*SIGH*
I blog on this theme so often, that I've gone from outrage to resigned disgust. It's happened again. It's happened here in the Pacific Northwest again. And this time, I think even Venom can agree, it's a bit more significant that my bumper sticker. I am, of course, talking about Republicans being victimized by the very behavior they are accused of by the Left.
Thanks for the Memory to Powerline via Ace of Spades HQ.
According to the Seattle Times, The Washington state headquarters for the president's re-election campaign was broken into last night, and police are investigating the theft of three computers from the Bellevue office.
Now, on the face of it, that means nothing. Burglaries happen all the time, even to politicians. But the particulars of the case lend themselves to arousing suspicion: The burglars didn't steal all the computers, just a few. And they were very specific:
Missing are laptop computers used by the campaign's executive director, the head of the get-out-the-vote effort and one that had been set for delivery to the campaign's Southwest Washington field director, said Jon Seaton, executive director of the state's George W. Bush campaign.
....
State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance called it a "Watergate-style break in" and said he suspects Democrats are behind it.
"If you're just some burglar looking for computers to sell to buy drugs you take every laptop in the office maybe," he said. "But they knew exactly whose computers to get. They got the executive director's computer and the get-out-the-vote director's computer."
Of course, the Democrats are denying any involvement. And while there's no reason to believe the incident was orchestrated by Democrats, it seems apparent that whoever did this was politically motivated and knew exactly what they were looking for.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Thar She Blows
AP Photo
Mount St. Helens Awakes, Erupting Steam and Ash
By Tom Banse
MOUNT ST. HELENS NATIONAL VOLCANIC MONUMENT (Reuters) - Mount St. Helens spewed steam and gray ash from a small explosive eruption in its crater on Friday, as the volcano in Washington state awoke from its slumber for the first time in nearly two decades.
A plume rose in a column from the crater just after 12 p.m. PDT in the first eruption since 1986, but was well below the scale of the catastrophic 1980 eruption that blew off the top of the mountain and spread ash across North America.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we've been forecasting to happen, which is a small steam and ash explosion that could send things up several tens of thousand feet above the rim of Mount St. Helens," said Cynthia Gardner, seismologist for the U.S. Geological Survey (news - web sites), "How long it will last we don't know."
A team of geologists was installing equipment in the crater of the volcano, and the U.S. Geological Survey said they were trying to determine how safe they were.
The plume of steam and ash was being carried to the northwest by the wind over uninhabited areas, said Peter Frenzen, a U.S. Forestry Service official.
There were several hundred witnesses at the Johnston Ridge Observatory, but they did not report hearing any loud explosions.
Earlier on Friday, government scientists reported that the lava dome created after the 1980 eruption had swollen slightly slightly and that cracks appeared on the glacier inside the rumbling volcano's crater.
The 1980 eruption killed 57 people, destroyed more than 200 homes and devastated hundreds of square miles of surrounding land. Ash from that outpouring billowed across the continent and was carried as far east as Oklahoma.
Recent activity, which started with a series of small earthquakes a week ago and a 2.5-inch shift in the lava dome's location, is happening within the horseshoe-shaped crater that formed after the eruption.
Government scientists and officials said that the main concern was whether a plume of ash would form and interfere with air traffic.
Mount St. Helens is in southeastern Washington, about 100 miles south of Seattle and 50 miles north of Oregon's largest city, Portland.
Air traffic officials said they were on alert and prepared to divert air traffic in case of an ash-spewing eruption.
Seismologists said there was no connection between activity at Mount St. Helens and a strong earthquake near Parkfield, California or a smaller series of quakes in Alaska earlier this week.
The violent eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, blew off the top of the volcano, reducing its summit from 9,677 feet to 8,364 feet.
In addition to the 1986 eruption of the mountain's lava dome, strong earthquakes were detected in 1989, when fresh magma entered the volcano's lava system.
(Additional reporting by Allan Dowd in Vancouver, B.C.)
A northwesterly flow coupled with a weak section of the jet stream means we may get some ash here in Eugene, if it hangs in the air long enough. We'll see.
UPDATE:
I may live in the region, but Rusty at MyPetJawa has better blog coverage of the event.
My mom emailed me with the news. She was recalling the 1980 eruption, when ash fell in our small town in Idaho, several hundred miles to the east, and the sky turned blood red. It was eerie.
UPDATE 2:
The Following is a Sever Weather Alert for Eugene issued by the NWS:
CASCADE FOOTHILLS IN LANE COUNTY-CASCADES IN LANE COUNTY-CENTRAL COAST RANGE OF WESTERN OREGON-CENTRAL OREGON COAST-CENTRAL WILLAMETTE VALLEY-COAST RANGE OF NORTHWEST OREGON-GREATER PORTLAND METRO AREA-GREATER VANCOUVER AREA-LOWER COLUMBIA-
LOWER COLUMBIA AND I - 5 CORRIDOR IN COWLITZ COUNTY-NORTH OREGON COAST-NORTHERN OREGON CASCADE FOOTHILLS-NORTHERN OREGON CASCADES-SOUTH WILLAMETTE VALLEY-SOUTH WASHINGTON CASCADE FOOTHILLS-SOUTH WASHINGTON CASCADES-SOUTH WASHINGTON COAST-WESTERN COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE-WILLAPA HILLS-INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...ALBANY... ASTORIA... BATTLE GROUND... CASCADE LOCKS... CASTLE ROCK... CATHLAMET... COLDWATER RIDGE VISITORS CENTER... CORVALLIS... COUGAR... DALLAS... DETROIT... DOWNTOWN PORTLAND... DOWNTOWNVANCOUVER... EUGENE... FLORENCE... FRANCES... GOVERNMENT CAMP... GRANDE RONDE... HILLSBORO... HOOD RIVER... JEWELL... LONGVIEW... LOWELL... MANZANITA... MAPLETON... MCKENZIE BRIDGE... MCMINNVILLE... MILL CITY... MOUNT ST. HELENS... NEWPORT... OAKRIDGE... OREGON CITY... RAYMOND... SALEM... SANDY... ST. HELENS... STEVENSON... SWEET HOME... TILLAMOOK... TOUTLE... VERNONIA AND VIDA
1018 AM PDT FRI OCT 1 2004
...WINDS ALOFT FORECAST FOR MOUNT ST. HELENS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES...
SYNOPSIS...A STRONG UPPER HIGH WAS OVER THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN THIS MORNING...AND WILL SLOWLY MOVE ONSHORE AND OVER THE REGION THROUGH THE WEEKEND. THE LOW LEVEL WIND FLOW IS OFFSHORE THIS MORNING...BUT WILL WEAKEN THIS WEEKEND AS THE UPPER HIGH MOVES OVERHEAD. THE CURRENT NORTHERLY UPPER LEVEL WIND WILL WEAKEN THIS WEEKEND. A MARINE LAYER WILL DEVELOP ALONG THE COAST THROUGH SATURDAY AND SPREAD INLAND THROUGH THE COASTAL GAPS LATER THIS WEEKEND AND EARLY NEXT WEEK. THE UPPER RIDGE SHOWS SIGNS OF WEAKENING THE MIDDLE OF NEXT WEEK WITH A WEAK FRONT POSSIBLE TUESDAY WITH ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS LATER IN THE WEEK.
ELEVATIONS BELOW ARE HEIGHTS ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL. MT. ST. HELENS CRATER FLOOR IS AT 6279 FT. WIND FORECASTS BELOW 6279 FT APPLY TO NEARBY LOWER ELEVATIONS.
WIND DIRECTIONS ARE BASED ON TRUE NORTH AND ARE THE DIRECTION THE WIND IS BLOWING FROM. WIND SPEEDS ARE IN MILES PER HOUR. EXAMPLE...36005...REPRESENTS A WIND FROM 360 DEGREES AT 05 MPH.
MORNING SALEM BALLOON SOUNDING
ELEV 10/01 0500PDT
3000 08008
6000 11004
9000 20004
12000 31006
18000 36023
24000 35027
30000 35028
34000 34016
39000 33031
FORECAST WINDS ALOFT
ELEV.
UPDATE 3:
Weather Channel Animated Feed of Most Recent Satellite coverage of the PNW. So far the eruption barely shows as anything on the map -- a tiny speck of gray just a bit NE of Portland. Nothing compared to '80. We'll see if it pumps enough ash to even show up.
UPDATE 4:
Rusty links to a Live Feed from KGW-TV/DT Portland & KING-TV/DT Seattle.
How Long?
I love my mom. She's a great lady, she has very deep convictions, and like every mom, she really really wants to help. So she's always sending me emails about the election, the war in Iraq, etc. A lot of it I don't blog on because it's already pretty well-disseminated. Some I don't because I can't verify the facts. But this time I'm going to. Well, at least in part. She sent me an interesting email regarding Iraq and the Bible:
IRAQ - VERY INTERESTING - DID YOU KNOW?
1. The garden of Eden was in Iraq.
2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!
3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.
4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq.
5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq!
6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq.
7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.
8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.
9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.
10. Amos cried out in Iraq!
11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.
12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!
13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the fiery furnace!)
14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the "writing on the wall" in Iraq.
15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.
16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.
17. The wise men were from Iraq.
18. Peter preached in Iraq.
19. The "Empire of Man" described in Revelation is called Babylon,which was a city in Iraq!
And you have probably seen this one. Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is second? It is Iraq! However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible. The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia. The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots.
Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible. No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associated it than Iraq.
