaginary-Americans:

"Whether we are obituary notices, hallucinatory giant rabbits, or strings of random keyboard strokes, it's time for the chimera community to stand up and claim our rights as citizens," said ASDFG. "We will no longer be silent and invisible. Okay, maybe invisible."

In addition to $3.2 jubajillion in damages and free federal mortgages for homeless spectres, the suit also seeks enforcement of the Americans with Dimensional Disabilities Act. The Act requires voting places to make accommodations for existentially-challenged voters who have trouble completing ballots written in standard 3-dimensional reality. The accommodations include multiple site registration, time travel, and allowances for alcoholics to cast ballots for dependent D.T. phantasms.

"Many of our community inhabit the Tapioca subluster of the 11th Dimension, and it's hard for them to find a convenient spacehole to make it to the local elementary school," explained ASDFG.

Classic. And one that I wish that I'd thought of. Though as always, Burge does a much better job with the concept than I would have, anyway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:06 PM

ACORN

I don't know what the penalties under the law are, but with the stories about people being hounded to register multiple times, I'd like to not only see their funding cut off, but a lot of people do jail time.

[Update mid afternoon]

Geraghty has more:

So we have an organization that has been joined at the hip with Obama from the beginning of his career, whose members have been convicted in Washington state, Wisconsin and Colorado, and had various forms of reprimand, investigation, indictment, and other run-ins with the law and state election authorities in Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Arkansas. Perhaps most disturbingly, the organization has repeatedly entrusted convicted felons with voters' most sensitive personal information, sort of a small business assistance program for aspiring identity thieves.
Is it time for Americans to tell ACORN to get out of their faces? Or perhaps for law enforcement to get into their faces? Or perhaps some media entity should get in Obama's face about why one of his longtime allies keeps coming up in investigations of vote fraud?

If people don't care about Bill Ayers, they should certainly care about this. It's happening right now, less than a month before the election, not when Barack Obama was eight years old.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AM

October 08, 2008
Say It Ain't So, "O" (Part Three)

Is/was Barack Obama a member of Democratic Socialists of America? It sure looks like it.

No worries--they were probably just guys in his neighborhood.

Between these folks and Ayers and Dorhn (who are no doubt members as well, unless it wasn't radical enough for them), it sounds like a pretty bad neighborhood.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jonah Goldberg wonders if Senator Obama ever read his home-town newspaper.

And then of course there was Ayers' own autobiography, the profile in the NY Times in which Ayers casually said he'd wished he'd made more bombs etc.

I don't know Chicago well. But my sense of the place is that they take politics pretty seriously there. Young, very smart and hyper ambitious politicians like Obama tend to read the local paper (never mind the New York Times, which ran a couple dozen stories mentioning Ayers and his terrorist ties between 1990 and 2004). The political class in Chicago knows who everybody is, where they came from, what they believe. They tend to learn about people who give them jobs, money and political opportunities. And, people like Ayers don't exactly keep their views or radical past a closely guarded secret, particularly when they remain unreprentant.

In short, I think it's a lie -- and a pretty stupid one -- to say that Obama didn't know about any of this. The obvious answer is he just didn't care.

Yes, just like Reverend Wright's rantings. It was no problem. Until, that is,it became politically inconvenient to him. He is lying about his relationship with Ayers, which means that he was also almost certainly lying about not knowing what was being preached in his church of twenty years. Why should we believe anything he says?

[Update late morning]

It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood, with advice columns from Barack's and Michelle's neighbors:

Dear Mary Ellen: Your question is borne of bourgeois ignorance and manufactured consent. A violent revolution is coming, and the workers will throw off the chains of their oppression and rise up in a bloody revolt against AmeriKKKa's legacy of racism, genocide, and hegemonic corporatist empire. In the coming revolution, the state and its propagandist education apparatus will wither away, thus ushering in a new age of proletarian enlightenment. All education will be free, and all children, including yours, will be rescued from their bourgeois shackles and freed to join the vanguard for permanent revolution.

Bernadine has legal advice as well. Also, grooming tips from Rod.

[Afternoon update]

The memory hole doesn't work so well any more, what with web archives. Politically Drunk has found some pages that had been previously scrubbed that confirm Senator Obama's membership in the New Party:

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party': "New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.

"New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago."

Is there any record of Senator Obama demanding a correction to the publications?

Next, I expect him to say "that's not the Democratic Socialist Party that I knew..."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AM

October 07, 2008
Secession

Should American writers secede from the Nobel Prize for literature?

There was a brief moment, after World War II, when the Nobel Committee allowed that America might produce more sophisticated writers. No one on either side of the Atlantic would quarrel with the awards to William Faulkner in 1949 or Ernest Hemingway in 1954. But in the 32 years since Bellow won the Nobel, there has been exactly one American laureate, Toni Morrison, whose critical reputation in America is by no means secure. To judge by the Nobel roster, you would think that the last three decades have been a time of American cultural drought rather than the era when American culture and language conquered the globe.

But that, of course, is exactly the problem for the Swedes. As long as America could still be regarded as Europe's backwater--as long as a poet like T.S. Eliot had to leave America for England in order to become famous enough to win the Nobel--it was easy to give American literature the occasional pat on the head. But now that the situation is reversed, and it is Europe that looks culturally, economically, and politically dependent on the United States, European pride can be assuaged only by pretending that American literature doesn't exist. When Engdahl declares, "You can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world," there is a poignant echo of Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard insisting that she is still big, it's the pictures that got smaller.

Nothing gives the lie to Engdahl's claim of European superiority more effectively than a glance at the Nobel Prize winners of the last decade or so. Even Austrians and Italians didn't think Elfriede Jelinek and Dario Fo deserved their prizes; Harold Pinter won the prize about 40 years after his significant work was done. To suggest that these writers are more talented or accomplished than the best Americans of the last 30 years is preposterous.

Other than that I think Hemingway is vastly overrated, and ample fodder for parody, I agree. The Peace prizes have been a joke since Arafat and Rigoberto Menchu (not to mention Jimmy Carter), and I think that the literature prizes have gone the same way, decades ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:10 PM

Pants On Fire

CNN (of all places) essentially calls Barack Obama a liar:

Griffin also tells a somewhat nonplussed Cooper that Obama has lied about his "coming out party" at the home of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in 1995. Obama has said that Alice Palmer arranged the fundraiser and the venue, but Griffin spoke to two people who attended the event, who claim Obama lied. Palmer had nothing to do with that event outside of being invited to it. Obama and Ayers planned the event themselves.

The story never made much sense. Why would Ayers and Dohrn allow their house to be used for an event in which they had no role? I wonder how long he's been falsely fingering Palmer for it? I'm betting that he never told this fairy tale until recently, when it suddenly (and inexplicably, to him) became a potential campaign issue.

And of course, the next question is, if he's lying about this, what else is he lying to us about? After all, as Senator McCain pointed out yesterday, for a guy who has written two books about himself, his life hasn't been anything close to an open book.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AM

More Ayers Thoughts

From Mark Steyn:

The point is not that President-designate Obama is a "close friend" of the unrepentant Ayers, or that he was only eight when his patron was building bombs to kill the women of New Jersey. As Joe Biden would no doubt point out on his entertaining "This Day In History" segment, McCain was only six when Czogolsz killed President McKinley. But I doubt he'd let the guy host a fundraiser for him.

But, in the world in which Obama moves, it would seem absurd and provincial to object to partying with an "unrepentant terrorist." The senator advanced and prospered in a milieu in which men like Ayers are not just accepted but admired for their "passionate participation", and function as power-brokers and path-smoothers. This is a great country, and most of us (as Peter Kirsanow notes below) make it without having to kiss up to America-haters like Ayers and Wright. But not Obama.

Who is this man on course to be 44th president? Apparently, it's not just impolite but racist to ask.

Speaking of which, Sarah Palin apparently handled the racism nonsense from CNN pretty well yesterday.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Jonah Goldberg has some more thoughts on the ~~terrorists~~"passionate anti-war and civil rights movement" and the contradictions of the fascist left.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:38 AM

Hilarious

Mickey Kaus points out the foolishness of the press, in imagining that there was ever any possibliity that the media would be supporting McCain.

It's one thing to have pro-Democratic, pro-Obama media favoritism: That's just the way it is. Political reporters have opinions. Better blatant than latent.

It's another to have that very favoritism used as evidence that McCain is blowing it, losing his reputation for "integrity" and his "gold plated brand."

Yes, they only like McCain when he's running against Republicans. The NYT endorsed him in the primary. Does anyone imagine they'll endorse him in the general?

He also has a warning:

It might seem as if the MSM reaction against McCain's shift to negativism has "driven the final nail into his coffin," as Heilemann suggests. The Feiler Faster Thesis says no--given the speed with which the country now processes information, there's plenty of time for several dramatic twists and turns, including lead changes. Obamaphiles (in the press and elsewhere) are deluding themselves, I think, if they think they can ride the economic crisis and the reaction against negativity to victory in a month. Plus Obama's not that far ahead.

Nope.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:51 AM

About Time

UCLA economists have calculated how long FDR extended the Great Depression. Seven years.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

..."The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Remember this the next time someone talks about a new "New Deal." The myth of Roosevelt is akin with the current idiotic nonsense being promulgated by Democrats that the financial crisis was a result of "deregulation."

[Update about 9 AM EDT]

Sebastian Mallaby has a nice corrective to the "deregulation" nonsense:

The key financiers in this game were not the mortgage lenders, the ratings agencies or the investment banks that created those now infamous mortgage securities. In different ways, these players were all peddling financial snake oil, but as Columbia University's Charles Calomiris observes, there will always be snake-oil salesmen. Rather, the key financiers were the ones who bought the toxic mortgage products. If they hadn't been willing to buy snake oil, nobody would have been peddling it.
Who were the purchasers? They were by no means unregulated. U.S. investment banks, regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, bought piles of toxic waste. U.S. commercial banks, regulated by several agencies, including the Fed, also devoured large quantities. European banks, which faced a different and supposedly more up-to-date supervisory scheme, turn out to have been just as rash. By contrast, lightly regulated hedge funds resisted buying toxic waste for the most part -- though they are now vulnerable to the broader credit crunch because they operate with borrowed money.

If that doesn't convince you that deregulation is the wrong scapegoat, consider this: The appetite for toxic mortgages was fueled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the super-regulated housing finance companies. Calomiris calculates that Fannie and Freddie bought more than a third of the $3 trillion in junk mortgages created during the bubble and that they did so because heavy government oversight obliged them to push money toward marginal home purchasers. There's a vigorous argument about whether Calomiris's number is too high. But everyone concedes that Fannie and Freddie poured fuel on the fire to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

As he points out, it's important to understand the actual cause, because if we misdiagnose the disease, we're likely to come up with nostrums that make it worse, just as FDR's "brain trust" did. And that's exactly the path we're on with Obama. McCain may make similar mistakes, but with him, at least it's not a sure thing.

[Mid-morning update]

Glenn Reynolds has some thoughts on the upcoming speculative bubble in regulation. I agree that we need to design the system to be much more fault tolerant.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AM

October 06, 2008
Democrats Against Obama

I suspect that there are a lot more of these folks than there are Republicans against McCain. And they've connected the ACORN dots between Obama, the Dems in Congress and the housing meltdown.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:49 AM

Don't Forget Bernadine

Bob Owens notes that it's not just Bill Ayers. And he also points out the absurdity of thinking that one could be a member of the Weatherman at all, let alone a founder, and not have murderous intent:

BarackObama.com, the campaign's official website, offers up a "fact check" that Obama was just eight years old when the Weathermen were active in 1969. The Obama campaign has tried to use the founding date of the Weathermen as a touchstone, claiming that the acts of the group were something that happened "40 years ago" when Obama was a child. Far closer to the truth is the December 6, 1990, sentencing date of Weathermen Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, when the last of the Weathermen were sentenced for their role in a string of bombings in the mid-1980s, including bombs that detonated at the National War College, the Washington Navy Yard Computing Center, the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the Israeli Aircraft Industries Building, New York City's South African Consulate, and the United States Capitol Building.

Barack Obama's ties to the Weathermen aren't ties that were 40 years removed from a child's experiences, but the conscious decision of a young radical to establish a relationship to an infamous terrorist because of shared ideology and interests.

Barack Obama never set any bombs. But he's never had problems with associating with those who did.

This talking point that Obama was "only eight years old" is stupid, as is anyone who buys it.

[Afternoon update]

Abe Greenwald has more:

Okay, let's go with that judgment thing, shall we. Barack Obama served on the board of an educational organization headed by a terrorist bomber. He launched his political career in said bomber's home. He then went on to serve two years alongside said bomber on the board of a "charitable" organization. Not quite done, Obama gave the bomber the gift of an enthusiastic blurb for the bomber's book jacket. Even if Obama's preposterous new claim about not knowing who Bill Ayers was was true in 1995, was it true in 1997 when Obama, then state senator, endorsed Ayers's book? Had he not yet found out the identity of his buddy by 2000, when he took the position serving with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund? Did no one slip him a note over the next two years reading, "Don't indicate that you're reading this note, but the guy next to you is a terrorist"? Frankly, if Obama didn't find out that Bill Ayers is a terrorist until it came up during the primary, then there's more to worry about than the candidate's political leanings.

No kidding.

[Early evening update]

Here's a flash from the past. A 2001 piece by David Horowitz about the terrorist couple:

This is the banal excuse of common criminals - the devil made me do it. "I don't think you can understand a single thing we did," explains the pampered Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers "without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War."

I interviewed Ayers ten years ago, in a kindergarten classroom in uptown Manhattan where he was employed to shape the minds of inner city children. Dressed in bib overalls with golden curls rolling below his ears, Ayers reviewed his activities as a terrorist for my tape recorder. When he was done, he broke into a broad, Jack Horner grin and summed up his experience: "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country."

That would have been 1991. This was a man who would later be put in charge of millions of dollars, with Barack Obama, to propagandize and radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. Either Obama had no problem with his past, or he was unaware of it. I don't believe the latter. But either way, I don't want him to be running the country. For all we know, he'll appoint Ayers to be head of the Department of Education.

[Evening update]

"Bill Ayers has never hidden the fact that he was part of the Weather Underground, part of this radical group. In some ways it has made him somewhat famous in the South Side, Hyde Park, Chicago neighborhood where he lives."

I guess we're supposed to believe that he somehow only hid it from Barack Obama.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:07 AM

More Connecting The Dots

Steve Diamond (no Republican he, I'm guessing) has been doing an excellent job in pulling together the story of Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and other sixties neo-Stalinist radicals, and the shared agendas, particularly in the area of education. Just keep reading and scrolling.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:37 AM

The War On The Second Amendment

By Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the story doesn't lend itself well to a thirty-second ad.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:47 AM

Off To The Movies

I very rarely see a movie in a theater. I'd say it averages once or twice a year (though we did see Dark Knight a couple months ago--the last one before that was The Astronaut Farmer). But tonight Patricia and I are going out to see American Carol to boost its opening weekend ratings (plus, it looks like it should be pretty funny, and I think we can all use a good laugh right now, given current events). At this point, I'm all about promoting and encouraging alternate media/viewpoints, particularly from Hollywood. I may or may not review it tomorrow.

[Monday morning update]

Meh.

It was entertaining, and a good story, but not roll-in-the-aisles funny, at least for us. Of course, I've never been that big a Zucker/slapstick fan (e.g., I've never even seen any of the Naked Gun series). It's not the sort of flick that I would normally want to see in a theater, but I was happy to help boost the first weekend ratings. Of course, unlike the previous ones, there are some emotionally affecting moments in this one (quickly broken up, of course, by more crude slapstick).

So if you want to support this sort of politically incorrect movie (always a noble goal, in my opinion), spend a couple hours and spend the ten bucks. You'll have a good time, but don't expect too much.

[Note: this post has been bumped to the top, new stuff below]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AM

October 05, 2008
Say It Ain't So, "O" (Part Two)

Illegal fundraising by the Obama campaign? Who would have thought?

I wonder how much of that foreign money comes from oil wealth.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AM

October 04, 2008
Even Deeper In The Tank

The New York Times continues to act as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign:

Steve Diamond has made a powerful case that, whoever first suggested Obama's name, Ayers must surely have had a major role in his final selection. Diamond has now revealed that the Times consulted him extensively for this article and has seen his important documentary evidence. Yet we get no inkling in the piece of Diamond's key points, or the documents that back it up. (I've made a similar argument myself, based largely on my viewing of many of the same documents presented by Diamond.) How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair? Instead of offering both sides of the argument and letting readers decide, the Times simply spoon-feeds its readers the Obama camp line.
The Times also ignores the fact that I've published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See "Obama's Challenge.") Maybe that's because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.

Yup. Wouldn't fit the narrative.

[Mid afternoon update]

Instapundit has a roundup of links discussing this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:07 AM

September 29, 2008
A Tale Of Two Candidates

Mark Hemingway notes the ongoing double standard of the press:

Not that these things are to be excused out of hand, but Palin bends zoning rules -- which I'm sure are stringent and a high stakes matter in Wasilla, Alaska -- and gets a free facial. Obama gets a freakin' house with help from someone indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, extortion and corrupt solicitation; has someone raising money for his campaign with well-publicized ties to organized crime; and the Illinois attorney general is currently looking into how Obama earmarked $100,000 for a former campaign volunteer who never spent the money for its intended purpose -- and yet, I don't see too many "investigations" decrying Obama's transparently false claims he practices a "new" kind of politics.

I guess that my thesis is going to be tested. We're seeing exactly the same behavior from the Fourth Estate regarding the Democrat candidate as we saw in 1992--completely ignoring the candidate's unsavory history, and hoping that no one else exposes it, while acting as an adjunct part of his campaign in maintaining the anti-Republican narrative. Will they get away with it again?

We'll see if the blogosphere can make a difference this time.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Well, now we know what a community organizer does. He strong arms banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

And he has the audacity of hope that the media won't call him on his hypocrisy in blaming George Bush and the Republicans, and "deregulation" for the current crisis. Unfortunately, his audacity seems to be justified.

Someone should put together an ad, and ask which regulatory agency should have reined in organizer Obama.

[Update mid morning]

Victor Davis Hanson has more on the media double standards:

As I recall Raines was the one who, following the Enron scandals, gave public lectures about corporate responsibility and CEO honesty. And as one begins to read about Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, and Leland Brendsel at Freddie Mac, one begins to understand their modus operandi. Freddie and Fannie were landing pads for former Democratic insiders, who milked the agencies for millions in bonuses as they covered their tracks by donations to Congressional candiates and pseudo-racial-populism of helping minorities buy homes with little down. Their careers are every bit as nauseating as anything at Enron -- and yet the press strangely does not go after them in the manner we learned of Ken Lay's deceit. God help us all.

It goes beyond nauseating. It makes me incandescently angry.

[Early afternoon update[

Geraghty has some related thoughts on the Missouri issue:

Think about it, the local television station summarized the story on their web site, "The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign," and it seems no one at the station blinked; there was nothing in the report that indicated that this might be controversial.

I hate to be glum heading into October, but to a certain extent, an electorate gets the leaders it deserves. If the journalism institutions in a given area nod and smile as they're given information like this -- if it never crosses their mind to object -- then the Fourth Estate, for all extents and purposes, ceases to exist. When Ben Franklin responded to the query about the government that would manage the young nation, "A Republic, if you can keep it," moments like this make you wonder if we're in the process of losing it.

These "reporters" are a product of their environment--public schools and (often) schools of journalism. Is the problem that they don't understand the Bill of Rights, or is it that they don't care about it, if it gets in the way of their preferred candidate? Do they not understand that it is precisely the right being potentially violated here that allows them the freedom to pursue their supposed profession? Either way, it is very dismaying.

"First, they came for the McCain supporters, and I did nothing, because I was not a McCain supporter."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AM

September 28, 2008
Here's The Kind Of Ad Campaign

...that John McCain should have kicked off on Friday by properly responding to Senator Obama's lies and demagoguery on the financial crisis. It's exactly what Fred Thompson would have done, but I fear that out of a misplaced sense of collegiality, McCain won't do it.

The problem is, that in his heart, McCain doesn't really believe in free markets, any more than his opponents do. He has an emotional stake in "honor" and "service" over profit, and it makes it tough for him (as Glenn said) to go for the jugular against the corrupt rent seekers and collectivists in Washington, of both parties. Instead, he placidly and pallidly aims for the capillary.

He really needs to read this. As he notes, the problem isn't capitalism. It's politicians.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:46 PM

The Latest In Libel Tourism

You don't have to go overseas any more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 PM

September 26, 2008
A History Of Thuggery

Patterico has the story:

...the DNC threatened Sinclair Broadcasting's broadcast license over an anti-Kerry documentary called 'Stolen Honor.' Kerry spokesthug Chad Clanton was quoted as saying: 'I think they're going to regret doing this, and they better hope we don't win.' He hastened to add that it wasn't a threat."

Do you Obamaphiles really want these people in charge of the Justice Department? That doesn't scare you just a little bit?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:03 PM

So What's Stopping Her?

Nancy Pelosi says that the bailout bill has to pass.

OK, Madame Speaker, if you believe that, if it's such a great idea, then why not pass it? Your party controls the House. There is no filibuster as there is in the Senate. There's nothing the House Republicans can do to stop you. So where is the bill?

Obviously, she just wants keister upholstery in case it doesn't work. She wants to get buy-in from the Republicans so that they can share the blame for the taxpayer ripoff. I don't see why they should give it to her. And I also don't see why this isn't pointed out in news stories like this.

Oh, right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

Voter Fraud?

In Ohio.

You'll be as shocked as I was to learn that ACORN is involved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AM

September 25, 2008
The Continuing Coverup

Clarice Feldman notes that Bill Ayers was a lot more than a "guy in Barack's neighborhood."

How is it possible that Obama in writing two autobiographies could ignore his 13 year-long association with Ayers if he were not purposely trying to hide or downplay it? How is it possible that the media could continue to ignore the CAC story? How is it possible that American voters, who regularly indicate such enormous concern over educational issues, could be so long kept in the dark by the Fourth Estate about the educational project Obama ran into the ground while he aided his revolutionary pals in recruiting Chicago kids to their extreme left wing mission?

It's clear that Obama and his friends, including those in the press, are trying to keep this all bottled up at least until after the election.

Then, I suppose, like the Clinton peccadilloes in Arkansas, this story will be free to unfold, too late to inform the voters.

Except unlike 1992, we have alternate media today.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 AM

Joe Biden's Memory

It's so good, that he remembers things that didn't happen:

...I think Joe Biden's constant flights of fancy indicate he's not a terribly precise thinker or speaker, and he's certainly not used to being called out on these, or being corrected. He takes in data and remembers what he wants to remember, not the facts as they actually are.

(More on this list - he keeps insisting that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver when the driver in question was sober; he keeps saying he was a coal miner when his grandfather was; he says the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said we're losing the war in Iraq (he said we were "not winning" in Afghanistan)... )

I know we're supposed to be worried about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but I really wonder what kind of diplomatic crises could be triggered by a globetrotting vice president who kept talking about events that didn't happen...

I don't think that Biden's IQ is as high as he thinks it is.

And I agree that this is one gaffe that's really going to hurt him. I expect it will be featured in a lot of McCain ads in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[Update a few minutes later]

Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point:

In short, the problem is not whether we think the affable Biden's latest slip/goof/outrage is important, but whether we think anything he says any more is important. The next time he tries to offer something serious, from the AIG matter and coal power to campaign ads and Sarah Palin, I think we are at the point where most will smile, ignore him, and think 'That's just Biden being Biden.' He could give the Gettyburg Address tomorrow, and the public wouldn't know whether he wrote it, whether he was going to retract it, whether it was true, or whether he was serious.

I haven't taken Joe Biden seriously in years. Actually, I can't recall a time that I ever did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AM

September 24, 2008
The Age Of Obamalot

Jeff Goldstein muses on just how deeply the MSM is in the tank for the Dems this year:

This is not hyperbole: a free society relies on a free press to inform. That the mainstream press leans demonstrably left is not the problem in and of itself; the problem arises when that demonstrable bias is given cover as "objective," and when those who believe they are basing their support for a candidate or platform on objective reporting are in effect doing no such thing, but are rather being coaxed, prodded, directed, and manipulated -- in everything from what comes to count as newsworthy to, in cases like these, shoddy reporting (which may or may not be intentional), the effect of which is to leave those who rely on the media literally less informed than had the media reported nothing at all.

A free society cannot run this way. If information is power, those who control the information and its mainstream dissemination are in a position to act as the most important swing vote in any election. That the press has given up, at this late stage (and despite declines in readership and public trust), any serious attempt to report objectively suggests that we are now quite immersed in a battle for the very principles of a democratic republic. Progressives have decided that the ends justify the means -- that lies in the service of greater truths (as defined by their own ideology) are both pragmatic and utilitarian measures to be adopted so that "we" can finally get things "right," and accept government from a permanent political class, a new aristocracy, that will expand the federal government in ways that will protect us from ourselves, in the process, assuring that ever new generations will be reliable upon the good graces of the federal government for their survival.

The new media held promise for fighting back. But the left recognized this immediately and built a counter balance to the MSM fact-checkers -- and, in a perverse expansion of their role as foils, these progressive "netroots" are now responsible for feeding stories to the mainstream press, a further assault on the Enlightenment mandate for the free exchange of ideas, and further proof that progressives are every bit the totalitarians and would be fascists that I have long suggested they must necessarily be, given the philosophical imperatives that underwrite their political philosophy.

As he says, the problem is not the bias per se, but the ongoing denial of it, to us and (perhaps) themselves.

[Update a while later]

Tony Blankley writes about The Man Who Never Was:

...worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

We'll just have to bypass them. I'm counting on the 527s to do it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AM

September 23, 2008
Another Thing About Biden's Roosevelt Gaffe

Katie Couric didn't call him on it.

So, was she a) being polite, b) in the tank for the Dems and didn't want to point it out or c) didn't even see a problem with anything he said, being as historically ignorant as he is?

I think it's either (b) or (c), which are pretty much mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure which is worse. And I think that (c) is the most likely.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 PM

We Knew This Was Coming

There are more and more stories appearing in the media with the template that we're a racist nation. This is preparing the groundwork to blame Obama's upcoming loss on the evil right-wing bigots, of both parties. And of course, poor Michelle won't be able to feel proud of America any more.

No, it won't have anything to do with the fact that he's Michael Dukakis with more melanin. It will have nothing to do with the fact that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and his running mate comes in third, that one needs a scanning tunneling microscope to measure the thickness of his resume, that he sat in the pew of an America-hating bigot for twenty years and had his children baptized by him, that he partnered with an unrepentent domestic terrorist to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren. No, it will be our fault, because we are racist, and don't deserve the blessings of having The One preside over our unworthy nation.

Anyway, here's the latest example, from US News.

[Wednesday morning update]

Jonah Goldberg has related thoughts today:

This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.

Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.

Nope. It's got to be the racism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:33 PM

The Obama-Ayers Connection

It's finally starting to get some play in the MSM, but only at the Wall Street Journal:

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Gray Lady to cover it. And unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to a ten-second explanation or sound bite, other than "Barack Obama worked to radicalize Chicago school children." But someone should ask him just what there was to show for the hundred million, since it's the only thing that he's ever actually run (other than, as the Reverend Jesse Jackson amusingly noted, his mouth).

More thoughts over at Hot Air.

[Update a while later]

Dr. Kurtz has more over at NRO:

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama's most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama's competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers's continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers's personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers's profoundly radical efforts. Ayers's terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.

"Most important"? More like "only," unless one counts running his campaign (which is really done by Axelrod).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:02 AM

September 22, 2008
J-Vator? Probably Not

Leo Lewis notes that boosters at the Japan Space Elevator Association are psyched. Unfortunately, material science problems are still a challenge, albeit one that has potential to be solved quickly (say in the next 10-30 years) and economically--but it's still only potential at this point. Kevlar is still king of industrial cabling, body armor, etc. so super strong materials will be a laboratory curiosity for some years before they will be available for Earthbound uses, much less space uses.

One oddity: electric power delivered by the elevator. That would be an electric line that would stretch around the world. Probably better to stick with power beaming by laser. With solar energy very popular, that should not have any laugh test to pass. Another oddity. They stick with the far counterweight popularized by Edwards; this may be OK for initial deployment, but once mass is coming up the cable, the counterweight should be closer and heavier and the cable shorter.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:47 AM

Who Smeared Sarah Palin?

Rusty Shackleford has been doing a lot of research. If this can be traced to the Obama campaign, the FEC should be interested. But they probably won't be. And neither will the MSM.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Dan Riehl has more. And like roaches fleeing when the lights come on, the perps have pulled down the sites. Not in time, though--they've been cached.

You know, this could be a really big story for an enterprising investigative reporter at someplace like the New York Times. Unfortunately, when it comes to Barack Obama, such creatures don't seem to exist.

[Update mid morning]

Ace has more:

Tomorrow they will claim this was all inadvertent, etc. They'll say they did produce the ad, and sent it to Winner and Associates to, um, focus-group or something, then decided not to run it, but that dirty Winner family and its employees attempted to get it to go viral without their authorization.

Whatever.

If this is all so innocent, why are the videos being yanked even as we speak?

Just about one hour after the post went up, "cnwinner," "eswinner" and the rest of the winner gang are yanking their videos.

Almost as if... I don't know, some kind of major campaign organization was patrolling the internet 24/7.

Can we believe "cnwinner," "eswinner," and etc. just all suddenly were monitoring the internet and decided to take their videos down simultaneously?

No, we cannot.

Can we believe Winner & Associates scours the internet 24 hours a day for derogatory stories about them?

No, we cannot.

But -- can we believe the Obama campaign has people watching the internet 24/7 and just sent out the call to Winner & Associates to bury the evidence?

Yes we can, friends.

Yes we can, even if the Gray Lady can't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:44 AM

September 21, 2008
If Only

The latest lie from the Obama campaign:

He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.

The amusing thing is that he says it as though it would be a bad thing. I'd a lot rather have my retirement funds in the market (which is where most of them are) than in a demographically collapsing Ponzi scheme.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PM

A Blast From The Past

Ben Bova has a piece in the Naples News that could have been written thirty years ago. In fact, it's exactly like stuff that he (and I) wrote thirty years ago. The only difference is that I have experienced the past thirty years, whereas he seems to be stuck in a seventies time warp, and I've gotten a lot more sober about the prospects for a lot of the orbital activities that were always just around the corner, and probably always will be:

An orbital habitat needn't be a retirement center, though. Space offers some interesting advantages for manufacturing metal alloys, pharmaceuticals, electronics components and other products. For example, in zero-gravity it's much easier to mix liquids.

Think of mixing a salad dressing. On Earth, no matter how hard you stir, the heavier elements sink to the bottom of the bowl. In zero G there are no heavier elements: they're all weightless. And you don't even need a bowl! Liquids form spherical shapes, whether they're droplets of water or industrial-sized balls of molten metals.

Metallurgists have predicted that it should be possible in orbit to produce steel alloys that are much stronger, yet much lighter, than any alloys produced on Earth. This is because the molten elements can mix much more thoroughly, and gaseous impurities in the mix can percolate out and into space.

Imagine automobiles built of orbital steel. They'd be much stronger than ordinary cars, yet lighter and more fuel-efficient. There's a market to aim for.

Moreover, in space you get energy practically for free. Sunlight can be focused with mirrors to produce furnace-hot temperatures. Or electricity, from solarvoltaic cells. Without spending a penny for fuel.

The clean, "containerless" environment of orbital space could allow production of ultrapure pharmaceuticals and electronics components, among other things.

Orbital facilities, then, would probably consist of zero-G sections where manufacturing work is done, and low-G areas where people live.

There would also be a good deal of scientific research done in orbital facilities. For one thing, an orbiting habitat would be an ideal place to conduct long-term studies of how the human body reacts to prolonged living in low gravity. Industrial researchers will seek new ways to utilize the low gravity, clean environment and free energy to produce new products, preferably products that cannot be manufactured on Earth, with its heavy gravity, germ-laden environment and high energy costs.

Cars made of "orbital steel"?

Please.

But I guess there's always a fresh market for this kind of overhyped boosterism. I think that it actively hurts the cause of space activism, because people in the know know how unrealistic a lot of it is, and it just hurts the credibility of proponents like Ben Bova.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:29 AM

September 20, 2008
The New Hollywood Blacklist

Here's an interesting extended look at the secret lives of conservatives in tinsel town:

Zucker gave Farley the script and, concerned that Farley's agent would advise him against accepting the role because of the film's politics, told the actor not to show it to anyone. Farley, best known for his recurring role in a series of Hertz commercials, read the script and called back the next day to accept.

When he met Zucker and Sokoloff on the set as shooting on the film began, he told them that he, too, had long considered himself a conservative. "I couldn't believe it," says Sokoloff. "We were afraid that he would not want to be involved in something that was so directly taking on the left and that he would not want to play the Michael Moore character."

Farley told me this story during a break in filming at the Daniel Webster Elementary School in Pasadena, last April, with Steve McEveety, the film's producer, listening in.

"I thought that the minute we started talking about politics that would be the end," Farley recalls. "There was this dance that we did--a dance familiar to conservative actors in Hollywood. Lots of actors have done it."

"All three of you," said McEveety.

"Yeah, all three of us."

...On one of the days I was on set, McEveety had invited Vivendi Entertainment president Tom O'Malley to meet Zucker. Vivendi had just agreed to distribute the film and had promised wide release--news that had the cast and crew of An American Carol in particularly good spirits.

O'Malley and Zucker chatted about the fact that O'Malley is the nephew of Candid Camera's Tom O'Malley and that they are both from the Midwest, among other things. Zucker thanked him for picking up the movie, which will be one of the first for Vivendi's new distribution arm. O'Malley told Zucker that he was particularly interested in this film in part because he, too, leans right.

Such revelations are common occurrences at the periodic meetings of the secret society of Hollywood conservatives known as the "Friends of Abe." The group, with no official membership list and no formal mission, has been meeting under the leadership of Gary Sinise (CSI New York, Forrest Gump) for four years. Zucker had spent a year working on a film with Christopher McDonald without learning anything about his politics. Shortly after the film wrapped, he ran into McDonald, best known as Shooter McGavin from Adam Sandler's Happy Gilmore, at one of these informal meetings.

"It's almost like people who are gay, show up at the baths and say, 'Oh, I didn't know you were gay!'â€‰" Zucker says...

Let's hope that they can come out of the closet some day.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM

Thuggery

Here's the full story of how Sarah Palin was forced out of the anti-Ahmadinejad rally:

Make no mistake that this was an Obama op and that it was Obama operatives directing the screenplay. Upon news of Palin's invitation, it was assured that the event would garner a higher level of attention than it already commanded. And the images and footage of Palin speaking in protest (popular protest, it should be added) of Iran and the messianic Ahmadinejad upon the backdrop of the common perception of Obama's weakness in foreign policy and national security simply could not stand. Furthermore, it would have provided endless campaign fodder with Palin shown standing against the world's foremost state sponsor of international terrorism amid the audio-visual bites of Obama stating he would hold talks with Iran without preconditions. The effects would potentially be more than just stinging.

It had to be derailed at all costs. And the first step in the mission was to characterize it as a politicized event. Getting Clinton to step away from the invitation was easy enough - her own vanity played against her as noted above. Having her spokesmen give a 'politicizing' reason for withdrawing from the rally planted the seed. And the trap was laid expertly.

All that remained was Palin and the media hyper-focus on her. If she remained, the meme of a 'politicization' of an otherwise honorable event would be hung around her neck - and Malcolm Hoenlein's - like an albatross. Yet she refused to rescind her acceptance as Hillary Clinton had.

Here's where it gets a bit dirty. The Obama campaign could not publicly cajole her to stay away, yet they needed her away. Desperately. So the pressure was then applied to Malcolm Hoenlein and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.

Meryl Yourish is appropriately disgusted:

The thing that I hate the most about this? It won't stop my liberal Jewish friends from voting Democrat in any way. It won't even make them think twice about the tactics used by the Democrats. And it's far, far worse than Soccer Dad wrote about the other day. CBS didn't have the story about Jewish organizations having their tax-exempt status revoked for having Palin speak at the rally.

That's not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That's outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats.

In fact, those are precisely the kinds of tactics that the Jewish groups will be protesting on Monday. We just never expected them from the Democrats.

You should have. They've been doing it for decades. Many American Jews seem to have the same relationship with the Democrats as a woman with a wife beater that she keeps going back to.

And I wonder why the media lets them continue to promulgate the absurd notion that if Hillary! had attended by herself, it would have been non-partisan, but that if she shared the stage with Sarah, that would make it partisan.

Well, actually I don't.

[Late morning update]

Speaking of thuggery, Iowahawk has the latest on the Obama voter outreach program.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AM

John McCain's Secret Weapon

Lefty trolls.

And the amusing thing is that even when you tell them this, they don't believe it, and keep doing it anyway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AM

September 19, 2008
Race Baiting

Limbaugh has had enough, and calls out Obama on it.

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

I'm sickened by the self righteousness and hypocrisy of the so-called compassionate left.

How long will it take for the rest of the country to see what a fraud this notion of Jerome Wright's most famous long-time parishioner being a "post-racial" candidate is?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:15 AM

September 18, 2008
Alaska

Jim Albrecht is tired of having his home state slandered.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 PM

Changing The Rules

Jim Treacher: We are the vermin we've been waiting for.

As far as I know, the only precedent in presidential politics is the buffoonish antics of Lyndon LaRouche followers. And I don't think even he ever put out a "LaRouche Action Wire." Probably because he didn't think of it first. Not to mention that he's never had a chance in hell of winning.

Where is the outrage?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 AM

September 17, 2008
The Pixel Race

I've long thought that the resolution of most digital cameras has reached the point at which it's overkill, and there are a lot of other improvements that the camera needs. Unfortunately, the marketing people at Canon don't agree:

Canon engineers are being held back from developing new sensor technology by marketing departments in a "race for megapixels", claims an employee of the Japanese photography company.

The employee told Tech Digest that Canon have the technology to "blow the competition away" in terms of image sensors, but are instead being asked to focus on headline figures like the number of megapixels a camera has. When asked for his opinion on the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which we covered this morning, the employee said:

"I am hugely disappointed because once again Canon engineers are dictated by their marketing department and had to keep up with the megapixel race. They have the technology to blow the competition away by adapting the new 50D sensor tech in a full frame format and just easing off a little on the megapixels. Although no formal testing has been done on the new model yet, judging by the spec and technology used, it just seems to be as good or as bad as the competition - not beating them by a mile (which we used to)."

I'd rather have more speed and better S/N ratio myself.

There's an amusing discussion of this, and the perennial war between marketing and engineering, including examples from Dilbert, over at Free Republic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:01 PM

September 16, 2008
There Are Lies

...damned lies, and campaign hyperbole:

...we've all heard the self-serving myth that pits helpless, meek, high-minded, issue-oriented Democrats against mendacious and mean Republicans, who not only detest America -- especially children and small vulnerable creatures -- but will lie and cheat to keep all oppressed.

The facts betray a more equitable story. And it starts with Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and opposed earmarks. This is an elastic political truth.

Technically, she did stop the project after initially supporting it. She has taken earmarks -- even lobbied for them while mayor of Wasilla. As governor, though, Palin also vetoed over 300 wasteful projects and made an attempt to reform the process. Her record on earmarks is mixed, but by any measure, it's far superior to either Democratic candidate.

Moreover, if this Palin claim can be classified as an untruth, Obama can be called a "liar" just as easily.

Take, if you will, the foundational assertion of Obama's entire campaign that he is the candidate of post-partisan change. Obama, meanwhile, voted with fellow Democrats 96 percent of the time in Washington. And the bipartisan achievement he most often cites, an ethics reform bill, was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.

Unanimous: ". . . being in complete harmony or accord."

So, then, "Unity" should be referred to as a poetic truth.

And when much of the media acts as if it is personally offended by a questionable McCain ad accusing Obama of voting for a bill that would have provided sex education to kindergartners, you feel the pain. It was, indeed, a massive stretch.

It reminds me of the Obama ad that accuses McCain of having "voted to cut education funding" and "proposed" the abolishment of the Department of Education despite neither being true. Not much anger at that one. Just a lot of talk about the media's responsibility to keep candidates honest. And absolutely, journalists have a responsibility to put every single candidate through the wringer.

Every candidate.

Something for the latest desperate anonymous moron that continues to drive by in comments with its pathetic shrieks of "Liar, liar!" to keep in mind.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AM

September 15, 2008
More Media Bias

The press refuses to cover Biden's potential gaffes:

...as Air Joe flew from Wilmington to Charlotte Sunday, the only reporters onboard were off-air reporters from the five television networks and correspondents from NBC and Politico. There was only one camera crew. The back of the plane, reserved for press, sat totally deserted.

Heh. As Geraghty notes, the McCain campaign should complain.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AM

September 12, 2008
Accountability

Glenn has some good advice for presidential candidates:

Take your own camera to every interview, and post the raw video online. The news folks won't like that, but, really, what principled basis is there for objection?

I think that a "principled" basis would be too much to expect from them. It would be amusing to see what their response is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 AM

The Media Meltdown

Mark Steyn comments:

Howie [Kurtz] feels the press is being "manipulated" by the McCain campaign.

Maybe it is. A conventional launch strategy for a little-known vice-presidential nominee might have involved "manipulating" the media into running umpteen front-pagers on Sarah Palin's amazing primary challenge of a sitting governor and getting the sob-sisters to slough off a ton of heartwarming stories about her son shipping out to Iraq.

But, if you were really savvy, you'd "manipulate" the media into a stampede of lurid drivel deriding her as a Stepford wife and a dominatrix, comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can't possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It's a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie's buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob? death-match. You'd not only make the press look like bozos, but that in turn might tarnish just a little the fellow these geniuses have chosen to anoint.

I suspect that it's just going to get worse for them, particularly when they see the generic poll for Congress.

[Update a few minutes later]

John Hinderaker has more on Howie's anger:

I'm not sure what Obama had in mind, but I find it odd that in pages of outrage devoted to the supposed excesses of the McCain campaign, Kurtz finds no room to mention the fact that prominent Democrats (not anonymous emailers, who are much worse) have said that Governor Palin is Pontius Pilate and that her primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion.

The truth is that Sarah Palin has been the object of the most vicious and concerted smear campaign in modern American history. But that fact doesn't cause the media (or Howard Kurtz) to get mad.

It's not too hard to diagnose why, as Kurtz correctly says, "the media are getting mad." They're getting mad because their candidate is losing. They've spent years building him up and covering for his mistakes and shortcomings, and he is such a stiff that he can't coast across the finish line. I'd be mad too, I guess, but I think I'd have the decency not to take it out on Sarah Palin.

Not just the decency. Also the intelligence, given how badly it continues to backfire on them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AM

September 11, 2008
Poor Word Choice

Did Mark Murray think about what he was writing?

Palin could be heard nearly squealing with delight in the front of the plane at the sight of three of her children at the foot of the stairs, and according to several aides, refused to stay inside the plane.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM

September 10, 2008
I Have Not Been Dreaming About Sarah Palin

Just for the record. These folks have, though, which would indicate that she's really gotten into their heads. I think that there's going to be a huge therapy bill come mid-November.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Has The Atlantic finally leashed its rabid pit bull? I've often wondered the last few years if the HIV has finally caught up with Andrew's mind. Dementia, sadly, is one of the potential consequences.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:44 AM

September 09, 2008
Nomenclature

Ann Althouse writes that Bill O'Reilly "spouts right-wing economic theories."

What does that mean?

I've heard Bill O'Reilly rant against free trade, complain about "fat cats," whine about "obscene" profits from oil companies, price gougers, etc., but in that, he seems to be more attuned to Democrats than "right wingers." Say what you want about O'Reilly, but he's no "right winger" (at least if, by that, one means a classical liberal who believes in free markets). He's a populist, who is just "looking out for the folks" (at least to hear him tell it--never mind the actual effects of his anti-market nostrums). Just another example of the meaninglessness (and uselessness) of the labels (e.g., "neocon," "conservative," "fascist") that get pointlessly thrown around the arena.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AM

September 08, 2008
Fact From Fiction

Charlie Martin sorts through all the Palin rumors.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AM

September 04, 2008
Saracuda

I should state up front that I'm not easily influenced by speechifying. I never got what people thought was so great about Bill Clinton's speeches--I had trouble stomaching them myself, because they always seemed so fake and disingenuous. And I never understood why Reagan was called "the Great Communicator." Most of his speeches left me pretty cold as well. I mean, I was fine with the content, but I just never got the all the adulation.

Same thing with Governor Palin. She gave a good speech, had a lot of nice swipes at The One, and I liked most of what she said, as far as it goes. It's probably too much to expect a lot of policy, given that she'd just come through several days of one of the most vicious media assaults in history, and had to just get the audience to know her. Her voice doesn't seem as strong as I'd like, but I think that for most people, it must increase her likability factor. It's also impressive that she managed to give it with teleprompter problems, with no obvious flubs. She either had good notes as a backup, or she really knew that speech. Had Obama been in a similar situation it could have been disastrous (which makes one think of the potential for a very dirty campaign trick if one could breach the security and get control of his prompter during a big speech).

I think that she's going to be a very good debater, and show people that she's much more knowledgable than the stereotype so far.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 AM

September 02, 2008
Well, Now He's Got My Vote

The latest from the fever swamps:

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!

The frightening thing is that these people probably really believe this stuff.

[Update a while later]

The ends justify the means:

If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade.

And to think that these creatures consider themselves our moral betters.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:05 PM

"Materially False"

That's how the McCain campaign describes stories about their not properly vetting Governor Palin. Surely the media, with all its vaunted layers of fact checkers and editors, would never do such a thing?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:34 PM

Kudos

I want to say that I appreciate both Senators Obama and Biden strongly declaring that candidates' children should be off limits. Of course, they know that this stuff is poison, and can severely damage their campaigns with the non-nutroots.

I hope that their campaign staff (and surrogates) are listening. They can't be held responsible for what Kos and TalkLeft and their ilk (including, sadly, Andrew Sullivan) do (and I expect the vile behavior from those quarters to continue, and I also expect a big backlash against it from McCain supporters, both current and future). But I also hope that if evidence does come to light that a staffer has been feeding this stuff to the bottom feeders that Senator Obama follows through on his pledge and has him or her (or them) shown the door.

No, she's not going to step down. This is only going to make her and her supporters more determined to stay in and defeat these digital brownshirts (and their enablers in the press).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:00 AM

Has He Been Vetted?

When will Barack Obama drop out?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:40 AM

Fakes

Is the mainstream media like the World Wrestling Federation?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:15 AM

August 31, 2008
"Cheneyesque"

Does John Kerry have any idea how pathetic and stupid he sounds trying to paint Sarah Palin as another Dick Cheney? Apparently not.

How epic is the fail, on so many levels, of such a comparison? Of course, it also assumes that if he can get people to make such an association, that it's politically helpful to him. This kind of idiotic projection of their own derangement and hatred on the American public is one of the reasons that the Dems haven't been able to get a majority of the popular vote in over thirty years.

Hilarious. I just wish that Stephanopolous had asked him to elaborate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:31 AM

August 27, 2008
Bonnie And Clyde?

Over at MSNBC. Actually it's more like Bonnie and Clod.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:24 PM

August 26, 2008
Who Started The War?

The one in Georgia. Michael Totten reports an interesting press briefing.

And apparently, some people aren't very happy about his reporting.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:21 AM

August 24, 2008
Just When You Think

...that the LA Times can't get any worse. Or funnier.

I have to say that I particularly enjoyed the comment by "Dick Stroker." I'm sure he's just a naif.

Speaking of LA, I'm flying out there tomorrow for almost two weeks. Blogging may be lightened somewhat--I'm supposed to be working. Or so the folks who are paying me tell me.

[Monday afternoon update]

Arrived safely, with luggage, even with a change in Dallas.

Unfortunately, just as I leave, it looks like Patricia is home alone to shutter up for Gustav next weekend.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:37 PM

August 20, 2008
I'll Get Right On It

Florida is apparently a haven for ambulance chasers, because there are always a lot of ads on television by lawyers trolling for victims (though now that I think about it, this may have been a national one, because it was on Fox News, which I get via satellite). I just heard one for some kind of medication that said, "If you or your loved one died after taking this stuff, call us right now."

OK, so if I died, what am I, supposed to channel John Edwards?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 PM

Buyer's Remorse

Victor Davis Hanson previews what's sure to burst forth among many in Denver next week:

Democrats wanted a bison and got Obambi, whose new 'take no prisoners' rhetoric in front of the VFW sounds like the Italian army in North Africa not the Desert Rats. Just imagine had Obama written "Dreams From My Grandmother" about a working-class white woman who moved to Hawaii sacrificing her all, stressing integration, conciliation, character, and hard work (all true), rather than future career-in-mind idealization and myth-making about a polygamist, alcoholic and absentee Marxist father? Had he done the former, he would have gotten a small advance, few sales--and now bankable proof of his character, rather than money, sales--and an embarrassing revelation of his PC credentials. Harvard Law Review is as essential to wowing a tiny irrelevant Eastern elite as it is meaningless to proving to mid-America that you can easily size up a thug like Putin, see through Euro-trash nonsense, or get some energy leverage back from the mullahs and House of Saud.

The Democrats expected an in-the-tank liberal press to publish charts and graphs of how the "progressive" FDR Obama was better for the blue-collar-worker than the Tom Dewey Republican. Instead they got the last gasp of the 1960s spoiled-brat loudmouths, ranting and frothing how an Obama could at last reify their own narcissistic, guilt-ridden pretensions. The amen-stable at Newsweek, for example, would not have been hired there as copy-editors in the 1960s. If Chris Matthews thinks his tingle up the leg giddiness helps Obama, or Sen. Obama's race speech is the new Gettysburg Address, he doesn't know Bakersfield or Dayton. A Keith Olbermann rant is a veritable McCain campaign ad.

Yup.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:58 PM

Cover Up

What is the University of Illinois trying to hide?

Has there ever been a presidential candidate with such a sparse paper trail? And as usual, the media assists in the cover up.

[Update in the afternoon]

Here's a lot more.

[Late afternoon update]

Fishier and fishier. To repeat: what are they hiding? What are they afraid of?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:50 AM

August 18, 2008
It's That Time Of The Week Again

Lileks takes on Keillor. Again.

Every column now ends with on-marching truth. But what's this thing about the rich and privileged saying it's not a great country? I hear more distaste and dismay about America from one Senator than the other; I hear more disdain from cosseted movie stars than I hear from ordinary folk; I hear more grumpy, costive old burbling about the dark hole into which America has fallen from a rich and privileged Old Scout than I hear from, say, middle-class bloggers who get 40 hits a day but happen to love the actual country we have as opposed to the theoretical variant which Keillor believes is right around the corner. Next week: an attack, probably, on the smug, self-righteous rich and privileged, who think America's just great. At least we know how that one will end: truth, marching, et cetera.

