A while back, I attempted to fisk a blog post by Tom Humphrey, a newspaper editor from Tennessee. I wasn't the only one. If you'll follow the links to other blogs in my post, the trackback, or the link to Tom's blog where the comments are, you'll see that quite a few of us tore in to ol' Tommie.
While there was plenty to go on in his post, the main reason bloggers went after Mr. Humphrey was due to a comment in his post:
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those iron clad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such.
Nice, huh? Thanks a lot, Tom. What's sad is, in recent days I've heard the same comments about bloggers AGAIN, thanks to the Memogate controversy.
Dan Rather called us "rumor mills" and "partisan political operatives" (pot and kettle much, Danny Boy?). Last night watching MSNBC, I heard a guest on Scarborough Country accuse bloggers of being rumor mongers, and of not being subject to fact checking.
Let's address quickly the fact that this is an unabashed ad hominem, and then move on. The person that made this comment could not refute the forgery allegations, could not lend any expertise to the discussion of the documents, so they had to assail the bloggers instead. Because we're rumor mongers, then anything we say must therefore be nothing but rumor, with no relevance or basis in fact. Pure ad hominem. As unsophisticated as some people think it is to cite her, I have to say, Ann Coulter was right when she wrote Slander.
Well, I have news for them. If anything, blogs are more closely scrutinized than Mainstream Media sources. Go back to my post on Tom Humphrey. In criticizing him, I made some spelling and grammatical errors myself, and a reader caught me and called me on it. Admittedly, it took a while, but I have a readership of what, 100 people a day or so? I'm nothing. If one of the heavy hitters (The top 100 or so on the TTLB ecosystem) make a mistake, how quickly do they get called on it. If not in their comment sections, you can BET other blogs, especially those of opposing political views, will call them on it.
That's a significant factor in the checks and balances present on the web, among blogs, as opposed to those in the MSM. Let's look specifically at fact checking.
Any time we are presented with an argument and with evidence for a position on any issue, our own opinion and feelings on that issue cloud our judgment of the evidence. That is human nature. Our desire influences our inclination, that is, the more we want something to be true, the more apt we are to believe it. It takes a great deal of intellectual courage to say, "I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not." Some people are more able to do it than others.
We were taught for generations that among those best able to do this were journalists. The dispassionate, impartial observer and reporter who could set aside personal feelings to "Just tell it like it is." But this belief itself was in great part based on our desire to believe. The reality was, sadly, more and more different all the time. Journalists are as fallible as we are. If someone is presented with a story that fits their perception and beliefs and desires, they are going to be more inclined to believe it. They're supposed to exercise caution, but sometimes it can be too tempting to pass up. That's why fact-checking, or some sort of independent review, is important. In the MSM, that's supposed to be the job of fact checkers, editors, and producers. In the blogosphere, it's your readers themselves (who also serve that function for the MSM, but to a lesser degree -- more on that in a bit), and your fellow bloggers.
The problem that the MSM runs into is that over the years, they have grown pretty close to homogeneous in their politics and beliefs. That means that the overseers, the editors, producers, and fact checkers, tend to have the same bias as the reporters, and thus inclined to err in favor of the same view that the reporters do. Whereas in the blogosphere, there are plenty of readers and fellow bloggers who disagree with you on any give topic, and they'll be more than happy to pick at and look as deeply as possible into the claims you present.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the greater a blogs readership, the more likely and the more quickly will occur an "AHA!" if the blogger missteps. That means the most popular bloggers are held most accountable. In theory, it should be the same in the MSM, but alas, as a journalist becomes more famous, more influential, and more highly regarded, they develop clout that allows them protection from too close a scrutiny. Their mistakes tend to be glossed over and ignored by their peers and superiors, and until recently, the public had little recourse to address their errors. How many letters written to an editor actually get published? And if they don't how else will you get the word out? Go to a cometing journalist? It was doubtful you'd get the time of day unless the charge was highly significant and incontrovertable, and even then it was not guaranteed any attention. Out of professional regard, mutually held opinions, and self-preservation, journalists rarely attack their own. It happens, but not often.
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. And some day, like this week, it may just drown out the old, authoritarian voices of the old media.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Looking to the Future
2008
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Friday, September 10, 2004
Mass Hypoxia at the Democratic Underground
Caused by Memogate giving them all "the Vapors", I suppose.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Word Association
A little game for a Friday afternoon. I say a word or phrase, you say the first name that comes to mind.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Kerry's Campaign Gets Pulled Over Again
Thanks for the Memory to reader CG at (you guessed it) Ace of Spades.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
He's Baaaack....
Good News From the Home Front:
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Harkins Hops in Handbasket
FLASH
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Update #3:
Rather Spins
Thanks for the Memory to Ace YET AGAIN
So Rather's story, and he sticking to it (for now), is that even if the source isn't true, the story is!
Dan, Dan, Dan.... if the Source is Lying, the Story is a Lie!
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
Reaping the Whirlwind -- in a Good Way
Wow.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
Semper Fidelis
Just got back from a little jaunt over to Blogmother Da Goddess' blog, where I saw this very moving picture. I suggest you go view her photography, read her moving words. i'm still unsure of how I escaped tears.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
Quote of the Day
(During the fourth quarter of last night's Indianapolis Colts vs. New England Patriots football game in Massachussetts, after two Colts possessions and one Patriots possession had ended in turnovers):
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
Thursday, September 09, 2004
WHAT THE HELL
Is It With the End of the Week and Stressfull Calls?????
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
Memo
From: Blogs
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
Get to the Points
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Toot! Toot!
That's my own horn, folks! When I got back from vacation Tuesday, I learned that I've won a Kerry photo caption contest over at Blogs for Bush! Go check it out!
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
I Love Living in Oregon: Reason #87
Not-quite-Summer-not-quite-Fall September weather. Believe it or not, I missed real seasons and the changes between them when I lived in San Diego. "76 and sunny" gets old after a while.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
Damned if You Do....
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
There's Something on the Wing!
And it ain't patriotism.
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Some of you may remember the entry I made regarding Greyhound's treatment of a Marine. I never did hear any follow-up on that one. Apparently, however, Greyhound isn't alone in its idiocy. Michelle links to one of my favorite blogs, Marine Corps Moms, who in turn link to the Benton Courier, and a Letter to the Editor (sort of):
This letter is NOT to the editor. This letter is to the young female soldier from Benton, who I had the privilege to meet this past Friday evening as we were both trying to get home to Arkansas. Returning from a business trip to New Jersey, I was changing planes in Cincinnati when we met. I had just boarded Delta Flight 6281 (operated by Chautauqua Airlines, a Delta Connection Carrier), Delta's last flight of the evening to Little Rock, when you came onboard and sat down in front of me. I, along with other passengers who had already boarded, listened while you shared your story with us. Having spent [more than] six months in Iraq, you were traveling home to Arkansas. While in Iraq, you had been under enemy fire frequently - on many occasions, several times a day. You had lost two fellow soldiers from your post, and just recently (watched) another lose a leg. You were exhausted from two days of travel, having flown from Iraq to Kuwait, from Kuwait to the Netherlands, from the Netherlands to Cincinnati Š but you were excited and happy, because Cincinnati to Little Rock meant you would be home, just in time for your youngest child's second birthday. You had 18 days' leave remaining before returning to Iraq.
This letter is also to the well-dressed, middle-aged woman who boarded the plane late, who through some administrative error had been assigned the same seat as the soldier. Your behavior made it obvious to me and those around me that you had no intention of handling the situation in a mature way. You approached the flight attendant and demanded "your seat." As the flight attendant worked with the gate crew to try and resolve the issue, the soldier was asked to leave the plane. Shortly thereafter, you returned. When I inquired as to whether you were aware that the individual who had previously been in "your seat" was a soldier traveling home from Iraq on leave to see her family, your verbatim response was, "So what Š I'm a victim from Chicago! What's the difference?" All within earshot were dumbfounded. It was apparent that you have no appreciation for your fellow Americans who leave home and family and risk their lives wearing the uniform of the United States military.
This letter is also to Delta Airlines. When I, along with several others onboard, approached the Chautauqua flight attendant volunteering to give up one of our seats for the soldier, she left to ask the pilot if that could be arranged, then returned to inform me that the pilot was discussing it with "ops." I overheard part of her ensuing conversation with the pilot, where he conveyed the message that Delta would not permit a paying passenger to be replaced with a "non-rev" Š so, in the end, the decision which caused the soldier to spend yet another night away from home was a financial one. Why, instead, don't soldiers like this one get preferential treatment from Delta instead of being placed last on the list? I am, and have been for many years, a Delta Medallion frequent flier, and may continue to fly Delta when appropriate. However, in spite of Delta's well-publicized financial difficulties, if it is your corporate policy to prioritize profit margin over principled corporate citizenship, then I will be a vocal opponent of any federal financial aid to Delta Airlines.
This letter is also to those in the U.S. military responsible for placing this soldier and all like her in this situation in the first place. As a small businessman, I understand fiscal responsibilities and expect taxpayers' money to be stewarded wisely. I cannot believe, though, that there are not better ways to save money than having our military personnel traveling to and from combat situations on leave flying on commercial airlines under this type of arrangement. Does this policy apply to the military decision-makers as well? Will it take you three days to get home on leave if and when you are ever again asked to serve in combat?
As I was deplaning in Little Rock, the flight attendant handed me a folded piece of paper and personally thanked me for offering my seat to the soldier. Walking through the terminal, I read the note she had written. The youngest of her six children, her only son, was joining the Army. She was expressing her hopes that, in the event he was ever placed in a similar situation, he would be treated differently or at least know that there were those who appreciated his service.
Back to the young soldier: Because you were asked to leave the plane, you did not see that there were numerous volunteers willing to give up their set for you. You only heard the one ingrate who had no appreciation for the sacrifices you are making for all of us. That was no way to be welcomed home to America. I was both ashamed to have been a part of what happened and angry that, in spite of our efforts, there was nothing the other passengers and I could do to help you. Again, this letter is first and foremost to you. It is my intention that it appears in the media before your return to Iraq, so that you will know your efforts are appreciated and that you are sincerely welcomed home by most, if not all, of us. I hope we get another opportunity to do just that. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Michael E. Nelson
Warren
Well said, Mr. Nelson. Good for you and your fellow passengers for the effort. shame on that woman.
And shame on Delta for stabbing a young soldier serving her country in the back. I'll never fly Delta again. (And with the financial trouble they're in, let's hope that before long, NOONE ever flies Delta again)!
Courtesy of Michelle, here is a site where you can tell Delta what unpatriotic scum they are.
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Some of you may remember the entry I made regarding Greyhound's treatment of a Marine. I never did hear any follow-up on that one. Apparently, however, Greyhound isn't alone in its idiocy. Michelle links to one of my favorite blogs, Marine Corps Moms, who in turn link to the Benton Courier, and a Letter to the Editor (sort of):
This letter is NOT to the editor. This letter is to the young female soldier from Benton, who I had the privilege to meet this past Friday evening as we were both trying to get home to Arkansas. Returning from a business trip to New Jersey, I was changing planes in Cincinnati when we met. I had just boarded Delta Flight 6281 (operated by Chautauqua Airlines, a Delta Connection Carrier), Delta's last flight of the evening to Little Rock, when you came onboard and sat down in front of me. I, along with other passengers who had already boarded, listened while you shared your story with us. Having spent [more than] six months in Iraq, you were traveling home to Arkansas. While in Iraq, you had been under enemy fire frequently - on many occasions, several times a day. You had lost two fellow soldiers from your post, and just recently (watched) another lose a leg. You were exhausted from two days of travel, having flown from Iraq to Kuwait, from Kuwait to the Netherlands, from the Netherlands to Cincinnati Š but you were excited and happy, because Cincinnati to Little Rock meant you would be home, just in time for your youngest child's second birthday. You had 18 days' leave remaining before returning to Iraq.
This letter is also to the well-dressed, middle-aged woman who boarded the plane late, who through some administrative error had been assigned the same seat as the soldier. Your behavior made it obvious to me and those around me that you had no intention of handling the situation in a mature way. You approached the flight attendant and demanded "your seat." As the flight attendant worked with the gate crew to try and resolve the issue, the soldier was asked to leave the plane. Shortly thereafter, you returned. When I inquired as to whether you were aware that the individual who had previously been in "your seat" was a soldier traveling home from Iraq on leave to see her family, your verbatim response was, "So what Š I'm a victim from Chicago! What's the difference?" All within earshot were dumbfounded. It was apparent that you have no appreciation for your fellow Americans who leave home and family and risk their lives wearing the uniform of the United States military.
This letter is also to Delta Airlines. When I, along with several others onboard, approached the Chautauqua flight attendant volunteering to give up one of our seats for the soldier, she left to ask the pilot if that could be arranged, then returned to inform me that the pilot was discussing it with "ops." I overheard part of her ensuing conversation with the pilot, where he conveyed the message that Delta would not permit a paying passenger to be replaced with a "non-rev" Š so, in the end, the decision which caused the soldier to spend yet another night away from home was a financial one. Why, instead, don't soldiers like this one get preferential treatment from Delta instead of being placed last on the list? I am, and have been for many years, a Delta Medallion frequent flier, and may continue to fly Delta when appropriate. However, in spite of Delta's well-publicized financial difficulties, if it is your corporate policy to prioritize profit margin over principled corporate citizenship, then I will be a vocal opponent of any federal financial aid to Delta Airlines.
