One misperception that many have of a conservative like myself is that because I oppose huge government-sponsored social programs, I am somehow in opposition to charity. On the contrary, I believe very strongly in giving to worthy causes -- assisting the poor, disaster relief, the arts and sciences, education. What I take issue with is the propriety and ability of the government ot administer such giving properly. I feer the added overhead of government bureaucracy, and prefer to have more say in where my charitable giving goes. But I definitely give when I can, and encourage others to do the same.
Well, now I have a chance to encourage my readers to give to help a fellow blogger. If you've followed any of the links in my entries or at the side of my blog, you'll know I'm a huge fan of Da Goddess. In fact, she's my "Blogmother" -- one of the bloggers who helped me get started when I decided to do this. She's a funny, smart, sweet lady in San Diego who really has some good things to say.
And now she's out of work. She's been that way for 3 weeks or so now, and finances are getting tight. I know her well enough to know she's trying, but the job market is tight in her area, and she hasn't had much luck yet. She's actively seeking. This isn't a case of someone who won't work, it's someone who tries hard but hasn't had much luck. I know the feeling -- I've been there, and may be again soon. Besides, she's a good person, and a damned good blogger.
So I'm asking you to go drop a buck in her tip jar -- pop by her blog, find the "Flag Fund", and hit the "Donate Now" button.
Thanks.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
MY Turn to Question THEIR Timing
It's become a blogosphere cliche joke -- questioning the timing of something. It stems from the tendency of the Left and of the Kerry campaign to respond to any piece of good news or alert in the WoT coming from the White House by "Questioning the timing" of the news, as if the news was released merely to coincide with some even the Left was putting on, in order to steal attention from the Left. They couldn't refute the news itself, so instead, they'd "question it's timing". A new take on an old fallacy.
Now, they've found a new take on THAT new take, questioning the timing of the Freeper post that got the ball rolling on the whole Memogate affair. Unfortunately for the left, even their questioning of the time is in question. But apparently, the Left didn't get the memo, and Susan Esterich continued to bring it up (Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
Well, now it's MY turn to do some questioning of timing. No, I'm not trying to avoid issues by diverting. I think that the memos have been pretty effectively debunked, and any questions raised by them are only valid if their claims are true, which seems at best questionable, since they're made in forged documents.
No, my questioning of the timing has to do with a question that hasn't been answered yet: Who released these documents to CBS in the first place? I have my opinion, and the timing of the whole story only strengthens that opinion. Ironically enough, it has to do with ANOTHER bit of screeching by Susan Esterich that I commented on a while back. It pretty much summed up the Democrats' battlecry after the RNC -- The Republicans fight dirty, so now we will too. The gloves are coming off, and we're going to dig up as much dirt on Bush as we can.
Well, now a reader over at Backcountry Conservative (read the comment by Gary Maxwell) has expressed a concern that was bothering me last night: In all the hooplah about the veracity of the documents themselves, let's not forget how eerily soon after the RNC this story came out. I have a feeling that it was a Democratic operative who pushed these memos on CBS.
And as I've said before, regardless of the source, CBS' credibility has taken a huge hit. furthermore, the timing of the story so soon after the RNC and comments like those made by Esterich reveal an eagerness on the part of CBS to help the Democrats' cause. Oh, THAT liberal media.
Now, they've found a new take on THAT new take, questioning the timing of the Freeper post that got the ball rolling on the whole Memogate affair. Unfortunately for the left, even their questioning of the time is in question. But apparently, the Left didn't get the memo, and Susan Esterich continued to bring it up (Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
Well, now it's MY turn to do some questioning of timing. No, I'm not trying to avoid issues by diverting. I think that the memos have been pretty effectively debunked, and any questions raised by them are only valid if their claims are true, which seems at best questionable, since they're made in forged documents.
No, my questioning of the timing has to do with a question that hasn't been answered yet: Who released these documents to CBS in the first place? I have my opinion, and the timing of the whole story only strengthens that opinion. Ironically enough, it has to do with ANOTHER bit of screeching by Susan Esterich that I commented on a while back. It pretty much summed up the Democrats' battlecry after the RNC -- The Republicans fight dirty, so now we will too. The gloves are coming off, and we're going to dig up as much dirt on Bush as we can.
Well, now a reader over at Backcountry Conservative (read the comment by Gary Maxwell) has expressed a concern that was bothering me last night: In all the hooplah about the veracity of the documents themselves, let's not forget how eerily soon after the RNC this story came out. I have a feeling that it was a Democratic operative who pushed these memos on CBS.