I think that Keillor has attained that unblessed state that no one dare edit him. Thankfully, we have Lileks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 AM

Ignorance Of America

By the Brits.

Frequent commenter "Fletcher Christian" is a poster child for this phenomenon. And as one of the commenters at Glenn's post notes, the BBC is largely responsible.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

August 14, 2008
Bewitched, Bothered And Bewildered

When I read this piece by Walter Shapiro, I had much the same reaction as John Weidner did:

You were besotted with Edwards because he was (or was pretending to be) a liberal Democrat. And Edwards almost certainly paid flattering attention to the guy who was writing a book about his campaign. You dolt, Edwards and his wife almost certainly coldly planned how to woo you, and knew what your weaknesses are. That's what trial lawyers do with a jury. They study every scrap of information available on each juryman, and, like chameleons, tailor the message, and paint their very selves, to fit them. (I know about this stuff; my dear wife's on the other side, the good side, fighting scoundrels like Edwards every day.)

Everybody who retained any objectivity could see that he was a phony, and were not surprised by this. When a guy talks populism and green-ism while building the biggest mansion in the county, there's a 99% chance that he's a sham. When a guy spends minutes in front of a mirror fluffing his hairdo, there's a 99% chance that he will not resist the sexual temptations available to a celebrity.

These media love affairs with (liberal) politicians constitute journalistic malpractice. They gave us the corrupt Bill Clinton, from whom, had any of them had done their job and looked into Arkansas history back in 1992, the nation could have been spared. Glenn Reynolds has asked, after the obvious biased non-reporting in the John Edwards case, what else are they deliberately hiding from us? And at least Walter Shapiro, if not the rest of the swooners, should now be asking himself, "by what other politicians am I letting myself be fooled and beguiled?" For instance, how about the inexperienced phony about to be nominated in Denver that is this season's "it" girl for the media?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AM

August 05, 2008
Reporting The Edwards Scandal

Mickey Kaus makes the case:

The only legitimate reason not to cover this scandal, it seems to me, is simple sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards--and I've gotten enough emails from anguished and angry members of the MSM to conclude, with Estrich, that it's the prime reason for the MSM blackout. True, I also suspect that if Mrs. Edwards were a conservative Republican, or even an unbeloved Democrat, the MSM might somehow find a way to overcome this compassionate sentiment. But that doesn't make it wrong. Reporters don't have to print everything. You could conclude that the need to protect Mrs. Edwards her children is so great, the karma of Enquiring so bad, that all of the obvious, public-interesty reasons for covering the story should be thrown out the window. And if John Edwards were already so damaged that in practice he'd never get a significant public office even if he wants one, I might agree (even if that meant sacrificing the deterrent effect of full exposure).

But that's a point that clearly hasn't been reached yet, at least not while most Americans are being kept in the dark about what, exactly, has led to Edwards' mysterious disappearance from the political oddsmakers' charts. A man arrogant and ambitious enough to think he can run for president posing as a loyal husband while keeping his second family secret, even as he visits his mistress in a famous hotel that is hosting a convention of journalists, will be arrogant and ambitious enough to keep hiding under the shield of his wife's illness until he can attempt a comeback-- if given the chance.

The alternative, it seems to me, is to let affection for Mrs. Edwards suck journalists into a Print-the-Legend world where they must spend their time burnishing--or at least accepting--the story powerful people and institutions want them to tell, the story of the wonderful Edwards marriage, rather than figuring out and telling readers the truth. If I wanted to be in that business I'd be a publicist.

That's certainly what the "journalists" have been when it came to Barack Obama. Does anyone doubt that if Edwards were a Republican in similar circumstances, that there would have been a NYT story about it? The question answers itself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AM

It's That Time Of The Week Again

Lileks examines the train wreck that is Garrison Keillor's latest:

I'm sorry, but I'm just fascinated by his column. Each is nearly identical in formlessness, subject and general pointlessness. To be fair: we all write at haste and repent at leisure, unless we can somehow get it out of the Google cache. We all make inelegant remarks that seemed wonderfully writerly at the moment but curdle when exposed to another pair of eyes. It's the perils of blogging. But he has an entire week to write these things. Never does he attempt to make an argument or explore a line of thought - it's just flat assertions ladled out with nuance or shading. The sun rises, Bush is bad, life is long but also short and so you should sit outside and drink lemonade and think of the people who came before you and sat outside and drank lemonade and there is a comfort in that continuity and we need all the comfort we can get in these days when nihilists in golf pants are everywhere and the Republic lies in ruins. Also, he is given to run-on sentences. This week has perhaps the finest example yet.

If that's not enough, there is some cereal blogging, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:06 AM

August 02, 2008
Another Clueless Commentator

And the sad thing is that he thinks he's smarter than those of us in the business. Clark Lindsey has a rejoinder in his comments section. I will add that this doesn't inspire confidence in his analysis:

SpaceShipTwo actually will only barely scrape space, eking out a scant 68 vertical miles before succumbing to the gravitational dominance of Earth. The craft musters only about 1/16 the energy needed to reach even low orbit 100 miles up. The space station, reposing 200 miles from the earth's surface, is completely beyond reach.

Attaining such distances requires enormous energy...

No, it's not the distance that's the problem, it's the velocity.

Sigh.

And Jeff Foust has found another idiot who wants it to be made illegal on environmental grounds. And because it's "selfish."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:29 PM

July 28, 2008
Some Questions For Senator Obama

...that no reporter is likely to ask:

Does Obama believe equal treatment is inherently divisive? What benefits does Sen. Obama believe have been derived throughout history by allowing states to discriminate on the basis of race? Does he favor repeal of California's Prop. 209 and the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AM

It's OK To Laugh At Obama

So writes Byron York:

Television comedy writers fretted that audiences didn't want to hear anything even slightly negative about the Democratic nominee. The political press corps went nuts over a satirical New Yorker cover that wasn't even directed at Obama.

And this was about a man who made up his own pretend presidential seal and motto, Vero Possumus; a man who, upon securing the Democratic nomination, said, "I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"; a man who has on a number of occasions seemed to forget that he is not, or at least not yet, the President of the United States, who has misstated the number of states in his own country, who has forgotten on which committees he serves in the U.S. Senate. Professional comedians -- and their audiences -- couldn't find anything funny about any of that?

The fact that the press corps doesn't seem to be able to recognize Senator Obama for the pompous buffoon that he is, is the biggest indicator how deep in the tank they are for him.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AM

July 27, 2008
Compound Interest

Some interesting thoughts on the insane notion of banning it to save the planet. Also, comments about law students' economic literacy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AM

July 23, 2008
Obamamania

Victor Davis Hanson:

The distinction again is that Obama appeals to the gullible and puerile as a sort of James Dean candidate. And thus he is not to be cross-examined, but instead free to shun interviews and clarifications, and prone to avoid reporters who might be less than adulatory -- the normal stuff that so irritates the supposedly sensitive press that has now gone brain-dead.

What is fascinating about the tingly-leg press is that they are exhibiting the very symptoms of arrested development and star-struck immaturity that they always accuse America in toto of suffering. The usual critique of the elite media is that we are a nation of mindless followers, who go from one fad to another, and value looks, youth, and pizzazz over substance.

But the current spectacle suggests something worse -- that the press who claims they know better and are more sophisticated are, in fact, far more infantile than most Americans, and essentially Access Hollywood, People Magazine, and the National Enquirer dressed up with network logos and NY-DC bylines.

I think that's been clear since Katie Couric was given the anchor at the CBS Evening News.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AM

July 22, 2008
Rolling My Eyes

...at Keith's brief "review" of my exploration piece:

The author of this article makes some odd, borderline misogynist, and mostly unsupportable claims (mixed with some valid points) as he rambles along trying to explain why people do or not explore. "Empirically obvious"? - Where's the data to support this?

Where the support for the claim that it is "misogynist," "borderline" or otherwise? Is he claiming that Cristina Hoff Sommers is misogynist?

What is "odd" about my claims?

And as for the data to support my claim, I provided it in the piece. Things for which there is an "innate human urge" are done by most, if not all humans. Most people don't explore.

[Update a few minutes later]

One of the commenters over there gets it:

I didn't see anything misogynist in Simberg's piece - he's just pointing out a potential cost of browbeating and drugging boys into behaving more like girls in school.

Exactly. If my piece was (mis)interpreted to imply that women cannot or should not be explorers, that's absurd, and I would hope obviously so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:54 PM

July 21, 2008
Polar Bears

...are delicious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:01 PM

And Get It Right This Time

The New York Times sends John McCain's op ed back for a rewrite.

Words fail.

Can we call them biased yet?

And just what does he means when he'd like to see McCain's piece "mirror" Obama? Does he mean that as in a reverse counterpoint? Or does he mean (as in servers) an exact copy?

Thoughts from Rick Moran, as the Times continues, unwittingly, to write its own obituary.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 PM

July 17, 2008
Thanks, Joe!

Is Senator Biden a secret operative for John McCain?

Biden's letter brought attention to the fact that Obama did not attend two of those three hearings -- and for the third, on March 8, 2007, Obama only asked one question, one unrelated to Afghanistan.

Don't worry. Unlike Jake Tapper, most of the press won't mention it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:05 PM

Asymmetry

Some follow-up thoughts on Lileks' bleat today. If people aren't aware, this is what Kuntar did, as described by the remaining family member, the wife and mother:

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

But the next part is the most tragic, and it illustrates the point I made the other day with regard to shouting out to the universe:

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

In any event, had an Israeli, soldier or civilian, deliberately shot an Arab parent to death in front of his young child, and then smashed in her skull with a rifle butt, in front of eyewitnesses, he would have been arrested, tried, and probably sentenced to life in prison, by the Israeli government. He would have also been condemned by Israeli society as a vicious monster. In contrast, this bloodthirsty psychopath was welcomed as a hero in Lebanon.

As long as this asymmetry of attitude toward wanton and deliberate murder, and worship of death and those who brutally bring it persists in the Arab world, there will be no peace in the Middle East, regardless of how much we appease them, even if we allow them their only true goal, which is the destruction of the state of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. As someone once said, Arabia has always had bloody borders.

[Update in the afternoon]

"Bodies' abuse made ID difficult."

Rabbi Yisrael Weiss, former Chief Rabbi of the IDF, who was present during the transfer of the fallen soldiers yesterday, said that "the verification process yesterday was very slow, because, if we thought the enemy was cruel to the living and the dead, we were surprised, when we opened the caskets, to discover just how cruel. And I'll leave it at that."

What is he complaining about? It's not like they had women's panties on their heads, or a Torah was flushed down a toilet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AM

Rewriting History

Rick Moran, on the Obama campaign's counterfactuals. It's hard to imagine the press letting a Republican get away with this kind of thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:33 AM

July 14, 2008
Resume Padding

Jennifer Rubin makes a pretty good point:

Obama claims that experience is not as important as "judgment" or "change." By manufacturing or existing accomplishments, however, he suggests that he does not buy his own pitch.

Rather, his repeated attempts to bolster his resume indicate that he may be nervous about his non-existent record of achievement. Not trusting that voters will buy his disparagement of experience, Obama is now resorting to a common, but risking tactic of under-qualified job-seekers: fudge the resume.

Resume fraud carries grave risks. If the employer finds out you are lying, you are unlikely to get the job, even if the competition is weak. And for Obama, who is already belaboring under an avalanche of tough press about his many policy flip-flops, he hardly needs another storyline which sheds doubt on his credibility and character.

I think that it's things like this that are the reason the polls now seem to be even, even with the media love affair continuing.

[Update a while later]

Victor Davis Hanson lists some of Senator Obama's other problems:

Obama has a poor grasp of history, geography, American culture, and common sense -- whether the number or location of states in the Union, basic facts about WWII or where Arabic is spoken, or his sociological take on Pennsylvania, etc. His advisors realize this, and are playing 4th-quarter defense by keeping him out of ex tempore, non tele-prompted hope and change venues, where his shallowness can manifest itself in astonishing ways.

I was just listening to NPR in the car, and Terry Gross was interviewing Ryan Lizza on Fresh Air. He just had a long piece in the New Yorker about Obama's Chicago history. He was talking about the Rezko housing project problems, and he said that Obama didn't seem to be involved in the corruption, that the worst you could say about him was that exercised bad judgment.

Well, that in itself is saying something pretty bad, given that his claim to the presidency is that, while he may not have as much experience as his opponents, he has good judgment. But was his Rezko involvement good judgment? Was his attending a bigoted church for twenty years good judgment? Was it good judgment to pre-declare the surge a failure before it even began? So now it's hard to make a case for either his experience or his judgment.

I know that the Senator believes that to know him is to love him, but I think he may find out that as the campaign actually engages after the conventions, the more people learn about him, the less inclined they'll be to make him the next commander-in-chief.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:50 AM

July 12, 2008
Another Great Newsman Gone

Condolences to friends, family and colleagues of Tony Snow. I wonder if major television news people die in threes as well? Unlike Russert, this wasn't as unexpected--he had been fighting the cancer for a long time, and his mother died of it. But I hadn't been aware that he was near the end.

[Update in the evening]

Mark Steyn has a short tribute (not to imply that many others don't, and I suspect that he'll have a longer one in due time). This is a very interesting point politically:

He had a rare temperament in today's politics, and the Administration might have been spared the vicissitudes of these last five years had he become press secretary earlier.
Yes, of the many failings of George W. Bush, one of them is loyalty to previous staff. Scott McClellan was completely out of his element as WH spokesman, yet he was allowed to blunder through during many of the worst years of the administration. Things might have gone much differently had Tony Snow been brought in earlier. He would have challenged much of the nonsense that the press was putting forward much earlier, without looking like a deer in the headlights. It just shows how important perception can be.

[Update a while later]

Here's an encomium from Rick Moran.

It's very hard to come up with anything negative about Tony Snow, though I'm sure that one or two of my regular commenters will make the attempt in the service of their vile political agendas. I hope that I'm wrong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:19 AM

July 10, 2008
What Would The Media Reaction Be?

...if, say, a white man expressed the desire to castrate a black man? Particularly the first black man to be a major-party presidential nominee?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:31 AM

July 08, 2008
Lileks On Keillor

James takes on, once again, his fellow Minnesota scribe:

Mr. Keillor feels he has done okay in the last eight years but has a hot collar and ground-up teeth thinking about what the Current Occupant has done to the country the little girl will inherit. He's mad about spending - I'm with him there, although a bit perplexed to find Keillor coming down on the side of spending less - and he doesn't approve of the war. It ruined his Rockwell moment.

Being unable to watch a kid play baseball because you are mad at George Bush does not necessarily mean you are a better person or a person more attuned to truth and the future.It might mean, at best, you are a person who writes run-on sentences stringing together predictable assertions; at worst, it might mean you're anhedonic, and looking for scapegoats. I look at my daughter and consider her future, and I see possibility and peril as well. But that's up to us, and while I'm sure Mr. Keillor anticipates the day where he is legally required to pay the taxes he heretofore feels he is morally required to pay, we can do fine without him. We've done fine without his money so far, and I think we can keep that up. Unless he's been paying in at the pre-tax-cut level, of course. In which case: hats off! A principled man is rare in any era.

You know, I actually greatly enjoy Keillor's books, but when you let him loose on an editorial page, he seems to go completely nuts. Bush derangement is a very real thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:14 AM

July 07, 2008
Congratulations

To Tyson Homosexual.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:52 PM

June 23, 2008
Resume Padding?

In Obama's campaign ad:

Even under the most generous reading imaginable could any of that count as passing legislation that extended health care for wounded troops? The Chicago Tribune noted the problem on its blog last week but defended Obama by pointing out that John McCain didn't vote for the bill either. That would be an interesting piece of information if John McCain had cited this bill as among his chief legislative accomplishments.

The Obama team's desire to pad the resume is understandable -- it's awfully slim after all. But this kind of dishonesty will catch up with them...or at least it should.

Yes, it should, but maybe it won't. Bill Clinton's supporters didn't seem to mind that he was an inveterate liar. But Obama's supporters (which includes much of the media) not only don't mind, but actually hope he is.

[Afternoon update]

Is he finally losing his teflon?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

Media-Induced Malaise

Lileks has more thoughts on the subject:

It is amusing, really - after sticking people's heads in the muck every day for years, promoting every faddish scare, fluffing the pillow beneath every yuppie worry, swapping the straight-forward adult approach to news with presenters who emote the copy with the sad face of a day-care worker telling the children that Barney is dead - in short, after decades of presenting the world through the peculiar prism that finds in every day more evidence of our rot and our failures, they wonder why people are depressed. Hang the banner, guys: Mission Accomplished.

Of course, not everyone feels this way; I'd guess that people who watch television news are more inclined to pessimism. But there's another side to this: the pessimism among some may not stem from some impotent feeling that one is a cork toss'd in a sea of cruel destiny, that you can't do anything, that nothing will get better - no, the pessimism may arise from the suspicion that there's something abroad in the land that's had a good hardy larf about "Horatio Alger" and all the other manifestations of individual initiative for 30 years. The cool kids and the clever set have always smirked at that sort of stuff. You can get them going if you make a speech about our ability to solve things, but you'd better phrase it in the form of a government initiative, or brows furrow: well, then, how do you propose to do it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 AM

June 22, 2008
Being All Judgmental

That's what Rachel Lucas is doing. Well, someone has to do it, since society at large seems to have abdicated its role.

Like her, I was struck by the stupidity of this, reported apparently completely unironically, as though it made, you know, sense:

The Gloucester baby boom is forcing this city of 30,000 to grapple with the question of providing easier access to birth control...

Well, hey folks. It's hard to see what that would do for this particular little baby boomlet.

There may be some problems that are solved by easier access to birth control, but brainless young women going out of their way to get knocked up isn't one of them. I think, for that, there will have to be some other solution (unless by "easier access," they mean tubal ligation).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:34 AM

June 20, 2008
Theophobia

I think that this is a much more justifiable term than "Islamaphobia" or "homophobia."

But then, maybe it is just bigotry.

[Saturday update]

They're not theophobes. They're just theophobic about conservatives. So, that's all right then.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:13 PM

Bombing John McCain

...with Google:

Bowers chose the news articles by matching the topics to existing polling data that shows what issues likely will turn voters off to McCain. He also makes sure that the articles come from news organizations like CNN.com, which already are highly ranked in Google search results, he added.

"We're just using McCain's own words -- everything we are targeting are things McCain has done or said himself. There's no bias at all. There are no opinion pieces. They are all news pieces that quote McCain himself. Obviously it is manipulating, but search engines are not public forums and unless you act to use them for your own benefit your opponent's information is going to get out there. This is the sort of 'Do It Yourself' activism that is very much in line with the tone of this campaign," Bowers said.

Somehow, based on some of Google's actions in the past, I suspect they don't mind.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 AM

June 19, 2008
He's No Jimmy Carter

Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama apparently will lie to us.

Of course, I'm not aware that Obama has ever made a Carter-like pledge.

By the way, I don't mean to imply that Carter doesn't speak falsehoods. I just think that he's delusional enough to believe them.

[Update in the early afternoon]

Here's more on Obama's campaign-finance hypocrisy.

...public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue -- Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

[Update a few minutes later]

Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing Obama for declining public financing per se. I think that public financing is an ugly chancre on the body politic, and I cheer when it's foregone. I wish that McCain would do the same thing. Unfortunately, he'd look even more hypocritical if he did so, due to his having become the point man for all of these idiotic and unconstitutional campaign finance laws. He could use this as an excuse to follow suit, saying that he had no choice, given Obama's going back on his word, but we all know that if he did, the howls from the media would be deafening.

Well, according to the BBC, he didn't lie. He just "reversed his promise."

Well, that's all right then.

It's only fair to note that technically, they're correct. If Obama said it while having no intention of doing it at the time, it would be a lie, but we can't get into his mind. Sometimes promises aren't kept, but that doesn't mean that they were a lie at the time they were made. I was always annoyed when people told me that George H. W. Bush lied when he said "read my lips, no new taxes." A broken promise is, in fact, not the same as a lie. But it's a reason to not consider voting for someone.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 AM

June 18, 2008
Just A Coincidence, I'm Sure

RIchard Fernandez connects some dots that may account for Senator Obama's shifts in Iraq policy:

The shifts in Barack Obama's policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko's business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, "this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know."

For some reason, the MSM doesn't seem interested in this kind of stuff.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AM

June 16, 2008
The George Romney Democrats

James Kirchick writes that the Democrats are trying to lie their party to victory, and the country to defeat in Iraq:

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

Yes. Bill Clinton's CIA, since George Bush foolishly left George Tenant in charge of it, even after 911, and never even seriously attempted to clean house, other than the failed attempt by Porter Goss. The president got bad intelligence. But the Democrats are being mendacious in their selective memory and rewriting of history.

I loved this:

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

I assume that the last phrase is simply a rhetorical flourish. There's no reason to wonder at all.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AM

June 12, 2008
The Top Ten

...male bashing ads.

I'm sure that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be weighing in any minute.

[crickets chirping]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 PM

June 10, 2008
What's Wrong With Redneck?

Andrea Mitchell felt compelled to apologize for calling southwest Virginia "real redneck country."

Well, she's right, it is. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think that what she should be apologizing for (which perhaps she is, obliquely) is the insinuation that that's a bad thing. While I understand that a lot of southerners take umbrage at the word, it's really just a synonym for Scots-Irish, and it came over with them from England (and no, it has nothing to do with working in the hot sun). It was a phrase used to describe Presbyterians from northern England, who wore red collars. They were the people who settled Appalachia (and other regions). Eastern Virginia (and Maryland and Delaware) was settled by the so-called Cavaliers of southwest England, who had lost the Civil War to the Roundheads.

I think, though, that in the mind of east (and west) coast media elites like Andrea Mitchell, "redneck" is synonymous with "hillbilly," which is unquestionably an uncomplimentary term, and why the apology was necessary. It's also a mark of the cultural ignorance of those same media elite about flyover country.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AM

June 06, 2008
Clintonian

The headline of this story is that "Obama denies a rumor," but he doesn't really, at least from what I can tell from the reporting:

Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of evidence to support it.

"We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it," Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. "That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it."

Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.

But as far as I can see, he hadn't, unless there were words spoken that were not reported.

Let us parse.

"We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it."

True enough. Who can deny that there is dirt and lies circulated in emails? But that doesn't necessarily imply that the particular topic under discussion is a lie (though it's arguably "dirt," regardless of its truth value).

"If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it."

Again, this is not a denial. It's simply a challenge to produce proof (or at least evidence). And in the follow up, he apparently refused, once again, to deny it. It was what is called in the business a "non-denial denial."

This is the game that Bill Clinton used to play a lot. When confronted about something, he would feign outrage, and attack the questioner, and say something like "I'm not going to even dignify that with a response." But he wouldn't actually deny it. The most classic case was the Juanita Broaddrick rape accusation. He never denied it. If anyone thinks that he did, provide a transcript. He sent out his lawyer to deny it, but his lawyer has no knowledge of whether it is true or not, other than hearsay from Bill. He wasn't in the room with them.

This looks like exactly the same behavior. Of course, part of the problem is that he's not sure what it is he should be denying, because the rumors are all over the place as to what she said or did. But it would have been better to say something like, "I've seen all these rumors running around on the Internet about some imminent bombshell concerning my wife, and I can tell you categorically that they are not true."

That would be a denial. But he didn't say that. I wonder why?

[Update a few minutes later]

I agree with the commenters that he shouldn't be put in a position of denying non-specific rumors (as I noted in the last paragraph above). My main point, actually, is simply that the Politico headline is wrong, and misleading, because he hasn't denied them (though he obviously hopes that we, like the reporter, thinks that he has).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:32 PM

Why I Like Reading Blogs

I hadn't thought about it before until I saw this post by Kate Woodbury, but it's because blog posts contain a lot of the words "I" and "me."

Since "no first-person" inevitably results in bad writing (an overabundance of passive voice; the use of "one" or "student" instead of "I"), I always tell my students, "You may use first-person in my class. In other classes, check with the instructor."

I never thought much about WHY teachers were telling students this. I vaguely remember someone telling me not to use first-person, and I vaguely remember ignoring that someone; other than that, it didn't seem like an important issue.

However, I recently discovered at least one reason teachers ban first-person: prevented from using first-person, students will set aside me-centered thinking and use credible evidence; that is, rather than saying, "I think this, thus it is true," students will write, "According to expert X . . ."

I don't buy this argument; in fact, I think banning first-person usage ends up doing more damage than good. If the problem is the lack of expert/credible sources in students' writing, not using first-person doesn't solve the problem; it just covers it up. After all, a first-person's account could be more credible than an "expert's" account. I'd much rather read a student's personal/eyewitness account of 9/11 than a thousand third-person conspiracy theories.

The key is in the first sentence. Being forced to write in third person often results in stilted, boring prose. Unfortunately, the modern journalistic ethos, probably hammered into them in J-School, is that "objective" news stories must be written third person. This is why good bloggers (even taking away the bias) write far better and more readable pieces, than most conventional journalists. They don't have to do it with one "I" tied behind their back.

[Via her post on liberal fascism and Calvinism]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AM

Sixty-Four Years On

Some thoughts on D-Day, from Jennifer Rubin.

One of the reasons that I do my WW II reporting parodies is to show that, over half a century after the achievements of the "greatest generation," modern Americans and modern journalists have no concept of the losses and sacrifice of a real war, as demonstrated by all the whining about Iraq.

[Update mid afternoon]

Roger Kimball has received an early report of the progress on the beaches:

June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children.
Most of the French casualties were the result of the artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, threatening the species with extinction.

Of course, they bungled the occupation, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:48 AM

June 05, 2008
Malice In Wonderland

Mark Hemingway has an idiot's guide to the idiocy going on in Canada at the Human Wrongs Tribunal. He also has an interview with Andrew Coyne, the MacLeans reporter who has been live blogging the proceedings.

I hope that this will finally get the attention of the media in Canada, who so far seem clueless. As Mark points out, a lot of people have been abused under this system for years, but because they were politically incorrect as victims, the press paid it no mind. With apologies to Pastor Niemoller, this may be the motto of the CBC:

First they went after the racists
And we did not speak out, because we are not racist
Then they went after the pastors preaching against homosexuality
And we did not speak out, because we are not against homosexuality
Then they went after a Christian publisher who refused to print pedophilia
And we did not speak out because we are not Christian
Then they went after the Knights of Columbus
And we not speak out because we are not Knights of Columbus
Then they went after the Western Standard
And we did not speak out, because we are not a right-wing rag
Then they went after MacLeans
And we did not speak out because we hate Mark Steyn
We don't expect them to come after us, because we're afraid to say anything that might offend any Muslim, and we fear the consequences of doing that even more than we fear the HRC.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:15 AM

Why Hollywood Sux (Part 34,652)

It's not bad enough that they are so deficient in creativity that they have to make flicks out of old television shows and comic books. Now they're reduced to remaking stupid schlock that should never have been made the first time. Behold, what the world has been awaiting--a new version of Capricorn One. Well, at least they won't be likely to compound the cinematic crime by including OJ, this time.

On a cheerier note, there's apparently a much better (to put it mildly--I shouldn't even be discussing them in the same post) SF movie on the way.

...what I have is a story where businessmen and engineers are the heroes, the protestors are the bad guys, people accept risk willingly and some of them die for it, where they do amazing things and go to astonishing places on their own dime, where nuclear power is good and essential and the motivation is not money or power but freedom and a love of humanity, and where America and all she stands for is a beacon in a darkening world.

It's a crazy bizarro world of science fiction!

Hollywood would never make anything like that.

Good luck, Bill--we'll be looking forward to seeing it, and ignoring the other.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AM

June 04, 2008
The Lie That Will Not Die

In a piece on whether Obama will be Al Smith, or JFK (ummmmm...neither), John Judis (who should know better) writes:

Blacks began entering the Democratic party during the New Deal, but even as late as 1960, Richard Nixon won a third of the black vote. After Democratic support for and Republican opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of African Americans became Democrats.

Emphasis mine. I've discussed this before.

The ugly fact, of which ABC is either unaware, or worse, deliberately misleading their readers about, is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without Republican support, due to the continued opposition by southern Democrats. Contra ABC's implication, it was not the minority Republicans who filibustered it, but the majority Democrats, and the cloture vote to end debate was achieved only with the votes of many Republicans. Former Klansman Robert "Sheets" Byrd (shamefully still representing the state of West Virginia, even in his dotage and senility) was the last debater on the floor before that cloture vote (it then required 67 votes, rather than the current 60) was passed. Other stars of the filibuster were Richard Russell (D-GA), Albert Gore, Sr. (the last Vice President's father) (D-TN), and William Fullbright (D-AR) (Bill Clinton's mentor).

But I guess when you're a modern liberal Democrat reporter, all that can just go down the memory hole, as long as it's in service to a greater cause--to preserving the myth of Republican racism and opposition to civil rights, and demonstrating the continuing horror of George Bush's and the Republican's "theocracy."

This is simply false history, but it's become a matter of faith to Democrats. The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, but they couldn't muster the votes to pass the bill on their own. Everyone who filibustered the Civil Rights Act was a Democrat. In order to get cloture, and passage, they had to get significant Republican support. The notion that it was Republicans who were opposed to true civil rights (as opposed to the modern reverse discrimination) remains pernicious. But the story has to be told that way, otherwise the narrative of Republicans as "racists" falls apart.

[Update a few minutes later]

Historical inaccuracies aside, what is particularly annoying about Judis' thesis is that it takes as a given that if Obama loses, it will be because of his race, and have nothing to do with his extreme lack of experience, and the fact that he'll be the most left-wing candidate nominated since George McGovern.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:08 AM

June 03, 2008
"Fairness"

Andrew Coyne continues to liveblog the witch hunt in Vancouver. I loved this bit:

We're going through an interview Awan gave on Mike Duffy Live. He tells Duffy that this isn't a case of free speech versus minority rights. Rather, he says, Maclean's can go on publishing what it likes, Steyn can write whatever he likes, just so long as "the Muslim community" gets a right of reply. (I'm paraphrasing. The video of the interview is here.) So really, what they're proposing (he explains in the interview) is an extension of free speech.

I think I see his point. Every time Maclean's wants to publish an article some group doesn't like, they just have to give them an equal amount of space in the magazine. Double the space, at twice the cost to Maclean's - but zero cost to the complainants. That is "free" speech.

That is also the "Fairness Doctrine" in a nutshell. It's why, if we have a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress, one of the first things they will attempt to do will be to resurrect that atrocity against free speech, in the hopes that it will shut down "right wing" radio.

Of course (and fortunately), the Fairness Doctrine only applies to over-the-air broadcast of television and radio (with the excuse that the spectrum is limited, and therefore ultimately owned by the public). What would probably happen if it were back in force is that Limbaugh and others would just get chased off the air waves to satellite (as has happened with over-air- television politics shows, to satellite and cable), and a lot more people would buy XM so they could continue to get a vigorous discussion of politics.

What is being proposed in Canada is to not just institute a fairness doctrine, but to extend it to print. Which, as Coyne points out, is utterly inimical to free speech, and would shut down any publication whatsoever that was "controversial." Which means any publication that goes against the politically correct consensus of the day.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:11 PM

Canadian Journalism

This is appalling, but predictable:

I was astonished by their absolute lack of any background on the story they were sent to cover.

More astonished that a journalist would not know who Mark Steyn was, or that, depending on its outcome, the case they were covering could have very real ramifications on their ability to practice their trade in the future, and impact the right to free speech for all Canadians.

They knew nothing about the AHRC case against Ezra.

They did know about the Western Standard but were unaware that it was no longer being published.

They knew nothing about the Richard Warman Vs Levant, Shaidle, McMillan, Kay and Free Dominion. In fact, they had never heard of Mr. Sec. 13 Richard Warman.

They were aware that a similar charge agianst Steyn had been thrown out by the OHRC, but nothing beyond that.

I tried to provide some background on each of these cases but could see that there was not a lot of interest.

I wonder what kind of reports will be filed by each of these journalists for CBC radio? I also wonder how many other journalists sent to cover this remarkably important case, are so poorly informed.

No wonder the government and the "Human Rights" Commissions get away with so much there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:18 AM

June 02, 2008
Canadian Kangaroos

Andrew Coyne is live blogging the "Human Rights" Commission star chamber for Mark Steyn and MacLeans. He's hoping that his magazine will lose:

Don't tell my employers, but I'm sort of hoping we lose this case. If we win--that is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese is--then the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how "reasonable" it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved.

I liked this:

Oh God: they're talking about who they'll be calling on Friday. Five days in a windowless room. If that's not a human rights violation...

And this comment on the Orwellian nature of the law:

Under Section 7.1, he continues, innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism.
Or in other words, there is no defence.

It's a good read, so far.

[Update about half an hour later]

Some thoughts from Mark Steyn:

The Canadian Islamic Congress lawyer says that freedom of speech is a "red herring". If it were, it would be on the endangered species list.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:57 AM

May 30, 2008
Way To Go

Thanks for discouraging live blogging of space (and other) conferences (not to mention anything else), Keith.

[Saturday morning update]

The lesson here is that you have to be careful to delineate your editorial comments from the reportage (I usually do this with parenths, I think, though I'd have to go back and look at some from the past to be sure--I might use square brackets) when transcribing, because it is easily confused otherwise. But as I said, we shouldn't let things like this discourage us from doing it. This is the first conference like this that I've missed in a while, and I really appreciate what Clark and others are doing. I've always wondered if what I was doing was worthwhile when I live blogged other conferences, and now I know that it definitely is. Well, at least when others do it...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 PM

May 29, 2008
Space Media Panel

Clark is blogging a panel on how the media cover space, to which it looks like Instapundit was a last-minute addition (he's not listed in the program).

[Evening update]

Clark has a new post up on the spaceport panel.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:22 PM

May 21, 2008
Lebanon Has Been Lost

Why is there no news about this? Sorry, but I think that it's more important than both the primaries and Ted Kennedy's brain tumor. I really don't understand it, particularly since it seems like a great opportunity to blame George Bush, and actually (much more rarely) be right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:03 AM

May 10, 2008
Hezbollah's Apologists

It's been a rough week (and year) for them. I expect Obama to want no-conditions negotiations with them any minute.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:06 PM

May 08, 2008
Dhimmification

Sam Harris has a long piece at (of all places) the Huffington Post on the unwillingness of western civilization to stand up for its own values against radical Islam. And as others have noted (and he notes himself), this is particularly ironic:

In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AM

May 02, 2008
The Tuskegee Libel

I had never heard that the Tuskegee experiment involved deliberately infecting people with syphilis. I always thought that the sin was leaving it untreated in men who already had it, so that the progression of the disease could be studied (a sin that was mitigated by the fact that at least at the beginning of the study, there was no known effective treatment, anyway).

But apparently, in the wake of Jeremiah Wright's lunacy, several news people have bought into the nonsense that the researchers infected healthy men. I guess that there's no libel that is too difficult for some people to believe, and even embrace, as long as it is directed against the US.

Anyway, Jonah has more (including the fact that it was a "progressive" project).

Someone should publicly, and loudly, confront Wright on this latest lie. There is a huge leap from studying men already infected, and deliberately inventing a disease and then infecting a race of people for the purpose of genocide, which is what he accuses the country of doing, with Tuskegee as a supposed existence proof.

But don't hold your breath.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jonah has more at The Corner.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AM

May 01, 2008
A Man Of No Influence?

Well, apparently David Petraeus didn't influence anyone at Time Magazine. I suspect that he influenced a lot of people in Iraq. I bet that he'll influence voters who elect John McCain this fall, too. In fact, to think that he's without influence requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:32 PM

Civil Discourse

I probably shouldn't give him benefit of the link (it will probably up his traffic by an order of magnitude or two), but apparently we're nothing but "poo-flinging monkeys" here, because he doesn't like to lose arguments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:00 PM

April 29, 2008
The News That's Not Fit To Print

The New York Times maintains its perfect record.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:49 AM

Not Ready For Youtube

A couple years ago, I speculated on whether or not Bill Clinton could have been elected if there had been a blogosphere in 1992. I called him an MSM president.

Now Chuck Todd says that he has been done in by new media (specifically, Youtube):

Although Clinton caught a glimpse of the digital future when he was president and a little-known Internet gadfly named Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story, he was never subjected to the kind of unblinking scrutiny of today's media environment.

When Clinton was running for president, Todd said, he and his fellow candidates could misspeak -- and even willfully obfuscate -- with relative impunity.

"It was like a Jedi mind trick with him," he added. "It would take a few days for the media to catch up [and] by then he had moved on."

Well, it was a Jedi mind trick that never worked with me. Or in fact, not even a majority, since he could never win a majority. But he always had the press on his side, at least until their new love from Chicago came along.

[Via Virginia Postrel, who is, happily, currently cancer free]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:49 AM

April 28, 2008
No Truth Here, Please

We're Democrats.

[Update a few minutes later]

This seems related.

Not only can Democrats not handle the truth, but when truth is told about them, the truth tellers are called liars. Even by Saint Barack:

When called out on something -- say, misquoting McCain on the 100 years statement -- Obama's reflexive move is to insist the person doubting his credibility is lying. When Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous asked him tough questions, his followers screamed bloody murder.

The strategy is clear: when you say something negative about Obama, you will be accused of lying.

Well, at least they're not threatening to chop off our heads.

Yet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 AM

Unremarkable

Which is stranger, that the editor of the Boston Herald has a picture of Che in his office ("for inspiration") or that Howie Kurtz offers that fact without comment?

Is it because Kevin Convey considers the newspaper a "guerilla" operation against the Globe? Does he know who Che was, and what he did? What does he plan to do with his own vanquished enemies, assuming his success?

Since reading Jonah's book, I've gotten new insight in the popularity of Che posters on campus and among the left. Fascists, after all, always admire men of action.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:22 AM

Creeping Sharia

Bruce Bawer, on the cultural surrender of the west, aided and abetted by our own media, and the multi-culturalists in both academia and government.

Not exactly a new theme, but it doesn't hurt to repeat or remind, for those who haven't seen things like this, or have gone back to sleep.

It's a long piece, but this is really the nut of it:

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoÃ‚Âmeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies' basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success.

Sadly, he makes a good case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:39 AM

April 24, 2008
Dog Bites Man

Mark Whittington has a completely pointless post:

...not much remarked, is the implicit endorsement of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration by one of the leading new commercial space companies

Is this supposed to be news? Is Mark aware of any commercial space company that is opposed to the VSE, or sending humans to the moon and Mars? I'm not. So what's the big deal?

Or is he confusing ESAS with VSE again?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:28 PM

When The Old Becomes New Again

Are all of Hillary's negatives really already "all out there", as Lanny Davis spins? Rich Lowry thinks not:

The problem with this (and I'm more sympathetic to Hillary than Obama at this point) is that Hillary's negatives aren't "all out there." She's perfectly capable of creating new, damaging ones, as she did with the Bosnia story. Plus, Bill is always a wild card, in terms of what he's going to say, what is going to be revealed about his business dealings, etc.

It actually goes beyond that. We don't have to speculate on new revelations for Hillary to have big problems if she somehow snatches the nomination from Obama.

Throughout the nineties, the classic Clinton tactical response to discussion about their corruption or criminality was to say "that's old news." And it often, even usually, worked, given the degree to which the press was in the tank for them. And that will surely be their response if anyone brings up Cattlegate, the White House travel office, the missing billing records, the FBI files, "who hired Craig Livingstone," Whitewater in general, etc. And we can be assured that these things (and particularly their abuse of women) will come up, because the Slick Grope Vets for Truth have pledged to make them come up if she gets the nomination. I assume that they've been keeping their powder dry during the nomination process, both because they want any revelations they have to have maximum impact in the fall, when people are paying attention, and because they wouldn't have much effect on Democrat voters.

But if she does get the nomination, and Gennifer, Kathleen et al do make an issue of their treatment at the hands of both Bill and Hill, as I've written before, I don't think the "it's old news" gambit will fly, partly because it's become too old:

One of the tactics that the Clintons used to use to deflect bad news was to leak something on a Friday afternoon, and hope that it would die down after the weekend. Then if anyone brought it up, they'd dismiss it as "that's old news."

Given how ignorant much of the public remains of all the Clinton scandals that they successfully buried in the nineties, I wonder if this "old news" tactic will continue to work if things like Travelgate are brought up as issues in a 2008 campaign. I've already noted that Hillary will have her own "Slick Grope Vets" problem if she runs.

...It occurs to me that the "that's old news" defense may not work, particularly with the "Slick Grope Vets For Truth," at least based on the Kerry experience. After all, what could be older news than his congressional testimony after Vietnam? Yet it did become a potent campaign issue.

Many of today's young voters have no memory of the Clinton scandals. An eighteen-year old was only eight years old during the Lewinsky saga, and a toddler during the early scandals and Whitewater. Even today's twenty-somethings weren't paying that much attention at the time, and even if they were, they always got the Clinton spin in the MSM, not the vast amount of information available via the Internet and talk radio (and to a lesser degree, Fox News). So for them, it won't be old news, or at least, it will be a revelation of history, of which they were previously unaware.

And this time, with the blogosphere, the MSM won't be able to help her spin her way out as it did in the nineties. No, I don't think that Hillary's negatives are "all out there." We can expect a massive replay, and reminder, if she gets the nomination, and to a lot of people, the "old news" will become new news, or more simply, news.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AM

Too Much Info

I really don't want to know about Eliot Spitzer's s3xual proclivities.

I'm just glad that he's no longer any threat to become president. And the fact that New York elected him governor (and Hillary! and Chuck Schumer Senators) is one of the many reasons that I'd never want to move to that state.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AM

April 18, 2008
Fidel Castro

Libertarian socialist.

Sometimes, you just have to think that these people's brains are broken.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:29 PM

Busted

It will be interesting to see how how NBC (and Dan Abrams) respond to this:

As a matter of fact, I had other things to occupy my time in the White House in 2002 rather than "structuring" a campaign for an Alabama gubernatorial candidate, calling people to raise money for his race, and going through the arduous task of "putting together a strategy." And I certainly didn't meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two U.S. Attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman. My involvement in the campaign was to approve a request that the President appear at a Riley campaign fundraising event, one of several score fundraising events the President did that election cycle.

It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn't a necessity?

I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges on the air, but don't you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of MSNBC and NBC?

People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth. But your cable show increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires.

So what else is new?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:28 PM

March 29, 2008
Want To Poke Anti-War Hollywood In The Eye?

Go here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:56 PM

March 23, 2008
The End Of Reporters?

Can't happen soon enough, in my opinion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:04 PM

March 19, 2008
What's Going On?

The oceans don't seem to be warming. Even NPR says so.

This is obviously one of those many insidious effects of global warming.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 PM

March 17, 2008
Murderous Businessmen

Jonah is wondering why Hollywood types always imagine big businessmen knocking off their enemies, when this seems to happen so rarely (if ever) in real life.

I know I've blogged about this before, but a diligent search doesn't turn up the post, so I'll just repeat it.

Here's my theory. Even ignoring the fact that a lot of Hollywood writers tend to be leftist, some of them may actually have personal reasons to hate "big business" and think it venal. For them, it often is.

First of all--they work in Hollywood, for those well-known paragons of probity and above-board accounting, television and film studios, and production companies. And horror stories about them abound. One could easily see why, if that was the only experience one had with the business world, one would have a pretty jaundiced view toward business and businessmen.

But there's another part that is less obvious. People tend (rightly) to write what they know. And when screen writers are between screen-writing gigs, who do they work for?

Well, here's a clue. What is one of the most common businesses to be depicted in television and movies? Think, for example, "Bewitched." Or "Thirty Something."

That's right. Ad agencies. I haven't done the research (it would be a good thesis project), but I'll bet that television and film characters work at ad agencies vastly out of proportion to the number of people who do so in the real world.

After all, it's a natural fit for a creative writer.

But it's also (based on a lot of stories I've heard from people who have done it) one of the most vicious, back-stabbing industries in the nation, dominated by creative types rather than rational businessmen and good managers.

So, it only makes sense that if your only employment experience with business, big or otherwise, is working for the entertainment industry or the ad business, you're not going to have much appreciation for how a real business, where you have to actually develop and manufacture things that people go out and willingly buy, and has to be run by people with a talent for business (not murder and skullduggery), actually works. It's actually quite similar to the reason that life in the military is rarely depicted accurately. They have no real-life experience.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AM

An End To Journalism Schools?

Let's hope so. A key point that the author misses, though, is that one doesn't really learn anything in them, other than how to report things. It's a metadegree, like a degree in education (though not quite as bad).

One of the reasons that much reporting is so bad, and that many bloggers can run circles around so-called journalists, is that they actually have knowledge to impart, and they can usefully analyze events in a way that a generalist, or "journalist," simply can't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AM

March 16, 2008
The Code Has Been Broken

The media style guide for defending Obama.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM

March 14, 2008
Actually Reading The Report

One of the prevailing myths (though that's a generous term--perhaps Big Lie would be more accurate) of the left was that Saddam had no ties to terrorism prior to his removal (Obama has used it as a central theme, in fact, of his campaign). Many in the media reported a few days ago that a recent Pentagon report had substantiated this template. However, as Ed Morrissey notes, they could have done this only by not reading the report, relying instead on spin and leaks from the Pentagon. Those who did actually read it would come to an opposite conclusion:

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

And why would anyone be surprised that this was the case? He hated the US, and Israel, and was rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers' families with cash. Other than the other myth (that he was secular, and they were extreme Islamic fanatics, and would have nothing to do with each other), why wouldn't he collaborate and cooperate with them against a common enemy?

If the McCain campaign is smart, they'll use this to school Obama again. Particularly since his proposed solution--to not have invaded Iraq--involves the need for a time machine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AM

March 12, 2008
The Democrats' Future, And Past

Kimberly Strassell writes about how a fawning media enabled Eliot Spitzer:

...from the start, the press corps acted as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it. Many journalists get into this business because they want to see wrongs righted. Mr. Spitzer portrayed himself as the moral avenger. He was the slayer of the big guy, the fat cat, the Wall Street titan -- all allegedly on behalf of the little guy. The press ate it up, and came back for more.

Time magazine bestowed upon Mr. Spitzer the title "Crusader of the Year," and likened him to Moses. Fortune dubbed him the "Enforcer." A fawning article in the Atlantic Monthly in 2004 explained he was "a rock star," and "the Democratic Party's future." In an uncritical 2006 biography, then Washington Post reporter Brooke Masters compared the attorney general to no less than Teddy Roosevelt.

...What makes this history all the more unfortunate is that the warning signs about Mr. Spitzer were many and manifest. In the final days of Mr. Spitzer's run for attorney general in 1998, the news broke that he'd twisted campaign-finance laws so that his father could fund his unsuccessful 1994 run. Mr. Spitzer won anyway, and the story was largely forgotten.

New York Stock Exchange caretaker CEO John Reed suggested Mr. Spitzer hadn't told the truth when he said that it was Mr. Reed who wanted him to investigate Mr. Grasso's pay. The press never investigated.

Actually, I think they were right. Eliot Spitzer does represent the party's future. Which is to say, that it is facing a massive meltdown resulting from its own internal contradictions and self-righteous coddling of corruption.

I have to be amused at the charges being flung in the presidential race between the two identity-politics-based campaigns of Obama and Clinton. Her people say that Obama's campaign is behaving "like Ken Starr." His people say that they're using "Republican" tactics. All of this projection is hilarious, since it is the Clintons who refined the "politics of personal destruction" to a high art, particularly when it came to destroying anyone with the temerity to tell the truth about them.

Poor Gerry Ferraro is now being pilloried for stating an obvious truth--that Barack Obama wouldn't have a prayer of almost having the Democrat nomination sewed up if his skin had a lower melanin content. I listened to her this morning, having to defend herself against accusations of racism. The delicious irony, of course, is not that they're "acting like Republicans." No, what's really happening is that they're behaving toward each other the way Democrats and the left have always behaved toward Republicans--accusing them of "hate" when they simply want people to obey the law, accusing them of "racism" when they want the law to be color blind, accusing them of "fascism" if they oppose the latest "liberal" fascist project.

And funny thing, they don't seem to like this kind of treatment any more than Republicans have enjoyed it when they've been on the receiving end for decades. But I doubt that they'll take any lessons from it. I expect them to continue to engage in it, and I hope that it shreds the party, and causes it to finally implode from its own toxic politics, just as Eliot Spitzer has.

But in another way, Spitzer also represents, or is on a continuum with, the party's past.

There was another Democrat politician, who was vaulted to power by an adoring press that ignored (and even helped cover up) his negative aspects. He was another politician who was all in favor of laws that would help "the little guy (or gal)," but apparently didn't think that they should apply to him. He signed a bill with his own pen, to much applause at the time from the so-called feminists, that made sexual harassment (which was broadly defined to include any sexual activity between a boss and subordinate, even consensual, particularly when the power was greatly disparate) a federal affair, subject to federal civil law suits. Beyond signing the law, he was the person who had taken an oath of office to defend the Constitution, and see that the laws of the land were faithfully executed.

Yet, when sued under that same law by a state employee for an incident that occurred when he was a governor--having a state policeman escort her to his hotel room, where he allegedly demanded oral sexual services from her--he brazenly declared that the law didn't apply to him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

And when the law suit progressed, he not only lied under oath, but suborned perjury from others, both through bribes, and through threats, both direct and relayed through others, to prevent her from getting a fair hearing in court. It came out that he had not only engaged in the incident for which he was being sued, but had also indulged in sexual activity with another extreme subordinate, on company time at the work place, and (as the most powerful man in the world) exposed himself to potential blackmail through this reckless behavior.

And all throughout, much of the press defended him, and stenographed the spin and lies, and attacks, of his defenders. A woman who was one of those who had had her family threatened if she didn't perjure herself, but who despite that told the truth in the affair was vilified, and called a liar, and mocked for her morality and even for her physical appearance. And in the end, with the aid of the media, after all the mendacity, after all the hypocrisy, after all the continued arrogance, the man survived politically, and even maintained a positive approval among many in the public.

And Eliot Spitzer no doubt observed all of this, and took what he thought to be a valuable lesson from it. Why in the world wouldn't he have thought that he could do exactly do the same thing and get away with it? After all, the press loved him, too.

This morning, as he is about to announce his resignation, he's got to be wondering, how did this happen to him? What did he do wrong?

[Update early afternoon]

Well, there are a few attempts to defend him from the left. They're pretty lame, though. But then, so were the defenses of Bill Clinton, so maybe hope springs eternal.

[Evening update]

As a commenter notes, I was mistaken above about Bill Clinton signing the law that expanded sexual harassment law suit discovery procedures (how did that myth start?--I've believed it for years. No doubt some of the detritus from the hyperbole of impeachment years).

President George Herbert Walker Bush caved and did it the year before Clinton's election, as a result of bullying in the wake of the Clarence Thomas imbroglio. But there's no reason to think that Clinton wouldn't have signed it, and Bill Clinton was just as obliged to obey laws signed by his predecessors as he was to obey those he signed himself. Despite his ongoing narcissism, arrogance, and corruption, he was not a king.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:47 AM

March 01, 2008
The Moderate Muslim Supermajority

Michael Totten writes that there are a lot more moderate Muslims than we think.