This letter is also to those in the U.S. military responsible for placing this soldier and all like her in this situation in the first place. As a small businessman, I understand fiscal responsibilities and expect taxpayers' money to be stewarded wisely. I cannot believe, though, that there are not better ways to save money than having our military personnel traveling to and from combat situations on leave flying on commercial airlines under this type of arrangement. Does this policy apply to the military decision-makers as well? Will it take you three days to get home on leave if and when you are ever again asked to serve in combat?
As I was deplaning in Little Rock, the flight attendant handed me a folded piece of paper and personally thanked me for offering my seat to the soldier. Walking through the terminal, I read the note she had written. The youngest of her six children, her only son, was joining the Army. She was expressing her hopes that, in the event he was ever placed in a similar situation, he would be treated differently or at least know that there were those who appreciated his service.
Back to the young soldier: Because you were asked to leave the plane, you did not see that there were numerous volunteers willing to give up their set for you. You only heard the one ingrate who had no appreciation for the sacrifices you are making for all of us. That was no way to be welcomed home to America. I was both ashamed to have been a part of what happened and angry that, in spite of our efforts, there was nothing the other passengers and I could do to help you. Again, this letter is first and foremost to you. It is my intention that it appears in the media before your return to Iraq, so that you will know your efforts are appreciated and that you are sincerely welcomed home by most, if not all, of us. I hope we get another opportunity to do just that. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Michael E. Nelson
Warren
Well said, Mr. Nelson. Good for you and your fellow passengers for the effort. shame on that woman.
And shame on Delta for stabbing a young soldier serving her country in the back. I'll never fly Delta again. (And with the financial trouble they're in, let's hope that before long, NOONE ever flies Delta again)!
Courtesy of Michelle, here is a site where you can tell Delta what unpatriotic scum they are.
The Last Political Career to Die for a Lie
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
Remember this essay I linked to the other day? The one about how Kerry's campaign was in trouble in part because Vietnam vets want some payback for the way they were treated when they returned from the war?
Well, Mr. Kerry, reap the whirlwind:
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
A gathering of Vietnam veterans from across America
Where: Upper Senate Park, Washington, D.C. It is easy to get to, shady and pretty, with a great view of the Capitol dome in back of the speaker's platform. THIS IS A NEW LOCATION AS OF 7/17/04
When: Sunday, Sept 12, 2004 2:00-4:00 PM (EDT)
Why: To tell the truth about Vietnam veterans.
To counter the lies told about Vietnam veterans by John Kerry
All Vietnam veterans and their families and supporters are asked to attend.Other veterans are invited as honored guests.
NOTE: Bring a blanket or lawn chairs. None will be provided.
PLEASE NOTE: WHILE THIS RALLY IS CONDUCTED IN HONOR OF AND ON BEHALF OF VIETNAM VETERANS, EVERYBODY IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND! PLEASE COME AND BRING A FRIEND!
Payback, she is, how do you say it....
Remember this essay I linked to the other day? The one about how Kerry's campaign was in trouble in part because Vietnam vets want some payback for the way they were treated when they returned from the war?
Well, Mr. Kerry, reap the whirlwind:
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
A gathering of Vietnam veterans from across America
Where: Upper Senate Park, Washington, D.C. It is easy to get to, shady and pretty, with a great view of the Capitol dome in back of the speaker's platform. THIS IS A NEW LOCATION AS OF 7/17/04
When: Sunday, Sept 12, 2004 2:00-4:00 PM (EDT)
Why: To tell the truth about Vietnam veterans.
To counter the lies told about Vietnam veterans by John Kerry
All Vietnam veterans and their families and supporters are asked to attend.Other veterans are invited as honored guests.
NOTE: Bring a blanket or lawn chairs. None will be provided.
PLEASE NOTE: WHILE THIS RALLY IS CONDUCTED IN HONOR OF AND ON BEHALF OF VIETNAM VETERANS, EVERYBODY IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND! PLEASE COME AND BRING A FRIEND!
Payback, she is, how do you say it....
Monday, September 06, 2004
A Note to Susan Estrich
I just read your essay, and have only one thing to say to you:
There are new treatments for the symptoms of menopause that really work. Ask your doctor for more information, or call the number on your screen.
There are new treatments for the symptoms of menopause that really work. Ask your doctor for more information, or call the number on your screen.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Aborted on the Fourth of July
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Remember that Tom Cruise movie, "Born on the Fourth of July", about a Viet Nam vet who returns only to protest against the war?
Sound familiar?
Well, if this essay is accurate, John Kerry is gonna wish he'd picked a different role model.
Remember that Tom Cruise movie, "Born on the Fourth of July", about a Viet Nam vet who returns only to protest against the war?
Sound familiar?
Well, if this essay is accurate, John Kerry is gonna wish he'd picked a different role model.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Before It's Too Late
Thought I'd share one of my favorite grilling recipes, while it's still warm enough to grill.
Bear in mind, this one is not very precise, I just kinda wing it. But here goes:
Oregon Filbert-Encrusted Steelhead
(For those not in the PNW, filbert=hazelnut, and you can use salmon instead of steelhead)
4 6-8 oz steelhead filets, skin on
1/3 cup honey
salt (pinch)
pepper (to taste)
1/4 tsp garlic powder
1/4 tsp onion powder
1 tsp dill weed
1 cup chopped raw filberts
2 cedar planks, soaked in water
Mix honey and spices. Place the filets skin down, 2 to a plank. coat in honey mixture, sprinkle until coated with nut crumbs, saving about 1/4. Place on grill, cook until steelhead is firm but not quite done. As fish cooks, openings will appear in the nut crust. Use the extra nuts to fill spaces. When fish is almost done, remove from grill and place under red hot broiler for 1- 1.5 minutes, just long enough to finish toasting the nuts. Serve with mixed greens, mashed or pan fried potatos and a bottle of Pinot Noir.
Bear in mind, this one is not very precise, I just kinda wing it. But here goes:
Oregon Filbert-Encrusted Steelhead
(For those not in the PNW, filbert=hazelnut, and you can use salmon instead of steelhead)
4 6-8 oz steelhead filets, skin on
1/3 cup honey
salt (pinch)
pepper (to taste)
1/4 tsp garlic powder
1/4 tsp onion powder
1 tsp dill weed
1 cup chopped raw filberts
2 cedar planks, soaked in water
Mix honey and spices. Place the filets skin down, 2 to a plank. coat in honey mixture, sprinkle until coated with nut crumbs, saving about 1/4. Place on grill, cook until steelhead is firm but not quite done. As fish cooks, openings will appear in the nut crust. Use the extra nuts to fill spaces. When fish is almost done, remove from grill and place under red hot broiler for 1- 1.5 minutes, just long enough to finish toasting the nuts. Serve with mixed greens, mashed or pan fried potatos and a bottle of Pinot Noir.
We Ain't Talkin' About Fabric Softener!
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ.
During presidential elections, there is usually a phenomenon known as Bounce. The idea is, the momentum and publicity of a party's convention gives the party's candidate a boost in the polls.
This year, President Bush was struggling in the polls against Kerry in the days leading up to the DNC. It was predicted that he'd slip even further after Kerry announced the selection of Edwards as his running mate, it was an expected "Mini-bounce." It failed to materialize. Not to worry, folks! said the Donkeys. We still have the Convention! The DNC came and went, and guess what? No discernable bounce. But the Dem-wits had an explanation for this, too. There is no bounce they said, Neo-Matrix-Like. The electorate is so partisan, there aren't enough undecideds left to provide a bounce. Kerry didn't get one, and neither will Bush. Then came the RNC, and before President Bush even spoke, the polls tossed the Dimocrats this curveball:
A MEGA-BOUNCE!
One has to wonder what the bounce will look like after Thursday night.
George Bush is like Tigger: Bouncing is what he does bestest.
During presidential elections, there is usually a phenomenon known as Bounce. The idea is, the momentum and publicity of a party's convention gives the party's candidate a boost in the polls.
This year, President Bush was struggling in the polls against Kerry in the days leading up to the DNC. It was predicted that he'd slip even further after Kerry announced the selection of Edwards as his running mate, it was an expected "Mini-bounce." It failed to materialize. Not to worry, folks! said the Donkeys. We still have the Convention! The DNC came and went, and guess what? No discernable bounce. But the Dem-wits had an explanation for this, too. There is no bounce they said, Neo-Matrix-Like. The electorate is so partisan, there aren't enough undecideds left to provide a bounce. Kerry didn't get one, and neither will Bush. Then came the RNC, and before President Bush even spoke, the polls tossed the Dimocrats this curveball:
A MEGA-BOUNCE!
One has to wonder what the bounce will look like after Thursday night.
George Bush is like Tigger: Bouncing is what he does bestest.
Quote of the Day
This letter over at Marine Corps Moms prompted me to select the following quote for today:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to the esteemed Michelle Malkin.
If you follow the link I gave at the top of the post to Marine Corps Moms, you'll find it's a letter from the mother of a young marine, reacting to the protests in NYC, especially to the sight of protestors carrying coffins representing US Casualties. Well, Jen Martinez has another letter, this time from a soldier, expressing similar views.
It comes down to this, it would seem. The servicemembers and their families recognize that the protestors have the right to express their opinions. But they resent what they perceive as the protestor's lack of respect for the fact that it's those very soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen whose sacrifices make possible the freedoms the protestors are exercizing. They resent being used as political pawns by the protestors, and they want people to know they don't agree with them. They volunteered willingly to serve, and serve is what they want to do.
Read the letters. Think about the words. And thank God Almighty he blessed us with people as noble as these servicemembers and their families.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to the esteemed Michelle Malkin.
If you follow the link I gave at the top of the post to Marine Corps Moms, you'll find it's a letter from the mother of a young marine, reacting to the protests in NYC, especially to the sight of protestors carrying coffins representing US Casualties. Well, Jen Martinez has another letter, this time from a soldier, expressing similar views.
It comes down to this, it would seem. The servicemembers and their families recognize that the protestors have the right to express their opinions. But they resent what they perceive as the protestor's lack of respect for the fact that it's those very soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen whose sacrifices make possible the freedoms the protestors are exercizing. They resent being used as political pawns by the protestors, and they want people to know they don't agree with them. They volunteered willingly to serve, and serve is what they want to do.
Read the letters. Think about the words. And thank God Almighty he blessed us with people as noble as these servicemembers and their families.
One Dead President a Year Is Enough
Thanks for the memory to readers Chris W and USMT at the Rottie:
Apparently former President Bill Clinton may have suffered a heart attack and is undergoing bypass surgery.
I have little respect for the man as a political figure, and despised his presidency, but I would never wish him harm. If you read my earlier post, you know I speak from experience when I say that Chelsea's too young to bury her father.
Pray for him and his family, please.
Apparently former President Bill Clinton may have suffered a heart attack and is undergoing bypass surgery.
I have little respect for the man as a political figure, and despised his presidency, but I would never wish him harm. If you read my earlier post, you know I speak from experience when I say that Chelsea's too young to bury her father.
Pray for him and his family, please.
Blog Plug
OK, I ain't Glenn Reynolds, and this ain't no Instalaunch, but I do realize that my handful of loyal readers are a bright bunch and good judges of horseflesh, so to speak. So I'm telling you about one of your own.
Less than an hour ago, I got an email from reader Keith in Mt. View, asking permission to link to this blog from his. I was a bit amused, since I consider that the linker is doing the linkee a favor. But I respected the politeness, granted permission, and offered to return the favor if he'd send me his link. He complied, and I followed it, only to realize I'd been there, and liked what I saw. Then I notice only one of his entries has a comment, and it's from ME!!!!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD???????
This guy's blog is well-layed out and well-written. He's bright, well-travelled, well-informed, and writes well. For pete's sake, people! go read it! NOW!!!!!
Less than an hour ago, I got an email from reader Keith in Mt. View, asking permission to link to this blog from his. I was a bit amused, since I consider that the linker is doing the linkee a favor. But I respected the politeness, granted permission, and offered to return the favor if he'd send me his link. He complied, and I followed it, only to realize I'd been there, and liked what I saw. Then I notice only one of his entries has a comment, and it's from ME!!!!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD???????
This guy's blog is well-layed out and well-written. He's bright, well-travelled, well-informed, and writes well. For pete's sake, people! go read it! NOW!!!!!
A Little Piece of My Heart
I have developed a very weird habit in the last few years, for a specific reason. I suppose it's my little share of the world's insanity. To understand the habit, you need to understand its history.
In July of 2001, while preparing to move to Oregon, my wife and I were forced to live for some time in a very tiny 24-foot RV. One morning I was very ill, so I stayed home from work. The Redhead had things she needed to do to prepare for work, and was making a lot of noise, so I called my dad to ask if I could nap at my parent's RV for the morning. He said yes. Before I left, I decided to go for a little swim, I figured it would help me feel better. After that, my wife sent me on an errand. While on the errand, my father called to see when I would be there. My wife told him I'd be there soon.