The email goes on to make some observations regarding the current conflict and certainpassages in the Koran, but since I'm not a Muslim, and cannot confirm the accuracy of the observation, I will leave it out.
This is all just an introduction to my actual point, however. But since I intend to quote the Bible to emphasize the actual point, I thought it would be interesting.
I watched the debate last night. I've posted on other threads on other blogs regarding how I think it went, so I won't here. What I do want to comment on is a comment by John Kerry, which was echoed today in another reader's comment to another blog. The comment was that while Kerry acknowledges the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, he felt that Bush failed to exhaust all diplomatic options, and that he should have waited longer to use the military option.
My response is to ask of Kerry and all those who make this argument, the same thing many a prophet in the Old Testament asked God:
Habakkuk 1:2 O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and thou wilt not hear? Or cry to thee "Violence!" and thou wilt not save?
How long? How much longer should we have let the sanctions work? How many more UN Resolutions? Months? Years? 1 resolution? 10? 100? Given what we know about the Oil for Food corruption, do you think he really would have cracked? And if they didn't work then, then what? Would you honestly then suupport military action? If not, would we have lifted sanctions? And what response from Saddam would have been considered satisfactory? If he complied with inspections, and then the UN lifted sanctions, and he started all over again, then what?
I'm just asking.
IRAQ - VERY INTERESTING - DID YOU KNOW?
1. The garden of Eden was in Iraq.
2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!
3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.
4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq.
5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq!
6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq.
7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.
8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.
9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.
10. Amos cried out in Iraq!
11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.
12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!
13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the fiery furnace!)
14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the "writing on the wall" in Iraq.
15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.
16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.
17. The wise men were from Iraq.
18. Peter preached in Iraq.
19. The "Empire of Man" described in Revelation is called Babylon,which was a city in Iraq!
And you have probably seen this one. Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is second? It is Iraq! However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible. The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia. The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots.
Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible. No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associated it than Iraq.
The email goes on to make some observations regarding the current conflict and certainpassages in the Koran, but since I'm not a Muslim, and cannot confirm the accuracy of the observation, I will leave it out.
This is all just an introduction to my actual point, however. But since I intend to quote the Bible to emphasize the actual point, I thought it would be interesting.
I watched the debate last night. I've posted on other threads on other blogs regarding how I think it went, so I won't here. What I do want to comment on is a comment by John Kerry, which was echoed today in another reader's comment to another blog. The comment was that while Kerry acknowledges the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, he felt that Bush failed to exhaust all diplomatic options, and that he should have waited longer to use the military option.
My response is to ask of Kerry and all those who make this argument, the same thing many a prophet in the Old Testament asked God:
Habakkuk 1:2 O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and thou wilt not hear? Or cry to thee "Violence!" and thou wilt not save?
How long? How much longer should we have let the sanctions work? How many more UN Resolutions? Months? Years? 1 resolution? 10? 100? Given what we know about the Oil for Food corruption, do you think he really would have cracked? And if they didn't work then, then what? Would you honestly then suupport military action? If not, would we have lifted sanctions? And what response from Saddam would have been considered satisfactory? If he complied with inspections, and then the UN lifted sanctions, and he started all over again, then what?
I'm just asking.
Best News in Months
Anyone who knows me personally knows that I'm being laid off in a week. Well, I finally got a call back for an interview. It's for a company that manufactures a product that used to be manufactured by the company my call center now supports, so there's a bit of an inside track. Wish me luck!
UPDATE:
Well, phone tag didn't last long. I called the recruiter, left a message, and got a call back within ten minutes. I'm scheduled to interview on Monday. Here's the best part: If I get the job, I start training on the 11th, after being laid off on the 8th. I would qualify for my severance pay from the old job and go right to the new one without missing a day of work.
UPDATE:
Well, phone tag didn't last long. I called the recruiter, left a message, and got a call back within ten minutes. I'm scheduled to interview on Monday. Here's the best part: If I get the job, I start training on the 11th, after being laid off on the 8th. I would qualify for my severance pay from the old job and go right to the new one without missing a day of work.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
They Just Don't Learn!
This story just keeps getting better. And now there are other stories in the sam vein. Read it again, then read the updates.
Originally Posted 10:00 AM September 29, 2004
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ.
OK, I've been trying to find my own material on which to blog, but this one is just so ridiculous, I have to chime in.
One of the hallmarks of intelligence, I am told, is the ability to learn from one's mistakes -- to recognize a causitive relationship between an action and its consequences, and to choose to refrain from that action in the future in order to avoid those consequences.
Let's take a recent example of an action and its consequences, and see if WE can learn anything from them, shall we?
One of the... no, THE biggest story in the blogosphere in recent weeks has been "Memogate," the controversy surrounding Dan Rathers' 60 Minutes story on President Bush's service record and the falsified records used to support the story. I won't link to the story, it's so thoroughly blogged that it's ridiculous.
So what lessons can we learn from this, children (or "Rather," what lessons should CBS have learned)? Specifically, what action and consequences should CBS have observed and avoided in the future? Allow me to make a few suggestions:
The first observation in general is that there are people who are so devoted to their political cause that they are willing to lie and even commit forgery in order to advance their cause. We have also learned that while they are supposed to be impartial and dedicated to verifying the accuracy of their reporting, the mainstream media is at times willing to overlook niggling little concerns regarding their sources in order to get a story out if that story supports their own opinions or beliefs. In the case of the CBS story, that included both the use of forged documents, as well as a reliance on "unimpeachable sources" that have proven to be highly partisan individuals. That is the Action.
The consequences are that in the age of blogs, if you rely on verifiably untrue sources, the odds are very great that you will be caught, exposed, and discredited.
The Lesson, then, would be? Anyone? Anyone? /Ben Stein
The Lesson is to VERIFY your information before REPORTING it.
So let's take the lesson learned and apply it to another story that's been making the rounds and has garnered a lot of attention: The Draft Controversy. There's been an email circulating warning people that the government, and specifically the Bush administration, plans to reinstate the draft in order to recruit troops for Iraq. It has generated a lot of ill will towards the President, and I even read a very angry letter about it in Sunday's Portland Oregonian.
There's only one problem: The email is lying. As a matter of fact, as the FactCheck article points out, only two draft-related bills have been proposed, both were sponsored by Democrats, both were prior to Iraq, and both were stillborn.
So let's take our lesson learned and apply it to this email. IF you were a journalist -- no, if you were a CBS Journalist, how would you approach this issue?
I think you see where I'm going with this. That's right, CBS failed to learn its lesson. Furthermore, not only did they rely on an already debunked document (this time an email), they also quoted a highly partisan source. they just didn't learn.
I don't know what you'd call this -- Hubris, desperation for a story, blind devotion to a cause, or just plain stupidity. But the one thing you can't call this, by the standard established at the beginning of this post, is intelligence.
UPDATE!
Again, credit goes toAce of Spades HQ. The man's en fuego.
Bill at INDC has interviewed several representatives of CBS regarding this story. Read the whole report here.
One exchange that caught many readers' eyes, as well as my own, was this one:
INDC: "Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they've been debunked on various internet sites long ago ..."
Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there’s going to be a draft? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."
In other words (and I wasn't the first or only to pick up on this), "The documents are not authentic, but they're accurate)" Furthermore, if people are riled up because of false information, why, as has been asked, is CBS reporting on how upset people are, instead of letting them know how unfounded their reason for being upset is? Why are they reporting that people are afraid because of a lie, and not on the fact that it's a lie?
They Just Don't Learn.
Originally Posted 10:00 AM September 29, 2004
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ.
OK, I've been trying to find my own material on which to blog, but this one is just so ridiculous, I have to chime in.
One of the hallmarks of intelligence, I am told, is the ability to learn from one's mistakes -- to recognize a causitive relationship between an action and its consequences, and to choose to refrain from that action in the future in order to avoid those consequences.
Let's take a recent example of an action and its consequences, and see if WE can learn anything from them, shall we?
One of the... no, THE biggest story in the blogosphere in recent weeks has been "Memogate," the controversy surrounding Dan Rathers' 60 Minutes story on President Bush's service record and the falsified records used to support the story. I won't link to the story, it's so thoroughly blogged that it's ridiculous.
So what lessons can we learn from this, children (or "Rather," what lessons should CBS have learned)? Specifically, what action and consequences should CBS have observed and avoided in the future? Allow me to make a few suggestions:
The first observation in general is that there are people who are so devoted to their political cause that they are willing to lie and even commit forgery in order to advance their cause. We have also learned that while they are supposed to be impartial and dedicated to verifying the accuracy of their reporting, the mainstream media is at times willing to overlook niggling little concerns regarding their sources in order to get a story out if that story supports their own opinions or beliefs. In the case of the CBS story, that included both the use of forged documents, as well as a reliance on "unimpeachable sources" that have proven to be highly partisan individuals. That is the Action.
The consequences are that in the age of blogs, if you rely on verifiably untrue sources, the odds are very great that you will be caught, exposed, and discredited.
The Lesson, then, would be? Anyone? Anyone? /Ben Stein
The Lesson is to VERIFY your information before REPORTING it.
So let's take the lesson learned and apply it to another story that's been making the rounds and has garnered a lot of attention: The Draft Controversy. There's been an email circulating warning people that the government, and specifically the Bush administration, plans to reinstate the draft in order to recruit troops for Iraq. It has generated a lot of ill will towards the President, and I even read a very angry letter about it in Sunday's Portland Oregonian.