I blame the media, which rewards the radicals with lots of (biased) news coverage, and ignores those who speak out and fight against them. I think, like Michael, that it's appalling that they pay any attention at all to CAIR. They need to actively seek out true moderate representatives of Islam.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

Crickets Chirping At The ICRC?

With all the hue and cry about Korans in toilets in Guantanamo, where are all the staunch defenders of the Geneva Conventions now?

The terrorists are operating within civilian areas, many times with the actual assistance of these civilians, and more often than not with their tacit approval. Brace yourselves for the palestinian propaganda offensive going into overdrive, including stories about civilian deaths, many of which may not be true.

Here's another point:

We are lectured a great deal about the importance of democratizing the Middle East as, somehow, a strategy to defeat terrorism. I do not want to reargue this issue or make too much (again) of the fact that popular elections have thus far succeeded in empowering terrorists.

My question for the moment is this: Does this democratization ever entail any responsibility? The Palestinian "civilians" were given a choice in 2006, and they chose to elect Hamas -- a choice that was overwhelming in Gaza, where the terror organization -- having ousted the more "moderate" terror-mongers from Fatah -- now rules. If the civilians, eyes wide open, opt to be led by a terrorist organization whose chief calling card is its pledge to destroy Israel (a sentiment shared by a large majority of the "civilian" population), how upset are we supposed to get when the said civilians get caught in the cross-fire that is provoked by the savages they elected?

I have always thought that one of the aims of the Israeli pullout of Gaza was to demonstrate that the Palestinians are incapable of forming a functioning state, and of having someone accountable when Israel is attacked. If that was the goal, it seems to have succeeded. Hamas has declared war (or actually, Hamas has never not been in a state of war with Israel, since the destruction of Israel is one of its primary purposes), and now it will have to accept the consequences.

Hamas is blatantly violating just about every one of the Geneva Conventions, I suspect, but I fearlessly predict that only Israel will be charged with "war crimes." We know that the world will claim that the death of every innocent civilian in Gaza, among whom these war criminals hide, will be Israel's fault. No one, after all, can ever violate the Geneva Conventions except for the US and Israel, even when they don't.

Hmmmm...I wonder what the ICRC has to say about this?

[wandering over and reading]

The most recent release related to the subject is from Thursday, in which it simply tells both sides to "use restraint" against killing civilians. It says nothing about military operations among civilians in Gaza, or indeed anything specific at all, about anyone's behavior. I thought that they were supposed to be the defenders and upholders of the Conventions? Why can they not denounce this?

[Update a little while later]

I just reread the release at the ICRC site, and I just can't get over it. Let's just unpack this one graf:

Numerous rockets have been fired at the Israeli towns of Ashkelon and Sderot, hitting civilian areas and landing inside a hospital compound. At the same time, the Israel Defense Forces have carried out several air strikes inside the Gaza Strip. On both sides, there have been civilian fatalities and injuries.

Really?

"...rockets have been fired, and 'at the same time' the IDF have carried out several air strikes." Surely they don't mean literally "at the same time"? As though both Israel and Hamas decided to bomb babies, just for the hell of it?

All right, no doubt by "the same time," they are simply expressing an equivalence between them, not literally saying that the events were simultaneous. Of course, the reality is that first the rockets were fired, with the deliberate intent of killing Israeli civilians to the maximum degree possible, given the crude aiming capability of the rockets, which was followed, afterward by air strikes from Israel whose purpose was to take out the facilities that were launching the rockets in order to prevent further rocket attacks.

This moral equivalence, with no mention whatsoever of the daily, ongoing war crimes by Hamas, is simply nauseating. The ICRC may have moral standing in the world, but it has none with me.

[Update on Sunday afternoon]

A good point in comments. The release isn't even neutral. "Rockets were fired" (passive voice--who knows who fired them? Maybe they fired themselves?) versus the active and specific "IDF carried out air strikes."

[Update a little later]

Here it comes. The Saudis (who else?) are accusing Israel of war crimes. And not just any war crimes, no. Nazi war crimes.

And a bad word for the state that is actually committing war crimes.

[Via LGF]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:02 PM

February 28, 2008
What Human Right Were They Defending?

One can only shake one's head at the mindset of copy editors at the AP.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:25 AM

February 27, 2008
The Stupidest Person In The World

...has to be Keith Olbermann:

But you've got to love the staggering ignorance behind his continued insistence that fascists weren't socialists because they beat other socialists to death. Golly. How many socialists did Stalin kill? Pretty much all of the show trial victims weren't mere socialists but hardcore Communists. I guess Stalin was anti-Communist. Hitler's Night of the Long Knives involved the slaughter of Nazis, so I guess by Olbermann's logic Hitler was anti-Nazi. Most lefties can't stand Joe Lieberman, I guess they're anti-Democrat.

Heh.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AM

February 25, 2008
Creating An Appearance Of An Appearance

Michael Kinsley has the best take so far on McCain and the New York Times:

I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.

Read all.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:58 PM

February 19, 2008
Get Out The Superglide

The Communist News Network (aka CNN) has issued instructions to its reporters as to how to report the Great Fidel's stepping down from power, after only fifty years. And they call Fox News biased?

Nick Gillespie has un-Christian thoughts. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 PM

Must Be Global Warming (Part 15,478)

There's a massive snowstorm in Greece. You know, that balmy, Mediterranean country? Did Al Gore visit recently?

I don't know who said it first, but when it's hot, it's climate, but when it's cold, it's just...you know...weather.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:51 PM

Faithful To Fidel

Some encomia, from the few (but unfortunately not few enough) remaining other commie stooges and dictators. And don't you have this sense from a lot of the press coverage that managing to brutally remain in power for half a century is some sort of laudable achievement?

(And yes, lest the pedants leave comments, I know that the plural is encomiums, but I just like encomia better, having studied Latin.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PM

February 16, 2008
What Do They Know?

As Clark says, I don't know why anyone would think that space scientists or astronauts are experts on business. I don't really care what Kathy Sullivan thinks the prospects are for suborbital tourism, and if I thought that astronauts' opinions on the matter were of value, I can find many astronauts (including John Herrington, Rick Searfoss, etc.) who would disagree with her.

And who is this "Alvin" Aldrin of which they speak? Is that Andy's evil twin? When I do a search for "Alvin Aldrin" I only get one hit--this article.

A couple other questions for Alvin/Andy. What numbers was he using for the Raptor cost? Marginal, or average per-unit? It makes a big difference.

In addition, I always get annoyed when people use a military fighter as a cost analogue for a spaceship. A lot of that dollar-per-pound number for the plane comes from something in it that weighs nothing at all--software. The avionics for the weapons systems, and the defensive systems are non-trivial in cost as well. Designing a combat aircraft, designed to kill other things and avoid being actively killed by other things, is an entirely different problem than designing a vehicle that has to only contend with passive and predictable nature (and pretty benign nature, for the most part, at least for suborbital). I'd bet that Burt's own cost numbers for the SS2 already put the lie to Andy's chart.

[Late afternoon update]

Jeff Foust has a much more extensive writeup of the discussion, which he apparently attended. As I suspected, it was Andy, not Alvin, Aldrin.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:39 AM

February 12, 2008
The Final Mission

Michael Totten writes about the last stages of the war in Fallujah, and Anbar:

According to planet-wide conventional wisdom, United States soldiers and Marines are on an abusive rampage in Iraq. Relentless media coverage of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib - which really did occur, but which the United States didn't sanction or tolerate - seriously distorted what actually goes on in Iraq most of the time. The United States military is far from perfect and is hardly guilt-free, but it's the most law-abiding and humane institution in Iraq at this time.
"Human rights are legal tools in the hands of citizens against abuse of power by an oppressive state," Lieutenant Montgomery said. "If human rights are not respected, sooner or later it will lead to violence and instability...Human rights are rights that derive from the inherent dignity and worth of the person, and they are universal, inalienable, and equal. They are the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace. They belong to people simply because they are human." Again, he read from it the white board. All Iraqi Police officers in Al Anbar are exposed to this material.

...I've said before that American soldiers and Marines aren't the bloodthirsty killers of the popular (in certain quarters) imagination, and that they are far less racist against Arabs than average Americans. They are also, famously, less racist against each other, and they have been since they were forcibly integrated after World War II. This is due to sustained everyday contact with each other and with Iraqis. The stereotype of the racist and unhinged American soldier and Marine is itself a bigoted caricature based almost entirely on sensationalist journalism and recklessly irresponsible war movies.

Liberal journalist George Packer has spent a lot of time in Iraq and is a reliable critic of the Bush Administration and the war. He, like me, has his opinions and doesn't conceal them. But he reports what he sees honestly and comprehensively. You can trust him whether you agree with his views or not.

In a current World Affairs article he pans some of Hollywood's recent anti-war box office flops. "[T]he films...present the war as incomprehensible mayhem," he wrote, "and they depict American soldiers as psychopaths who may as well be wearing SS uniforms. The G.I.s rape, burn, and mutilate corpses, torture detainees, accelerate a vehicle to run over a boy playing soccer, wantonly kill civilians and journalists in firefights, humiliate one another, and coolly record their own atrocities for entertainment. Have these things happened in Iraq? Many have. But in the cinematic version of the war, these are the only things that happen in Iraq. At a screening of The Situation, I was asked to discuss the film with its director, Philip Haas. Why had he portrayed the soldiers in cartoon fashion, I wondered. Why had he missed their humor, their fear, their tenderness for one another and even, every now and then, for Iraqis? Because, Haas said, he wanted to concentrate on humanizing his Iraqi characters instead."

It's not hard to humanize Iraqis and Americans. A competent writer or director can do both at the same time. In fact, it requires deliberate effort or willful ignorance for a writer or director to humanize Iraqis while at the same time dehumanizing Americans. Packer humanizes both because he's a good writer, he's honest, and he actually works in Iraq. He leaves his fortified hotel compound and makes an effort to get it right, unlike so many writers, directors, and journalists in the stereotype-manufacturing industries.

As is often the case, conventional wisdom isn't necessarily wise, or correct. The press, both foreign and American, has not acquitted itself well in Iraq. That is the real failure over there, contrary to what Nancy and Harry continue to ignorantly (and cynically) bleat about.

Read the whole thing, and support real reporters like Michael Totten with his tip jar.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:28 AM

Overblown Headline

Sorry, but there's nothing classified about the Space Shuttle, as this silly headline implies:

Former Boeing Engineer Charged with Economic Espionage in Theft of Space Shuttle Secrets for China

If one reads the article, what is really at issue is Rockwell (now Boeing) trade secrets--that is, proprietary information, presumably on things like materials and manufacturing techniques. Language like this simply reinforces the mistaken notion of many that NASA, and the Shuttle program, are military in nature. Not that that excuses the spy, of course--he should still be prosecuted, because in theory, it could help the Chinese advance their technology. Though in the case of the Shuttle, as Charles Lurio notes in an email, it will probably set them back ten years.

Of course, if we really wanted to set them back and keep them planet bound, we'd send them the current plans for Ares and Orion...

[Update a few minutes later]

Just in case anyone is wondering, while this guy presumably worked in Downey during the eighties, I never knew him, or even heard of him, until now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:55 AM

February 11, 2008
The Big Lie Continues

I don't generally agree with Paul Krugman (to put it mildly) and in fact I don't agree with much in this piece, either, except for one thing:

I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.

But the real reason I put this post up is to note the lie that will not die (mostly because the media liars, or at least deranged, such as Krugman, who may actually believe it, continue to promulgate it).

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons' part, yet the "scandal" became a symbol of the Clinton administration's alleged corruption.

There was abundant evidence of wrongdoing found, and it can be found in Bob Ray's report. The fact that he chose not to indict was not because there wasn't "any" evidence. It was because he didn't think that he had enough (and indeed, he may have thought that no amount would have been enough) to successfully prosecute and convict them, given the fact that it would only take a single Clinton cultist to hang a jury, as happened in the Susan MacDougal case.

Just to clarify the record. I won't bother to fisk the rest of Krugman's Clinton-defending nonsense today.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:09 AM

February 06, 2008
Forty Years Later

Remembering the lies of Tet.

As the Washington Post's Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in his 1977 book, "The Big Story," the desperate fury of the communist attacks including on Saigon, where most reporters lived and worked, caught the press by surprise. (Not the military: It had been expecting an attack and had been on full alert since Jan. 24.) It also put many reporters in physical danger for the first time. Braestrup, a former Marine, calculated that only 40 of 354 print and TV journalists covering the war at the time had seen any real fighting. Their own panic deeply colored their reportage, suggesting that the communist assault had flung Vietnam into chaos.

Their editors at home, like CBS's Walter Cronkite, seized on the distorted reporting to discredit the military's version of events. The Viet Cong insurgency was in its death throes, just as U.S. military officials assured the American people at the time. Yet the press version painted a different picture.

To quote Braestrup, "the media tended to leave the shock and confusion of early February, as then perceived, fixed as the final impression of Tet" and of Vietnam generally. "Drama was perpetuated at the expense of information," and "the negative trend" of media reporting "added to the distortion of the real situation on the ground in Vietnam."

The North Vietnamese were delighted. On the heels of their devastating defeat, Hanoi increasingly shifted its propaganda efforts toward the media and the antiwar movement. Causing American (not South Vietnamese) casualties, even at heavy cost, became a battlefield objective in order to reinforce the American media's narrative of a failing policy in Vietnam.

Sound familiar?

I fear that Al Qaeda may attempt one more spasm of violence, and the media, ever dutiful to the enemy, wittingly or not, will report it as the war futile and lost in Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:57 AM

February 05, 2008
"Crack Found In Man's Buttocks"

That's really the headline. Wonder how hard they had to look to find it.

Should that copy editor be fired, or promoted?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:20 AM

January 31, 2008
Get Them A Maalox

Andrew Ferguson has an interesting history of presidential campaigning and the relatively recent (and to me, bizarre) phenomenon of the need for "fire in the belly."

I don't have to wait until spring to miss Fred Thomson. His absence was quite obvious, even glaring, in the last two debates.

Thompson didn't give off the usual political vibe: the gnawing need to please, the craving for the public's love. A few voters and journalists found this refreshing, many more found it insulting.

I think that this is one of the reasons that reporters and pundits often acted as though he didn't exist--they were trying to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, and unfortunately, they succeeded. But I think that there were other reasons that the press didn't like Fred Thompson. For one thing, unlike John McCain, he was a true straight talker, and it wasn't the kind of centrist "liberal" "straight talk" that they liked to hear.

But I also think that they felt their livelihoods and stature threatened by him. After all, the conventional wisdom had become that the campaigns now had to start two years before the election, and if that's the case, it gives journalists a lot more to cover for a longer period of time. By his late entry, Fred stood to potentially upset that applecart. If he could enter late, and still win, it would not only show the pundits who proclaimed the need for early campaigning to be laughably wrong, but it would also make people think twice about wasting time and money campaigning for a year before New Hampshire in the next cycle, and then what would the political reporters have to do?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:54 AM

January 28, 2008
Another Five-Year Anniversary

Such is the state of my disgust with the Bush administration that, it being my birthday, I probably won't bother to listen to his State of the Union speech tonight. But I recall another SOTU speech, exactly five years ago (on a previous birthday), that contained the sixteen words that the media continues to tell the Big Lie about, in their continuing attempt to maintain the conventional wisdom that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:47 PM

January 24, 2008
Boca Debate

[Welcome, Instapundit readers. My blog is undergoing refurbishment. You can comment, but they'll be moderated, and expect your submission to time out. Don't redo it. Just let it time out and then back up to the post with a couple clicks.]

This debate is only three or four miles from the house, but like the rest of you (if you're watching at all) I'm watching it on the tube. I can't get away from the NBC crew completely, but no reason I have to be in the same room with them. Plus, the booze is cheaper here, there's no competition for the bandwidth or power with the rest of the press, and I can wear my pajamas.

So, in a few minutes, they're off!

The announcer mispronounces "Boca Raton." It's not like baton, it's a Spanish word (it means "rat"). It's pronounced with a long "o." Good thing he's not after any local votes...

First question is to Romney, a softball right over the plate, about whether or not he agrees with the President's economic plan. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about, as would be expected from a businessman. Focusing on capital expenditures, etc. Not sure how it will sell to the general public, though. Wants to expand FHA and loosen requirements to help out homeowners.

Will McCain support the part of the economic stimulus plan that doesn't make tax cuts permanent? Yes he will, though disappointed. Wants to not only make cuts permanent, but also to cut corporate income taxes. Worried that pork will be added. Happy to allow faster expensing of capital investments.

McCain is definitely trying to sound like a conservative on tax and fiscal policy.

Giuliani supports package, but doesn't think it goes far enough. Wants a Dryer package that would be the biggest tax cut in American history. Wants to make America competitive with the rest of the world, reduce taxing, suing, etc. Major reductions in taxes, spending, regulations, specifically SOX. Doesn't want London to take over as world's financial capital from New York.

Now McCain is defending his economic knowledge, and citing Reagan, Feldstein, Kemp, etc. Still attempting to sound conservative economically.

Huckabee being asked if he trusts Romney as a tax cutter. Evading the issue, talking about budgets and surpluses. Talking about borrowing from the Chinese and worried that we'll be stimulating their economy more than ours. Proposing expanding I-95 with American labor and materials (Bangor to Miami). Playing to the Florida audience, who want more lanes on it.

Romney says worked with Democrats to solve problems in Massachussetts without tax increases. Doesn't take the bait on whether he trusts Huckabee and McCain on taxes.

McCain asked if he considers Romney's "fees" equivalent to taxes. "I'm sure that the people who paid them think the are." Still talking like a conservative on tax and spending. Wonder if anyone will bring up his rhetoric from 2001 about "tax cuts for the rich"?

Ron Paul worried about spending and printing too much money. Lower taxes, get rid of regulations, and devise monetary policy that "makes some sense." Doesn't think we should expect Fed to monetize more spending. Can't afford to "maintain empire," and says that every war has resulted in inflation.

Giuliani asked about turning down the Saudi check for the Twin Towers fund. Can't get away from 911, but not his fault, because Russert asked. Talking about mutuality of interest when countries invest in the US. Talking about the fact that Japan wasn't the danger we thought they were in the eighties. Have to be careful that there is no ulterior motive in investments but we need to think how much we can sell to the world.

Democrats have eighteen point advantage in confidence in dealing with economy according to Russert. Reads litany of statistics. Why should we trust Republicans.

McCain, says that Dems will increase spending, increase taxes, won't restore stability of entitlements which are becoming unfunded in the future. Talking about "outrageous" $35B pork that could have paid for tax credits for every child in America. Will regain confidence of American people in being careful stewards of their money.

Huckabee: same question. "I wasn't there in Washington at the time." Can't blame it all on Bush, was keeping America safe. He was the only one saying that the economy wasn't doing great early on in debate season. Playing populist and friend of the "little guy" again. Talking about "trickle up" impact on the economy of low-paid workers.

Romney running on his record of accomplishment in Massachusetts, and running against Washington. Don't live by high ethics, haven't solved illegal immigration, haven't solved oil problems, haven't solved spending. "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses." Have to rein in entitlements costs.

Giuliani saying that he's got experience turning an economy around in New York.

Ron Paul says that he doesn't have to run from Washington, because he's been fighting it from within. He's never voted for a tax increase, and almost always votes against spending. Entering a new era with dollar and world economy.

Local questions coming up now.

McCain: Army on verge of breaking, and can't sustain present spending. We cannot sustain our presence in Iraq.

McCain knows of no military leader who says we can't sustain ourselves in Iraq, including Petraeus. Attacking Clinton and saying that if we withdraw, Al Qaeda will have won. Proud to say that we have to abandon Rumsfeld strategy and do what we're doing now. Proud of military, and don't want us to raise the white flag as Senator Clinton does.

Romney: How do you maintain military without a draft? Talks about enrollment and retention in Mass National Guard. Thinks that people in military need full ride when they get home. Points out that Democrats' answers in last debate indicated that getting out was more important than winning. He won't walk away from Iraq until successful. How audacious of Dems to claim that they are responsible for success in Iraq. "due to General Petraeus, not General Clinton."

Will they say that the war was a good idea, worth the price?

McCain says that it was worth getting rid of Saddam, and is attacking Rumsfeld. War is justified by threat of Saddam. Now on right track and if we withdraw Al Qaeda will be claiming victory and the world will believe them. Wants troops to return with honor.

Giuliani points out that when polls where in favor that Hillary was, and that when polls were against, she was against. He always supported it, and continues to.

Ron Paul has the expected answer.

Huckabee says that it's easy to second guess a president, but says he should be admired for not governing by polls.

Romney supported and continues to support, but war was undermanaged and understaffed. Now on the right track, and making sure that Al Qaeda has no safe haven there from which to launch attacks against us. Democrats are just run and retreat, regardless of the problems.

[A couple minutes later]

Back from commercial break. Brian Williams can't pronounce Boca Raton, either.

Question from Romney to Giuliani. China will be a tough competitor. How do we maintain jobs here and have trade done on a level playing field. Giulian says that China is a great opportunity and great caution for America. More we engage in trade more we get to know a country and less probability of military confrontation. Need to be careful about safety and security, but look at bringing millions of people out of poverty there every year as huge opportunity. They need energy and information processes more than we do. They need to buy what we have. We should increase the size of our military to repair the damage of Bill Clinton's peace dividend with the 25-30% cuts.

Senator McCain asks Huckabee about Fair Tax. It's a very popular idea with a groundswell. How to answer the criticism that a sales tax won't cause low-income Americans to bear more of the burden of the government, and where is the resonance.

Huckabee: people would love the IRS to be abolished. We are penalized for productivity. Fair tax says we want you to be productive and work and profit. On the bottom end, the poor come out best of all because of pre-pay. No taxes on basic necessities of life. No more underground economy. "No more pimps, drug dealers...non-Republicans" avoiding taxes. Wants to put the IRS out of business.

Russert follows up with question about how the people who are only paying fifteen percent now benefit from a thirty-percent sales tax. Huckabee says that it's only 23%, and that he's not considering SSI and other taxes.

Ron Paul asks McCain if there would be more sunshine on who he would rely on for economic advice. Sorry, I missed the full question. I suspect that it had to do with the Tri-Lateral Commission.

Huckabee asking Romney if he supports Brady and "assault weapon" ban. Good question.

Romney says that he supports 2nd Amendment and hopes that the SCOTUS will find it an individual right. He also said that he would sign an assault weapons ban renewal, but doesn't think it necessary. Doesn't support any new legislation, and supports the right to bear arms.

Giuliani asking Romney (after talking about McCain's position) if he supports National Catastrophic Fund for disaster insurance. Romney says that he does support a "back stop" for high-risk states, but doesn't support Iowan's subsidizing Massachusetts or Florida. Doesn't explain how to square the circle.

McCain wants to address the issue, by spreading insurance across state lines, increasing the risk pool. House wanted a bill of $200B with no reform whatsoever. Confident that we can work with the insurance companies and don't need a new federal bureaucracy.

Russert following up with a question about global warming and submerging Florida and why he opposes caps. Giuliani says that we need to go more nuclear, get hybrid vehicles, clean coal with carbon sequestration, incentives for new industries, biofuels. Project like putting a man on the moon to become energy independent. Caps will punish the American economy and let other countries off the hook.

McCain favors cap and trade (with Joe Lieberman--he's forgetting again that he's running for the Republican nomination, not the general election). Repeats one of the climate change canards: "Climate change is real, and can affect states like Florida because it has to do with violent weather as well." "Suppose we are wrong, and hand our children a cleaner world." There is no acknowledgement of the potential costs to the economy.

Russert asking Giuliani what happened to his race. Pretty blunt.

Giuliani compares himself to the Giants, and says he's going to come back from behind.

I have to note that this has been a very mild discussion, really no harsh criticism from anyone.

Williams asks about McCain's mother's quote that the party will have to "hold its nose" to vote for her son. How will he get the support of Republicans? Says that most Republicans are concerned about radical Islamic extremists and that he'll defend the nation. Conservative Republicans are as concerned about climate change as he is. What planet has he been living on? Talking about when he's willing to go after Republicans when he has to do so to put his country above his party.

Romney: how will you run against the team of Hillary and Bill Clinton? Want to elect a president on the basis of the candidate, not her husband. She wants to raise taxes, give everyone health insurance by the government, get out of Iraq as fast as we can. She is Washington to the core, and has been there too long, as has Bill Clinton. Going to do it the Ronald Reagan way of pulling social, economic and national security conservatives. The first time that Reagan's name came up in this debate. Won't report how much of his wealth he's spending until he's legally required to do so. Claims he's raised more money than any other Republican in this race, and he feels obligated to put in his own to match his donors. Though he didn't raise as much as Jon Corzine.

Will a Mormon president have trouble raising support in the country? Romney doesn't believe that the American people are going to base their vote on a man's church. Believes that the Founders didn't intend a religious test, and believes that Americans agree. Hillary takes her inspiration from old Europe, he takes his from a young and vibrant America.

Ron Paul thinks that Social Security should be abolished. Is he still in favor? Yes, but not overnight. Need to get the young people out. He'll take care of all the elderly, but save money by stopping all the expenditure overseas. Doesn't want taxes on their benefits, wants to secure the trust fund, protecting it from general revenues. It's a failure, doesn't work, is going to bankrupt the country. Government should have never been involved, and there's not way that benefits are going to keep up. His plan has a better chance than any other one.

Huckabee: what will he do to save Social Security: Wants to comment on Mitt's money in his own campaign. Offers a solution that if he's president, Mitt can have more money to pass on to his sons. In response to the SS question, talking up Fair Tax. Taking a "can do" attitude in response to Russert's question about how unlikely the Fair Tax is.

Will Romney do for Social Security what Reagan did in 1983? "No, I don't want to raise taxes." It has a double whammy. You slow down the economy and more people lose work. Three other ways to solve the problem. Personal accounts for something that does better than government bonds. Calculate the benefits based on the price index rather than wage index. And change age of eligibility. Need to work to come up with a compromise. But doesn't want to scare anyone--nothing will change for anyone in or near retirement, but we have to do something about the thirty and forty year olds.

Why is Giuliani's campaign airing an ad in Spanish. Core of his plan is to stop immigration at the border, regardless of language of ads. Have to teach new behavior, which means identify yourself, like other countries. At the end of the day, to be a citizen, you have to speak English.

Why a special policy for "dry-foot" Cubans? Presumption in immigration law that Cubans are fleeing political persecution. Exception has been around for decades, and is justified by Castro's history.

Question for Huckabee. Does he agree with Chuck Norris that McCain is too old? Only agreed with Norris because he was standing next to him. He doesn't think that Senator McCain lacks the vigor and capacity to be president, uses McCain's mother as a vibrant example. Not an issue for him, even if it is for Chuck, but he's far enough away from him he disagrees. McCain threatens (jokingly) to send Sly Stallone after Chuck.

New York Times has endorsed McCain in the New York primary. How will he defend himself? Says that he never did anything that the New York Times suggested, which is why he's a conservative, and shows true compassion.

Romney changes positions with the wind the NYT opposes him. Romney says that he's not in politics to please the New York Times. Defending his record on pro-life positions, taxes, and Second Amendment.

Is McCain's temper an issue? This was one from the LA Times. He doesn't think that he would have the support of his colleagues if that was the case. Saying that he's proud of Giuliani, and that all of the people on the stage with him are great Americans.

In response to someone's comment that Huckabee's faith "gives him a queasy feeling." Huckabee's response is that that's his problem, not Huck's. Have to respect people of all faiths, including no faith.

Concern that Ron Paul won't stick to his party and will run with another party. His concern is that his opponents aren't sticking by their party and its principles. Dances around the question, saying that he doesn't intend to run independently, but he wants them to worry that he will. Not a matter of him leaving the party, they need to welcome people to a party that's becoming smaller. Can't be "too strict with the Constitution." Need a big tent of people who believe in the Constitution. He gets the last word.

I'll be gathering my overall thoughts, but they'll probably be over at Pajamas Media a little later.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:18 PM

January 21, 2008
A Worthy Cause

Order your posters, and support the Media Violence Project.

They need our help. It's time to get them the treatment they need and deserve.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:09 AM

January 19, 2008
Words Don't Mean Things

...at least not to the AP:

Romney did better among more conservative voters, while McCain and Paul each got about one in five moderates, who made up about 20 percent of the electorate.

OK, what kind of a "moderate" would vote for Ron Paul? I can't think of any position that he takes that could be considered "moderate." He's what most people would call an extremist^*. If someone called themselves a "moderate," or someone whom the AP would call a "moderate" would vote for Ron Paul then the word has no meaning whatsoever.

And frankly, I find people who call themselves "moderate" to generally be people with no firm or coherent political principles whatsoever. All it really means is that they are neither "liberal" or conservative, so the media types find them difficult to pigeonhole. And given the large number of possibilities of positions one can have without being in either of those media pigeonholes, that means that we can't draw any conclusions whatsoever about them. We need a different word for such people than "moderate."

* Not that there's anything wrong with that--so am I, on many issues. I'm just (as I think that Glenn Reynolds once said of himself) an eclectic one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:17 PM

January 18, 2008
Hey...

Iowahawk has stolen my schtick:

Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence of that America's newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters? Answers are elusive, but the ever-increasing toll of violent crimes committed by journalists has led some experts to warn that without programs for intensive mental health care, the nation faces a potential bloodbath at the hands of psychopathic media vets.
"These people could snap at any minute," says James Treacher of the Treacher Institute for Journalist Studies. "We need to get them the help and medication they need before it's too late."

I think that we need to set up a national data base so we can know whether or not one lives in our neighborhood. Anyway, we know that the brutality of covering a war that's being inexplicably won can cause many to snap.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:09 AM

True Hate Speech

Ralph Peters is less than impressed (to put it gently) with the New York Times and its apparent war against veterans:

in the Middle Ages, lepers had to carry bells on pain of death to warn the uninfected they were coming. One suspects that the Times would like our military veterans to do the same.
The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.

Anyone want to make book on whether there's anything resembling even a recognition of how egregious this was (forget about an actual apology) from the "public editor"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 AM

January 12, 2008
To Non-Americans Who Think They Understand America

I had never noticed this quote on the masthead of USS Neverdock before:

"America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge. I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture..." BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb

From an interview with the Grauniad. This explains why some commenters here are both clueless and arrogantly certain in their (lack of) knowledge. I won't name names, but if the shoe fits, they might consider a little more humility.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:48 PM

January 05, 2008
Idiotic Question

I'm listening to the Republican debate, and wondering why they put up with this bullshit (yes, I don't use that word often on this family...sort of... blog) from the MSM. Why do they allow Democrat media types to frame their debate?

The most egregious case of this is the question that just came up--why shouldn't people vote for Barack Obama?

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANY REPUBLICAN CARE ABOUT THIS QUESTION IN A REPUBLICAN DEBATE?

Romney responded with a bunch of blather that had little to do with the question, and Thompson came up next. I was disappointed.

It was a "I'm not doing no hand shows" moment, and he blew it.

The first words out of his mouth should have been, "Let me preface my answer with the statement that this is a foolish question for a debate that only Republicans are really interested in. It might be a perfectly fine question a few months from now, in a general election, if Obama in fact becomes the candidate, and I (or one of these other gentlemen) are debating him, but Republicans, or at least smart ones (and I don't know that many dumb ones) don't care why I or anyone on this stage thinks that they shouldn't vote for Barack Obama. They're trying to pick a Republican candidate. Now, having said that,...[then go on to the response he actually gave].

But instead, he just returned to Republican principles, but I think he missed an opportunity to bash the press again, which a lot of Republican activists would have loved.

One other thought overall. Mike Huckabee is one slick-talking, two-faced socialist son of a bitch. I'll have to go through the transcript to make the case, though. He's a combination of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, in Republican clothing.

Must be something about people who were born in Hope, Arkansas, and became governor of the state. If the campaigns of the other Republican candidates are worth anything, there is much fodder here for anti-Huckabee ads that will amply and convincingly demonstrate this.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here are some related thoughts to the latter point from Jonathan Adler (though more calm than mine, though they weren't in the wake of the debate):

It's interesting that Huckabee is now stressing a limited government message, as it has not been a significant part of his platform up until now. Rather this is a guy who celebrates farm subsidies, disavows free trade, and likes the idea of a national smoking ban, and his campaign manager has disparaged the limited government ideology that motivates many Republicans in New Hampshire and elsewhere. That he can deliver such a message effectively is no surprise — he's a very smooth talker. The question is whether his newfound embrace of limited government ideals is sincere. I have my doubts.

I have no doubts. It is clearly quite insincere, to anyone who has observed his actual governing (and other campaign statements) as opposed to his mercurial and chameleon-like campaign rhetoric for New Hampshire.

[Update a little later]

Here's an example that struck me, too:

"The right to live our lives...the way we want to, and not have the government tell us how to do it."
Is this the same Mike Huckabee that wants the government to tell us how to eat?

Yes, that one really jumped out at me.

[Another update]

The Romney team, at least is loading the guns. An example:

Gov. Huckabee, January 2007: "Well, I'm Not Sure That I Support The Troop Surge."
MSNBC's NORAH O'DONNELL: "We have a Rudy Giuliani, who supports the president's plan on Iraq. We have Governor Mitt Romney, who also supports a troop surge. How are you different from any of those candidates."

HUCKABEE: "Well, I'm not sure that I support the troop surge, if that surge has to come from our Guard and Reserve troops, which have really been overly stretched." (MSNBC's "Live," 1/24/07)

One other comment, from several people, with which I agree, and should add to the glossary: "Getting into the weeds": an argument too abstruse for simpletons like Charlie Gibson to follow.

Nice for now that Thompson doesn't have to do it.

[Update a few minutes later]

Not that it's news, but McCain speak with forked tongue, too:

"'There are jobs that American workers simply won't do,' McCain said. 'As long as there's a demand for workers, workers are going to come across.' An amnesty program is vital to any immigration legislation that includes a guest-worker program, he said. 'Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it,' he said. 'How can we have a temporary worker program if we're not allowing people who have been here for 30 years to hold jobs here?'" (C. T. Revere, "McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program," Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)

McCain maintains that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "lying."

[Another update]

Jim Gerachty notes another missed opportunity by Fred:

Thompson says he's [Obama] adopted the views of every liberal interest group in the country. He mentions the NEA.
Fred! Fred! Somebody on that stage was endorsed by the New Hampshire NEA! Mention it, mention it!

He didn't mention it.

The person being referred to here is Huckabee...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:35 PM

January 04, 2008
Scientific Fraud

At The Lancet. This isn't really new news--anyone with half a brain who looked at the study carefully at the time (i.e., not all-too-credulous journalists) could see that it was a nonsensical statistical mess. But the case against it is looking even stronger now.

Of course, it fulfilled its political purpose--to damage the Republicans and the Bush administration in the 2006 elections. And when it comes to righteous moral crusades like that, accuracy and scientific integrity be damned.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AM

January 03, 2008
Lazy

Fred Thompson says that journalists lack fire in the belly.

(Can we please retire that idiotic cliche now?)

Well, it was inevitable that it would come to this, given how badly broken our journalism system is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 AM

December 20, 2007
A Tale Of Two Pictures

One wonders if the photog is a one-trick pony:

...look at the differences. The crop, of course, is exceedingly important. Here the focal points are the regal hands and imperial glare instead of the giant hands and, well, crotch. Whereas Clinton comes off like a thoroughly pleased guy about to run off to a party, Putin looks like he's deciding whether to have you killed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:24 PM

He's Right

If Obama isn't the next president, it will be because of America's inherent racism. And if Hillary! isn't, it will be because of America's inherent sexism. It won't, it goes without saying, be because of any inherent deficiencies in them as candidates that are independent of their melanin content or genital configuration.

And it's guaranteed to be one or the other, because only one of them (if either) can win. And of course, if neither of them do, and another Rethuglican steals the election, it will be because we're both racist and sexist. Because, you know, it's always America's fault.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:19 AM

No Media Bias Here

Misreporting a Thompson campaign event, over at the Politico. I'd call it more media malpractice.

Of course, I've had my own run-in with this particular reporter.

[Update a few minutes later]

Roger L. Simon (not the one who is the above journalistic hack) has some further thoughts. And as he says, he knows his hats.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:29 AM

December 18, 2007
"Journalistic Malpractice"

Michael Totten provides a critique of one of his "colleagues" in Fallujah.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 AM

December 16, 2007
Dumb Metaphor Alert

Noah Pollack finds one:

O.K., I'm no expert on monster trucks, but how do you lose the key while driving? Doesn't it have to be in the ignition? And don't monster trucks have brakes, or did we lose those, too? And where is the driver — can't he steer the monster truck away from the rainforests and the spotted owls?

Well, it's not that surprising. After all, it is Tom Friedman we're talking about.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:42 PM

Don't Reward Them

Dave Kopel has some "do"s and "don't"s for the media to minimize copy-cat killing. I doubt if they'll listen, though

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:46 AM

December 13, 2007
Zero G Found to Cause Cluelessness

Marc Kaufman of Washington Post finds that in zero g, "Microbes May Threaten Lengthy Spaceflights[;] Immune Systems Of Astronauts Found To Be Weakened". I guess the whole spinning-like-a-carnival-ride thing is far too obvious a solution even if the problem is not worthy of a "crash program or anything like that".

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 11:53 AM

December 10, 2007
Being Compared To Heinlein

I'd love to be compared to Heinlein. Particularly since I don't (at least deliberately) write fiction. Or even attempt to.

[Update on Tuesday morning]

In comments, Paul Spudis links to this LA Times piece which was discussed over at Scalzi's place. Note in particular this comment. And the LA Times piece is what prompted all the discussion, including this post.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 PM

December 06, 2007
"Digital Maosim"

Here's a classical example:

I can not prove it, but from the comments and messages I have received from Diggers I believe there are a couple of reasons I am buried. First, Geeks are generally progressives and I am a conservative, albeit of a libertarian mindset—but they don't understand that. Second, like many Geeks, their sexual development is rather stunted—and are quite misogynistic and homophobic in an adolescent sort of way. So they do not like their progressive viewpoints ridiculed by an intelligent conservative lesbian.

One of the reasons that I don't bother with providing Digg links on my posts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:34 PM

November 30, 2007
Sophomoric

But perhaps it's forgivable, since it was probably written by actual sophomores. Here's a call by the editorial staff of the Harvard Crimson to repeal the Second Amendment. The amount of historical (and other) ignorance displayed here is breathtaking. I don't have time to do it, but this needs a thorough fisking.

I do think it's a good sign in a sense, though. They're realizing that the jig is up, and that the court is very likely to overturn the DC gun laws, and many others. They'll no longer be able to pretend that it's not an individual right.

[Update at 3 PM EST]

Gullyborg has risen to the challenge. He missed a key point here, though:

Written in an age in which minutemen rose to dress and fight at a moment’s notice, the Second Amendment was no doubt motivated by a young nation’s concern for its own safety and stability.
Actually, it was motivated by a young nation's memory of warrantless search and seizure, a military not subservient to civil power, the end of trial by jury, hauling colonists back to Britain for mock trials, plundering the seas, ravaging the coasts, burning towns, and destroying the lives of people. You know, those things we wrote about in The Declaration of Independence. That thing we used to declare our nation free to write the Constitution. Look it up.

The most key motivation was the very recent memory of the battle that set off the war, in Lexington and Concord.

What set off that battle? The British troops had marched from Boston toward Concord (as Paul Revere was riding through the countryside rousing the citizenry) to seize the armory and confiscate the weapons stored there. Had the militia (i.e., able-bodied men in the area) not had their own, they would have had nothing with which to fight them, had the British troops actually been able to carry out their orders.

That's why the Founders thought it important that people have a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is a last-ditch insurance policy against a tyrannical government, something of which the sophomores in Cambridge (not very far from either Lexington, or Concord, and the location of one of the ancillary battles) are apparently incapable of conceiving. Or if they do, they probably imagine that it's the Bush administration.

[Update an hour or so later]

The more I think about it, the more appalling it is that Harvard students could be so ignorant of American history, not just because it's supposedly such an elite institution, but because that particular bit of American history took place almost literally in their own back yard, as the British retreated to Cambridge (where Harvard was, as it is today). And afterward, Gage attempted to confiscate all the private weapons of the citizens of Boston.

What does this say about the state of American higher education today?

I wonder if anyone involved in that editorial could even describe the circumstances of the battle that kicked off the revolution?

[Evening update]

It just occurs to me that, given their ignorance of history, the sophomores may defend their editorial on the basis that the "Americans" were rising up against a foreign government, thus making their point about the amendment being for the defense of "America" and is thus no longer needed, since America now has the most formidable armed forces in the history of the world.

Of course, they were doing no such thing. The "Americans" were British citizens (even though they couldn't vote and had no members of Parliament, but were taxed nonetheless--remember "No taxation without representation"?) rising up against their own government. "Americans" as we understand them today did not exist in 1775. Again, that thought too was very fresh in the Founders' minds.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:17 AM

November 27, 2007
The "Youths" Are At It Again

This time, they're attacking the gendarmes with shotguns. This isn't a riot. It's an insurrection. What is Sarkozy going to do?

I find this particular euphemism by the press quite irritating. Can't we be a little more specific and descriptive about the "youths"? By using that phrase, we're tarring all French youth, many of whom, if not most, I suspect, are not blasting the cops in the faces with shot. Are they Catholics? Huguenots? Mormons? Amish?

In the US, when they won't tell you the race of a criminal suspect, it's generally a good bet that he's of African descent, and if they make you guess the party of a miscreant politician, it's a good indicator that it's a Democrat. In French riots, one strongly suspects that when the perps are described only as "youths," that they are (a) not necessarily that young and (b) at least notional followers of the Religion of Peace™. But we don't want to prejudice anyone against the religion that cannot be named, no, or tell the readers what's really going on here. We'll just slander all young French people.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AM

November 23, 2007
Something To Be Thankful For

Life is such a bowl of cherries, and devoid of actual news (news here being defined in the traditional media sense of mayhem and misery), that here in south Florida, at least, the local teevee station is going to have team coverage of people lined up for the capitalist bacchanalia that commenced in the wee hours of the morning at the malls.

Now that's news I can't use. But I'm glad to hear there's nothing of importance to cover.

Oh, and speaking of the local news team, the Weather Weasel* (my nickname for Chris Farrell, the perky little guy in the Princeton haircut who serves up the lack of weather here every morning on Channel 29 out of West Palm) lied to me again. All week, he and the other meteorological prognosticators have been threatening a Front (not a cold front--those hardly ever happen down here--even when they call them that, they're just a Slightly Less Warm Front) would be coming through on Turkey Day, bringing Increased Clouds (words apparently meant to instill fear in the tremulous heart of a Sunshine Stater), and perhaps even the dreaded Isolated or (worse yet) Scattered Showers. Maybe, just maybe, even a Thundershower. Things would be even more dire on Friday, supposedly. Bear in mind that all these "warnings" come in the midst of a continuing drought as we head steadfastly into dry season, the dud of what was supposed to be an above-average hurricane season, from which we barely got one tropical storm on the first day of the season, ending one week from today. While Lake Okeechobee is five feet below normal.

Now what most people around here consider a threat, I consider a promise--a sacred one. Anyway, here it is, Friday morning. The dreaded Front stalled up around Orlando, and the sky is cloudless.

OK, you're saying, weathermen aren't perfect. They misjudged how far it would make it before the stalling process.

Fair enough. But here's what really bugs me. If they'd admit that they were wrong, and explain what happened, and how they're going to adjust the models so they'll get it right next time, I'd be fine with it. But no. It's Orwellian. On the forecast this morning, he made absolutely mention of the previous warnings, the most recent of which was last night, at 11:15 PM, just before I hit the pillow.

Just said, hey, it's a sunny day, gonna be beautiful, just like it's supposed to be down here. Maybe even warmer than normal. As though he and the others had not promised (well, at least to me) us all the Horrid Weather to come all week. Just down the memory hole, as though it never happened.

I dunno, maybe it's just me. I hear stories of people who live up in the Pacific Northwest, who get depressed at what seems to be incessant clouds and drizzle and general dreariness, and take great joy when the sun pokes its head through the holes. Well, give me Seattle. I get despondent at the thought of this ongoing unremitting solar bath. I look forward to clouds, and rain, particularly if accompanied by thunder and lightning, but now that we're heading into what passes down here for winter, I'm just in for one long soul-sucking period of non-weather for the next several months, which is simply made all the worse by the weathercasters' continual glee in telling me that it will continue, while occasionally teasing me with the possibility of a change (with somber demeanor), only to shatter my dreams and then pretend they never did it.

Oh, well. At least the heat and humidity are down.

*I'm sure he's a very nice fellow, and perhaps Weather Chipmunk would be a more appropriate nickname, but it doesn't have the alliterative quality of the "W" word. And he does dash my hopes so often.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

November 21, 2007
Idiot Television Writers

I'm watching "Back To You," a new sitcom with Kelsey Grammar and Patricia Heaton, while getting ready to brine the turkey for tomorrow.

He is overfeeding the goldfish, and she warns him not to do this (it's a metaphor about what a lousy absentee dad he is, to put it in context of the ongoing plot).

The goldfish, of course, because this is television, dies immediately from overeating.

The only problem is that no goldfish ever died from overeating. Or at least, that's not why you shouldn't overfeed a goldfish (nor is the related Dr. Seuss story worth worrying about either).

It's bad to overfeed fish because they won't eat all the food, and the uneaten food will rot and pollute their bowl. It happens over a period of many hours or days, not instantaneously. But the dumb writers think that the fish gorge themselves and die (otherwise, they'd have no story line).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 PM

November 20, 2007
Stop Building Houses? Huh?

In today's Wall Street Journal I find this gem:

Maybe home builders should knock off work until spring.

Pillory OPEC for not raising oil production and pillory home builders for producing too much?! And another:

"If people stop cutting prices, that's actually good [for builders]," says David Goldberg, an analyst with UBS Investment Bank. "If everybody does it, it works. If one builder does it, it doesn't."

If OPEC conspires to raise oil prices, it's evil, but it's OK to conspire to keep housing prices up? This is bad reporting.

It's in each builder's interest to keep building as long as their cost to build is lower than the expected sale price and the cost of capital for keeping the house on the market for longer than historical averages (and at higher interest rates than before the credit crisis). They will continue to build and prices will continue to fall. It probably won't be a sellers' market in housing in many parts of the country until 2009 or 2010. While builders continue to build, the 10-month supply of houses will only slowly drop and prices will also only drop slowly. If it made sense to build houses at 50% of current prices in some markets, there will be building for a while especially with labor and materials less scarce given that the peak of the housing boom is over.

Lower housing prices will make houses more affordable and stoke demand. That is what media should anticipate: a smoothly functioning market because the market price isn't too high to sell anything. Not a way to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 12:57 PM

"The Real Enemy"

Mark Steyn writes about Hollywood, and the war:

Which brings us back to those yelps of delight when the Americans clobbered the jihadists two hours into the test screening of The Kingdom. Pace Peter Berg, it's not "bloodlust": if you want that, you're best to stick to the amoral fetishization of violence in the 3.10 remake. What the preview crowd were telling Berg is, hey, we'd love to see one film where our guys kick serious terrorist butt — and there isn't one, and there hasn't been one for six long years. If you buy the argument that Hollywood's anti-Americanism derives necessarily from its role as purveyor of entertainment to the entire planet, well, so what? Terrorists killed a bunch of people in Bali, Madrid, London. Alongside the kick-ass Americans, sign Hugh Grant as an MI6 agent and PenÃ©lope Cruz as his Spanish dolly bird and Cate Blanchett as the head of the Australian SAS and Russell Crowe as her Kiwi bit of rough. As long as the enemy's the enemy, and not a Dick Cheney subsidiary. It's fine to show the American war machine warts and all, but Hollywood is showing only the warts — and, even if you stick perky little Reese Witherspoon in the middle of it, it's still just another pustulating carbuncle.

I had dinner with Bill Whittle when I was in LA a couple months ago, and he was ranting about this as well (given that it is his own industry). "Why can't, for once, they root for the damned home team?"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:46 AM

Continuing The Downhill Slide

In the eighties and nineties, I was a devoted reader of the Economist. It was my primary source for news (having long before given up on the pablum offered up by Newsweek and Time). But things like this are the reason that I no longer am. It would be nice if we could once again get a classically liberal news magazine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 AM

November 18, 2007
Tell Us What You Really Feel

Maybe I'm just reading more than I should from his review, but Michael Medved doesn't seem impressed with "Redacted":

I am actually one of the few people in the country who has seen the new movie. It is called "Redacted" ... And let me just tell you, before I go to actually reviewing it: It could be the worst movie I've ever seen. I mean, the out and out worst, most disgusting, most hateful, most incompetent, most revolting, most loathsome, most reprehensible cinematic work I have ever encountered. This is having reviewing movies for more than 25 years. [It] covers a lot of disgusting ground, but none more disgusting than 'Redacted,' which portrays the Marine Corps, one of the finest organizations ever assembled by human beings, portrays the U.S. Marine Corps, as corrupt, vicious, racist killers and rapists ... (snip) ...
It portrays the members of our Marine Corps in the most disgusting way imaginable. They hang out in barracks, drunk or stoned, with Confederate flags all over the place. And the head Marine, who is the leading rapist and murderer, is a big fat guy, I mean, hugely out of shape, right - just the typical Marine (sarcastic) - Marines tend not to look like that - big fat guy, overhanging belly, cigar-chomping, loud-mouthed, sort of fair-complexion. His name is Rush. Nothing in movies is an accident. They're clearly trying to indict and smear Rush Limbaugh by saying that secretly he wants to rape and abuse 14-year old girls and murder them and then burn their bodies ... (snip) ...

The film is atrociously acted. It's incredibly badly done ... (snip)

But why listen to him? He's just a wingnut...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 PM

November 13, 2007
The Forgotten War

Last night on Brit Hume, he showed some polling results indicating that Iraq was no longer the first news item that jumped to peoples' minds when thinking of what was news:

The extent to which the success of the troop surge in Iraq has driven the war off the front pages is clearly illustrated in a new survey.
The Pew Research Center reports just 16 percent of respondents say Iraq is the first news story that comes to mind now. That's down from 55 percent in mid-January.

In fact, 33 percent say there is now too little coverage of the war — that's 10 points higher than the result in June.

And the specific stories getting too little coverage? Sixty-three percent say the challenges of returning service personnel. And 61 percent want to know more about the personal experiences of the troops.

"Too little coverage of the war"? Now why might that be? What's happened in the last few months that might account for a reluctance on the part of the press to cover the war adequately?

[VOICE="Homer Simpson"]
That was a rhetorical question.
[/VOICE]

If it doesn't bleed (at least if it doesn't bleed the blood of Americans or innocents) it not only doesn't lead, it doesn't get reported at all. My immediate thought upon hearing this was how frustrated they must be that there's so little news (at least as they define it--something that makes Bush look bad) to report. In a turnabout of the old saying, to them, good news is no news.