I finished the error, then left our RV for my parents' RV park. When I got to the RV, my dad was sleeping in his favorite chair, a western novel he'd been reading still in his hands. I decided to wake him to let him know I was there.
Except he wasn't sleeping. He was dead. I called 911, administered CPR until the fire department arrived, and they tried for some time to revive him, but it was useless. He probably died instantly of a massive heart attack.
So this is the habit I've developed since then: Any time I wake in the night, and my wife or my dog is sleeping too soundly, I have a tendency to nudge them, just a bit, not enough to intentionally wake them completely, but enough to make them stir, just so I know they're actually just asleep. You can imagine how annoying this is to them. I'd been getting better about it, but with a baby on the way, I caught myself doing it to the dog several times last night.
I'm gonna be a basket case once the kid arrives.
In July of 2001, while preparing to move to Oregon, my wife and I were forced to live for some time in a very tiny 24-foot RV. One morning I was very ill, so I stayed home from work. The Redhead had things she needed to do to prepare for work, and was making a lot of noise, so I called my dad to ask if I could nap at my parent's RV for the morning. He said yes. Before I left, I decided to go for a little swim, I figured it would help me feel better. After that, my wife sent me on an errand. While on the errand, my father called to see when I would be there. My wife told him I'd be there soon.
I finished the error, then left our RV for my parents' RV park. When I got to the RV, my dad was sleeping in his favorite chair, a western novel he'd been reading still in his hands. I decided to wake him to let him know I was there.
Except he wasn't sleeping. He was dead. I called 911, administered CPR until the fire department arrived, and they tried for some time to revive him, but it was useless. He probably died instantly of a massive heart attack.
So this is the habit I've developed since then: Any time I wake in the night, and my wife or my dog is sleeping too soundly, I have a tendency to nudge them, just a bit, not enough to intentionally wake them completely, but enough to make them stir, just so I know they're actually just asleep. You can imagine how annoying this is to them. I'd been getting better about it, but with a baby on the way, I caught myself doing it to the dog several times last night.
I'm gonna be a basket case once the kid arrives.
Political Greeting Cards?
I kid you not. I was in Fred Meyer last night, buying a birthday card for my nephew, when I saw them.
Only in Oregon.
But they were funny.
First card:
Outside: Happy Birthday from President Nader
Inside: And the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, and....
Second card:
Outside: What do you get when you cross Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman?
Inside: 3% of the vote and a bad haircut.
Only in Oregon.
But they were funny.
First card:
Outside: Happy Birthday from President Nader
Inside: And the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, and....
Second card:
Outside: What do you get when you cross Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman?
Inside: 3% of the vote and a bad haircut.
We Love You Too, New York
In the opening moments of his speech last night, Governor Pataki praised a group of Oregonians who travelled to NYC in the weeks after 9/11 to help sustain the NY tourism industry.
Well, we do understand how important tourism can be to a local economy. We would have difficulty surviving without it.
But I couldn't have been prouder. Great moment.
Well, we do understand how important tourism can be to a local economy. We would have difficulty surviving without it.
But I couldn't have been prouder. Great moment.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
My Shot Left Foot
Thanks for the Memory to VodkaPundit and Darth Apathy.
Aside from the veracity of his claims and their bearing on his qualifications for the Presidency, one of the primary reasons so many veterans take issue with John Kerry, and one of the reasons the Swift Boat Vets for the Truth have come after him so hard has to do with his anti-war activities after the war. They feel he has defamed them and dishonored their service and their memory. Many would like to hear him apologize. Recently President Bush suggested to Brit Hume that that would be a good idea for Kerry. Kerry's Response? "There will be no apology."
I guess his theory is, if he shoots himself in the OTHER foot, then it'll even things out and his campaign won't limp as badly. It doesn't work like that, Johnny.
He was already slipping in the polls among veterans. I wouldn't be surprised if he polls as low as 25% after this.
Aside from the veracity of his claims and their bearing on his qualifications for the Presidency, one of the primary reasons so many veterans take issue with John Kerry, and one of the reasons the Swift Boat Vets for the Truth have come after him so hard has to do with his anti-war activities after the war. They feel he has defamed them and dishonored their service and their memory. Many would like to hear him apologize. Recently President Bush suggested to Brit Hume that that would be a good idea for Kerry. Kerry's Response? "There will be no apology."
I guess his theory is, if he shoots himself in the OTHER foot, then it'll even things out and his campaign won't limp as badly. It doesn't work like that, Johnny.
He was already slipping in the polls among veterans. I wouldn't be surprised if he polls as low as 25% after this.
You Might Be From The Pacific Northwest If:
1. You know the state flower (Mildew).
2. You feel guilty throwing aluminum cans or paper in the trash.
3. Use the statement "sun break" and know what it means.
4. You know more than 10 ways to order coffee.
5. You know more people who own boats than air conditioners.
6. You feel overdressed wearing a suit to a nice restaurant.
7. You stand on a deserted corner in the rain waiting for the "Walk" signal.
8. You believe that if it has no snow or has not recently erupted, it is not a real mountain.
9. You can taste the difference between Starbucks, Seattle's Best, and Veneto's
10. You know the difference between Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye salmon.
11. You know how to pronounce Sequim, Puyallup, Issaquah, Oregon, and Willamette.
12. You consider swimming an indoor sport.
13. You can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Thai food.
14. In winter, you go to work in the dark and come home in the dark-while only working eight-hour days.
15. You never go camping without waterproof matches and a poncho.
16. You are not fazed by "Today's forecast: showers followed by rain," and “Tomorrow's forecast: rain followed by showers."
17. You cannot wait for a day with "showers and sun breaks."
18. You have no concept of humidity without precipitation.
19. You know that Boring is a town in Oregon and not just a state of mind.
20. You can point to at least two volcanoes, even if you cannot see through the cloud cover.
You notice that "the mountain is out" when it is a pretty day and you can actually see it.
22. You put on your shorts when the temperature gets above 50, but still wear your hiking boots and parka.
23. You switch to your sandals when it gets about 60, but keep the socks on.
24. You have actually used your mountain bike on a mountain.
25. You think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or tourists.
26. You knew immediately that the view out of Frasiers window was a fake.
27. You buy new sunglasses every year, because you can't find the old ones after such a long time.
28. You measure distance in hours.
29. You often switch from "heat" to "a/c" in the same day.
30. You use a down comforter in the summer.
31. You carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them.
32. You design your kid's Halloween costume to fit under a raincoat.
33. You know all the important seasons: Almost Winter; Winter; Still Raining (aka Spring); Road Construction (Summer); Deer & Elk season (Fall).
34. You go to the coast, never the beach.
UPDATE: #34 contributed by fellow conservative AND Nor'wester Stephen of Doggerrel Pundit.
2. You feel guilty throwing aluminum cans or paper in the trash.
3. Use the statement "sun break" and know what it means.
4. You know more than 10 ways to order coffee.
5. You know more people who own boats than air conditioners.
6. You feel overdressed wearing a suit to a nice restaurant.
7. You stand on a deserted corner in the rain waiting for the "Walk" signal.
8. You believe that if it has no snow or has not recently erupted, it is not a real mountain.
9. You can taste the difference between Starbucks, Seattle's Best, and Veneto's
10. You know the difference between Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye salmon.
11. You know how to pronounce Sequim, Puyallup, Issaquah, Oregon, and Willamette.
12. You consider swimming an indoor sport.
13. You can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Thai food.
14. In winter, you go to work in the dark and come home in the dark-while only working eight-hour days.
15. You never go camping without waterproof matches and a poncho.
16. You are not fazed by "Today's forecast: showers followed by rain," and “Tomorrow's forecast: rain followed by showers."
17. You cannot wait for a day with "showers and sun breaks."
18. You have no concept of humidity without precipitation.
19. You know that Boring is a town in Oregon and not just a state of mind.
20. You can point to at least two volcanoes, even if you cannot see through the cloud cover.
You notice that "the mountain is out" when it is a pretty day and you can actually see it.
22. You put on your shorts when the temperature gets above 50, but still wear your hiking boots and parka.
23. You switch to your sandals when it gets about 60, but keep the socks on.
24. You have actually used your mountain bike on a mountain.
25. You think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or tourists.
26. You knew immediately that the view out of Frasiers window was a fake.
27. You buy new sunglasses every year, because you can't find the old ones after such a long time.
28. You measure distance in hours.
29. You often switch from "heat" to "a/c" in the same day.
30. You use a down comforter in the summer.
31. You carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them.
32. You design your kid's Halloween costume to fit under a raincoat.
33. You know all the important seasons: Almost Winter; Winter; Still Raining (aka Spring); Road Construction (Summer); Deer & Elk season (Fall).
34. You go to the coast, never the beach.
UPDATE: #34 contributed by fellow conservative AND Nor'wester Stephen of Doggerrel Pundit.
Somebody Had to Say It
A while back, I got a trackback from an excellent blog called Naked Villainy (I've been meaning to thank them, I probably will today). Ever since, I've read it and found it to be well-written and frighteningly in agreement with me on some obscure things.
That was especially borne out today, when they did something I've wanted to do for some time: Go ballistic on the California Cows commercials.
To take things a step further, not only do I agree with their deconstruction of the "Happy Cow" argument, I can tell you from experience, I am unimpressed with the quality of California cheese, especially sharp cheddar, my personal favorite.
Now I'm biased, but I think that in respect to both what constitutes happy cows, and what constitutes good cheese, a better option would be that offered by the Tillamook County Creamery Association, a favorite here in Oregon and an annual contender in national competitions. Their Black Label Extra Sharp White Cheddar is evilly good. Small craft cheesemakers are beginning to pop up all over the state, but Tillamook manages to put out large quantities of high quality cheese thanks to a cooperative agreement with the dairies in their area, an area whose annual rainfall and mild coastal climate makes for lush, green grass year round for the cows.
That was especially borne out today, when they did something I've wanted to do for some time: Go ballistic on the California Cows commercials.
To take things a step further, not only do I agree with their deconstruction of the "Happy Cow" argument, I can tell you from experience, I am unimpressed with the quality of California cheese, especially sharp cheddar, my personal favorite.
Now I'm biased, but I think that in respect to both what constitutes happy cows, and what constitutes good cheese, a better option would be that offered by the Tillamook County Creamery Association, a favorite here in Oregon and an annual contender in national competitions. Their Black Label Extra Sharp White Cheddar is evilly good. Small craft cheesemakers are beginning to pop up all over the state, but Tillamook manages to put out large quantities of high quality cheese thanks to a cooperative agreement with the dairies in their area, an area whose annual rainfall and mild coastal climate makes for lush, green grass year round for the cows.
Shot Down By a Flyer
Originally posted at 7:16 AM PDT, 1 September, 2004.
Thanks for the Memory to Russ at TacJammer. Russ got this from Blackfive.
It was looking for a while like the focus on the RNC would divert attention from the issue of Kerry's Viet Nam service and all the controversy surrounding it. But today, WorldNetDaily released an article detailing the contents of an anti-war flyer distributed by VVAW back in Kerry's day. A picture of the actual flyer can be seen at Perry on Politics.
I'll say here essentially what I said on Blackfive's blog:
As a civilian, I make a conscious effort to maintain a certain level of respect towards the military. I recognize that for over 200 years now, the sacrifices made by the men and women of the armed services have afforded me the freedoms I enjoy as an American. For this reason, I feel that it is incumbent upon those of us who cannot or do not serve to show them our gratitude and respect, in two ways: By how we treat those individuals, and how we treat the freedoms they've bought us. That's where this whole John Kerry thing throws me in to conflict.
For starters, under normal circumstances I would not feel qualified to comment on the service record of anyone who has served. That's disrespectful of me as someone who has never and will never serve. This is part of my policy of showing respect towards servicemembers and veterans.
But this issue touches on the other, perhaps more important policy of treating the freedoms I enjoy because of those servicemembers with respect. To me this means defending them (to a lesser extent than the military, but still vital) when necessary and possible, and exercizing those freedoms responsibly.
Perhaps the greatest of those freedoms, the one which carries the greatest power and necessity for responsible exercize, and the one that is both a right and a duty, is the right to vote. If we all fail to vote, if we all throw our rights away, then the sacrifices of the military are in vain. They died to make us free, let us act as free men should.
Now we have an election in which John F Kerry has presented himself as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. As part of his campaign, he has presented his record asd a veteran as proof of his qualifications for the job. This makes his service record an issue I am now willing to consider and comment on, since in my mind, the obligation of respect for the rights easrned takes precedence over the obligation of respect for the individual who served those rights. If Kerry tells me that his Vietnam service is a reason to vote for him, then I should make an effort to weigh that claim. I find it wanting.
Furthermore, I feel that this flyer shows disrespect for his fellow servicemembers, which is in istelf almost inexcusable. If he were truly, as he believed, showing greater respect for freedom by doing this, it might be different. But the antiwar movement of which he was a part was encouraging the defeat of the forces of freedom, and encourasging the North Vietnamese. In this, the flyer violates both obligations.
