Testimony of a 9/11 Republican

Just a quick link to this "I saw the light" column by Cinnamon Stillwell in the San Francisco Chronicle. In it she describes her journey from her previously liberal views to join us here on the Dark Side. Via LGF.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Republican. I tend to agree with them on defense and other foreign policy matters, but I think they don't fully consider the consequences of the destructive bit of the 'creative destruction' aspect of the free market. For all the talk of responsibility, I don't believe the GOP takes corporate crime seriously enough. (like what happened at Enron/Worldcom/Adelphia for example. )

Reviewing the Strib's Iraq Coverage

Star Tribune reader's representative Kate Parry penned a column about the newspaper's coverage on Iraq. I won't reproduce any of it here (it is worth reading the whole thing), I just have a couple of comments.

First, she points out that the ratio of stories reporting problems vs. reporting progress are about 2:1 in favor of reporting problems, even though the period she surveyed included the Iraqi election (photos are just about even, with a slight edge on positive items). She considers this to be proof that the positive things in Iraq are not completely uncovered - true enough. Its the proportion and tone of the coverage that bothers a lot of people. She also writes that she viewed the tone of the Iraqi election coverage as "somewhat subdued and grudging after weeks of speculation on the likelihood of big problems on election day." That is rather refreshing, given the unwillingness of many in journalism to even entertain the idea of unbalanced reporting from Iraq.

She then points out that the Strib gets its Iraq coverage mostly from the wire services and other newspapers, and the Strib's policy is to find stories "showing the full gamut of life in Iraq" and that bombings and deaths tend to dominate the wire services. Given that the Star Tribune does not have the resources of a New York Times or Washington Post, I can understand a dependence on wire service reporting. I also understand the reluctance of reporters to leave the relative security of the Green Zone in Baghdad to go to other parts of Iraq, as the Sunni triangle is a dangerous place these days. What I don't undestand is why the more peaceful areas of Iraq can't be covered by traveling through Turkey, Jordan,Syria, or Kuwait to get there. The Star Tribune may not be at fault for this, but the organizations reporting out of Iraq certainly are.

Update: I added the forgotten link to Kate Parry's column

And One More Thing

One more item from the editorial discussed in the last post:

It's not only the painful split over Iraq that continues to damage the Atlantic alliance. There is a deep and growing cultural divide between ordinary Europeans and the redder reaches of America. And Bush, with his cowboy swagger and patronizing manners, offers the perfect American caricature for European ridicule and distrust.

As a German journalist explained on National Public Radio, Europeans tend understandably to fear politicians who casually toss around big concepts like justice, liberty and "the untamed fire of freedom," then amass big armies to march off and enforce them on others. The continent enjoys a rare respite from two centuries of tyrants with big ambitions. So it naturally resists Bush's grand plan to democratize the Middle East, by force if necessary.

The region, after all, is not remote from Europe but constitutes its "near abroad." Indeed, as the European Union begins the process of absorbing Turkey, it anticipates its own insertion into the Middle East. Bush's strategy of global confrontation with Islam is not an option for Europe.

There are several things to take issue with in those paragraphs. It is true that many Europeans see President Bush as a caricature of a cowboy, at least in their media. The first misconception is that so-called "Red America" sees being called a cowboy an insult. Out here, cowboys are mythic characters that in the main stand for virtues - toughness, independence, standing up for one's self, endurance. What some Europeans (and the Star Trib) see as patronizing can also be seen as candor, and straight talk. If that is seen as patronizing, so be it. Maybe that's what it will take to get the attention of so-called "sophisticated" Europeans who have done such a wonderful job dealing with Islamic-flavored violence so far... .

As for Europeans being suspicious of politicians who preach freedom and have big armies - well, how many freedom-preaching politicians have there been on the Continent? Most of the history of European warfare that I remember didn't have much to do with the cause of freedom and liberty, including in my opinion the French Revolution. Most of them were about which elite (aristocracy, Nazis, intellectuals, various dictators etc. ) would rule various parts of Europe. If Euros don't like the idea of democratizing the Middle East, perhaps the various Euro governments should present an alternative that works better than the status quo that held before 9/11/2001. So far, ideas from their side (except for maintaining the status quo) have been somewhat lacking. If the Euros also have a better idea of how to deal with Islamic-fueled terror than confronting it, now's long past time to be speaking up.

The Star Tribune - Sore Losers of the Twin Cities

Here's another example of why I think the Strib's editorial board is populated by a bunch of sore losers. This is from Saturday's lead editorial:

In talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush rightly prioritized the urgency of securing Russia's nuclear material, a frightening threat to the security of both nations. His lecture on Russia's democratic backsliding, however, suffered the glare of his own questionable selection as president in 2000, as well as the high-boot political tactics of his White House staff and his choice (or need) not to confront the authentic flavor of European public opinion.

Note how the Strib's editors still cannot accept that George W. Bush was legitimately elected President in 2000. Isn't more than four years of whining about it enough? Not to mention the guy's re-election last November.

And again they complain about what the Strib refers to as "high-handed political tactics", while not even considering the idea the administration's tactics really are straight talk to governments who constantly lecture us about security when they are unwilling (and unable due to their own decisions) to help with the heavy lifting. Perhaps the Star Tribune should consider if their charges of arrogance are um, misplaced?

As a bonus, they also mention Iraq this way:

All in all, it's good that Bush has opened a charm offensive toward Europe, even though the results seem meager. The good cop-bad cop approach to Iran will continue. The sides will continue to disagree on ending the Chinese arms embargo. There will be no meaningful help to extricate Bush from the mess he's made of Iraq

So Iraq is a bigger mess than when Saddam Hussein was running it? The Strib should remember the mess Western Europe was in after WWII, and the mess left in Eastern Europe by the Soviets since 1945, only now being repaired. How about that premature judgment - it is far too early yet to know the outcome of America's gamble in Iraq. How about waiting to proclaim failure when the outcome is actually a failure?

Michael Moore's "Minutemen"

So much for the idea that the "Iraqi insurgency" is home-grown. So Mikey, do you explain to us how Saddam's half-brother is an Iraqi patriot?

Too little, too late

According to CNN, Doug Wead (who claimed to be a friend of GWB) is considering giving the tapes he recorded of conversations with George W. Bush to the President. That would be the right thing to do, but I don't see how it makes up for publicizing their existence in the New York Times. Or making the recordings without your friend's approval in the first place.

Moss traded to Raiders

Apparently Randy Moss has been traded by the Minnesota Vikings to Oakland for a linebacker and draft choices. I'm not making any guesses as to how good a trade this is, or how the Vikings must have been really motivated to get rid of Moss. (his travails have been well-covered in the local and national press) My question is, who is the driving force behind the trade? Technically Red McCombs still owns the team, although he has accepted a bid from Reggie Fowler to purchase the Vikings. Trading Moss is a major change to the makeup of the team that Fowler bought, so is it possible that trading Moss was something Fowler wanted to do?

Vouchers....

Hey Mr Meeks, when did Minnesotans get to vote on vouchers? I don't ever recall having the opportunity....

