Barbara O'Brien blogs There are probably not enough clues in the world to enlighten Terri Schiavo groupies. The judge who ordered her feeding tube to be removed has received so many death threats from the pro-lifers (I'll pause and let that one sink in) that he has to have bodyguards at all times. And he's worried for the safety of his wife and children.
I don't agree with most of what Barbara writes, but I must agree with her that it does not make a lot of sense to me for a pro-lifer to threaten a judge's life.
Hugh Hewitt blogs In one of the great lapses of editorial judgment in recent years, the article quotes a friend of the judge:
"'It's killing me to watch him struggle with this,' said Mary Repper, a retired political consultant who worked on several of Judge Greer's campaigns."
Of course it will be Terry Schiavo who will end up dead if this judge's ruling stands.
That is certainly true, however Hugh just showed you the first sentence of the paragraph:"It's killing me to watch him struggle with this," said Mary Repper, a retired political consultant who worked on several of Judge Greer's campaigns. "Armed guards with him all the time. People threatening to kill him and claiming it has something to do with the right to life - explain that, will you? I know he's concerned about his family and his wife, because it has gotten so ugly."
Mary may not die from the stress of seeing Judge Greer's struggle, and certainly Terry Schiavo will end up dead if the judge's ruling stands, but so may Judge Greer if the people that have threatened to kill him do it. I usually agree with Hugh, certainly much more than I do with Barbara, but I must split with Hugh this time. I agree with both a lot more than I agree with this next blogger:
Oliver @LiquidList blogs Lefkow. Barnes. Greer. When the President assaults the judiciary, America assaults the judiciary
U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and mother were found slain at her home, and as the linked article indicates, extremists on the Internet "are expressing satisfaction that they were killed. Whether you agree with Judge Lefkow's decisions or not, killing her or her relatives is not the solution.
Superior Court Judge Rowland W. Barnes was killed by a rape suspect in Atlanta. It had nothing to do with any political matter, and in any event Judge Barnes was appointed by the Governor of Georgia, not the President.
Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer is not appointed by the President, he is elected for six year terms, and as the NYT article indicates, he was just reelected in 2004, and he was up for election several times since the Terri Schiavo case started. If the people did not like the job he was doing, they would not have reelected him.
The matter with Terri Schiavo is certainly a disturbing one. Whether she is allowed to die, as her husband says she wanted, or whether she is kept in the state she is in, as her parents want, is not up to me to decide. I think the lesson we should all learn from Terri is that people should never depend on verbal end-of-life wishes, but that everyone should have a Living Will, such as that available here or here or here or here or here or here. But regardless of whether she lives or dies, no one should harm the judge.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Don't Blame the Judge
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Welcome to the Blogosphere
A new blogger, The Prickly Pear, poses a very interesting article What Christianity has Wrought, which raises some very interesting points:
Too often, I pick up a newspaper and read a letter to the editor attacking Christianity. Almost always the letter writer incorrectly blames Christianity for slavery, the holocaust, and any other ill the writer can think of. Everyone, it seems, is an expert on what Christianity has done wrong. I have yet to read a letter listing the incredible good Christians have done for the world. I will attempt to list some of the accomplishments of Christians and Christianity here.
Thousands of years before Christianity, men of all races and religions practiced slavery. No one stopped it until Christians created a movement that ended the practice.
The civil rights movement was started by a Christian, a Baptist minister, and the movement’s political vocabulary was religious.
Christians helped facilitate a cease-fire between the Columbian government and a brutal paramilitary group.
For centuries, Christians established hospitals and ran them. The first hospital in England was founded by the Archbishop of Canterbury. By the 1920's, Catholics had founded more than five hundred hospitals in America alone. Christians established havens for the deaf, blind, and mentally ill.
Christians brought about literacy on the American frontier. (The first schools were founded, because their parents wanted them to know how to read the Bible.)
Christians established leper houses and risked their own health to care for the lepers.
In his post Freedom he says: I was a democrat, a liberal, who lived in an area where only left-wing liberals lived. Everything was hunky-dory until I questioned a couple of leftwing viewpoints. By the reaction I received, you'd think I'd committed murder. The responses to my questions were so hostile that after awhile I became afraid to express myself honestly. I realized if I did, I would be ostracized from my associates and friends. Instead I just repeated the usual liberal mantras and kept the peace. I wonder if there are other liberals who do the same thing?
I'm a new Republican now, and the thing that amazes me is that liberals and democrats can disagree with Republicans to their faces, and the Republicans will argue policy with them, sometimes passionately. But they never seem to attack on a personal level. Or behave in a way that makes the liberal shut up. As a Republican, I feel like I have my freedom back. I'd lost it. Not like the people in the Middle East, of course. But in a way, my experience differs only in the matter of degree.
Welcome to the Blogosphere, Prickly Pear
ANWR has a chance
The Senate endorsed oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today, giving President Bush and others who favor exploration of the Alaska wilderness a major victory.
The 51-to-49 vote was in favor of a budget resolution that assumes revenues of some $5 billion from drilling fees over the next decade, with the federal government and the state of Alaska to split the money.
While this afternoon's vote is not the final word on the issue, it nevertheless made drilling in the wilds of Alaska - an idea favored by the oil industry for decades and fiercely opposed by environmental groups - far more likely than before.
For drilling to take place, the Senate will later have to pass a measure explicitly authorizing the opening of the wildlife refuge to drilling, something that until now has been prohibited. Then the House of Representatives would have to explicitly authorize drilling as well.
Since the House has endorsed Arctic drilling several times over the years, this afternoon's vote in the Senate was seen by vote-watchers on both sides as perhaps pivotal. In the Senate, opponents of drilling have used the chamber's parliamentary devices - notably, the threat of a filibuster, a stalling tactic that requires 60 of the Senate's 100 votes to overcome - to frustrate supporters.
This afternoon's vote came on an amendment sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington and several other Democrats. It would have removed language in the budget resolution for 2006 that assumes that drilling will take place.
CNN reports Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said..... Drilling proponents say that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely -- though not yet certain -- 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.