There's only one problem: The email is lying. As a matter of fact, as the FactCheck article points out, only two draft-related bills have been proposed, both were sponsored by Democrats, both were prior to Iraq, and both were stillborn.
So let's take our lesson learned and apply it to this email. IF you were a journalist -- no, if you were a CBS Journalist, how would you approach this issue?
I think you see where I'm going with this. That's right, CBS failed to learn its lesson. Furthermore, not only did they rely on an already debunked document (this time an email), they also quoted a highly partisan source. they just didn't learn.
I don't know what you'd call this -- Hubris, desperation for a story, blind devotion to a cause, or just plain stupidity. But the one thing you can't call this, by the standard established at the beginning of this post, is intelligence.
UPDATE!
Again, credit goes toAce of Spades HQ. The man's en fuego.
Bill at INDC has interviewed several representatives of CBS regarding this story. Read the whole report here.
One exchange that caught many readers' eyes, as well as my own, was this one:
INDC: "Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they've been debunked on various internet sites long ago ..."
Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there’s going to be a draft? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."
In other words (and I wasn't the first or only to pick up on this), "The documents are not authentic, but they're accurate)" Furthermore, if people are riled up because of false information, why, as has been asked, is CBS reporting on how upset people are, instead of letting them know how unfounded their reason for being upset is? Why are they reporting that people are afraid because of a lie, and not on the fact that it's a lie?
They Just Don't Learn.
Yum! Crow With Maple Syrup!
If any of you have checked the comments to my post about the email I received Tuesday, you'll see that Venom commented, and I responded pretty harshly. In addition to banning his IP address, I deleted his email.
Well, almost. Then I went ahead and read it. He had some good points, so I've decided to lift the ban, despite the nasty tone of the third email he sent regarding being banned. I'm also making an exception to what I said in the comments, and responding to him in a post, ONE LAST TIME:
*sigh*
You've made some comments that, unfortunately, require a response. It's funny how you make comments making me out to be a troll, yet you do your own trolling in replying. And you're calling me a hypocrite...
It’s not exactly trolling when the intent was to respond in kind.
Several points to your comments and (hopefully) that's it (since I also didn't expect it to get to this level, though your final comment in the bumper sticker post prompted my email to you):
I take exception to being called a hypocrite.
Then don’t come across as one. What prompted that comment was your accusing me of generalizing about you right after you’d generalized about me.
I can observe you being anti-left (which you are)
Yes, I am. But to say “its obvious within a few lines of reading that you share no sympathy for anyone left-of-Reagan.” Goes beyond pointing out my politics and is a generalizalition, you must admit.
and identify myself as not being left-leaning (since I'm not) without contradiction. Because it's true. I call a spade a spade, and if you don't like it, that's your issue. I can be critical of other conservatives if I take exception to the manner in which they voice their opinion.
Ironically enough, that’s exactly the issue I took with your email.
I'd hardly call that being left-leaning. Rather than spend countless energy trying to denigrate the left, I would prefer to do more to show the positives of the right. But, unfortunately, this kind of "take the high road" mentality is becoming more and more
scarce these days, and why politicking has turned into a match over who can sling more mud than the other (with both parties equally guilty).
A valid point. I would point out some reasons why I think those expectations are unrealistic, but that’s an entirely different thread, so I’ll concede the point for now.
2) Not once in the bumper sticker post was it mentioned about the other bull$hit you and your wife have endured leading up to this. You can excuse me (and the rest of us) for not knowing you were near the breaking point. If you had mentioned this beforehand (with as little or as much detail as you think it may have warranted), it might have helped put the situation in context. And, in the end, you lost a bumper sticker and not your voice. And yes, I was poking fun. I actually wasn't intending to troll; I just thought it was a little much (you acknowledge this, as well) to rant about 1 bumper sticker. Again, in context, it amounts to more.
That’s another good point. I forgot that you neither know me personally nor have been reading my blog long, you’d have seen that leftist violence and nastiness is something I have a high level of annoyance towards, and would have recognized this as a last straw. As for not losing my voice, I never said I did. I said that this was an example of someone trying to shout over my voice, by defacing my property.
You're right, you do write about more than just politics. You can apologize for your error (in assuming I was an ally from the idiots who defaced your bumper), and I can apologize for my error.
Accepted. Although they didn’t deface my bumper, since I put the sticker on the window.
"The distaff of this, is, of course: If you don't like what I have to write, DON'T READ IT!" It's kind of hard to not like something if I haven't read it, wouldn't you say?
Rather. I was thinking more of the adage “Once bitten twice shy.” Your persistence prompted that comment.
"Exactly where do I complain about anyone exercising their free speech? Show me. Put up or shut up, Tinkerbell." Hmm...I'd have to say that this comment: "How naive do you think I am, to expect me not to pay attention to the antics of movie producers making hate and lie-filled movies, "comediennes" standing on stage and making snide, obscene comments about the president, or 527's like MoveOn, the Media Fund, and all of Soros' other little whores/handmaidens," sounds like a pretty big complaint by you. If you're not complaining about these people's opinions, what are you doing, then?
Complaining about the hypocrisy of the left in doing those things while accusing Republicans of being the ones fighting a dirty, negative camapaign. Read a bit further up: “I've heard a lot of pissing and moaning lately from the left about how nasty and mean Republicans are. I've heard all the chatter about Bush=Hitler and how our freedoms are being trampled on by the Right and how I'm a digital Brownshirt. I've heard Democrats say that it's time they stopped playing nice and fair and started slinging mud the way they claim Republicans do.”
This post occurred right after the RNC, and that was the entire tone of the rhetoric coming from the Democrats. I may be offended by the things Soros, Hollywood, Moore, and their ilk say, but as long as they don’t commit slander or libel, they’re free to say it. What I was complaining about was the blatant self-ironic hypocrisy of them saying those things and then complaining about anything a Republican says. That’s my beef, their double standard.
And "Tinkerbell?" Is this what you've been reduced to? Name-calling? Seems pretty defeatist of you to resort to that. Taking a shot at manhood? What, you didn't grow up from high school?
It was out of line, and I do apologize. Think you can avoid the personal shots too?
Anyhow, by your own admission, you've said some things over the top and I'm probably guilty of that. The Internet, of course, has the ability to distort emotion. What could often times be an amicable debate in person ends up being more unpleasant than it probably warrants over a computer screen.
It’s not the Internet necessarily. Politics have roused this kind of passion for generations.
And his third email:
LOL! Wow, you're all about free speech. LMAO! Banning me because I happen to question you and point out faults in your argument.
No, I banned you because I thought you were being a rude, smug jackass. I’ve admitted my mistake, don’t make me regret it. As for free speech, as you’ve pointed out, yours is still intact, and was, even when you were banned -- you have other outlets for expression, don't you? You can say anything you want, I don't have to let you into my living room to do it. My blog is my intellectual property, not Hyde Park. I retain the right to police it any way I see fit. See my first post on this policy.
Please. Pick a fight with you? It's called debating. And you can't withstand even a little of it!
Sorry if I didn’t see a comment like your first one (Wow, a bumper sticker. What is this world coming to?) as an invitation to open debate, it sounded pretty dismissive.
You're definitely quite the neophyte in this, aren't you.
You’re making it personal again, aren't you. I'll overlook it, but please, let's both try to be civil.
One last thing. If you want to email me because you want what you say, good or bad, to be kept between us, for whatever reason, fine. I posted one email because I thought you were a jackass, I’ve posted this second because I acknowledge I was one too. But if that’s the reason you email, say so. If you want to make a long public comment, do what I do – create a WP document, then cut it and paste it in sections to several concurrent comments. That’s fine. Again, the character limit is Haloscan’s not mine.
Well, almost. Then I went ahead and read it. He had some good points, so I've decided to lift the ban, despite the nasty tone of the third email he sent regarding being banned. I'm also making an exception to what I said in the comments, and responding to him in a post, ONE LAST TIME:
*sigh*
You've made some comments that, unfortunately, require a response. It's funny how you make comments making me out to be a troll, yet you do your own trolling in replying. And you're calling me a hypocrite...
It’s not exactly trolling when the intent was to respond in kind.
Several points to your comments and (hopefully) that's it (since I also didn't expect it to get to this level, though your final comment in the bumper sticker post prompted my email to you):
I take exception to being called a hypocrite.
Then don’t come across as one. What prompted that comment was your accusing me of generalizing about you right after you’d generalized about me.
I can observe you being anti-left (which you are)
Yes, I am. But to say “its obvious within a few lines of reading that you share no sympathy for anyone left-of-Reagan.” Goes beyond pointing out my politics and is a generalizalition, you must admit.
and identify myself as not being left-leaning (since I'm not) without contradiction. Because it's true. I call a spade a spade, and if you don't like it, that's your issue. I can be critical of other conservatives if I take exception to the manner in which they voice their opinion.
Ironically enough, that’s exactly the issue I took with your email.
I'd hardly call that being left-leaning. Rather than spend countless energy trying to denigrate the left, I would prefer to do more to show the positives of the right. But, unfortunately, this kind of "take the high road" mentality is becoming more and more
scarce these days, and why politicking has turned into a match over who can sling more mud than the other (with both parties equally guilty).
A valid point. I would point out some reasons why I think those expectations are unrealistic, but that’s an entirely different thread, so I’ll concede the point for now.