Matters of Life and Death

When I read this opinion piece (free registration required) in last Saturday's Star Tribune, I had some trouble digesting it. I still don't understand what she is advocating. The author (Mary Morse) starts out by mentioning what she characterizes as Hillary Clinton's attempt to find common ground between the Democratic Party's pro-abortion politics and the pro-life folk mostly found in the GOP. She mentions the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, describes her view of the basic pro-life vs. pro-choice/abortion positions, then declares that the arguments lack intellectual rigor.

She attempts to add 'intellectual rigor' by discussing the what she calls the gray areas in how we value human life. First, she defines murder for us. The first part of her definition goes like this:

Murder is defined as the unlawful, malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another.

So far, it fits what my Webster's says pretty well. But she adds another part to her definition:

It is also defined as killing a person inhumanely or barbarously, as in warfare.

The problem is that she assumes that warfare meets her definition of murder, because there is killing, frequently barbaric and inhumane, whatever that is. The problem is that war is not unlawful. If so, we wouldn't have spent so much time over the centuries making and changing the rules for it.

She goes on to lump together the pro-life argument against abortion with warfare and capital punishment, as if there is no difference between them if pro-lifers are consistent. The problem is, they are not the same. War and capital punishment are both decisions that are undertaken after great consideration, with the rules for both making the decision and the rules for conducting warfare/legal executions having been created after serious discussion.(in the case of warfare, the Geneva Conventions, for example) The discussion of abortion, however, was short-circuited by a narrowly-divided Supreme Court in 1973 and never really took place. Instead, we've spent 30+ years arguing about the court decision instead.

I think that she is trying to make the case that because we practice and sanction murder, we cannot resolve the issues surrounding the value of human life (thus abortion) without some sort of discussion. This is incorrect on at least two counts. First not all killing is murder, even by her own definition. Self defense is not murder as she defines it above (although she claims self defense is murder, therefore not to be sanctioned). War is a legal (although tragic, sad, and unfortunate) activity. Second, we've been having discussions on the value of human life, defining when killing is justified for most of civilized history. That discussion is still ongoing, even if it does involve religion and ethics (which the author claims cannot be the basis for this sort of discussion due to some sort of multiculturalism). If religion and ethics are not a basis for this discussion, what is? Ms. Morse doesn't provide a starting point for the 'productive discussion' she claims we need to have. Her article ends up almost as big a confusing mess as this post.

Eason Jordan Quits

Eason Jordan has resigned from his position at CNN. Since I haven't seen any reports of him requesting the release of the World Economic Forum's video recording of his remarks, I would venture a guess that the contents are pretty much as reported by most of the witnesses in attendance there (or worse). Otherwise, why quit without even releasing the video?

I wonder if this would have been necessary had he asked for the release of the video tape and fessed up to (as well as apologized for) saying something stupid and wrong in public. Unfortunate. Perhaps if the professional news media would apply the same standards of transparency to itself that it demands of the people it covers, there wouldn't be as much distrust and disillusionment with journalists as there is now. But, that's about as likely as the Star Tribune demanding that Nick Coleman fact check his columns.... .

More links at the Instapundit's

CNN accuses US Military of Murder...

Eason Jordan of CNN accused the US military of targeting journalists for murder. I have one thing to say to you, Mr. Jordan - when you make that kind of accusation you had better have some proof. Talk is cheap, whiskey costs money. (via Forumblog)

2/15/05 - Updated to correct Mr. Jordan's name (Note to self: Preview is my friend...)

Congratulations

Congratulations to the people of Iraq for giving Zarqawi &Co the finger. (via Day By Day, who does this a lot better anyway).

Bill Moyers - Religious Bigot?

After reading this Bill Moyers piece in Sunday's Strib, I have one question. What is Moyers' problem with Christians? Especially conservative or evangelical ones? Think I'm exaggerating? Here's the first two sentences:

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

And that's some of the milder stuff. I guess we can guess what his opinion of the GOP is. The gist of the article is that Moyers believes the government is in the hands of delusional Christian fanatics who are unfit to govern. Pure leftist, liberal, paranoid, bigoted hooey. He even praises George Monbiot, who is not just anyone's garden variety idiot. Of course, it's not the first time Moyers has spouted this silly stuff. If Moyers is really interested in delusional people, the closest one is the person he sees mornings in the mirror.

The piece does inspire one other question, come to think of it. What is the Star Tribune doing publishing this garbage?

Happy Birthday to Blog...

This blog's 1st anniversary was three days ago. It is proof positive that a fellow can have near-perfect privacy while completely in public view. It probably also shows that I have no talent or writing ability. If nothing else, it serves to keep expectations low....

Hillary Clinton and Abortion

As reported in this article from the New York Times(free registration required) Senator Hillary Clinton is making an attempt to convince pro-lifers that there is common ground between them and the pro-abortion crowd. (Note on the terminology: I'm being exactly as fair as media sources (like the Star Tribune) who routinely use the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" to describe the two groups - ed.) I'm not going to try to guage her sincerity (or lack of it) or her motives (genuine, or political, etc.). I just have two questions for the pro-abortion/pro-choice folk:

1. What legal restrictions on abortion will the pro-choice people be willing to accept?

2. Will pro-choicers accept Supreme Court justices that would allow legal restrictions on abortion to actually be enforced?

The Strib on Condoleezza Rice

The Star Tribune has produced another "brilliant" editorial, this time on the confirmation hearings over the nomination of Dr. Condoleeza Rice to be the new Secretary of State. I'm not going to reprint the whole thing, but suffice it to say judging from the title " Condi Rice/Steady on, toward disaster" Strib's editors don't support her confirmation. There are a few things in it I would like to comment on, however. Starting with this:

The two-day dialogue between Condoleezza Rice and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at times resembled material from "Catch-22" and at other times seemed to reflect "Dr. Strangelove." Other than a few hard questions from Democrats Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer, at no time did it remotely resemble reality.

You'd have thought from the way committee members treated Rice that she'd just arrived in Washington and had no part to play in, and no real knowledge of, the foreign-policy disaster that was President Bush's first term.

Hard questions from Barbara Boxer? The Senator who protested Bush's election victory in the Senate because a 118.000+ vote margin in Ohio wasn't enough? The Senator who's basic line throughout her questions was to call Dr. Rice a liar? Apparently, the Strib has pretty low standards. See what Captain Ed has to say about Boxer's questioning. And again, the Strib uses the opportunity to mislabel Bush's foreign policy a disaster. The fact is until the outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq are known, there is no way to judge Bush's foreign policy yet. But there's more:

And yet in a hearing on whether she has the stuff to be secretary of state, she had the temerity to lecture Boxer, asking her to "refrain from impugning my integrity." Well if not now, when?

The Star Tribune apparently hasn't noticed that Boxer showed by claiming the only reason stated by the US for going to war with Iraq was WMD that she either is a liar or doesn't read the legislation she votes on, as shown by the text of the resolution authorizing force in Iraq.

The Strib then praises Kerry and Boxer for voting agains the confirmation "on principle" - as if the folks who voted differently didn't have any. All in all, more drivel from the Star Tribune editorial board

From the Star Tribune Letters Page

This is a sampling of letters from readers the Star Tribune considers fit to print (authors not shown) :

A little defensive

If not for Roger Moe and Tim Penny splitting the votes of real Minnesotans, Tim Pawlenty might be making coffee and answering phones at the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.