And as I've said before, regardless of the source, CBS' credibility has taken a huge hit. furthermore, the timing of the story so soon after the RNC and comments like those made by Esterich reveal an eagerness on the part of CBS to help the Democrats' cause. Oh, THAT liberal media.
Statement Watch
CBS has said they'll issue a statement regarding MemoGate today. Backcountry Conservative promises to keep us posted.
Reaping the Benefits of Their Own Efforts
Thanks for the Memory to Da Goddess.
Da Goddess has a friend whose publisher is currently offering to ship any donated books to the USO to send to the troops overseas.
What a great idea. Take the fruit of one of our basic freedoms, that of expression, and send that fruit to the troops who are guarding those freedoms.
Besides, anything we can do to help our troops is worth the effort. So I will repeat the link: GO DONATE BOOKS TO THE USO FOR OUR TROOPS!
Da Goddess has a friend whose publisher is currently offering to ship any donated books to the USO to send to the troops overseas.
What a great idea. Take the fruit of one of our basic freedoms, that of expression, and send that fruit to the troops who are guarding those freedoms.
Besides, anything we can do to help our troops is worth the effort. So I will repeat the link: GO DONATE BOOKS TO THE USO FOR OUR TROOPS!
Vichy Redux
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently the French have been hearing it for their attempts to avoid terrorism by staying out of Iraq. A few of the recent comments from editorials:
"The abduction of the French journalists is a lesson for those who think they can be neutral in the war on terror, or for those who think that it is possible to arrive at a truce with international terror by means of spineless political positions towards terrorism.
"France thought that the terror in Iraq would not reach it because it opposed the war and tried to set itself apart from the American position. As a result, international terror treats [France] like every other [country]. International terror is democratic. It strikes everyone without asking whether the casualties are Muslim or Christian, or supporters or opponents of America. International terror does not differentiate among the civilians of Fallujah, Riyadh, San'aa, Algeria, New York, and Nairobi. There is no differentiation between American and French. The only aim of international terror is to kill."
Amen.
Or how about this:
"Here the 'neutral' countries err in understanding the new developments in the Arab arena by thinking they can remain neutral. This is because the terror groups' true aspiration is to kill the captives in the name of Allah. Neutrality remains something unacceptable today, because these are groups that want to enter Paradise with the greatest quantity of victims' blood, and who are not interested in political or financial negotiations…"
That's what we've been saying on the right for some time.
One last quote:
"Those who claim that there is a 'Crusader war of the West against Islam' are in fact themselves waging 'holy war' against the Western democracies and against democracy and civilization everywhere… France, which deluded itself that it would be spared from the depraved hands of the terrorists because it opposes the war of liberation in Iraq, today faces the truth: The war on terror must be international, and all democratic countries and the United Nations must fight terrorist countries such as Saddam's regime…"
There's plenty more, but you can go read this article to see more.
But be sitting down when you do. you see, all these quotes are from Arab newspapers.
Poor France. When even the Arab Street calls you a wussy in the WoT, you're really and truly a wussy.
Apparently the French have been hearing it for their attempts to avoid terrorism by staying out of Iraq. A few of the recent comments from editorials:
"The abduction of the French journalists is a lesson for those who think they can be neutral in the war on terror, or for those who think that it is possible to arrive at a truce with international terror by means of spineless political positions towards terrorism.
"France thought that the terror in Iraq would not reach it because it opposed the war and tried to set itself apart from the American position. As a result, international terror treats [France] like every other [country]. International terror is democratic. It strikes everyone without asking whether the casualties are Muslim or Christian, or supporters or opponents of America. International terror does not differentiate among the civilians of Fallujah, Riyadh, San'aa, Algeria, New York, and Nairobi. There is no differentiation between American and French. The only aim of international terror is to kill."
Amen.
Or how about this:
"Here the 'neutral' countries err in understanding the new developments in the Arab arena by thinking they can remain neutral. This is because the terror groups' true aspiration is to kill the captives in the name of Allah. Neutrality remains something unacceptable today, because these are groups that want to enter Paradise with the greatest quantity of victims' blood, and who are not interested in political or financial negotiations…"
That's what we've been saying on the right for some time.
One last quote:
"Those who claim that there is a 'Crusader war of the West against Islam' are in fact themselves waging 'holy war' against the Western democracies and against democracy and civilization everywhere… France, which deluded itself that it would be spared from the depraved hands of the terrorists because it opposes the war of liberation in Iraq, today faces the truth: The war on terror must be international, and all democratic countries and the United Nations must fight terrorist countries such as Saddam's regime…"
There's plenty more, but you can go read this article to see more.