Thanks to TheLeftCoaster for the vote count:
These are the Democrats who voted with for drilling:
Akaka-HI
Inouye-HI
Landrieu-LA
And these are the Republicans who voted against drilling:
Lincoln Chafee-RI
Norm Coleman-MN
Susan Collins-ME
Mike DeWine-OH
John McCain-AZ
Gordon Smith-OR
Olympia Snowe-ME
Jim Jeffords voted with the Democrats.
Guess what. The MainStreamMedia does not like it.
Some were just bitter, such as the San Jose Mercury News which said President Bush can just about mount the trophy he's been hunting. We suggest a caribou head over a White House fireplace to signify approval of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Others were so upset they decided to lie, even after the vote: Seattle Times said Drilling for oil along the remote coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does not buy the United States a nickel's worth of energy security. This is a fight about symbolism and political trophies.
Some were both bitter, and decided to lie, like the Village Voice which said Bush Digs Dry Well in Alaska - Glut of right wingers, dearth of oil. Docile as always, members of the Senate yesterday narrowly voted to support President's Bush quack solution to the energy crisis, i.e. opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. In addition to wrecking the ecology, oil drilling in Alaska won't produce more than a puddle of crude toward reducing energy imports in the Lower 48.
DailyKos is a very extreme left blog, and on it lorax offers three ways they might still defeat Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling
Iraqi Assembly Convenes
The meeting, which lasted about an hour, was called even though leading politicians had failed so far to form a coalition government. The members of the 275-seat newly elected National Assembly walked quietly into the heavily fortified convention center on the west bank of the Tigris River, with little pomp but with a solemnity indicating they understood the gravity, and the immense hardships, of the task ahead of them.
The largely ceremonial meeting adjourned after the assembly members took their oath of office soon after 1 p.m., without even taking the first formal step toward putting together a government: electing a president, two vice presidents and a speaker of the assembly.
The members stood up together in the auditorium and raised their right hands as the head of the judiciary council charged them with upholding the country's newfound freedoms, among other duties. As a body, they represented the diverse nature of Iraqi society, with clerics in black turbans seated alongside Western-educated men in pinstripe suits and women in full-length robes.
Congratulations and Best Wishes to the People of Iraq
Yahoo 360
The hybrid service, called "Yahoo 360," won't be available until March 29, but it is designed to enable Yahoo's 165 million registered users to pull content from the Web site's discussion groups, online photo albums and review section to plug into their own Web logs, or blogs, the Internet shorthand used to describe online personal journals.
WebProNews reports the promotional web site is live now, and he was able to log in to a page with more info using my Yahoo! ID, but was unable to actually try the service.
ZDNet reports Yahoo's move comes as social networking and blogging draw increased interest from rivals, including Microsoft and Google. Microsoft in December added a blog product for its MSN Web service, called MSN Spaces. Google, meanwhile, owns Web log service Blogger and social networking site Orkut.
WebProNews reports Signing up for the service will be by invitation only, according to Yahoo (similar to how Google introduced Gmail).... I would imagine that Yahoo 360° will directly compete with MSN Spaces, the social networking/blogging service launched by Microsoft last December.
There is a page where you can volunteer to be added to the beta test.
Make them do it
AP reports Democrats Threaten to Stop Senate Business if GOP Changes Rules on Judge Confirmations. "To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Frist said in swift rebuttal. "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges."
Hugh Hewitt comments The battle over judicial nominees grows closer and closer. Democrats panic, and send Harry "Loose Slots" Reid out to explain that the unprecedented filibuster of judicial nominees is keeping the Republic from ruin. Really.
Orrin Judd asks Is there any downside to this for the GOP?
CQ comments Reid starts off by completely misinterpreting the intent of the Constitution's framers..... The change also doesn't eliminate debate on judicial nominations -- it removes the ability for 40 Senators to extend the debate into eternity. Claiming otherwise is nothing short of hysterical..... Since when has majority rule amounted to "absolute power"? Only since Democrats lost their absolute grip on Congress twelve years ago.
Boston Globe reports GOP sees momentum in ending judicial filibusters.... Republican activists working on the issue say they have one last obstacle to making the change -- their second-ranking Senate leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is said to be reluctant to take such a radical step..... But Manuel Miranda, a former top aide for judicial nominations to Senate majority leader Bill Frist, said "circumstances have erased many of those hesitations.... We think we have 53 votes .... The question now is not if but when."
Hugh Hewitt says Calling Senator McConnell: It is Time to End the Filibusters.
CQ comments I understand that the majority whip may not want to create more trouble than already exists in the Senate, but the antics of the Democrats in this session already demonstrate their intransigence..... The rule change will put grown-ups back in charge of Senate business and ensure votes for all judicial nominees. It will still allow for filibusters on bills and policy, where it has some application, but judicial nominees deserve respect and an up-or-down vote once they come out of committee. If Democrats want to influence that process, then they need to start winning more elections, and acting like crybabies on the floor of the Senate will not help them at all. Call the bluff and call the vote, Senator. McConnell says that the Globe article got it wrong, and issued this statement today:
Dr. Steven Taylor calls it a The Coming
That is what makes them Democrats.
AaronBurrFan @BOPNews focuses on Just who is Manuel Miranda? Officials familiar with the investigation identified that person as a legislative staff assistant whose name was removed from a list of Judiciary Committee staff in the most recent update of a Capitol Hill directory. The staff member's home number has been disconnected and he could not be reached for comment.... Reached at home, Miranda said he is on paternity leave
If a person used to work on the Judiciary Committee staff but now works somewhere else, why is is surprising that his name was removed from a list of Judiciary Committee staff? And if he was reached at home, why mention that his home number had been disconnected? Maybe he moved.
I am happy to see that the filibustering of judicial nominees may finally be coming to an end, and I hope that the Senate may again get the chance to vote up or down on each nominee.
Social Security Needs Help
Social Security Needs Help
The Senate unanimously agreed Tuesday that strengthening Social Security was "a vital national priority" but split acrimoniously along party lines on what to do about it in the first votes on President Bush's plans.