If "no new taxes" is a core value and part of "mainstream" Minnesota, why does the governor sound so defensive about it every time he mentions it in public?

I wonder where the governor keeps all those fake Minnesotans between elections? The letter writer apparently thinks that voting against the GOP is the sole critera for being a Minnesotan. It's crap like this that almost persuades me to join the Republican party.

On our National Day of Embarrassment, each of the president's three constituencies celebrated in its own way.

The Rich were much in evidence. Though they had to pay to party, they could be sure of a good return on the investment.

The Ideologues (apart from the vice president) stayed behind the scenes. With wars to plan and peoples to free, the whole globe is their inaugural ball.

The Gullible, whom the Rich and the Ideologues manipulated yet again, watched the festivities on TV -- admiring the rhetoric, coveting the gorgeous gowns and praying to God their children will not be sent to Iraq.

Note the contempt for people who voted for Bush. In the eyes of people like the letter writer one has to be evil or stupid to vote for Bush. This by the way, is the kind of letter that is more likely to appear on the letters page than the next one, which does a nice job of trashing a key part of the Stib's 1/20 editorial about Condoleezza Rice:

Beyond Boxer and WMD

I was embarrassed to watch Sen. Barbara Boxer in the hearings for Condoleezza Rice. Not only did she appear as a petulant, bloviating, spiteful partisan, but her command of the facts was extremely lacking. This was evident when she stated that the congressional vote for war was based solely on evidence of WMD.

She did this in order to portray Rice as a liar. Either Boxer doesn't understand exactly what she voted on or she is, in fact, the liar. The resolution actually cited at least seven reasons, separate and distinct from weapons of mass destruction:

• Iraq's harboring of Al-Qaida terrorists.

• Iraq's support for international terrorism.

• Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens.

• Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman.

• Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion.

• The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993.

• America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf.

The last was included in the interest of fairness. I don't want to create the impression that the Strib completely ignores those who write in disagreement with the Star Tribune's positions. One is just more likely to see letters like the first two.

Today's Whine Tasting

This post is a about a couple of stories about protests of today's inauguration of George W. Bush for his second term as president First is an AP story from the Kansas City Star. In this story there are a few items I want to mention in passing:

In Seattle, more than 1,000 people participated in walk-outs at the University of Washington and Seattle Central Community College, where students marched through buildings, pounding on doors and encouraging others to leave.

The demonstrators marched from the community college to a rally downtown, calling for "no work, no school, no business as usual."

Isn't this rather self-defeating? I mean, deny yourself a day of your education to make a useless, petulant protest about the outcome of an election that your side lost, fair and square? How constructive!

Then we have this:

At a mock inauguration in Baltimore, a woman wearing a Bush mask gave a pretend speech, stumbling over her words, and a guitarist played Bob Dylan's "Gates of Eden," which opens, "Of war and peace the truth just twists." Passing cars, buses and taxis honked horns in support, and a pedestrian raised a fist.

Here we have a pair who can't come up with any thing useful to say, so they try to demonstrate that the personal is the political by making a personal attack on the President. Another fine example of those oft-stated, self-proclaimed liberal Democratic values of tolerance and fairness in action.

Now these two groups have something in common:

About 1,500 protesters joined the "Jazz Funeral for Democracy" in New Orleans. A mock coffin bearing copies of the Patriot Act and the Constitution was borne through the French Quarter's narrow streets on a horse-drawn hearse to the wail of trumpets and trombones.

In Las Vegas, about 30 peace activists talked on the steps of the federal courthouse about issues they said need to be emphasized - love, the environment and the Bill of Rights. On the capitol steps in Little Rock, Ark., about 30 people held placards and took turns reading a list of names of U.S. soldiers from all 50 states who were killed in Iraq.

These folks apparently are unable to detect, much less appreciate the irony that they were freely exercising the rights that they claimed don't exist in George Bush's America.

Another AP story describes some of the boorish behavior along the inaugural parade route:

Three blocks from the White House, protesters tried to rush a security gate and a flag was burned. Police briefly locked down the area, trapping some 400 to 500 spectators.

Annie Katz, 52, of New York, was at the rear of a group of protesters, but she said the experience was worth it despite the bad view. Katz said she was upset by the 2000 election, but "I'm angrier this time, since I'm angry about the war."

U.S. soldiers in dress uniforms and blue coats were greeted with chants of "no more wars."

Try to start a riot, insult our soldiers. How classy...

Police said at least 10 people were arrested during the inaugural ceremonies. Sgt. Scott Fear of the U.S. Park Police said four women who were protesting the wearing of furs were arrested after they disrobed in the near-freezing temperatures.

I hope the crowd was at least entertained. Next up, we have some vandals...

Witnesses said the protesters started pulling down flags and inaugural banners from lampposts, and said police used pepper spray on some protesters.

Stuff like this is intended to change peoples minds? I wonder what these same people will say in four years if a Democrat is elected and Republicans put on a similar display of childish, whiny, sore-loserism?

More Inauguration Whining

If these people were actually serious about politics and governance and their vision (whatever it is) of the commonweal, shouldn't they be be working to fix their party for the next election? Instead, we get this little exhibition of whining and poor sportsmanship (via LGF).

It seems to me that petty, petulant actions like this are not likely to bring people around to the Democrats' way of thinking.Rather than acting like a toddler denied a sucker, perhaps creating a well thought-out set of ideas, coupled with nominating candidates who do not view their fellow Americans in the so-called "red states" with contempt would work better.

Braving the 'Red Sea'

I wonder how the folks in the so-called blue states would react if a conservative writer published a story about the blue states with the same tone as David von Drehle's piece about his travels through Bush country? It has a touch of the patronizing tone of a " travel to a strange place with the quaint natives " travelogue that were around over a century ago, or the the tone of a badly-written National Geographic article about a newly-discovered lost tribe. Do you think the writer would use the same tone for a piece about the part of the country that produced the people who in turn produced this stupid web site?

Somehow I doubt it.

A Little Religion and Politics...

I wonder if liberals and DFLers will citicize the Church for this political activism. (In pdf format) They certainly are quick to criticize when the Church objects to their stand on abortion... .

Note to the bishops: The state will actually take in more money in taxes this year than last year(source pdf is here). Given that revenue has increased, perhaps the problem is that spending is rising much faster, and unless this facet of government is brought under control, their proposed tax increase will be just one in a series of many. Remember, taxes are paid by people who worked for that money, and every dollar taken from them is a dollar that they cannot use to cover their own needs. Raising taxes is not something to be done lightly.

The Armstrong Williams Affair

Isn't it amazing how blind (and stupid) people can be? The notion of paying a pundit (as reported in USA Today) to push the government's education policy should not have received, much less passed, a laugh test but pass it did. It makes you wonder what kind of ethically myopic, politically tone-deaf people are working in the Education Department and at the PR firm that contracted with Armstrong Williams to shill for the No Child Left Behind law. Setting aside for the moment that astroturfing the NCLB is sleazy and dishonest even if Williams supported it anyway, didn't these people understand that the existence of the contract would become known? Amateur hour at the White House.