2) Not once in the bumper sticker post was it mentioned about the other bull$hit you and your wife have endured leading up to this. You can excuse me (and the rest of us) for not knowing you were near the breaking point. If you had mentioned this beforehand (with as little or as much detail as you think it may have warranted), it might have helped put the situation in context. And, in the end, you lost a bumper sticker and not your voice. And yes, I was poking fun. I actually wasn't intending to troll; I just thought it was a little much (you acknowledge this, as well) to rant about 1 bumper sticker. Again, in context, it amounts to more.
That’s another good point. I forgot that you neither know me personally nor have been reading my blog long, you’d have seen that leftist violence and nastiness is something I have a high level of annoyance towards, and would have recognized this as a last straw. As for not losing my voice, I never said I did. I said that this was an example of someone trying to shout over my voice, by defacing my property.
You're right, you do write about more than just politics. You can apologize for your error (in assuming I was an ally from the idiots who defaced your bumper), and I can apologize for my error.
Accepted. Although they didn’t deface my bumper, since I put the sticker on the window.
"The distaff of this, is, of course: If you don't like what I have to write, DON'T READ IT!" It's kind of hard to not like something if I haven't read it, wouldn't you say?
Rather. I was thinking more of the adage “Once bitten twice shy.” Your persistence prompted that comment.
"Exactly where do I complain about anyone exercising their free speech? Show me. Put up or shut up, Tinkerbell." Hmm...I'd have to say that this comment: "How naive do you think I am, to expect me not to pay attention to the antics of movie producers making hate and lie-filled movies, "comediennes" standing on stage and making snide, obscene comments about the president, or 527's like MoveOn, the Media Fund, and all of Soros' other little whores/handmaidens," sounds like a pretty big complaint by you. If you're not complaining about these people's opinions, what are you doing, then?
Complaining about the hypocrisy of the left in doing those things while accusing Republicans of being the ones fighting a dirty, negative camapaign. Read a bit further up: “I've heard a lot of pissing and moaning lately from the left about how nasty and mean Republicans are. I've heard all the chatter about Bush=Hitler and how our freedoms are being trampled on by the Right and how I'm a digital Brownshirt. I've heard Democrats say that it's time they stopped playing nice and fair and started slinging mud the way they claim Republicans do.”
This post occurred right after the RNC, and that was the entire tone of the rhetoric coming from the Democrats. I may be offended by the things Soros, Hollywood, Moore, and their ilk say, but as long as they don’t commit slander or libel, they’re free to say it. What I was complaining about was the blatant self-ironic hypocrisy of them saying those things and then complaining about anything a Republican says. That’s my beef, their double standard.
And "Tinkerbell?" Is this what you've been reduced to? Name-calling? Seems pretty defeatist of you to resort to that. Taking a shot at manhood? What, you didn't grow up from high school?
It was out of line, and I do apologize. Think you can avoid the personal shots too?
Anyhow, by your own admission, you've said some things over the top and I'm probably guilty of that. The Internet, of course, has the ability to distort emotion. What could often times be an amicable debate in person ends up being more unpleasant than it probably warrants over a computer screen.
It’s not the Internet necessarily. Politics have roused this kind of passion for generations.
And his third email:
LOL! Wow, you're all about free speech. LMAO! Banning me because I happen to question you and point out faults in your argument.
No, I banned you because I thought you were being a rude, smug jackass. I’ve admitted my mistake, don’t make me regret it. As for free speech, as you’ve pointed out, yours is still intact, and was, even when you were banned -- you have other outlets for expression, don't you? You can say anything you want, I don't have to let you into my living room to do it. My blog is my intellectual property, not Hyde Park. I retain the right to police it any way I see fit. See my first post on this policy.
Please. Pick a fight with you? It's called debating. And you can't withstand even a little of it!
Sorry if I didn’t see a comment like your first one (Wow, a bumper sticker. What is this world coming to?) as an invitation to open debate, it sounded pretty dismissive.
You're definitely quite the neophyte in this, aren't you.
You’re making it personal again, aren't you. I'll overlook it, but please, let's both try to be civil.
One last thing. If you want to email me because you want what you say, good or bad, to be kept between us, for whatever reason, fine. I posted one email because I thought you were a jackass, I’ve posted this second because I acknowledge I was one too. But if that’s the reason you email, say so. If you want to make a long public comment, do what I do – create a WP document, then cut it and paste it in sections to several concurrent comments. That’s fine. Again, the character limit is Haloscan’s not mine.
Live Debate Feed
You'll notice a new box on the right side of my blog. This is temporary. It contains a live feed which will be updated during the debates, and will be used by the Bush campaign to fact check any claims made by Kerry. According to the Bush campaign, "each time John Kerry says something false or inaccurate during the debates, the live feed will be updated instantly with the facts."
You can get more information regarding this feature, including the HTML code to add it to your own blog, at the Bush Website.
You can get more information regarding this feature, including the HTML code to add it to your own blog, at the Bush Website.
Dutch Treat
I'm still jazzzed from my Malkinlaunch, and to a certain extent from the response to my post on the hate mail. So I thought I'd share the love.
One of the lines in the letter that I just kind of took in stride the first time has proven prophetically ironic. That's where the writer says, "its obvious within a few lines of reading that you share no sympathy for anyone left-of-Reagan."
Let's set aside for now the reply already made, as well as the fact that I'm probably slightly to the left of Reagan on a few issues, as well as to the right of him on a few others. Let's go back and ponder the fact that this writer considered it an insult to compare me politically to Reagan. This comment appears to me to be similar to the hyperbole I or other conservatives use on occasion to make a point, when we say that, for instance, John Kerry *is* a moderate -- when compared to Pol Pot. The connotation seems to be that Reagan is about as evilly far out to the Right as Mao or Lenin is to the Left.
This is laughable. When you consider the great good accomplished by the man, his victory over the Soviet regime, the only thing a man like RWR has in common with a Mao or a Lenin is his impact on history. He is, in my opinion, one of the greatest American Presidents ever, certainly one of the two greatest of the 20th Century.
And now I've been afforded an opportunity to honor him. I was sent an email regarding this movie:
"In the Face of Evil," to Open Conservative Liberty Film Festival
in Los Angeles October 1st
Hollywood, CA - September 22nd 2004- Writer/Director Stephen K. Bannon's "In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed" will open the 2004 Liberty Film Festival, Hollywood's first openly conservative film festival. The festival will be held Oct. 1st-3rd at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood.
"In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed" is a controversial look at Reagan's victory over Communism within the context of mankind's continual fight against evil, including the current war against Islamic Fascism. Based on Executive Producer Peter Schweizer's book "Reagan's War," "In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Dead" was produced by Tim Watkins, and co-written by Julia Jones.
Screening time: 6:40 pm
Screening Location:
SilverScreen Theatre at Pacific Design Center
8687 Melrose Avenue
2nd floor Center Green
West Hollywood , CA 90069
site: www.libertyfilmfestival.com
"The must-see movie of the season...disturbing and deeply-moving...I found myself weeping" - Maggie Gallagher, NEW YORK POST
"A brilliant effort...extremely well done."- Rush Limbaugh
“ A powerful portrayal of a critical point in history that exposes the intensity of
the struggle against communism and President Reagan’s campaign for victory.
As someone who had lived these times, I was very moved by the detail and
emotion in which they were brought out on film. The lessons of our struggle
against the evil empire are more relevant than ever in regards to the conflict
of today’s world.”
- Lech Walesa, Nobel Laurite and former President of Poland
One of the lines in the letter that I just kind of took in stride the first time has proven prophetically ironic. That's where the writer says, "its obvious within a few lines of reading that you share no sympathy for anyone left-of-Reagan."
Let's set aside for now the reply already made, as well as the fact that I'm probably slightly to the left of Reagan on a few issues, as well as to the right of him on a few others. Let's go back and ponder the fact that this writer considered it an insult to compare me politically to Reagan. This comment appears to me to be similar to the hyperbole I or other conservatives use on occasion to make a point, when we say that, for instance, John Kerry *is* a moderate -- when compared to Pol Pot. The connotation seems to be that Reagan is about as evilly far out to the Right as Mao or Lenin is to the Left.
This is laughable. When you consider the great good accomplished by the man, his victory over the Soviet regime, the only thing a man like RWR has in common with a Mao or a Lenin is his impact on history. He is, in my opinion, one of the greatest American Presidents ever, certainly one of the two greatest of the 20th Century.
And now I've been afforded an opportunity to honor him. I was sent an email regarding this movie:
"In the Face of Evil," to Open Conservative Liberty Film Festival
in Los Angeles October 1st
Hollywood, CA - September 22nd 2004- Writer/Director Stephen K. Bannon's "In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed" will open the 2004 Liberty Film Festival, Hollywood's first openly conservative film festival. The festival will be held Oct. 1st-3rd at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood.
"In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed" is a controversial look at Reagan's victory over Communism within the context of mankind's continual fight against evil, including the current war against Islamic Fascism. Based on Executive Producer Peter Schweizer's book "Reagan's War," "In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Dead" was produced by Tim Watkins, and co-written by Julia Jones.
Screening time: 6:40 pm
Screening Location:
SilverScreen Theatre at Pacific Design Center
8687 Melrose Avenue
2nd floor Center Green
West Hollywood , CA 90069
site: www.libertyfilmfestival.com
"The must-see movie of the season...disturbing and deeply-moving...I found myself weeping" - Maggie Gallagher, NEW YORK POST
"A brilliant effort...extremely well done."- Rush Limbaugh
“ A powerful portrayal of a critical point in history that exposes the intensity of
the struggle against communism and President Reagan’s campaign for victory.