In one exception to the party divide, five Republicans broke ranks and voted with the Democrats in favor of a resolution declaring, "Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt."
There are four ways to solve the problem:
Democrats argue that Bush cannot establish private investment accounts, his signature proposal for revamping the retirement program, without cutting benefits or adding to the federal budget deficit.
They argue that, but they are wrong.
"They're nervous. They're worried. But their hands are tied as long as the president sticks to privatization," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the top Democratic spokesman on the issue in the Senate.
The only reason their hands are tied is because the Democratic leadership won't let Dems attempt to work out a compromise solution that includes Private Accounts as one key component.
The vote on the resolution, offered by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was 50-50, with Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania joining with the chamber's Democratic minority.
RINOs
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., told Democrats that rather than offering a plan for overhauling the giant pension program, "You just put out there amendments which are for the purposes of political protection. You should be ashamed of yourselves."
They have no shame.
GOP Bloggers notes White House praises Senate SoSec vote and then says For more than four years the MSM has been mis-reporting on the President. They still don't understand him; they don't understand that when President Bush says he's going to do something, he keeps at it until its done. Social Security is the main reform effort of President Bush's second term and he will get it, by and by.
This is progress. The Dems have gone from "There is no crisis" to "Strengthening Social Security is a vital national priority, just don't fix it by establishing Private Accounts." Now all we have to do is peel away a few that think solving a vital national priority is more important.
Expect Social Security cuts
The Fed chairman told the Senate Special Committee on Aging that the nation has about three years to work out a fix. "In 2008, the leading edge of what must surely be the largest shift from retirement in our nation's history will become evident as some baby boomers become eligible for Social Security," he said in his prepared remarks.
By that date, the population 65 years and older will be more than one-fourth of the adult U.S. population, Greenspan said, referring to forecasts by the Social Security trustees. That would be up from 17 percent currently.
"This huge change in the structure of our population will expose all our financial retirement systems to severe stress and will require adjustments for which there are no historical precedents," he said.....
Greenspan also repeated his support for some kind of private investment accounts. The main reason he gave is that putting part of people's retirement taxes in a private account would be like putting them in a "lock-box" so that the funds could not be diverted into spending on other government programs.
The Left Coaster blog comments Hmm...is it any coincidence that, right when support for Social Security privatization appears headed for a free-fall, Federal Reserve Chairman and moonlighting Republican hatchet-man Alan Greenspan feels compelled to ramp up the doomsday talk? Congressional committees keep asking him the same question, and he gives the same answer. Why is that such a surprise to the Left? Sure ya did, you double-dealing little cretin. I think the blogosphere will have a gay ole' time trashing Greenspan's much-cherished "legacy" between now and his blessed retirement. Let the festivities begin. You know the Left knows they are doomed when all they can come up with is an ad hominem attack.
James Joyner notes Pollster John Zogby, a Democrat, argues that President Bush's plan to reform Social Security will likely fail but that it's nonetheless shrewd politics.The president's real prize would be a significant realignment in party politics. It has been no secret that Mr. Bush and Karl Rove have their sights set on a political realignment not experienced since FDR built a coalition of urban ethnics, liberal ideologues and Southern conservatives under the Democrats' big tent. Like the New Deal, the president's "ownership society" is a compelling new vision and veritable redefinition of a society less dependent on government largess, of a middle class more independent and more capable of securing financial security on its own.
Tyler Cowen says Max Sawicky and I square off on taxes and spending, here is the link. Sawicky says impossible, Greenspan says inevitable.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Raiding Retirement
New York Post published an article by Stephen Moore entitled Raiding Retirement
Saying the debate about Private Accounts should be about the positive benefits of giving every worker in America an account that they own themselves and that, as President Bush puts it, "can never be taken away by the government." Thanks to compound interest, such a system would see most young workers build accounts that total hundreds of thousands of dollars by retirement age.
Stephen is absolutely correct.
This is a very attractive proposition to workers under the age of 40. It wrestles authority away from government and gives each individual ownership and control of his or her own nest egg.
And the Democrats fear that would turn them into Republicans.
Instead, the debate on Social Security has morphed into a fracas about shoring up the finances for the government program by raising taxes, cutting benefits and/or raising the retirement age.
The Republicans seem to be offering a plan that says "pay more, work longer and get less in return." No wonder the polls show sagging support for the president's plan.
The problem is that Stephen's plan would be very good for 20 to 30 year olds, and regardless of what is done in the meantime, Social Security as we know it today will NOT be available to today's 20 to 30 year olds, and the only solution for them is to start personal accounts NOW so that by compounding it will be available for them when they are ready to retire.
Meanwhile, Democrats argue that the personal account system that Bush wants will rip a hole in the Social Security Trust Fund, because of the large transition costs. In fact, the moral high ground here belongs to the president — because those "transition costs" are all about putting a stop to Congress' annual raid on Social Security.
And is anyone surprised that they would fear that?
Every year, far more gets paid into Social Security than the program pays out. But Congress simply spends it all — on top of what's usually reported as "the deficit."
Over the past 15 years, those raids — money paid into Social Security, but spent on other government programs — have totaled more than half a trillion dollars.
As former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacoca once declared, any CEO who tried this with a private firm's pension fund would be thrown in jail.
 Click to enlarge |
So why not begin the creation of personal investment account funds with the surpluses collected each year from Social Security payroll taxes? Under this plan, all surplus collections from Social Security would automatically be diverted into personal accounts for all the workers who paid the payroll tax. The theme of this campaign could be: "Stop the raid; start the accounts."
Sounds good to me
It would be fascinating to hear liberal groups like MoveOn.org and AARP explain why it is preferable for Congress to squander the surpluses, rather than deposit the money into workers' accounts.
That's what their claim boils down to: Rather than let today's young workers start building real retirement security, the anti-reform crowd thinks the government should take nearly $100 billion a year to spend on its programs — cash for causes from corporate agriculture to the makers of Pentagon weapons systems to the Cow Girl Hall of Fame.