My First (and Last) Amber Post

What is it with Fox News and Amber Frey? She's been on Hannity and Colmes, Greta von Susteran's show, and is going to be on at least one of Fox's daytime programs. They're definitely giving her plenty of time to hawk her new book, and Hannity practically turns her into a hero. I don't get it. Call me a curmudgeon but I don't understand why she is getting all this media attention for doing what basically is living up to her responsibility as a citizen - telling the cops and courts what she knew about a crime. I just don't see why being snookered by a slimebag murderer should be a route to celebrity.

More Cynicism from the Star Tribune

Once again, the Star Tribune has devoted two full columns to editorialize against President Bush. This turkey of an editorial cynically uses the plight of the hundreds of thousands (minimum, probably many more) people affected as an excuse for saying nasty things about Bush. They use this disaster as an opportunity to accuse him of taking a horrific toll on Iraqi civilians, for example. Not exactly germane to the subject of tsumani relief, but what the hell any stretch to enable them to say something nasty about the President is a good one, yes?

They say he has been silent about the disaster. Not true. See this statement from 12/26. Although no dollar amount was mentioned, he did say :

The United States stands ready to offer all appropriate assistance to those nations most affected including Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Thailand, and Indonesia, as well as the other countries impacted. Already relief is flowing to Sri Lanka and the Maldives. We will work with the affected governments, the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, and other concerned states and organizations to support the relief and response to this terrible tragedy.

This makes it clear to me, anyway, that the $35 million is an initial figure that will go up as the need is determined. Here is the initial breakdown of aid on it's way from the U.S. government. Note the two naval groups that the Star Tribune didn't mention. In a response to a question about the economic damage to the region, Secretary of State Powell had this to say:

This is a very important point because not only do we have to deal with the immediate humanitarian disaster, but the rebuilding effort and doing something about the economic impact of the loss of the tourist industry in some of these places. This will take time.

And so as you prepare for one of this relief operations, it has a certain cycle: an initial infusion of money, initial infusion of humanitarian assistance; and then longer term programs of investment and reconstruction help, loans, and working with the governments concerned to help them rebuild their industries. And the United States is in for the immediate humanitarian relief part of this and also for long-term reconstruction so that the economies can get back up on solid footing and that the people who have lost homes will have assistance in building homes and rebuilding their businesses.

And so this is going to be a massive effort. It's going to take a great deal of money. And I'm pleased with the response that we're seeing from the international community, and the United States will continue to add to the commitment we have already made as the need is known and after we've had a chance to, of course, consult with the Congress.

Note that he didn't say that 35 million was all the aid the US was going to give, and indicated that more would be forthcoming after getting a better idea of the need and consultation with the Congress (I expect that is required, for the amounts of money that will be needed). I don't think the Strib's criticism is fair on this point.

Why else do I think this editorial is cynical and unfair?

• The Star Tribune criticizes the president for staying in Crawford rather flying immediately to Washington. Apparently the work couldn't be done unless the President is physically in DC. Here's a clue, guys: the President is never really on vacation. He's either working more or working less. The president's entourage has plenty of telecommunications capability to organize our relief efforts from Crawford. Either the Strib has no clue about telecommunications, or they just wanted to be negative. I think the latter.

The Strib also implies that since the President spent some of his time doing chores on the ranch, he was indifferent to the catastrophe in Asia. I disagree. First, the President can't act until enough information is available to assess the situation. Until that information is available, why not cut brush? Once an initial course of action is selected, the organizing effort will be directed by subordinates at the agencies involved (in Washington, if it makes the Strib feel better). These actions and activities will continue as better information comes in.

The Strib choose us that it disapproves of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Why is this germane to the topic at hand? The Star Tribune doesn't tell us.

The Strib again makes the contention that the world reviles us because of Iraq. Why more off-topic stuff about Iraq?

At this early date, the Star Tribune is rather careless to be firing rhetorical cannonballs. If their concern had actually been for the tsunami victims in South Asia, they could have just made an argument for more aid and recognized that this is the very beginning of the relief effort. Instead, they attacked the President. Need any more be said?

Update: The US government has now pledged $350 million of aid to tsunami victims.

The L.A. Times, the Strib's Soul Sister

Here is a link to a Patterico piece that describes the kind of "journalistic excellence" to be found at the Los Angeles Times this year. A paper with rather similar views to my own hometown Star Tribune. I must admit that the LA Times seems to outstrip the Strib in terms of sheer incompetence, although not in the level of vitriol.

More on Nick

As an addition to my post below, an analysis of Nick Coleman's research ability can be found here, at the Frater's place. They are not favorably impressed.

Nick Coleman: "Professional" Journalist

I see that Nick Coleman wrote another poison pen column (free registration required)about the gents at Powerline in today's Star Tribune. There has been a reaction of sorts in the blogosphere, and the Insta One has a good roundup. My reaction? Complete unsurprise. In the years I've lived in the Twin Cities and been exposed to his writings it didn't take long to realize that Mr. Coleman does not need any help to make a fool of himself. This latest column voluminous support of that idea. Rather than take the advice I gave him here some time ago, he's once again picked a fight with people who have more readers than he does. This column is probably not worth fisking (and other people doubtless will say it better - see the Instapundit link), but I do want to comment on a few bits of it.

The end of the year is a time to bury the hatchet, so congratulations to Powerline, the Twin Cities blog that last week was named Time magazine's "Blog of the Year!"

Now let me get a new hatchet.

Here's a nice bit of hypocrisy disguised as a lame attempt at humor. Yep, first an insincere congratulations on being honored by time, followed by a "let's grind my axe now" line. How nice. Then we get to Coleman's thumbnail sketch of Powerline:

These guys pretend to be family watchdogs but they are Rottweilers in sheep's clothing. They attack the Mainstream Media for not being fair while pursuing a right-wing agenda cooked up in conservative think tanks funded by millionaire power brokers.

They should call themselves "Powertool." They don't speak truth to power. They just speak for power.

Earth to Nick: the gents at Powerline have never pretended to be non-partisan. Amazingly enough, they are quite proud of being conservatives (unlike our media, which seems to be full of liberals, but is in denial of its effects). They don't pretend that they are presenting anything but their own views on the subjects of the day, and that view is a conservative one. They are stating the truth as they see it and making reasoned arguments in support of their opinions. You ought to try it some time.

The lads behind Powerline are a bank vice president named Scott Johnson and a lawyer named John Hinderaker. If you read Powerline, you know them better by their fantasy names, Big Trunk (that's Johnson) and Hind Rocket (Hinderaker). I will leave it to the appropriate professionals to determine what they are compensating for, but they have received enormous attention from the despised Mainstream Media and deserve more.

Nothing like a little personal insult. Right, Nick? More proof (as if we needed it) that you might be a hack. There is one correct statement in that paragraph - Powerline (and other blogs) deserve a bit more Mainstream Media attention. Especially after causing parts of said media considerable embarassment (CBS, anyone?). Oh, and learn how to spell Hindrocket - you are supposed to be a journalist, after all.

I wish I didn't have to do it, because I already get ripped a lot on the site, which thankfully also has had some nice photos of bikini-clad candidates for Miss Universe to keep me company. But I accept Powerline's contempt; I am only a Mainstream Media man, while Big Trunk and Hind Rocket are way cool. They blog.