As someone who had lived these times, I was very moved by the detail and
emotion in which they were brought out on film. The lessons of our struggle
against the evil empire are more relevant than ever in regards to the conflict
of today’s world.”
- Lech Walesa, Nobel Laurite and former President of Poland
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Maybe We Are... (Movin' On Up)
Remember this post about Blog Mobility? In it, I qouted Michelle Malkin. In fact, the whole post was inspired by her entry.
Well, guess what?
SHE RETURNED THE FAVOR!!!!!!
WOO HOO!!!!!!
Let's see. In about 24 hours, I've received my first hate email, AND been quoted by a major pundit both in the blogosphere and the MSM.
If this generates a significant abount of traffic for my blog, given the subject of the post, I can't help but notice the synchronicity.
Well, guess what?
SHE RETURNED THE FAVOR!!!!!!
WOO HOO!!!!!!
Let's see. In about 24 hours, I've received my first hate email, AND been quoted by a major pundit both in the blogosphere and the MSM.
If this generates a significant abount of traffic for my blog, given the subject of the post, I can't help but notice the synchronicity.
P.I.T.S.
That's Pregnancy Induced Tourette's Syndrome, or just "Pregnancy Tourette's," a term my wife coined to describe the sudden outbursts of sailor-intimidating profanity she is prone to these days, inspired by the nausea, indigestion, and general discomfort that are her constant friends.
She's at 18 weeks, well into her second trimester. We've been told these are the halcyon days of pregnancy, when morning sickness abates and before the awkwardness of late term zeppelinitis.
My response to those who seek to encourage us with this hope? Well, I think my wife's P.I.T.S. speaks for both of us.
She's at 18 weeks, well into her second trimester. We've been told these are the halcyon days of pregnancy, when morning sickness abates and before the awkwardness of late term zeppelinitis.
My response to those who seek to encourage us with this hope? Well, I think my wife's P.I.T.S. speaks for both of us.
We Get Lots and Lots and Lots and Lots of Letter!
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Movin' On Up -- Or Are We?
I have a confession to make: I am a traffic junkie. Ever since I discovered the TTLB Blog ecosystem and the tools afforded my by Site Meter, I have become fascinated with my stats, and with tracking how many visitors I get, as well as where they originate, and how many page views they go to while here. While I still write what I want, when I want, and how I want, I do get excited when I get a response, and I'm not too proud to advertise with links on other blogs where I think the owners and/or readers will appreciate my offering, nor to trackback when one of my entries is inspired by another blog.
And I'm pleased to report that my readership has steadily risen over time. I currently have an average of 116 visits per day, with a one day record of around 250. Now, that's admittedly peanuts compared to the big boys, but still, considering how new I am and how limited my blogging time is, I think that's a pretty decent gain. All by being myself.
All of this is to provide background for my take on the following blog entry by Michelle Malkin:
HOW MUCH MOBILITY IS THERE IN THE BLOGOSPHERIC ECOSYSTEM?
In the LA Times, former blogger Billmon writes that bloggers have sold out. His thesis is that "[a]s blogs commercialize, they are tied ever closer to the mainstream media and its increasingly frivolous news agenda."
I was particularly interested in his argument that "a charmed circle of bloggers" is gaining "larger audiences and greater influence," while the rest of the blogosphere is being left behind. Media exposure to the top blogs, he argues, "is intensifying an existing trend toward a 'winner take all' concentration of audience share." He goes on:
Even before blogs hit the big time, Web stats showed the blogosphere to be a surprisingly unequal place, with a relative handful of blogs — say, the top several hundred — accounting for the lion's share of all page hits.
In Billmon's eyes, the blogosphere is an inegalitarian place, with little opportunity for new blogs to break into the "charmed circle" of high-traffic sites that have sold out in pursuit of advertising dollars. I am not familiar with Billmon's writings, but I get the sense that he (or she) probably feels the same way about economic opportunity in the U.S.
How well does this pessimistic view of the blogosphere align with reality? Is mobility really as limited as Billmon suggests?
A little more than a year ago, John Hawkins listed the most influential center-right bloggers. (He ignored left-of-center blogs and non-political blogs because he was not well acquainted with them.) His list was as follows:
1. Andrew Sullivan
2. Instapundit
3. The Corner
4. The Volokh Conspiracy
5. Little Green Footballs
6. Lileks (James) The Bleat
7. Steven Den Beste
8. Scrappleface
9. A Small Victory
10. Tim Blair
If Hawkins were to create such a list today, I have no doubt we'd see plenty of new names--sites like Powerline, Hewitt, Allah, and perhaps Wizbang and INDC Journal. Not coincidentally, these are among the most consistently interesting and informed sites in the blogosphere.
In essence, Billmon believes the game is rigged. But in blogging, as in life more generally, there is tremendous opportunity for those inclined to seize it.
It cannot be denied that early bloggers enjoy an advantage over latecomers. A blog that launches today, no matter how good or heavily promoted, will not soon overtake Instapundit or Daily Kos. Yet even the mightiest blog won't retain its position in the "charmed circle" for long if it is running on fumes.
More thoughts on Billmon's op-ed (from liberal bloggers) here: 1 2 3
Update: It turns out that Hawkins ranked the top 125 political blogs just this week. Compare to his October 2003 list here and his January 2003 list here.
Update II: For blog newbies, N.Z. Bear's weblog ecosystem is a fascinating barometer of blog mobility (though it seems to be down this morning for maintenance).
I am in agreement with Michelle on this. A while back I blogged about Memogate (who didn't?), and in particular about the level of fact checking and policing done by blogs, OF OTHER BLOGS. In it, I also touched on the issue of blog quality and how it affects blog popularity. To shamelessly quote myself:
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated.
That, I think, is the point that Billmon has missed. The Blogosphere is truly a "Free Market of Ideas" in the sense for which that term was truly intended. Not only are you free to express your opinions on a blog, but your success, at least in terms of readership, is directly related to how well-expressed and well-received those opinions are BY YOUR AUDIENCE -- not by a publisher or producer. Unlike the MSM, where only those who please the ear of the bigwigs ever gets a chance to present their views to the public, anyone can post to a blog. From there, its success is up to you and your audience. Admittedly, there are bloggers who have received commercial support, and who continue to blog because of it. But as Michelle points out, these blogs don't necessarily get the readerhsip they once did.
Furthermore, she could have used as examples two of my favorite blogs, both of whome have been gaining in readership and influence (and upon whose coattails I have made some of my most spectacular gains): Ace of Spades and MyPetJawa. Both of these guys blog because they enjoy doing it, yes, both care about recognition, but no, neither one has bee coopted by the forces of conformity because of it.
While it may be arguable that blogs in general are not as upwardly mobile as Billmon wishes we were, one thing can be said in our defense:
At least we're self-propelled.
And I'm pleased to report that my readership has steadily risen over time. I currently have an average of 116 visits per day, with a one day record of around 250. Now, that's admittedly peanuts compared to the big boys, but still, considering how new I am and how limited my blogging time is, I think that's a pretty decent gain. All by being myself.
All of this is to provide background for my take on the following blog entry by Michelle Malkin:
HOW MUCH MOBILITY IS THERE IN THE BLOGOSPHERIC ECOSYSTEM?
In the LA Times, former blogger Billmon writes that bloggers have sold out. His thesis is that "[a]s blogs commercialize, they are tied ever closer to the mainstream media and its increasingly frivolous news agenda."
I was particularly interested in his argument that "a charmed circle of bloggers" is gaining "larger audiences and greater influence," while the rest of the blogosphere is being left behind. Media exposure to the top blogs, he argues, "is intensifying an existing trend toward a 'winner take all' concentration of audience share." He goes on:
Even before blogs hit the big time, Web stats showed the blogosphere to be a surprisingly unequal place, with a relative handful of blogs — say, the top several hundred — accounting for the lion's share of all page hits.
In Billmon's eyes, the blogosphere is an inegalitarian place, with little opportunity for new blogs to break into the "charmed circle" of high-traffic sites that have sold out in pursuit of advertising dollars. I am not familiar with Billmon's writings, but I get the sense that he (or she) probably feels the same way about economic opportunity in the U.S.
How well does this pessimistic view of the blogosphere align with reality? Is mobility really as limited as Billmon suggests?
A little more than a year ago, John Hawkins listed the most influential center-right bloggers. (He ignored left-of-center blogs and non-political blogs because he was not well acquainted with them.) His list was as follows:
1. Andrew Sullivan
2. Instapundit
3. The Corner
4. The Volokh Conspiracy
5. Little Green Footballs
6. Lileks (James) The Bleat
7. Steven Den Beste
8. Scrappleface
9. A Small Victory
10. Tim Blair
If Hawkins were to create such a list today, I have no doubt we'd see plenty of new names--sites like Powerline, Hewitt, Allah, and perhaps Wizbang and INDC Journal. Not coincidentally, these are among the most consistently interesting and informed sites in the blogosphere.
In essence, Billmon believes the game is rigged. But in blogging, as in life more generally, there is tremendous opportunity for those inclined to seize it.
It cannot be denied that early bloggers enjoy an advantage over latecomers. A blog that launches today, no matter how good or heavily promoted, will not soon overtake Instapundit or Daily Kos. Yet even the mightiest blog won't retain its position in the "charmed circle" for long if it is running on fumes.
More thoughts on Billmon's op-ed (from liberal bloggers) here: 1 2 3
Update: It turns out that Hawkins ranked the top 125 political blogs just this week. Compare to his October 2003 list here and his January 2003 list here.