It may be that the only way to stop this raid on our retirement dollars would be to deposit the money into privately owned worker accounts. If workers have the dollars in their personal accounts, there is no way Congress can get at the money to (mis)spend on other activities.
Over the next 10 years, we're talking more than half a trillion bucks: Money that can either be saved by individual American workers — or taxed in the name of Social Security but spent by Washington.
Personal accounts limited to the size of the Social Security "surplus" would be smaller than most proponents of Social Security reform have long sought, but it establishes the principle — and gives us all a chance to see how it works in practice.
And once the 20 to 30 year olds see the money compounding, they will be more inclined to put additional money in IRAs or 401Ks
I'm certain that workers will love it — and over time demand even more true ownership of their retirement money.
So stop the indefensible raid on the Social Security trust fund by starting personal retirement accounts.
Sounds good to me. And as GOP Bloggers pointed out Alan Greenspan agreed Tuesday before the Senate Special Committee on Aging: Private Accounts would be the Lockbox:
"The major attraction of personal or private accounts is that they can be constructed to be truly segregated from the unified budget," Greenspan said in his testimony.Also see Donald Luskin's article in NRO
Larry Kudlow suggests Begin building a real pension lockbox. The funds could be invested in stock market indexes or bond market indexes. But the government would have to stop spending money that is not really theirs. Another good idea.
On first glance that seems like a reasonable alternative, except the government would be investing the money in stocks, and there would be extreme pressures to attempt to do social engineering by those investments. The money needs to be in private accounts where professional make the investment decisions, rather than in the hands of political appointees.
IBM Invents a Better Mouse
Big Blue scientists have created a mouse adapter that will “eliminate excessive cursor movement”, the company said. IBM has licensed the technology to Montrose Secam Limited, which is based in the United Kingdom. When available, the so-called assistive mouse adapter is expected to sell for less than $100. The adapter is designed to work with any operating system and is based on an imaging stabilization system used in some camera lenses, IBM said. An estimated 10 million people in the US alone suffer from hand tremors caused by a variety of reasons, including Parkinson’s disease.
ZDNetUK said The adapter uses a small microprocessor to apply a digital low-pass smoothing filter to the motion data from the mouse," explained Levine. "The effect is to suppress rapid tremor oscillations, which typically take place at a few cycles per second or faster, while leaving the slow, steady, progress toward the user's goal. A knob allows adjustment of the degree of smoothing, to suit the individual." It also has options to filter out short inadvertent mouse clicks, and to "clean up" double clicks that Windows would reject as too slow or too far apart.
Those without tremors tend to use the mouse quickly, and will notice that the computer is less responsive, said an IBM spokesman. This is one reason for making the device a separate box, which can be easily switched on and off by sufferers and non-sufferers alike.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Faith Helped Courthouse Shootings Hostage
Michele Catalano does not understand. If God is so interventionist as to lead this homicidal maniac to Ashley Smith's door, then why didn't he intervene when Mr. Nichols was mowing down innocent people in a courthouse? Further, why didn't God intervene when Mr. Nichols was (allegedly) raping his girlfriend? Were the deaths and rape all part of some mysterious plan to get Nichols into prison to preach the word?
The answer lies in Free Will. He gives all of us Free Will, to decide what we will do, and what we will not do. I am sure that He would be pleased if when Nichols goes to prison that he accepts Christ and preachs the word, but God certainly did not orchestrate what happened on March 11 and 12. But He certainly gave Ashley the necessary peace to enable her to survive the encounter. I don't know or care what Nichols does in prison, but I do wonder what important job He has in store for Ashley.
Michelle Malkin said that Nichols at one point called her "an angel sent from God," Smith said. and Michelle quoted Psalms 31:24: Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the Lord
MyopicZeal said While held hostage for those seven hours, she read Purpose Driven Life to Brian Nichols. She asked him about his purpose in life, what talents he had been given to use and discussed life with him.
NeoNeoCon said The power of her story was in her sincerity, her courage, and her own belief in redemption. Whether or not you yourself are religious, there is no escaping the power of her belief, and its effect on what appears to have been the already-weary Nichols.
ChasingTheWind said Held hostage by a murderer and rapist, she teaches him the Word of God and tells him he could do the same for fellow prisoners. Incredible.
EspressoRoast said I don't know what is going to come of Nichols in the future (I hope Smith is right), but I know that there is only one source for the kind of peace and courage exhibited by Ashley Smith. It's something real inside when you lose your husband in a stabbing incident and still remain strong in your faith in God, especially in these kinds of circumstances.
Free News
The New York Times ran an article Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?
Consumers are willing to spend millions of dollars on the Web when it comes to music services like iTunes and gaming sites like Xbox Live. But when it comes to online news, they are happy to read it but loath to pay for it.
I've got news for them. Most of the music that is downloaded is pirated, and if was not for the pirated music I don't think Pay Download services would have ever gotten started
Newspaper Web sites have been so popular that at some newspapers, including The New York Times, the number of people who read the paper online now surpasses the number who buy the print edition.
I don't think the NYT or any paper has ALL of the material that goes into the print edition online, and if they do, I would guarantee them that people that want to read the entire NYT are not going to do it online.
..... As a result, nearly a decade after newspapers began building and showcasing their Web sites, one of the most vexing questions in newspaper economics endures: should publishers charge for Web news, knowing that they may drive readers away and into the arms of the competition?
If they do, that is what is going to happen
Of the nation's 1,456 daily newspapers, only one national paper, The Wall Street Journal, which is published by Dow Jones & Company, and about 40 small dailies charge readers to use their Web sites. Other papers charge for either online access to portions of their content or offer online subscribers additional features.
The Journal has some of its opinion stuff online for free, and that is all I access. My local paper, the Tulsa World, charges for most of its stuff, and because of that I don't even read the free stuff
The New York Times on the Web, which is owned by The New York Times Company, has been considering charging for years and is expected to make an announcement soon about its plans.