I work for a dopey old newspaper committed to covering the news fairly while Powerline doesn't make boring commitments. They are not Mainstream Media. They are Extreme Media. Call them reliable partisan hacks.

That's what they call me: A reliable partisan hack, even though they sometimes like columns I write about dumb things Democrats do. I have criticized many dumb Democrats, but Democrats don't matter these days. All the power is in the hands of Republicans, and Powerline's job is to make life easier for them. Mine isn't.

A story: In 1990, I reported that this newspaper's endorsement of DFL Gov. Rudy Perpich was decided by then-publisher and Perpich crony Roger Parkinson. He had quashed the decision of the newspaper's editorial board, which had voted in favor of the Republican challenger, Arne Carlson.

The truth got out, the Republican won and the public was served. If Extreme bloggers, who know nothing that happened before last Tuesday, had the same commitment to serving the public, I wouldn't have a problem. But like talk radio, they are dominated by the right and are only interested in being a megaphone without oversight, disclosure of conflicts of interest, or professional standards.

Let's see. Coleman is upset at being called a partisan hack, then cites an incident from almost 15 years ago to prove that he's not partisan. One that involved criticizing the paper he didn't work for at the time (I think he worked for the Pioneer Press at the time). Couldn't find anything more recent, Mr. Coleman? As for the partisan thing, when's the last time that a conservative or a Republican (the two are often not the same) viewpoint got a fair hearing in your column? By the way, who/what are Extreme bloggers? He doesn't really say, except to accuse them of being ignorant and having short attention spans. By that description, the Powerline gang doesn't qualify for Extremeness. It makes more sense to refer to Nick Coleman as an Extreme columnist.

Powerline is run by Ivy League lawyers, one of whom (Johnson) is a vice president at TCF Bank in Minneapolis and works for Bill Cooper, an ex-state Republican Party chairman. Johnson and Hinderaker are fellows at the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that seems to be obsessed with gays and guns and wants to return us to the principles of our founders, although I can't determine if that includes Ben Franklin's skirt chasing.

Mainstream or Extreme? We report, you decide: Last month, Claremont gave its Winston Churchill Award to that visionary statesman and recovering drug addict, Rush Limbaugh!

Time magazine's "Blog of the Year" is not run by Boy Scouts. It is the spear of a campaign aimed at making Minnesota into a state most of us won't recognize. Unless you came from Alabama with a keyboard on your knee.

I guess he meant Powerline, after all. By the way, is there actually something wrong with the principles of the Founders, Mr. Coleman? Which ones would you like to get rid of? Next is a cheap joke on the Claremont Institute, using Rush Limbaugh's drug problem. Would Coleman use John F. Kennedy in the same fashion? I expect not. He then accuses the Powerliners of wanting to turn Minnesota into a vision of Alabama that only Coleman seems to understand. I think this an attempt to insult both Powerline and Alabama. Try harder next time, Mr. Coleman.

Next, Coleman spouts some stuff about the Ivy League and his early work history that really doesn't bear on anything, unless he's trying to convince his readers that he has downtrodden credentials. Then comes this:

But Extreme bloggers don't tell truths. They tell talking points. Powerline is the biggest link in a daisy chain of right-wing blogs that is assaulting the Mainstream Media while they toot their horns in the service of ... what? The downtrodden? No, that was yesterday's idea of the purpose of journalism. Extreme bloggers are so hip and cool they can make fun of the poor and the disadvantaged while working out of paneled bank offices.

I guess this is the paragraph where he explains what an Extreme blogger is. Apparently it's all a function of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I guess that means that Kos and Eschaton are models of objectivity and moderation. These sentences stick out the most: Powerline is the biggest link in a daisy chain of right-wing blogs that is assaulting the Mainstream Media while they toot their horns in the service of ... what? The downtrodden? No, that was yesterday's idea of the purpose of journalism. Mr. Coleman, here I naively thought the purpose of journalism was to report the news accurately and without favoritism, and it's up to the citizens to handle the advocacy part. Silly me.

Nick Coleman, fact-checker:

But enough. It's time for auld acquaintance to be forgot. So as a gift to Powerline, let me try my hand at some blogger-style "fact-checking."

1) "It's totally unexpected," Johnson, the banker, told the newspaper after Powerline won "Blog of the Year."

But the Aw Shucks Act doesn't fly. Powerline campaigned shamelessly for awards, winning an online "Best Blog of 2004" a week before the Time honor. That online award was a bloggers' poll, and Powerline linked its readers to the award site 10 times during the balloting, shilling for votes.

2) "We keep it very much separate from our day jobs," said Hinderaker, meaning the boys don't blog at work.

But they do. Johnson recently had time at his bank job to post a despicable item sliming Sen. Mark Dayton. If I had the money they think I do, I'd put it all in TCF. Then I'd pull it out.

3) Powerline sells thousands of dollars in ads, including one for T-shirts that say, "Hung Like a
Republican."

But does Powerline or its mighty righty allies take money from political parties, campaigns or well-heeled benefactors who hope to affect Minnesota's politics from behind the scenes? We don't know, and they don't have to say. They are not Mainstream. They are Extreme.

I'll only examine item number 1, since I don't have any useful knowledge about the work habits of the folks at Powerline or the finances of their blog. Check their responses for what they think about Nick Coleman's command of the facts. The first item seems to be an attempt to connect Time's "Blog of the Year" award with the 2004 Weblog Awards poll conducted at Kevin Aylward's Wizbang blog. I'm unaware the editors of Time consulted with Mr. Aylward on their selection but if so, congratulations to Kevin Aylward on becoming Someone of Influence. It ought to be obvious (except to Nick Coleman) the two subjects have nothing to do with each other. Yet he attempts to use them to characterize the guys at Powerline as liars.

This column was written by a professional journalist? Please, please tell me it's not true.

Liquid Winter Warmth

This post at Fraters' reminds me of how a wee bit of spirit is good for same. I fully agree with JB Doubtless' evaluation of Maker's Mark, Knob Creek, and especially his remarks about Booker's. Lovely, sneaky stuff. Wonderful flavor, and then it sneaks back and nails you with that 127 proof. Naturally, I give it as gifts. I do want to suggest another fine bourbon - Basil Hayden's. Tasty and the smoothest bourbon I've ever drank, but at 80 proof not as strong as Booker's.

It could be that I just missed their ruminations on Scotch (but not their Beer Ratings), but there's nothing like a fine single malt to help one relax a bit at the end of a stressful day. Since I use this blog to write on all sorts of other things I know little about, it's time to keep with that tradition and recommend some single malts. My favorite, The Glenmorangie, is an almost spicy whisky from Tain that has the bonus of a truly wonderful smell to it. To me it's worth it sometimes just to pop the cork off it just for a sniff. Talisker (from the Isle of Skye) has a touch of saltiness and iodine to go with the peat and smoke flavors. The last of my troika of favorites is Lagavulin - who would have thought one could make coal smoke taste good?

Showing Off My Ignorance, #48213

I have a question about the sturcture of our armed forces. According to this we have just over 1.4 million active duty soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen. As of September this year we have approximately 170,000 people serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom (137,000 as ground forces), a considerable portion being composed of Reserve and National Guard units. Some of these units, I understand, are now preparing or are serving their second tour in Iraq. My question is this: why is what appears to be a significant dependence on our reserve forces necessary to field a 170,000 person expeditionary force in Iraq (a deployment of about 12% of our active duty force)? Is our active duty military so short of support units that the Reserves are no longer reserves?