I would be doing the same by voting for him.
Update:
Thanks to Vic at Darth Apathy, I now have a copy of the flyer to view here:
Update II:
9:56 AM PDT, 2 September, 2004
Reader vnjagvet over at Blackfive's blog weighed in with a vet's point of view. He puts it so well, I obtained his permission to reprint the comments here:
Ask five VN Vets whether they think John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief in 2004. One might say yes. Duck from the reaction of the rest.
Here's why:
The undisputed facts really show:
First: Kerry is at best a serial exaggerator who stakes his campaign on the premise that 4 months service in Vietnam as a junior officer over thirty years ago demonstrates beyond doubt that he is qualified to command our troops in war. His four months prove no such thing, and his “defenses” over the last month prove he cannot lead anyone to get a straight story out regarding why that service was so much better than the 2.5 million who served there that he should be elected President. Moreover, his failure to authorize disclosure of his complete record demonstrates he does not want this truth to come out.
Second: Kerry's overt anti war activities while still a commissioned officer in the United States Naval Reserve (he was not discharged until 1978) consisted at bottom of delivering the talking points of the People's Republic of North Vietnam with his unqualified endorsement before the United States Senate and elsewhere. In so doing he gave the unmistakable appearance of corroborating enemy propaganda the likes of which had not been seen since Axis Sally. It has not been seen since.
Third, and most important, he has given voice from 1966 to the present to a philosophy that the United States should look to the European community (particularly France and Germany) for the best way to defend its national interests, and to preserve, protect and defend the the United States. That is the one thread that has been consistent throughout his political career.
In my opinion, such a man is truly unfit to command our troops in the ongoing war against the Islamic Radicals who, since at least 1993 have sought to destroy us.
I believe internal polling reveals that an overwhelming majority of those who have been and are now "in harm's way" passionately believe this. If you don't believe me, ask them.
Thank you for your comments, vnjagvet, and thanks especially for your service.
Thanks for the Memory to Russ at TacJammer. Russ got this from Blackfive.
It was looking for a while like the focus on the RNC would divert attention from the issue of Kerry's Viet Nam service and all the controversy surrounding it. But today, WorldNetDaily released an article detailing the contents of an anti-war flyer distributed by VVAW back in Kerry's day. A picture of the actual flyer can be seen at Perry on Politics.
I'll say here essentially what I said on Blackfive's blog:
As a civilian, I make a conscious effort to maintain a certain level of respect towards the military. I recognize that for over 200 years now, the sacrifices made by the men and women of the armed services have afforded me the freedoms I enjoy as an American. For this reason, I feel that it is incumbent upon those of us who cannot or do not serve to show them our gratitude and respect, in two ways: By how we treat those individuals, and how we treat the freedoms they've bought us. That's where this whole John Kerry thing throws me in to conflict.
For starters, under normal circumstances I would not feel qualified to comment on the service record of anyone who has served. That's disrespectful of me as someone who has never and will never serve. This is part of my policy of showing respect towards servicemembers and veterans.
But this issue touches on the other, perhaps more important policy of treating the freedoms I enjoy because of those servicemembers with respect. To me this means defending them (to a lesser extent than the military, but still vital) when necessary and possible, and exercizing those freedoms responsibly.
Perhaps the greatest of those freedoms, the one which carries the greatest power and necessity for responsible exercize, and the one that is both a right and a duty, is the right to vote. If we all fail to vote, if we all throw our rights away, then the sacrifices of the military are in vain. They died to make us free, let us act as free men should.
Now we have an election in which John F Kerry has presented himself as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. As part of his campaign, he has presented his record asd a veteran as proof of his qualifications for the job. This makes his service record an issue I am now willing to consider and comment on, since in my mind, the obligation of respect for the rights easrned takes precedence over the obligation of respect for the individual who served those rights. If Kerry tells me that his Vietnam service is a reason to vote for him, then I should make an effort to weigh that claim. I find it wanting.
Furthermore, I feel that this flyer shows disrespect for his fellow servicemembers, which is in istelf almost inexcusable. If he were truly, as he believed, showing greater respect for freedom by doing this, it might be different. But the antiwar movement of which he was a part was encouraging the defeat of the forces of freedom, and encourasging the North Vietnamese. In this, the flyer violates both obligations.
I would be doing the same by voting for him.
Update:
Thanks to Vic at Darth Apathy, I now have a copy of the flyer to view here:
Update II:
9:56 AM PDT, 2 September, 2004
Reader vnjagvet over at Blackfive's blog weighed in with a vet's point of view. He puts it so well, I obtained his permission to reprint the comments here:
Ask five VN Vets whether they think John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief in 2004. One might say yes. Duck from the reaction of the rest.
Here's why:
The undisputed facts really show:
First: Kerry is at best a serial exaggerator who stakes his campaign on the premise that 4 months service in Vietnam as a junior officer over thirty years ago demonstrates beyond doubt that he is qualified to command our troops in war. His four months prove no such thing, and his “defenses” over the last month prove he cannot lead anyone to get a straight story out regarding why that service was so much better than the 2.5 million who served there that he should be elected President. Moreover, his failure to authorize disclosure of his complete record demonstrates he does not want this truth to come out.
Second: Kerry's overt anti war activities while still a commissioned officer in the United States Naval Reserve (he was not discharged until 1978) consisted at bottom of delivering the talking points of the People's Republic of North Vietnam with his unqualified endorsement before the United States Senate and elsewhere. In so doing he gave the unmistakable appearance of corroborating enemy propaganda the likes of which had not been seen since Axis Sally. It has not been seen since.
Third, and most important, he has given voice from 1966 to the present to a philosophy that the United States should look to the European community (particularly France and Germany) for the best way to defend its national interests, and to preserve, protect and defend the the United States. That is the one thread that has been consistent throughout his political career.
In my opinion, such a man is truly unfit to command our troops in the ongoing war against the Islamic Radicals who, since at least 1993 have sought to destroy us.
I believe internal polling reveals that an overwhelming majority of those who have been and are now "in harm's way" passionately believe this. If you don't believe me, ask them.
Thank you for your comments, vnjagvet, and thanks especially for your service.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Home and Away
Recently the Redhead Who is to be Feared and I took a drive to the coast for seafood and fresh air. While there, we met a couple visiting from New Jersey. In the midst of their effusive praise for the beauty of Oregon, they observed that you don't see that many Oregon license plates outside the state. the gentleman theorized that it's because there's so much to see and do here, Oregonians don't feel the need to cross state lines.
Interesting theory. I wonder if there's ever been a study or survey done on the ratio of states' populations that travel to other states versus those who stay nearer home. I'll have to do a google search one of these days, if I ever get the time.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Mom.
The same day I posted this, my mom then sent me an email pointing out that USAToday has rated Florence, Oregon the best place in the country to retire.
I'm a bit too young to be thinking about retirement yet, but I can tell you, Florence is a great place tio visit at the very least. It's about an hour west of me on the coast, and it's pretty much the border town between Oregon's South Coast and Central Coast. South of Florence lie the Oregon Dunes, to the north the Coast Range returns to the sea and PCH rises up to skirt sheer cliffs and fir-covered mountains. Sea Lion Caves and Heceta Head Lighthouse are within 20 minutes drive. One of the oddest and most interesting things to see in Florence is the Darlingtonia Wayside, where you'll find an entire bog filled with carnivorous pitcher plants (Darlintonia california), also known as the hooded cobra lily. Also, Moe's, famous for its clam chowder, and a great waterfron shopping district.
Interesting theory. I wonder if there's ever been a study or survey done on the ratio of states' populations that travel to other states versus those who stay nearer home. I'll have to do a google search one of these days, if I ever get the time.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Mom.
The same day I posted this, my mom then sent me an email pointing out that USAToday has rated Florence, Oregon the best place in the country to retire.
I'm a bit too young to be thinking about retirement yet, but I can tell you, Florence is a great place tio visit at the very least. It's about an hour west of me on the coast, and it's pretty much the border town between Oregon's South Coast and Central Coast. South of Florence lie the Oregon Dunes, to the north the Coast Range returns to the sea and PCH rises up to skirt sheer cliffs and fir-covered mountains. Sea Lion Caves and Heceta Head Lighthouse are within 20 minutes drive. One of the oddest and most interesting things to see in Florence is the Darlingtonia Wayside, where you'll find an entire bog filled with carnivorous pitcher plants (Darlintonia california), also known as the hooded cobra lily. Also, Moe's, famous for its clam chowder, and a great waterfron shopping district.
Quote of the Day
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay--and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
-- Robert A. Heinlein
I Love Living in Oregon
Reason #244:
That Fresh Rain on Dry Dust smell, and the frequency with which you experience it here.
That Fresh Rain on Dry Dust smell, and the frequency with which you experience it here.
Doom on you, Islamicists
Originally posted at 10:20 AM PDT 01 September 2004.
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
By now most of you know that the 12 Nepali hostages have been brutally murdered, including one who was beheaded.
What you don't know is that Nepal is the home of one of the world's fiercest, most elite fighting forces, the Gurkhas. They are not to be... ahem... "trifled" with. The history of their service to Britain and to Nepal is a history of bravery, toughness, and ferocity.
Now, Rusty shares some letters from Nepali readers that reflect the Gurkha spirit. If these letters are indicative of the popular consensus in Nepal, this may be one of the stupidest decisions the Islamofascists have made to date.
Quite frankly, while I offer my condolences to Nepal for their loss, I couldn't be more delighted by this response.
Update I:
Again thanks to Rusty, but I had heard of this on NPR. Apparently the expressions of Nepali anger are not limited to letters to blogs.
Update II:
Bravo Romeo Delta sets me straight on the distinctions between Gurkhas and Nepali warriors in general, called Gorkhali. Interesting stuff, and I appreciate the lesson. I don't think the distinction will mitigate just how badly the terrorists may have screwed themselves by deciding to pick on Nepal.
Update III:
Apparently the Nepalis have been to Drink This as well. I almost pity the Moongod worshippers. But no.
Update IV:
Keith at Anthroblogogy reminds us of a Rudyard Kipling poem about Gurkhas that the islamiscists may have wanted to read beofre pulling this.
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
By now most of you know that the 12 Nepali hostages have been brutally murdered, including one who was beheaded.
What you don't know is that Nepal is the home of one of the world's fiercest, most elite fighting forces, the Gurkhas. They are not to be... ahem... "trifled" with. The history of their service to Britain and to Nepal is a history of bravery, toughness, and ferocity.
Now, Rusty shares some letters from Nepali readers that reflect the Gurkha spirit. If these letters are indicative of the popular consensus in Nepal, this may be one of the stupidest decisions the Islamofascists have made to date.
Quite frankly, while I offer my condolences to Nepal for their loss, I couldn't be more delighted by this response.
Update I:
Again thanks to Rusty, but I had heard of this on NPR. Apparently the expressions of Nepali anger are not limited to letters to blogs.
Update II:
Bravo Romeo Delta sets me straight on the distinctions between Gurkhas and Nepali warriors in general, called Gorkhali. Interesting stuff, and I appreciate the lesson. I don't think the distinction will mitigate just how badly the terrorists may have screwed themselves by deciding to pick on Nepal.
Update III:
Apparently the Nepalis have been to Drink This as well. I almost pity the Moongod worshippers. But no.
Update IV:
Keith at Anthroblogogy reminds us of a Rudyard Kipling poem about Gurkhas that the islamiscists may have wanted to read beofre pulling this.
Crow Schnitzel
A few days ago, in the comments to my post on Hollywood and celebrity activism, I likened Arnold Schwarzeneggar to a Republican version of the Hollywood nutjobs who are continually opening their mouths and removing all doubt. Well, last night I listened to him speak at the RNC.
I was wrong.
His Austrian accent was still classically thick, but he was eloquent, moving, and revealed a mind sharper than I expected. I Pulled a Liberals on him and seriously underestimated him. The story he told of his childhood in Austria, the things that maotivated him to become an American and then a Republican, were all articulate and moving. I'm still peeved at him for using advertising in Portland to try to steal Oregon buisinesses to California, but that's his job. I take my hat off to him, he has my newfound respect.
Oh, and Democratic speakers, take a note: THAT is how self-deprecating humor should be done.
I was wrong.
His Austrian accent was still classically thick, but he was eloquent, moving, and revealed a mind sharper than I expected. I Pulled a Liberals on him and seriously underestimated him. The story he told of his childhood in Austria, the things that maotivated him to become an American and then a Republican, were all articulate and moving. I'm still peeved at him for using advertising in Portland to try to steal Oregon buisinesses to California, but that's his job. I take my hat off to him, he has my newfound respect.
Oh, and Democratic speakers, take a note: THAT is how self-deprecating humor should be done.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
>Like Screwing for Virginity
UPDATE:
Usually I add updates to the end of posts, but this time, it's important enough to merit bringing to the top.
If you read the original post, you notice a series of links to articles and blog entries highlighting incidents, some more recent than others, in which the left's response to individuals supporting the war or the president were, shall we say, less than respectful.