Ralph Peters has similar thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:16 AM

November 12, 2007
Hail Lapham!

Well, if anyone should have a time machine to the future, it should be the Instapundit! (Hint: if you don't get the joke, follow his link. No, not that one--the second one...)

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:08 PM

November 11, 2007
More On The Media And War

Shannon Love has a useful comment in yesterday's post (that I've slightly edited here for typos) about war reporting (and public perceptions):

I find it very odd that most lay people, like journalists, have no intuitive feel for the ebb and flow of war. I think this lack of intuitive feel arises because the vast majority of the population never study the history of warfare in any detail and therefore develop their intuitive understanding of "feel" of flow of war purely from its representation in popular fiction and media.
The common narrative structure of the common fictional war story bears little relation to the actual tempo and evolution of real wars. A literature professor of mine once observed that no author would have written a fictional WWII that unfolded in the same way as the actual conflict. The opening of the war with sweeping unexpected victories makes for a good story but the slow grinding down of the Fascist states by overwhelming force in the last two years of the conflict is emotionally unsatisfying. In a fictional WWII, Fascist victory would look all but certain until Americans created the atomic bomb in last great gasp of desperation and saved the day.

The other problem with fictional war is that people can experience it in its entirety from start to finish in a matter of days or weeks. I think this causes people to intuitively feel that real world wars run far to0 long and are thus failures.

In short, persistence and determination make for boring narratives. Wars won by time don't make good stories. Most of the significant battles of the pre-industrial era were sieges won by the side with the most patience and the best logistical management. How many popular depictions of sieges have you ever seen in the fiction or even in histories of the era? If you have seen a siege depicted you see it at its dramatic end, not the months or years of siege itself.

Law enforcement often complains that the time frames depicted on crime shows, in which cops solve murders in a matter of days, severally distorts the expectations of crime victims and even juries when they evaluate how competently the justice system acts.

I think the same effect cripples the electorate's popular understanding of how we fight real wars.

This no doubt a factor, though the fact that very few of today's journalists have any military experience or training is a problem as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:38 AM

Completely Missing The Point

The idiotic media explanations for the poor box-office performance of the anti-American films on the Iraq war are cluelessly hilarious. But the many commenters are happy to explain it to them.

It would be quite gratifying to see a pro-American Iraq war movie made, and have it clean up at the box office. I'd pop some popcorn to see into what kinds of logical pretzels the media types would contort themselves in a pathetic attempt to explain it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:07 AM

October 22, 2007
Zero Divided By Zero = Space Solar Power

Taylor Dinerman thinks that solar power is the answer to China's future electric power woes:

While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the Communist Party leadership is certainly aware of the role that glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another Communist superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely heavily on nuclear power plants, at least not without strong safety measures, thus making them more expensive and more time consuming to build. Wind power and terrestrial solar power will not be able to contribute much to meeting China’s demand and certainly not without government subsidies which a relatively poor nation such as China will be reluctant to provide.

At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly unprepared. The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use of coal and similar fuels.

No evidence is available to suggest that China will be "forced" to pay for solar vs. six-cent coal. No evidence is presented to suggest that China will allow the US to have an off switch for its power grid vs. paying extra for local terrestrial solar. No evidence is presented showing that space solar will be cheaper than terrestrial solar at expected launch prices. No evidence is presented that the world will have sufficient launch capacity to make a dent in Chinese demand.

To focus on one link in this chain, it will require launch prices to fall below three times manufacturing costs of solar for space solar to be competitive with Earth solar which would require launch costs of less than $500/kg given solar manufacturing of about $170/kg now (and that is falling at 5%/year so it might be $150/kg that is the moving target to beat terrestrial solar in the 2030s). It would require many times existing launch capacity to come on line at that price to deliver sufficient wattage. If launch prices do fall toward that rate, a vibrant tourism and off-earth living industry will become viable ($150k for a one-week stay in orbit which will be only twice the annual US per capita GDP in 30 years). That would prevent launch costs from dropping further until that market becomes saturated.

And terrestrial solar is only about 0.1% of electricity supply now so if space solar can't beat that...

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 12:35 PM

October 15, 2007
Media Brain Drain

An interesting post, and a lot of interesting (and validating) comments about the intergenerational clash between old and new media within the newsrooms. Ed Driscoll has further thoughts.

I remember a few years ago, when I first started writing pieces for on-line publications, that the editors I was dealing with viewed the web as a foreign land. They initially requested pieces in Microsoft Word, with instructions as to where to put the links, that they could edit and then hand off to their "web people" to put on line. Note that these were not original pieces, but supposedly the best of my blog posts for the time period in question. What they were asking was for me to take the HTML (the native language of the original posts), and convert it to Word, so they could then reconvert it back to HTML (with all the potential for screwups therein). It took a while to persuade them to simply accept my HTML in the first place (since they didn't even understand what HTML was--that was one of those "techie" terms, that they let their "techies" handle).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:08 AM

October 13, 2007
All The News That's Not Fit To Print

When it's criticism of those reporting it:

As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analyst whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front-page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. the speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high-level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda-driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist.

More thoughts here.

[Update on Monday]

I edited the transcript above to get it out of all caps, and correct a couple minor grammatical issues, since it does seem to be a transcript of a spoken speech.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:13 AM

October 09, 2007
Media Dishonesty Matters

Indeed it does.

I knew that there was a lot of journalistic fraud out there, but I hadn't realized the extent. And of course, one of the biggest frauds is Dan Rather.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:36 AM

October 02, 2007
Is The Media Protecting Harry Reid?

Does the Pope do Christmas Mass?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:54 PM

September 01, 2007
No Problem

Kaimipono Wenger wonders why the New York Times won't correct its constitutional error.

I'm guessing that they don't think it's an error. Given all the other things that they think are in the Constitution that aren't there, they probably just shrugged it off, and thought, "fake but accurate."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:53 AM

August 28, 2007
Non Sequitur

From this San Francisco publication (which has a "Duhhh, ya think?" headline):

Craig, who has voted against gay marriage, finds his political future in doubt in the wake of the charges, which have drawn national attention.

I know that some may think it relevant, and certainly a lot of people in Baghdad By The Bay obviously will, but really, what difference does it make what his position is on gay marriage? It would have made as much, or as little, sense to me to have written, "Craig, who has voted to cut taxes," or "Craig, who has voted against more stringent gun controls." The guy's supposedly a conservative. How did they expect him to vote?

OK, let's take it as a given that he's gay. He's married, but there was no issue from it (his three children are step-children, brought to the marriage by his wife), so he's probably not even bi (one wonders what the arrangement is with his wife).

Where is it written that gay people are intrinsically supposed to support gay marriage? I can understand that many, perhaps even most gay people do, but not all of them do. And if they do so, it's for personal reasons, not necessarily any particular political principle. They want to get married.

But part of the problem with America today is that there are too few people who make political decisions based on any coherent set of principles, instead only arguing for outcomes that they personally like (a classic example is support for Roe v Wade among abortion supporters, because they like abortion to be universally legal more than they like adhering to the Constitution). It's obviously appealing to cheer for some wealth transfer that benefits you at someone else's expense, which can be rationalized away as "taking it from greedy corporations," or "the rich."

If I were to indulge in such a thing, I'd argue for laws that ban rap music, laws that required everyone in the country to contribute a dollar a month to the Benevolent Society For The Aid And Support Of Rand Simbergs, laws that forced Starbucks to offer protein with their pastries, etc.

But I don't. And not just because the chances of getting such laws passed are small, and it would be a waste of my time. I don't do it because I have a set of political principles by which I try to abide, regardless of the impact on me personally. I believe in free speech, even for rappers, I don't believe in arbitrary wealth transfers, even when it's a transfer to me. I believe in the freedom of the marketplace, even when it comes to a company as evil as Starbucks.

So why should a gay person, if conservative, be expected to support as distinctly non-conservative an idea as gay marriage? I suspect that he truly does believe that homosexuality is wrong, so he has to live a tortured existence, feeling compelled by his nature to sin, and by his shame and fear of damage to his career and reputation to hide it (however pathetically). But I don't see why he's obligated by this accident of nature (and an unfortunate one, for him) to support others' political agendas, and betray his own principles.

[Update in the late afternoon]

I think that Raoul Ortega has nailed the thinking in comments. Over at Instaman's place, this morning, Greg Hlatky joked:

If Senator Craig purchased sex offsets to live a sex-neutral lifestyle, would this immunize him from charges of hypocrisy?"

To which Glenn replied:

Indubitably. But who would sell them?

Well, we now have the answer, from Raoul:

Voting for "Gay Marriage" is to Dem politicians what "Carbon Offsets" are to Algore and other Gaian worshippers. Little acts of contrition purchased to balance out all their other sins. If only Larry Craig had voted the other way, people like Offside would have no problem with his trolling among airport toilets, just like how they had no problem with their last president helping himself to his subordinates because he "kept abortion legal."

So votes for gay marriage and keeping abortion legal are "sex offsets" for Republicans. In fact, come to think about it, it's what kept Republican Bob Packwood in office for so long, despite his long history of sexually harassing women. Apparently, though, he apparently didn't buy enough of them to cancel out his most egregious behavior.

In other words, as long as you vote like a Democrat, you get a free pass, just like them.

By the way, I have further Craig thoughts here, for those not viewing this from the main page.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:57 AM

No Need To Guess

Often, when Congresspeople get in some sort of trouble, it's a puzzler figuring out what their political party is. Apparently, though, the WaPo has learned the error of its previous ways. They are right up front about this Senator, for some reason:

GOP Senator Pleaded Guilty After Restroom Arrest

I'm glad that they've finally stopped making us guess. At least until the next time. It does take some fun out of it, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AM

August 24, 2007
The News That Isn't Fit To Read

So you won't read it at the New York Times. Because, you know, it's all about the narrative.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:49 AM

August 17, 2007
Don't Know Much About 'Rithmatick

...at the New York Times.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 AM

August 15, 2007
Another Story From Scott Beauchamp?

Maybe he fired those rounds at the woman's house.

Another triumph of MSM fact checkers. It's one thing to not know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic, but geez. I guess guns are one of those things that only the yahoos would know anything about...

[Evening update]

Here, in real reporting, is a view of the enemy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:14 AM

August 13, 2007
The "Divisive" Karl Rove

I think that this is supposed to be a news story about Karl Rove's resignation. But this belongs on the editorial page (and it's unlikely that one would find it on the editorial page of the newspaper in which it appears):

Mr. Rove established himself as the political genius behind the rise of George W. Bush and the brief period of united Republican rule. But he did it largely through highly divisive policies and campaign tactics, such as the attacks on Democratic rival John Kerry [in] the 2004 campaign. That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush's low poll numbers.

This is not facts. It's extremely biased opinion. And in fact not just biased, but politically clueless. It is not just a viewing of recent history through a fun-house mirror--it is a rewriting of it.

Karl Rove "attacked" John Kerry? This is written as though Kerry ran a high-minded campaign, above the fray, ignoring the supposed mud slinging coming from the Bush campaign, putting forth reasoned, coherent policy positions that were drowned out in the public debate by the Bush noise and slander machine. As always, it was only George Bush and Karl Rove who were "divisive," not the gentle, noble Democrats.

This is, of course, a description of the 2004 campaign that could come only from someone living on Bizarro World. It ignores all of the incessant Bush bashing from the Democrats, and Kerry, whose only message, and claim to the presidency (other than that he was a Vietnam war hero), was that he wouldn't be George Bush. Every campaign speech, every policy paper emitting from the campaign was "Bush policies have been disastrous. If it's a Bush policy, I'll do the opposite." There was rarely an actual specific policy proposal, and when there was, it was never without reference to Bush.

I also suspect that the reporter is conflating the actions of the Swift Boat Vets with Karl Rove's campaign, though there was never any evidence of coordination, and the former had plenty of their own reasons to not want to see a President Kerry, which they stated many times. They may have "attacked" him, but they were up front about why they did so.

But no, in the minds of the MSM, it is George Bush who is the "divider," not the Democrats and the left who have been vilifying him for over six years now as an election stealer, a warmonger, a chimpanzee, a torturer, a war criminal--despite his acquiescing to (in partnership with Ted Kennedy) much of the liberal political agenda, with an expansion of Medicare, federal control over education, a new amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a general expansion of government on almost all fronts. All of which was pushed by the evil mastermind, Karl Rove.

And the notion that it was Rove's "divisive" campaign tactics that were the cause of the Republican loss of the Congress last year is an analysis so simplistic (and wrong) that it would be embarrassing to see it in a college newspaper, let alone the new crown jewel of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

To the degree that Karl Rove was responsible for the loss of Congress, it was because of the degree to which Bush had lost his base due to the (Rove-initiated) big-government and big-spending initiatives described above, and the frustration of the country with the poorly managed war in Iraq (which is not to say, of course, that the country wanted us to surrender, despite the Democrats' fantasies).

If George Bush was the right-wing maniac of popular myth, he would never have hired Karl Rove, because Rove's philosophy was to gain political power for Republicans by co-opting what he perceived to be the Democrats' superficially appealing issues (taking some lessons from Bill Clinton and Dick Morris in "triangulation"). He thought that by making conservatism "compassionate," he could repackage it to sell to the independents. But he underestimated the degree to which it would alienate the core base, particularly when he and Bush called them "bigots" and xenophobes because they simply wanted to see the law enforced fairly.

But no. In the mind of a liberal Democrat reporter (and no other type could have possibly written the quoted paragraph), only Republicans are "divisive." And that "divisiveness" is the source of all evil in the country. If only the Republicans had been more bi-partisan (perhaps by embracing Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich in addition to Ted Kennedy?), they wouldn't have lost the election last year.

Of course, the truly sad thing is that the Journal apparently has no editors who can catch such things, either. You'd think they'd have at least caught the missing preposition in the second sentence. Another demonstration of superiority of the vaunted layers of editors and fact checkers of the MSM over us lowly bloggers, I guess.

[Update in the afternoon]

Rove has a higher approval rating than Congress. But then, who doesn't?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AM

August 09, 2007
What Passes For Fact Checking

...at The New Republic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:05 PM

August 08, 2007
Selective Reporting

More fake news from Iraq?

As it notes, they find it easy to report fake massacres that the US is responsible for, but ignore the real ones perpetrated by the enemy.

Just coincidence, I'm sure.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 PM

Lunar Drilling

Good job by Jon Goff to recognize that Lunar outgassing events suggest viable gas deposits that may be able to be accessed to benefit exploration and settlement of the Moon. They also play into my Old West theme for the Moon. Before the outgassing was noticed, I commissioned some artists to draw a picture of an old-fashioned oil derrick on the Moon. Alas, the art is not ready. I did mention here that rock bursts on Earth that plague mines that drill deep indicate to me that the pressure of the rock on the Moon could also cause gas to be trapped there that could be tapped.

Also see David Powell's article on Space.com entitled (by his anonymous editor hopefully) "Lunar Flash Mystery Solved: Moon Just Passing Gas".

If lunar outgassing is a source of CO, CO₂ or H₂O, this could prove useful to future lunar colonies, supplying drinking water and fuel for example and saving billions of dollars in transportation costs.

I think the glib title created a laugh test for any future exploitation of the gas.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 11:27 AM

Rebuttal

Google is going to offer people an opportunity to point out journalistic errors, right alongside the stories:

We'll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question. Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we'll show them next to the articles about the story. Comments will be published in full, without any edits, but marked as "comments" so readers know it's the individual's perspective, rather than part of a journalist's report.
As always, Google News will direct readers to the professionally-written articles and news sources our algorithms have determined are relevant for a topic. From bloggers to mainstream journalists, the journalists who help create the news we read every day occupy a critical place in the information age. But we're hoping that by adding this feature, we can help enhance the news experience for readers, testing the hypothesis that -- whether they're penguin researchers or presidential candidates-- a personal view can sometimes add a whole new dimension to the story.

Not to mention a whole new perspective. And often a dose of reality.

As Glenn writes, this is bad news for many so-called journalists, and good news for the rest of us.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 AM

August 07, 2007
I Can't Think Of Any

Somehow this kind of thing only seems to go one direction.

By way of comparison, who are the conservative reporters who are torpedoing their own careers by fabricating stories about Clinton or Reid or Pelosi? I can't really think of any. The only conservative reporter who comes to mind is an extremely minor one by the name of Jeff Gannon whose "offense" was to ask a softball question of Bush during a press conference. If liberal reporters were similarly slimed for asking questions of an opposite nature (i.e., questions designed to make Bush look bad), we would not have a White House Press corps.
Career-ending journalistic insanity -- mostly attributable to the war in Iraq -- appears to be almost exclusively a phenomenon of the left. If you know of some prominent counterexamples, though, please set me straight.

Of course, just statistically, there are probably a lot more liberal reporters than conservative ones, so that might be a partial explanation. But I'm sure it's not the whole one...

[Update in mid-afternoon]

Instapundit has a roundup of Beauchamp-related links, including this one by Don Surber, who wonders why there's such a sellers' market for lies on the left.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:26 AM

August 05, 2007
Doesn't Take Much To Outsmart A Journalist

You know, if they hired reporters who really knew what they were doing, hilarious things like this might not happen as often. I'm not all that smart, but I'm at least smart enough to know that I won't outsmart a room full of hackers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:10 AM

July 31, 2007
McCarthyism On The Left

Like this is news:

Novak blamed liberal discrimination which he said forces young conservatives to remain "in the closet" if they hope to have a career in media.
"One of the big differences in 50 years is that the liberals have now filtered into the executive ranks of journalism. And so if you go into journalism now not in the closet but out in the open as a conservative, you're going to have a hard time getting a job, believe me."

Conservatives also don't like journalism as a profession, Novak added, saying that when he goes to various colleges and universities, the young conservatives and libertarians he runs into rarely have any interest in journalism.

The syndicated columnist fit these trends into what he said was a general decline in the journalism business, despite the fact that it has become more professionalized:

"Journalism is a hard thing to gauge. When I set out with my first paper in the summer of 1948, for the Joliet Herald-News there were in the newsroom there about two or three people who had ever been to college. Journalism was not an educated person's game. So we're much better educated, we're sophisticated, we have people with graduate degrees—they know a lot more but are they better reporters than the others? I rather doubt.

I rather doubt too, given the state of the academy, and journalism schools. And I'm not sure that they know that much more. Or maybe they do, but a lot of what they know is wrong.

And if you think it's tough to be a conservative journalist, just try being a libertarian one...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:22 PM

July 28, 2007
"The Rule, Not The Exception"

The life of a soldier has been described as long periods of boredom punctuated by occasional moments of sheer terror. Michael Totten has a military correspondent who reports that Iraq is no different:

Even in the worst places, day-to-day activity is mundane and quiet. When attacks occur, they do so viciously. In my case, these resulted in my unit’s heavy causalities. Nonetheless, I rarely patrolled in fear. I knew that on most days, our patrol would result in an absence of action. Again, this was in a city considered to be one of the most violent of the war. This peculiar dynamic of the situation in Iraq is lost on Big Media.

But then, many things in Iraq (and everywhere else) are lost on the Big Media. And as has often been commented on, the fact that most members of the media have no military experience, and little sense of military history, doesn't help.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:12 AM

July 27, 2007
Morons

Two points. First, the new power (for good or ill) of blogs:

The tragedy stunned space tourism supporters, many of whom were betting that Branson's Virgin Galactic spaceline would be the first in the fledgling business to send well-heeled tourists out of the atmosphere.
"I suspect that this is a major setback for Virgin Galactic, because they may have to go back to the drawing board for propulsion, for PR reasons if nothing else," wrote former aerospace engineer and space tourism consultant Randy Simberg on his blog Transterrestrial Musings.

I guess I have to be more careful what I post. At least I used the crucial word "may..."

The second point, of course (note the emphasis), is that whoever dug this up on the Interweb couldn't read my name correctly, and felt compelled to add the obligatory (and yet, entirely not only not necessary, but insulting diminutive "y" to it).

[Update a minute later]

Great. It's not just the Chron. This has become the AP story, as demonstrated by the same error at the Mercury News. Thus are urban legends born.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:53 PM

July 25, 2007
Staunch

I guess that Jim Ronca is a "staunch Republican" in the same sense that Jennifer Hunter is a "staunchly objective and competent journalist."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:33 AM

July 22, 2007
Out Of The Closet

Penelope Trunk is right, (though I'm not sure that she understands all the implications of her position):

Here's my advice: If you do an interview with a journalist, don't expect the journalist to be there to tell your story. The journalist gets paid to tell her own stories which you might or might not be a part of. And journalists, don't be so arrogant to think you are not "one of those" who misquotes everyone. Because that is to say that your story is the right story. But it's not. We each have a story. And whether or not someone actually said what you said they said, they will probably still feel misquoted.

In other words, "objective journalism" is a myth (something I've been pointing out for a long time):

The first [delusion] is common to journalism school graduates (or even dropouts), because it's part of the modern creed--that there is some achievable perfection called "objective factual reporting."
The second, which is not only a delusion, but a conceit, is that his employer's paper not only attempts to achieve that platonic ideal, but actually succeeds.

Here's a reality check. Stories are (at least for now) reported by humans, with human emotions, and human points of view. They are inevitably viewed through the prism of the reporter, and as they become ink and pixels, are passed through the sieve of his experience and prejudices. About any event, there is an infinitude of information that could be provided, but there isn't ink and newsprint enough, nor bandwidth, nor time in the day for the reporter to write it, and the reader to read it.

So a story has to be reduced to what the reporter considers to be its essential elements. Like the old joke about the sculptor, he takes the body of available facts, and cuts away everything that doesn't look like an elephant. But that's the key; the sculptor is carving an elephant--a decision usually made before chisel is taken in hand. It may be that the rock from which he's knocking off the non-pachydermic chips wasn't simply a rectangular block--it perhaps naturally started out with a resemblance to an elephant, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have hacked out a hippo instead.

So it is with a news story. The reporter has to start with some notion of what the story is. And as soon as that decision is made, the bias has begun, and continues. He has to decide which facts are facts, and which are conjecture. He has to decide which of those facts and conjectures should be included, and which left out. He has to decide which words to use--whether the protagonist is, for example, a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter." Each of those decisions, word by word, preconception by preconception, eventually determines whether the reporter creates an elephant, or a hippo, or a redwood tree.

And after that, if he works for a "serious newspaper," he has to submit it to an editor, who will either agree that the reporter has created an elephant, or he might point out that he left out some critical item (e.g., a trunk) or included one that seems out of place (e.g., webbed bird claws for feet).

Once past this serious process, the story is complete. And in the mind of Mr. Rutten, "accurate the first time," though a different reporter at a different "serious newspaper," working with exactly the same body of facts (but a different background, sensibility, and bias) might write, and his editor edit, a completely different "accurate" story in which, lo and behold, it turns that it was a hippo after all, or perhaps...a platypus.

As I've also noted many times, what rankles so much about media bias is not so much the bias itself, but the media's willful blindness to it, and sanctimonious attitude.

And I don't agree with her that "it doesn't matter," and that when literally misquoted, or quoted out of context, we should simply "get over it." She's right that we shouldn't expect any better, but we should still point it out when it happens, early and often, and that's what the blogosphere, and free speech in general, is all about. Paid reporters have no special First Amendment privileges. Continually pointing out their falsities and frailties, and agendas, is the only way for everyone to get the full story.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:09 AM

July 17, 2007
The Massacre That Didn't Happen

Apparently it was just like Jenin, except it took a lot longer to debunk, and the media played along, as usual.

In the case of Haditha, the terrorists' media strategy worked and caused a lot of problems. An anti-war congressman claimed that a cover-up of cold-blooded murder by the Marines occurred. There was a controversy that has gone on for a number of months. And al Qaeda will come away with articles about massacres that never happened. It is a partial media victory for the terrorists – mostly because the lies have been somewhat unraveled, but the truth will not get the same airplay as the false claims.

Someone should set up a legal fund to allow the Marines that were falsely accused to sue John Murtha for slander.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:23 AM

July 16, 2007
Desperation

The LA Times is going to start running ads on its front page. Patterico:

The paper already runs ads for Democrats on the front page. They might as well get paid for it.

As he notes, it's painful to watch a slow death, even when it's well deserved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:02 AM

Anti-Everything

Adriana Lukas writes about the ideology of the BBC (and no doubt many of their counterparts in the US):

"...we were not just anti-Macmillan; we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 AM

July 09, 2007
The Customer's Always Wrong

Katie Couric says that the problem is that the viewers weren't ready for her.

Well, she's right. I know I wasn't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:18 PM

Say It's Not So

Left-wing bias at a public broadcasting agency? Surely not.

And using their own words and actions against them? How unfair.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 AM

July 08, 2007
This Would Explain A Lot

Sadly, it seems entirely plausible:

The question remains, if this was such blatant fraud committed by the Clintons, why wasn’t either one of them indicted? Paul brought it to the attention of John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, and the U.S. Attorney’s office in 2001. It fell on deaf ears according to Paul. Why? Again, before you dismiss what Paul alleges, I refer you to the credibility battle. He maintains (are you ready for this) that in a deal brokered between Republican and Democrat leadership after the closest presidential election in history in 2000, Democrats would agree not to contest the election in return for George Bush giving the Clintons immunity. Seem far-fetched? Didn’t Bill Clinton make an immunity deal the day before Bush’s inauguration on January 20, 2001 in which he would not have to face any indictments for false statements about the Lewinski scandal? Does anyone truly believe that was the only thing he had to worry about? Why NOT try to have an immunity blanket thrown over both he and Hillary that would cover everything? The election results (or lack thereof) DID seem to provide a little leverage there. One must admit that the prospect of not having to face drawn out litigation over election results would have been appealing to Bush 43. In his mind, he could have been protecting the integrity of the office in two ways. America could get on with its business and a former president could remain untarnished (blue dress notwithstanding). Clinton was issuing pardons in his final hours with near reckless abandon and at breakneck speed. Almost as if he had no fear of accountability. In his February 18, 2001 column that appeared in the New York Times, Bill Clinton wrote, “The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president]..., and it is granted without limit". That sounds like someone who fears no accountability. Among those pardoned were his former Whitewater business partner, newspaper heiress Patty Hearst, and his brother Roger, on a drug conviction. Why else would the highest ranking government officials turn a blind eye to videotape evidence that points to fraud being committed by someone who is today the leading presidential candidate for the Democrat party and current Senator when it was made available to them?

It would also explain Sandy Berger's slap on the wrist. Nothing that happened in the nineties is going to surface, at least not in this administration. And as is noted in the piece, the press also continues to turn a blind eye.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AM

July 05, 2007
When Is A Massacre Not A Massacre?

Confederate Yankee asks the AP. I suspect they'll ignore the question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PM

Right At Home

You know, if true, there's something poetically just, almost allegorical about this:

Editorial staffers on the third and fourth floors of the paper's new Eighth Avenue building are gagging on the smell of dead mice trapped in the vents, an insider tells us. Now, the ad sales department is desperately trying to avoid a similarly stinky situation as vermin run through their offices.

Funny, usually rats flee sinking ships.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:33 AM

July 01, 2007
Understatement

Strategy Page says that Al Qaeda is on the run, though you wouldn't know it from the press coverage:

Al Qaeda is eagerly recruiting other Islamic terrorist organizations, usually ones that have recently taken a big beating in their home country, to become part of al Qaeda. That's about the only growth al Qaeda is experiencing. In Iraq, former Sunni Arab allies of al Qaeda have openly turned on the organization, and are eagerly hunting them down and killing them. Al Qaeda is fighting back, now sending death squads after Sunni Arab tribal chiefs. Does that sound like something a winner would be doing?
Al Qaeda is having some success in the Western media, and among Moslems living in Europe.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:22 AM

June 28, 2007
Not Just Bush

It seems to me that the other loser in this amnesty fiasco is the MSM, which has been fawning over and worshiping the "bi-partisan" "grand bargainers" that were trying to slip this stinker through with no hearings, review or debate. It was alternate media that led the charge against it, and the victory was much greater than they could have hoped. But I think that the two politicians hurt most by it are McCain and Lindsey Graham. The former can stick a fork in his presidential campaign. The latter may still face a strong primary challenge, and I wouldn't bet that he'll win it. As one of his constituents said, they expect him to negotiate with the Democrats and Ted Kennedy, but not to become one.

Note, my comment is independent of my views on immigration. This is a case where I objected much more to process than (necessarily) product. Of course, it's hard to object to a product when you don't even have time to read it, debate it, or think about it.

[Update]

I agree with Captain Ed:

The immigration bill is dead, yet again, after the Senate rejected cloture by fourteen votes. In the end, the compromise could not even gain a majority in support of what conceptually may have been a passable compromise, but in reality was a poorly constructed, poorly processed mass of contradictions and gaps. Many of us who may have supported a comprehensive approach to immigration found ourselves amazed and repulsed by both the product and the process of this attempt to solve the immigration problem.

Read the rest.

[Evening Update]

Bill Quick has put up a triumphalist post. He may be right, but he may also be premature. Don't be cocky. And as is pointed out in comments, the left has been very strong in the blogosphere as well, if not stronger. The difference in this case was that is was a weak-tea compromise, that would appeal to no one except "moderates" who had no idea what was going on.

[Evening Update]

Kate O'Beirne describes how far out on a limb the president was with his own party:

The lopsided vote against the Senate bill by House Republicans (114? to 23) overstated House GOP support. According to a leadership aide, "The President actually had half that number (12?!) in favor of his bill." And, the president's team wound up with only 12 Republican senators. Ouch.

Ouch, indeed.

But the clueless persist in believing that George Bush is a conservative. And a Republican.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:15 PM

June 25, 2007
Ariane

Ariane is touted in an article by Andy Pasztor in today's Wall Street Journal with a new person singing its praises--Mike Griffin:

Mr. Griffin declared the launch system "probably the best in the world, very smooth and very impressive."

One quibble: there is an apple to orange comparison of the commercial launch business ($2.7 billion) to US national security space spending ($80 billion). Commercial space launch supports tens of billions in satellite products, services and content. A more relevant comparison would be to look at how much the Department of Defense spends on launchers. The total space budget for military and intelligence is in the $50 billion range. Launch costs presumably would comprise about 3-4% of that if they were more competition. I'm having a little trouble finding a good source of Pentagon launch spending budget figures, but I'm guessing it's in the 5-10% range.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 09:30 AM

June 24, 2007
Rushdie, Rutton and Reynolds

Roger Simon has some depressing thoughts on press partisanship, and (what he hopes isn't) the coming end of the Enlightenment:

As one who is fundamentally disinterested in whether one is a Democrat or a Republican - or even a liberal or a conservative, since those terms have been reduced to intellectual rubble - I found what Glenn wrote terrifyingly dark. Because even though I don't much care any longer for political parties - they come and go and rename themselves, etc. - I care passionately about the Enlightenment, free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of assembly and the rest of that short but delicate list that makes life decent in the West.

And I agree with the commenters. I don't think that Glenn was saying it was a good argument for electing a Democrat as president--just that it was the best one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:58 AM

June 23, 2007
What You're Not Reading About

Who ever heard of Arrowhead Ripper? Is he a rapper?

After getting some initial front-page treatment in major U.S. newspapers, the story was pushed back to page 18 in the Washington Post Thursday and Page 10 in The New York Times on Friday. The Los Angeles Times ran a front pager Thursday, then nothing.
Meanwhile, NPR radio this week highlighted U.S. soldiers' deaths during the assaults, with nary a mention of the bigger context for the soldiers' sacrifices.

The Associated Press' dispatches focused on U.S. casualties: "U.S. military says 15 American troops killed in last 48 hours." CNN ran with: "12 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours." The New York Times headline read: "14 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq in 2 Days."

Surprisingly, only Reuters seemed to get what was going on. Its headline said: "U.S. troops set trap for militants near Baghdad."

I can imagine that if these folks were covering Iwo Jima, the focus would be on the number of US casualties, not whether or not we were taking the beach, or advancing up the hill, or killing the enemy in far greater numbers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:28 AM

June 20, 2007
For The Clueless

That is, those who are wondering why anyone would think that the BBC is biased against the US (and against the West in general). Why would they want to know about allied troop movements in the current offensive? Surely not to publicize them, and tip off the enemy?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 PM

June 19, 2007
Disecting Supreme Court IPO Decision

In today's Wall Street Journal, an editorial applauded the Supreme Court for ruling in Credit Suisse v. Billing that investors could not sue investment banks under anti-trust law. They like Justice Stevens's concurring opinion:

After the initial purchase, the prices of newly issued stocks or bonds are determined by competition among the vast multitude of other securities traded in a free market. To suggest that an underwriting syndicate can restrain trade in that market by manipulating the terms of [initial public offerings] (IPOs) is frivolous.

This is a red herring. If the underwriting syndicate can get super normal profits through commissions during the IPO, subsequent trading is moot.

The main finding in the Breyer Opinion (6 joining, 1 concurring, 1 abstaining and 1 dissenting):

In sum, an antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to the securities markets and by a diminished need for antitrust enforcement to address anticompetitive conduct. Together these considerations indicate a serious conflict between application of the antitrust laws and proper enforcement of the securities law.

I agree that there is a fundamental conflict between Justice and/or FTC pursuing anti-trust claims and SEC regulating securities. But this is not saying that there should be no anti-trust enforcement. SEC should enforce anti-trust laws.

Here's what they can expect to reap.

The IPO market has a signaling property in addition to a fund-raising property. If there is a big share price rise ("pop") on the first day of trading, investors take this as a good sign. If there is a pop in the price of corn, people buy less corn, but for behavioral, psychological and signaling reasons, if there is a pop in an IPO share price, people want more shares. This creates a substantial windfall for investors with access to buying shares in the IPO. Thus taking hot IPOs to market are a plumb job for investment bank syndicates.

Investment banks are not particularly competitive. The securities underwritten by one need to ultimately be marketed to all investment banks' clients. By working together, they offer monopoly access to their own clients in exchange for access to the other bank's clients when its their turn to market a security. As an analogy, ESPN isn't shown exclusively on Time Warner Cable. That wouldn't make sense. Cox Cable customers want to see it too. So it is in the cable companies' interest not to exclude other cable companies from content because they do not geographically overlap.

There is a strong incentive for the investment banks to cooperate to broaden the market for shares. This allows them to make the "pop" nice and big and pocket a super competitive portion of the commissions.

SEC should figure this out and impose structural anti-trust remedies. Since there is a market failure to prevent a "pop" because the seller and the buyers want it, the SEC should do something to prevent the investment banks from capturing it and dividing it. I propose that the SEC divide the IPO into stages. In the first stage, investment banks should individually bid cash to the for the right to be lead underwriter. In the next stage, the non-winning investment banks should bid cash individually for the share quota that they will be able to offer to their customers. Then in stage three, the firms will market those shares to their customers as they do now. This would allow the firm IPO'ing to collect a competitive portion of the pop while preserving the investment banks' incentives to maximize the post-IPO share price.

An alternative choice would be for SEC to have an open IPO like Google's where at least one broker allows all self-selected investors to participate in the IPO. This would give the pop to the investors in a non-discriminatory way.

By draining the excess profits from the IPO process, firms would get more net proceeds. This would encourage more firms to IPO and make markets more efficient. It would also create an incentive for innovation in investment banking. By breaking up the collegial atmosphere, there would be more opportunity for the creation of proprietary systems, intellectual property and experimentation by individual investment banks.

With business as usual, the only competition will come from outside the IPO market: staying closely held, selling to private equity funds, or being bought by a public firm. Since these options do not have the pop which signals a rush to new broad-based ownership, they cannot stop supernormal profits from being harvested in the IPO market as long as there is no anti-trust action.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 05:14 AM

June 18, 2007
It's Not The Bias Per Se

I've said this many times before, but apparently it needs to be chronically restated. What most people object to in media is not the biased reporting per se, but biased reporting masquerading as objectivity. We'd just like a little truth in advertising, but too many liberal reporters are unable to even see their own bias. Even when their own organization points it out.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AM

June 15, 2007
Elite Journalists

Who apparently don't know what the word "elite" means (as in Saddam's "elite Republican Guard"). Or maybe it's all just relative. Donald Sensing explains. Why do they do this? It can't be simple cluelessness, because somehow, the cluelessness always ends up going in a certain direction.

David Blue also makes a good point in comments: that armies win battles, but people or nations win wars. And it's very hard to win a war when half the people in the country don't even really believe that we're in one, and/or believe that their own government is the enemy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:09 AM

June 06, 2007
Sixty Three Years Later

How would today's media report D-Day?

SMITH: Rich, there is a growing sense of apprehension here about 40 miles away from what we assume will be the point of attack on the beaches of Normandy either tomorrow or the next day. Mayor Jacque Capituler is with me. Mayor, tell our viewers how you feel about the coming invasion.
CAPITULER: We don't want to be liberated. We don't need to be liberated. The Germans have established a perfectly workable government, here. The Americans should go liberate someone else, somewhere else.

RUNDLING: The thorny issue of civilian casualties and collateral damage brought onto our living room screens from right there in France, Thank you Christianne. To ... where? Ok, to Edward Smith with the forces of General George Patton in Britain. Edward.

SMITH: Rich, I am here in Kent, England opposite the Pas de Calais just across the English Channel which, if the weather were better, you could see behind me. MCN can now confirm that the activity here in Kent, which has been named "Operation Fortitude" is, for want of a better phrase: A complete fake!

RUNDLING: Fake? Explain, please, for our viewers.

SMITH: MCN can now report that Patton has constructed, literally, a phony army here. The tanks are cardboard. The planes are rubber. The radio traffic is faked. Reports of troop movements are completely fabricated. This operation, clearly, is designed to fool the Germans in Europe and Americans back home into falsely believing that the attack -- which we now think will come tomorrow if the weather lets up -- will be aimed at Pas de Calais instead of Normandy.

RUNDLING: Excellent reporting, Edward. MCN's Senior Ethics Advisor Emma Smith will be joining me in the studio to dicuss: What does it mean to the American way of life when their very own government engages in this kind of deliberately false and misleading information? Emma is the author of an exciting new book: "The Soviet Experience; Success, Solidarity, and Stalin."

[Update at 2 PM EDT]

Here's a related article: Journalists, you're in the army now, like it or not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:14 AM

June 03, 2007
I Wish I'd Written This

What if the Israelis had kidnapped a BBC journalist?

Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.
If Mr Johnston had been forced to broadcast saying, for example, that Israel was entitled to all the territories held since the Six-Day War, and calling on the release of all Israeli soldiers held by Arab powers in return for his own release, his words would have been scorned. The cause of Israel in the world would have been irreparably damaged by thus torturing him on television. No one would have been shy of saying so.

But of course in real life it is Arabs holding Mr Johnston, and so everyone treads on tip-toe. Bridget Kendall of the BBC opined that Mr Johnston had been "asked" to say what he said in his video. Asked! If it were merely an "ask", why did he not say no?

Throughout Mr Johnston's captivity, the BBC has continually emphasised that he gave "a voice" to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. One cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis.

[Update a few minutes later]

And how bad are things in Iraq? Why, they're almost as bad as they were under Saddam? What, you mean the kids aren't flying kites? Did Michael Moore lie to us? Surely that can't be...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:04 PM

June 01, 2007
It's Only Torture When We Do It

Even when we don't. Don Surber, on continuing self immolation of the New York Times.

[Update in the afternoon]

OK, I don't have a lot of time for this, but I'm seeing a lot of nonsense being spouted in the comments section.

Yes, perhaps it isn't, or shouldn't be, news that Al Qaeda tortures people. But many people seem to not know that, or have forgotten it, particularly when the major thrust of the news coverage is how awful America is.

Yes, we are supposed to be the good guys. And you know what? We are. When an Abu Ghraib happens, we investigate it, and we try people, and we punish them, and that happens even without the New York Times running it on the front page for weeks on end. When Al Qaeda does it, as prescribed by their training manuals, they, and millions of their supporters in the Muslim world, ululate and cheer.

But somehow, the New York Times and the other enablers of the enemy in what is fundamentally an information war, can't be bothered to point that out, or point out the differences, instead descending into hand wringing and moral equivalence, in an apparent effort to cast doubt on the goodness of our own society and values, and even whether or not they're worth defending.

[Saturday morning update]

Follow-up post here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AM

May 26, 2007
The War In The Media

Lorie Byrd has an article about how Al Qaeda has made allies, witting or not, of the western press.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:38 AM

May 24, 2007
I Laughed Out Loud

...when I read this:

"In every war, there's conflict between hawks and doves. O'Donnell and Hasselbeck's fight harkens back to a Vietnam-era exchange between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William Buckley."

Did someone at ABC News really write that with a straight face?

[Update a few minutes later]

You know, I can't figure out which comparison is more ludicrous--Rosie and Gore Vidal (well, at least they're both gay), or William Buckley and Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Somehow, when I think Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the word "sesquipedalian" is not the first one that comes to mind. Actually, over the last couple days, I would probably associate her with fatwas.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:49 PM

May 21, 2007
Move Along, Folks, Nothing To See Here

There's an old saying that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Well, when it comes to reporting on Al Qaeda, the MSM seems only interested in their successes, and not their failures.

But isn't that the way any good propagandist works?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:11 PM

May 18, 2007
What's News?

And what isn't news?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:35 AM

May 17, 2007
The Situation

...in Iraq:

So far this year, many more parts of central Iraq have been cleared of terrorists, and the remaining ones know they have to maintain their visibility to survive. Setting off several bombs a day keeps the terrorists in the news, even if the explosions take place in a smaller and smaller area of Iraq. The terrorists play more to the international media, than they do to anyone inside Iraq. The terrorists are already hated and feared throughout the country, even in Sunni Arab areas. There, the terrorists must increasingly divert resources to terrorize Sunni Arabs, and keep them in line. They are aided by Islamic conservatives, who see all the unrest as an opportunity to impose Taliban like rules on the population. If the terrorists accomplish nothing else, they will have shown how to manipulate the mass media, and divert attention from the true origins of the terrorists, and their objectives. It's been a masterful job which, of course, the mass media will have no interest in examining anytime soon. In a generation or so, there will be books and articles about it, but the subject will never get a lot of media attention.
...Pro-Iranian Shia groups are having second thoughts. Several years of having a Shia majority running the country has instilled a confidence in the Shia community that has not been felt in generations. The thought of Iran pulling the strings in a Shia run Iraq was never very palatable. Iraqi Shia know that the Iranians despise Arabs, especially Iraqi Arabs. The Iranians try to hide this, but the Iraqis know, and now the thinking is "we can do this." No one will know for sure until the Americans leave, and the security forces either stay united, or fragment to join the dozens of tribal, religious and political militias.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:11 PM

May 15, 2007
Too Good To Check

Whitehouse.org, whitehouse.gov, it's all good.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:51 PM

May 12, 2007
A Story The MSM Won't Tell You

Islamberg.

Good thing we have a "Department of Homeland Security." Otherwise, things like this might be going on...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:23 PM

May 10, 2007
What Is News?

And what is not news?

This is almost like a laboratory experiment, isn't it? A handful of veterans (including three out of something like 7,000 retired generals) oppose the war: News. Thousands of active duty personnel urge Congress to support the war effort: Not news. That pretty well sums up the journalistic standard that has been applied to the conflict in Iraq.

If soldiers support the war, I'd think that was news, given that they're bearing the brunt of it. But that's just me. One of many reasons I'll never be an editor at a major news publication...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:25 PM

May 07, 2007
Insanity

The New Editor talks about it on the part of both the democrats, and a media that refuses to report on it.

[Update at 8:20 PM EDT]

And Hugh Hewitt continues to express his dismay and amazement (shared by me) at the Star-Trib's treatment of James Lileks:

Of course James is my friend, but a lot of my friends suffer at the hands of bad management, and I don't say a word about it on my blog or my show.
I am exercised about Lileks because it is an astoundingly stupid decision affecting an industry with which I am connected and in which merit used to matter. The collapse of the media business and the rise of mediocrity is what's bugging me.

I offer you Dave Barry as an expert on the field of newspaper columns. Case closed. Ten thousand second stringers can line up and berate Lileks, but we know better, and Barry's assessment just ends that discussion.

And a comment from Dave Barry's post:

Yeah, one thing that Lileks' blog revealed was how much life and quirk was being squeezed out of his writing to make it fit in the Star-Tribune. (For which the editors blame him, not themselves.) Anyway, I don't think we should be bashing the people here who don't find Lileks funny. Humor is individual, they're entitled to their opinion...
...and isn't it interesting that at least they HAVE an opinion of Lileks. How many other writers at the Star-Tribune can anyone here say that of?

And a similar comment from Ken Layne, who would know such things:

This is completely retarded. Lileks is the best-known writer on that whole paper -- if there's any nationally-known writer other than Lileks on that paper, I've never heard of 'em. I wouldn't be surprised if his personal site gets more traffic than the whole Strib site.
Here's a quiz to see if you've "got what it takes" to be a newspaper editor:

You're in a fading industry that's making a slow & dumb transition to the online world. You've moved so slowly & clumsily that most of the things you used to control -- comics, sports news, classifieds -- have already been reinvented and seized by people who aren't involved with newspapers at all. But on your staff, you've got a local columnist who has a big & loyal online readership you would spend millions trying to get on your own. Do you:

a) Give him a substantial raise and have him write exclusively for your online paper?
b) Demote him to local coverage.

If you answered B, then you're ready for a high-flying newspaper management career ... for a few years, anyway, when the last local print newspaper shuts down for good. Jesus ...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:12 PM

How Incurious

The questions about Iraq that the media isn't asking.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:34 PM

Why Newspapers Are Going Bust

Because they're run by morons like the ones at the Star-Tribune who don't understand, or even have the mental capacity to recognize, that they have one of the great treasures in current American writing working for them:

As it happens, they've killed my column, and assigned me to write straight local news stories.
Really.

There’s been some talk that I might leverage my mad web skillz into a tech beat, reporting on the Internet. But a local beat about the Internet? How many stories can do you about six guys in a loft coding a hot new start-up? And heaven forbid we have to illustrate them, because then you get the inevitable geek-by-the-screen shot. Look! He’s customizing the drop-down location menu so it defaults to the United States instead of Afghanistan!

I don’t want to write about the Internet. I want to write on the Internet. I’d rather develop content than report about content developers. It’s that simple, and it’s also a matter of recognizing my failings: I am not Biff Deadline, Ace Reporter. I can do long stories with lots of color, all aslosh with subjective opinions, but writing straight news - clearly, simply, briskly - is a skill I lack, and I take off my hat to those who've mastered that discipline.

My column will end a week from this Friday. (There’s a series of pieces I can’t wait to write.) After that, it's just-the-facts-ma'am - and I'll no longer be telecommuting, either. This means I will start burning my share of hydrocarbons like a good American. Hell, I may leave the vehicle running all day outside the building just to make up for lost time. Maybe I will put a green roof on the car to balance things out. Some turf, some switchgrass. It's murder on the paint but we all must do our part.

Would it matter if you contacted the paper? It very well might. Here's the reader's rep's page.

Now, I think that in fact he will do a great job (as long as it continues to be his job) at doing straight local news, though it may require some strict editing to dehumanize his brilliant writing to the proper level. I'm sure that, as always, he's overmodest in his skill assessment above. But where he positively shines is as a humorist and sharp-penned satirist, and sober editorialist. Surely there are other people who are perfectly competent to handle local Minneapolis happenings, Internet-related and otherwise.

I suppose that the suits will say that of course they recognize his talent--it's why he wasn't simply laid off like many others. Despite his love of his city, I hope that some other paper makes an offer that he can't refuse, to do what he does, and loves, best. And if nothing else we'll always have The Bleat (I hope?).

[9 AM EDT Update]

Somehow, this latest satire from Iowahawk seems appropriate.

[Update mid morning]

Hugh Hewitt has further thoughts, with links to lots more.

[Update a couple minutes later]

If this comment is true, they're even stupider than it sounds:

Sounds like they wanted to fire him, but they can’t because of the union.
It seems like he’d just quit. Couldn’t he find a job elsewhere?

Perhaps that's what they're trying to do. They can't fire him, so they give him a job that will make him miserable in the hope that he'll quit. Maybe he's lucky they don't have him tossing papers at doors (though probably the union protects him from that one, too). One suspects that if he doesn't, it's only because he doesn't want to pull up roots. If so, here's hoping that he gets a great offer that allows him to continue (or go back to) working from home without having to move his family (and her job). That might even be possible, given this new-fangled thing called the Interweb.

I should also add that, given the history of that newspaper, complaints will probably have very little effect, not to discourage people from doing so. They'll just be interpreted by the so-called "progressives" that run the place as an astroturf campaign by the "right wingers" to protect one of their own.

To quote the alien from Plan 9, "Stupid, stupid, stupid."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 AM

May 03, 2007
Fire The Copy Editor

...at the New York Post--he's falling down on the job. They could have taken that alliterative headline to the mth degree: "MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE MOVIE MIFFS MORMON MITT."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:34 AM

May 02, 2007
The VPI Picture You Won't See

A colleague of mine has a son who is a senior in engineering at VPI, who was fortunately not on campus when the shooting occurred. He was traumatized nonetheless, as were all the students, and my colleague drove down from DC to Blacksburg this past weekend to see how he and his friends were doing. He took some pictures of the improvised memorials.

While not as moving or lovely, this is the one that interested me the most. Such a sign was apparently on the door of every campus building, to keep away the ghouls. I don't think you'll see this picture in the papers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AM

April 30, 2007
Just Heard On Fox

After a story about cave-man (and woman) sex ("So easy, a cave man can do it!"): "Now back to serious news--American Idol."

Oh, Megyn, you used to sound so smart before you started doing that morning show.

[Update a few minutes later]

OK, on reflection, maybe she was being tongue in cheek. I'd certainly like to think so.

[Update a minute or so later]

Actually, now that I think about it some more, I just like to think about her tongue in a cheek. Maybe even mine.

But I probably shouldn't have thoughts like that. I'm quite confident that my darling Patricia wouldn't approve. Nor should she.