My suspicion is that our force structure (is that the right phrase), may be left over from a time where economy was more important that staying power. I freely admit my ignorance however, and am willing to hear better explanations.

More Garbage from the Strib

Here's the transcript (via the Corner) of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answering the now famous question about armored Humvees from Specialist Thomas Wilson:

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?

GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you. Next. Way in the back. Yes.

How does this answer merit this editorial from the Star Tribune that accuses Secretary Rumsfeld of not wanting to support our soldiers in Iraq? It doesn't. A soldier asks a legitimate question about armored Humvees (even if the question was planted by a reporter) and received a candid response. A response, by the way, that the Strib's editors chose to cherry-pick a sound bite out of , robbing it of context. All this to claim that the SecDef is suffering from hubris, calling him 'delusional', accusing him (for the umpteenth time) of direct responsibility for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and raise the bogus NYT story about missing explosives again. Oh, and demanding his resignation again (again not for the first time).

Personally, I find the idea of the Strib accusing the administration of not properly supporting our soldiers darkly funny, given their support of John Kerry, who voted against funding our forces once they were engaged in Iraq. I have my problems with Rumsfeld (fodder for a later post), but this is just another dishonest argument presented by the Star Tribune editorial board.

The Star Tribune Takes a Stupid Pill

Just when I get done actually saying something nice about the Strib's editors someone points me towards stuff that meets my rather low expectations for their work. This editorial sure lowers my expectations. The juvenile, illogical, two-faced substance and tone of this thing is disgraceful, and thoroughly demonstrates why thinking, reasonable people should rarely, (if ever) take anything written by the Strib's editors seriously. I could say more, but Mitch Berg does a far better job of it than I. Go, read.

Will Wonders Never Cease!

In the brief time that I have been criticizing the Star Tribune editorial pages I've complained about the sloppy thinking, vitriol towards Republicans and conservatives (not quite the same thing), and bias against same that appears there on a regular basis. Well today I was in for quite a shock, since the Strib ran some opinion pieces that actually sound pretty reasonable ( see here, here, here, and here). In fact the way the Strib advocates a move to a trimmer, more accountable government for the city of Minneapolis sounds almost ... Republican!

Steve Berg's piece describes how the structure of Minneapolis' government is an impediment to effectively and efficiently running the city, and how difficult it can be for citizens and employees of the city of Minneapolis to work with their government. Staff members getting conflicting instructions from supervisors and City Councilmen, and the struggles to reconcile the often conflicting demands of 13 city councilmen, the Park Board, and the Library Board.

A piece by John Gunyou provides his analysis of why the "weak mayor-strong council" form of government is not working well for Minneapolis and why it should be change. He points out that with 250 contact numbers for city departments, for example, that it can be very difficult for residents with a problem to figure out who the right people to contact are.

Another article, this time by the occasionally criticized on this blog Jim Boyd, explains the history of how Minneapolis got the government structure it has.

Today's editorial describes again (in brief) the problems they perceive in Minneapolis governmental structure and lay out their ideas on how to fix it. I don't agree with everything they say, but it's not a bad start. They even admit to needing some Republican influence in how the city is run (has the world ended? - ed, ).

All four of the pieces mentioned above are well worth reading, if only for the primer they provide on how the government of Minneapolis is (un)organized and the description of the problems it faces. But since there always seems to be one bad apple on the Strib's tree, here's a piece by Lori Sturdevant ( Isn't she the one who's so partisan she makes your hair bleed?- ed. Shut up.) that makes a lame attempt to blame the city's governance problems on the state GOP, despite the fact that the borrowing and pension decisions that are financially crippling the city now were taken during the time when the DFL had complete control of both the city and the state. But even she concedes that much of the city's problems are of its own making (quite a concession for her). Anyway well worth reading, especially for Minneapolis residents.

More from the Pioneer Press

In a couple more items from the Pioneer Press:

Minnesota faces $700 million budget gap: About the only comment on this that I have is that the legislature sure seems foolish for passing a law saying that budget estimates could not include inflation. Inflation is a fact of life and needs to be figured into the budget, one of the few things the DFL is correct about.

In other economic news, Ford plans to reduce the production of Ranger pickups. Since the Ranger is the only vehicle built at the Ford plant in St. Paul, this can't be good news for the people working there. Has the market for small pickups become smaller, or is the Ranger overdue for a design overhaul to better compete with the offerings from Toyota and Nissan?

Blog Stuff

Just a couple of notes:

This little blog has managed to evolve to the exalted status of Lowly Insect in NZ Bear's Ecosystem. Imagine. Maybe in 50 more years, it may manage to become a more significant bug....

I would like to thank Patterico of Patterico's Pontifications for adding me to his blogroll. I regret not noticing sooner, but I don't think to check my referrer logs very often. I'm not sure why he added it, but if you're in the market for sporadic, yet inane commentary on Minnesota and national politics with some occasional Star Tribune bashing, this is the place.

Gun Owners Are People, Too

I was rather surprised to see this opinion piece in today's Pioneer press. It's purpose is to remind people that horrified at the notion of citizens defending themselves that people who own guns are every bit as human and normal as themselves. I admit to mixed views on concealed carry laws, but it just seems sad that an essay such as Ms. Stack 's is necessary. Such are our times, I guess.

Another Silly Question

After seeing a photo like this (via Damian Penny) I just have to shake my head. Have any of these people (whom I'm sure consider themselves to be more intelligent than mere Bush/Bush voters/GOPers) actually tried to develop or promote a better solution to the problems in the Middle East?

Based on the press coverage of all the anti-Bush/anti-US demonstrations and protests, it would appear the only interest is in competition to see who can best vilify President Bush. Judging by the startlingly unoriginal, historically illiterate stuff I've seen the last four years, I'd say that the required original thinking is not exactly their forte. Also that it shows their estimates of their own intelligence are vastly overinflated.

I'm sure that there are reasoned critiques of US policy in response to terrorism and the political cesspool of the Middle East, but has anyone actually crafted an alternative policy that would be different and better than the Bush administrations?

Silly Questions

I have a couple of questions to ask the conservatives/liberals that stumble across this little blog.

First to the liberals: what does "pay their fair share" mean? What rate of taxation would be too high, even for wealthy folk? Who has first claim on the wealth one earns (we'll assume honestly), the person(s) who earn it or the broader society at large (represented by the government).? One last question : what the hell does "social justice" mean? I mostly see the phrase used by liberals attempting to sell a government program or arguing for an unpopular court decision, so you get the question.

To the conservatives: given that government is a necessary part of being civilized (no one has made an argument that anarchy works), how do we pay for the functions performed by government? If we have an economy that generates a lot of low paying jobs that do not allow families to fund things that conservatives often consider to be areas of personal responsibility (retirement, private school education for children, health care, etc) what, if anything, can/should be done to help these hard-working people out? For the believers in unrestricted immigration: why is it a good thing (by bringing in large amounts of lower-skilled labor) to increase the competition for jobs at the low end of the income scale, even though there is plenty of competition already?