Well, in the comments section, reader and Blogmother Da Goddess alerted me that she would have more fuel to add to the fire, and boy does she ever! Read the whole article at her site.
In checking out her trackbacks, I was led to this article by a Protest Warrior currently on the front lines in NYC. The signs and reactions from the left are particularly telling.
Things are getting uglier and uglier all the time. I think it's time for me to join protest warrior -- we can't let those who hate our country and our freedoms have the street without a challenge. Might doesn't make right, but right certainly makes might. It's time we flex our moral muscles.
Originally posted 11:49 AM, 30 August, 2004.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for getting the ball rolling.
Republicans are brutal, right-wing, war-mongering, jackbooted thugs who disdain the First Amendment and resort to violence to supress the voices of dissent which oppose them.
Bear that in mind as you view this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
And the Beat-Down goes on. So the next time you hear that tired old lie about how oppressive Republicans are, just ask yourself who's resorting to violence. Methinks the left doth project too much.
Usually I add updates to the end of posts, but this time, it's important enough to merit bringing to the top.
If you read the original post, you notice a series of links to articles and blog entries highlighting incidents, some more recent than others, in which the left's response to individuals supporting the war or the president were, shall we say, less than respectful.
Well, in the comments section, reader and Blogmother Da Goddess alerted me that she would have more fuel to add to the fire, and boy does she ever! Read the whole article at her site.
In checking out her trackbacks, I was led to this article by a Protest Warrior currently on the front lines in NYC. The signs and reactions from the left are particularly telling.
Things are getting uglier and uglier all the time. I think it's time for me to join protest warrior -- we can't let those who hate our country and our freedoms have the street without a challenge. Might doesn't make right, but right certainly makes might. It's time we flex our moral muscles.
Originally posted 11:49 AM, 30 August, 2004.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for getting the ball rolling.
Republicans are brutal, right-wing, war-mongering, jackbooted thugs who disdain the First Amendment and resort to violence to supress the voices of dissent which oppose them.
Bear that in mind as you view this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
And the Beat-Down goes on. So the next time you hear that tired old lie about how oppressive Republicans are, just ask yourself who's resorting to violence. Methinks the left doth project too much.
Anonymous Alcohol
I thought it was hard admitting to my teetotalling family that I liked to imbibe the occasional beer, scotch, or rum and Coke. My father was the son of an alcoholic, and abhorred the stuff. I developed a taste for it in moderation. But I was always diplomatic about the subject around him.
These days, there's a cultural inference associated with one particular alcoholic beverage that makes my next confession even more likely to distress some of my fellow conservatives:
I like wine.
Like beer, wine was for me an acquired taste, but I do like it now. and for some conservatives, especially those of the sort who tend to disdain the hollywood/East coast connection liberal upper crust, view wine as snobbish and pretentious, embodying everything they dislike about the other side.
But I view wine differently. First, my introduction to wines I could actually enjoy was not with immpressive vintages, but with a common, semi-sparkling sweet red from Italy called Lambrusco. Here at last was I wine I could drink -- but not one I could admit to in polite company. Or so I thought.
Then I learned an important lesson that also explains why I can enjoy wine without feeling pretentious. The summer after I discovered Lambrusco, I made a trip up from San Diego to my old stomping grounds in Southern Oregon. While there I made a visit to the tasting room of the Girardet Winery. Phil is from the French-speaking portion of Switzerland, but he's beenin Oregon for decades. He met his wife Bonnie while they were both university students in California. There he decided to get into winemaking. He wanted to start his winery somewhere in the US where the climate, soil composition, rainfall, drainage, all of the factors would as closely resemble his Swiss home as possible. After years of research, he found Tenmile. I met him because his family attended my father's church. Phil was the second most intelligent, friendly man in that town (after my father), and its mellowest.
So there I was in his winery, looking to expand my palate beyond Lambrusco. I was explaining to him what I liked, and in mentioning Lambrusco, I made the apologetic comment, "It's not exactly the best wine, but I like it." Phil got this sly grin on his face, leaned in conspiratorily, and said, "You know Brian, the best wine is the one you like."
*blink. blink. blink*
Well, duh. It sounds stupidly obvious, but so many people miss the point (and not just about wine). I took that advice to heart, and it has governed my view of wine ever since. While I've developed specific tastes and favorites (I love Pinot Noir, especially with salmon), it's all about what I like, not what is the latest craze or fanciest, most impressive vintage not that I could afford that anyway).
And really, isn't that what is important in life? Following your likes and beliefs and convictions, even if they're unpopular?
These days, there's a cultural inference associated with one particular alcoholic beverage that makes my next confession even more likely to distress some of my fellow conservatives:
I like wine.
Like beer, wine was for me an acquired taste, but I do like it now. and for some conservatives, especially those of the sort who tend to disdain the hollywood/East coast connection liberal upper crust, view wine as snobbish and pretentious, embodying everything they dislike about the other side.
But I view wine differently. First, my introduction to wines I could actually enjoy was not with immpressive vintages, but with a common, semi-sparkling sweet red from Italy called Lambrusco. Here at last was I wine I could drink -- but not one I could admit to in polite company. Or so I thought.
Then I learned an important lesson that also explains why I can enjoy wine without feeling pretentious. The summer after I discovered Lambrusco, I made a trip up from San Diego to my old stomping grounds in Southern Oregon. While there I made a visit to the tasting room of the Girardet Winery. Phil is from the French-speaking portion of Switzerland, but he's beenin Oregon for decades. He met his wife Bonnie while they were both university students in California. There he decided to get into winemaking. He wanted to start his winery somewhere in the US where the climate, soil composition, rainfall, drainage, all of the factors would as closely resemble his Swiss home as possible. After years of research, he found Tenmile. I met him because his family attended my father's church. Phil was the second most intelligent, friendly man in that town (after my father), and its mellowest.
So there I was in his winery, looking to expand my palate beyond Lambrusco. I was explaining to him what I liked, and in mentioning Lambrusco, I made the apologetic comment, "It's not exactly the best wine, but I like it." Phil got this sly grin on his face, leaned in conspiratorily, and said, "You know Brian, the best wine is the one you like."
*blink. blink. blink*
Well, duh. It sounds stupidly obvious, but so many people miss the point (and not just about wine). I took that advice to heart, and it has governed my view of wine ever since. While I've developed specific tastes and favorites (I love Pinot Noir, especially with salmon), it's all about what I like, not what is the latest craze or fanciest, most impressive vintage not that I could afford that anyway).
And really, isn't that what is important in life? Following your likes and beliefs and convictions, even if they're unpopular?
Parsing "Sages" Older than Time
Update 10 September, 2004
Reader Elisabeth pointed out several errors in my text. It's Humphrey, not Humphreys. News reporting is two words. and yes, it was meant to be others, not ithers.
Of course, if Mr. Humphrey is to be believed, this never happened, since there is no such thing as proofreading on the internet.
Thanks for the Memory to Russell at Mean Mr Mustard 2.
When I read the phrase dottering[sic], clueless Old Media jackass, I must confess that my first reaction was, "Andy Rooney?" But no, sadly, Andy's not the only codger out there with a Word Processor, heart pills, and the "Truth".
So I followed Russell's link to this blog entry. One look at the picture and my second reaction was, "What the hell is George Carlin doing writing a blog for a newspaper in Tennessee?"
But no, this is Tom Humphrey, Nashville Bureau Chief for the Knoxville News Sentinel. And he has his very own blog, courtesy of his employer. Ironically, this newspaper editor has posted a blog entry that, by his own admission, is full of "ramblings." Now, that's a pretty common thing for blogs to do -- ramble, rant, and rave. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly no reason to criticize the man. But when he decides to impugn the quality of writing and newsreporting in blogs, implying that traditional newspaper writers are superior to mere bloggers, while displaying some horrendous writing skills, I just can't let it pass. And so I decided to attempt my first fisking.
Now, to give credit where due, I must say that many of the observations I make have already been made by those who have commented on this entry before I read it, including the esteemed Mr. Lileks. And while in some of those cases I had the same immediate reaction, often they say it better than I can, and so I will acknowledge my peers and/or superiors in these regards. But now, on with the show. Mr. Humphrey's words are in normal type, mine in italics.
Ramblings on Republicans
Let me guess, you don't like us, do you? And you're a journalist? That's newsworthy.
The boss lady of blogs at the News Sentinel has advised that I need to file something for this site on Saturday, though it apparently will not be visible to anyone until activation on Sunday, for technical reasons that are utterly beyond my comprehension. Just a brief will do, she said in the email.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of complex sentences. But there's a fine line between complex and run-on. Mr. Humphrey has snapped it like the tape at the Olympic marathon. The sentence structure is nigh unto incomprehensible, and the information conveyed is as uninteresting as it is unintelligible. Not an auspicious start.
But, what the heck, if I'm going to sit here the evening before deserting my family for almost a week to watch Republican worship ceremonies for George W. Bush, not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry, might as well ramble a bit.
Wha... huh? What the hell does "not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry," mean? I'm guessing it's a typo, and I think I know what he meant to type, but this is a newspaper bureau chief we're reading. You'd think he would be familiar with the concept of "proofreading." As for rambling "a bit", that's being demure.
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such
Have you actually read many blogs, buddy? Have you read their comments section? You know, like the one on yours where you get your ass handed to you? If anything, as it has been pointed out, blogs get fact-checked even more than newspapers. All those readers are just waiting to catch you in an error, and will not hesitate to rub your face in it if you err (especially the ones that dislike/disagree with you). Also bear in mind that we have no Bloggers Union Local 123 to defend us, and there's no such thing as "job security" for bloggers. If you screw up, you get caught, and you lose readers. Period. As for attribution, take a stroll through the blogs and take a gander at that thing called a trackback. Attribution is usually practiced even more religiously, since giving proper credit to another blogger, especially a popular one, increases the likelihood of attracting readers. Furthermore, improper attribution is just as vigorously monitored by readers as is fact checking. Logic? Pot and kettle, buddy. Some blogs display a better grasp of logic than others, a comment that is equally true of newspaper writers.
that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches.
Lileks has a great comment on just how cliche and irrelevant and utterly asinine this bit is. go read it.
You can just babble like a talk show radio guy.
Apparently he's taken the "Logic-free" advice to heart, and immediately tosses in an ad hominem dig at talk radio.
Ergo, to babble a bit:
Again, that's putting it mildly.
Tennessee Republicans are pretty darn cocky these days about the presidential race in their home state. It's the one thing they are united about. All on message, got their talking points and so on.
That's a pretty apt description of any politico from a state where the party in question pretty much has a wrap on the presidential race. What Mr. Humphrey fails to do is explain how this makes the Republicans any different, or why anyone outside the Volunteer state should give a tinker's damn. This just sounds whiney and petty.
Otherwise, there's quite a bit of infighting, interspersed with the occasional embarrassment.
Again, how does this distinguish them from any other group of politicians? Shouldn't you have added "irrelevant" to the word ramblings, just to, you know, warn us?
For the most recent embarrassment: Hey, what about that 8th District Republican nominee for Congress, James Hart, the eugenics yahoo who won the primary despite the somewhat belated disavowal of his candidacy by state party officialdom? Check out his website at www.jameshartforcongress.com. Reports circulated last week that Mr. Hart might just show up at the GOP Convention in New York to promote his doctrine of 'favored races.' Beth Harwell, state party chairman, says he will not be welcome.
Good for her. The guy's a dim bulb who doesn't represent mainstream Republican values, and shouldn't be embraced by the GOP. And before any supported of the other party gets smug about this, do a Google search for the words Democrat and Ku Klux Klan.
This would, of course, provide some novelty. Republicans are worried about left-wing yahoos disrupting things in New York. Tennessee's Republicans could find themselves under attack from another direction. That would be special.
Whoops, I guess it's too late to heed my smugness warning. Seen the streets of the city you're visiting, Tommy? Been to DU or Indymedia? Listened to Michael Moor or Kos or any of their ilk screeching away? I wouldn't be too quick to play the extreme elements card.
Hart's candidacy, incidentally, has spurred talk of Harwell being available as a sort of stand-in Republican nominee for governor against Phil Bredesen if no one credible steps forward to challenge the Democrat doing darn well in popularity polls lately. She’s a nice lady, well-spoken, proper credentials, etc. And having her there would assure that no incredible idiot wins the Republican nomination.
Because we know that's all most Republicans are. Once he has that ad hominem ball firmly in hand, he runs for the end zone.
Haven't asked Beth about that rumor, but what the heck, this is blog babbling. Will try to do so in the days ahead, and predict that she will be non-committal, refusing to rule out anything, etc., etc. (Keen insight, eh?)
At least he's capable of making an attempt at self-deprecation, lame as it is.
The Republican infighting is mostly political, though every now and then personal.
That reads like a freaking fortune cookie, not a political commentary.
Heck, you can even get emails from a Tennessee Republican group poking fun at 'part-time Beth' ( that's Harwell, who is also a state representative, a mom, a wife, etc. ) and 'Deputy Bob,' a reference to state party deputy Bob Davis, the former right-hand man to Sen. Fred Thompson and perhaps the most media-shy of all those enclosed in the offices above Amerigo's Restaurant in Nashville (OK, my non-blogging mode would make that state GOP headquarters).