WashingtonMonthly said whichever newspaper makes this jump first is going to lose out in a big way. If suddenly I have to pay to read the New York Times online, and can't just *ahem* find the password somewhere, then it's not a big deal. I'll just go read the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times and KnightRidder and get my liberal media fix. There's not that much of a difference that I so desperately need the Times.
But suppose the move is inevitable. Betsy Newmark thinks subscriber fees would "put a crimp in political blogging." Perhaps. But then again, perhaps this could all work out in a way that actually improve political blogging. What if the daily news was subscriber-only, but all the news archives were free and open to internet users everywhere? Blogging, it seems, could certainly benefit from slowing things down a bit and doing more commenting on week-old or month-old political stories. And sure, a few big bloggers and institutions would no doubt still buy subscriptions and do "insta-updates" with off-the-cuff commentary, but the rest of us would have to do a bit more thoughtful analysis/research/reporting and a bit less hyperactive mouse-clicking and "breaking" updates. That sounds fine to me!
Dan Gillmor said there's a consequence for newpapers that go behind what Doc Searls and others call a "pay-wall" -- a loss of Web presence in a world where being absent from the Web is, for many younger readers, like not being anywhere at all.
Vidar Hokstad said The moment they require payment, I'll stay away permanently - the number of news sources available to me makes news a cheap commodity, and I don't value their opinion pieces and other unique content enough to pay. Fewer eyeballs for their ads, less presence in search engines, less relevance, in a time where staying relevant and visible makes the difference between setting agenda and being ignored. It's bizarre then, that this comes at a time when New York Times has become blog friendly, letting anyone
create a registration free link to refer to them from their blogs.
James Joyner said The WSJ is unique because the business content they provide is critical to those who make their money in the stock market, who can often write off the cost of their subscriptions as a business expense. It's unclear how other papers would manage the same trick, unless they banded together and did it on their own. The proliferation of blogs and news aggregators like GoogleNews and YahooNews make it even easier to find papers who put their content up for "free."
If they do begin charging, I suspect blogs will increase in popularity as a place to go for free news.
Liberal Bloggers Reaching Out to Major Media
The New York Times reports Liberal Bloggers Reaching Out to Major Media
Even as online pundits criticize traditional news organizations as slow, biased and technologically challenged, a group of bloggers is trying to use old-fashioned telephone conference calls to share their ideas with newspaper and television journalists.
The bloggers, who describe themselves as liberal or progressive, say the conference calls are intended to counter what they regard as the much stronger influence of conservative pundits online. Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, the host of the two calls so far, views them as a step toward getting their reports out to mainstream news organizations.
The Extreme Left Wing Bloggers realize they cannot do as good a job as the Conservative pundents, so they want to feed their drivel to the Extreme Left Wing Main Stream Media
Traditional journalists largely ignored bloggers when they emerged, but have begun to take note of their influence as online commentators assumed roles in news stories like the flaws in the report by "60 Minutes Wednesday" on President Bush's National Guard service and the comments by the former CNN chief, Eason Jordan, about the military's treatment of journalists in Iraq.
They are talking to the wrong bloggers. Those two news stories were reported by Conservative bloggers.
Mr. Fertik maintains that the blurring of boundaries has benefited left-wing bloggers less than their adversaries on the right, saying that reports posted on conservative blogs more easily make the jump to the main news media. "The way we perceive it," he said, "is that right-wing bloggers are able to invent stories, get them out on Drudge, get them on Rush Limbaugh, get them on Fox, and pretty soon that spills over into the mainstream media. We, the progressives, we don't have that kind of network to work with."
Do you mean more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than Air America, and more people trust Drudge than DailyKOS, and more watch Fox than CNN??? Oh, yes, you are right. But then the Left has ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc. etc.
Deacon said newspapers should pay someone to read political blogs, just as they pay people to watch bad movies
Jeff Jarvis said They have no idea whether media actually called in. I've not seen any stories about the call. So there's no way to know whether this is a success. Yet The Times devotes considerable attention to it on the front of the business section. The larger story is a good and interesting one: Are conservatives doing a better job than liberals at using the blogosphere to investigate and spread stories and get them into mainstream media?
Paul @Wizbang said The bridge is already there.... It's called a web browser. If the lefty bloggers have anything worth saying, the message would get out, just like it does from the right. After the Tsunami, a blog that was only like 3 weeks old became the #1 blog in the blogosphere in just a few hours because he linked the videos of the event. When there is content, the blogosphere is breathtakingly efficient. What is really going on here is that liberals don't have a message and haven't had the facts on their side. The right-wing blogs have had a stronger influence because we have had the facts on our side!
Matt said Now, after several victories by the right wing bloggers to move the news and Bush's reelection, liberal bloggers feel emasculated because they've just not been as effective/influential as the conservative bloggers. They've definitely tried. While conservative bloggers can say they helped take down Dan Rather and Eason Jordan, the liberal bloggers went after an unknown pseudo-journalist (who no one had heard of before) reporting for an online publication (which frankly, few people read). Now the liberal blogs want to move from "people-powered" to "media-powered"... just because they want some time in the spotlight. It is hard to blame them for desiring media attention—bloggers want recognition for what they do. But recognition by the media does not necessary increase their influence. Truth be told, liberal blogs seem to enjoy most of the media attention. It's hard to find story about blogs that doesn't mention Daily Kos or Wonkette. It's never occurred to the liberal blogosphere that maybe the reason they've lacked influence is because they've lacked substance, or as Paul says, "right-wing blogs have had a stronger influence because we have had the facts on our side!"
WizBang said At the end of the day it comes down to content. If the lefty blogs were on the right side of the facts, the media would find them. Rather than trying to manipulate the media thru conference calls, why don't the liberal bloggers just get on their blogs and find something impressive to say? But Noooo... Rather than compete in the arena of ideas, they want a "media subsidy" to "level the playing field." They want affirmative action for boring bloggers.
JackLewis said That the MSM and Liberal bloggers would eagerly work together seems to whoosh right over the NYT's head, and proof of a Liberal bias. They focus more on the advances Conservative bloggers have made, assuming as Liberals so often do, that there must be some magic trick the Conservatives use (there is -- it's called logic, intelligence and truth).