Update II: For blog newbies, N.Z. Bear's weblog ecosystem is a fascinating barometer of blog mobility (though it seems to be down this morning for maintenance).
I am in agreement with Michelle on this. A while back I blogged about Memogate (who didn't?), and in particular about the level of fact checking and policing done by blogs, OF OTHER BLOGS. In it, I also touched on the issue of blog quality and how it affects blog popularity. To shamelessly quote myself:
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated.
That, I think, is the point that Billmon has missed. The Blogosphere is truly a "Free Market of Ideas" in the sense for which that term was truly intended. Not only are you free to express your opinions on a blog, but your success, at least in terms of readership, is directly related to how well-expressed and well-received those opinions are BY YOUR AUDIENCE -- not by a publisher or producer. Unlike the MSM, where only those who please the ear of the bigwigs ever gets a chance to present their views to the public, anyone can post to a blog. From there, its success is up to you and your audience. Admittedly, there are bloggers who have received commercial support, and who continue to blog because of it. But as Michelle points out, these blogs don't necessarily get the readerhsip they once did.
Furthermore, she could have used as examples two of my favorite blogs, both of whome have been gaining in readership and influence (and upon whose coattails I have made some of my most spectacular gains): Ace of Spades and MyPetJawa. Both of these guys blog because they enjoy doing it, yes, both care about recognition, but no, neither one has bee coopted by the forces of conformity because of it.
While it may be arguable that blogs in general are not as upwardly mobile as Billmon wishes we were, one thing can be said in our defense:
At least we're self-propelled.
Guest Post
You'll recall, perhaps, a post I made early on in my blogging about how my Christian faith shapes my political views.
Well, one of my best friends in the whole world read it, we had a dialogue, and the following blog entry is his response. With his permission, I am reprinting it here, without comment from me:
As you called for on your blog several weeks ago, there is a need for "righteousness" in American government. It is, in fact, a virtue toward which individuals and institutions are morally obligated to strive. Despite the claims in recent years by some in the political arena, the pursuit of justice has always been (to varying degrees) a part of the American experiment. This is evident in the three great documents of the American form of government - the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These documents wit-ness to certain principles, ideals and virtues that the state must recognize and strive to secure or, at the very least, recognize above all others:
· All citizens will have liberty
· All citizens will be equal
· All citizens will be justly governed - i.e., justice
Whereas liberty and equality are oriented toward the individual, justice (as the highest of the three) is always geared toward the common good.(1) Because "good" is a moral term, the common good is understood as a political science about what is best and right for the whole. This is how and why justice will "run into" or at times "run over" liberty and equality. Of course, the devil is in the details, and our task as citizens of a representative republic is to seek the proper definition of the common good and then to create an atmosphere in order for people to achieve it.
This naturally leads to a discussion of rights, which should be understood as natural rights recognized (though not created nor established) by our democracy. Tocqueville wrote that it is by reference to natural rights that "men have always defined the nature of license and tyranny." In other words, no nation can be called great without having respect for natural rights. It seems to me that it could be persuasively argued that without this there can be no real civil society at all (unless one considers types of tyrannical societies "civil").
Even a rudimentary inspection of American history will show that liberty and equality have always quarreled with each other in our democracy. And they will do so in any democracy. This is what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison feared the most when considering the future of democracy in America. In fact, this is the explanation for John Adams' fear of the eventual failure of the American experiment, writing (in a private letter after his presidency) that "all democracies eventually self-destruct."
As Mortimer J. Adler wrote in The Time of Our Lives (1970) the conflict in our society between liberty and equality occurs only when neither is limited by justice. The application of this principle is extraordinary: from affirmative action to abortion. Only justice has the natural ability to resolve the inevitable tension and conflict between liberty and equality that will arise in any type of democracy. Justice must be the controlling principle among these three since it alone has the ability to determine the scope of the other two without sacrificing either. Left unchecked, liberty will run roughshod over equality and vice-versa. Justice, when properly conceived in coordination with "the common good" and "natural rights" must be recognized as the ultimate discriminating virtue in government.
Definitions:
Below are some detailed definitions of several key terms I have outlined above.
Natural Rights
There are several ways to define natural rights. One way is through the observing that natural rights are to be identified by our natural needs. This is to say that human beings possess no natural right that does not correspond to a natural need. Justice and natural rights are inherently linked together because our ability to determine right and wrong in both private and social contexts is based on what is really and objectively good.
A just government must recognize and secure the natural rights of men and women in order that they may be able to make good lives. This is what the Declaration of Independence is speaking of when it mentions our natural right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No government has the power to grant a good life. The good life entails meeting our natural needs through the possession of real goods, as well as the possession of those goods or wants that we have that do not interfere with our natural needs (or those of others).
All of this is possible, of course, because all human beings possess the same essential nature. If this were not so, society would be impossible. This last point has been famously rejected by many political, biological, sociological and, sadly, even religious thinkers of the past century. Thankfully, not all have fallen into this serious philosophical error.
Liberty
To understand liberty properly (which is synonymous with freedom) we need to under-stand the four kinds of liberty. Circumstantial liberty is the ability and right of self-realization. Moral liberty is the freedom to perfect oneself - that is, to be perfected by means of a virtuous character. Natural liberty is the ability and right we possess for self-determination. The final kind, political liberty, can be considered as a type or aspect of circumstantial freedom - that is, a person possesses political liberty or freedom only when they are living in economic, social, and political conditions that foster it. The essence of this last type of liberty is the ability of an individual or a society to be governed by their consent and to have a voice in that government.
Equality
Like liberty, there are several types of equality. For the purposes of the present discussion, political equality is based on circumstances, but is entitled to all human beings by virtue of being human. In other words, these are conditions that should be experienced by everyone - specifically, the political conditions of status, treatment and opportunity.
The issue of slavery is a good, if not obvious, example to use to explore these conditions. In terms of status, the reason why slavery is wrong is because no person is more or less human than another. This means that every member of society deserves the same general treatment since no one naturally deserves more dignity than anyone else. As for opportunity, every human being naturally deserves the same opportunity afforded to others for the same reason - their shared human nature. If and when these conditions are not distributed equally, it is the duty of a just state to override liberty and do what is necessary to correct the situation (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Every person is by nature equal to all other persons and is naturally entitled to an equality of political, social and economic conditions. Our greatest President and statesman, the honorable Abraham Lincoln, recognized this as one of the core principles of democracy, even though it was not evident in American society at the time. This is why he called the ideals in the Declaration of Independence as a promise to the future rather than a statement of fact.
Justice
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) distinguished between two types of justice - universal and particular justice. Particular justice deals with such things as fairness in exchange, the distribution of goods and taking corrective steps to ensure equality (like in the example given in the immediately preceding paragraph). John Rawls, the late Harvard professor, was mistaken when he argued that justice was limited to fairness in how we deal with others. When it comes to universal justice Aristotle asked the question, what is lawful? By which he meant, what is right and good? Understood in this way, justice is recognized as one of the four cardinal virtues (along with courage, temperance and prudence). This idea can be traced back to his teacher Plato who had the insight to observe that justice consisted in virtuous acts toward others. It is universal justice that we speak of when discussing political justice.
Aristotle also recognized that, while all other animals are social to various degrees, only man is a political animal. When seeking to understand the proper relation of justice to the state we must ask whether the principle of justice is prior to the political state (including its constitution, laws, etc.) or if justice is relative to the political state. If it is relative then we are forced to into two positions. First, that justice is completely dependent on the power of state. Second, that justice is the result of the state’s laws rather than the basis of them. This is tantamount to saying that saying that justice is merely political. However, if we say that justice is antecedent to the political state, then we are claiming that political justice is deter-mined by natural justice. Hence, justice is understood as natural and rational rather than conventional. In other words, justice is not man-made. If it were then justice would change with the coming and going of different political regimes. Instead, because justice is natural it is, therefore, universally binding on all people in all places and at all times.
It was this definition of justice that led Lincoln to conclude that the obligations of a just government were to do for its people what they, individually, cannot do for themselves. The preamble of the U. S. Constitution summarizes these obligations well - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
(1) Admittedly, these terms are not oriented wholly to the individual. They are corporate terms that also possess specific personal and/or individual application.
- David Alan Reed
Well, one of my best friends in the whole world read it, we had a dialogue, and the following blog entry is his response. With his permission, I am reprinting it here, without comment from me:
As you called for on your blog several weeks ago, there is a need for "righteousness" in American government. It is, in fact, a virtue toward which individuals and institutions are morally obligated to strive. Despite the claims in recent years by some in the political arena, the pursuit of justice has always been (to varying degrees) a part of the American experiment. This is evident in the three great documents of the American form of government - the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These documents wit-ness to certain principles, ideals and virtues that the state must recognize and strive to secure or, at the very least, recognize above all others:
· All citizens will have liberty
· All citizens will be equal
· All citizens will be justly governed - i.e., justice
Whereas liberty and equality are oriented toward the individual, justice (as the highest of the three) is always geared toward the common good.(1) Because "good" is a moral term, the common good is understood as a political science about what is best and right for the whole. This is how and why justice will "run into" or at times "run over" liberty and equality. Of course, the devil is in the details, and our task as citizens of a representative republic is to seek the proper definition of the common good and then to create an atmosphere in order for people to achieve it.