Again, more blather that nobody outside Tennessee gets or gives a damn about.
One email I recall centered on the salaries of Beth and Bob and, when rummaging through disclosure forms recently, I noticed that Deputy Bob makes more than Part-time Beth. If he would talk to me occasionally, I might think he was worth it.
My dear God, that's the most self-important, narcissistic thing I've heard in a while. That's quite an accomplishment.
But I digress, as authorized in blogging it seems.
Ha ha. Back to the little digs about bloggers not being worth taking seriously. Given how glib and sloppily written your schtick has been, my friend, I'd avoid attributing color schemes to kettles.
Back to the aforementioned infighting, political, not personal.
At which point, Humphrey's post continues on with inane insight regarding the nuances of Republican politics which is vaguely disdainful and smug, but again, conveys nothing that cannot be gleaned by reading any amount of conservative commentary already available, and doesn't actually make what we lowly bloggers like to call a point. Really not worth reading. The only other item of note is a Technical note on the side, referring to an earlier version of the post that referred to "web-only" blogs, and was justly taken to task:
TECHNICAL NOTE
The description was modified by a content producer to remove reference that this is a "web-only blog." Familiar with the blogging world herself, she should have known better.
Yeah, you'd think that someone who worked for an institution that has "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" would have caught that the first time.
Enough rambling. Time to finish packing.
If you write for the paper as poorly as you write for your blog, the only thing you should be packing is your desk into a box.
UPDATE:
The comments section of Humphrey's blog included quite a few really cutting retorts to his post. Some of the commenters expressed concern that the News Sentinel would delete those comments, so I've posted them here:
Comments
Laugh riot! Most blogs I read are actually more interested in the truth, rather then putting a spin on the news to bulk up Kerry in the polls. You may not like President Bush, but I bet you would loathe "President Kerry."
PS: you aren't doing it correctly, if you are trying to run a political blog.
Posted by: Porter G at August 30, 2004 08:11 PM
Humphrey: You are either a liar or a fool, and it is obvious at a glance that you did not attribute this alleged "instruct[ion]" in order that a reasonable investigator could determine which.
You're fired.
Posted by: Billy Beck at August 30, 2004 08:18 PM
What a chuckle this is. And by the way "Hey, look at me, I am commenting on a 'Web-only blog'!!!!"
( Must now go google "Gore +invents +"new blogging medium" )
Posted by: Dusty at August 30, 2004 08:49 PM
"After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches. You can just babble like a talk show radio guy."
While it's true that bloggers have nobody checking their stories BEFORE they publish them in their blogs, it's NOT TRUE that bloggers have NO fact checkers AT ALL. Blogs have MORE, and better, fact checkers than traditional media.
Bloggers' fact checkers and critics are the blog's readers and commenters. The 'great unwashed', if you will, of people who read blogs and may have more expertise on a subject than the blogger does. If it's a big story, or a large error, there will be multiple blogs all chiming in with corrections.
I don't see the same thing happening in traditional media. Very rarely will one media outlet's error be reported on the others, as happens with blogs.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 30, 2004 09:06 PM
I'm sorry but old media has nothing to be smug about when it comes to fact-checking. If this post is any indication, you wouldn't be able to hack it as a blogger.
Posted by: Joel Fleming at August 30, 2004 09:58 PM
Hey Tom,
Those that can, blog.
Those that can't, whine.
...and the readers move on.
Posted by: Don at August 30, 2004 10:48 PM
Couldn't resist, and had to use this as a "the media don't get it" example on my own weblog! http://www.greg-brooks.com/000445.html
Posted by: Greg Brooks at August 30, 2004 11:05 PM
Am I the only one that skimmed through this "blog" and skipped to the comments for feedback to see if the article was worth reading? I just saved myself 15 minutes. LMAO. Tom, your prose wore thin in merely 10 sentences. Enough silliness, I need to get back to real reading.
Posted by: Caleb Charles at August 31, 2004 12:48 AM
Caleb Charles,
No, you're not!
Posted by: Ron Weiner at August 31, 2004 01:44 AM
I've read the 2nd paragraph several times and can't figure out what you're trying to say. This from a bureau chief!
Then this: "After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such ...", followed by rumor, speculation, and innuendo at length without reference. Bloggers (1) publish links to their references; (2) publish all feedback, not just selected "letters to the editor;" (3) did not create Jayson Blair.
Posted by: Jeff at August 31, 2004 07:03 AM
So if this is a "web-only" blog, does that mean my comments are... ON THE INTERNET?
Seriously, Tom, it would appear that you have been hiding in the broom closet for several years. Chris J. hits the nail on the head- bloggers are much better at reporting the real story these days, for the simple reason that readers can call them out when they get it wrong. I doubt your paper would publish the criticism you've received here, meaning this type of back-and-forth can only exist on... A WEB-ONLY BLOG (cue Scooby Doo ghost noises).
Posted by: Rob at August 31, 2004 08:11 AM
I linked from Lileks (at Lileks.com) because he too made fun of Mr. Humphrey, in his gentle, but critical, James Lileks like manner.
For the record - I'm an ordinary citizen - no computer knowledge as such, not a writer, not a blogger, not particularly politically active, etc.
I get all of my hard news from blogger or alternative internet sources. I can fact check that news in seconds.
When I read a newspaper or magazine or even, G-d forbid, watch television news, I can usually spot the lies (intentional slants providing just the information that the media author wants to give you).
However, I have to take it all with a grain of salt, because I have no way to source the material.
Hence, I do not get my news from the old sources.
Posted by: Moishe at August 31, 2004 08:52 AM
Please tell me you're just attempting bad humor, Tom. It's less painful to think of it that way.
Posted by: Prague at August 31, 2004 09:16 AM
Caleb Charles,
Yes, you got it right!
I linked in from Lileks, scanned the first paragraph, jumped to the comments, LMAO, left this comment and then left for the real blogs. (Lileks is first, every morning!).
Old media = chicken-filled weiners
Posted by: Donald Campbell at August 31, 2004 09:32 AM
"...bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches."
This guy is Too Much! Although he looks old enough to have been around when the "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" might have kinda-sorta applied to his media, those days are long past. Now it's not-too-well-disguised editorializing in the "hard" news, "toe-touches" and outright fabrications (Jayson Blair). Meanwhile, serious bloggers hone their craft through with the help of almost instantaneous (and very public) feedback and fact-check the bejezus out of the "old media" fact-checkers, often with hilarious results.
Speaking of which, something tells me that in the dog-eat-dog world of the blogosphere, Mr. Humphrey and his attributed, fact-checked, logical writers have just donned dog-bone underpants. Should be fun to watch (for those of us that read "Web-only blogs"!)
Posted by: Wylie Merritt at August 31, 2004 09:57 AM
I think it's brilliant:
step one: say something stupid and unverifiable.
step two: Wait for reynolds and lileks to link you.
step three: traffic
He has this blogging thing down.
Posted by: SayUncle at August 31, 2004 10:37 AM
I really do hope the comments and post stick around, but I fear that when the editors wake up there will be some house cleaning.
If it does stay, I expect it will soon be a Wiki object lesson. If it's around in a day or two I may make a "Web-Only Blog" entry to memorialize it.
In the meantime, someone explain to him that one of the nice things you can do with a "Web-Only Blog" is make those URL whatchamacallits in your text body into these things called 'hot links'
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 10:50 AM
Ah, the irony. I think Mr. Humphrey has just experienced blog-based "fact-checking."
Here's another "AYE" to Caleb Charles. I did indeed slog through a couple paragraphs before jumping down to the comments...
Posted by: Out4Blood at August 31, 2004 11:23 AM
As I read through this "web-only" excrement a couple of dozen pithy comments came to mind. Unfortunately I was too late as more timely commentors beat me to the punch.
Posted by: tim at August 31, 2004 11:36 AM
Unfortunately, I read it all the way through to the end. That the comments make infinitely more sense than the column tells the story: the war is over. Old media lies bleeding on the field.
Posted by: Cato at August 31, 2004 12:14 PM
Whistling in the dark from the moribund old media, and a pathetic demonstration that "journalistic integrity" is now an oxymoron.
Posted by: James at August 31, 2004 12:23 PM
They've already removed the "Web-only" line. I wouldn't be surprised if our comments go bye-bye too.
Not to worry, all of the comments posted up to this point have been copied and pasted at my own "web-only" blog, along with my comments on the article.
Posted by: Brian B at August 31, 2004 01:09 PM
I pointed out the byline change in a comment on his next entry.
http://web.knoxnews.com/mt-static/rnc/archives/000597.html#comments
In fairness, they posted the explanation for the change when asked about it. (See "Technical Note" in the Nav bar on the left).
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 01:18 PM
Mr. Humphrey, you're WAY out of your league. It wasn't even a valiant effort. You're not nearly disciplined enough to write a respectable blog. Go back to the op-ed pages, old man.
Posted by: Tyler F at August 31, 2004 07:10 PM
Very good, Tom. I am glad to see that you are seeking "instruction" to remedy your obvious ignorance of the nature and etiquette of the blogosphere. However, a few more remedial lessons may be in order:
1. Don't use the passive voice. Say, "X instructs me" not "I am instructed". The latter formulation violates one of those "ironclad rules of attribution" that you should have learned from your days among the ink-stained wretches. Also, the passive voice sounds weak, stuffy, effete, French ... you get the picture.
2. I applaud you on enabling the comments section on this blog. I actually only browsed to this site to see if you had, since you seem unaware of the way that fact checking works out here. But even those blogs who do not enable comments, such as my own humble effort, can be fact-checked through the use of links. I found your post through Instapundit but evidently James Lileks has also linked to you. By now you probably have several hundred links, as the sampling of comments above should indicate.
3. You have handled the little gaffe about this being a "web-only blog" adequately, but it is traditional to do this kind of error correction in the text of the blog itself rather than in a side-bar. I realize there are aesthetic considerations here, and styles vary on this matter, but it makes it much easier for people to find. And admitting your mistakes forthrightly makes you seem more intelligent (if you caught the error yourself) or more honest (if you didn't).
One final note about self-deprecating humor: lots of bloggers use it and it can be a helpful device in spicing up a post. But, like all humor, you need to be make sure that it is actually funny. Repeating the joke that this is only a blog so the normal standards don't apply isn't all that clever. It sounds too much like you are making excuses. This is more an art than a science, though, so I can't really offer instruction on this point. But a careful review of some of the comments above might give you a clue as to how it is done.
Posted by: R. C. Smith at August 31, 2004 07:19 PM
Reader Elisabeth pointed out several errors in my text. It's Humphrey, not Humphreys. News reporting is two words. and yes, it was meant to be others, not ithers.
Of course, if Mr. Humphrey is to be believed, this never happened, since there is no such thing as proofreading on the internet.
Thanks for the Memory to Russell at Mean Mr Mustard 2.
When I read the phrase dottering[sic], clueless Old Media jackass, I must confess that my first reaction was, "Andy Rooney?" But no, sadly, Andy's not the only codger out there with a Word Processor, heart pills, and the "Truth".
So I followed Russell's link to this blog entry. One look at the picture and my second reaction was, "What the hell is George Carlin doing writing a blog for a newspaper in Tennessee?"
But no, this is Tom Humphrey, Nashville Bureau Chief for the Knoxville News Sentinel. And he has his very own blog, courtesy of his employer. Ironically, this newspaper editor has posted a blog entry that, by his own admission, is full of "ramblings." Now, that's a pretty common thing for blogs to do -- ramble, rant, and rave. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly no reason to criticize the man. But when he decides to impugn the quality of writing and newsreporting in blogs, implying that traditional newspaper writers are superior to mere bloggers, while displaying some horrendous writing skills, I just can't let it pass. And so I decided to attempt my first fisking.
Now, to give credit where due, I must say that many of the observations I make have already been made by those who have commented on this entry before I read it, including the esteemed Mr. Lileks. And while in some of those cases I had the same immediate reaction, often they say it better than I can, and so I will acknowledge my peers and/or superiors in these regards. But now, on with the show. Mr. Humphrey's words are in normal type, mine in italics.
Ramblings on Republicans
Let me guess, you don't like us, do you? And you're a journalist? That's newsworthy.
The boss lady of blogs at the News Sentinel has advised that I need to file something for this site on Saturday, though it apparently will not be visible to anyone until activation on Sunday, for technical reasons that are utterly beyond my comprehension. Just a brief will do, she said in the email.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of complex sentences. But there's a fine line between complex and run-on. Mr. Humphrey has snapped it like the tape at the Olympic marathon. The sentence structure is nigh unto incomprehensible, and the information conveyed is as uninteresting as it is unintelligible. Not an auspicious start.
But, what the heck, if I'm going to sit here the evening before deserting my family for almost a week to watch Republican worship ceremonies for George W. Bush, not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry, might as well ramble a bit.
Wha... huh? What the hell does "not so long Democratic devotional on caring for John Kerry," mean? I'm guessing it's a typo, and I think I know what he meant to type, but this is a newspaper bureau chief we're reading. You'd think he would be familiar with the concept of "proofreading." As for rambling "a bit", that's being demure.