But be sitting down when you do. you see, all these quotes are from Arab newspapers.
Poor France. When even the Arab Street calls you a wussy in the WoT, you're really and truly a wussy.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Worst Case Scenario
Thanks for the Memory to my best friend Brian F.
In the midst of all the controversy surrounding Memogate, one of the options being bandied about, especially on the left, is that the memos are plants by the right -- and of course, top of the suspect list is Karl "Kayzer Soze" Rove. The thought is that the documents were intentionally forged poorly so that CBS and the left would bite, use them to attack the president, then get caught in a political rope-a-dope when they were revealed as forgeries.
Let's address this theory for a moment. Let's ignore the fact that today's latest stories indicate it might have originated elsewhere (personally, I haven't seen enough evidence to trust the rumors regarding the specific source). Let's ignore the fact that once such a plot was uncovered, it would backfire and make the Bush campaign look as evil as the left claims it is, and that Karl Rove is an evil genius, not an idiot. Let's ignore the fact that in order to work, such a plot would rely on an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS (ok, let's not ignore that fact, let's just set it aside to pick up again in a moment). Let's play "What If?" What if this theory is true? What if they did originate somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the GOP?
So what?
If the intent was to discredit the media, and specifically CBS, it worked, regardless of who originated it. Yes, it would also completely derail the Bush campaign, who would be viewed as playing just way too dirty. But the one assumption we made above to even consider this option that HAS proven true is an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS. As poorly forged as these documents probably are, as much other information as is coming out today, it required an incredible level of willingness by CBS to believe the unbelievable simply because they wanted it to be true in order for this story to proceed. Whether the documents were forged by the left, the right, the Grey Aliens, or the ghost of Howard Hughes, CBS fell for them, and now they have to live with the consequences.
Or die by them.
In the midst of all the controversy surrounding Memogate, one of the options being bandied about, especially on the left, is that the memos are plants by the right -- and of course, top of the suspect list is Karl "Kayzer Soze" Rove. The thought is that the documents were intentionally forged poorly so that CBS and the left would bite, use them to attack the president, then get caught in a political rope-a-dope when they were revealed as forgeries.
Let's address this theory for a moment. Let's ignore the fact that today's latest stories indicate it might have originated elsewhere (personally, I haven't seen enough evidence to trust the rumors regarding the specific source). Let's ignore the fact that once such a plot was uncovered, it would backfire and make the Bush campaign look as evil as the left claims it is, and that Karl Rove is an evil genius, not an idiot. Let's ignore the fact that in order to work, such a plot would rely on an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS (ok, let's not ignore that fact, let's just set it aside to pick up again in a moment). Let's play "What If?" What if this theory is true? What if they did originate somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the GOP?
So what?
If the intent was to discredit the media, and specifically CBS, it worked, regardless of who originated it. Yes, it would also completely derail the Bush campaign, who would be viewed as playing just way too dirty. But the one assumption we made above to even consider this option that HAS proven true is an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS. As poorly forged as these documents probably are, as much other information as is coming out today, it required an incredible level of willingness by CBS to believe the unbelievable simply because they wanted it to be true in order for this story to proceed. Whether the documents were forged by the left, the right, the Grey Aliens, or the ghost of Howard Hughes, CBS fell for them, and now they have to live with the consequences.
Or die by them.
Betrayed by the Truth
Thanks for the Memories to Ace of
Spades HQ for TWO pertinent articles.
More on MemoGate. and no, I don't blog in my PJ's. I only have access to the internet at work, and that sort of attire will get me fired even in liberal Eugene.
Moving past the whole issue of type and fonts and scripts, another issue that has been plaguing CBS, Dan Rather, and the MSM regarding the memo issue has been the fact that before the story broke, they intentionally ignored warnings from Killian's son that the memos didn't sound like his father, and failed to follow up with several references that Killian the Younger gave them who could give a different perspective on the story. Both Killian's son and widow have claimed this memo doesn't sound like the Colonel, and deny that Killian held the views expressed in the memos.
Well, it gets worse. Even those supposedly on CBS' side are betraying them by telling the truth. Now Killian's secretary is denying she typed the memos.
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
So this lady who doesn't like the President, still refutes CBS' assertion that the memos are genuine. Not good, Danny.
That's not the whole article. Thanks to Ace, we also get this:
"She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian's private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used."