This naturally leads to a discussion of rights, which should be understood as natural rights recognized (though not created nor established) by our democracy. Tocqueville wrote that it is by reference to natural rights that "men have always defined the nature of license and tyranny." In other words, no nation can be called great without having respect for natural rights. It seems to me that it could be persuasively argued that without this there can be no real civil society at all (unless one considers types of tyrannical societies "civil").
Even a rudimentary inspection of American history will show that liberty and equality have always quarreled with each other in our democracy. And they will do so in any democracy. This is what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison feared the most when considering the future of democracy in America. In fact, this is the explanation for John Adams' fear of the eventual failure of the American experiment, writing (in a private letter after his presidency) that "all democracies eventually self-destruct."
As Mortimer J. Adler wrote in The Time of Our Lives (1970) the conflict in our society between liberty and equality occurs only when neither is limited by justice. The application of this principle is extraordinary: from affirmative action to abortion. Only justice has the natural ability to resolve the inevitable tension and conflict between liberty and equality that will arise in any type of democracy. Justice must be the controlling principle among these three since it alone has the ability to determine the scope of the other two without sacrificing either. Left unchecked, liberty will run roughshod over equality and vice-versa. Justice, when properly conceived in coordination with "the common good" and "natural rights" must be recognized as the ultimate discriminating virtue in government.
Definitions:
Below are some detailed definitions of several key terms I have outlined above.
Natural Rights
There are several ways to define natural rights. One way is through the observing that natural rights are to be identified by our natural needs. This is to say that human beings possess no natural right that does not correspond to a natural need. Justice and natural rights are inherently linked together because our ability to determine right and wrong in both private and social contexts is based on what is really and objectively good.
A just government must recognize and secure the natural rights of men and women in order that they may be able to make good lives. This is what the Declaration of Independence is speaking of when it mentions our natural right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No government has the power to grant a good life. The good life entails meeting our natural needs through the possession of real goods, as well as the possession of those goods or wants that we have that do not interfere with our natural needs (or those of others).
All of this is possible, of course, because all human beings possess the same essential nature. If this were not so, society would be impossible. This last point has been famously rejected by many political, biological, sociological and, sadly, even religious thinkers of the past century. Thankfully, not all have fallen into this serious philosophical error.
Liberty
To understand liberty properly (which is synonymous with freedom) we need to under-stand the four kinds of liberty. Circumstantial liberty is the ability and right of self-realization. Moral liberty is the freedom to perfect oneself - that is, to be perfected by means of a virtuous character. Natural liberty is the ability and right we possess for self-determination. The final kind, political liberty, can be considered as a type or aspect of circumstantial freedom - that is, a person possesses political liberty or freedom only when they are living in economic, social, and political conditions that foster it. The essence of this last type of liberty is the ability of an individual or a society to be governed by their consent and to have a voice in that government.
Equality
Like liberty, there are several types of equality. For the purposes of the present discussion, political equality is based on circumstances, but is entitled to all human beings by virtue of being human. In other words, these are conditions that should be experienced by everyone - specifically, the political conditions of status, treatment and opportunity.
The issue of slavery is a good, if not obvious, example to use to explore these conditions. In terms of status, the reason why slavery is wrong is because no person is more or less human than another. This means that every member of society deserves the same general treatment since no one naturally deserves more dignity than anyone else. As for opportunity, every human being naturally deserves the same opportunity afforded to others for the same reason - their shared human nature. If and when these conditions are not distributed equally, it is the duty of a just state to override liberty and do what is necessary to correct the situation (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Every person is by nature equal to all other persons and is naturally entitled to an equality of political, social and economic conditions. Our greatest President and statesman, the honorable Abraham Lincoln, recognized this as one of the core principles of democracy, even though it was not evident in American society at the time. This is why he called the ideals in the Declaration of Independence as a promise to the future rather than a statement of fact.
Justice
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) distinguished between two types of justice - universal and particular justice. Particular justice deals with such things as fairness in exchange, the distribution of goods and taking corrective steps to ensure equality (like in the example given in the immediately preceding paragraph). John Rawls, the late Harvard professor, was mistaken when he argued that justice was limited to fairness in how we deal with others. When it comes to universal justice Aristotle asked the question, what is lawful? By which he meant, what is right and good? Understood in this way, justice is recognized as one of the four cardinal virtues (along with courage, temperance and prudence). This idea can be traced back to his teacher Plato who had the insight to observe that justice consisted in virtuous acts toward others. It is universal justice that we speak of when discussing political justice.
Aristotle also recognized that, while all other animals are social to various degrees, only man is a political animal. When seeking to understand the proper relation of justice to the state we must ask whether the principle of justice is prior to the political state (including its constitution, laws, etc.) or if justice is relative to the political state. If it is relative then we are forced to into two positions. First, that justice is completely dependent on the power of state. Second, that justice is the result of the state’s laws rather than the basis of them. This is tantamount to saying that saying that justice is merely political. However, if we say that justice is antecedent to the political state, then we are claiming that political justice is deter-mined by natural justice. Hence, justice is understood as natural and rational rather than conventional. In other words, justice is not man-made. If it were then justice would change with the coming and going of different political regimes. Instead, because justice is natural it is, therefore, universally binding on all people in all places and at all times.
It was this definition of justice that led Lincoln to conclude that the obligations of a just government were to do for its people what they, individually, cannot do for themselves. The preamble of the U. S. Constitution summarizes these obligations well - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
(1) Admittedly, these terms are not oriented wholly to the individual. They are corporate terms that also possess specific personal and/or individual application.
- David Alan Reed
Pundit Review's Upcoming Schedule
From an email I received from Pundit Review:
This Saturday (10/2) at noon we will have on Dean's World to talk about the latest project for Operation Hope and then we will have Scoott Johnson of PowerLine. The show can be heard live at www.wbix.com and archived at punditreview.com. If you want to call in, the number is 877-711-1060.
We have a great line up, including Don Luskin of Poor and Stupid.com on 10/9.
This Saturday (10/2) at noon we will have on Dean's World to talk about the latest project for Operation Hope and then we will have Scoott Johnson of PowerLine. The show can be heard live at www.wbix.com and archived at punditreview.com. If you want to call in, the number is 877-711-1060.
We have a great line up, including Don Luskin of Poor and Stupid.com on 10/9.
Mini-Rant
1. Open the top to the coffee pot.
2. Slide the pot under the brewer.
3. Slide the filter basket out of the brewer.
4. Dump the old filter and grounds in the trash.
5. Place a new filter in the basket.
6. Place the basket in the dispenser and pull the handle twice.
7. Slide the basket back in the brewer.
8. Press the "Start" button.
Eight steps. A total of oh, two minutes. How freaking hard is that? And yet, every day, when I come to work, ONE OR BOTH OF THE POTS IS EMPTY!!!!!
I can only assume this is attributable to rudeness or stupidity. Or both.
2. Slide the pot under the brewer.
3. Slide the filter basket out of the brewer.
4. Dump the old filter and grounds in the trash.
5. Place a new filter in the basket.
6. Place the basket in the dispenser and pull the handle twice.
7. Slide the basket back in the brewer.
8. Press the "Start" button.
Eight steps. A total of oh, two minutes. How freaking hard is that? And yet, every day, when I come to work, ONE OR BOTH OF THE POTS IS EMPTY!!!!!
I can only assume this is attributable to rudeness or stupidity. Or both.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Uh-Oh, Here We Go Again!
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa (Actually, I'd already heard about it, but tracking back to Rusty gets me gobs of traffic!).
US volcano that wreaked havoc 24 years ago rumbles to back life
LOS ANGELES (AFP) Sep 27, 2004
Mount St. Helens, a volcano that devastated swathes of the US northwest when it erupted 24 years ago, has rumbled back to life, raising fears of a fresh explosion, seismologists said Monday.
Experts believe that a sudden and potentially dangerous event could be on the way after a wave of nearly 100 small earthquakes began hitting the area in the states of Washington and Oregon in recent days.
"We have had small swarm of earthquakes that begun last Thursday and are worried that a small explosion may occur without warning," said Peter Frenzen, a scientist from Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
"The earthquake activity is occurring below the dome -- all this could increase the likelihood of small rock slides from the lava dome," he said, adding that the mountain had not been hit by waves of quakes since 2001.
Trails up the mountain were closed to climbers and hikers after quakes measuring between two and to 2.8 on the Richter Scale shook the area amid fears of mud and rock slides over an eight kilometer (five mile) area around the peak.
The area north of the peak was hard hit in the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens that left 57 people dead, devastating hundreds of square kilometers (miles) and spewing ash over much of the Pacific Northwest region.
The mountain's top lies around 88 kilometers (55 miles) northeast of the Oregon's main city of Portland, which was also covered in a thick layer of ash in the 1980 eruption.
I remember. Here in the Pacific Northwest, unless you're talking to someone VERY young, all you have to do is say May 18th, and people know what you mean. Before she blew, St. Helens was called "The Fuji of America" because she was so perfectly symmetrical. The initial eruption pulverized a cubic MILE I was living just to the east of Washington in Idaho, and we got a light dusting. My church's camp is in Camas WA, less than 50 miles from MSH, but away from the direction of the blast. The ash there was a couple of inches think. The stuff was incredibly fine and got into EVERYTHING. It was abrasive and destroyed engines and paint jobs. Interestingly enough, if heated hot enough, it makes a beautiful glass that can be blown in artwork. It turned the skies black at noon. It was a weird time, kind of exciting as a kid, especially since I was a bit removed from it, but scary at the same time.