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such
Have you actually read many blogs, buddy? Have you read their comments section? You know, like the one on yours where you get your ass handed to you? If anything, as it has been pointed out, blogs get fact-checked even more than newspapers. All those readers are just waiting to catch you in an error, and will not hesitate to rub your face in it if you err (especially the ones that dislike/disagree with you). Also bear in mind that we have no Bloggers Union Local 123 to defend us, and there's no such thing as "job security" for bloggers. If you screw up, you get caught, and you lose readers. Period. As for attribution, take a stroll through the blogs and take a gander at that thing called a trackback. Attribution is usually practiced even more religiously, since giving proper credit to another blogger, especially a popular one, increases the likelihood of attracting readers. Furthermore, improper attribution is just as vigorously monitored by readers as is fact checking. Logic? Pot and kettle, buddy. Some blogs display a better grasp of logic than others, a comment that is equally true of newspaper writers.
that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches.
Lileks has a great comment on just how cliche and irrelevant and utterly asinine this bit is. go read it.
You can just babble like a talk show radio guy.
Apparently he's taken the "Logic-free" advice to heart, and immediately tosses in an ad hominem dig at talk radio.
Ergo, to babble a bit:
Again, that's putting it mildly.
Tennessee Republicans are pretty darn cocky these days about the presidential race in their home state. It's the one thing they are united about. All on message, got their talking points and so on.
That's a pretty apt description of any politico from a state where the party in question pretty much has a wrap on the presidential race. What Mr. Humphrey fails to do is explain how this makes the Republicans any different, or why anyone outside the Volunteer state should give a tinker's damn. This just sounds whiney and petty.
Otherwise, there's quite a bit of infighting, interspersed with the occasional embarrassment.
Again, how does this distinguish them from any other group of politicians? Shouldn't you have added "irrelevant" to the word ramblings, just to, you know, warn us?
For the most recent embarrassment: Hey, what about that 8th District Republican nominee for Congress, James Hart, the eugenics yahoo who won the primary despite the somewhat belated disavowal of his candidacy by state party officialdom? Check out his website at www.jameshartforcongress.com. Reports circulated last week that Mr. Hart might just show up at the GOP Convention in New York to promote his doctrine of 'favored races.' Beth Harwell, state party chairman, says he will not be welcome.
Good for her. The guy's a dim bulb who doesn't represent mainstream Republican values, and shouldn't be embraced by the GOP. And before any supported of the other party gets smug about this, do a Google search for the words Democrat and Ku Klux Klan.
This would, of course, provide some novelty. Republicans are worried about left-wing yahoos disrupting things in New York. Tennessee's Republicans could find themselves under attack from another direction. That would be special.
Whoops, I guess it's too late to heed my smugness warning. Seen the streets of the city you're visiting, Tommy? Been to DU or Indymedia? Listened to Michael Moor or Kos or any of their ilk screeching away? I wouldn't be too quick to play the extreme elements card.
Hart's candidacy, incidentally, has spurred talk of Harwell being available as a sort of stand-in Republican nominee for governor against Phil Bredesen if no one credible steps forward to challenge the Democrat doing darn well in popularity polls lately. She’s a nice lady, well-spoken, proper credentials, etc. And having her there would assure that no incredible idiot wins the Republican nomination.
Because we know that's all most Republicans are. Once he has that ad hominem ball firmly in hand, he runs for the end zone.
Haven't asked Beth about that rumor, but what the heck, this is blog babbling. Will try to do so in the days ahead, and predict that she will be non-committal, refusing to rule out anything, etc., etc. (Keen insight, eh?)
At least he's capable of making an attempt at self-deprecation, lame as it is.
The Republican infighting is mostly political, though every now and then personal.
That reads like a freaking fortune cookie, not a political commentary.
Heck, you can even get emails from a Tennessee Republican group poking fun at 'part-time Beth' ( that's Harwell, who is also a state representative, a mom, a wife, etc. ) and 'Deputy Bob,' a reference to state party deputy Bob Davis, the former right-hand man to Sen. Fred Thompson and perhaps the most media-shy of all those enclosed in the offices above Amerigo's Restaurant in Nashville (OK, my non-blogging mode would make that state GOP headquarters).
Again, more blather that nobody outside Tennessee gets or gives a damn about.
One email I recall centered on the salaries of Beth and Bob and, when rummaging through disclosure forms recently, I noticed that Deputy Bob makes more than Part-time Beth. If he would talk to me occasionally, I might think he was worth it.
My dear God, that's the most self-important, narcissistic thing I've heard in a while. That's quite an accomplishment.
But I digress, as authorized in blogging it seems.
Ha ha. Back to the little digs about bloggers not being worth taking seriously. Given how glib and sloppily written your schtick has been, my friend, I'd avoid attributing color schemes to kettles.
Back to the aforementioned infighting, political, not personal.
At which point, Humphrey's post continues on with inane insight regarding the nuances of Republican politics which is vaguely disdainful and smug, but again, conveys nothing that cannot be gleaned by reading any amount of conservative commentary already available, and doesn't actually make what we lowly bloggers like to call a point. Really not worth reading. The only other item of note is a Technical note on the side, referring to an earlier version of the post that referred to "web-only" blogs, and was justly taken to task:
TECHNICAL NOTE
The description was modified by a content producer to remove reference that this is a "web-only blog." Familiar with the blogging world herself, she should have known better.
Yeah, you'd think that someone who worked for an institution that has "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" would have caught that the first time.
Enough rambling. Time to finish packing.
If you write for the paper as poorly as you write for your blog, the only thing you should be packing is your desk into a box.
UPDATE:
The comments section of Humphrey's blog included quite a few really cutting retorts to his post. Some of the commenters expressed concern that the News Sentinel would delete those comments, so I've posted them here:
Comments
Laugh riot! Most blogs I read are actually more interested in the truth, rather then putting a spin on the news to bulk up Kerry in the polls. You may not like President Bush, but I bet you would loathe "President Kerry."
PS: you aren't doing it correctly, if you are trying to run a political blog.
Posted by: Porter G at August 30, 2004 08:11 PM
Humphrey: You are either a liar or a fool, and it is obvious at a glance that you did not attribute this alleged "instruct[ion]" in order that a reasonable investigator could determine which.
You're fired.
Posted by: Billy Beck at August 30, 2004 08:18 PM
What a chuckle this is. And by the way "Hey, look at me, I am commenting on a 'Web-only blog'!!!!"
( Must now go google "Gore +invents +"new blogging medium" )
Posted by: Dusty at August 30, 2004 08:49 PM
"After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches. You can just babble like a talk show radio guy."
While it's true that bloggers have nobody checking their stories BEFORE they publish them in their blogs, it's NOT TRUE that bloggers have NO fact checkers AT ALL. Blogs have MORE, and better, fact checkers than traditional media.
Bloggers' fact checkers and critics are the blog's readers and commenters. The 'great unwashed', if you will, of people who read blogs and may have more expertise on a subject than the blogger does. If it's a big story, or a large error, there will be multiple blogs all chiming in with corrections.
I don't see the same thing happening in traditional media. Very rarely will one media outlet's error be reported on the others, as happens with blogs.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 30, 2004 09:06 PM
I'm sorry but old media has nothing to be smug about when it comes to fact-checking. If this post is any indication, you wouldn't be able to hack it as a blogger.
Posted by: Joel Fleming at August 30, 2004 09:58 PM
Hey Tom,
Those that can, blog.
Those that can't, whine.
...and the readers move on.
Posted by: Don at August 30, 2004 10:48 PM
Couldn't resist, and had to use this as a "the media don't get it" example on my own weblog! http://www.greg-brooks.com/000445.html
Posted by: Greg Brooks at August 30, 2004 11:05 PM
Am I the only one that skimmed through this "blog" and skipped to the comments for feedback to see if the article was worth reading? I just saved myself 15 minutes. LMAO. Tom, your prose wore thin in merely 10 sentences. Enough silliness, I need to get back to real reading.
Posted by: Caleb Charles at August 31, 2004 12:48 AM
Caleb Charles,
No, you're not!
Posted by: Ron Weiner at August 31, 2004 01:44 AM
I've read the 2nd paragraph several times and can't figure out what you're trying to say. This from a bureau chief!
Then this: "After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such ...", followed by rumor, speculation, and innuendo at length without reference. Bloggers (1) publish links to their references; (2) publish all feedback, not just selected "letters to the editor;" (3) did not create Jayson Blair.
Posted by: Jeff at August 31, 2004 07:03 AM
So if this is a "web-only" blog, does that mean my comments are... ON THE INTERNET?
Seriously, Tom, it would appear that you have been hiding in the broom closet for several years. Chris J. hits the nail on the head- bloggers are much better at reporting the real story these days, for the simple reason that readers can call them out when they get it wrong. I doubt your paper would publish the criticism you've received here, meaning this type of back-and-forth can only exist on... A WEB-ONLY BLOG (cue Scooby Doo ghost noises).
Posted by: Rob at August 31, 2004 08:11 AM
I linked from Lileks (at Lileks.com) because he too made fun of Mr. Humphrey, in his gentle, but critical, James Lileks like manner.
For the record - I'm an ordinary citizen - no computer knowledge as such, not a writer, not a blogger, not particularly politically active, etc.
I get all of my hard news from blogger or alternative internet sources. I can fact check that news in seconds.
When I read a newspaper or magazine or even, G-d forbid, watch television news, I can usually spot the lies (intentional slants providing just the information that the media author wants to give you).
However, I have to take it all with a grain of salt, because I have no way to source the material.
Hence, I do not get my news from the old sources.
Posted by: Moishe at August 31, 2004 08:52 AM
Please tell me you're just attempting bad humor, Tom. It's less painful to think of it that way.
Posted by: Prague at August 31, 2004 09:16 AM
Caleb Charles,
Yes, you got it right!
I linked in from Lileks, scanned the first paragraph, jumped to the comments, LMAO, left this comment and then left for the real blogs. (Lileks is first, every morning!).
Old media = chicken-filled weiners
Posted by: Donald Campbell at August 31, 2004 09:32 AM
"...bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such that burden the daily production of stuff to print by traditionally ink-stained wretches."
This guy is Too Much! Although he looks old enough to have been around when the "ironclad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such" might have kinda-sorta applied to his media, those days are long past. Now it's not-too-well-disguised editorializing in the "hard" news, "toe-touches" and outright fabrications (Jayson Blair). Meanwhile, serious bloggers hone their craft through with the help of almost instantaneous (and very public) feedback and fact-check the bejezus out of the "old media" fact-checkers, often with hilarious results.
Speaking of which, something tells me that in the dog-eat-dog world of the blogosphere, Mr. Humphrey and his attributed, fact-checked, logical writers have just donned dog-bone underpants. Should be fun to watch (for those of us that read "Web-only blogs"!)
Posted by: Wylie Merritt at August 31, 2004 09:57 AM
I think it's brilliant:
step one: say something stupid and unverifiable.
step two: Wait for reynolds and lileks to link you.
step three: traffic
He has this blogging thing down.
Posted by: SayUncle at August 31, 2004 10:37 AM
I really do hope the comments and post stick around, but I fear that when the editors wake up there will be some house cleaning.
If it does stay, I expect it will soon be a Wiki object lesson. If it's around in a day or two I may make a "Web-Only Blog" entry to memorialize it.
In the meantime, someone explain to him that one of the nice things you can do with a "Web-Only Blog" is make those URL whatchamacallits in your text body into these things called 'hot links'
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 10:50 AM
Ah, the irony. I think Mr. Humphrey has just experienced blog-based "fact-checking."
Here's another "AYE" to Caleb Charles. I did indeed slog through a couple paragraphs before jumping down to the comments...
Posted by: Out4Blood at August 31, 2004 11:23 AM
As I read through this "web-only" excrement a couple of dozen pithy comments came to mind. Unfortunately I was too late as more timely commentors beat me to the punch.
Posted by: tim at August 31, 2004 11:36 AM
Unfortunately, I read it all the way through to the end. That the comments make infinitely more sense than the column tells the story: the war is over. Old media lies bleeding on the field.
Posted by: Cato at August 31, 2004 12:14 PM
Whistling in the dark from the moribund old media, and a pathetic demonstration that "journalistic integrity" is now an oxymoron.
Posted by: James at August 31, 2004 12:23 PM
They've already removed the "Web-only" line. I wouldn't be surprised if our comments go bye-bye too.
Not to worry, all of the comments posted up to this point have been copied and pasted at my own "web-only" blog, along with my comments on the article.
Posted by: Brian B at August 31, 2004 01:09 PM
I pointed out the byline change in a comment on his next entry.
http://web.knoxnews.com/mt-static/rnc/archives/000597.html#comments
In fairness, they posted the explanation for the change when asked about it. (See "Technical Note" in the Nav bar on the left).
Posted by: Tempus at August 31, 2004 01:18 PM
Mr. Humphrey, you're WAY out of your league. It wasn't even a valiant effort. You're not nearly disciplined enough to write a respectable blog. Go back to the op-ed pages, old man.