So she claims they reflect the truth of Killian's opinion, even if they aren't authentic themselves. This despite the claims of Killian's family to the effect that he never expressed such an opinion. Sounds like she's trying to mitigate the damage she herself has just done to the left.
It gets worse still. In an interview with ABC (remember the cannibalism reference I made?), the experts cited by CBS claim they expressed concerns about the documents that were ignored.
Furthermore, the Guard officer quoted in the CBS story feels he was misled, because CBS told him the memos were handwritten, not typed (Killian didn't type).
And now, Dan Rather is defending himself by attacking Laura Bush:
"Laura Bush became the first White House insider to doubt the authenticity of the documents. But she offered no evidence to back up her claim."
How much lower can Dan Rather sink? And how long until he faces the truth and turns himself in to the court of public opinion?
Spades HQ for TWO pertinent articles.
More on MemoGate. and no, I don't blog in my PJ's. I only have access to the internet at work, and that sort of attire will get me fired even in liberal Eugene.
Moving past the whole issue of type and fonts and scripts, another issue that has been plaguing CBS, Dan Rather, and the MSM regarding the memo issue has been the fact that before the story broke, they intentionally ignored warnings from Killian's son that the memos didn't sound like his father, and failed to follow up with several references that Killian the Younger gave them who could give a different perspective on the story. Both Killian's son and widow have claimed this memo doesn't sound like the Colonel, and deny that Killian held the views expressed in the memos.
Well, it gets worse. Even those supposedly on CBS' side are betraying them by telling the truth. Now Killian's secretary is denying she typed the memos.
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
So this lady who doesn't like the President, still refutes CBS' assertion that the memos are genuine. Not good, Danny.
That's not the whole article. Thanks to Ace, we also get this:
"She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian's private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used."
So she claims they reflect the truth of Killian's opinion, even if they aren't authentic themselves. This despite the claims of Killian's family to the effect that he never expressed such an opinion. Sounds like she's trying to mitigate the damage she herself has just done to the left.
It gets worse still. In an interview with ABC (remember the cannibalism reference I made?), the experts cited by CBS claim they expressed concerns about the documents that were ignored.
Furthermore, the Guard officer quoted in the CBS story feels he was misled, because CBS told him the memos were handwritten, not typed (Killian didn't type).
And now, Dan Rather is defending himself by attacking Laura Bush:
"Laura Bush became the first White House insider to doubt the authenticity of the documents. But she offered no evidence to back up her claim."
How much lower can Dan Rather sink? And how long until he faces the truth and turns himself in to the court of public opinion?
Free Rope With Which to Hang Them
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Apparently the ever-vigilant folks over at CBS News want to help us expose scams.
What do you think? Can we help them find one to expose?
Apparently the ever-vigilant folks over at CBS News want to help us expose scams.
What do you think? Can we help them find one to expose?
More From the Rumor Mills
And if you think I mean blogs, you haven't been paying attention.
According to NewsMax, Kitty Kelley has admitted on the Today Show that she failed to record the alleged Cocaine Conversation. Immediately after her interview, Sharon Bush, the president's ex-sister-in-law, scorned woman with no love for the Bush family, denied that she ever made the allegations to Kelley.
Right after the RNc, whhen the Democrats were screaming that they were going for blood and they would find dirt on the president, my response was to mock the idea that they could find anything that hasn't already been tried and shot down at least once before in the last 5 years, and that if they haven't found anyhting damning to pin on the president already, there isn't anyhting TO be found.
If this is the best they can do -- a set of forged documents on 60 minutes and a trash book by the National Enquirer of biographers, well, my theory has only been reinforced.
According to NewsMax, Kitty Kelley has admitted on the Today Show that she failed to record the alleged Cocaine Conversation. Immediately after her interview, Sharon Bush, the president's ex-sister-in-law, scorned woman with no love for the Bush family, denied that she ever made the allegations to Kelley.
Right after the RNc, whhen the Democrats were screaming that they were going for blood and they would find dirt on the president, my response was to mock the idea that they could find anything that hasn't already been tried and shot down at least once before in the last 5 years, and that if they haven't found anyhting damning to pin on the president already, there isn't anyhting TO be found.
If this is the best they can do -- a set of forged documents on 60 minutes and a trash book by the National Enquirer of biographers, well, my theory has only been reinforced.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Strengthen the Good
I've had a lot of great feedback regarding my post "What's the Font, Kenneth?' regarding the news media, blogs, and accountability. When we talk about the responsibility of accountability, and the ability of blogs to fact check each other, it is important not to neglect another responsibility that comes with influence -- the responsibility of making sure that we use that influence for good.