Nope. Not thinking about that at all.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:15 AM

April 29, 2007
The Elephant In The Room

Called Al Qaeda. (Democrat) John Wixted, on the prevalence of the false "civil war" meme:

Awareness of al Qaeda is slowly growing in the minds of mainstream media reporters who have been hamstrung by the civil war schema that they simply cannot get out of their heads. Even so, there is not the slightest mention of the fact that al Qaeda was probably behind yesterday's bombing. Millions upon millions of readers of countless stories like this all over the world will read about that bombing and then shake their heads at the escalating "civil war" in Iraq. And then they will rage at George Bush for what he has done. Here is CNN's coverage of that event, and, again, not the slightest hint that this was an attack by al Qaeda (because, I assume, the reporter thinks this was part of the civil war). The CNN story even notes that this was a suicide bomber. Many stories fail to mention that key detail. It is important because virtually all suicide bombers are members of al Qaeda, as I detailed here. As such, this bombing was not part of that civil war. It was another atrocity designed to provoke a civil war that has largely abated since the troop surge began. That's the key distinction, and it cannot be emphasized often enough. People just don't get it, so it needs to be explained repeatedly until they do. In fact, what's missing from discussions by Bush and McCain and others who have the details right is the emphatic statement that these attacks are not part of the civil war; they are attempts by al Qaeda to provoke a civil war. Just stating that these attacks were perpetrated by al Qaeda does not go far enough to change the thinking of those whose minds are ensnared by an obsolete civil war schema. You have to specifically tell them that they are wrong to think like that. That gets their attention (because they are under the comfortable impression that the civil war debate was settled long ago), and it momentarily arouses disbelief (trust me -- I've been down this path with people many times). When they are presented with incontrovertible facts regarding the role of al Qaeda in Iraq in a moment of disbelief, it has been my experience that minds change (including liberal minds). But you have to directly assert that these attacks are not examples of the civil war in action, nor do they represent sectarian violence. If you don't, people have great difficulty assimilating the idea that attacks by Sunni al Qaeda against Shiite civilians do not constitute examples of sectarian violence/civil war.

His emphasis, not mine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:01 PM

April 24, 2007
"They Lack A Sense Of Irony"

I recall reading in The Economist, many years ago, a leader (editorial to the Yanks) that described an anecdote about the British Foreign Service, in which one of the people was describing some benighted Third World former colony. "The problem they have, is that they lack a sense of irony."

Apparently Reuters has the same problem.

Hey, one man's anti-violence protester is another man's Jihadist.

Any of my trolls going to try to defend this one?

And let's see how long it stays up in that form.

[Update]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Here's the link, Bill, from Yahoo. I'll keep a screen shot of it, for when they decide to memoryhole it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:43 PM

April 17, 2007
What Supermarkets Are Those?

In the wake of the shootings, our friends across the Pond once again proudly put their ignorance on display:

"I think the reason it happens in America is there's access to weapons -- you can go into a supermarket and get powerful automatic weapons," Keith Ashcroft, a psychologist, told the Press Association.

You can't legally purchase "automatic" weapons anywhere, let alone in a supermarket, but that doesn't prevent Dr. Ashcroft from pontificating about a country he knows nothing about. And the WaPo reporter can't be bothered (and likely is just as clueless) to correct it for the reader.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 AM

April 13, 2007
I'm More Of A Muumuu Man Myself

Brian Williams is once again stupidly throwing stones from within his glass house:

I especially enjoy the risible self-regard of a guy who refers to his tireless development of “credentials to cover my field of work” when said “field of work” primarily consists of reading words off a teleprompter.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:52 AM

Civil War, Or Not?

John Wixted isn't impressed with the media reporting from Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:56 AM

April 11, 2007
His Day Is Over

Howie Carr thinks that it's time to stick a fork in Imus. And he seems pretty happy about it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 AM

April 10, 2007
Repairing The Damage Of Socialism

Iain Murray has some good news on the environmental front--the restoration of the Aral Sea. And as Iain points out, this was unquestionably a tragedy caused by man--not by global warming, but by a Stalinist command economy. And it reminds me of the fatuousness of the Pope's comments the other day, that "no good came out of the war in Iraq." (Michael Novak has his own thoughts on that.)

One could probably write a book on the many good things that have come out of removing Saddam from power, but just one is the reversal of another environmental catastrophe, also caused by oppression and a Stalinist-style government--the draining of the Euphrates marshes. With Saddam's removal, plans to restore them began almost immediately, and the progress has been impressive, if not perfect:

The restoration of southern Iraq's Mesopotamian marshes is now a giant ecosystem-level experiment. Uncontrolled release of water in many areas is resulting in the return of native plants and animals, including rare and endangered species of birds, mammals, and plants. The rate of restoration is remarkable, considering that reflooding occurred only about two years ago. Although recovery is not so pronounced in some areas because of elevated salinity and toxicity, many locations seem to be functioning at levels close to those of the natural Al-Hawizeh marsh, and even at historic levels in some areas.

Nothing good from the Iraq war? Ask a Marsh Arab.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AM

March 31, 2007
Slap Down

It's sad that Popular Mechanics has to waste any bandwidth and pixels responding to Rosie O'Donnell's incandescent idiocy, but that's the world we apparently live in. How much longer is ABC going to embarrass itself with this moron?

[Afternoon update]

The steel industry is running scared, now that Rosie is on to their scam, that has been going on for well over a century.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:19 AM

March 18, 2007
What Do They Know?

Heh. As a commenter notes, the Iraqis must be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Well, it is vast, after all.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:11 AM

March 16, 2007
Sweatered Dogs

Yesterday's Lileks Bleat (which went up late, so I didn't see it until today) is fully screedy goodness, against overprivileged and cynical haters of civilization. Especially that pinnacle of evil--western civilization:

Over lunch I read the local free newspaper; the editorial page had two opinion pieces. One disparaged dog sweaters. I have no love for dog sweaters either, but they don’t immediately make me think about the disparities between the First and Third Worlds, and they don’t bring to mind Club of Rome predictions, either. But I lack the author’s piercing ability to connect the dots:
They say you can judge a society by how they treat their dead. But they never saw dogs wearing sweaters. Running around Lake Calhoun on a brisk winter evening, I passed a well-to-do dog, so it would seem; his sweater was of much finer material than mine. But that was not all. This dog wore little coverings on each of his four paws.

Although I had remembered my shoes, I had foolishly left my gloves at home, and cast a somewhat spiteful and jealous glance in his direction. He merely looked away, turning his wet nose up toward his human walking companion as if to say, “can I get a little hat?”

I’ve never heard of the idea of judging a society on how they treat the dead. It makes for interesting sociological studies, but I think the question of how they treat the living is more germane, particularly if they show special skill in turning the living into the dead. I also imagine that those in the society-judging racket confine their judgments to societies which spend too much money on coffins and flowers, especially if a television network recently did a hidden-camera expose of the sales tactics used to push upgraded copper trim on the burial vault. Those are the cultures that need some good ol’ judgin’.

I should also note that I have lived in the vicinity of Lake Calhoun for many years, and the number of dogs I’ve seen with sweaters numbers between six and ten; in all the years I’ve lived in this neighborhood, and passed the locals walking their dogs on bitter nights, the number of dogs with boots and sweaters equals exactly zero. I tried to put books on my dog once when the temps were ninety below, but that was in 1996, and I don't believe I've tried since.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:40 AM

March 15, 2007
Stop The Madness

Well, I don't miss Glenn all that much.

Yet.

I mean, it's just been a few days.

But without the all caps intros, it's just not Instapundit, so that's how I voted. It does have exactly the grating effect on the eyes that Tigerhawk notes, and who the hell is Tom Maguire to desecrate it in such a fashion?

If you love me, and my blog, you'll do the same. Particularly since it's currently in last place.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:55 PM

March 14, 2007
No, He's Not An Expert

Dan Rather, on net neutrality:

Rather: Neutrality is an emotionally charged word for the Internet. I'm not an expert, but I believe in equality all the way around. If someone's going to have high speed, then everybody ought to have access to high speed. I recognize that there's an argument the other way, that you can't have it for everybody, but I just don't buy that argument. To me, it's akin to saying, "Well, there's this new invention called the telephone, and only a few people should be allowed to have it, because everybody can't have it at once."

Funny thing, though. That's exactly how it happened. Any new technology is going to be available to the wealthy first. This is as mindlessly egalitarian as the old schoolteacher saying that you shouldn't bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. That kind of thinking ensures that everyone is equal--in poverty.

[Update at 9:40 PM EDT]

I should also not that this kind of attitude would prevent space tourism from getting off the ground. Which means preventing space development from getting off the ground. After all, if we can't all go right now, why should anyone be allowed to?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:21 PM

March 09, 2007
So Much For The "Reality-Based" Community

Lorie Byrd writes about the media myth that won't die, in the Plame/Wilson affair:

For almost four years now, the public has been fed a steady diet of Joe-Wilson-truth-teller exposing President Bush’s lies resulting in a retaliatory “outing” of his wife’s covert CIA status. Reporters continued writing that story long after it was proven false...
...Why? Are these journalists too invested in the Wilson tale to give up on it, even in the face of compelling evidence that much of it was at best unfounded, and at worst a fantasy in Wilson’s mind? Many liberals still support Wilson because his story reinforces their opposition to the war and portrays the Bush administration as the evil conspiracy so many on the left insist they see.

Because Wilson’s version of events became conventional wisdom years ago, liberals have been able to ignore inconsistent and contrary revelations with no repercussions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AM

March 08, 2007
Is CNN Becoming Fox News?

Once Nancy and Harry hear about this, and whine to CNN management, Michael Ware may be looking for a new job:

JIM CLANCY: "The Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of 2007, 2008 to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General Petraeus, the Iraqi government and the Iraqis themselves?"
MICHAEL WARE: "Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that's being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what's happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts, to the bloodshed and endless combat that we're seeing day in, day out. All that it does, anyone setting time frames like that without real pre-conditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking and to know where the pressure points are.

"So, in terms of the battle, day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn't looking more forward than five or six months. He's trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies."

Quite the faux pas, to tell the truth. As Finklestein notes, actually being on the ground in Iraq can be quite clarifying. Between this, and Brian Williams' cautious optimism, perhaps the MSM is coming around, even if the Dems aren't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:35 PM

March 05, 2007
Fraudulent Headline Alert

I think the copy editor was having trouble with the concept. As a long-time aficionado of paper-wrapped gunpowder, I wouldn't want to be in the same county as an eight-mile firecracker.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:43 PM

March 04, 2007
Major Man Of Straw

I'm listening to Wolf Blitzer talk to Senator Dodd. Wolf plays a tape of the president saying that if we leave Iraq before the job is done, that it will be a disaster in the war on terror. Dodd's response? This isn't a transcript, but it's pretty close. "There are terrorist attacks all over the world. I don't know how the president can think that by staying in Iraq, we will end them." Wolf follows up, and he says something similar again.

In other words, President: "Leaving Iraq prematurely will worsen things."

Dodd's strawman version of President: "Staying in Iraq will solve the problem."

I can see why he'd like to knock down a foolish statement that no one made, since it's a lot easier to do that than to actually respond to the question of what will happen if we leave. I was disappointed (well, that's not the right word, because it was, after all, Wolf Blitzer) that he wasn't called on it. You know he would have if he'd been of a different party (speaking of which, Russert let Murtha get away with a disgusting amount of nonsense this morning--he never followed up, but just went on to his next sound clip each time).

[Update in the afternoon]

I will give credit to Murtha for having more class than Russert in this exchange. I was shocked, in fact, because it's the first time I've seen a Democrat decline to cloak themselves in faux victimhood for their beliefs (they generally do it unprompted, but Russert couldn't drag it out of Murtha today).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AM

March 01, 2007
Eighteen To One

That's the ratio of potty words on "left," as compared to "right" blogs. Based on my own reading of both kinds, it doesn't shock me. I wonder if it says something about relative emotional maturity?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 AM

February 27, 2007
Conventional Unwisdom

I know that this is conventional reporting wisdom, particularly at the WaPo, but I think that there were many other reasons for the Republicans losing the Congress last fall:

Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts stymied under realities more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.

Emphasis mine. In fact, if that were the case, the Dems wouldn't be having so much dissension in the ranks, and difficulty in coming up with a politically palatable position. If the voters really wanted to simply end the war, then the Dems could simply defund it. But despite reporter Julie Davis' breezy assertion, the Republicans lost for lots of reasons, some of them war related, some not, and it's politically perilous to make such assumptions about what the voters wanted, other than that they were tired of Republicans.

The Donks' problem was in fact nailed by the President in the State of the Union, in which he noted that while he wasn't sure what the voters had voted for, he was confident that they weren't voting for failure. Yet that is exactly what the Dems seem to want, or at least accept as a fait accompli.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:32 AM

February 07, 2007
The Rest Of The Story

While I agree with Don Imus that there's "something wrong with" Chris Matthews, I'm amused to see that no one pointed out the obvious. Imus isn't upset about the F-bomb on his show. He's upset because he owns a ranch.

And I love this:

Imus: "If you were on ‘Meet the Press’ would you say that? Of course not.”
Matthews: "I think I said something like that on my show once.”

Imus: "Yeah, your show, but nobody watches your show.”

Matthews: "Would you stop?”

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:45 AM

Bloggist Bashing

While the New York Times (unlike most of the media), manages to actually criticize Edwards' choice of campaign bloggers, it can't resist bashing bloggers (or, as I now prefer, bloggists):

Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

All this sentence needs to make it fair is a simple modifier--"some." But they can't be bothered. Apparently all bloggers express their opinions in "provocative and often crude language."

Actually, I think it is largely (though even there, not completely) true of the types of lefty bloggers that a Democrat would choose as his campaign bloggers, and perhaps that's the only kind that the reporter reads. He should get out in the blogosphere more.

[Update a few minutes later]

ABC's Terry Moran criticizes Edwards choice as well, and manages to do so without bashing bloggers in general. Of course, he is one...

And the comments, with all the defense of Marcotte, are highly instructive.

[Update after noon]

One more thought. Elizabeth Edwards was running a diary for a while at Kos' site, so I suspect that she may not have seen anything she found exceptionable at Pandagon. If she made the hire recommendation, it'll be hot times in the old bedroom tonight. She (or whoever did) may have cratered the campaign before it even got started.

[Another update, a couple minutes later]

Looks like they're trying to put it down the memory hole:

The trash-talking Stalinists at Pandagon have removed or changed all the posts to which I responded in the links above; LGF reader Egfrow dug those Pandagon posts out of the Internet Archive, so you can see the kind of speech John Edwards thinks is “edgy.” These links go to the archived copies of the Pandagon posts:
Vitriolic Lefty Post of the Day
When Lefty Blogs Attack
Hysterical Leftist Post of the Day
The Marching Morons

Fortunately (and unfortunately for them) Google (and other web archivists) remembers all.

[Midafternoon update]

Jay Reding has further thoughts:

Like it or not, Ms. Marcotte may have the right to free speech, and no one is arguing that she should be censored. However, what she says is incindiary, derogatory, and bigoted. Had she treated Islam the way she treats Catholicism, she’d be widely ostracized. Marcotte represents everything that is wrong with the lefty blogosphere — the constant profanity, the invective, the elevation of childish snark above analysis. There are only a few left-wing bloggers who do anything resembling analysis, and while some of them are good (Joshua Micah Marshall comes to mind as an example) most of them seem to carry the attitudes of high school kids who think they’re “sticking it to the Man” by dropping cluster F-bombs. For anyone who doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid already, it’s not only unpersuasive, it’s horrendously off-putting.

Yes. And I'm always amused when the first resort of the leftists, whenever they are criticized for what they say, is to cry "Censorship!" and "Freedom of Speech!" when no one has proposed censoring them. We are only asking them to grow up, and accept responsibility for what they say and write. The First Amendment only says that Congress can't pass a law to prevent you from speaking. It doesn't protect you from the real-world consequences of thoughtless speech.

[Update at 3:15 PM EST]

And they're outta there! At least if Salon is to be believed.

This was a no-win situation for Edwards, because now the Kossites and DUers are going to be screaming for his scalp. And of course, in the lefty blogosphere, Marcotte et all will be martyrs for ~~hate~~free speech. And all because he didn't vet them before hiring them. I hope that he wouldn't make appointments in a government the same way he does in his campaign. But I fear he would.

[Evening update]

As predicted, the nutroots are unhappy.

[Evening update]

OK, well. Iowahawk has the f***ing scoop on how Amanda got the job.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:14 AM

February 03, 2007
That's Rich

Christopher Hitchens isn't very impressed with the New York Times theater critic's latest blast at George Bush:

Now, "truthiness" is a laugh-word invented by Steven Colbert who (along with his friend Jon Stewart and the other heroes of Comedy Central) is the beau ideal of what Rich considers to be the ironic. In this book and in his regular column, he gives "truthiness" a workout whenever he can. He clearly wishes he had coined it himself, and he has kept it going for perhaps a touch longer—may I hint?—than even Colbert might wish. Let us examine it in the present case. The administration did not, in point of fact and as Rich concedes, ever make the case that Saddam Hussein had sponsored the assault of 9/11. It did, however, strongly imply that he might have an interest in, or enthusiasm for, this kind of activity. And many Americans when polled were found to suspect him of an even more direct connection. Well, Saddam Hussein had sheltered the Iraqi-American fugitive who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He had allowed the internationally-wanted criminal Abu Nidal to use Baghdad as his headquarters. He had boasted of paying a bounty to the suicide-murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The man who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, a certain Abu Abbas, who was responsible for rolling Leon Klinghoffer in his wheelchair off the vessel's deck and into the Mediterranean, had to be released when apprehended because he was traveling on an Iraqi passport. A diplomatic passport. The Baghdad state-run press had exulted at the revenge taken on America on 9/11. This does not exhaust the "truthiness" of the suggestion that Saddam Hussein might have to be taken seriously as a sponsor of nihilistic violence. Could one even suggest that those who thought so might be intuitively and even objectively wiser than those who thought it crass to mention Saddam Hussein and "terrorism" in the same breath? Not without being jeered at by Rich, who either does not know any of the above facts or who chooses not to include any of them in his proudly truth-centered narrative.
It would be good to have a demotic word for the way in which journalism, commentary, "spin," and official propaganda converge, though I think "truthiness" would be too feeble to cover it. All that the term does is to condense what we already "know," which is that perception trumps reality as often as not. Rich himself gives a fine illustration of the point when he idly says that Michael Moore's entirely mendacious film Fahrenheit 9/11, which mobilized Democrats and liberals behind a completely fictitious account of events, was both a "movie eviscerating Bush" and "an instant media sensation." His stale phrasing comprises one very smelly value-judgment—the president was not in fact "eviscerated" by this contemptible movie, which surely cannot be praised even faintly by anyone with the smallest regard for veracity—as well as one statement of near-fact which is almost true by definition. As Peter Jennings might have put it, if the New York Times describes something as "an instant media sensation," then an instant media sensation is what it becomes. But who's the "truthy" one here?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:20 AM

January 30, 2007
Media Alzheimer's

They seem to continue to rediscover the same "fact" every year or so:

Finally! The first time the Bush administration ever acknowledged global warming! At least, since 2001, when President Bush said:
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. […] And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:44 AM

January 21, 2007
No Jihad Here, Folks

Nothing to see, move along.

The religion that dare not speak its name. Or rather, the name that the media dare not speak.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 AM

January 15, 2007
"Desperate To Avoid"

Ron Cass asks why the Sandy Burglar story isn't one of the top political stories of the decade:

We all have a pretty good idea what the money was doing in Representative William Jefferson's freezer. But the questions about President William Jefferson Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, just keep piling up.
It's time we got some answers.

I can't understand why the Republican Congress didn't demand hearings into the Justice Department decision to let Berger off with a slap of the wrist. I can only surmise that it was because it was a decision of a Republican Justice Department. Now, they might be more curious, particularly with the new revelations, but they no longer control Congress, and I assume that the new majority will want to keep this dirt safely and deeply under the rug.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:32 AM

January 09, 2007
A Tale Of Two Security Violations

Joel Mowbray talks about the apparent double standard at play, in the Justice Department and the media, about Sandy Berger:

The mainstream media's palpable disinterest in the Berger case is hardly justified. Many questions remain unanswered. Of the few explanations Berger and his defenders have actually provided, none passes the laugh test.
Berger claimed in court last year that smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives was about "personal convenience," but the inspector general report states that he walked out of the building and down the street, found a construction site, looked to see if the coast was clear, then slid behind a fence and hid the documents under a trailer.

Which part of that elaborate procedure was "convenient"?

According to the New York Times story last April following Berger's guilty plea, "Associates attributed the episode to fatigue and poor judgment." While lying to authorities is poor judgment, it is also illegal. And how exactly did fatigue drive Berger to use his scissors to shred three versions of the top-secret document?

I think we know how this would have been covered if it had been a former Republican National Security Advisor. One of many reasons to not allow the Democrats near the White House at war time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:06 AM

January 04, 2007
Won't Be Fooled Again

I know you'll be shocked to hear this, but many people think that the Iraq reporting has been inaccurate and biased:

...overall, about one-third of Americans believe that the news media present too negative a picture of what is happening in Iraq; one out of five believe that the news media present too positive a picture, and the rest say that news media coverage is about right or have no opinion.

As the party breakdown shows, the lunatics who think that coverage has been too "positive" are part of the "reality-based community."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:50 AM

December 26, 2006
The Rest Of The Story

Amir Tehari writes about the boom outside Baghdad:

Newsweek has just hailed the emergence of a booming market economy in Iraq as "the mother of all surprises," noting that "Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are." The reason, of course, is that Iraqis know what is going on in their country while Americans are fed a diet of exclusively negative reporting from Iraq.

Of course, it would have been better if he's written "almost exclusively negative," given that he was citing a positive Newsweek story as evidence.

And also of course, expect my anonymous and cowardly moronic leftist troll to show up in a minute or two with the daily "chickenhawk" stupidity, and demands that I go to Iraq.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:18 AM

December 22, 2006
Strange Job Description

Am I the only one who thinks it strange that Rosie O'Donnell is described by Baba Wawa as the "moderator" of The View? Seems like "extremator" would be a better title.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:01 AM

December 11, 2006
Calling It In

Michael Fumento:

I observed that three articles on conditions in Ramadi and al Anbar Province had appeared within a week of each other giving entirely different points of view. Mine and one in the Times of London said we're winning the war in Ramadi; a Washington Post A1 story co-authored by "Fiasco" author Thomas Ricks claimed exactly the opposite. The difference, I said, could be explained simply. I and the Times writer reported from Ramadi. Ricks and his co-author have not only never been to Ramadi, they wrote their piece from Washington.

Preemptive note: we can expect Anonymous Moron in the comments section to chime in with the chronic mindless "chickenhawk" attack on me any minute now, because, you see, I'm not allowed to criticize the media reporting in Iraq unless I go myself. He or she never disappoints.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:10 AM

December 05, 2006
Hide The Badge

Bill Roggio says the troops in Iraq don't have a very high opinion of the press:

While waiting to manifest on the flight to Fallujah, CNN played a news segment of President Bush announcing there would be no “graceful exit” from Iraq, and that we'd stay until the mission was complete. Two sergeants in the room cheered. Loudly. They then scoffed at the reports from Baghdad, and jeered the balcony reporting.
In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. The felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in “blood and guts.” They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them.

During each conversation, I was left in the awkward situation of having to explain that while, yes, I am wearing a press badge, I'm not 'one of them.' I used descriptions like 'independent journalist' or 'blogger' in an attempt to separate myself from the pack.

What a terrible situation to be in, having to defend yourself because of your profession. I've always said that the hardest thing about embedding (besides leaving my family) is wearing the badge that says 'PRESS.' That hasn't changed. I hide the badge whenever I can get away with it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:59 AM

December 01, 2006
Boo...Hoo

News producers being laid off at SeeBS. It's like what you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean--a good start.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:12 PM

Today's Media

...reporting World War II. Strategy Page has given me a bunch of satirical essay ideas today:

HUNDREDS OF SAILORS STILL TRAPPED UNDERWATER
Victims' Families: Pearl Rescue Efforts "Disgraceful"

WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS SUPERBOMB PLANS

Catholic Bishops Condemn Secret "Manhattan Project"

FDR WITH MISTRESS IN DEATH ROOM

Warm Springs Scandal – Old Flame Watches President Die
First Lady Outed As Lesbian

BURN BABY BURN

B-29 Crews Laugh, Take Photos as Thousands of Children Die

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:18 AM

Groupthink

FreeAlabamistan writes about the cult of the media.

Why are we watching AP repeat the same basic mistake that CBS committed with Dan Rather's fake-but-accurate National Guard debacle?
Two words: "Everybody knows." Anyone who has studied anthropology, sociology or mass psychology understands how false beliefs can become conventional wisdom within groups if (a) high-status individuals within the group advocate the belief, and (b) there is no one inside the group to dispute the false belief.

That, in short, is the herd-mentality explanation of why liberal bias pervades the MSM. It's also the explanation of the Heaven's Gate cult (whose members acted on the belief that they must commit suicide in order to be taken aboard a cosmic mothership traveling behind the Hale-Bopp comet). Where group membership is dependent upon shared belief, where skepticism of key beliefs is viewed as disloyalty to the group, and where non-believers are stigmatized, marginalized and excluded, the truth or falsehood of group beliefs is moot. Logic and evidence, so far as they might undermine belief, are unwelcome. This is how it becomes possible for groups to act upon false beliefs.

It's one of those stories too good to fact check, because they want so badly to believe anything bad about Iraq (read: bad about Bush).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AM

November 27, 2006
I'm Shocked, Shocked!

Bogus news stories from Iraq. Can you imagine?!

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:19 PM

November 22, 2006
The News They Don't Want You To Know

Violence has been dropping in Iraq.

C'mon, guys. You can tell us. The election's over. You and the Jihadis won! You can even take credit for it now, just as you can for the economy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:02 AM

November 09, 2006
Too Many Cameras

And not enough words. Virginia makes a point that I was vaguely feeling on election day about PJM coverage:

Personally, I hated the PJM election coverage, because I don't want to have to watch video online. I want to read, and PJM offered way too little written material. But with the right technology, video is much easier to provide--especially if you don't care about shaky-cam production.

I want to read, too. Given a choice between watching a video (or even listening to audio) of people saying stuff, and reading a transcript, give me the transcript every time, unless there's some particular reason to want to parse tone/expression, etc.

Save the video for things that need video (rocket launches, explosions, bikini contests, etc.) and give me text for more straightforward information.

I don't take in and retain information that well through my ears. I always preferred to read the textbook to listening to a professor lecture. The baud rate is just too low. Similarly, whenever (say) Glenn links to something that looks (sounds?) interesting, and it turns out to be a podcast or video, there's always this resistance to click, or wait for the words to dribble out, whereas if it's to text, I eagerly read it. I don't have time to listen to someone tell me something when I can read it much faster.

I hope that as voice recognition gets better, we'll get more and better instant transcripts of talking-head stuff.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 AM

November 05, 2006
Megaspin

The people quoted in the recent Vanity Fair piece on "neocons" having second thoughts aren't very impressed with it:

Richard Perle: Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday’s election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.
I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:48 AM

October 25, 2006
Not-So-Brave New World

I know that this post will bring out the usual anonymous morons with their stupid and discredited "chickenhawk" argument in comments, but Michael Fumento isn't very impressed with the media performance in Iraq:

Most rear-echelon reporters seem to have studied the same handbook, perhaps The Dummies’ Guide to Faux Bravado. It usually begins with the horrific entry into Baghdad International Airport. Time’s Baghdad bureau chief, Aparisim Ghosh, in an August 2006 cover story, devotes five long paragraphs to the alleged horror of landing there.
It’s “the world’s scariest landing,” he insists, as if he were an expert on all the landings of all the planes at all the world’s airports and military airfields. It’s “a steep, corkscrewing plunge,” a “spiraling dive, straightening up just yards from the runway. If you’re looking out the window, it can feel as if the plane is in a free fall from which it can’t possibly pull out.” Writes Ghosh, “During one especially difficult landing in 2004, a retired American cop wouldn't stop screaming ‘Oh, God! Oh, God!’ I finally had to slap him on the face – on instructions from the flight attendant.”

The Associated Press gave us a whole article on the subject, titled “A hair-raising flight into Baghdad,” referring to “a stomach-churning series of tight, spiraling turns that pin passengers deep in their seats.”

I’ve flown into that airport three times now; each time was in a military C-130 Hercules cargo plane, and each landing was as smooth as the proverbial baby’s behind. But Ghosh is describing a descent in a civilian Fokker F-28 jet, on which admittedly I have never flown. (It’s $900 one-way for the short hop from Amman to Baghdad, and therefore the transportation of well-heeled media people.) So I asked a reporter friend who frequently covers combat in the Mideast and Africa, and has also frequently flown into Baghdad on those Fokkers. “The plane just banks heavily,” he said. “It’s not a big deal.” He requested anonymity, lest he incur the wrath of other journalists for spoiling their war stories.

...Even journalists sympathetic to the Baghdad press corps admit they essentially just hide out. Here’s how The New York Review of Books put it last April: “The bitter truth is that doing any kind of work outside these American fortified zones has become so dangerous for foreigners as to be virtually suicidal. More and more journalists find themselves hunkered down inside whatever bubbles of refuge they have managed to create in order to insulate themselves from the lawlessness outside.” Unless you accept “insulation” as a synonym for “reporting,” this doesn’t speak well of the hotel denizens.

Other reporters have been less generous. The London Independent’s Robert Fisk has written of “hotel journalism,” while former Washington Post Bureau Chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran has called it “journalism by remote control.” More damningly, Maggie O’Kane of the British newspaper The Guardian said: “We no longer know what is going on, but we are pretending we do.” Ultimately, they can’t even cover Baghdad yet they pretend they can cover Ramadi.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:42 AM

September 18, 2006
Anti-Krugman 1

Paul Krugman brought some great analysis of economics, the dismal science, to the New York Times Op-Ed page, but has consistently beat the drum in recent years for being dismal about every Bush decision and inaction. I am going to start an anti-Krugman column to take apart each criticism. These antibodies might allow us to have a debate that would allow both less reactive talking points for Democrats and more constructive criticism for the Administration.

The Krugman column is behind the Times Select wall. The cheapest way to pierce this wall is to order home delivery of the Times and go on regular three-month vacations.

Today's Krugman column has the title "King of Pain".

Starting with the ending:

The fact is that for all his talk of being a “war president,” Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause — even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.
Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

World War 2 saw US government spending soar to nearly 40% of GDP and I'm guessing higher for Churchill's UK. This was from 3% in 1925. That kind of increase in Government spending was good to hoist us out of the depression by our own bootstraps after Hoover mucked up monetary policy and banking and securities law. It is hugely inflationary once the economy can demand the goods that it produces as optimism returns. Thus Churchill requested that people make sacrifices to avoid crippling inflation. Bush on the other hand is spending about $400-$500 billion on Iraq and far less on the War on Terror before the Iraq invasion. That amounts to 3-4% of GDP. So much for monetary and goods sacrifice. At the time we were worried about deflation. The backdrop here was a global slump in Japan and Europe. They were experiencing a bigger demographic oldster overhang and lower birth and immigration rates than the US making our demographic bulge look positively peachy in comparison. GDP doesn't carry over. If an individual saves, great. If the whole country saves and does not invest and spend, nothing gets built for the savers to use later and the production is wasted. So all of our catchup savers for retirement left us with people willing to work extra without other people who wanted to spend extra. Exports were out. Thus a fiscal stimulus was called for in retrospect. (My opinion is Bush was lucky with the timing of his tax cut and prescription drug benefit.) You need not know this about the economy. Krugman knows this well and is distorting it on purpose to make the Bush tax cut and increased deficit and lack of economic sacrifice seem suboptimal in retrospect. A Democrat might have chosen subsidizing national health care instead, but to do neither would have resulted in unutilized capacity.

As for tears, World War 2 saw 400,000 deaths of US servicemen (about 2.5% or 1 in 40 of the 16 million). Iraq saw 3,000 deaths (out of about 1 million active duty or 1 in 300 of active duty. But also as percent of US population it fell from 0.3% to 0.001%. So tears are down also.

How about sweat? Keep an 1/2 a tank of gas in your car and buy some duct tape? Filling up your car twice as often which was recommended by Ridge at Homeland Security would be an extra 15 minutes a week which would reduce GDP by about 0.6%. Inform on your friends? Sweat the telephone and library data until it confesses? In retrospect, that didn't help us much.

The technique Krugman is using here is a multiple untruth. By stating an incorrect premise, Krugman makes it very difficult to sort out what the incorrect nature of the statement is and the correction must be quite lengthy to refute the false implication and will perforce be neither glib nor intuitive.

Krugman uses this to paint an awful president doing awful management of the war on terror. Specifically, it is trying to do torture to expand Presidential power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. According to an ABC News report from last fall, procedures used by C.I.A. interrogators have included forcing prisoners to “stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours”; the “cold cell,” in which prisoners are forced “to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees,” while being doused with cold water; and, of course, water boarding, in which “the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet,” then “cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him,” inducing “a terrifying fear of drowning.”

First, Congress can outlaw this. Second, the Geneva Conventions outlaws all interrogation of prisoners, not just aggressive interrogation. Remember name, rank and serial number from old TV programs? Third, terrorists do not abide the Geneva Conventions and assault civilians on purpose, kill captured soldiers and mutilate them, don't wear insignia and don't provide all the other civilized niceties. Can we all agree that soldiers that break the laws of war should get the least common denominator between prisoners of war and common criminals? That is, they can't be released until the "war" is over and they can be questioned. The Supreme Court does not disagree with this. The rest is up to Congress.

Personally, I think it is a poor political strategy to lock up enemy combatants and throw away the key. It will not be so easy to declare a war on terror over. But that puts me in a much much smaller minority than Krugman and Bush are appealing to with their rhetoric.

Back to Krugman. He clearly thinks simulated drowning is cruel and unusual punishment. I agree with him, but that is debatable. I agree with him about the quality of the data recovered being low. But we as a polity demanded action against terrorism. This is action and the Administration argues that we have prevented more terrorism. Personally, I think that terrorism is not a big threat to life, liberty or property in this country and with zero major terrorist atrocities in the US since 2001, it's hard to prove the Administration did anything with it's policies pro or con. Pursuit of happiness demanded a big dose of revenge after 9/11/1. Consider these prisoners collateral damage. If so, the collateral damage in the war on terror has been quite low. This does not rise to the rights losses at Manzanar for the Japanese Americans. We are addressing it before the war has even ended.

Credit Bush with poor spin in this area and overly aggressive about Presidential power, deaf to international criticism. Credit Krugman with criticizing the spin and mishandling of the details to the exclusion of the basic points which there would be strong bi-partisan agreement for. The basic points can be spun almost as badly as the Bush policy to the international community. Presidential power is checked. Krugman offers no alternative. (The vacuum gets filled by being an indignant Bush hater giving anti-terrorists little ability to do anything other than vote out realists like Leiberman because they haven't done enough and they have done too much already).

The rhetorical techniques are to use the specific to imply an overarching evil generalization. Krugman is quite effective and will be difficult to neutralize.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 08:27 AM

September 17, 2006
Housing Prices: Chicken Little vs. Pollyanna

Chicken Little
"The sky is falling"

We want a housing crisis so the Republicans won't get re-elected

Housing price rises moderating

Overhang of variable rate loans from boom

Middle income wages stagnant in real terms

Evidence of flipping in hot markets suggesting bubble

Pollyanna
"what a perfectly lovely, lovely house! How awfully glad you must be you're so rich!"

No capital gains taxes

Thick mortgage backed securities market

Fewer new buyers chasing money

Falling real estate commissions

Rising incomes

Changing commuting patterns

"breathtaking profit"

Active Federal Reserve Board

Industry sensitive to interest rates

Rising population

Middle income wages rising in money terms

Median age rising

Family size falling

Rise in ownership of 2nd homes

Rise in telecommuting

Home entertainment such as video games eclipsing movies

Capitalization and standardization of home building industry (e.g. Toll Brothers)

A moderation in an accellerator suggests just a slow-down in the rate of growth of housing prices to me, but don't listen to me--I just cashed out a 40% capital gain in my last house tax free and locked in a super low rate from a private equity mortgage lender and didn't use a real estate agent to buy and used a cut commission agent to sell. Clearly I'm a Pollyanna.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 05:35 AM

September 15, 2006
Gravitas

Katie Couric has a blog:

Add to that my first piece on 60 Minutes on the illnesses that thousands of first responders are experiencing five years after September 11th. To be a part of that broadcast was needless to say, an enormous thrill. My father called me afterwards and said, “Well, you’re doing what you’ve always wanted to do…reporting for 60 Minutes.” I used to watch the show when I was in high school sitting on the floor in my parents bedroom. I think it’s really what made me want to get into this crazy and wonderful business in the first place. Of course while I was preparing this piece I was in meetings with our producers, going over copy, doing promos, putting my spackle on (it takes a village to make me presentable on television) and helping shape the Evening News. It’s really exciting and really fun. I still can’t believe I’m privileged enough to have this job. One of the first things I said to the crew when we were rehearsing was…”can I ask you guys a question? How did this happen?” The sign off thing has been fun too. The suggestions are great to read, and as I said last night, even Letterman got into the act. Always happy to provide Dave with material! Bob Barker wants me to implore viewers at the end of every broadcast to “have your pets spayed or neutered.” mmmmmmmmmmm…interesting.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...ditzy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 AM

September 14, 2006
Don't Know Much About Statistics

Megan McArdle and Stuart Buck have an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner on the innumeracy, economic and otherwise, of many reporters:

...many conservative readers attributed the misleading figures to liberal media bias. But it is more likely ignorance than malice. Every year, scores of fledgling journalists pour out of liberal arts programs. Though many will need to pick through mountains of statistics in search of the truth, few have been taught the skills to do it.
They quickly become victims of advocacy groups pushing skewed statistics. Through ignorance, they may also start manufacturing their own flawed numbers. Since number-crunching beats (such as business and finance) are generally viewed as a tedious waystation en route to more interesting beats, few are enthusiastic about developing these skills. And their editors may not be in any position to help them.

The problem is compounded by the fact that journalists who do know how to read a balance sheet, run a regression, or analyze economic data, can generally get a job that pays a lot more than journalism. Some stay in the field out of love for their work (journalism is a really great job), but in our experience some of the best flee to greener pastures.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:32 AM

September 13, 2006
Criminal Negligence

A long interview with a contractor in Iraq on the misreporting and malreporting of that country:

For all the complexities and risks associated with our work, (I carried two calculators, satellite and computer equipment, and a ridiculously heavy AKSU-74 submachine gun around with me most of the time) it was impossible for us to miss seeing what coalition and Iraqi forces were dealing with. Let me please emphasize that. If we simply woke up in the morning, walked outside and did our jobs, it was completely impossible to miss the profound efforts and accomplishments of coalition and Iraqi forces in securing and rebuilding the national infrastructure.
But it wasn't impossible for the western press to miss. In fact, as I think about it, it's quite possible they've actually missed the whole war. Unless reporting can be described as burying oneself in a few relatively safe places with others of one's own kind, they have missed far more than they have covered. It is difficult for myself and many others to have respect for western journalists in Iraq because they so very rarely committed themselves to actually going out and covering what was going on.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 AM

September 03, 2006
Why Buy The Cow?

When you get the milk for free? Mark Steyn can't figure out why the Jihadis even bother to abduct journalists:

Did you see that video of the two Fox journalists announcing they'd converted to Islam? The larger problem, it seems to me, is that much of the rest of the Western media have also converted to Islam, and there seems to be no way to get them to convert back to journalism.
...One can understand the agonies the politically correct multicultural journalist must go through, distressed at the thought that an infelicitous phrasing might perpetuate unfortunate stereotypes of young Muslim males. But, even so, it's quite a leap to omit the most pertinent fact and leave the impression the Sydney constabulary are combing the city for mullets. The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby wrote the other day about how American children's books are "sacrificing truth on the altar of political correctness." But there seems to be quite a lot of that in the grown-up comics, too. And, as I've said before, it's never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. There may come a time when you need it.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:30 AM

September 01, 2006
Interesting Side Effect

Boeing had a successful test of a missile defense system. But it seems to have exceeded...errrr...expectations:

Although not a primary objective of the test, the kill vehicle intercepted the warhead and destroyed it.

Dang. As John Miller notes, talk about burying the lede.

[Update after 7 PM EDT]

Well, at least Reuters (of all people) managed to figure out the significance of the test, even if the Boeing PR people couldn't. Here's the lead of their story:

The U.S. military shot down a target ballistic missile over the Pacific Friday in the widest test of its emerging antimissile shield in 18 months, the Defense Department announced.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:07 PM

August 31, 2006
Why We Hate Our Fabulous Economy

A professor explains. Unsurprisingly it's (you guessed it!) biased and lousy reporting.

Inflation during the Bush administration has been much like it was during the Clinton administration. Even so, back then, we liked the economy. Now we hate it. So, what exactly is the problem? The "record setting" budget deficits, perhaps? Not really. Stagnant wages? Maybe, but I doubt it. I'll take a look at these a bit later, but for now, my point is that any story you read about some aspect of the economy ought to include simple charts like these. Those two stories about budget deficits and stagnant wages -- like almost all stories about the state of economy -- don't do that. You can learn more from a few informative charts than you can from reading the words of a reporter who has an agenda that is advanced, not by showing you the actual numbers, but by using bumper-sticker slogans to create the impression that things are "spiraling out of control." Oh wait, that's the phrase reporters use to characterize Iraq. Well, they don't use charts for that purpose, either (and for the same reason).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:55 AM

August 26, 2006
Dirty Pair

New York Times editorial page today has an opinion about stem cells concluding:

Mostly it illustrates the great lengths to which scientists must go these days to shape stem cell research to fit the dictates of religious conservatives who have imposed their own view of morality on the scientific enterprise.

This following a piece on cluster bombs where they "dictate" the terms of weapons sales from the Pentagon to protect Lebanese. They have also "imposed their own view of morality on the" war "enterprise."

At least both views of morality coincide on the ethics of cluster bomb use in stem cell research.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 07:08 AM

August 24, 2006
Exposing The Lies

Zombie Time has an exhaustive expose of the media's slander against Israel in the ambulance incident. It would be both appropriate and ironic to give this piece a Pulitzer. It will never happen, of course.

Of all the exposés and scandals surrounding the media's coverage of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, The Red Cross Ambulance Incident stands out as the most serious. The other exposés were spectacular in their simplicity (photographers staging scenes, clumsy attempts at Photoshopping images), but often concerned fairly trivial details. What does it matter whether there was a big cloud of smoke over Beirut, or a really big cloud of smoke, as one notorious doctored photograph showed? The fact that the media was lying was indeed extremely important, and justified the publicity surrounding the exposés -- but what they were lying about was often minor, a slight fudging of the visuals to exaggerate the damage.
The ambulance incident, however, was anything but trivial. The media accused Israel of the most heinous type of war crime: intentionally targeting neutral ambulances which were attempting to rescue innocent victims. If true -- and it is almost universally accepted as true -- then Israel would lose any claim to moral superiority in the conflict. The commanders who ordered the strike should be brought up on war-crimes charges. As it is, the worldwide outcry over Israel's purported malfeasances grew so strident that the country was pressured into a ceasefire. The media's depictions of Israel's actions so influenced public opinion that Israel felt compelled to end the fighting right at the moment it was starting to gain the upper hand. And as a result, Hezbollah has now claimed victory.

They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:04 AM

August 23, 2006
Wow

In her vlog on the ridiculous case of Josh Wolf, Bethany puts the hot into Hot Air.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:07 AM

August 21, 2006
Peace In Our Time

About a week ago, I asked:

I wonder if I could dig up an old interview by Mike Wallace with Hitler, in which Mr. Wallace told us how reasonable, rational and serious he seemed? All they wanted was Lebensraum, after all.

In fact, I thought about seeing if I could dig it up on Routers, but I didn't have the time, and it now turns out that Philip Klein already did it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:30 AM

August 18, 2006
The Crisis In Photojournalism

On Monday I wrote at TCS Daily about it. Today, David Perlmutter has further thoughts, over at Editor and Publisher.

Perhaps it would be more reassuring if the enemy at the gates was a familiar one—politicians, or maybe radio talk show hosts. But the photojournalist standing on the crumbling ramparts of her once proud citadel now sees the vandal army charging for the sack led by “zombietime,” “The Jawa Report,” “Powerline,” “Little Green Footballs,” “confederateyankee,” and many others.
In each case, these bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students. And the results have been devastating: news photos and video shown to be miscaptioned, radically altered, or staged (and worse, re-staged) for the camera. Surely “green helmet guy,” “double smoke,” “the missiles that were actually flares,” “the wedding mannequin from nowhere,” the “magical burning Koran,” the “little girl who actually fell off a swing” and “keep filming!” will now enter the pantheon of shame of photojournalism.

...News picture-making media organizations have two paths of possible response to this unnerving new situation. First, they can stonewall, deny, delete, dismiss, counter-slur, or ignore the problem. To some extent, this is what is happening now and, ethical consideration aside, such a strategy is the practical equivalent of taking extra photos of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school. Admit mistakes right away. Correct them with as much fanfare and surface area as you devoted to the original image. Create task forces and investigating panels. Don’t delete archives but publish them along with detailed descriptions of what went wrong. Attend to your critics and diversify the sources of imagery, or better yet be brave enough to refuse to show any images of scenes in which you are being told what to show. I would even love to see special inserts or mini-documentaries on how to spot photo bias or photo fakery—in other words, be as transparent, unarrogant, and responsive as you expect those you cover to be.

I'm not sure that a simple moral crusade is going to revive the profession, though--the temptations to cheat are just too great. We are going to have to figure out some technologies (in addition to having an army of photographers--truth lies in numbers) to address the problem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:13 AM

August 06, 2006
Just On The Other Side

Reuters has been caught doctoring photos to make Israel look bad? Shocking, just shocking! Errr...that they were finally caught, that is.

I hope that this photographer never gets another gig, but I'm sure that he'll probably get a plenty of offers from Middle Eastern media.

[Update a few minutes later]

I should add that Reuters gets a little credit (but not that much) for admitting it quickly (unlike CBS did). Of course, they had little choice, since the fakery was so blatantly obvious (though not much more so than the Rather memos).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:47 AM

July 30, 2006
It's A Head Scratcher, All Right

Inspector Clouseau is alive and well (well, at least as well as he can ever be said to be) at the LA Times.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:51 AM

July 26, 2006
Don't Know Much About History

You know, I'd be embarrassed to ask a question like this:

Daniel Schorr is used to producers popping into his Washington, D.C., office at National Public Radio to ask, on deadline: Which war came first, Korea or Vietnam?

Particularly given the resource of the Internet. But I guess some people wear their ignorance with pride.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 PM

July 21, 2006
Taking A Conference Break

I'm sitting in a session that consists of "speed dating" business plans. I haven't heard one worth blogging.

But now for something completely different. This is pretty funny--the wishing well:

The list of people to get Fox News Channel's best wishes in print lengthens all the time. Here are some others:
* Ted Turner. The CNN founder called Fox a "propaganda voice" of the Bush administration and compared its popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise in Germany before World War II. Briganti: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 PM

July 13, 2006
How The Mighty Have Fallen

Jed Babbin writes about the financial and ethical meltdown of the New York Times.

One wonders how long the stockholders (including the other Sulzbergers) will continue to put up with Pinch's blinkered incompetence? It's going to take a lot of work to restore the brand, at this point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:37 AM

Now That The Fitzgerald Investigation Is Complete

It looks like truthout.org wasn't just ahead of the news cycle. They were in a news cycle in an alternate universe.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AM

July 11, 2006
You've Got Dan

Well, if this is true, it should speed AOL in their high-g swirl down the bowl:

The Time Warner-owned Internet company is in negotiations with representatives for veteran CBS anchor Dan Rather to play a role in original programming for its online video offerings, sources said.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:13 PM

July 06, 2006
Bringing Back The Stocks

The Internet has made it a lot easier to publicly shame people. And not just the MSM.

For example, here's an amusing web site about a well-known electronics retailer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AM

July 05, 2006
Unprintable

Apparently that word only applies to political cartoons that criticize the press. More specifically, the New York Times...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 PM

July 04, 2006
The Difference Between "What" And "How"

A discussion on the slow death of the New York Times as a credible media institution, and why revealing the SWIFT program was so potentially disastrous (be sure to read the comments for relevant analogies from earlier wars).

[Update just after noon]

Cassandra writes about the Unitary Editor.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AM

July 03, 2006
If The NYT Had Been Around

Two hundred thirty years ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:31 AM

June 30, 2006
Is UPI Becoming The Weekly World News?

Check out this headline:

Huge Asteroid Hurtles Toward Earth

Hint, guys. If it's going to miss it, it's not "hurtling toward" it. But I guess it sells more papers.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:27 AM

June 29, 2006
What If The Today's Media Had Reported The Somme

Thoughts from the BBC.

[Via reader John Kavanaugh]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:32 PM

June 27, 2006
Turn About Is Fair Play

You know, what I'd like to see is some dirt from whistle-blowers within the New York Times organization.

Of course, what would be most interesting is how Bill Keller or Pinch Sulzberger (who've never been on any ballot in my memory, when it comes to who I want to trust to declassify information) respond.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 AM

June 26, 2006
Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish

At long last, Ward Churchill is on his way to the unemployment office (I wish--I'm sure that some wacko college is just slavering to pick him up, if he can just burnish his native American creds).

I wish that reporters would call his lawyers on this kind of nonsense, though:

"We're going to a real court because we can trust juries to do the right thing," said Churchill's attorney David Lane. "Churchill says this all completely bogus. Let's see if a jury and a Federal District Court agrees with the committee. Or see if everything that's happened here is retaliation for Ward Churchill's First Amendment free speech relating to 9/11."
...When his essay was brought to light in January 2005, Gov. Bill Owens, state lawmakers and relatives of Sept. 11, 2001 victims in New York immediately denounced it. University officials concluded Churchill could not be fired for the essay, but in March 2005 they launched an investigation into allegations of plagiarism and other research misconduct.

"A committee last year began to look at his writings including his essay on 9/11," said DiStefano. "We determined his writings were protected under the First Amendment. However, during that process there were allegations of research misconduct."

Instead of wrapping himself in a flag, Chuch has wrapped himself in the First Amendment, and thus despoiled it. And unfortunately, the university has aided and abetted this misconception.

There are no First Amendment issues at stake here, at all. Churchill has the right to say whatever he wants, but the First Amendment does not grant him the right to remain a university professor (any more than it protects the New York Times from prosecution for violating the law regarding disclosure of secrets, should Alberto Gonzales grow a pair and decide to prosecute Bill Keller and company).

Contra the findings of the university committee, Churchill has no "First Amendment right" to say whatever he wants and suffer no repercussions. If they wanted to fire him for his "little Eichmanns" statement, they'd be perfectly within their constitutional rights to do so. The only thing preventing it is his contract that goes along with tenure.

Fortunately, while that contract does in fact allow him to say the vile things he chooses to say, it doesn't extend so far as to protect him against his repeated and egregious acts of academic fraud. I hope that this case does go to trial, so that both he and his attorney can waste their time and money in fighting a pointless case, in futile support of a truly disgusting human being.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 PM

Well, That Explains It

If only he'd released this version. Iowahawk has a rough draft of Bill Keller's letter explaining his publishing decision:

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Jihadi Accountant and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? I'll tell you who we are, pal. We are journalists - the people whom the inventors of this country specifically appointed to be the protectors of this little experiment we call the "human race" against the privations of out-of-control Texas Oil Nazis. And if you check your Constitution, I don't think you'll see anything in there about the right to clog up the press's inbox with your stupid Rush Limbaugh talking points.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:37 PM

June 19, 2006
Protecting Us From Ourselves

Thomas James (and Dr. Sanity) says that the media are treating the American public like children. Or irascible excitable red-state rednecks. Or perhaps they don't make a distinction. Of course, the funny thing is that the Canadian press is doing the same to the Canadian people.