Just curious.

Yasser Arafat, RIP(ieces)

This is probably stating the obvious, but like Rantisi and Yassin before him Yasser Arafat's greatest benefit to humanity will be as fertilizer and/or worm chow. Goodbye Father of Modern Terrorism and good riddance. Oh, and enjoy Allah's judgement, you murdering bastard.

Do We Really Have to Tolerate These Guys?

Now, while I understand that Minnesota has a reputation for tolerance and open-mindedness to maintain, do we really have to put up with these idiots? If I were a Minneapolis resident, I'd be more than a little bit embarrassed to have them in town, really. My first impression was that of a parody site, but alas they seem to be serious. A word of advice guys: Minnesota doesn't need Nazis, find another line of work.

To Revise and Extend:
Isn't it the height of laziness (along with stupidity) to think that a person's merit can be determined by their skin color, or who their parents are? Part of the proposition that the United States is based on is that each individual will prove their own merit, if given the chance. Another is that individuals have rights (granted by the Creator, no less) that the State cannot ignore and must respect. Of course, membership in the American Nazi Party clearly demonstrates that concept is a bit beyond them... .

When Deranged Blue Voters Attack!

After reading this lovely missive from Jane Smiley, and these two angry rants from Ken Layne, I am slowly becoming convinced that a significant number of John Kerry's supporters have (probably temporarily) lost their bleepin' minds. The meanness, paranoia about religion, contempt for those who disagree, and lack of understanding of them in these posts boggle the mind.

First Ms. Smiley. She opens by calling over half her relatives ignorant and greedy. That'll make the next family gathering interesting. But wait, there's more! She attempts to associate red staters with the Confederacy (and all the 'positive' stuff associated with it) in an attempt to vilify them. Setting aside the fact that using the labels 'red' and 'blue' for the two opposing sides of the Civil War is meaningless, she would do well to remember that the GOP was the party of Abolition, and the Democrats who represented the South (and the institution of slavery). 'Twas also the Democratic Party who institutionalized Jim Crow and segregation.
After that, she moves on to explain that people in the red states are not only ignorant, they are so willfully ignorant as to be uneducatable, so she basically writes off as hateful morons anyone who voted GOP. They were brainwashed by the Cheney-Bush capitalism/religion machine, you see. The combination of unthinking arrogance, condescention, and bigotry (without anything resembling a reasoned argument) in her essay is truly breathtaking. And here I thought that the liberal Left is supposed to be rational, tolerant, and open minded. I don't suppose it ever occurred to her that people who voted for the GOP/Bush/Cheney arrived at their conclusion via a rational process similar to how she made hers. (Judging by her essay, a more rational process than hers. - ed. ) The whole article has the stink of hate and fear about it. Perhaps Ms. Smiley should examine her own assumptions before putting fingers to keyboard next time.

Ken Layne: Control your anger, young Jedi. Instead of demonizing them, attempt to understand those who voted differenly than yourself. Understand that intelligent people can and do come to reasonable conclusions on the issues of the day that *gasp* are different than yours! Not to mention that insulting people is not a likely way to win them over to your way of thinking. In a bit harsher language - what the hell is your goddamned problem with religious people? Listen carefully you arrogant, bigoted jackass, there are a few facts that need to be considered. First, the person that you call "Jesusland's No. 1 Convert" is not an evangelical. He's a Methodist, and he doesn't really mention his faith all that much more than the White House's previous occupant did. Next, it isn't President Bush's fault that he gets letters of congratulations from idiots like Bob Jones. That's like claiming that John Kerry is a believer in the goals of International A.N.S.W.E.R. . Furthermore your characteriztion of Christians probably doesn't fit the vast majority of those who voted for the President. Additionally, the evangelicals didn't even push Bush over the top - atheists did. So, get off your condescending high horse and grow up. You sound like an angry, angst-ridden teenager.

On this Veteran's Day

To those who stood a post where I was not able.

To the liberators of Europe and Asia.

To those who fought in Korea and Vietnam, who were for too long unappreciated.

To those who were vigilant through the Long Night of the Cold War.

To the liberators of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thank you.

Star Tribune Hypocrisy Watch

It seems that the Star Tribune's editors object to an "anti-Kerry screed" that will be broadcast on 62 TV stations that belong to Sinclair Broadcasting. Apparently from the viewpoint of the Star Tribune, some kinds of free speech should be illegal:

If the stunt that Sinclair Broadcasting Group is pulling isn't against the law, it ought to be. Sinclair, owner of more American television stations than any other company, has ordered all 62 of its holdings -- which collectively reach a quarter of American households -- to suspend normal programming for one evening just before the upcoming presidential election. The stations are instead to air a one-hour conservative diatribe against Sen. John Kerry. This is a flagrant and cynical abuse of the public's airwaves for a partisan political purpose, an action that should put Sinclair's federal broadcast licenses in jeopardy. For comparison, imagine that WCCO's owner, CBS, ordered it to broadcast Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The Strib seems to have forgotten a miniscule thing called the 1st Amendment. Says something about free speech or some such thing. Guess what boys and girls, Sinclair has the same right to editorialize and present their point of view (if that's what they actually are doing - Fox interviewed a representative of Sinclair who pointed out that the content of the program has yet to be decided) as the Star Trib does. If people object to the content, no one is forcing them to watch, and the channel button isn't far away. Perhaps the Strib's editors are just envious of the size of Sinclair's audience.

The editorial then goes on to describe the film "Stolen Honor" as a conservative diatribe, and attempts to justify why it is far worse than Michael Moore's anti-Bush Fahrenhit 9/11.

Indeed, Moore's film, while avowedly anti-Bush, is tame compared to the so-called documentary Sinclair plans to broadcast. "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" focuses on Kerry's antiwar activities 30 years ago. A Web site for the film says it exposes Kerry's "record of betrayal." In the film, one Vietnam POW asserts that Kerry "committed an act of treason. He lied, he besmirched our name and he did it for self-interest. And now he wants us to forget." More than a dozen of the television stations required to air this screed are in the key battleground states of Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

In other words, this film is worse than F 9/11 because it questions Kerry's service, and some of the stations broadcasting it cover battleground states where it might have an impact. Do I need to go into how lame and hypocritical this is? The Strib had no objections to and in fact endorsed the anti-Bush lies and propaganda of "Fahrenheit 9/11" being shown nationwide, not to mention Michael Moore's anti-Bush speaking tour. What is their problem with a dissenting point of view? Heck, Sinclair even offered Senator Kerry a chance to rebut, unlike Moore who evades anyone who would challange him about his movie.

When Sinclair makes the claim that the program is a news program, the Strib ridicules the claim by saying that 'it wasn't produced by any creditable news organization". Credible like say, CBS? The fact of the matter is, that if the major media had given the accusations of the Swift Vets a proper hearing, and devoted the same resources to investigating their claims as they did to the President's National Guard service, this planned broadcast wouldn't be creating such a stir. The Strib then goes on to restate its initial complaint, that Sinclair shouldn't be doing this because it's wrong to use the public airwaves for political purposes. I've got news for the Strib: as long as Sinclair obeys the rules, they can broadcast whatever they want. It's called free speech. Get used to it.