NTP said .... much more useful content than a blog where the main topic is, say, how President Bush is evil and wants to keep every minority child from graduating high school.
Update 3/17 T. Bevan noted The public relations effort is being organized by a guy named Bob Fertik.... So who is Bob Fertik? He's a self-described "life-long progressive and Democratic Party activist" and co-founder of the web site Democrats.com. The only reason I recognized Fertik's name is because he was a behind-the-scenes player in reviving the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in early 2004 - which I wrote about here.
Intelligent Design
Washington Post reports Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens
Propelled by a polished strategy crafted by activists on America's political right, a battle is intensifying across the nation over how students are taught about the origins of life. Policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution.
The proposals typically stop short of overturning evolution or introducing biblical accounts. Instead, they are calculated pleas to teach what advocates consider gaps in long-accepted Darwinian theory, with many relying on the idea of intelligent design, which posits the central role of a creator.
In Seattle, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and media pieces supporting intelligent design. In Fort Lauderdale, Christian evangelist James Kennedy established a Creation Studies Institute. In Virginia, Liberty University is sponsoring the Creation Mega Conference with a Kentucky group called Answers in Genesis, which raised $9 million in 2003.
Clearly the Main Stream Media and some teachers oppose giving children both sides of the issue, and letting them think for themselves.
- The Sun News says 'Intelligent design' shouldn't be taught .... The claim is that Darwinian processes cannot account for the history and diversity of life because life shows evidence of complex design, and that Darwinian processes could not produce design without "intelligent" input. Ergo, presumably, there must be, or must have been, an intelligent designing agent. Nevermind who. For this claim there is, so far, zero evidence. [Other than the fact that we are here. Why are they so frightened with the thought that a Creator may have wanted us to be here, and created us (in his image)]
- MainToday says Experts support intelligent design.... Many great scientists of the past believed in biblical creation. A partial roster of great minds that accepted biblical creation includes Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Leibnitz, Mendel, Pasteur and Maxwell. There is no shortage of scientists or scientifically literate folks who believe in intelligent design and/or creation science. I hope Devine and others read this and will dig a little deeper. They might emerge with more respect for these theories or with changed beliefs.[Unlikely. If their minds are closed, it will be hard for them to change]
- RegisterGuard says Separate faith, science: Intelligent design is not a science class subject. There is an intelligent way to teach intelligent design in U.S. public schools: Offer it in religion, humanities, history, philosophy, American studies, social studies, current events or political science classes. In those classes, intelligent design can be appropriately examined for what it is: a faith-based theory that an intelligent designer - let's cut to the chase and call such an entity God - is the only plausible explanation for the emergence of complex organisms that do not appear to have developed gradually through Darwinian natural selection. [How many public schools have classes in religion, humanities, history, philosophy, American studies, social studies, current events or political science? This is just an excuse to force a Secular Humanistic curriculum on children. They claim that the First Amendment calls for "Separation of Church and State" when really all it prohibits is a state sponsored church. But almost all faiths, other than Atheist or Secular Humanist, believe in a creator, so teaching Intelligent Design certainly is not Establishing a State Sponsored Religion]
Reveal Sources
InformationWeek reports Apple Wins Order Forcing Bloggers to Reveal Sources; Appeal Likely
A judge on Friday ordered three independent online reporters to divulge confidential sources in a lawsuit brought by Apple Computer Inc., ruling that they were not protected by the First Amendment because they published trade secrets.
The ruling alarmed speech advocates, who saw the case as a test of whether people who write for Web publications enjoy the same legal protections as reporters for mainstream publications. Among those are protections afforded under California's ''shield'' law, which is meant to encourage the publication of information in the public's interest.
The reporters--who run sites followed closely by Apple enthusiasts--allegedly published product descriptions that Apple said employees had leaked in violation of nondisclosure agreements and possibly the U.S. Trade Secrets Act.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law.
In December, Apple sued several unnamed individuals, called ''Does,'' who leaked specifications about a pending music software--code-named ''Asteroid''--to Monish Bhatia, Jason O'Grady and another person who writes under the pseudonym Kasper Jade. Their articles appeared in the online publications AppleInsider and PowerPage.
InternetNews reports Thank you, ThinkSecret. Thank you, AppleInsider and PowerPage.
No, not for your interesting, juicy tidbits on your blogs and tip sheets about upcoming products and all things Apple and Mac. We do enjoy them though, as confounding as they can be to technology news sites that write about Apple. (Quote, Chart)
No, not for when you may have slapped up any unchecked information that would arouse howls of derision about standards if it were published the same way in the so-called "mainstream" press (online or off).
Thank you for being journalists in the case involving Apple. Thanks for your work upholding the fundamental principle that journalists uphold: the ability to keep anonymous sources protected. And thank you for getting lawyers to help you cite the First Amendment in your quest to protect your sources.
We'll see if you ultimately break new ground in whether bloggers will help or hinder journalists that seek to protect their sources through shield laws.
BlogHerald reports A remarkable thing happened over the weekend, and maybe just for once the protagonist in the matter of the California 3, Apple, should be thanked for it: Main stream media (MSM) has started sticking up for bloggers as journalists.
The case, for those who’ve missed it, involves Apple Computer Corp subpoenaing 3 bloggers (the California 3) over the publication of alleged “trade secrets” last year, in an attempt to obtain the names of the Apple employees who leaked the information in breach of Apple’s non-disclosure contractual arrangements.
BetaNews reports Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled that an online journalists' Internet service provider can be obligated to identify confidential sources to Apple's legal counsel.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Will the Mideast Bloom?
Washington Post printed an article by Youssef M. Ibrahim Will the Mideast Bloom?
Listen to the conversations in the cafes on the edge of the creek that runs through this Persian Gulf city, and it is hard to believe that the George W. Bush being praised by Arab diners is the same George W. Bush who has been widely excoriated in these parts ever since he took office.
Yet the balmy breeze blowing along the creek carries murmurs of approval for the devoutly Christian U.S. president, whose persistent calls for democracy in the Middle East are looking less like preaching and more like timely encouragement.