[Update on Monday evening]

Alan K. Henderson has further thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:27 PM

June 15, 2006
About Time

Dan Rather has finally been fired from SeeBS. One can only think that the long delay was a way to save face, and hope that everyone had forgotten what a fiasco it was.

He's still in denial, of course:

Rather has said several times that "my best work is still ahead of me." He is described by friends as hurt and puzzled by the attitude of CBS management.

Yup, I don't care what anyone says, those Emperor's new duds looked great!

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:47 AM

Dispatch From Planet Clueless

It had to be a slow newsday, with a reporter who hasn't been paying much attention, to generate a thumbsucker like this: "Politics is clouding message of antiwar activist Sheehan."

When Cindy Sheehan burst on the national scene, it was as an aggrieved mother whose son had died in Iraq. Plainspoken and unscripted, Sheehan delivered an easily relatable story that gave her a kind of moral authority.

OK, so what is the "easily relatable story that gave her a kind of moral authority"? Our intrepid reporter can't be bothered to say. Just how does one derive "moral authority" from a dead son, anyway? Can someone explain this to me?

She deserved, and to the degree that she actually mourns her son (questionable, at this point--if there's anyone of whom it could be said, in Ann Coulter's much-criticized words, that they are "enjoying" a death, it is Mother Sheehan--she was obviously having the time of her life when she got arrested at the White House), continues to deserve our pity, but that doesn't give her "moral authority," absolute (to use Maureen Dowd's silly adjective) or otherwise.

Since then, some have questioned whether Sheehan has strayed too far politically.

Gee, do ya think? What cave has this reporter been in?

And in not describing the "easily relatable story" (I guess we're just supposed to infer it--"My son died in Iraq, you have to listen to my opinions about the war, and the war-mongering, lying terroristic Bush administration"), he can avoid telling the other side of the story. That is, she had already met with Bush once and was demanding a revisit with her Crawford histrionics, she couldn't be bothered to put a stone on her son's grave, her husband and son disowned her over her loony antics, etc. None of that can be found in this story. No, it's just a noble woman who suffered a grievous loss, and who (in consorting with dictators and making common cause with the monsters who are actually responsible for killing her son) may have gone "a little too far."

Sickening.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:54 AM

June 13, 2006
From The Heart Of Darkness

Instapundit has an on-the-spot report of the brutal storm in northwest Florida. From the Piggly Wiggly in Apalachicola.

It's Katrina redux! With profiteering!

Well, not really.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:33 AM

June 12, 2006
How Did They Miss That?

Thomas Lifson points out demonstrations in Spain in which the media seem to have no interest. I wonder why? Oh, yeah:

Something between 200,000 and one million people took to the streets of Madrid (see photo) for a demonstration against appeasement of terrorists.

No news value there, I guess.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:27 PM

The Gay Pride Bimbo

I wasn't sure quite how to categorize this--it's not really criticism (though perhaps she could have done a better job of keeping her cool), but Fox News' (hottest non-blonde news anchor) Julie Banderas apparently got into an on-air verbal brawl with one of the Phelps wackos this weekend. Here's the Quicktime video.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:59 AM

June 03, 2006
So What Else Is New?

Brendan Loy is unhappy about the Reuters coverage of the terror arrests in Toronto.

...for some reason, Reuters didn’t see fit to mention...whether the arrested terrorists are Muslims, or Arabs, or Islamists, or Al Qaeda members/sympathizers, or… anything. From the Reuters article, you wouldn’t know whether these guys are Osama bin Laden’s band of brothers, or a band of angry rednecks from Saskatchewan. Well, actually, maybe we do sorta know, because if they were angry rednecks from Saskatchewan, I’m sure Reuters would have told us that. But the fact that they’re members of the global Islamist terrorist movement? No, that’s not newsworthy.

Actually, to be fair, at this point, perhaps it's not. I think that most people (even al Reuters) have come to reasonably expect that when terror suspects are rounded up, they'll have Islamic connections. Perhaps we should be grateful that it would only be newsworthy if it were a gang of Moosejaw lumberjacks. That, after all, would be a man bites dog story.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:34 PM

June 01, 2006
Fight! Fight!

Scott Burgess dismantles Johann Hari on the subject of Bjorn Lomborg and global warming. I share Scott's take on both issues. And it's another demonstration of scientific ignorance, innumeracy and illogic, and agendas over reality, on the part of some (too many) members of the press.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 AM

May 30, 2006
Rampant Sexism

...at the Media Bistro:

I just noticed the MediaBistro poster's name: Patrick Gavin. A man. I guess we all look alike to him.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:31 AM

May 29, 2006
Memorial Day Thoughts

For the families of those who have been lost, and for the media that denigrates them, from Ben Stein. Take a moment, amidst the picnics, barbecues and ball games today, and give them and their sacrifice some thought.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:15 AM

May 24, 2006
Exploding More Media Myths

When it came to incompetence in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Jonah Goldberg notes that the malperformance of the federal government was dwarfed by that of the media:

...virtually all of the gripping stories from Katrina were untrue. All of those stories about, in Paula Zahn’s words, “bands of rapists, going block to block”? Not true. The tales of snipers firing on medevac helicopters? Bogus. The yarns, peddled on Oprah by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans police chief, that “little babies” were getting raped in the Superdome and that the bodies of the murdered were piling up? Completely false. The stories about poor blacks dying in comparatively huge numbers because American society “left them behind”? Nah-ah. While most outlets limited themselves to taking Nagin’s estimate of 10,000 dead at face value, Editor and Publisher—the watchdog of the media—ran the headline, “Mortuary Director Tells Local Paper 40,000 Could Be Lost in Hurricane.”

The total ended up being about fifteen hundred, for all of Louisiana, not just New Orleans. And it's hard to argue with this:

None of this is to say that the federal government and the Bush administration didn’t make mistakes. But, if we’re looking for poster children for arrogant incompetence in response to Katrina, there are better candidates than George W. Bush.

The media lied, people died!

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:12 AM

May 15, 2006
The Okinawa Quagmire

I haven't had time or inspiration to write one of these lately (and I'm actually still working on compiling previous efforts in a book in my non-copious free time), but Victor Davis Hanson (who actually started this and originally inspired me with his Pearl Harbor piece back in ought one) wonders anew how today's media would cover WW II.

It is not out of “Roosevelt hating,” but out of the need for truth that requires this paper to remind the American people that Mr. Roosevelt, in whose hands our collective fate lies, has been untruthful to his wife about his liaisons, untruthful to the American people about the extent of his crippling illness, and thus, not surprisingly, untruthful to the United States Congress about the extent of our prewar involvement with the British Empire in its European war and the secret nature of our present commitments.
Recently we have learned that President Roosevelt, the former law school dropout, once again has violated basic freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Supposed German suspects were subject to military tribunals, tried in secret, and then executed. Tens of thousands of Italians, Germans, and Japanese war captives are detained in hundreds of American prison compounds, without charges and often in secret. How many were truly captured in uniform, and under what conditions, is never disclosed.

Unfortunately this violation of American values comes not in isolation, but on the heels of the unlawful internment of thousands of American citizens in Western concentration camps, the cover-up of the Cobra disaster in Normandy and the criminally negligent killing of General McNair, and still more rumors that hundreds of American soldiers perished in secret in training exercises on the eve of the Normandy invasion. Yet, the American people to this day have no precise idea how many of their enlisted men and officers have been killed, much less where they perished or how.

Indeed, what little we know comes to light only due to the brave efforts of a few unnamed operatives in the Office of Strategic Services who have in secret provided such information concerning patently illegal activities to the responsible news organizations.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AM

May 09, 2006
Another Story That Wasn't

Why don't we hear more about the Israelis saving the Palestinian leader from assassination by Hamas?

Obviously, this report is very uncomfortable for those "cycle of violence" types who insist on finding moral equivalence in the Palestinian/Israeli violence. It's also another unpleasant slice of reality for supporters of democratizing the Middle East to observe, yet again, that the Palestinians have freely chosen a government of incorrigible murderers (to replace the last bunch of incorrigible murderers). But it is what it is — Hamas plotting to kill Abbas is a big deal.
Imagine what the coverage would be like if the PA security forces (such as they are) had stopped a terrorist attempt to kill a high Israeli official. (I know, I know — but remember, I said "imagine".) Would there be enough space in all of media for the resulting laudatory stories?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:29 AM

April 24, 2006
Playing With Sock Puppets

"If they can’t grasp this simple issue, do you think it is possible that the New York Times and the LA Times are missing the point in complex issues like Iraq?…energy policy?…border control?…taxes?…WMD?…terrorism?"

From comment number five here.

Between the Hiltzik story and the continual attempt to link the McCarthy treachery to Scooter Libby, I can't recall a week in which the bias and incompetence of the biggest papers in the country was so glaringly on display.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:09 PM

April 22, 2006
Fifth Columnist Fired

I wonder why this story broke on a Friday afternoon?

In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday.
The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC has learned.

Intelligence sources tell NBC News the accused officer, Mary McCarthy, worked in the CIA’s inspector general’s office and had worked for the National Security Council under the Clinton and and George W. Bush administrations.

Lots of other links and commentary can be found here.

I wonder how many others in the CIA consider their own administration to be a greater enemy than the Jihadis?

Despite the timing, I suspect that it will simmer over the weekend and explode next week. I hope that she'll be prosecuted and (if guilty) jailed as well. But expect the media to defend her as a noble "whistleblower."

Just as a reminder, here are the standard MSM definitions:

"Illegal Leaker": someone who recklessly, and in defiance of our national security, releases information that could possible be perceived to help the administration smear and damage the careers of selfless people who are only telling the truth about its warmongering avarice and mendacity.

"Whistleblower": someone who nobly risks retribution and persecution by exposing ongoing and egregious assaults on human rights by the war-mongering, "selected not elected" theocrats in power in Washington.

Guess I'll have to update my media glossary.

[Update at 3:30 PM MST]

This is amazing, and a clue into how the media is going to cover this story. Whose picture acccompanies the story? Not the fired CIA employee. Not the Pulitzer-winning reporter that she leaked it to. No, there's only one CIA leaker that matters.

It's Scooter Libby, of course, though neither he, or his situation, or anything related to it, is mentioned nowhere in the story.

I can't believe that this is going to stay up like this, so I've grabbed a screenshot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 PM

April 13, 2006
No Media Bias Here

For a textbook case, let's dissect this story, from the San Francisco Chronicle. Start with the hed:

Democrat leads in bid to claim GOP House seat
Rep. Cunningham was convicted of taking bribes

Note that it's a two parter. The first is about the election, the other is old news, but it never hurts to remind the readers that, you know, Republicans Are Corrupt. It's that old "culture of corruption" thing (recall that this is Nancy Pelosi's hometown rag).

Now while it's true that the Democrat got more votes than anyone else in the race, it's misleading, because it gives you no hint as to what will actually happen in the election in June, but you'd think from the headline that the Dem is the front runner. Here's the real story, buried about halfway down:

Busby, a Cardiff school board member and daughter of an Italian sausagemaker, received 44 percent of the vote by spotlighting a proposed ethics policy that would bar lawmakers from secretly meeting, taking money or accepting gifts from lobbyists, "no exceptions."
The Republican vote was divided among 14 GOP candidates, with Bilbray finishing with 15 percent of the vote, about 900 votes ahead of Roach, according to election-night figures.

Emphasis mine.

In other words, the one Democrat running in the race could only muster 44% of the vote. Unless she can somehow persuade seven percent of the district electorate (or at least of those voting in this election) that are Republicans to vote for her instead of the eventual Republican candidate, she doesn't have a prayer of winning, despite the implication of the headline. That 44% is her max, unless they can somehow increase donkey turnout, and decrease Republican. But the readers of the Chron have to figure this out, because the paper is not only not going to tell them, it's going to attempt to imply that she actually has a chance.

Of course, this kind of cocooning is exactly why the Dems continue to lose each election, and be chronically (pun intended) disappointed--they continue to overhype their chances to their base, both from the official party organization and from their accomplices in the newsrooms.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:55 PM

April 06, 2006
Yo, Idiot

Yeah, you, Pete Yost. I know you guys in the Washington press corps are leak happy, but here's a free clue, for future stories of this nature: if the president authorizes it, it's not a "leak."

[Update a few minutes later]

Apparently the original version of this story claimed that the president authorized the "leak" of Valerie Plame's name (a little wishful thinking, huh, guys?). That one has been changed to this one, which is still wrong in its terminology of "leak." I'll keep a screenshot to see if it changes again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:08 AM

A Potential Waste

Zeyad is coming to the US. That's good.

He's going to study journalism. That, not so much.

Jeff says that he's a "born journalist." If so, why need he study journalism?

Will he learn things in journalism school that actually make him a better journalist? Will he learn things that make him a worse one? Will he have to unlearn some of them to find his full potential?

No secret--I'm not a big fan of the major of journalism. I think of it as a metadegree, a pseudodegree, and one that in fact is probably almost as damaging and counterproductive as a degree in education, in which all of the training is about how to convey information, whereas very little actual information to convey is learned. Were it up to me, neither of these would even exist as majors, or schools.

If he persists in this, I hope that he'll be sure to take some classes that aren't required in a journalism curriculum, like statistics, and history, and logic, and solid training in basic science. And for the history classes, I hope that he can find a non-leftist instructor.

Good luck to him.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here's a relevant piece in today's Journal (sorry, subscribers only, but I think it goes free after a week):

...a band of Democratic-leaning thinkers wants to reclaim the issue. Their proposal, unveiled yesterday, is simple: Get rid of bad teachers and reward good ones.
Simple, in this case, is significant on two counts. First, the proposal publicly confronts teachers' unions, an influential Democratic Party constituency, with the fact that bad teachers are part of the problem...

...[it] rests on several arguments: that the current practice of demanding certification based on teacher-training courses has outlived its usefulness, that routinely granting teachers lifetime tenure after two or three years is stupid, and that student test scores and other systemic ways to evaluate teachers are now good enough to act on.

Good for them. And good luck with that. I can already hear the howls and cries of "treason" from the NEA.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:50 AM

April 04, 2006
Defiance Of Physics And Sense

As I've noted before, I have no interest in seeing King Kong. One of the reasons was that I was afraid that it would be just like this:

Take the battle with the T-Rexes. (Three!) Kong saves whatsername from a T-Rex, who’s just abandoned a nice big freshly-killed fellow-saur to run after what would, in Rex dining terms, be a breadstick. He chases her down through the forest, which she nimbly negotiates, but just as he’s about to eat her – he pauses, of course, to roar, one of those little ticks that evolution finely honed in their predatory instincts – Kong comes flying from the County of God-Knows-Where and picks her up, violently whipping her around, snapping her neck and pureeing several internal organs . . . no, strike that, she’s okay. So he battles the T-Rex, and then another one shows up, and everyone’s Kong Fu Fighting, his moves are fast as lightning, et cetera, until ANOTHER T-Rex shows up.
Kong pretty much dusts the guys, even though he takes a couple of bites on the arm – he shakes it off! He’s okay, folks! T-Rex teeth, which are capable of cutting through a fresh battleship, have no power over monkey skin. Then he pushes them down a slope and they go falling off a cliff, but he falls too, with Faye Rae screaming her head off, but vines cushion the blow. Yes, vines! Special lost-world vines capable of holding twenty tons of ape. Did I say 20? Make that 60, because two T-Rexes are also caught in the vines, and then there’s another fight for, oh, sixteen minutes or so. Eventually everyone falls to the ground and there’s another 48 minute battle, and at the end that’s when the blonde realizes that Kong has saved her, and she loves him.

As Lileks notes, there's only so much ability to suspend disbelief. I had the same problem with the thermodynamics of Godzilla, and its apparently ability to tear chunks of concrete off the sides of skyscrapers as it ran through the streets of New York, with no apparent damage to its meaty haunches and shoulders. And then there was Spiderman, in which we're supposed to believe that not only does Spidey have superhuman strength (which is OK, because he was, you know, bit by a radioactive spider), but so do Mary Jane and Aunt May, as they're whipped around on cables.

I have to say that this kind of thing bothered me about Serenity as well, though I still enjoyed the movie.

They're going to this planet in the middle of Reaverland, which turns out to be a floating junkyard of ghouls, ships so close that you can barely squeeze through them, right? This completely ignores the issue that space is, as the late Douglas Adams noted, big. Really big. So why didn't they just go around? Or was it like this in a huge, continuous sphere all around the planet? Where did they come up with enough derelict ships and Reavers to do that? And how did they stay there when they'd be in continuously intersecting orbits? Or was the part that wasn't chockfullareavers mined somehow?

Joss doesn't explain, and it makes no sense. Instead of being frightened by the scene, on the edge of my seat in suspense about whether or not they'll be spotted and skinned alive, I'm sitting there wondering why they're doing this.

As Lileks says, at least be consistent, and if there's something that seems incongruous, at least come up with an explanation for it. It's not that hard.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:25 AM

April 02, 2006
Find The Missing Word

Here's a story about thousands of youths starting to attack protestors and others in Paris.

Pumped up by news coverage, these youths boast of trying to steal mobile phones and money and vow to take revenge for the daily humiliation they say they endure from the police...
...The police and independent analysts say that most of the vandalism and violence that has marred the protests has been by young men, largely immigrants or the children of immigrants, from tough, underprivileged suburbs, who roam in groups and have little else to keep them busy.

Funny, nowhere in the article can one determine the country from which these "youths" immigrated, or what their religious background might be. One might almost think it irrelevant to the story. But I suspect that it's not...

And what kind of moral midgetry is at work here?

In live coverage of the mass protests in Paris, CNN compared the protests to the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising in Beijing. What worries the authorities now is that the targets of anger are shifting, moving beyond attacks on property to attacks on people as well.

Let's see, in one case we have throngs of peaceful protests of people seeking liberty, brutally put down by an army with tanks. In the other, we have rampaging young men, nihilistically smashing, stealing and burning property, and brutally attacking its owners, seeking nothing but gratification and destruction. That's how I'd compare them, anyway. But then, I'm not CNN.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:13 AM

March 31, 2006
Pot And Kettle

Amidst exposing other media myths about Iraq, Victor Davis Hanson points out the irony of a press corps that repeatedly accuses the Bush administration of incompetence:

Weigh that success [in Iraq] against the behavior of the media that sees mostly American incompetence. At CBS, Dan Rather insisted to us that a clearly forged memo, but one that fit his own ideological agenda, was authentic. Michael Isikoff relied on one anonymous — and unreliable — source about the purported desecration of a Koran that had serious consequences for thousands in the Middle East. CNN’s executive Eason Jordan admitted that his network passed on coverage of a mass-murdering Saddam Hussein — and later he wrongly alleged that the American military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq.
Now we hear Time Baghdad Bureau Chief Michael Ware, in a drunken, live interview (“In fact, I'm drinking now…I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here”) from the heart of dry Muslim Iraq, recklessly throwing around charges that American soldiers are guilty of manhandling Iraqi women (“We've seen allegations that women have been mishandled or roughly handled. That always inflames passions”) and terrorizing civilians (“We've also seen insurgents criticize other insurgent groups, 'cause you're not doing enough to get the chicks out! I mean, that's how important it can be, this is a matter of great honor, and it's a spark”). Ware’s are precisely the lies and fantasies that feed the Islamists.

Indeed, the better example of ineptitude in this war lies with the media that demands from others apologies for incompetence that it will never offer itself. Few professions today ask so much of so many others and so very little of themselves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:08 AM

March 29, 2006
Another Story The Media Refuses To Cover

"Hillary's Chappaquiddick."

Gosh, in some ways, it still seems like the nineties.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:28 AM

March 24, 2006
"Mixed Messages"

Tim Graham has probably found the words that turned John Green's stomach:

My concerns about the senator is that, in the course of this campaign, I've been listening very carefully to what he says, and he changes positions on the war in Iraq. He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq. You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens.

I guess the truth hurts. Or at least makes you queasy, if you're part of the liberal elite.

And speaking of the liberal elite, Victor Davis Hanson is appropriately hard on them, and Michael Ware in particular:

HH: So with this in mind...again, I stress he's the Baghdad bureau chief of Time Magazine, at one time the most influential magazine in the West, I believe. What is the disease in the media? Where did it come from?
VDH: I think it came to be frank between the journalism schools, the academic training of a lot of the people, and this affluent, elite culture, to be frank, that comes out of the unversities on the left and right coasts, that's divorced from the tragic view, because these people are not...they don't open hardware stores. They don't service cars. They've never worked physically with their hands. They have an idea in this international culture of the West that somehow, all of their affluence, all of their travel, all of their freedom came out of a head of Zeus, and it's not dependent on the U.S. military, the United States role in the world. They have no appreciation for the very system that birthed and maintained them. And they've had this sort of sick cynicism, nihilism, skepticism, and the height of their affluence and leisure, that they don't have any gratitude at all, which is really one of the most important human attributes. Humility to say you know, I'm very lucky to be a Westerner, and have certain freedoms. And that's why he cannot appreciate what we're trying to do in Iraq, because he has no appreciation of the very idea that he can jet out of Baghdad anytime he wants on a Western jet that's going to get him safely to a Western country, where he's going to be protected, that the people in Iraq want that same thing that he doesn't seem to appreciate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AM

March 23, 2006
Yeah, Like This Is News

Bush makes an ABC executive "want to puke."

Hey, find me some network types who don't hate Bush, and then get back to me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:14 PM

The Most Mistrusted Name In News

Gallup has dropped its partnership with CNN for polling. Another of the MSM flagships continues to sink into the waves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:27 AM

March 22, 2006
Double Standard?

Need you ask?

I guess not all Gold Star mothers have (in Maureen Dowd's memorable words) "absolute moral authority." Apparently only the nutcases like Cindy Sheehan do, perhaps because they tell the press what they want to hear:

Julia Conover lost her son, Marine Lance Cpl. Brandon Dewey, to a suicide bomber in Iraq exactly two months ago to the day Monday. She, too, attended the Modesto funeral of Lance Cpl. Long. She’s an active member of the Gold Star families group and plans to travel to Iraq soon to visit the land she said Brandon heroically fought to liberate.
San Jose reporters spoke with her, she said, but didn’t use her comments.

“They didn’t like what I had to say,” she figured. “They said that because I had just lost my son, that I couldn’t be impartial about my feelings toward the war.”

While the pain of her son’s Jan. 20 death is still sharp, she’s convinced that there are good reasons for the war and that her son died for a noble cause. She still has a daughter in the U.S. Navy.

Yes, only Cindy Sheehan is impartial about her feelings toward the war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:39 PM

March 21, 2006
The Other Civil War

How come the media isn't 24/7 about this "civil war"?

Eyewitnesses said most of those wounded in Monday's fighting in the Gaza Strip were policemen who tried to prevent Fatah gunmen from taking over government buildings and security installations. The two sides exchanged gunfire for several hours in scenes that many Palestinians said were reminiscent of the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970s.

Probably because they can't figure out a way to pin it on America, and George Bush. They're probably even having trouble fingering Israel for it, though that's usually a piece of cake for them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:48 PM

March 20, 2006
Advice For Aspiring Journalists

From an entertaining Jonah G-File:

Generic punditry is easy. Opinions are like Eric Alterman, everybody has one. Oh, wait, that’s not quite right. But you know what I mean. And lots of people can write well or well enough. But new facts — known in some circles as “news” — is always in demand. Liberalism inherited an incredibly valuable tradition from the muckrakers. The Washington Monthly, The New Republic, et al. cultivate reporters. Journalism — exposing existing evils — is almost an inherently liberal vocation. Conservatives tend to be attracted to normal professions. And the young conservatives who want to get into journalism tend to want to be philosopher types. We’ve got plenty of those. What we don’t have is a lot of young(er) Byron Yorks. We need more Yorks. A good reporter can go into punditry whenever he or she wants. If you’re in college and want to be a journalist, do not study journalism or even English. The former is a waste of money, the latter a waste of time — if you want to be a journalist. Learn a language, get some expertise about something other people don’t know about. Even if you want to be the conservative Walter Lippmann, studying how to write instead of learning interesting stuff to write about is a waste of time. If you must, you can always go to one of the clubhouse j-schools after college. Knowing stuff is the best way to get opinions about stuff. More importantly, it makes your opinions more interesting.

This, in a nutshell, is why the best of the blogosphere runs rings around most journalism.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:27 AM

Shoddy

I wasn't sure whether to categorize this as space, or media criticism. Jeff Foust reviews what sounds like kind of a mess of an article about NASA's space exploration plans at Rolling Stone. Don't these people have fact checkers? If I were a journalist working in a subject area unfamiliar to me, I'd run the piece past some people who might be expected to know what they're talking about, and I'd be embarrassed to get so much wrong in print.

But that's just me. I guess they don't mind being viewed as foolish by those more knowledgable.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:32 AM

March 17, 2006
Dogs And Cats Living Together

Hannity, Colmes and Greta are defending Larry King against his own management at CNN.

Which reminds me of his near interview with Osama a few years ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AM

Schadenfreude

Moody's is downgrading the Gray Lady's debt ratings. And in a Mickey-Rooney/Shirley-Temple, "let's put on a show" moment, employees of the San Jose Mercury News are putting up a web site to "save our paper."

It's dead, Jim.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 AM

Journalists' Credibility

In comments to this post, John Kelly of Florida Today writes:

As for Ken's contention that "blogs" are where facts go in and better facts come out, well, we like to start at the highest possible level of accuracy. We understand that we never have the whoe story when we publish and that the story can change when additional facts to come to life. This can lead to an admittedly more cautious approach to publishing than you see in "blogs," where the assumption that the material is opinion protects the author against inaccuracies or even unwarranted criticism or allegations. It can always be protected as opinion and free speech. If we do that too often in our newspaper or on Internet sites owned and operated by our newspaper, we run the risk of losing credibility. I'm not saying this is the case with yours or any other specific blog, butI think in general there is as much a credibility problem with blogs as in mainstream journalism. Wouldn't you agree?

That's far too broad a statement to agree or disagree with. It's like saying, "there is as much a credibility problem with people as there is with mainstream journalism."

Some blogs have credibility problems. Some news outlets have credibility problems. In most cases, the respective bloggers and the news outlets brought said problems on themselves.

But the credibility problems rarely come merely from posting something early and mistaken, and then correcting it as new facts come to light. They come from publishing something wrong (sometimes with an obvious agenda), and then stonewalling about it (as CBS did for days, and really even to date), or denying obvious bias in their reporting or blogging. Once one gives up the pretense of "objective journalism," and shows a willingness to quickly correct the record as prominently as it was originally reported (something that the MSM seems for some reason loathe to do, preferring instead to bury corrections to front-page stories deep in the food section), much or all can be forgiven.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:26 AM

An Incurious Press

I never fail to be amused by the insane notion that the press was out to get Bill Clinton during his presidency. In fact, they struggled mightily to avoid reporting on his and Hillary's more egregious activities, and when forced to, usually helped the first couple by eagerly putting the best positive spin on them. As evidence of the former, Thomas Lipscomb asks why, with all of the reporting on private dick (multiple meanings to that word in this case) to the stars Anthony Pellicano, no one seems interested in mentioning the most interesting connection:

Numerous unbiased accounts of the Clintons have repeatedly stressed the importance of Hillary’s role in having the good sense to understand the danger the “bimbo eruptions” represented to her blasé husband and to deal with them before they got out of hand. And there were a lot of strange occurrences surrounding the Paula Jones case, Kathleen Willey’s dead cat and the alleged Brodderick [sic] rape case. Did the current front-running Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton hire or direct any or all of Anthony Pellicano’s activities in her particular known area of interest?
You have to totally lack journalistic curiosity or be brain dead to miss an opportunity like this. And those are the more attractive possibilities. After all, if reporters continue to dance around such an obvious matter with a Presidential election looming every time another Pellicano story comes up, one would think an editor somewhere would set them straight. So far none have. Do a Lexis search for all the Pellicano stories in MSM. Now do a Google search on Pellicano and Hillary Clinton. Try to match them. Sad, isn’t it?

It is.

[Via Mickey]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:10 AM

March 16, 2006
Journalist Bloggers

In the previous post in which I introduced (some of) my readership to the new space blog over at Florida Today, I mentioned the kerfuffle going on between Todd Halvorson and NASA Watch, but it occurs to me that this is a good example of the difference between conventional journalism and blogging. Keith has a valid point when he writes:

Gee Todd, let's read my post a little more carefully, OK? And wouldn't it be useful for your readers to have a link to the actual post you are referring to - and not have them rely only on what you want them to think I wrote?

When I scroll down all of the blog posts at The Flame Trench, I see not a single link, to anything. It is all conventional "reporting" where the reporter has learned something, via whatever methods he or she has, and then broadcasts it to The Rest Of Us. The only difference is that the stories are shorter, and not put up on any kind of schedule. This is not blogging--it's journalism in a different format.

There's nothing wrong with it per se, but it's considered de rigeur in the blogosphere, when commenting on someone else's post, to provide a link to it, so that the readers can, as Keith says, go look and judge for themselves if it's being properly characterized. And over the years, I've noticed that mainstream journalists are very bad at this, because they tend to have a reluctance to reveal "source material"--a habit that carries over in many cases to their blogging, when they decide to try their hand at it. Of course, in some cases, it's because the journalist is being duplicitous, and doesn't want people to be able to easily discern that (though I'm sure that wasn't the intent here). In this case, of course, it's ridiculous, because the source material is on the web, and anyone with a little effort can go see for themselves anyway, because Todd does say that it's at NASA Watch.

Just consider this friendly advice to people who, while they may be justifiably successful journalists, are apparently still novices when it comes to blogging.

[Update on Friday morning]

Now that's a blog post. And I can see the links just fine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:55 PM

Good News

24/7. Really.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM

March 15, 2006
Bleg To Journalism Majors

For a book I'm working on. Does anyone out there have any stories of "progressive" indoctrination as part of required courses (or just in general) in journalism schools? Email me (address at top left) if you don't want to post publicly. The question is prompted by this post about the phenomenon in schools of education.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:59 AM

Ouch

La Seipp, on Nikki Finke:

How hath the crazy fallen, I thought when I noticed L.A. Weekly columnist/pretend lawyer Nikki Finke now has a blog, because of course Nikki has long been dismissive of the blogosphere. She also, at least until fairly recently, has been ignorant of basic blogospheric knowledge that the IP addresses of commenters are easily checked. So for instance if you post once here under the name Nikki Finke, and then again pretending to be a lawyer threatening me with libel for insulting Nikki Finke, it might be better to post that second comment from someone else's computer. I guess that's inconvenient, though, if you rarely leave the house. I haven't seen Nikki in years, probably because these days she looks like Jabba the Hut, if you can imagine Jabba after he's said to hell with the diets already.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 AM

February 24, 2006
SpaceWar.com Off Google

Simon Mansfield reports that his publication SpaceWar.com, one of his SpaceDaily family of web sites is no longer having its pages served by Google. Strangely, if you search for "Space War" you find lots of sites linking to http://www.spacewar.com, but if you search for sites linking to www.spacewar.com, the search comes up empty. To enforce Google's "Don't be evil" policy, I don't think Google's robots are smart enough to parse the following:

<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="war, death, destruction, ruin, hate, bad bad bad">

which have been in the keywords section for years. (Load this page and view source to see it last year.)

Space.TV corp, SpaceWar.com's parent isn't taking this lying down. "We consider the ban a violation of the recently enacted US-Australia Free Trade Agreement." We wish them a fruitful trade war.

2006-02-25 09:55 Update: It's back up and running. See Simon's comment.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 06:59 AM

Selective Sampling?

Hey, I'm as big a critic of the MSM as anyone, but this strikes me as a little underhanded:

...regarding the Gillette Fusion, some men clearly will like it and others won’t. But concerning objective commentary, once again bloggers show why so many people now turn to them in preference to the mainstream media.

So, they find three snarky mentions in the MSM, and then find three "objective" and "serious" reviews in the blogosphere, and somehow conclude that the MSM is frivolous, and the blogosphere serious and useful?

Sorry, not buying it--that's called "cherry picking the data." If they'd done some kind of exhaustive research, with numbers (e.g., 85 MSM mentions, 12 serious reviews vs 320 blog reviews, with 231 of them serious), they might have a case, but I'll bet I could could play their game by going and finding three "serious" reviews in the papers, and three snark-filled screeds from the blogs, and making exactly the opposite "case."

Which in fact is what critics of the blogosphere often do. Let's not lower ourselves to their level.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:58 AM

February 21, 2006
(Self) Selected, Not Elected

And they don't represent me. I didn't know that David Gregory was my proxy (or even that he fantasized that he was), but if so, I revoke it too.

In fact, let's start a Google campaign. David Gregory, I revoke my proxy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:54 AM

February 17, 2006
Not The Headline I Would Have Chosen

"Man Shot By Cheney Leaving Hospital"

Guess he was just finishing the job.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jane Bernstein points out that they've already fixed it.

But this time, I kept a screenshot of the original (though it lost a little quality in the conversion to jpeg to put on my server--I still have the full bitmap).

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:17 PM

February 16, 2006
Amateurs

Glenn asks if blogging is going to lose its freshness as more (though still not many) bloggers start to make a living at it. He's not worried, though:

...why are so many people doing it? Because it's fun! And fun is good.
That's a good reason to do all sorts of things. Press accounts tend to focus on making money (perhaps because many journalists dream of walking away from their day jobs, and editors?) but money is only one reason we do things, and usually not the most important. As people get richer, and technology gets more capable, I think we'll see a lot more people doing for fun things that previously were done only for money. And I think that's a good thing.

Speaking of journalists, it's easy to see why they're both fascinated by, and frightened of blogs and bloggers. I suspect that it's because journalism is something that doesn't seem to take much skill to do well (at least as well as its largely done), or if it is, most journalists don't seem to be up to the job. It's kind of like Hollywood (or has been, up to now)--it's not so much what you know, or how much talent you have, but who you know, and how lucky you are. But the days in which a clueless journalism major could (by whatever means) get a job in the industry, and not have to worry about competition are coming, or have come, to an end.

The problem is that journalists, as a class, are rarely experts in any particular field. We always used to say in the tech proposal business that it was easier to take an engineer and teach her to write, than to take an English major and teach him engineering (there are exceptions, of course, particularly when the English major took some science classes on the side). Same applies to journalism, and any sort of expertise. The best journalists, particularly those who specialize in certain areas, such as science, or finance, are generally people who came from those fields to journalism, as opposed to being journalism majors.

It's been noted that the blogosphere is chock full of people who know things (not to mention lawyers and law professors who know how to make logical arguments, against which many journalists are utterly helpless, at least to go by the Cory Peins, not to mention Mary Mapes of the world), and this was dramatically demonstrated to journalism's detriment in the Ra^thergate affair. And now that bloggers have pulled the curtain from the journalism wizard, many journalists' dreams (to whatever degree they exist) of "walking away" and just making money blogging will probably go unfulfilled, because it's not at all clear what they will bring to the table.

For these reasons, if there is a flow of talent between blogging and professional journalism, I expect it to be largely in one direction--from the former to the latter--because that's the direction that the osmotic pressure of the talent and knowledge will dictate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:54 AM

February 13, 2006
All The News Not Fit To Print

An Iraqi mayor gives thanks to America and its troops:

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi’s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

Of course, he's probably just another imperialist Amerikkkan tool.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:18 PM

Down The Memory Hole

Gaaahhhh...

They've changed the story. Note same link as before, but all references to Wilson and the 2003 SOTU have been deleted, just as I feared they would (thanks to emailer Abigail Brayden). Guess that story never even happened.

And of all the bad luck, I'd been keeping the original one open in a window, just in case they did this. But I had a computer freezeup this morning, had to reboot (thanks, Microsoft!) and I hadn't captured a screenshot.

But as the Abigail points out, what they did was redirect the original link to the new story. The old one is still there, with a new URL.

Interesting. Here's something else interesting. The Deseret News has a version of the story from Friday in which the wording has been changed to make it more accurate. It now reads:

Wilson's revelations cast doubt on President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear bomb and had sought to buy uranium in Africa as one of the administration's key justifications for going to war in Iraq.

I wonder who edited that one, and if it was in response to blogospheric complaints? And, of course, still no response from AP to my email.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:19 AM

February 11, 2006
No Response From AP

Yesterday, after noting the false reporting on the president's 2003 SOTU address, I attempted to contact the reporter directly. Unfortunately, AP doesn't make this very easy to do. If you go their contact page, it just says that for any queries to correspondents, to send an email to info@ap.org. I should also note that the reporter is not listed under any of the categories I checked (national reporting, news features, or regional reporters). (S)he may be a freelancer.

So anyway, I sent the following email to that address:

In this AP story (link from Yahoo), the reporter writes:
"Wilson's revelations cast doubt on President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon as one of the administration's key justifications for going to war in Iraq."

Wilson's "revelations" (read, in large part, proven lies) couldn't have done this, because, the president did not make such a claim. Go back and read the address.

He said that the British government had learned that Saddam had *attempted* to purchase uranium from *Africa*. He didn't say that the attempt had succeeded, and there was no mention of Niger (Africa is a very big continent). This is an ongoing media myth that AP has a responsibility to quash, not promulgate.

It's about twenty-four hours later, and I've not even received an acknowledgment of the email, let alone a substantive response. Down the memory hole, I guess.

I note the irony of the large-font words on the contact page: "We Welcome Your Feedback." I guess they do, as long as we understand that it's apparently the information equivalent of sending it into a black hole.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:20 AM

February 10, 2006
The Big Lie Continues

AP continues to promulgate the myth:

Wilson's revelations cast doubt on President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon as one of the administration's key justifications for going to war in Iraq.

Of course, it wasn't possible for Joe Wilson to cast doubt on such a claim, because President Bush never made such a claim, in the SOTU or elsewhere, but that never seems to stop these people. Why do they continue to think they can get away with this, when anyone can go read that speech?

We've been over this many times, but apparently, it's necessary to do so again. Here are the sixteen words:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That's it. It doesn't say that uranium was sold to Iraq, it doesn't say Niger. It says that the British government has learned about attempts to purchase uranium from Africa. Africa is a big place. Nowhere in the speech does it claim that the attempts were successful, and nowhere in the speech is Niger mentioned. The sentence, as written in the AP story, is completely false, but many persist in believing it, because apparently it confirms their prejudices. In their minds, it's "fake but accurate."

We need to call out Ms. Locy and her editor on this.

As to the story about Libby testifying that Cheney told him to release classified info, I'll wait for some actual facts to come out, rather than rumors from unnamed sources.

[Update in the afternoon]

Powerline says that the story about Libby leaks of classified info is much ado about not much:

The NIE has been declassified since the summer of 2003, and we have quoted from it many times since then. These proceedings from the House of Representatives show that the NIE had been declassified no later than July 21, 2003. So it's not exactly a mystery whether "that happened in this instance." There are only two alternatives here: either AP reporters are too lazy to spend 30 seconds on Google to educate themselves as to what happened during the ancient history of 2003, or they write articles that are deliberately misleading.

Or outright false, as demonstrated above.

[Saturday morning update]

I've still received no response from the AP on this matter.

[Monday update]

They've redirected that URL to a new version of the story, absent the misstatements.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AM

February 08, 2006
They All Look Alike To Him

NBC Brian Williams couldn't tell the difference between Barack Obama and Harold Ford.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:02 AM

January 22, 2006
Now That's Confusion

In States of Confusion in today's New York Times, we find the following paragraph:

Abortion-rights states would undoubtedly respond in kind [if other states made out of state abortion a crime]. For example, Rhode Island, where 63 percent of residents favor abortion rights, has rebuffed efforts at regulation in the past. Just as Utah could make it a crime for a resident to go to Rhode Island for an abortion, Rhode Island could forbid Utah's law-enforcement officials from interfering with her decision to get one. Similarly, if an anti-abortion state places a fetus in protective custody, an abortion-rights state might do the same for the woman. And so on.

How does putting a woman in protective custody help her?

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 12:43 AM

January 14, 2006
Turnabout's Fair Play?

Not really. Cathy Young says that the American Thinker piece that I linked the other day gave the New York Times treatment to the New York Times:

It's true that liberals who accuse Bush of ushering in a police state forget that it was the Clinton administration that first pushed for a rather dramatic expansion of surveillance and other government powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. (Conservatives are prone to forget it as well.) But that's a far cry from the blatant double standard Tate claims to have detected. So the bloggers might want to hold off on the gloating about hypocrisy and media bias; all that's exposed here is a very shoddy attempt at an exposé.

I frankly didn't take the time to delve into it the way she has, but I thought it was worth linking to, regardless. I link, you decide.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AM

January 13, 2006
Another Fox

...goes to Fox. FNC has finally picked up Rudi (link slightly work unsafe). The smart folks at CNN can read the handwriting on the wall.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PM

No Sauce For The Gander

Apparently, the NYT is fine with unwarranted domestic spying, as long as there's a Democrat in the White House, and we aren't at war.

Speaking of which, I wonder if there's any relationship between the Times' unilateral (though they had accomplices, if not allies) decision a few weeks ago to tell the enemy how we're tracking their communications, and this:

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.

The timing is certainly suspicious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:59 AM

January 06, 2006
We Have A Winner

Treacher announces the results of his search for a new word for Mapesonian news stories.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:37 AM

January 01, 2006
Too Bad They Didn't

Jay Rosen notes that:

On Dec. 20, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times reported that “editors at the paper were actively considering running the story about the wiretaps before Bush’s November showdown with Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.”

I wonder why they didn't? At first glance, given their partisan behavior in general at least since the beginning of the Bush administration, one would have thought that it would be a slam-dunk decision, just as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' tilting at the AWOL windmill occurred a few weeks before the election.

But perhaps they had the political acumen to realize that it might backfire on them. Consider--the Democrats were trying (however pathetically), by nominating an anti-war (and anti-military) protestor who picked up some medals in Vietnam for three months, to indicate that they were finally serious about national security, an issue that has dogged them since the era of said protestor--1972. Did they really want, in wartime, to be seen as criticizing the president for intercepting enemy communications, warrantless or otherwise? Was there someone in charge then who was prescient as to the potential blowback of this story, who is no longer?

If so, he (or, of course, she) has certainly been shown to be right in retrospect, and if they had pulled this stunt during the campaign, given his recent surge in approval and the Dems corresponding drop, Bush's victory margin would likely have been even larger.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:16 AM

December 30, 2005
It's Bush's Fault

Jim Oberg points out in email that AP has a misleading statement in this story about the European Galileo positioning system:

The $4 billion Galileo project will eventually use about 30 satellites and is expected to more than double GPS coverage, providing satellite navigation for everyone from motorists to sailors to mapmakers. Because Galileo is under civilian control, the ESA also says it can guarantee operation at almost all times, unlike the American system.
Last year, President Bush ordered plans for temporarily disabling GPS satellites during national crises to prevent terrorists from using the navigational technology.

The juxtaposition of these two statements implies that it's the Bush administration's actions that have caused Europe to embark on this boondoggle. This is nutty, of course, because the program has been in planning for years, and could hardly be a response to something that the administration did a year ago--it's almost a non-sequitur. In fact, as Jim points out, it was actually caused by the Clinton administration's actions in not just planning to, but actually shutting down the system during the Balkans wars. But they can't bring themselves to mention that, of course.

Jim notes:

Maybe it's just me, but such omissions and slants in general AP stories have gotten more and more noticeable.

It's not just you, Jim.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Oh, and speaking of double standards, Michael Scheuer has admitted that Al Qaeda renditions began under the Clinton administration. But of course, it only made us into a police state when a Republican president is in office, and we're at war.

I'd take a lot of these critics and fair-weather civil libertarians more seriously if I'd heard from them in the nineties, when Janet Reno was attacking churches with tanks, and snatching kids at gunpoint, the administration was collecting FBI files and leaking data against its political enemies, trumping up charges against innocent people so they could replace them with cronies, destroying evidence of wrongdoing in emails, threatening and libeling inconvenient women, etc.

You know, when we weren't at war? Well, other than at war against the evil right wingers...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:43 PM

The Left Side Of The Satellite Dish

Debbie Schlussel writes about the politically correct program directors at XM satellite radio.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:40 AM

Finally

Well, the Justice Department is apparently looking into the leaks:

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.

I'm sure that the media will be cheering on the prosecutor to find the culprit(s), who care so little about our national security, just as they did in the notorious "outing" of "covert CIA agent" Valerie Plame.

Right? Right?

I wonder if they have any suspects? I'm thinking maybe someone over on the north side of the Hill. Last name Rockefeller? Or Hagel?

I hope we'll see how long some other NYT and WaPo reporters/editors are willing to sit in the hoosegow to protect their sources.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AM

December 28, 2005
Ho Hum

A couple friends were visiting on Christmas day, and asked me what I thought of the French riots, now that they were over and we had a little perspective. I replied that I wasn't at all sure that they were over, just that they weren't being reported much any more. Turns out I was right, if this report is correct.

It's simply become part of the media background now, and is no longer news, any more than gang murders in the inner cities. In fact, if there weren't such a need to continue to make Iraq look like an irremediable, unmitigated ongoing disaster for a hated Republican administration, the occasional terrorist bombings there wouldn't (and shouldn't) any longer be news either.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:36 AM

Virgin Reporting Watch

Consider the fact that more than 100 people have already plunked down $200,000 apiece for a seat on a Virgin Galactic spaceflight and thousands more have already placed a total of $11 million in deposits for a chance at manned spaceflight.
"Intergalactic Space Virgins", Dominic Basulto, Tech Central Station

I traced the $11 million number to a Tai quote in space.com "We’ve taken over $10 million in deposits and we’ve not really started to advertise".

Note that $10 million corresponds to 50 people having paid $200,000 in full or 500 paying the minimum deposit of $20,000, not "100 people paid in full" or "thousands more" placing $20,000.

I am ambivalent about using funny numbers to start a bandwagon on the full priced seats. Somebody please keep me honest on the game prize seat reporting.

$10-$11 million is the lowest number reported for some time. Most everyone else has an implicit $780 million in deposits.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 04:54 AM

December 21, 2005
Weep For Them

I know that this will want you to dig deep, and make a contribution to their plight in this ~~Christm~~holiday season.

It's getting so that journalists can no longer afford to live in New York. Maybe they should drive a bus instead. Given the quality of much of their output, many of them are sure overpaid for what they're doing now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:03 AM

December 18, 2005
The Holy War Down Under

Continues. And yet they won't call it by its true name:

Five men of Middle Eastern descent were yesterday arrested in Brighton-le-Sands after their mobile phones were confiscated and found to have messages that incited violence. Among the many phones confiscated yesterday one contained a text message which said: "Wake up, wake up oh lion of lebanon. Retaliate, take action ... Show them we have awoken we will meet at Brighton and together exterminate the enemy of Cronulla. Send this to every lion of Lebanon."

Well, at least they're willing to say that they're of Middle Eastern descent. But why can't they use the "M" word? This is about "Arabs." If I were a Lebanese Christian, I'd be outraged, and sending nasty letters to the editor about this broad-brush treatment.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 PM

December 16, 2005
Me, Too

I've also declined offers of money to write specific pieces, even though I agreed with the sentiment. I just didn't feel comfortable with it. I'm disappointed to hear about Doug Bandow.

But what would be the problem with this: someone with an axe to grind approaches me to write a piece on a topic for compensation. I say that I don't do that kind of quid pro quo, even though I agree with the subject. But I do have a tip jar, and can point it out to them. If I write the piece that I want to write (perhaps partially based on material provided to me by them), and they like it sufficiently to make a donation of an amount of their choosing, is there anything wrong with that? The only way I've been influenced is by the idea of writing the piece in the first place.

Where is the line crossed? Only when there's an explicit quid pro quo, in which one is being a stenographer in exchange for an agreed-upon amount?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:03 PM

Just Like Many Democrats

Check out the subhead at the WaPo:

Iraqi Vote Draws Big Turnout Of Sunnis
Anti-U.S. Sentiment Is Motivator for Many

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:40 AM

December 15, 2005
Compare And Contrast

I'm not a smart enough Googler to figure it out, but how did the press coverage of Saddam's "election," in which he won 99% of the vote, compare to today's? Which did the MSM think the bigger story, and by how much?

[Update on Friday morning]

Little Green Footballs has an example.

[Update at 9 AM]

Here's a roundup from last January of how credulous many in the media were about Saddam's "election":

While the network news gurus have spent weeks questioning whether Sunday’s elections in Iraq would (A) occur on time or (B) be accepted as legitimate, it’s important to remember that when Saddam Hussein called a vote in October 2002 as coalition troops moved into place, ABC, CNN, and NBC accepted the dictator’s “100 percent” vote as a credible plebiscite, not a joke. To his credit CBS’s Tom Fenton explained why everyone voted aye: “You would be foolish not to — a U.N. human rights report said 500 people were jailed in the last referendum after casting a negative ballot.” But other networks, desperate for access into Saddam’s Iraq, played dumb and parroted the dictator’s script...

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 PM

December 14, 2005
The Other Side

A journalist on the scene in Mosul gets it:

I still haven’t seen U.S. troops engaged or encounter car bombs or explosives. But I did see them play backgammon with some local police and Iraqi soldiers. I saw them take photos with more locals and make jokes mostly lost in translation. They gave advice and expertise to local troops on how to conduct a neighborhood patrol. They drank the local customary tea, and many admitted they’ve become addicted to it. They know several locals by name...
...More than anything in the last few days I’ve heard from soldiers and commanders that people back home don’t quite get it. They don’t see the real picture. They don’t get the real story. Some of them, like Lt. Col. Gregg Parrish, look seriously pained in the face when he says only a part of the picture is being told; the part of car bombs and explosives and suicide bombers and death. It’s a necessary part of the picture, but not a complete one, he says.

It's not long. Read the whole thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:43 PM

December 13, 2005
Instant Urban Legend

Mudville Gazette is calling for corrections:

THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.
Today's headlines? "Bush says 30,000 Iraqi civilians dead in war."

Emphasis mine. Also, I wonder if the president misspoke. Is he including all the foreign fighters in that count? If so, they're not even Iraqi citizens, let alone civilians.

This is how urban legends get started, and you can be sure that it will now become part of every lefty playbook. And don't expect a correction.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:04 PM

Banking on $780 Million Deposits

Virgin Galactic announced that they are opening a spaceport in New Mexico with $225 million in state money. They are also reported by BBC Radio, Forbes, AP and others to have 38,000-40,000 people who have made a deposit. Ned Abel Smith of Virgin Galactic confirms that in fact that 39,000 is just the number of people on their mailing list, not the number of depositers. This is not the first media exaggeration of Virgin Galactic's prospects. On the other hand, with Virgin Skill's vendor for Virgin Galactic Quest, Fun Games selling to Liberty Media for $390 million with $13 million in revenue and no profit, maybe Virgin Galactic Quest will be worth more than Virgin Galactic. (BTW, Smith said that they are probably delaying launch of Virgin Galactic Quest until the new year, but it is "ready to go". They don't want to crowd their spaceport announcement.) Check out Virgin Galactic's new logo.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 11:54 AM

December 11, 2005
Could Exodus Get To The Screen Today?