As I told Rusty, Washington's Mt. Rainier and The Three Sisters here in Oregon have both been showing signs of awaking. If The Sisters go, I'll have an incredibly good view, but a fairly safe one. It's the people in Central Oregon who will be screwed. That's cattle country, the cost of evacuating livestock will be phenomenal. We don't put up with tornadoes, or hurricanes (well, not true. Storms on the PNW coast are routinely of Hurricane force, and the Columbus Day Storm was the hardest blow to ever hit the US in terms of wind speed. But there's hardly anyone there to notice it), or as many bizzards as the midwest or earthquakes as California, but when we finally do have a disaster, we do it with flair.
US volcano that wreaked havoc 24 years ago rumbles to back life
LOS ANGELES (AFP) Sep 27, 2004
Mount St. Helens, a volcano that devastated swathes of the US northwest when it erupted 24 years ago, has rumbled back to life, raising fears of a fresh explosion, seismologists said Monday.
Experts believe that a sudden and potentially dangerous event could be on the way after a wave of nearly 100 small earthquakes began hitting the area in the states of Washington and Oregon in recent days.
"We have had small swarm of earthquakes that begun last Thursday and are worried that a small explosion may occur without warning," said Peter Frenzen, a scientist from Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
"The earthquake activity is occurring below the dome -- all this could increase the likelihood of small rock slides from the lava dome," he said, adding that the mountain had not been hit by waves of quakes since 2001.
Trails up the mountain were closed to climbers and hikers after quakes measuring between two and to 2.8 on the Richter Scale shook the area amid fears of mud and rock slides over an eight kilometer (five mile) area around the peak.
The area north of the peak was hard hit in the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens that left 57 people dead, devastating hundreds of square kilometers (miles) and spewing ash over much of the Pacific Northwest region.
The mountain's top lies around 88 kilometers (55 miles) northeast of the Oregon's main city of Portland, which was also covered in a thick layer of ash in the 1980 eruption.
I remember. Here in the Pacific Northwest, unless you're talking to someone VERY young, all you have to do is say May 18th, and people know what you mean. Before she blew, St. Helens was called "The Fuji of America" because she was so perfectly symmetrical. The initial eruption pulverized a cubic MILE I was living just to the east of Washington in Idaho, and we got a light dusting. My church's camp is in Camas WA, less than 50 miles from MSH, but away from the direction of the blast. The ash there was a couple of inches think. The stuff was incredibly fine and got into EVERYTHING. It was abrasive and destroyed engines and paint jobs. Interestingly enough, if heated hot enough, it makes a beautiful glass that can be blown in artwork. It turned the skies black at noon. It was a weird time, kind of exciting as a kid, especially since I was a bit removed from it, but scary at the same time.
As I told Rusty, Washington's Mt. Rainier and The Three Sisters here in Oregon have both been showing signs of awaking. If The Sisters go, I'll have an incredibly good view, but a fairly safe one. It's the people in Central Oregon who will be screwed. That's cattle country, the cost of evacuating livestock will be phenomenal. We don't put up with tornadoes, or hurricanes (well, not true. Storms on the PNW coast are routinely of Hurricane force, and the Columbus Day Storm was the hardest blow to ever hit the US in terms of wind speed. But there's hardly anyone there to notice it), or as many bizzards as the midwest or earthquakes as California, but when we finally do have a disaster, we do it with flair.
Finally
Oregon won Saturday, 48-10 over Idaho. Yeah, it's "only" Idaho, but they had already lost to "only" Indiana, so it was a relief to see them stay focused. The only thing sad about the game for Ducks fans was the fact that Michael Harrington was the Vandals' QB, and it reminded us just how much we miss his older brother Joey.
Joey lost yesterday, to Philadelphia, but Detroit hung in there and played well, the Eagles are just scary. San Diego lost, that was a bit of a bummer, but the Vikings won, and so did Seattle, demolishing SF 34-0!!!! Who ever expected to hear the words "Seattle" and "Led by their defense" in the same sentence?
Joey lost yesterday, to Philadelphia, but Detroit hung in there and played well, the Eagles are just scary. San Diego lost, that was a bit of a bummer, but the Vikings won, and so did Seattle, demolishing SF 34-0!!!! Who ever expected to hear the words "Seattle" and "Led by their defense" in the same sentence?
Worth the Trip
Pop on over to my friend Ricky V's blog Vices & Virtues and enter the Caption Contest. Even if you don't win, heck, even if you don't enter, it's worth the trip just for the photo.
DeFazio Violates Election Rules
The following press release was issued by the Oregon Republican Party, and forwarded to me by a local GOP activist. I'd appreciate any help I can get from other conservative bloggers, especially on the Left Coast, to get the news out:
DeFazio Campaign Website Violates House Ethics Rules
Eugene, OR—On Friday, Lane County Republican Central Committee Chair Robert
Avery filed a formal complaint with the U.S. House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio.
House Standards Committee rules clearly state that no member’s campaign
website can include links to members’ House sites. However, DeFazio’s
campaign web site contains two links to his House site.
One link reads, “If you’d like to read about my current affairs in Congress,
or to contact my office about an issue, please click on this link:
http//:www.house.gov/defazio/.”
The second states: “Read about my forest thinning legislation:
http://www.house.gov/defazio/073004EGRelease.shtml.”
Bruce Harvie, campaign manager for Republican 4th Congressional District
candidate Jim Feldkamp, said he was surprised to see such a blatant
violation go unnoticed.
“The rules state very clearly that campaign sites and House sites should not
be linked,” Harvie said. “Those links are still on his campaign site right
now, which is in clear breach of official protocol.”
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party of Oregon filed a complaint against
Feldkamp, alleging that trips he made to Washington D.C. for Naval Reserve
drills and to Boston to visit his daughter were in violation of election
rules governing the disclosure of campaign expenditures. Feldkamp, who was
recently endorsed by the Grants Pass Daily Courier, has documents that
verify his presence at those Naval Reserve drills.
“It’s ironic to me that the same people who would choose to file a frivolous
and unfounded complaint against Jim would be so unaware of a legitimate
violation taking place,” Harvie said. “Trips that he paid for out of pocket
are scrutinized, yet official misconduct goes unnoticed. I guess this just
demonstrates the extent that some people are willing to go to in order to
advance a partisan agenda.”
Havie said that a veteran legislator like DeFazio should be aware of such
rules by now.
“Anyone who has spent 18 years in the House should be familiar with the
basic laws set forth by that body,” Harvie said. “Either he’s unaware, or he
chooses to ignore them, and I don’t see either scenario as being very good.”
DeFazio Campaign Website Violates House Ethics Rules
Eugene, OR—On Friday, Lane County Republican Central Committee Chair Robert
Avery filed a formal complaint with the U.S. House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio.
House Standards Committee rules clearly state that no member’s campaign
website can include links to members’ House sites. However, DeFazio’s
campaign web site contains two links to his House site.
One link reads, “If you’d like to read about my current affairs in Congress,
or to contact my office about an issue, please click on this link:
http//:www.house.gov/defazio/.”
The second states: “Read about my forest thinning legislation:
http://www.house.gov/defazio/073004EGRelease.shtml.”
Bruce Harvie, campaign manager for Republican 4th Congressional District
candidate Jim Feldkamp, said he was surprised to see such a blatant
violation go unnoticed.
“The rules state very clearly that campaign sites and House sites should not
be linked,” Harvie said. “Those links are still on his campaign site right
now, which is in clear breach of official protocol.”
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party of Oregon filed a complaint against
Feldkamp, alleging that trips he made to Washington D.C. for Naval Reserve
drills and to Boston to visit his daughter were in violation of election
rules governing the disclosure of campaign expenditures. Feldkamp, who was
recently endorsed by the Grants Pass Daily Courier, has documents that
verify his presence at those Naval Reserve drills.
“It’s ironic to me that the same people who would choose to file a frivolous
and unfounded complaint against Jim would be so unaware of a legitimate
violation taking place,” Harvie said. “Trips that he paid for out of pocket
are scrutinized, yet official misconduct goes unnoticed. I guess this just
demonstrates the extent that some people are willing to go to in order to
advance a partisan agenda.”
Havie said that a veteran legislator like DeFazio should be aware of such
rules by now.
“Anyone who has spent 18 years in the House should be familiar with the
basic laws set forth by that body,” Harvie said. “Either he’s unaware, or he
chooses to ignore them, and I don’t see either scenario as being very good.”
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Countdown to the Apocalypse
Well, not exactly, but close enough...
Last night, as I was watching my standard guy fare on the History channel, the Feared Redhead called to me from the bedroom where she was surfing for a more chick-friendly program. "Hurry," she said, "Turn it to channel 16. You have to see this!"
Channel 16 is QVC. I complied (because she is called the Feared Redhead for good reason) with great trepidation. And there it was, scheduled for 9 PM PDT:
Countdown to Christmas
On September 24th.
It hurt my head. Then she informed me that the local Ross had Christmas stuff out at the end of August.
I'm just waiting for the plagues of locusts. Yep, any day now.
Last night, as I was watching my standard guy fare on the History channel, the Feared Redhead called to me from the bedroom where she was surfing for a more chick-friendly program. "Hurry," she said, "Turn it to channel 16. You have to see this!"
Channel 16 is QVC. I complied (because she is called the Feared Redhead for good reason) with great trepidation. And there it was, scheduled for 9 PM PDT:
Countdown to Christmas
On September 24th.
It hurt my head. Then she informed me that the local Ross had Christmas stuff out at the end of August.
I'm just waiting for the plagues of locusts. Yep, any day now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)