Nowadays, intellectuals, businessmen and working-class people alike can be caught lauding Bush's hard-edged posture on democracy and cheering his handling of Arab rulers who are U.S. allies. Many also admire Bush's unvarnished threats against Syria should it fail to pull its soldiers and spies out of Lebanon before the elections there next month -- a warning the United Nations reinforced last week with immediate effects. For Bush, it is not quite a lovefest but a celebration nonetheless.....
Regardless of Bush's intentions -- which many Arabs and Muslims still view with suspicion -- the U.S. president and his neoconservative crowd are helping to spawn a spirit of reform and a new vigor to confront dynastic dictatorships and other assorted ills. It's enough for someone like me, who has felt that Bush's attitude toward the Mideast has been all wrong, to wonder whether his idea of setting the Muslim house in order is right.....
For now, all the Middle East has are demonstrators and brave voters who, ballot by imperfect ballot, e-mail by e-mail are burying a culture of fear. And for the moment, that may be enough.
Gene @HarrysPlace provided a cartoon that appeared March 3 in a Jordanian newspaper, al-Ghad, that captured the sense that the age of autocracy may be drawing to a close. Political cartoonist Emad Hajjaj drew four statues on pedestals. The one furthest to the right, Saddam Hussein, is cracking at the knees and toppling into an almost identical statue of Syrian leader Bashir Assad, which is teetering into a statue of Mubarak, who is falling into a statue whose face can't be seen.
Arthur Dent commented That cartoon is very sharp. If it had just shown Bashar toppling after Saddam followed by "Etc" the point would have been much less clear - but including Mubarek before "Etc" in a Jordanian newspaper is more than hint that the local regime is also on the way out.
Betsy Newmark said No one knows what will happen here, but my thought is that once people have awakened to the question of why they can't have democracy and others in the region can, they will not soon forget that question.
Pejman Yousefzadeh said Personally, I would have titled the article "The Sudden Love and Adoration of the Arab Street," but that's just me.
Freedom is a powerful seed. It needs to be carefully tended, but when it blooms it will be beautiful.
Blogging Diversity
Newsweek raised the question Blogging Beyond the Men's Club
Since anyone can write a Weblog, why is the blogosphere dominated by white males?
Keith Jenkins, an African-American blogger who is also an editor at The Washington Post Magazine [a sister publication of NEWSWEEK] said "It has taken 'mainstream media' a very long time to get to [the] point of inclusion," Jenkins wrote. "My fear is that the overwhelmingly white and male American blogosphere ... will return us to a day where the dialogue about issues was a predominantly white-only one."
After the comment was posted, a couple of the women at the conference—bloggers MacKinnon and Halley Suitt—looked around and saw that there weren't many other women in attendance.
So why, when millions of blogs are written by all sorts of people, does the top rung look so homogeneous? It appears that some clubbiness is involved. Suitt puts it more bluntly: "It's white people linking to other white people!" (A link from a popular blog is this medium's equivalent to a Super Bowl ad.) Suitt attributes her own high status in the blogging world to her conscious decision to "promote myself among those on the A list."
La Shawn said While I have noticed that the top bloggers tend to link to each other, and most of them happen to be white males, I know for a fact the "old boys' club" of bloggers isn't impenetrable. I've managed to break through several times, but that usually comes with e-mailing links, which is something I used to avoid. The drawback of such an admission is that if/when I'm linked by a high-profile blogger, the assumption is that I've e-mailed them. Not the case every time.
Halley Suitt said Okay, can I mention a blog that's got diversity coming out it's ears!? A blog that's got a female voice AND a male voice. A blog that's got an Asian voice, a Canadian voice, an American voice, all wrapped up into one. A blog about love and technology and a wedding and music and Toronto and Boston and The Phillipines.
I don't think the top bloggers have much time to read a lot blogs, and I suspect mine isn't on their agenda most days. Consequently, I made the same decision as Halley Suitt. I decided that I wanted to promote myself among those on the A-list. I have high aspirations for my career as a writer and blogger, and getting the attention of high-profile bloggers is a necessary step.
Roger Ailes said Shouldn't this article be about the perpetuation of white male dominance at Harvard academic conferences, rather than while male dominance of the blogosphere? .... Here's a radical suggestion for MacKinnon if she wants more diversity at her next blogfest: Invite more women and people of color. Until then, stop pretending that your problem and Harvard's is someone else's.
Glenn Reynolds writes LaShawn Barber has thoughts on the power of email. Don't be a pest (there's one guy who emails me every time he updates his blog, which as a consequence I've never visited) but don't be too shy, either. I try to get around, but there are a lot of blogs. I'm more likely to discover your blog if you send me a link to a post that I'll be interested in.
LaShawn Barber (a black female) writes At the risk of sounding like a liberal, I do wish more blacks and women were invited to these blogger conferences and called for TV spots and radio interviews. I won’t complain too much, though. I’ll just continue blogging about what interests me and hope you find something on the blog that interests you. I remain hopeful that “affirmative action” will keep its ugly hands out of the pot. We will rise or fall on pure blogging. And some high-profile linkage.
Sissy Willis writes What does a woman want? Like a man, it depends upon the individual. With a nod to Helen Reddy, I am blogger, hear me roar In numbers too big to ignore.
CQ wrote Anyone who wants to be successful at blogging can achieve it, as long as they're willing to write well and often and market themselves effectively. Even established authors don't automatically transfer their success to the blogosphere. Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt have because they understand the blog market
EdDriscoll said Since the early 1990s, newspapers have tried to promote diversity purely as a function of skin color and gender. But getting noticed in the Blogosphere isn't a function of diversity--it's a function of talent, perseverance, and marketing skills. And as Morrissey notes above, all of those skills are very much color--and gender--blind.
SensibleMom said It’s interesting that people are commenting on the fact that the blogosphere is made up of white males because, to me, the blogosphere is colorblind. That is, unless someone posts their picture, no one knows whether they’re white, black, asian, etc. It is only as some of these bloggers have gained fame or a presence, and, therefore, have been interviewed that we know what their race is. Until then, though, the bulk of their readers had no idea what their race was. They just found their investigative powers and writing compelling.