Torah Portion says that Stephen Spielberg is no friend of Israel:

For some time I've asked this question - would Leon Uris get "Exodus" to the screen in this climate? I keep coming up with the same answer. No! Things have changed and not only for movies but for books as well. Again, personal experience, as with my latest, "The Bathsheba Deadline," that's running as a serial on Amazon.com. Lucky for me that Amazon.com came along, the largest of them all put together.

But not so fast. The novel was turned down by a dozen New York publishers for being too pro USA and much too Jewish, too pro-Israel. One top publisher said it plainly, or half plainly: "I really got caught up in your novel; enjoyed it very much; powerful stuff. But I will not make an offer, and I think you know why."

Yes, I knew why and I know why.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:29 PM

December 03, 2005
Continuing The Big Lie

In (where else?) Al Jazeera West:

The documents inspired intense U.S. interest in the buildup to the war — and they led the CIA to send a former ambassador to the African nation of Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought the materials there. The ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, found little evidence to support such a claim, and the documents were later deemed to have been forged.

Well, at least they're not still pretending that Cheney sent him. The only way that one can believe that he "found little evidence to support such a claim" is to listen to Joe Wilson's continuing lies about it, and ignore the results of the Senate investigation, which showed that in fact Wilson indeed discovered that Iraq had sought yellowcake from Niger. But then, these are LA Times reporters, to whom the default position is that the administration lies, and anyone who accuses them of lying must ipso facto be telling the truth. No further investigation necessary.

But President Bush referred to the claim in his 2003 State of the Union address in making the case for the invasion.

Of course, this claim did not mention Niger (it was about Africa) and it was explicitly claimed to be the product of British intelligence, which (as far as I'm aware) continues to stand by the claim. It had nothing to do with Joe Wilson's trip.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:25 AM

December 02, 2005
The War On The Home Front

The media is now attempting to defeat us in Ramadi, as it did in Tet:

Captain Jeffery Pool, Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division, disputed the claims in the harshest of terms, and rebuked the media for its mis characterization of events. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse.”
Cori Dauber, an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at how old Associate Press Television Network footage was used to support the case for the faux “Ramadi Uprising” by all of the news networks, and little has been done to retract the charges.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 PM

More Bad News For The LA Times

Was the paper involved in a murder coverup?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:10 AM

The Innovator's Dilemma

We have here a perfect example, in an area that I've noted previously:

During the whole time I was there [at the San Francisco Chronicle] I constantly pleaded with the powers that be to do the online version of the classifieds right, the way it could be done with all the power of the web. At that time, 1995, craigslist was still a gleam in Craig Newmark's eye. The Chronicle owned the classified space for the Bay Area. I created a classified section on sfgate, but it was just an online version of what was in the newspaper, no more, no less. I argued that we should add interactivity, let people purchase ads online cheaply, have pictures and links, make sfgate.com the goto place for everybody in the bay area to buy, sell, rent, and know everything.
But this was utterly impossible. It was a question of turf. There was a large department that sold and processed classified ads. It was a major source of revenue, employed a lot of people, and had a big budget. No way they were going to yield that turf to a bunch of weirdos over at the six person, unprofitable, experimental web site crew. Besides, online ads would cannabalize the whole business. Even as time went on, and craigslist grew and the sfgate website traffic and personnel grew, there was never any possibility of going up against the entrenched bureaucracy. Newspapers are the most old-fashioned organizations left alive in the marketplace. Even book publishing companies are more with it.

They couldn't innovate themselves, because it would have wrecked an existing profit center, but by avoiding it, they let someone else do it to them instead.

This is the fix that NASA is in as well. They can't innovate, because the politicians (and their own internal fiefdoms and rice-bowl sitters) won't let them shed the jobs in Houston and Huntsville and at the Cape that would be destroyed. So instead, they'll be put out of business in a few years.

Of course, given that (unlike newspapers) they're not a business, it's possible that they'll continue to get their multi-billion dollar stipend from Washington, but it's hard to believe that even they will be able to continue to persuasively justify their hyperexpensive elitist activities in an era of cheap private access to space.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 AM

November 29, 2005
A Wasted Blog Post

From Andrea Harris, via my comments section:

...neither Rand nor Mark Stein said that Hollywood is losing money because they no longer make "morality tales." Why don't you try reading the article? Steyn said that the reason Hollywood is losing money is because 1) the cramped, uncomfortable theaters with bad, blurry pictures run by inept crews, 2) the dull, bland, safe rehashing of the same three ideas (wacky girl and guy fall into comic hate-love, hilarity ensues, also car chases; brooding freethinking manchild who is still in love with his divorced Only Wife is Abused By the System -- which is represented by short-haired white men in suits, aka Republicans; or occasionally, blond neo-Nazi terrorists with fake Cherman accents -- and Loses Everything He Has But His Dignity, with car chases and explosions; and brooding, mature woman-goddess is Hurt By Men, but is redeemed by her Feisty, Bitchy, Neurotic, Yet Wise Beyond Their Prescriptions female friends -- no car chases and the only explosions are screaming cat fights that dissolve into hugs 'n' tears) 3) the stifling political correctness that covers the industry like a blanket of mold and which has done something formerly thought impossible: made the Catholic League for Decency (or whatever they were called), the Hays Commission, and the dreaded Joe McCarthy and HUAC look like a bunch of fun party people.
He noted that Harry Potter was a phenomenon, but one unconnected to the overall problem of the no-fun suck that Hollywood's output has become. He did imply that people go see the Potter movies because they seem to actually accept that there is good and evil in the world, not just "accepting" and "hurtful." They also aren't overly concerned with political correctness, though Rowling is careful to have Indian and black students in the wizard school, and one of Goblet of Fire's subplots is (at least in the book, I haven't seen the movie) about bigotry against the "different," in this case, giants -- but at least no one gets up and stops the action dead to make a speech, or worse. If the current minds behind today's thrillers with the fake "nazis are the only acceptible villains" terrorists in them had been in charge of the Potter films Harry would have been cast as a black lesbian paraplegic and there would have been no magic to avoid insulting Wiccans.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:26 PM

November 28, 2005
Why Hollywood Continues To Lose Money

Mark Steyn explains that it's political correctness:

...I stopped to buy the third boxed set in the ''Looney Tunes Golden Collection.'' Loved the first two: Daffy, Bugs, Porky, beautifully restored, tons of special features. But, for some reason, this new set begins with a special announcement by Whoopi Goldberg explaining what it is we're not meant to find funny: ''Unfortunately at that time racial and ethnic differences were caricatured in ways that may have embarrassed and even hurt people of color, women and ethnic groups,'' she tells us sternly. ''These jokes were wrong then and they're wrong today'' -- unlike, say, Whoopi Goldberg's most memorable joke of recent years, the one at that 2004 all-star Democratic Party gala in New York where she compared President Bush to her, um, private parts. There's a gag for the ages...
...''Stealth'' was a high-tech action thriller about USAF pilots zapping about the skies in which the bad guy is the plane.

That's right: An unmanned computer-flown plane goes rogue and starts attacking things. The money shot is -- stop me if this rings a vague bell -- a big downtown skyscraper with a jet heading toward it. Only there are no terrorists aboard the jet. The jet itself is the terrorist.

This is the pitiful state Hollywood's been reduced to. Safer not to have any bad guys. Let's make the plane the bad guy. No wonder it's 20th century Britlit -- ''Harry Potter,'' ''Lord of the Rings,'' ''Narnia'' -- keeping those Monday morning numbers up. It's Hollywood's yarn-spinning that's really out of focus, and in the end even home entertainment revenue won't save a storytelling business that no longer knows how to tell any.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:23 PM

November 23, 2005
Speaking Of Incoherence

American Future has usefully dissected the New York Times' evolving editorial policy over the past twelve years on the subject of Iraq. Bottom line (as Joe Katzman notes): they're partisan hacks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:40 AM

November 20, 2005
Guess The Headline

Here's a story from AP, that has items such as:

In Mosul, extraordinary security measures were underway Sunday around the house where the insurgents died, Iraqi officials said. American soldiers maintained control of the site a day after a fierce gunbattle which broke out when Iraqi police and U.S. soldiers surrounded a house after reports that al-Qaida in Iraq members were inside.
Three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded.

Meanwhile, four Christian women were killed Sunday night when gunmen stormed their home in a Christian district of eastern Baghdad, police said. The gunmen stole valuables and the motive for the attack appeared to have been robbery, police added.

The latest deaths occurred at the end of a violent three-day period in which at least 140 Iraqi civilians died in a series of bombings and suicide attacks — most of them targeting Shiite Muslims.

They included 76 people who died Friday in near-simultaneous suicide bombings at two Shiite mosques in Khanaqin and 36 more killed the next day by a suicide car bomber who detonated his vehicle amid mourners at a Shiite funeral north of the capital.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week" that commanders' assessments will determine the pace of any military drawdown. About 160,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq as the country approaches parliamentary elections Dec. 15.

The Pentagon has said it plans to scale back troop strength to its pre-election baseline of 138,000, depending on conditions. Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalition continues to make progress in training Iraqi security forces, which he placed at 212,000.

Give up?

It's "Insurgents Continue Attacks on Military."

Simply confirming the thesis.

[Update a few minutes later]

Down the memory hole.

The link now points to a remix of the same story, by the same reporter, with a new hed--"Al-Zarqawi May Be Among Dead in Iraq Fight." I wonder if some editor at AP actually noticed the same thing that I did?

Fortunately, I have a screen grab of the earlier version. Unfortunately, I didn't get the whole story, but it hasn't changed that much.

[Update again a few minutes later]

I should note that this isn't (necessarily) a criticism of the reporter. Copy editors generally write headlines, not the reporters.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:20 PM

Journalism Versus Reality

...in Iraq:

Few of the troops understand that the news business is driven by dramatic events, not the tedious kind of process the troops go through every day to defeat the terrorists. To the troops, the war is being won. They see bad guys killed in large numbers, and few Americans getting hurt (it’s fairly common for their [sic] to be about twenty enemy dead for each American loss). The troops see tangible evidence, every day, of Iraqis having a better life. The troops cannot understand why that is not news, and why journalists always seem to be looking for a negative angle. To the average G.I., the attitude is, “what are these reporters looking for?” They are looking for a story, and bad news is a story. Good news is not. As a result of this clash of cultures, reporters are increasingly seen as a potentially dangerous enemy.

Fortunately for journalists, and contra the fantasies of Eason Jordan, Giuliana Sgrena, and others, journalists are not being deliberately targeted by the US military, but if they were, this would be the reason why.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:41 AM

November 14, 2005
Not Must-See TV

But it's worth a listen. Heck, I even turned Greta down for it.

Yes, Mickey, that is damning it with faint praise, but it's what happened to be on at the time that I linked to it from Glenn's site. I would have turned down Hannity and Colmes, too, and probably O'Reilly, unless he had some really interesting guest on (a rare event). But not Brit Hume.

Here's the problem. Political commentary doesn't make for compelling video, even if it offers the entertainment of watching human robots (a combination of natural ability, and many frozen frames as the video buffer fills up). Even on high-bandwidth media (i.e., my satellite dish), talking heads are talking heads, and most of the time I rarely watch, but listen to it as I'm doing things elsewhere in the house. Well, unless Lauri Dhue, or Megyn Kendall, or various other newsbabes come on. Then, for some strange reason, I feel compelled to actually come into the room to view the screen. I've no idea why, but perhaps Robert Wright does.

But I thought the conversation was interesting, and much easier on the ears than the shout shows, and more intelligent than most of them as well. So one suggestion might be to bag the video, because it really is very little value added, and do bloggingmouths.radio instead. Bandwidth doesn't yet grow on trees, and sticking with audio would open up the audience to the dialup crowd, and allow easier storage of shows, both for users and the server, with reduced bandwidth charges for all.

But even then, the question is, what is the value of listening to guys (and gals) talk, as opposed to reading what they write, which for me has a much higher baud rate for lower bandwidth. I had the same problem in college. I rarely attended the lectures, unless I explicitly had to in order to get the grade, because I don't take information in that well through my ears, at least if I want to retain it. I always preferred to read the book, which offered me much more data in a given amount of time than having to listen to someone slowly mouth the words.

But given that I do keep a news channel on in background when I'm working, and I could download the audio and listen to it while exercising or out for a walk, one could certainly do worse than checking them out. As I mentioned up at the top, I know I was. Doing worse, that is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:06 PM

November 12, 2005
Setting Her Straight

Emily Will says that Mary Mapes is living in an alternate reality, and that her book is rife with errors:

Mapes: Page 167: "Concerned, I asked her what the trouble was. She said she had done research on the Internet about President Bush's military record and found that he had been in Alabama at the time those documents were written, so there was no way they could be true."
Will: Book version is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. What did happen is that in our conversation on Sunday I outlined several problems with two questioned signatures, and with the typescript of the documents, including the superscripting and the proportional spacing, and I said that I had been researching online to determine the earliest date of production of typewriters offering those features.

Don't book publishers care about this sort of thing?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:35 AM

November 10, 2005
More Idiocy From The Hollywood Studios

The Frogman says that Jarhead sucks:

They might also have named it, “Cliché: The Movie” because it was basically the Gulf War edition of “Platoon” recycling tired military urban legends and patently false anecdotes.

Seems like a pretty pathetic way to celebrate the 230th anniversary of the Corps.

Hugh Hewitt asks:

How much money would a well-made movie honoring the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guard and Marines of the armed services haul in?
Why hasn't it been made?

Good question.

[Friday update]

On Veterans Day, here's another harsh review of the movie (and book).

[Friday evening update]

Oliver North isn't impressed, either:

...why do the power brokers and financial geniuses in Hollywood choose to make a movie such as Jarhead and release it coincident with a Marine Corps birthday and Veterans’ Day? The film has absolutely not one character or scene containing any redeeming virtue or value. It is an excessively vulgar movie without a moral or a point. With our nation at war—this film is not just antiwar—or rotten to the Corps—though it is certainly that. “Jarhead” is anti-everything that is good and decent.
During a week when Americans honor the Corps and thank their veterans, Jarhead cheapens and distorts the heroism, warrior spirit, superior intellect and selflessness of America's fighting forces. Those who participated in making this nihilist flop deserve nothing but scorn in return.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AM

November 08, 2005
One Quote Says It All

Mary Mapes is still whining, this time to Howie Kurtz (who seems to be largely humoring her). But what tickled me was the bottom line:

Despite her career implosion, Mapes hopes to stay in journalism.
"It's what I'm good at," she said. "I like making a difference."

"Making a difference," ever since Woodward and Bernstein, has become the cliche reason for people to go into the profession of journalism. But judging by the results, "making a difference" seems to be more important than "improving the situation," or understanding logic or reality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:22 PM

One-Two Bird Flu Punch

The Media and the health authorities talk about "it" mutating as if the viruses were all getting updated by wireless like in I, Robot (sorry for the spoiler). In fact, commencing a pandemic will not make a second ensuing pandemic less likely (although it will empart partial resistance). The birds still all have the flu and if flu can jump species once, it can do it twice with the need for a whole new vaccine (else why wait until it breaks out to produce one?). This is what happened in 1918-1919. It was the second wave of the flu that was the deadly one.

I saw this weird quote from 11/3, Prof. Donald Burke in WSJ (subscription required--search on flu and extinction):

At one extreme the case fatality ratios seen in Southeast Asia could be maintained (57 deaths in 112 cases, about 50% mortality), in which case the human species might face extinction.

Last I checked, you need 100% mortality for extinction and it is pretty hard to spread a virus that is 100% fatal to the entire global population before all the carriers die.

World Bank put an $800 billion price tag on bird flu if a pandemic hits with that being 2% of world GDP. They see SARS style disruption. CIA says world GDP is $55T according to purchasing power parity and 2% of that would be $1.1T.

Story has taken on a life of its own. Out of my league. Now if only they would take aim at heart disease that kills 17 million every year.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 06:39 AM

November 02, 2005
Do They Get It?

Probably not, but Jonathan "Pajamas" Klein is canning Aaron Brown at CNN, according to Drudge (no permalink, which is one of the reasons that Drudge has not been, and is not now, a blogger):

We have made some programming decisions which will impact our prime time schedule as well as our colleague Aaron Brown. Aaron will be leaving CNN and is very much looking forward to some well-deserved time off with his family.
Aaron has made enormous contributions to CNN since his groundbreaking anchoring of Sept. 11th through the war in Iraq to the Tsunami to the recent hurricanes. Outside of the big stories, on a nightly basis, Aaron has provided our audiences with insight into the events of the United States and the world with eloquence and the highest journalist integrity.

Besides his stellar work as an anchor, Aaron stands as an absolutely brilliant writer, evident by the thoughtful perspective he injects into every story he touches.

Personally, I will miss Aaron and his wicked sense of humor. We cannot thank Aaron enough for the skills and professionalism he brought to CNN. Given his respect throughout the industry, there is no question that he will be missed.

Translation: he was tanking us in his timeslot. Don't let the door hit your kiester on the way out.

But despite this, I suspect that Mr. Pajamas still doesn't understand why his (and his previous employer, CBS' ratings were in the toilet, and it amazes me that CNN thought that they could pull up their ratings by hiring either Klein or Brown) network continues to lose market share. When I hear that they've made an offer to Brit Hume (for twice or more of the money that he makes at Fox), then I'll know that they've figured it out. For now, I can only conclude that they know that Brown is a problem, but not why.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:02 PM

October 30, 2005
Sixty Minutes One Is Just As Bad

They never learn:

It was all from Wilson’s perspective: Plame was exposed; it was done to exact revenge on Wilson, an honest whistle-blower; her career is over as a result; serious national security damage has taken place...

It obviously wasn't just Rather and Mapes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 PM

In The Limelight

Glenn Reynolds just mentioned this post of mine on CNN's Reliable Sources. Roger Simon (the journalist, not the smart blogger), whined in response (and completely missed the point) that WW II was nothing like Iraq.

[Update in the afternoon]

Here's the rush transcript (in which they manage to misspell my name in a new and unusual way):

KURTZ: Glenn Reynolds, is this 2,000 deaths just a bloody milestone that naturally was going to get some media attention, or is there an anti-war tinge to the sudden focus on 2,000 deaths, the press's way of saying, see, this just isn't working out?
GLENN REYNOLDS, INSTAPUNDIT.COM: Well, it's more than that. It's a manufactured event by a press that has largely been anti-war from the beginning, and I think is dogpiling on the Bush administration for as many opportunities as it can find.

Ran Siemberg (ph), who is a blogger, had an amusing parody from World War II of the media making a big deal out of another milestone, the 250,000th death. And I think that provides all kind of perspective, on the difference between the two wars, and the difference between the press' treatment of the two wars.

Too often, war coverage now is just another opportunity to try to go after Bush, who the press has disliked from day one. And I think that's very, very unfortunate.

KURTZ: Roger Simon, you are shaking your head.

SIMON: I just don't find much comparison between World War II, in which we were fighting predatory fascism that was trying to take over the globe, and invading Iraq for reasons that the administration now admits were false.

"...predatory fascism that was trying to take over the globe..."

I guess he's never bothered to read any statements of intent from Al Qaeda.

Which part does he think is untrue of the enemy? That they aren't fascists? Well, admittedly, the term has lost much of its currency from overuse by much of the left to be applied to everyone who disagrees with them on almost any conceivable subject, so let's call it totalitarianism instead (a term that I would hope that Mr. Simon would agree also applies to our enemies in the second world war). If that word can't be applied to people who want to run every aspect of everyone's daily existence, will brook no dissent, and have no apparent value for human life, as the Jihadis objectively do, then to whom does it apply? And even if you want to imagine that the "secular" Saddam didn't support the "terrorists" (one would have to disregard the Salman Pak training camp and the bounties offered for attacks on the Israelis to buy that one), he was as totalitarian (and fascist) as they come.

And part of the totalitarian ideology of Al Qaeda is that there shall be no ideology before theirs--ultimately, all the infidels must convert or die. That we aren't first on the list is a matter of political and military necessity, not an indication of any solicitude toward our ultimate fate. Does he really believe that it isn't their goal to "take over the globe"? From the standpoint of the threat, if they (and Saddam) are not the Hitler of the MSM mind, it's because they're Hitler in 1935, instead of Hitler in 1941. But while he made many strategic mistakes (which were his ultimate undoing, as hopefully will be the case for our new totalitarian adversaries), he didn't make the strategic mistake of attacking New York in 1935, as Osama did in 2001.

It would have been a lot easier to deal with Hitler in 1935, which is one reason why our casualties are counted only in the low thousands after over four years of war, instead of the large fractions of a million that it took to defeat our totalitarian enemies six decades ago, for all that the media would make of them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:11 AM

October 08, 2005
Another Asteroid Hitting?

Blogs may not kill off newspapers, but Craigslist might.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:55 AM

September 27, 2005
Still Crazy After All These Years

Or at least after one year. And maybe it isn't crazy--just, mentally challenged. Mary Mapes still doesn't get it:

Within a few minutes, I was online visiting Web sites I had never heard of before: Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, Power Line.

This is the first hint of her cluelessness. The fact that she'd never heard of these sites before shows how insulated she was. Free Republic has been around for many years now, and was instrumental in bringing out many of the Clinton scandals. It's one thing to say (as I'd expect a hard-core Democrat to) that they have no credibility, but to claim ignorance of their very existence?

They were hard-core, politically angry, hyperconservative sites loaded with vitriol about Dan Rather and CBS.

Contemplate the possibility, Mary, at least for a moment, that said vitriol was justified and prompted by your vicious partisan hit pieces and shoddy journalism.

Our work was being compared to that of Jayson Blair, the discredited New York Times reporter who had fabricated and plagiarized stories.

Hey, this isn't fair. At least Jayson Blair didn't fabricate actual evidence. And of course, given that they're "hard-core, politically angry, hyperconservatives," there's no need to pay any attention to what they say, right, even if they are smart lawyers, and that in the case of Charles Johnson, proprieter of Little Green Footballs and web site designer, he has forgotten more about typography than Mary is ever likely to learn or (on the available evidence) be able to comprehend?

All these Web sites had extensive write-ups on the documents: on typeface, font style, and peripheral spacing,

"Peripheral spacing"? I think that she means proportional spacing. This demonstrates again, just how little she has learned from this experience, when she doesn't even seem to possess the reasoning skills to understand the arguments against her.

...material that seemed to spring up overnight. It was phenomenal. It had taken our analysts hours of careful work to make comparisons. It seemed that these analysts or commentators---or whatever they were---were coming up with long treatises in minutes. They were all linking to one another, creating an echo chamber of outraged agreement.

Maybe because they had facts and logic on their side?

I was told that the first posting claiming the documents were fakes had gone up on Free Republic before our broadcast was even off the air! How had the Web site even gotten copies of the documents? We hadn’t put them online until later. That first entry, posted by a longtime Republican political activist lawyer who used the name “Buckhead,” set the tone for what was to come.

And I was told that Mary Mapes is incapable of comprehending the distinction between Eastern Time, when the show was first broadcast, and Pacific Time, three hours earlier, when the first posting appeared on Free Republic (during the show)!

I think there's a lot more basis for what I "was told," than for what Mary was told. Of course, she could be carefully parsing. It may be that she knows that the Free Republic posting didn't occur until after the show aired, and is just trying to establish a conspiracy theory for those dumber than her, using the circumlocution "I was told," rather than stating it as simple fact. It seems implausible, though, because it's frightening to contemplate someone dumber than her.

There was no analysis of what the documents actually said, no work done to look at the content, no comparison with the official record, no phone calls made to check the facts of the story...

Well, she's finally admitting it.

Oh, wait! She's talking about the bloggers! My irony meter just shattered the glass, and bent its needle into a pretzel.

...nothing beyond a cursory and politically motivated examination of the typeface. That was all they had to attack, but that was enough.

Well, some of them (unlike you, apparently) were smart enough to call the fax number on the memo, and determine that it came from a Kinko's in Texas. And though there was in fact analysis of what the documents actually said, which also helped torpedo them, it was in fact enough, Mary. It's hard (perhaps impossible) to prove that a document is authentic, but it only takes one solid strike against its validity to show it to be inauthentic. And the fact that you still don't understand that, or understand basic logic at all, is why you are now out of a job, and should never have had that job to begin with.

This isn't merely "stuck on stupid." This is turned all the way up to eleven on stupid.

Gee, I feel another satire coming on, to celebrate the anniversary.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AM

September 26, 2005
The Fog Of War

...and of hurricane reporting. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the demise of the many murder victims in the Superdome were greatly exaggerated:

"I think 99 percent of it is bulls---," said Sgt. 1st Class Jason Lachney, who played a key role in security and humanitarian work inside the Dome. "Don't get me wrong, bad things happened, but I didn't see any killing and raping and cutting of throats or anything. ... Ninety-nine percent of the people in the Dome were very well-behaved."
...Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan said authorities had confirmed only four murders in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina - making it a typical week in a city that anticipated more than 200 homicides this year. Jordan expressed outrage at reports from many national media outlets that suffering flood victims had turned into mobs of unchecked savages.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:03 AM

September 20, 2005
Let's Combine The Phrases

"You're cranked all the way up to eleven...on stupid."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:39 PM

Unintended Candor

"I gave it everything I had, I didn't hold anything back. I did the best newscast we were capable of doing," Rather said.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:29 PM

Was It Something We Said?

The New York Times is laying off five hundred people. And I'll bet they still don't have a clue as to why they have to.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:41 PM

We Don't Cancel the Fact Check

Mike Griffin defended the budget averaging $8 billion/year for a Moon return (0.05% of 2018 GDP) by saying, "We Don't Cancel the Navy" as MSNBC headlined. Actually we did cancel the Navy after the Revolutionary War and didn't start it up again until 1794.
--
I spoke to my dad, the pre-civil war American History Professor Emeritus and he had forgotten that the Navy had been cancelled. I respectfully withdraw my media criticism. I guess it needs to be refiled under media witticism.
Update 2005-09-21-10:55:00

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 01:09 AM

September 17, 2005
Marketing Blunder

Iain Murray notes that:

The New York Times is going to start charging for people to read its oped columns online. Projected annual income: two boxes of crackerjack and a signed photograph of Paul Krugman.

I'm willing to pay for Tierney, but I'd how much of a discount will they give me to have to read Dowd and Krugman? Otherwise, I'll just pass completely.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:12 AM

September 11, 2005
"Journalism"

Jeff Goldstein is (to put it mildly) less than impressed with hurricane coverage at Newsweek. I haven't read the magazine in decades.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:41 PM

September 06, 2005
How Much Can We Believe?

...all of the horror stories out of New Orleans for the past week? Michelle Malkin has some questions about the validity of much of the reporting, with links.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:58 AM

August 19, 2005
This Is Precious

From the new "Public Editor" of the New York Times, on their belated coverage of the Air America scandal:

There's another reason to get to the bottom of the scandal. It's the perception problem — a perception of liberal bias for which I haven't found any evidence after checking with editors at the paper.

And I'll bet he typed that with a straight face.

[Update at 3:40 PM EDT]

One of the commenters apparently had a hidden mike at that fact-checking session:

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #1): Have you been intentially avoiding the Air America story because of your liberal bias?
EDITOR #1: Well, that's just outrageous! There is no liberal bias at this institution. We're all moderates, who use objective methods to ensure fair and unbiased reporting.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #2): How about you, number 2? Any liberal bias preventing you from reporting on the Air America scandal?

EDITOR #2: Well, heavens no! It's just that an institution stealing money from poor kids is such a non story. I would never pass up a good story because of my personal politics. By the way, I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #3): And number 3? Why are no good Air America scandal stories being delivered from your department? Is it that you don't want Air America to look bad?

EDITOR #3: No way, man! If this story had any legs, I'd be all over it like Rush Limbaugh on Oxycontin. I've got no beef with conservatives.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to all 3 editors): Just a quick survey then, which of you three voted for "W" for President this past November?

EDITOR #1: Are you insane!!! I'd sooner slit my wrists that vote for that lying war monger.

EDITOR #2: Just because I didn't vote for Bush, the worlds biggest terrorist, doesn't make me a liberal.

EDITOR #3: Ha ha!!! Me? Vote for Chimpy McBush-Hitler? Oh! You're serious?

PUBLIC EDITOR: Nope, no bias here!

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:30 AM

Continuing To Spiral In

The LA Times has seen a plunge in home delivery:

an analysis of newspaper circulation by Prudential Equity Group LLC found that the Times lost more than 100,000 paid home-delivery subscribers between March 2004 and March 2005. The drop in home delivery was 18.1 percent – the sharpest decline among the 10 largest U.S. newspapers.

I know they lost us years before we moved to Florida.

I've got an idea, guys and gals. How about putting out a newspaper that will appeal to the region, instead of just the tony liberal Democrats in West LA and Santa Monica?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:13 AM

August 17, 2005
An Amazing Thing

This ought to be framed, or perhaps displayed in a museum. It's a (truly, perhaps in the best sense of the word) liberal reporter who actually seems to live up to the (usually absurd) claim that his politics don't affect his reporting. He actually saw something wrong with the Al Franken gang diverting funds from poor children to their failed escapade. Can you imagine?

And his band of brothers in the press attempted to steal the story from him:

Last week Executive Editor Michael Horowitz called in to conservative radio host Sean Hannity’s program to set the record straight about who broke the Air America story and on the details of the evolving scandal that are being inaccurately reported. Horowitz correctly pointed out that his story, which ran in the July 2nd issue, was the first to expose the alleged funneling of some $875,000 in city and state funds for the Co-op City Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club to the liberal radio talk network Air America. This came as several TV and New York newspapers claiming their exclusives on the scandal. The New York Post and internet bloggers were the only entities that cited Horowitz’s articles.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:34 PM

Just Stab Them, Dammit!

I've kvetched in the past about needlessly stupid things in science-fiction movies (needlessly in that they don't even advance the plot, or necessarily add to the drama). Well, here's someone who thinks the same thing about cinematic swordplay.

If the purpose of lightsaber fight choreography is simply to convey drama and excitement within the context of a story, then choreographers feel they've done their job well. But, from my point of view, if a lightsaber fight is supposed to convince the viewer that individuals of great skill are really trying to kill one another with laser swords while using supernatural powers that heighten their senses and physical abilities, well, they fail miserably.

[via Geek Press]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AM

August 15, 2005
Rethinking Their Coverage?

The MSM is at least asking itself if its Iraq reporting is well balanced. We'll see if anything comes of this.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:26 AM

July 29, 2005
It's A Twofer!

So, I'm getting ready to go the airport this morning, and I hear on the news that Helen Thomas has ~~promised~~threatened to kill herself if Dick Cheney runs for president. As if we needed more reasons for him to run.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:58 AM

July 27, 2005
Rough Week

I've been at meetings at NASA HQ all day (sorry, nothing particularly exciting) and I'm about to fly back to Florida for about ten hours, after which I fly to California for the afternoon, then to St. Louis for a weekend family wedding, leaving on Friday morning. Blogging is unlikely for a while...

I will leave you with this irritating vignette from the White House Press Corps, offered by Jeff Foust:

Q And how is the Mars program going?
MR. McCLELLAN: NASA can probably update you on the effort. Again, this is a long-term program, and you can sit there and smirk about it, but the President felt it was important -- (laughter) -- the President felt it was important to outline a clearly defined mission for NASA. And we're all excited about today's launch and we wish the --

Q Will he be speaking about it --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on -- we wish the crew all the best.

Q Will he be speaking about it --

MR. McCLELLAN: NASA is working on implementing it, John. Thanks for starting out the briefing on such -- (laughter.)

Wasn't that a knee slapper?

That dumb Bush and his fantasy mission to Mars. Yuk, yuk...

McClellan didn't handle this well. The response to the first question should have been: "To which Mars program are you referring?" (Thus offering the reporter an opportunity to be more expansive on his profound ignorance about national space policy).

After he did so, saying something like, "You know, the president's plan to send people to Mars decades from now," the response would be: "Well, John, how much progress would you expect this year on something that's not going to happen for decades? Do you imagine that that's the sum total of American space policy? Or haven't you been paying attention? Are you opposed to the nation having a long-term vision for space exploration?"

Yeah, I know that his job is to answer questions, not ask them, but still.

What's really annoying about this is that on one of the few times the daily White House briefing leads off with space policy questions (due obviously to yesterday's successful launch) there can't be an intelligent discussion about it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:12 PM

Pandemic Coming?

This seems to me worth worrying about. Much more so, in fact, than shark attacks and missing girls in Aruba.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:43 AM

July 23, 2005
Media Bias

It was quite amusing tonight to watch "Fox News Watch," a show supposedly based on analysis of media performance, and to see the two libs on the panel, Neil Gabler and Jane Hall, dissing Judy Miller, as apparently the traitor to the cause. I was a little disappointed that one of the two supposedly "conservative" panelists (Cal Thomas or Jim Pinkerton) didn't call them on it, and ask them directly who they thought she was protecting, because it's clear to me that they're deluding themselves that she's protecting Karl Rove.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:20 PM

July 16, 2005
Didn't He Actually Read The Story?

Check out the subheadline in this story:

Action may mark end of 5-month truce

One would think that there had been no hostilities whatsoever prior to this attack, that it was just those bloodthirsty Jews ending the truce by lobbing rockets at innocent Palestinians. You know, just restarting that ol' cycle of violence?

But the article itself says:

The military wing of Hamas, known formally as the Islamic Resistance Movement, has fired more than 100 mortar shells and rockets into Israel and Jewish settlements in Gaza in recent days, one of which killed a 22-year-old Israeli woman Thursday.

I just can't imagine how the mind of a copy editor works who could come up with such a headline.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:07 AM

July 08, 2005
48 Killed in Lightning Strikes This Year

An average of 90 people die every year in the US in lightning strikes. Of 103 leading causes of death of 2.4 million people in the US, assault without firearms killed 5500. 1% would be 24000. If we want more people to live, we should research heart attack, cancer, stroke and so on and buy automatic electronic defibrillators. The media frenzy about terrorism induces bad public policy. We might be able to cut heart attack (acute myocardial infarction) deaths in half from 170,000 to 85,000 a year by spending a one-time $82 billion on defibrillators. That's a one time $1 million for one life saved per year. If we completely stop all homicides not from firearms for that amount of money per year, that would be more than $16 million per life saved. Focusing just on the deaths from terrorism, it's probably closer to $160 million per life saved.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 05:00 PM

June 28, 2005
They're Going To Kill More Astronauts!

And of course, NASA should be embarrassed, even ashamed of itself about it. That seems to be the subtext of this media roundup by Keith Cowing about the safety panel that reported yesterday on progress in getting Shuttle ready to start flying again.

Of course, as is often the case when it comes to space (and sadly, other) reporting, it's the media who should be embarrassed. If they had had a little more technical competence at the time, they would have pointed out that some of the CAIB recommendations were technically unrealistic, and that Sean O'Keefe was foolish to pledge to meet them all. This was, in fact, the first point at which it was becoming clear that he was the wrong man in the job. He had no reputation for being technical, but one of four conditions must have applied:

He didn't know that the recommendations were impractical, but assumed that because they came from smart people, they must be, and made the pledge without consultation.
He didn't know, but asked some of his staff, and they told him they were.
He didn't know, but asked and was told they weren't, but felt politically compelled to do so anyway.
He knew himself and did it anyway for the same reason.

I'm not sure which of the four is worse--having an administrator who made the pledge cluelessly, or one who made it knowingly, perhaps because he thought that it was important to do so to maintain public support for the agency, in the face of apparent public anxiety over killing astronauts, who are apparently more precious and irreplaceable than babes in arms. I think that it was another symptom, like the misbegotten Hubble decision, of his inability to deal with tragedies occurring on his watch.

He was a good administrator for a pre-Columbia era, but not for a post-Columbia one. And the problem is that one never knows when one era can change to the next. In this case, it happened in a few brief minutes over the skies of Texas. He remained afterward for almost two years, which was far too long, but it was a difficult situation politically--forcing him out early would have made it appear that what happened was his fault, which it really wasn't. I'm sure that he felt that he had to see the investigation through, and then oversee the beginning of the development of the president's new policy.

In any event, I'm heartened to see that both the safety panel (consisting of astronauts) and the new administrator are being more realistic about this now, and press carping on the issue looks foolish to me.

[Update on Thursday morning--yes, I am busy...]

Professor Reynolds has some related thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 AM

June 21, 2005
Editor Needed At AP

In this story about Howard Dean attacking Mitt Romney (that's got to be good news for Romney), the reporter writes "Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean accused Republican governors of towing the party line..."

A spell checker won't catch that one. The word "towing" is spelled correctly. The problem is, it's the wrong word.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:14 AM

June 20, 2005
Dogs And Cats Living Together

Susan Estrich is defending Fox News.

I'm hard-pressed to think of anybody who will tell you privately that in the midst of debates about such issues as Social Security and the deficits, it's a good idea for the party leader to be turning himself into the issue by engaging in class and religious warfare.
This is precisely what congressional leaders and Dean agreed that Dean would not do when he became the chair of the party. He was supposed to leave the message to them. Having not done so, and having been criticized for it by two possible presidential candidates – neither of whom are even conservatives – Sen. Reid was trying to put the perennial good face on a bad situation, while Brian Wilson was trying to puncture it.

That's what the press is supposed to do, last time I checked. If being obnoxious was a disqualification for being a member of the Washington press corps, it would a lonely crowd.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:51 AM

June 13, 2005
Bring In...The Comfy Chair

Lileks isn't impressed with the tales of torture from Guantanamo.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:26 PM

June 11, 2005
Still In The Tank

Thomas Lipscomb says that the Boston Globe appears to be helping Senator Kerry keep a lid on some of his military records:

Now that the Boston Globe has in its possession what it claims are Kerry’s “full military and medical records” is the Globe ready to make these much-anticipated records available to the public? Managing Editor Mary Jane Wilkinson replied, “It is my understanding that Kerry will release these papers to anyone else now that he has signed the Form 180. The Boston Globe is not going to make available the papers we have received.”
But “the onus is on the Globe to explain why they are not releasing the records. They at least ought to give the public some reason,” according to former journalism dean and Fordham University Larkin professor Everette Dennis.

“With the opportunity to release the Kerry material on the internet inexpensively, there certainly is no physical problem preventing the Globe from publishing them,” Bill Gaines, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and Knight Professor of Journalism at the University of Illinois, told me. “The decision they have made certainly doesn’t seem to be in the interest of their readers and not very good journalism.”

...Michael Kranish, the Globe reporter who wrote the front page story about receiving Kerry’s “complete medical and military records,” was not happy at being pursued by my questions about how he had made that determination. Kranish finally sent me the following: “The story speaks for itself. Other media have been given access to the same records, and the Kerry office has said it is accepting requests. Your request should go to them. That is our statement.” It sounds more like a response from a lawyer than a reporter.

And The Boston Globe made several calls to editors at the Chicago Sun-Times, complaining that I was giving them the kind of unpleasant treatment reporters give sources who stonewall on questions about matters they think are of vital public interest. They were right. I was. And those questions got the Globe to admit they had the SF-180 two days later.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:33 AM

June 07, 2005
Pet Peeve

Stephen Spruiell has an interesting story about how the Washington Post was used by on-line political operatives, and doesn't seem to care.

What he doesn't point out, though, and is an ongoing sign of the continued cluelessness of mainstream reporters, is that while the word "bloggers" is used throughout the saga, including one of the story headlines in the Post, there were no blogs involved. Free Republic is not a blog, any more than it was during Rathergate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:46 AM

June 05, 2005
Noble, But Futile

I wish Hiawatha Bray all the best in this endeavor, and not just because I think that he would really be a better person for the job, but I'm afraid that he doesn't know how far gone his profession is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 PM

June 01, 2005
Well Deserved

Congratulations to Claudia Rossett. In a just world she'd win a Pulitzer, but I guess that's reserved for the Walter Durantys of the world.

It's too bad that more journalists don't go after stories like this, but I guess massive corruption at the UN so that a brutal tyrant can continue to starve children and bribe countries to keep him in power isn't as important as Tom Delay's travel expenses, or Hootie Johnson's golf memberships.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:36 PM

Maybe They're Right

Joe Katzman says that the media is right--Iraq is another Vietnam. Just not in the way they think it is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:03 AM

May 26, 2005
What.A.Moron

Charlie Gibson is surprised to hear that Iraqis (you know, the folks that the so-called "insurgents" have been murdering by the droves?) are not Zarquawi fans.

On Wednesday's World News Tonight, after Brian Ross noted that "some Arabs" on a "popular Web site said they hoped the news was true" about the serious injury to terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, with messages such as, "Let this criminal Zarqawi go to Hell," Gibson turned to reporter Nick Watt in Baghdad and expressed shock, "I'm surprised by something in Brian's piece: The vehemence of the comments on Arab Web sites in opposition to Zarqawi, because we keep hearing that he has considerable support." Watt confirmed that "many" Iraqis "will be very glad if he does die."

There are some things so stupid that only a liberal television commentator can believe them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:47 AM

May 24, 2005
Joe Wilson Lied, Reason's Credibility...

Well, didn't die, but it's tarnished a little, in my opinion. Whoever put together "Quick Hits" for Reason today isn't very well informed on the Plame/Wilson leak case:

Has the Valerie Plame case morphed into a perjury or obstruction of justice case involving a high-ranking Bush administration official? The circumstances suggest it has.

It then cites this tendentious pile of myths by John Dean (gee, there's someone with no axes to grind...), which breathlessly cites Wilson's book about the evils of the Bush administration, and can't wait for it to come out in paperback. Problem is, of course, that Wilson has been demonstrated to be a notable liar, on this and other subjects, and few people other than rabid anti-Bush partisans still seriously believe that this was an intentional outing of an agent, or "intimidation" by the Bush administration. I doubt if the judge in question believes it either.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:54 AM

May 19, 2005
More Slandering Of The Troops

We have another Eason Jordan incident. As Bryan Preston notes, the press should be even more sensitive to such charges in light of the recent Newsweek fiasco, but they seem to remain clueless.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:27 AM

Rewriting History

The folks at ABC News apparently need to go back and read their history books. They seem to fantasize that it was Republicans who blocked the Civil Rights Act. In a piece on the current filibuster debate, they write the following, titled "Historical Perspective":

The filibuster has been used historically by the minority party, which can't win with a vote count. Democrats have opposed the filibuster before — in the 1960s, they accused Republicans of using it to block civil rights legislation.
According to the Senate Historical Office, the record for the longest individual speech is held by the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. To keep the floor, he read some of his wife's recipes and passages from novels out loud.

One of the things that they don't tell you is that at the time (and until 1964) Strom Thurmond was a Democrat (a party that was in the majority at the time). They also don't tell you that opposition to it was largely from southern Democrats like Thurmond, rather than Republicans (President Eisenhower in fact supported it). Note also the action of their mythic Democrat hero, Jack Kennedy:

John F. Kennedy's civil rights record before 1963 was neither a clear endorsement nor rejection of civil rights legislation. As a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the first passed in the 20th century. Kennedy apparently had enough reservations about the bill to vote to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee where it probably would have been pigeonholed. Another indication of his lukewarm support for the Act was his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Southerners preferred jury to bench trials since all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators. At the same time, Kennedy supported efforts to end discrimination in education. His record in the 1950s did not mark the future President as a civil rights activist. It indicated that Kennedy, much like the rest of the nation, had complicated and sometimes contradictory views about civil rights.

The ugly fact, of which ABC is either unaware, or worse, deliberately misleading their readers about, is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without Republican support, due to the continued opposition by southern Democrats. Contra ABC's implication, it was not the minority Republicans who filibustered it, but the majority Democrats, and the cloture vote to end debate was achieved only with the votes of many Republicans. Former Klansman Robert "Sheets" Byrd (shamefully still representing the state of West Virginia, even in his dotage and senility) was the last debater on the floor before that cloture vote (it then required 67 votes, rather than the current 60) was passed. Other stars of the filibuster were Richard Russell (D-GA), Albert Gore, Sr. (the last Vice President's father) (D-TN), and William Fullbright (D-AR) (Bill Clinton's mentor).

But I guess when you're a modern liberal Democrat reporter, all that can just go down the memory hole, as long as it's in service to a greater cause--to preserving the myth of Republican racism and opposition to civil rights, and demonstrating the continuing horror of George Bush's and the Republican's "theocracy."

[Update at noon EDT]

Down the memory hole. I should have gotten a screenshot.

Now it reads:

The filibuster has been used historically by the minority party, which can't win with a vote count.
According to the Senate Historical Office, the record for the longest individual speech is held by the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. To keep the floor, he read some of his wife's recipes and passages from novels out loud.

Still no mention of Thurmond's political affiliation at the time, but at least they're not explicitly blaming Republicans for blocking the CRA.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AM

Short Memories

Ann Coulter reminds us of some Michael Isikoff stories from the past that Newsweek was in no hurry to run:

...apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.
Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate — and interesting! — than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking — before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."

[Update at 12:45 PM EDT]

Here's is a similar thought, particularly with regard to the White House press corps' whining yesterday about "intimidation" from the White House.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:27 AM

May 06, 2005
News Bulletin

Listen to this when it gets posted tomorrow.

In the early morning the bodies of 14 men were discovered in a shallow mass grave in a rubbish dump in northeastern Baghdad. Some of the victims were blindfolded and appear to have been executed with a shot to the head. Now this news bulletin...

BBC radio 15:00 GMT, Friday, May 6, 2005

This gives a new meaning to murderous competition for news delivery.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 08:04 AM

He Still Doesn't Get It

Howell Raines' replacement at the Gray Lady, Bill Keller, apparently impervious to irony, had some strange things to say at Johns Hopkins last week.

With blogs that "just throw opinions out there" and shows like CNN's debate program "Crossfire," newspapers are "no longer society's usual news," said Keller.

"...blogs that 'just throw opinions out there...'" You know, kinda like Paul Krugman. Or Jayson Blair.

He added that with media sources like these, and with a readership that is "seeking the journalism of affirmation...it's possible for the public to feel well-informed without interacting with opinions that contradict theirs."

How rich is this? This, from the land of Pauline "How could Nixon have won, I don't know anyone who voted for him?" Kael. This, in fact, would seem to be a perfect projection of the political cocooning of the left, and the Times Executive Editor remains clueless.

He picks an amusing example of how badly he and the media are being put upon:

As an example of the criticism and distrust news organizations are facing, Keller cited a story the Times ran eight days prior to the 2004 presidential election reporting that missing weapons in Iraq had been stolen by insurgents after the American invasion.
He said the article had quotes from soldiers who admitted to witnessing the theft of weapons and that the reporting was "well-backed."

However, once it was printed, Keller said a "firestorm of hostility" came down on the Times as critics attacked the paper, claiming sources were fabricated.

"Evidence in support was dismissed," he added.

Not only was the Times' credibility questioned, but its motives came under fire as well. Because the story came out close to the election, critics claimed its purpose was to undermine President George W. Bush's candidacy as part of its liberal agenda, Keller said.

According to Keller, this incident "has lived on as critical lore."

Gee, maybe because the political agenda was, and remains, transparently obvious?

This was my favorite part, though, in a feeble pretense at apology and contrition:

When examining why it was so easy to discredit such a story, Keller admitted that the "crisis of trust is self-inflicted" by recent scandals in the newspaper industry.
However, he added, "The press has never pretended to be perfect. My own paper pretty much decided to overlook the Holocaust."

Strange that he should mention that, when a much more obvious case would be the Times aiding Walter Duranty in covering up for "Uncle Joe" Stalin's earlier holocaust against the Ukrainians and others, an act for which to this day they've not returned the corresponding Pulitzer. That killing-of-Jews-and-Communists-by-Nazis thing we really should have covered, but when communists do it, well, you know what they say about omelettes and eggs. I mean, they were creating a greater and more just Soviet society, after all, can't watch the sausage being made and all that.

Could this be an explanation for his seeming insouciance about Soviet atrocities?

From 1986 to 1991 he was in Moscow as a correspondent, then bureau chief, and he won a Pulitzer Price in 1989 for his coverage of the Soviet Union.

Maybe he wouldn't want to see any ugly precedents set about handing back Pulitzers resulting from Soviet Union coverage.

Anyway, just asking.

And he wonders why his paper continues to lose credibility.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:52 AM

April 27, 2005
Poor Word Choice

On NPR this morning I heard the following gem:

A member of Iraq's new parliament has been shot and killed outside her home in Baghdad. It was the first assassination of a member of the National Assembly since the body was elected in January.

I would want to be elected and remembered for my mind.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 09:07 AM

April 22, 2005
Huh?

In an interesting piece about blogging in Business Week, I come across this oddity:

A Google official says the company has lots of bloggers and just expects them to use common sense. For example, if it's something you wouldn't e-mail to a long list of strangers, don't blog it.

That might be common something, but it doesn't look like common sense to me. If I used that criterion, I can't think of anything that I'd ever blog, since I would never email anything to a long list of strangers. On my planet, that's called spamming.

If Google officials don't understand the difference between a hyperlink that someone comes across, and decides to go investigate it, and having that same person's mailbox filled with someone's uninvited ravings, they're frighteningly clueless about the internet. I wonder if this quote was taken out of context?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:26 AM

April 21, 2005
End Of Newspapers?

I actually think that newspapers are more likely to be done in by things like Craig's List (when they start losing their classified ad revenue) than bloggers, Sam. I'd like to know more about that poll.

Young people may be reading blogs, but it's not obvious from it that that's where they're getting their news. There are a lot of blogs that talk about a lot of subjects, but that's more of a social activity, I suspect, than information gathering.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:40 PM

End of Newspapers

The Economist quotes Rupert Murdoch saying so. I predict a set of better paid part time specialist bloggers taking over for the generalist newspaper journalists. It may happen soon:

Whereas 56% of Americans haven't heard of blogs, and only 3% read them daily, among the young they are standard fare, with 44% of online Americans aged 18-29 reading them often, according to a poll by CNN/USA Today/Gallup.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 10:49 AM

April 18, 2005
Props To Time Mag

In their Ann Coulter edition (and yes, that was an awful cover photo, and I don't think it's an accident), they mistook Communists For Kerry and the Protest Warriors for real anti-right-wing groups protesting Ann. Maybe the protesters were a little too "nuanced" for them.

They've since fixed it though. Rather than just putting it down the memory hole, they've since changed the caption of the picture to reflect reality, and noted their original error. That's refreshing, and when they do something right, we should encourage them.

It does make you question their savvy, though. Weren't the jokes obvious, or did they look too much like signs that moonbats would actually carry? I like the "Criminals for Gun Control," myself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:08 PM

Augering In

Brian Anderson says that Air America is doomed to fail.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:17 AM

April 16, 2005
Did I Miss It?