"Nick Coleman, Real Journalist"

The Nick Coleman rant concerning bloggers has been covered extensively by other blogs, especially the Fraters', so I only have one comment and one suggestion for Nick.

Mr. Coleman seems to have not kept in touch with the times. For 18 years he has been able to opine, denigrate, and mock via his column the people whose positions he disapproves of or just plain dislikes without having to worry much about the reactions of those in the audience who disagree. After all, what could they do to him? Problem is Nick old fellow, times have changed a bit. It's easy for the average Joe to publish on the web these days, and when you make an ass of yourself by petulantly trashing the "bloggies" you're picking a fight with folks who possibly have more readers than you do. Of course there is the side benefit of exposing your hackwork to a nationwide audience and providing more embarassment to the citizens of the Twin Cities... .

Nick, I'm sure you remember Mark Twain's crack about never picking a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel. I suggest that you remember that these days, electrons are cheaper than ink.

In another post, I asked about how do we get news we can trust. I just want to clarify what I had in mind. One answer to this question is something to the effect of "Use the resources available, especially the internet to check out what the news source is saying". The problem is most of us lack the time to fully research/verify the facts reported about stories of interest to us. After all, most of us do something other than research to make a living. Then there are the time requirements in raising children, maintaining one's home, and/or taking care of the other myriad things that need to be done to maintain one's daily life. That's one of the things that, once upon a time, made the network news kind of attactive. People (rightly or wrongly) trusted Cronkite, Brinkley, et. al. to deliver the important news of the day. Now that we've gotten an inside look at how the sausage is made, so to speak, and now have reason to distrust their descendants at the networks, where will people turn for reliable, accurate information needed to make important decisions (like, who to vote for)?

A Whiff of Fall

Fall started for me today (you're about a week late - ed. ) when I left work. When I stepped out of the computer center, I noticed just a hint of the smell the breeze off a harvested corn field has. This despite the fact that there isn't a cornfield within miles and the harvest won't be starting for awhile yet. I lack the words to describe it, but to me, it whispers "Winter is coming..."

CBS's Betrayal

The scandal now called "Rathergate" has moved a lot of electrons while I have been away. Kudos to the folks at Power Line , Little Green Footballs, and others for doing the heavy lifting that exposed this thing. I don't have any facts to add to this, but I do have a few thoughts about the fallout. Briefly covered are the Kerry campaign, CBS, bloggers, and the public at large.

First, Kerry and Co. . If it turns out that there were contacts between the campaign and CBS News before CBS broadcast the story, Kerry's poll numbers will sink faster than Michael Moore in a leaky rowboat. Even though President Bush is not what I would call wildly popular with the voting public right now, an opposing candidate involved in a fraudulent smear job on the president will rapidly become the villain. I find it difficult to believe they could be this stupid, but if the docs are traced back to someone in the Kerry camp, it's all over but the postmortems.

CBS. CBS loses on two counts. First they've squandered whatever trust that remained from the days of the big Three networks. Given the degree of sloppiness shown in their rush to get this story on the air, why should anyone trust any of their investigative work? Their eagerness to ignore information that didn't agree with the storyline (Bush was given special treatment, Bush pulled strings, Bush didn't serve honorably) also demonstrates that they do not merit trust as well as showing CBS News to be unprofessional. Second, if it turns out that people inside CBS News were in cahoots with people in the Kerry campaign on this story, then any pretense of the media being objective is finished at CBS. It won't be Fox News that's the poster child of media bias anymore. Oh, and by the way CBS should fire Dan Rather and everyone else connected with the decision to air the National Guard story without vetting the evidence.

Bloggers. A well-deserved pat on the back. I have noticed a few mentions of the idea that the mainstream media is no longer relevant, because of the presence of the citizen journalist/blogger. I just want to caution that most of the factual reporting is still done by what is referred to the mainstream media (newspapers/TV/magazines), henceforth known as the MSM. Interviews with the Killian family, information about the warnings given to CBS by their own document experts, a statement from the Col. Staudt accused of pressuring the TANG denying Bush was given special treatment, etc. were discovered by the professional press, for example. Bloggers have become a very useful adjunct because there are so many people taking an interest in the controversial stories of the day that mistakes made by the press are found fairly quickly (much to the chagrin of CBS). They also provide additonal, often interesting analysis/citicism of the stories produced by the MSM.

The public at large. The days of Uncle Walter are over (if they ever existed). People are going to have to get used to the fact that news organizations are not as trustworthy as once believed. This process has been going on for awhile (Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Mike Barnicle, etc.) but this is probably the last straw. This leaves the problem of vetting the news reports (often conflicting or incomplete) that people will see from multiple sources, none of which can be guaranteed trustworthy. How will we know which parts of which reports are true?

Random Musings on the RNC

Just a few thoughts about the Republican National Convention, in no particular order:

Best Speech: John McCain. He laid out the case for taking the fight to the Islamofacists better than than anyone I've heard up to now. His references to "our Democrat friends" made a subtle point about which party reallly is being divisive this year. I don't recall any speakers at the DNC referring to Republicans that way. The ending was a passionate reminder that we are one nation that needs to be united in the face of those who want us destroyed - something else the Dems didn't bother to do. Plus, a wonderful, bonus bitch-slapping of Michael Moore!
Honorable Mentions: Rudy Giuliani for making a case against the Democrats' being able to properly defend this country, done with a relatively light-hearted touch.
Arnold Schwartzenegger for giving the most positive speech at the convention (in prime time).

Zell Miller: Fiery and over the top. He clearly is speaking from the heart and in a style that is reminiscent of decades past. But the rhetoric was too harsh, even if the delegates loved it. I can understand the anger, given the tone used by the Dems in criticizing Bush, but although it was entertaining it was too angry. However, it did not deserve the kind of reaction as quoted from Ken Layne:

No kidding. I grew up in the South, surrounded by sons of bitches like Zell Miller -- bitter old nigger-haters who couldn't possibly understand why they weren't right about anything -- and this dixiecrat piece of shit is probably the best advertisement for the Bush Administration's Compassionate Conservatism we've ever seen. Thank you, Zell

Just another example of that famous lefty tolerance and respect for others, I guess. Then we have Andrew Sullivan's view, summarized in his first paragraph here:

Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

I fail to see how that is any worse (or even as bad) as Democrats referring to the GOP as fascists, bigots, murderers, etc. . He basically calls Miller a racist without any real evidence, other than 40 year old stuff that at the time was unfortunately a staple for southern Democrats (in which case what does one say about Robert Byrd?). His record as governor of Georgia does not indicate racism, nor does his Senate record. Unless you have real, recent evidence of racism Andrew, shut yer gob or find some other grounds for criticism.

Andrew went on to officiallly jump the shark after Bush's speech even though he liked it, because Sully is now a one issue voter - gay marriage - and that is more important to him than dealing with the folks who want to kill us. Mr. Sullivan, I just want to point out that Bush's position on the subject (although not mainstream) is closer to the mainstream than yours.

Bounce: I don't know. The polls I've seen indicate anywhere from a 4 to 6 point boost for Bush, but let things simmer for a few days. So far, neither of these guys has convinced me to vote for him, although I find that I dislike Kerry more.