A while back I joined a network of Bloggers called Strengthen the Good. The idea is that we can use the influence of our blogs not just to decry the evil in this world, but also to do what the name implies. STG highlights small "Micro-charities", organizations that are doing good work helping people, just not on as grand a scale as more well-known charities. By using blogs, we can get the word out to more donors than these charities could on their own.
Well, in light of this weekend's anniversary, STG has come up with a good one. The Brent Woodall Foundation For Exceptional Children offers care and education to autistic children and their parents. This is what STG says about the charity:
The Foundation was created by Tracy Woodall, who lost her husband,
Brent, in the South Tower on September 11th, 2001. Tracy was 5 weeks
pregnant at the time, and she created the foundation as a way of dealing with
her grief and extending his legacy.
We all lost somehting on 9/11/01, but for Tracy, it was a husband and a father for her child. She decided not to let the terrorists win. We can do the same. We can show them, show the world, and show ourselves that we can make something good out of the worst they can throw at us. I would encourage you to do so. Check out Strengthen the Good's site for more information.
A while back I joined a network of Bloggers called Strengthen the Good. The idea is that we can use the influence of our blogs not just to decry the evil in this world, but also to do what the name implies. STG highlights small "Micro-charities", organizations that are doing good work helping people, just not on as grand a scale as more well-known charities. By using blogs, we can get the word out to more donors than these charities could on their own.
Well, in light of this weekend's anniversary, STG has come up with a good one. The Brent Woodall Foundation For Exceptional Children offers care and education to autistic children and their parents. This is what STG says about the charity:
The Foundation was created by Tracy Woodall, who lost her husband,
Brent, in the South Tower on September 11th, 2001. Tracy was 5 weeks
pregnant at the time, and she created the foundation as a way of dealing with
her grief and extending his legacy.
We all lost somehting on 9/11/01, but for Tracy, it was a husband and a father for her child. She decided not to let the terrorists win. We can do the same. We can show them, show the world, and show ourselves that we can make something good out of the worst they can throw at us. I would encourage you to do so. Check out Strengthen the Good's site for more information.
It's About Time II
After the cruel trick they played on me in the Ducks game Saturday, the football gods owed me a little consolation come NFL Sunday.
They did not disappoint.
Having been without a favorite team for several years, I have been following the teams who have drafted recent UO grads -- particularly Joey Harrington. Also, I'm trying to care about the Seahawks, since they ARE in the PNW, and San Diego, since I lived there for 12 years. Not as true favorites, but as teams I like.
Minnesota drafted Keenan Howry and Onterrio Smith. They beat Dallas 35-17.
Seattle also has a former Duck, Maurice Morris. They beat New Orleans 21-7.
San Diego has Justin Peele and Igor Olshansky (watch for that name. He's a rookie, but as he matures, he's going to be a force to recon with on the D-line). They beat Houston 27-20.
And finally, Detroit. Detroit of the 24-game road losing streak. Detroit who recruited my favorite Quarterback. They ended the streak, beating Chicago 20-16.
Not a bad way to start the season. It sure beat all sorts of hell out of Saturday.
They did not disappoint.
Having been without a favorite team for several years, I have been following the teams who have drafted recent UO grads -- particularly Joey Harrington. Also, I'm trying to care about the Seahawks, since they ARE in the PNW, and San Diego, since I lived there for 12 years. Not as true favorites, but as teams I like.
Minnesota drafted Keenan Howry and Onterrio Smith. They beat Dallas 35-17.
Seattle also has a former Duck, Maurice Morris. They beat New Orleans 21-7.
San Diego has Justin Peele and Igor Olshansky (watch for that name. He's a rookie, but as he matures, he's going to be a force to recon with on the D-line). They beat Houston 27-20.
And finally, Detroit. Detroit of the 24-game road losing streak. Detroit who recruited my favorite Quarterback. They ended the streak, beating Chicago 20-16.
Not a bad way to start the season. It sure beat all sorts of hell out of Saturday.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
A Quick Note to the Oklahoma University Sooners
Practice special teams. A lot. If my Ducks play as crappy against you next week in Norman as they did against Indiana yesterday here in Eugene, "Y'all" are going to be spending a lot of time kicking off after scoring.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
It's Been a While
So I thought I'd do a Top Ten List.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
What's the Font, Kenneth?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)