The sixtieth anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's death was last Tuesday. I'm surprised that the MSM didn't make a big deal of it, considering that he was arguably the last (and perhaps only) great president that the Democrat Party has issued.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:19 AM

April 13, 2005
Do Journalists Need Editors?

The title of this post doesn't actually mean what most people would think it means (i.e., the continual criticism about fact checking, and how MSM does it but bloggers don't). No.

I ran across this post by Michelle Malkin, in which she republishes an email from Nick Kristof:

michelle,
thanks belatedly for your note about hillary and abortions. i was in zimbabwe, skulking around and pretending to be a tourist, and didn't have web access. but now i did have a chance to look at your web link, and i'm afraid i disagree.

you're right that it was stassen's work that originally pointed me to this issue and that the data cover only 16 states. but stassen has considerable credibility, since he is himself pro-life and trained in statistics, and others in the repro health field have found his work sensible. moreover, while the data are incomplete, the states represented include a range of different geographic areas and seem representative. and among those 16 states, the trend was very clear. Stassen calculates that there are 50,000 more abortions a year than if the previous trend had continued.

I repost it here not because I have any interest whatsoever in the content (which is to say, the message), but rather (as McCluhan might have said) the media that is in this case the message. This is an opinion columnist for the New York Times, who doesn't seem to know the location of the shift key.

I don't want to single out Mr. Kristof here, but this just happened to catalyze my thoughts on this subject, that I've noticed in the past. Is it an email thing? Or does he submit columns like this, and let his editor clean them up? I've noticed the same thing when conversing with actual book authors--the email is often all lower-case. At least in Mr. Kristof's case, the email is otherwise well-written and grammatical, but I've often received emails from so-called journalists for which this wasn't even the case.

I would never send out an email like the one posted here--I'd be embarrassed for anyone to see my writing in such a form--and if I had no other knowledge of Mr. Kristof's work, I wouldn't be very impressed with him as a writer, or even thinker. Maybe this is an irrational prejudice on my part, but it seems to me that if you want to communicate as well as possible, you want people to focus on the message, and not be distracted by a poor presentation of it.

My point is that I suspect that many "professional" writers (which is to say that people, like reporters, who actually get paid to write, however amateurishly they may actually practice their craft, such as it is) also have professional editors, who serve as a backstop for them against grammatical and spelling errors. I can't help but believe that this tends to make many of them sloppy.

I don't have that luxury. Whatever I post is seen by no eyes except mine until it's printed on line, for everyone who chooses to, to see. I know there are some blogs that disdain the use of the shift key, and perhaps if you can get past that, the writing is very good and interesting, but I have trouble getting past it. I figure that few people are going to be turned off by proper capitalization, and surely I'm not unique in that I'm turned off by a lack of it, so why not do it right, in both email and blog posts?

But I think that it points up just one more area in which (amateur) bloggers can (because they have to be) better writers than MSM journalists. It's not just that we know more about specific subjects, but we also present it better, because we are our own editors, and we know that if we don't get it right, in both fact and presentation, our hits will drop, or never appear at all. Contrast that to a writer in a one-newpaper town, like Los Angeles, to whom neither facts or grammar are important, because there are editors for that, and their stuff will get published and read regardless, at least until the owners of the newspaper finally decide to stop subsidizing incompetence and ideology.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:07 AM

April 05, 2005
Not Quite Forgotten

I didn't mention last night that Brit Hume did cover the Sandy Scissorhands story, both in an interview with Michael Isakoff, and as one of the segments with the "Fox All Stars" panel, so at least someone is tryng to keep it alive. Unusually, the panel was weighed liberal last night, with Bill Sammon vs Jeff Birnbaum and Mara Liasson. Mara said that Berger "...had a distinguished career." Really?

What distinguished it more than this incident? I can't think of a single thing that he accomplished. I suspect that she means that he had a long career, and served in the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, there are so many people who meet these criteria that the linguistic currency of the word becomes extremely devalued, even if one ignores that many Clinton appointees and employees distinguished themselves mostly with scandal and prevarication (something that Berger at least managed to avoid until recently).

Bill Sammon was incredulous (though you'd think he'd be used to it by now) at the limitless capacity of his co-panelists to extend the benefit of the doubt to his actions, and their unwillingness to consider the possibility of anything nefarious about it.

But at least Brit attempted to keep the topic alive.

The real problem, of course, is that the Justice Department seems to be brain dead (as, unaccountably, it almost always seems to be when it comes to investigating wrongdoing on the part of its predecessor administration). It's going to be very difficult to get the media to follow up on this, when the message from the Justice Department itself seems to be "...move along folks, nothing to see here." Even though the notion that he was just preparing for testimony by destroying documents is laughable, no one in the press is going to challenge it, because it's just what they want to hear, at least when the beneficiary is a Clinton Dem.

If the blogosphere is to keep this alive and find out what really happened, perhaps that's where the pressure should be placed--to get Gonzales' people to be more forthcoming.

[Update a few minutes later]

I should add, in light of the comment below, that I was still confused even after the discussion. The story now seems to be that the Justice Department claims that only "copies" of the documents were taken, and that the originals were untouched. But what does this mean? Do they mean that no information was lost, including handwritten notes in the margins, or do they just mean that the five that Sandy Scissorhands purloined were all copies of a single document, of which the original still exists. If the latter, then as suggested in comments, and other places, what he was clearly destroying was the only copy of unique notes of individuals, and if he did, we now will never know the nature of what he destroyed, or his purpose in doing so, by definition, because he destroyed the evidence (which was obviously the intent, to anyone not in love with Democrats in general, and Clintonistas in particular).

Of course, evidence destruction, from Vince Foster on, was apparently a daily, almost recreational activity with these folks for eight years...

[Update at noon EDT]

The Washington Times thinks it knows the answer:

What was Mr. Berger doing with the documents? And why did he destroy only three? The likeliest answer is that he sought to conceal comments he or other Clinton administration officials wrote on them when they were circulating in January 2000. He couldn't have been trying to erase the document itself from the record, since copies besides the five exist elsewhere. What's likelier is that jottings in the margins of the three copies he destroyed bore telling indications of the Clinton administration's approach to terrorism. Mr. Clarke's document reportedly criticizes the Clinton administration's handling of the millennial plots and mostly attributes the apprehension of a would-be bomber headed for Los Angeles International Airport to luck and an alert official.
If that turns out to be the case, Mr. Berger erased part of the historical record on terrorism. The Clinton administration's cavalier attitude toward terrorism is by now well-established; it's likely to be evident in the archival records and will crop up in official communications. An after-action report like Mr. Clarke's, written nearly two years before the September 11 terrorist attacks, is as good a candidate as any for the telling aside in the margin.

Still waiting for an answer that makes more sense, and the "I destroyed the documents so that I could prepare for testimony" line doesn't qualify. Of course, the biggest mystery remains why the Justice Department is playing dumb here, and they don't have an answer for that one:

We can only speculate as to why the Department of Justice would agree to such lenient terms for the offense. Perhaps career employees or holdovers with ties to Democrats are responsible. Perhaps the Bush administration went soft. Whatever the reason, we can be reasonably sure it wasn't done for reasons of national security, justice or truth.

Yup. I wonder what the New York Times thinks?

[crickets chirping]

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:41 AM

April 02, 2005
Good News, Bad News

The good news is that the Pope's passing has knocked Terri Schiavo out of the news, when otherwise we could have continued to marinate in its aftermath for days. The bad news is that it also knocked everything else out, including Sandy Burglar. I had already predicted that no one would be talking about this tomorrow morning, because there's no way to talk about it that reflects well on the media's favorite (recent) administration--that of Bill Clinton. Now, it's guaranteed--it will be all pontiff, all the time, maybe for a couple weeks until a successor is chosen.

I'm sure that many in the Washington press corps are breathing a sigh of relief to have an excuse to ignore the story. We can't let them do it indefinitely--there are too many unanswered questions about which they've displayed too little curiousity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:03 PM

Mysteriouser And Mysteriouser

What is the credulity level of a reporter who can write a story like this with no allusion to how little sense it makes?

First, the lead:

The Justice Department said yesterday there was no evidence that former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger was trying to conceal information when he illegally took copies of classified terrorism documents out of the National Archives in 2003...
...Department lawyers concluded that Berger took the documents for personal convenience -- to prepare testimony -- and not with the intent of destroying evidence or thwarting the Sept. 11 panel's inquiry as to whether the Clinton administration did enough to confront a rising terrorist threat.

Then, she writes:

In acknowledging the crime to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, Berger said he knowingly took five copies of different versions of the same classified document -- briefings for the Clinton administration on terrorism threats -- from the National Archives in the fall of 2003. As part of his plea, Berger also acknowledged that he destroyed three of the copies, and returned the remaining two to archives officials and said he had "misfiled" them.

How does destroying documents help one "prepare testimony"? The story makes it sound like they were accidentally destroyed, but she can't be bothered to mention that he deliberately shredded them with scissors. There is still no explanation for this, from either her, or at least as she reports, from the Justice Department people.

And what are we to make of this?

Hillman noted that Berger only had copies of the documents -- not the originals -- and so was not charged with the more serious crime of destroying documents.

But if they were only "copies" (indicating that the information on them was identical) why did he need five of them? And what was the purpose of destroying three of them? Is Hillman an idiot? Why did he get such a light sentence when there are so many seemingly unanswered questions?

And I loved this bit:

Friends of Berger said he hopes the embarrassing episode does not badly tarnish his reputation.

As long as Berger, like all corrupt former Clinton officials, has friends in the press, his reputation will apparently be just fine. And does anyone think that this reporting would have been the same if it were a Bush administration official accused of the same thing? No, I suspect there's be much more curiousity on the part of this reporter, and others.

[Update on Monday morning]

For those visitors this morning from Instapundit, note that this is a follow up of an earlier post on this subject.

Despite the wall-to-wall coverage of the passing of the pontiff, we can't let this story fall off the radar, no matter how badly the press wishes that it would go away.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:30 AM

March 22, 2005
Et Tu, Google?

I got a call from a salesman at Google the other week, trying to get me to run Google ads at my site. Well, until this gets fixed, don't count on it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:04 PM

March 09, 2005
There Must Be Something Else On

I didn't watch Dan's last broadcast (following my pattern for the past twenty-plus years).

I thought that low ratings would be the fittest ending to his ignoble career.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:24 PM

Gunga Dumb

National Review Online is piling on the departing Dan Ra^ther, here, here, here, here, and here. It's no more than he deserves. Probably a little less, in fact.

For those who can't get enough, here and here are a couple of my own past satirical posts on the subject.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:10 AM

March 04, 2005
Bloggers Are Good For Journalists

That's what Ralph Kinney Bennett says. For the good ones, at least:

It's precisely because good journalism is hard that I love bloggers.
They are always ready to pounce. Whether you're CBS News or the Daily Bugle, they will not let you get by on the cheap. They teach you by their native wisdom. They teach you by their ignorance.

They can be immensely unfair and incredibly stupid. They open up new vistas for you and force you to consider sometimes cockeyed perspectives that end up giving you more perspective.

They bring the world to a screen right in front of your eyes -- in all its uncouth, elegant, raw, funny, revolting, thoughtful, partisan, passionate, tedious, upsetting, amazing, predictable, biased, sordid, elemental, ethereal, exhaustive, cynical, hopeful, delightful, excruciating variety.

And they are providing a venue for some thoughtful, fresh, clever writers who otherwise might have taken a while to find their way into print.

Pompous journalists are disdainful of blogs because they feel threatened by them. They are like members of the Raccoon Lodge and the bloggers just barreled into the ritual room and tore open the curtains and they all look slightly ridiculous in their epaulets and tin pot hats and braided swallowtail coats.

Also, this:

The unmasking of "the li'l Injun that could" set me to thinking. Can you imagine what a job freewheeling bloggers would have done on Adolf Hitler as he was on his "way up?"

Or (not that I'm making any comparisons here) Bill Clinton?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:56 AM

March 03, 2005
No Free Speech For Reporters

Hiawatha Bray has gotten into trouble with his bosses at the Boston Globe for expressing his political opinions on line:

...Bray posted an item under his own name on a blog hosted by the San Jose Mercury News dismissing Kerry's strategy of promoting his Vietnam service record as "moronic.''
Bray promoted many of the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry - some of which were proven false. He questioned his own paper's work, dismissing probes of Bush's National Guard service as "innuendo.''

And in another Web forum after the election, Bray identified himself as a "Bush supporter'' and said he's "feeling pretty good now.''

Emphasis mine. I'm not aware of any that were "proven false." That's the same kind of sophistry--well, lie, actually--that the same folks use when they say that the Independent Council report "proved the Clintons innocent" of everything in Whitewater. As far as I'm aware, the worst that can be said about any of the charges is that they remain in dispute. Few of them can be resolved absent Kerry's service records, which he continues to refuse to release, despite his statement that he would do so to Tim Russert a few weeks ago.

Anyway, that's a side issue. According to the article, Bray "had been told in November his postings were 'inappropriate and in violation of our standards.'''

One can't help but wonder if they would have been more"appropriate" and in keeping with their "standards" if the criticism had instead been directed at George Bush, rather than the hometown boy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:43 AM

February 28, 2005
Missing WMD

Weapons of Mass Distraction, that is. Remember all the stories, led by the New York Times, the week before the election about Al Qaqaa, and the missing munitions, and (of course!) the incompetence of the Bush administration in not guarding them properly? Remember how we haven't heard anything about it since?

Byron York does:

The obvious question is whether the Times pushed the Al Qaqaa story hard in the days in which it might have an effect on the presidential election, and then let up the moment the election was over. Okrent conceded that that might appear to be the case. "I would say at the very least that the dates they were running stories certainly can leave an impression," Okrent told NRO. "But I'm not ready to convict, at least not yet."

No. But then, he never is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:05 AM

February 24, 2005
A Previously Unknown Part Of The Spectrum

Why journalists need a broader education, Part 34,567,276:

The European-built Huygens descended through the dense atmosphere and touched down on the largest and most intriguing moon of Saturn on Friday.
On board is a $12 million spectrogram built by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder that will analyze electroviolet light.

Emphasis mine.

My email correspondent who sent me this informs me that it was a republication of an article by the noted NYT science reporter John Noble Wilford.

Based on a discussion with my friend who is a scientist on the descent imager, Wilford wrote his piece without the idiocy, which was added by a reporter at the Denver Post, who was no doubt trying to provide a ‘local spin’ to the presence of a Univ. of Colorado instrument on the mission.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:22 AM

February 23, 2005
Breathtaking

That's the only way to describe the coverage of the story of the kid who was indicted yesterday for conspiring to assassinate the president as part of an Al Qaeda plot. When I heard about this on the radio in the car, a big part of the story was apparently that he was a valedictorian of a Virginia high school. I guess that this was supposed to indicate some kind of disconnect; how could such a seemingly all-American boy do such a thing?

Well, as Paul Harvey says, here's the rest of the story. The "high school" was a Saudi-funded madrassa. (Do such institutions even have valedictorians, in the sense that we would recognize them?)

Why wasn't this part reported? Fear of CAIR?

[Via LGF]

[Update at 9:33 AM EST]

Ed Morrissey has more.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:39 AM

Syria Plays A Dangerous Game

Dan Darling has some disturbing news from the Middle East, that could amount to a casus belli with Baby Assad's regime:

To bring it down to the bottom line, this means that a Palestinian terrorist group that is trained, harbored, and financed by Bashar al-Assad's regime is complicit in the deaths of US and Iraqi soldiers. If this can be confirmed, it would seem to indicate that Syrian involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri would be the least of al-Assad's (or Khaddam, if we want to be more up-front about these things) problems.

What's more disturbing, as he points out, is that it's not being covered in the media here.

In some ways, this is like the Eason Jordan affair. This is either true, or not. If true, it's a huge story that the media should be digging into. If false, then it's a huge story that they should be debunking. Either way, they remain asleep at the switch.

[Update at 9:20 AM EST]

Jim Robbins says that Assad is a uniter, not a divider. Not that that's a good thing, in his case. At least not for him...

[Another update, at 10 AM EST]

From this article by David Ignatius in today's WaPo:

The leader of this Lebanese intifada is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus...
..."It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

This from a man who has long expressed anti-American sentiments.

[Via Jim Garaghty]

[One more at 3:30 PM]

The Syrian plot continues to thicken:

Iraqi state television aired a video Wednesday showing what the U.S.-funded channel said was the confession of a captured Syrian officer who said he trained Iraqi insurgents to behead people and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops.
The video also showed an Iraqi who said the insurgents practiced beheading animals to train for decapitating hostages.

If true, why is this not a clear act of war against both Iraq and the coalition?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:04 AM

February 21, 2005
Copycat?

Pat Oliphant has a cartoon that shows angry bloggers, with battle axes and other midieval weapons, storming the castle gates.

So, even the old war horse of a political cartoonist is becoming blog savvy, eh?

Well, not exactly. If he were really familiar with the blogosphere, he'd be aware of this Cox and Forkum cartoon from early last week (which is much better, and heavily linked by bloggers). And rather than being embarrassed by his slow response, hopefully he'd have come up with something more original.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:15 PM

February 18, 2005
Another Journalist Who Gets It

At Business Week. Steven Baker doesn't fear The Blog:

...with all their clout and reach, bloggers alone can't bring down their enemies. In the end, it's up to society's traditional powers -- the corporate boards, politicians, CEOs -- to rule on these matters. Do they fire an executive for uttering one foolish sentence, ax a reporter for a wrongheaded story, exile a university president for offensive remarks? If the bloggers appear to be censorious, it's only because the rest of society plays along.
In truth, blogging represents an explosion of free speech. While blogs certainly empower lynch mobs, they can also lead to long and open conversations, virtual town meetings. These are the greatest antidote to censorship and secrecy. The Jordan case gave birth to loads of such discussions.

Like many, he does get one thing wrong, though:

He resigned on Feb. 13 after conservative bloggers feasted on a controversial statement he made in late January at the annual World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, about the U.S. military. His allegation -- that coalition soldiers in Iraq mistook journalists for enemies and killed them -- brought down a storm of criticism on him and his network.

No, that wasn't his allegation, at least not initially, if numerous accounts are correct. His allegation was that journalists were targeted by coalition soldiers (and that word includes identification). He then attempted to walk it back to them being hit by mistake.

But the columnist raises an interesting thesis: that the days of privacy are ending. To whatever degree that's true, if it means that the powerful will no longer be able to get away with slander and bias, it's hard to see how that's a bad thing.

As he notes, Jordan losing his job wasn't a blow to free speech--it was a victory for it. The First Amendment never meant anything more than that the government can't censor you, or pass laws against the dissemination of ideas (though the current government doesn't seem to think that the First Amendment applies to election campaigns any more). It was never meant as a shield against potential consequences of speech.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AM

February 17, 2005
Beyond Parody

You know, it used to be easy to write satire of (literally) sophomoric columns in college newspapers, by writing something like "Top Ten Reasons America Sucks."

Sadly, they've raised the bar, and taken away such an easy theme.

Next thing you know, you won't be able to spoof the lefty professoriate by calling innocent people who died in the World Trade Center things like "little Eichmanns."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AM

February 14, 2005
Jay Rosen's Questions

He has a couple about the Eason Jordan "kerfuffle:"

Overlooking the larger scene, Michael Barone of US News writes: "The focus of hatred in the right blogosphere is not Kerry or the Democrats but what these bloggers call Mainstream Media, or MSM. They argue, correctly in my view, that the New York Times, CBS News, and others distorted the news in an attempt to defeat Bush in 2004."
Barone, a friend to the right blogosphere, is correct-- and he's being candid. The focus of hatred in the right blogosphere is the Mainstream Media. (For the Left it's Bush, he says.) I want to know what the right blogosphere says back. Not to me, although that's fine too, but to Michael Barone. Is he right?

I don't know how to answer that question (though I agree with his diagnosis of the MSM from the perspective of the "right blogosphere"), because it's a complex one (in the literal sense of the phrase). I don't consider myself part of the "right blogosphere." I doubt if Glenn Reynolds does either. Until we get past this simplistic need to label, I'm not sure that we'll make much progress in having a dialogue (which leads to his next question):

In an effort to go dialogic, I asked Will Collier of Vodka Pundit (who got into it with Steve Lovelady of CJR Daily) a question that I hope is both pointed and open ended: Is the point to have a dialogue with the MSM or help cause its destruction? (Or is there a third and fourth alternative we should be discussing?) This is something the blogging world should take a moment for and reflect upon.

There's at least a third (and probably a fourth and fifth, and...). The points are to get the MSM to 1) recognize that it has a problem with political bias; 2) to recognize that this bias tilts politically to whatever is meant by the "left" to those who accuse some of the blogosphere of being on the "right;" and 3) to come up with some means of addressing this issue, and some means of bringing accountability to those who spin the news in a certain direction while expressing outrage that their coverage is characterized as anything other than "objective."

Howzat for an alternative, Mr. Rosen?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:10 PM

Did Jordan Take A Bullet For The Team?

Where's the video tape?

That was the question emanating from the blogosphere all last week. As many have pointed out, while we'll take scalps occasionally, the Eason Jordan affair wasn't about taking scalps (though I plead guilty to calling for his head if the tape showed the allegations to be true). It was about honesty and accountability.

Somehow, now that the chum of Jordan has been thrown to the sharks of the web, there may be a hope among many that the calls for the release of the tape, or a transcript (which may be much less damaging, for reasons I'll explain in a minute) will die down.

Many are noting that if the tape exonerated, or mitigated Jordan's alleged comments, it would have appeared by now. That's true, but it misses a big part of the story. I don't think that this was just about the MSM protecting one of their own. I think that it may be about protecting itself, or at least many members of it.

I have to wonder if that tape would show (and perhaps more starkly and much more graphically than a black and white transcript) not just Jordan's words, but the approving reception of them by his Davos cohorts? The nods of recognition, the lack of any challenge, perhaps even murmurs of appreciation, until Rony Abovitz and Barney Frank spoke up. Gergen may have appeared concerned, and eventually changed the subject, but how long did it go on, and who was cheering Eason on? Was Iowahawk closer to reality than we thought? Who else will this tape embarrass (or should embarrass), and reflect poorly on?

Somehow, I suspect that if we were to see that video, it would provide much more than a brief glimpse into the soul of Eason Jordan. It might reveal the depths of the anti-military (and anti-American, or at least anti-Bush) sentiment in his colleagues as well, in an unguarded moment when they forgot that others were watching. And perhaps it's their hope that by sacrificing Jordan, the rest of them can continue, incognito and unharried, in their undeclared war against the hyperpower.

Whether my speculation is correct or not, I don't think that we should take Jordan's resignation as a victory--it's perhaps a distraction, and we should continue to demand the tape.

[Update at 2:30 PM EST]

A commenter claims that the remarks were off the record. How strange, then, to have an official videotape of a meeting that was supposed to be "off the record."

[Another update a couple minutes later]

Bill Roggio has similar thoughts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:53 AM

February 11, 2005
Another Scalp For The Blogosphere?

Ramesh Ponnuru is reporting that Eason Jordan just resigned.

I guess that some folks really didn't want that videotape to get out, to protect the CNN brand. I wonder if Jonathan Klein is getting himself fitted for some pajamas?

Note the timing also. Late Friday aftenoon, so everyone will have forgotten about it by Monday.

Does that trick still work in the era of the blogosphere?

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:28 PM

Clueless Reporters

At the WaPo.

When are they going to learn what a blog is? Hint: Free Republic isn't one, doesn't have one, and its commenters are not "bloggers."

I think that to the degree they think they know what a blog is, in their minds, it probably means "people who post stuff on that Internet thingie that somehow, unaccountably, keeps making us look bad."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AM

February 09, 2005
The MSM President

Commenter "Vulgorilla" asks a very simple question, about CBS, CNN and the MSM in general, over at Austin Bay's site:

“Just how long have they been feeding us this crap before the blogosphere?….before we had a way to uncover their fabrications and lies?”

It's a good question, and it raises a more complex one to which I've been trying to devote some thought, off and on, over the past few months.

Despite Evan Thomas' estimate that MSM support was worth fifteen points in the election, the MSM failed in their efforts to drag the rotting carcass of the Kerry presidential campaign across the goal line last November (in part, I suspect, because of the huge blowback from some of their more egregious attempts to do so, including Ra^thergate in particular).

I actually still think that it's possible that they got their fifteen percent, which means that had the media played it straight down the line (e.g., actually investigating the Swift Boat controversy, and demanding that Kerry sign the Form 180 before the election, instead of afterward), it would have been a true fifty-state Bush blowout, instead of being close enough that the Dems continue to whine about stolen elections (while the media continue to focus on Ohio and ignore Wisconsin where clear fraud took place in a much closer race).

Anyway, here's my question.

Would Bill Clinton have survived the blogosphere?

Recall, if you will, that Don Hewitt used to brag that he put Clinton in the White House, when in the midst of the Gennifer Flowers "bimbo eruption" during the campaign, he gave him the opportunity to go on Sixty Minutes with his devoted wife Hillary, and explain about how in the past he had "had problems in his marriage" (with no more specificity than that). This was back in the days when Sixty Minutes still had some credibility among many (as did, amazingly, Dan Rather) and this faux-sincere contrition managed to put the incident behind him sufficiently to salvage the campaign and get him into the White House the first time. (I should add, as an aside, that in addition to his rabid partisanship, I think that it was Dan's desire to one-up Don Hewitt by being a kingmaker to Kerry that was a significant part of the motivation behind Ra^thergate.)

And it wasn't just Don Hewitt. After all, the nature of the corruption of the Clinton governorship was well known in Arkansas--why wasn't it reported during the campaign? Because the MSM didn't want to investigate it, let alone report it--it might have prevented the election of what they saw as the best hope to retake the White House against a weak incumbent president, and the official (as opposed to the real) Bill Clinton had been viewed as an up-and-coming party star ever since he was first elected as a young governor in the 1970s.

Would Hewitt have gotten away with such a thing today? Or would the blogosphere have not allowed the cloying images on Sunday night to whitewash the dirty tricks, such as the threats and attacks on Flowers' character, being orchestrated by Hillary and Carville? Would it have exposed the womanizing, the corruption of the eighties, not allowing it to be buried by a fawning media?

How much of the spin in Whitewater, Filegate (who hired Craig Livingstone?), the Travel Office firings (a serious abuse of power), the Foster "suicide note" (indeed, the mystery of his "suicide" altogether), the Ron Brown death, the Indonesian connection, the Chinese campaign donations, et al would have been chewed up and spit out by a vigorously masticating network of highly read blogs?

And even if he'd gotten into the White House the first time, would he have been reelected? Could the nation have been spared the impeachment "trial" (which was mainly a failed surrogate as a means to bring him to account for all of the other abuses of power, evidence tampering, and corruption that the press continued to cover up)?

As it was, the major news outlets were simply White House stenographers, and the only place one could get an alternative viewpoint was from so-called right-wing publications, like the Washington Times and Insight Magazine, and the Pittsburgh paper where Chris Ruddy worked. So rather than having access to all the facts in these scandals, and thoughtful analysis and dissection of the White House spin, the public, absurdly, actually believed that the media was picking on Bill Clinton when it was in fact his greatest enabler.

How would Gary Aldridge have fared in a world in which George Stephanopolous (then a White House staffer) wasn't able to just make a call to ABC and keep them from interviewing Aldridge on This Week With David Brinkley (and after that escapade one can only be all the more amazed that he ended up becoming the host of the show)? I submit that in today's world, he'd have a much better means for getting the word out about his book, just as the Swift Boat Vets did--through the blogosphere. The facts in the book, and the merits of its arguments, would actually be discussed, rather than dismissed.

It would be very interesting to go back and analyze the myriad wrongdoings of the Clinton administration, of which it was only held to account for a few (and even then, with the equivalent of a quickly forgotten slap on the wrist), and try to imagine how the blogosphere (indeed, specific blogs, such as Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, Powerline, or even a pre-911 Roger Simon. After all, there were some Democrats who got fed up with Bill Clinton, and the breezy acceptance (and spinning denial) of his corruption, such as Pat Caddell, and David Schippers, et al. They might have prevented the master politician from being elected once, let alone twice. Could their voices have made a difference?

I think it's likely that John Kennedy won his election because he was the first candidate for the television age. People who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio thought that Nixon won, but the sweaty, jowled five-o'clock-shadowed vice president lost the debate under the harsh glare of the videocon tube.

Bill Clinton was the candidate of the MSM, and there was no alternate media in the 1990s with enough power to sway that. But those days are over, which has to be one of the things that has both the MSM and their political arm, the Democrat Party, quaking.

[Update at 11:37 EST]

Lynne notes in comments that a more pertinent (and testable) question is whether or not Hillary will survive the blogosphere. We may find out.

One of the tactics that the Clintons used to use to deflect bad news was to leak something on a Friday afternoon, and hope that it would die down after the weekend. Then if anyone brought it up, they'd dismiss it as "that's old news."

Given how ignorant much of the public remains of all the Clinton scandals that they successfully buried in the nineties, I wonder if this "old news" tactic will continue to work if things like Travelgate are brought up as issues in a 2008 campaign. I've already noted that Hillary will have her own "Slick Grope Vets" problem if she runs.

[Update at 6 PM EST]

It occurs to me that the "that's old news" defense may not work, particularly with the "Slick Grope Vets For Truth," at least based on the Kerry experience. After all, what could be older news than his congressional testimony after Vietnam? Yet it did become a potent campaign issue.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:45 AM

February 07, 2005
Slightly Missing The Point.

There's an interesting op-ed about the Columbia Journalism Review over at the new DC Examiner. However, the author misses an important point when she writes:

Blogs these days are holding the MSM's feet to the fire, forcing newspapers and TV news shows to reflect the country's politics more accurately.

Yes, they're doing that, but even more importantly, they're holding the MSM's feet to the fire in an attempt to get them to do honest and informed reporting, instead of agenda-driven, ignorant (and often illogical) hackery, of which the subject of the article, Corey Pein's piece on Ra^thergate, was a textbook case. The op-ed in fact demonstrates this quite clearly:

Newcomer, who voted for Sen. John Kerry in November, was baffled. When I spoke with him recently, he told me that The New Yorker once called his wife, a botanical illustration expert, to ask whether a certain plant could grow in a certain area, because a fiction writer had mentioned it in a piece. That was fact-checking. CJR "did not do any fact-checking," he says. Pein did spend weeks researching his story, even traveling to Texas to report it. He wrote that CBS screwed up. But the suggestion that blogs were "guilty of many of the very same sins" that CBS committed, and that Newcomer did not know what he was talking about, set the blogosphere howling.

The point of the blogosphere is not so much to get the media to, in the words of the former Clinton administration in another context, "look more like America," but rather to get them to actually provide balanced and informed newsreporting. For too long have they been allowed to get away with laziness and incompetence. That's what we are attempting to provide a corrective for, not just the (obvious) political bias.

[Update at 9:30 AM]

Case in point can be found here:

James Watt has written to Bill Moyers, asking him to apologize for the lies in his Star Tribune article. After quoting Moyers' statements about him, Watt wrote:
I have never thought, believed or said such words. Nor have I ever said anything similar to that thought which could be interpreted by a reasonable person to mean anything similar to the quote attributed to me.
Because you are at least average in intelligence and have a basic understanding of Christian beliefs, you know that no Christian would believe what you attributed to me.

Because you have had the privilege of serving in the White House under President Johnson, you know that no person believing such a thing would be qualified for a Presidential appointment, nor would he be confirmed by the United States Senate, and if confirmed and said such a thing would he be allowed to continue in service.

Since you must have known such a statement would not have been made and you refused or failed to do any primary research on this supposed quote, what was your motive in printing such a damnable lie?

Before the advent of the blogosphere, Bill Moyers--arrogant, rich, powerful and well-connected--would merely have thrown Mr. Watt's letter into the trash. Today, he may still do so. But he and his friends in the liberal media no longer have a monopoly on information, and those who have been defamed by them, like James Watt, now have the means to make their voices heard.

Yes, Bill Moyers is a leftist, vastly out of touch with Red America, but the real issue is that for years he's been getting away with these kinds of slanders and libels.

The blogosphere exists to (among many other things, of course) finally allow the truth to come out, ripping open the comfortable cocoons of media polemicists of all stripes. That most of the ire is aimed at so-called progressives is not because the blogosphere has it in for people of that political persuasion per se, but rather because, given the monoculture of the MSM, there are largely only one species of fish in the barrel. As Jim Geraghty says, it's not ultimately about right and left. It's about right and wrong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:04 AM

February 04, 2005
Boycott

I don't link CNN that much anyway, but I'm totally on board with this. What few links I give CNN will henceforth be zero until the Eason Jordan matter is resolved satisfactorily. At this point, to me that means getting his walking papers, unless the transcript truly shows a massive misunderstanding.

Of course, I think that he should have been canned after admitting that he covered up Saddam's crimes in return for access. After the Dan Rather whitewash, I've reached a point of zero tolerance for this kind of crap.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:10 PM

Faux Pas

Hugh Hewitt has an interview with someone who was present at Eason Jordan's accidental unveiling of his anti-military, anti-US views.

The Arab journalists and WEF members who were in the audience and congratulated Mr. Jordan for his bravery and courage for standing up to the U.S. heard what we all heard, and it was pretty damning.
Someone should search the Arab language press (web and print) for their reaction to what was said. If the WEF 2005 videotape of this meeting is ever released for public view, it will not help Mr. Jordan at all. He is much better off if the tape (in classic "1984" style) just disappears. I can only imagine the reaction of a U.S. audience to a broadcast of what he said prior to being challenged, prior to his backtracking, and prior to having time to realize the implications of what he said.

To be fair, we are all only humans and in the heat of the moment many people say all sorts of things that they later regret. The contrast of what he was saying before and after he realized what he was saying was pretty incredible. His media savvy, professional executive brain did kick in, but not soon enough. The content and context of what he said would allow groups with an anti-American bias to take what he said and believe that the American military forces had
targeted for assasination journalists. For someone with a pro-U.S. posture, you were left confused and in disbelief.

There's an old joke about a faux pas being the accidental blurting out of the truth. There's an alternate version, which is the accidental disclosure of what one believes to be the truth, even if it's a fantasy. No doubt Mr. Jordan actually believes this, or at least doesn't disbelieve it enough to be uncomfortable with saying it in front of what he perceives to be friendly audiences.

How much longer will most of the media continue to ignore it? I'm particularly surprised that Fox, or even more so--the more-desperate MSNBC aren't playing up the head of their rival network's slanderous comments to the hilt, exposing CNN for the anti-Bush shills that they are. And yes, I do think that that's the true animus behind this. It's about Bush hatred. The reputation of the American military that has liberated and democratized fifty million people in the past two years is just (perhaps, perhaps not) regrettable collateral damage in the noble crusade against Chimpy McFlightsuit.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 AM

January 26, 2005
We Need An Independent Commission

...to investigate the "results" of the "Independent Commission" that investigated Ra^thergate. It looks like Thornburgh and Boccardi may have set themselves up for a libel suit.

This won't go away until CBS and its defenders decide to let it all hang out, and display a little honesty. At a minimum, they have to stop making a laughing stock of themselves and admit that that the documents are fake beyond a reasonable doubt. That, plus a very public apology to Matley, might at least make this legal problem go away.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:31 AM

January 18, 2005
Pot, Kettle, Obsidian

When I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq? Until he picked up the phone, he was just a ghost on the Internet.

Well, isn't that precious?

Can anyone play this game?

Let's see...

When I considered telephoning a woman named Sarah Boxer in New York, I wondered who might answer. An Al Qaeda operative? A Saudi in a burkha posing as an American? Someone paid by the Iranian or Syrian defense agency to oppose the war? Or simply an American with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq, and determined to see it, and America, fail? Until she picked up the phone, she was just a ghost on the NYT internet website...

I'm just sayin'...

[Update on Wednesday morning]

N. Z. Bear has picked up the ball and run it all the way into the end zone.

[Another update at 10:30 AM, eastern]

My, oh my. A commenter has tracked down the perp, and found out that she's a book author.

Sarah Boxer’s charming first book is a series of cartoon case histories, an animal tour of all things Freudian. The tale begins when Mr. Bunnyman runs into Dr. Floyd’s office to hide from a wolf that is chasing him, and Floyd, a classic pipe-smoking analyst, insists that Bunnyman’s problem is psychological—that he is not actually being chased but is having paranoid fantasies.

And here's an interview with her:

IDLER: Were you ever psychoanalyzed?
BOXER: I tried psychotherapy for many years, with different therapists who were pretty much Freudian, but I never went five days a week.

IDLER: How much of this work is autobiographical, drawing on your experiences?

BOXER: It is not a memoir. It is not based on my experiences. It is based more on the reading of Freud that I did. I used to read Freud for fun, believe it or not...

...IDLER: Was there a family connection to Freud?

BOXER: My sister is a psychologist.

It all starts to make sense now.

And this isn't a first-time offense. Last summer she was revealed to be a quagmirista.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:01 PM

Death Of The Dinosaurs

The species Pompositasaurus Rex, anyway. Les Moonves may be admitting that Roger Simon was right.

Moonves, who will ultimately select Rather's replacement, said he believes many young viewers are turned off by a single "voice of God" anchor in the Internet age.
He spoke publicly about his search for the first time since Rather announced in late November that he was stepping down from the "CBS Evening News." Moonves stressed that he's still considering all possibilities. It's unclear whether a new format would be ready for when Rather leaves in early March, or whether an interim successor would be named.

"Those days are over when you have that guy sitting behind the desk who everyone believes to the `nth' degree," Moonves told reporters. "It's sort of an antiquated way of news telling and maybe there's a new way of doing it."

And if he is, to stretch the analogy, they were wiped out by an asteroid called the Internet and the blogosphere, that they never saw coming.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PM

January 10, 2005
"Myopic Zeal"

They had "myopic zeal," all right. Myopic zeal to see John Kerry elected.

If it was only myopic zeal for a story, there were plenty of other much better documented and valid stories about which to be myopically zealous, including Christmas in Cambodia, earning a medal for cutting and running, less-than-honorable discharges...the list goes on. They could have had a scoop on those, since no other MSM organization wanted to pursue them either.

But for some reason their "myopic zeal" was confined to only one candidate, just weeks before the election. To think that there was no political bias here would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:23 AM

December 09, 2004
Utah State Should Be Ashamed

On what some think may be the eve of the release of the long-awaited report on Rathergate (though Jim Geraghty is skeptical), Professor Hailey is still trying (laughably) to show that the memos could be real. As one commenter asks, "How debunked does something have to be in order to have nothing debunkable left?"

Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:59 AM

"Political Spontaneous Combustion"

That's what Dick Morris says happened in the 2004 election:

The defeat of the networks in the war of CBS versus the bloggers is one of the most dramatic illustrations of this new political dynamic. All of Dan Rather’s men could not put over a forgery of Bush’s National Guard record on America’s bloggers, who eventually forced the CBS anchor from his perch atop our politics.
The way a handful of Swift boat Vietnam veterans with only a few hundred thousand dollars among them were able to defeat the entire propaganda apparatus of the Democratic Party and nullify the effect of a four-day national convention with its extensive panoply of stars and massive media coverage is another example of the emerging people power.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:57 AM

November 25, 2004
Let Us Give Thanks

...that at least one major MSM publication, The Economist, seems to actually understand the blogosphere.

The erosion of the old media establishment probably does entail some shift to the right, if only because so many of the newer voices are more reliably pro-Republican than Mr Rather. But the new media are simply too anarchic and subversive for any single political faction to take control of them. There are plenty of leftish bloggers too: such people helped Howard Dean's presidential campaign. And the most successful conservative bloggers are far from being party loyalists: look at the way in 2002 that they kept the heat on the Republicans' then Senate leader, Trent Lott, for racist remarks that the New York Times originally buried. It is a safe bet that, if the current Bush administration goes the way of previous second-term administrations and becomes consumed by scandals, conservative bloggers will be in the forefront of the scandal-mongering.
Mr Rather's passing does not mean that the liberal orthodoxy is about to give way to a new conservative one. It means that all orthodoxies are being chewed up by a voraciously unpredictable news media, which is surely all to the good.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:37 PM

August 11, 2003
Unfair And Unbalanced

Fox News is suing the bucktoothed moron for trademark infringement. Looks like they have a pretty good case.

Franken's ''intent is clear to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book,'' the suit said.
Calls to Penguin and Franken's publicist were not immediately returned. The book is due out next month.

[Update on Tuesday afternoon]

Eugene Volokh thinks that Fox has a weak case. And another law professor thinks it's "asinine."

Oh, well. I report, you decide.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:34 PM

July 24, 2003
That's Gotta Hurt

The American public thinks that Fox News is a more reliable source for news than the New York Times. Fewer than half think the Gray Lady credible.

The bleeding continues, with no sign that Pinch gets it.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Semi-pro Krugman watcher Don Luskin points out none of the Times' editorial writers have degrees in the subjects on which they pontificate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:30 PM

July 22, 2003
"Clinton Haters"

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as "Clinton haters," including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe "Bush haters"?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without "hating" them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word "hate" were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they'd actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:07 AM

January 31, 2003
Glossary

For those who, like me, seem to be watching coverage of the Iraq situation as reported by people from a bizarro dimension, in which they speak a language very similar to English, but with subtle and confusing differences, I think that I've finally broken the code, and have thus put together a little translation guide for the rest of us.

"allies":

Nations that we either defeated or liberated six decades ago, and then paid to rebuild half a century ago, and continued to pay for their defense through the Cold War, which has been over for more than a decade, who now feel that they are thereby entitled to obstruct or dictate our foreign policy, which is driven by our own self defense, in the furtherance of the business interests of their corrupt governments and the brutal dictators that they cynically coddle.

"going it alone":

Meaning 1: Taking action in concert with numerous European and Middle-Eastern nations, and others around the globe, but without France and Germany.

Meaning 2: Using the coalition from (1) to enforce numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including one that was passed within the past three months, which was supposed to be final, without going back to the Security Council, hat in hand, to get yet another "final" resolution.

"let the inspections continue":

Allow more time for a few dozen people to literally cluelessly wander around a country hundreds of thousands of square miles in area, searching for things that the Iraqi government has no intention of letting them find, and are hidden in private homes, or mosques, or presidential "palaces" (some of which are themselves the size of typical western cities), or in caves that we don't even know exist, or that are moved just prior to the threat of an actual search in any of these areas, in order to continue to delay military action in the slim hope that some other means of delay can be found while this one continues, or that the weather will get too hot, or that W is so dumb that he will eventually forget why he's doing this, or choke on a pretzel, this time for good, all in order to put off forever the day that we actually remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"making war on the innocent Iraqi people":

Removing a malign tyrant who, along with his vile offspring, has been torturing, starving and murdering the Iraqi people for decades, often for no reason other than his own perverse pleasure, and thus thereby finally giving them peace. To fully satisfy the definition, he must be removed while we spend vast amounts of money on precision munitions to minimize collateral casualties to the Iraqi people, even to the extent of risking higher casualties to our own forces to do so.

"rush to war":

Waiting a dozen years after Saddam signed an agreement to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction; waiting almost half a decade after he threw out the arms inspection teams who were there to see that he carried out his commitment; waiting a year and a half after being attacked by Middle Eastern forces that woke us up to the possibility of our vulnerability to people who have been threatening us for years; waiting over a year after declaring Iraq one of the nations that constitute a danger to the planet; carefully crafting and passing yet another UN Security Council resolution reiterating all the previous ones, with the stated intent of being a final one; waiting two months after the submission of a declaration in response to that supposedly final resolution that was 12,000 pages of non-responsiveness, before actually taking any significant military action to see that Saddam's capability to attack his neighbors and our own nation is eliminated through military force.

"smoking gun":

The level of evidence that will justify removing Saddam Hussein by military force. This one is very precisely defined.

It is a photograph of Saddam Hussein, standing next to fifty-gallon barrels clearly labeled "Anthrax, "Tabun, "Sarin," "VX," "Phosgene," and "Smallpox Virus," along with a suitcase marked "Danger: ACME Suitcase Nuke--Stand Well Back Before Detonating," next to a geiger counter with meter pegged. One of Saddam's hands is evilly twirling his mustache a la Snidely Whiplash, and the other arm is around the shoulder of a hale and hearty Osama bin Laden, who is in turn holding up a clearly-identifiable copy of last Sunday's New York Times.

The picture must be taken by an objective, prize-winning photographer, such as Robert Fisk. No satellite imagery or CIA evidence is acceptable, since such a photo could be easily faked, and its provenance would thus be highly suspect.

I hope that this guide will help make more sense out of the speeches from politicians and commentary by clueless pundits and reporters that you'll continue to hear over the next few weeks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PM

May 01, 2002
What A Choice

According to this story, Aaron Brown has regained some viewers against van Susteren. What it doesn't point out is that, if Fox were available to as many viewers as CNN, they'd be killling them in the ratings. These numbers indicating a "tie" in the ratings are thus quite misleading. When people have a choice for news channels, they watch Fox. Much of CNN's audience is captive.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:28 AM

April 07, 2002
Pundit Cluelessness And The War

Well, Professor Reynolds beat me to the punch line, but here's the post I promised last night.

The conventional "wisdom" of the media and punditocracy seems to be the following:

The Middle East is a region of states hostile to us (Iraq and Iran), states indifferent to us (Syria), and states friendly to us (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the other Gulf States, and Egypt). In order to deal with the hostile states (primarily Iraq) we have to get support of the "friendly states," particularly Saudi Arabia. This is the famous "coalition" that we had put together in the Gulf War.

But the Saudis are nervous about us being on their territory at all, because this is one of the things that upset Osama, and their own people might not stand for it. In addition, though they'd like to help, they and the other "friendly" states (like Egypt) are upset with us about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which has nothing to do with the War on Terrorism). So, at a minimum, in order to have them as part of the necessary coalition, we must first resolve the Palestinian problem, or at least reign in our ally, Israel, who is mostly to blame for all the problems over there, and (remember again) this has nothing to do with the War on Terrorism--it's just a distraction from it.

The War on Terror (you know, the one that has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine) is being waged against us by a (relatively) few fanatics, and they are supported by renegades in those "friendly" countries, and there's little their governments can do about it, because the people are so righteously angry at us for the Palestinian problem that any attempt to crack down on terror in those nations might result in instability in the region, causing those "friendly" governments to fall, with much worse replacements.

This is the standard template for almost all discussion of the subject, at least in most mainstream news sources.

Now here's the reality:

The Arab world is at war with us (us being western civilization), and has been since at least the end of World War II. For most of the world, and for most of that time, it has been a low-grade war, with the only active battlefront in Israel, because the Arab states lacked the resources to take it to their real enemy, in Europe and America, other than with pinpricks like the Lockerbie bombing, and the embassy and Marine barracks attacks.

Because they couldn't successfully wage a conventional war against us, they've instead been waging an unconventional one. They have colonized large parts of the world with their ideology, by funding mosques and religious schools (including North America), and taken over the governments of the countries themselves when they could get away with it (e.g., Afghanistan). They have funded terrorists both directly and indirectly, and they have filled their own people with a rage against us, while at the same time oppressing them. Part of this unconventional war was to pretend that it wasn't happening, with diplomacy and propaganda, paid for by their oil millions. Unfortunately, we've been merely swatting them away like mosquitos, instead of recognizing them for the threat they were.

Up until September 11, the main front was in Israel, using hapless maleducated Palestinians as their pawns and proxies. We have to recognize that, as PM Netanyahu says, we and Israel are fighting the same war, against the same nihilistic enemy, and have been for decades. The Intifada is not a separate problem from the War on Terrorism--it is an integral part of it, and always has been, even when we (the U.S.) didn't realize that we were at war.

But last September, they figured out how to take the war more directly to the enemy, or at least they thought they did. They played, and in fact overplayed their hand, and they can now be recognized for what they are--open enemies of our country. At a minimum, their near-term goal is to prevent us from inhibiting the spreading of their vile beliefs further into lands they consider naturally Wahhabi Islamic. Ultimately, they would like for the entire world to believe as they do, which is why they take the millions we provide them for oil, and fund mosques and madrassas with it, even in the US.

People who say that we have to wait until we straighten out the mess in Israel before we can take on Iraq have it exactly backwards. Taking out Saddam will eliminate the most immediate threat of being attacked with WMD, and it will provide an object lesson to the remaining regimes of what happens when you wage war against civilization. And it will make it much easier to put someone in
charge of the Palestinians who is reasonable and can actually be negotiated with in trust.

But the road to Baghdad may lie through Riyadh. And in fact, though the Administration has been loathe to admit it, they may not be able to ignore the elephant in the living room for much longer--even Cokie Roberts pointed out this morning that the Saudis are rewarding Palestinian Islamakazis, just as Saddam is, though neither she, nor anyone else in the roundtable, discussed the true implications of this.

The current Saudi regime has to go eventually--they are the source, the wellspring, of the Arab war against us. Most of the Al Qaeda's money came from there, most of the 911 attackers were from there, all of the hatred being preached in the mosques is funded from there. But I suspect that the Administration has been hoping that they can instill a change in Saudi behavior by making an example of Saddam, who has much less support (though still too much) from our European "allies," and against whom a clear-cut case can be made of being in more-or-less continuous breach of the surrender agreement he signed in 1991.

I think that this is a naive view. Saddam must go, but so must the House of Saud, at least in its current form. If they won't grant us permission to use their bases for our mission in Iraq, and we require them to save lives, money and time, then we should use them without their permission. They must recognize that we finally recognize that they have been warring with us since at least 1948, and that we are no longer going to tolerate it, and there's little they can do to prevent it.

If their regime falls as a result, c'est la guerre. It will be a necessary beginning to liberating the people of all of the Arab states from their oppressors. And for those who value "regional stability" over freedom and security, I say, when the status quo is so odious, instability is our friend. We are at war.

[Update at 2:49 PM PDT]

Glenn notes this post, and says that I say "that now they're ready to take it to a higher level."

Actually, just to clarify, I don't think that they were really ready to take it to a higher level--they just accidentally did. Osama got ahead of them, and I don't think that they realized exactly how ambitious he was.

So now it's at a higher level, we've been tipped off, and they're not ready for it, so they're continuing to pretend that it didn't really happen--it was just that terrorist over there (averting eyes to the ground, whistling, making circles in dirt with toe...).

[Update at 3:01 PM PDT]

I should also add, that I'm not actually proposing going to war with the entire Arab world. We need to use a little jujitsu, and actually work with the few friends that we have there to really splinter it (not a difficult task at all, since they're always on the verge of doing it to themselves). Probably the best hope is Jordan. We need to cut a deal with King Abdullah that he gets back the Saudi Peninsula, in exchange for use of his territory for strikes on Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Put the Hashemite Kingdom in charge of the holy places, and cut out some territory for a Palestinian state in present-day Jordan (after doing another Black September on the current Palestinian leadership, which Israel has already made a start at). Egypt, hopefully, could be left on the sidelines.

This would be a major step toward an Arab world with which we, and the Israelis, could live.

Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:09 PM