Posted by: Tyler F at August 31, 2004 07:10 PM
Very good, Tom. I am glad to see that you are seeking "instruction" to remedy your obvious ignorance of the nature and etiquette of the blogosphere. However, a few more remedial lessons may be in order:
1. Don't use the passive voice. Say, "X instructs me" not "I am instructed". The latter formulation violates one of those "ironclad rules of attribution" that you should have learned from your days among the ink-stained wretches. Also, the passive voice sounds weak, stuffy, effete, French ... you get the picture.
2. I applaud you on enabling the comments section on this blog. I actually only browsed to this site to see if you had, since you seem unaware of the way that fact checking works out here. But even those blogs who do not enable comments, such as my own humble effort, can be fact-checked through the use of links. I found your post through Instapundit but evidently James Lileks has also linked to you. By now you probably have several hundred links, as the sampling of comments above should indicate.
3. You have handled the little gaffe about this being a "web-only blog" adequately, but it is traditional to do this kind of error correction in the text of the blog itself rather than in a side-bar. I realize there are aesthetic considerations here, and styles vary on this matter, but it makes it much easier for people to find. And admitting your mistakes forthrightly makes you seem more intelligent (if you caught the error yourself) or more honest (if you didn't).
One final note about self-deprecating humor: lots of bloggers use it and it can be a helpful device in spicing up a post. But, like all humor, you need to be make sure that it is actually funny. Repeating the joke that this is only a blog so the normal standards don't apply isn't all that clever. It sounds too much like you are making excuses. This is more an art than a science, though, so I can't really offer instruction on this point. But a careful review of some of the comments above might give you a clue as to how it is done.
Posted by: R. C. Smith at August 31, 2004 07:19 PM
Monday, August 30, 2004
Quote of the Day
He is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep in order to gain that which he cannot lose.
- Jim Elliot
- Jim Elliot
Fried, Fried In His Memory
Originally posted 8:58 AM, 27 August 2004
Thanks for the Memory to Beaker's Corner:
A quote from John ForbesKurtz Kerry regarding the death of the reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen."
-John Kerry, January 20, 2003
Very eloquent.
However, as Beaker points out, it's important to please bear in mind a couple of things:
1. MLK was assassinated on April 4, 1968
2. John Kerry was sent to Vietnam in November of 1968, 7 months after the assassination of MLK!
There's so much uproar over the implication that one of Kerry's combat wounds may have been self-inflicted, but given the way he continues to shoot himself in the foot, it should come as no surprise.
To quote Christian singer/songwriter Gene Eugene, The trouble with lies is that you start to forget where the real man hides.
Update 08/30/04:
Thanks for the Memory to reader George Turner at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
It turns out that while not yet on the Swift Boats, Kerry was aboard the USS Gridley pulling Plane Guard duty in the Tonkin Gulf during the Spring of 1968, so the accuracy of his memory here may not be as faulty as it would first seem. Waiter, I'll have the Corvus Au Vin, if you please.
On the other hand, like the Swift Boat vets, some of Kerry's former Gridley shipmates are less than glowing in their view of him.
Thanks for the Memory to Beaker's Corner:
A quote from John Forbes
"I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen."
-John Kerry, January 20, 2003
Very eloquent.
However, as Beaker points out, it's important to please bear in mind a couple of things:
1. MLK was assassinated on April 4, 1968
2. John Kerry was sent to Vietnam in November of 1968, 7 months after the assassination of MLK!
There's so much uproar over the implication that one of Kerry's combat wounds may have been self-inflicted, but given the way he continues to shoot himself in the foot, it should come as no surprise.
To quote Christian singer/songwriter Gene Eugene, The trouble with lies is that you start to forget where the real man hides.
Update 08/30/04:
Thanks for the Memory to reader George Turner at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
It turns out that while not yet on the Swift Boats, Kerry was aboard the USS Gridley pulling Plane Guard duty in the Tonkin Gulf during the Spring of 1968, so the accuracy of his memory here may not be as faulty as it would first seem. Waiter, I'll have the Corvus Au Vin, if you please.
On the other hand, like the Swift Boat vets, some of Kerry's former Gridley shipmates are less than glowing in their view of him.
No Torch Relay for Me, Thanks
Thanks for the memory to Brian at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order.
You may be familiar with the "Torch" theory(named for Democratic NJ Senator Robert Toricelli) regarding the Kerry campaign, which comes in two major variants: either the Democrats are waiting for Kerry to self-destruct, at which point a savior (Hillary Clinton is the most common name used) can step in and carry th day; or they're hoping Kerry will lose so that four more years of Bush makes the country ready for a Democratic President.
Apparently now an article on Opinion Journal by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson suggests that Republicans should take a similar tack -- he suggests that Bush is such a bad president that if he wins, the Republicans will lose power for a significantly long time. He further argues that defeating Bush will allow Kerry 4 years of mucking things up so badly that the American voting public will revolt in the other direction and establish a Republican dynasty.
Let's set aside for this post any discussion of the plausibility of the Democratic "Torch" theories, and address this one for a moment. And for the sake of this argument, let's set aside any discussion of how valid his view of the Bush presidency is. Let's even grant him the plausibility of his strategy.
What really about this screed is the attitude towards politics it reveals (an attitude, I must say, that while most prevalent on the left, is sadly by no means confined to it): Political power is its own end. Screw the country, think about what's best for the Party.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I'm sure there are those in leadership in both parties who think this way, I'd like to think that I, for one, vote based on who I believe is best for the Country. I realize that this is a fairly naive point of view, but there it is. This is the kind of thinking that leaves leftists hoping we'll fail in Iraq, or rejoicing in American soldiers' deaths because they hurt Bush's reelection chances, and is bordering on treasonous thinking. No number of years of power for ANY party is worth the potential harm to the country that 4 years of the wrong leader threatens.
You may be familiar with the "Torch" theory(named for Democratic NJ Senator Robert Toricelli) regarding the Kerry campaign, which comes in two major variants: either the Democrats are waiting for Kerry to self-destruct, at which point a savior (Hillary Clinton is the most common name used) can step in and carry th day; or they're hoping Kerry will lose so that four more years of Bush makes the country ready for a Democratic President.
Apparently now an article on Opinion Journal by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson suggests that Republicans should take a similar tack -- he suggests that Bush is such a bad president that if he wins, the Republicans will lose power for a significantly long time. He further argues that defeating Bush will allow Kerry 4 years of mucking things up so badly that the American voting public will revolt in the other direction and establish a Republican dynasty.
Let's set aside for this post any discussion of the plausibility of the Democratic "Torch" theories, and address this one for a moment. And for the sake of this argument, let's set aside any discussion of how valid his view of the Bush presidency is. Let's even grant him the plausibility of his strategy.
What really about this screed is the attitude towards politics it reveals (an attitude, I must say, that while most prevalent on the left, is sadly by no means confined to it): Political power is its own end. Screw the country, think about what's best for the Party.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I'm sure there are those in leadership in both parties who think this way, I'd like to think that I, for one, vote based on who I believe is best for the Country. I realize that this is a fairly naive point of view, but there it is. This is the kind of thinking that leaves leftists hoping we'll fail in Iraq, or rejoicing in American soldiers' deaths because they hurt Bush's reelection chances, and is bordering on treasonous thinking. No number of years of power for ANY party is worth the potential harm to the country that 4 years of the wrong leader threatens.
Cue Soundtrack: Also Spracht Streisand, or "My God, It's Full of Sh**..."
Originally posted 9:18 AM, 28 August 2004.
Hollywood, that is. Oh, and for those who caught the reference, it is also full of stars. Interestingly enough, those stars are the primary source of the horsedollops that give the place its distinctive eau du merde.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for this link to a blog that tracks the latest contributions to the pasture patties that dot America's intellectual landscape:
Singer and actress Mandy Moore is furious at being "outed" as a secret Republican in the new issue of America's Details magazine.
The publication's upcoming September edition lists Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze Jr., Jessica Simpson, Shannen Doherty and Moore as silent supporters of current US President George W. Bush who don't join the campaign trail and make their political views known, unlike loud and proud Democrats Ben Affleck and Barbra Streisand.
However, the A Walk To Remember beauty has angrily denied she supports Bush and his party. Her publicist tells American website Pagesix.Com, "Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican."
I've said it before, I'll say it here to be definitive:
I really see no reason to pay undue heed to the opinions, conservative or liberal, of people who get paid primarily to speak words that other people think of for them.
While some celebrities do prove themselves eloquent on their own merits, most of them are capable of nothing more than parroting the latest screeds handed down ex cathedra from their party affiliations of choice -- except they can do it with feeling.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Sir George at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber in Hollywood, Tim Robbins opens his yap, and of all sources, the UK Guardian takes him to task. The best quote is this one: "He shows me a scene that he's editing from Embedded that is both pretentious and simple-minded - not a happy combination - and is reminiscent of the worst shouty agitprop."
Both pretentious and simple-minded. That's about the best description of Hollywood I've encountered yet.
Hollywood, that is. Oh, and for those who caught the reference, it is also full of stars. Interestingly enough, those stars are the primary source of the horsedollops that give the place its distinctive eau du merde.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for this link to a blog that tracks the latest contributions to the pasture patties that dot America's intellectual landscape:
Singer and actress Mandy Moore is furious at being "outed" as a secret Republican in the new issue of America's Details magazine.
The publication's upcoming September edition lists Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze Jr., Jessica Simpson, Shannen Doherty and Moore as silent supporters of current US President George W. Bush who don't join the campaign trail and make their political views known, unlike loud and proud Democrats Ben Affleck and Barbra Streisand.
However, the A Walk To Remember beauty has angrily denied she supports Bush and his party. Her publicist tells American website Pagesix.Com, "Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican."
I've said it before, I'll say it here to be definitive:
I really see no reason to pay undue heed to the opinions, conservative or liberal, of people who get paid primarily to speak words that other people think of for them.
While some celebrities do prove themselves eloquent on their own merits, most of them are capable of nothing more than parroting the latest screeds handed down ex cathedra from their party affiliations of choice -- except they can do it with feeling.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Sir George at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber in Hollywood, Tim Robbins opens his yap, and of all sources, the UK Guardian takes him to task. The best quote is this one: "He shows me a scene that he's editing from Embedded that is both pretentious and simple-minded - not a happy combination - and is reminiscent of the worst shouty agitprop."
Both pretentious and simple-minded. That's about the best description of Hollywood I've encountered yet.
Simply Indefensible
Being a good husband means, in part, enduring the Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games with your spouse. I made it, but just barely.
The inanity of it all was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Greeks seemed to actually enjoy themselves putting on this party (and the announcers made sure we knew, ad nauseum, just how good at partying Greeks are). What really got under my skin, though, was the portion of the ceremony concerned with turning the Olympic Flag over to Beijing.
OK, let's look past the canned-sounding Chinese National Anthem that sounded vaguely like the East German one from Top Secret!
Let's look past the Chinese Robert Palmer Girls with their pleasant to the eye but grating to the nerves combination of traditional Chinese miniskirts, Ancient instruments and 80's dance moves.
Let's look past the dance troupe Tai chi/Kung Fu dance number that was so very "Cultural Revolution."
What I CAN'T look past is the fact that the Olympics have been turned over to the Devil. Beijing is one of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world, and their sports program both reflects and is intended to showcase the merits of that system. Children who show promise are taken from their homes and put in government-run training centers from an early age and there they remain -- separated from their families, wards of the state for as long as they can perform. If anything, the system makes the old Soviet system seem like Disneyland.
And you can bet that the games will be a showcase for the merits of a communist system as well -- well-run, clean, and efficient. But at what cost? How brutal will the crackdown be on dissenters to prevent any embarassment of China? Beijing 08 is going to be the Comunist world's answer to Berlin 36.
And I for one hope someone pulls a Jesse Owens.
The inanity of it all was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Greeks seemed to actually enjoy themselves putting on this party (and the announcers made sure we knew, ad nauseum, just how good at partying Greeks are). What really got under my skin, though, was the portion of the ceremony concerned with turning the Olympic Flag over to Beijing.
OK, let's look past the canned-sounding Chinese National Anthem that sounded vaguely like the East German one from Top Secret!
Let's look past the Chinese Robert Palmer Girls with their pleasant to the eye but grating to the nerves combination of traditional Chinese miniskirts, Ancient instruments and 80's dance moves.
Let's look past the dance troupe Tai chi/Kung Fu dance number that was so very "Cultural Revolution."
What I CAN'T look past is the fact that the Olympics have been turned over to the Devil. Beijing is one of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world, and their sports program both reflects and is intended to showcase the merits of that system. Children who show promise are taken from their homes and put in government-run training centers from an early age and there they remain -- separated from their families, wards of the state for as long as they can perform. If anything, the system makes the old Soviet system seem like Disneyland.
And you can bet that the games will be a showcase for the merits of a communist system as well -- well-run, clean, and efficient. But at what cost? How brutal will the crackdown be on dissenters to prevent any embarassment of China? Beijing 08 is going to be the Comunist world's answer to Berlin 36.
And I for one hope someone pulls a Jesse Owens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)