I don't know about others, but I read blogs from men and women, conservatives and liberals, white, black, yellow, and brown, and from many countries. And when I see something I feel should be commented on, I do so, with a link to the originating blog entry, and if they have a TrackBack I track their entry back to mine.
Rice Won't Run
But they all word it differently:
- ABC News says Rice Says She Won't Run for President
- Reuters says Rice Says She Has No Ambition to Run for President
- Sydney Morning Herald says Rice says she won't run for president
- Reuters says Rice Says She Has No Ambition to Run for President
- Chicago Sun-Times says Rice says she doesn't want to run for president
- Washington Post says 'Mildly Pro-Choice' Rice Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid
- Los Angeles Time says Rice Denies '08 Presidential Aspirations
- New York Post says Condi Won't Rule Out Run For Prez
- Seattle Times says Rice won't rule out running for president in 2008 election
Bad advice
The Washington Times ran an article by Ralph Hallow entitled Bad advice to Bush blamed for Social Security struggle. In it he said Mr. Bush has refused to rule out measures that would contradict his campaign promises on Social Security, putting himself in what conservatives say is a weak negotiating position with Democrats. "The president would do well to put markers down as to what we are going to do and what we are not going to do on Social Security taxes and benefits," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican.
It would seem to me that doing as Mike Pence suggests is the bad advice; not what the President is doing. If Bush did as many urge him, and totally ruled out any changes, he would never get anything through. That would be just as foolish as if he did as the Democrats say, and take private accounts off the table, and then they will negotiate. That is because the only other alternatives are raising taxes (which the Dems prefer), or reducing benefits (and the Dems would like to see that, because they think they could turn that into a way of dragging votes away from the Republicans and to the Democrats.
The article also says The senior Republican senator said privately that the only way to avoid a bad deal on Social Security may be "to pull the trigger on the nuclear option." This, he said, would mean changing Senate rules to force an end to Democratic filibusters and a vote on Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. The Democrats likely would retaliate by filibustering all Republican bills. Republicans then could blame Democrats for blocking Social Security reform.
I favor blocking the practice of filibustering Judicial nominations, but I don't agree that the Democrats would be foolish enough to then Filibuster all Republican bills, especially if Bill Frist is willing to force them to really filibuster (i.e. speak continuously on a matter).
DemFromCT on DailyKos says Josh Marshall reads the Washington Times so you don't have to (and bless him for that).
This just shows how the Left thinks. I read more on the Left Wing New York Times and Washington Post than I do on the Right Wing New York Post and Washington Times. I may not agree with much of what the Left Wing Press says, but if I don't know what they are saying, I can't comment on it.
Dwight Meredith says that he wrote a few days ago The GOP may decide that the smartest move is to ram through as much legislation as they can (class action, bankruptcy, tort reform, Anwar, etc) and then go nuclear to cause the Senate to shut down before Republicans face defeat on Social Security and tax cuts. and then he goes on to quote Josh Marshall's account of the Washington Times article (another Leftie that does not read the original source) about what the "senior Republican senator said privately" about the nuclear option.
Matthew Yglesias said I had to read that a couple of times until I got it. But now I see what the Senator meant. He means that he and his colleagues don't like being stuck between the president's pressure to endorse his plan, and the public's pressure not to pass his plan. The ideal way out of the impasse would be for the GOP to go nuclear on the filibuster issue, which will lead Democrats to shut down the Senate entirely, thus getting Republican Senators off the hook. To the White House and the privateer money bags they can say, "hey! we would have passed it if it hadn't been for those Democrats" and to the voters they can say, "hey! I never voted for any such thing."
Polemic Propaganda admits that It is already the de facto Democratic objective to obstruct anything, and everything that comes up in this legislative session to the best of their ability..... The extent to which obstructionism was an obstruction to Democrats in 2002 or 2004 has been greatly exaggerated, and naturally, the only ones promoting this line are those that want to see obstructionism decrease during a majority GOP government. In any event, the nuclear option would seem a little drastic and counter-productive given that it would only enhance the lame duck effect on the executive, as it pertains to the domestic agenda, and would create unnecessary turmoil for reelection candidates in ‘06.
I believe that PP is wrong about why the Dems lost in 2002 and 2004, and that excessive filibustering will cause them to lose in 2006 also, but let's not tell the Dems that.
The GOP's Lesson on Abortion
E. J. Dionne wrote a column The GOP's Lesson on Abortion in the Washington Post, and stated: Why are George W. Bush and his party so skillful in dealing with the abortion issue, and why are Democrats so clumsy? It turns out that Democrats willing to grapple seriously with these questions risk getting seriously trashed. It makes you wonder whether Democrats enjoy losing elections.
Predictably the extreme left did not like the article. Avedon Carol: says E.J. has had a Kool-Aid day
Atros unwittingly proves EJ's point: Some evil liberals (Hollywood liberals, even!) are daring to raise money to mount primary challenges against pro-life Democrats, despite the fact that these Democrats have the overwhelming support of their party. Langevin and Casey have the support of their party, and a very tiny piece of the liberal establishment could possibly challenge them.
Max seems to understand: ventilates a pet peeve of mine in re: liberal women's organizations and the Democratic Party. Those who are soft on choice are threatened with the nuclear option, while those who betray working people and minorities in 57 other ways get over if they pass all the pro-choice litmus test questions. Meanwhile the Repubs can showcase that great pro-choice exemplar of women's rights, Gov. Schnatzengrabber. although the ad hominum attack on the California Governor is just so he does not get attacked too much by the rabid left.
EJ recognizes that the Republican party is not a single-issue party, and has no litmus test: More than that, the Republican Party has been utterly realistic, indeed ruthless, in engineering the nomination of pro-choice candidates if they had the better chance of winning. The amazing thing is that some of the staunchest opponents of abortion went right along and sidetracked allies if that was what victory required.
