Funmurphys: the Blog

I'd Rather Eat Broken Glass

I would rather eat pieces of broken glass than watch the presidential debates. The spectacle of two grown men bickering and posturing and trying to get in some catchy zinger makes me wish for a New Zealand citizenship. There are moments of substance in the debates, but these are overshadowed by the focus on image and style and who could deliver the most clever put-down. The partisan debate audience cares very little about the issues - they are there to cheer on their candidate. They aren't there to learn anything. The media will anoint a "winner" and a "loser" based on some objective criteria like who sweat the most or who looked at his watch. I feel very embarrassed watching the debates.

Why should I watch the presidential debates? If I want to know where the two men stand on the issues I can look up their positions on their web sites, or look at the comparisons that routinely appear in the media. I'm familiar with their records (Bush more so than Kerry). I can use statistics to analyze what happened to the country or state over their term in office. If I want to evaluate their characters I can observe how they've conducted their presidential campaigns, what they've said and what has been said by their surrogates.

And yet - eating broken glass does not help me to fulfill my civic duty to evaluate the candidates and vote for whoever I think will do a better job of leading this country over the next four years. So I will watch at least one of the debates.

During some past presidential cycle a news writer observed that a presidential debate is one of the few venues that the candidate does not control. Speeches, news conferences, public gatherings - all these are mostly controlled by the candidates. Not so with a debate. We get to see how he or she will react in unknown circumstances. Are these circumstances relevant to presidential performance? Yes, because verbal debate is part of the political process, part of governing in this country. The debates are a data point we don't already have.

I will watch at least one debate. But I won't enjoy it!

Maybe I'll keep a bowl of broken glass on the coffee table nearby just in case.

Man's Best Friend

I'm a dog lover. There will be no cat blogging on this blog. Now I have even more reason to prefer dogs - they can smell bladder cancer in human urine. If this works out in a real diagnostic setting (and so far the reliability is too low), it's easy to imagine what comes next.

On a related note, a co-worker is on a dog search and rescue team. She was out practicing with her group at a plane crash site when one of the dogs, trained as a cadaver dog, started turning up body parts. They called the sheriff's department, and by the time they arrived, they had a sizable amount of human remains and plane parts. I don't know about you, but I spend my weekends in less important but more enjoyable pursuits.

Unhealthy Suburbs?

Is urban sprawl really responsible for bad health? Count me among the skeptics, despite the RAND study that says it does.

Warm, Cuddly, Deadly

I'd like to live in Teresa Heinz Kerry's world. No, I'm not talking about being a pampered billionaire, I'm talking about her world where everybody is a rational actor.

She said the United States needs a different approach in the world. "The way we live in peace in a family, in a marriage, in the world, is not by threatening people, is not by showing off your muscles. It's by listening, by giving a hand sometimes, by being intelligent, by being open and by setting high standards," she said at the CSU rally.

That may work for most people in their family lives, but it simply doesn't work for everybody nor does it work all the time in the world. They're are plenty of people in prison for whom all those non-forceful methods simply don't work. And does she honestly think we can sit down with Osama and work this whole 'infidels-must-die' thing out with listening and setting high standards?

This sort of thinking gets people killed. But it doesn't stop there.

"There are about 50 countries in the world that have the capability to build nuclear weapons. Are we going to attack them all?" she said.

Are all countries equal? Does Canada follow the same foreign policy as North Korea? Of course not. So why should different countries, with different political systems, be treated the same? It's egalitarianism run amok. Homicidal dictators who feel no compunction in killing people should be treated differently than representative governments that take great care of foreigners and citizens alike.

I realize that she is the wife of the candidate, not the candidate, but I get tired of trite moralizing and an inability to face up to reality.

Virgin Galactic

I have to laud Richard Branson for taking space flight to the next level - private flights. I wish him success. But I have to laugh at the name - Virgin Galactic, no, not the Virgin part, the Galactic part. Truth in advertising would have the new firm called Virgin Sub-Orbital, but I guess that doesn't have the same ring to it as Galactic.

My Hometown Paper

Imagine my joy when I opened up my paper over the weekend and read an op-ed by Joanne Jacobs about blogging. Finally, something written on blogging by somebody who knows what they are talking about. But I immediately noticed that they had the URL for Powerline instead of Free Republic. I checked Joanne's blog, and it turns out she sold it the the SF Chronicle as well, where they have the correct URL. There's an embarrassing comparison - the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, worse than the Chron.

Missouri - Predicted Weather

Local scientists using a regional climate model predict that the western midwest won't warm as much as the rest of the world:

"The so-called "hole" in global warming will stretch for hundreds of miles and include Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Oklahoma, Saint Louis University officials said. The findings are published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

The modeling showed that warming in the United States will be stronger in winter than summer and stronger at night than during the day," said Zaitao Pan, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Saint Louis University. "But we found what looked to us like a 'hole' in the daytime warming in summer, which was a surprise."

Good, because I couldn't take it if the high temperature got any higher during the summer, and I'm a native. Having the nights and winters warmer I can handle. The news isn't all good though:

Ray Arritt, agronomy professor at Iowa State, said to expect more rainfall and wetter soil in the future. As a result, more of the sun's energy will go into evaporating water than heating the air, he said.

Oh great, we'll have higher humidity. The plants will love it, but I'll be wilting.

Missouri, Proud Weathervane

We got good news here yesterday in Missouri -- John Kerry has decided against running political ads here. Of course, he may decide to run them after deciding not to run them, so I'm not celebrating just yet. But it tells me that as of right now, John Kerry is giving up. I'm not saying he won't win, I'm just saying if he's giving up on Missouri, the nation's political weathervane, he's giving up actually winning the Presidency. Now if I can survive the blitz of McCaskill and Blunt ads, I'll keep my sanity. I'm thinking McCaskill is going to win, but not before I have to put up with hours of lousy ads.

Cat Stevens in the News Again

Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, formerly Stephen Georgiou, was denied entry to the United States and returned to London:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/23/stevens.back.britain/index.html

Here's some more background on the creator of "Tea for the Tillerman":
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/cat.stevens.resurfaces.ap/index.html

CNN.com reports:

"He [Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam] was widely reported to have endorsed the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni's 1989 decree calling for the death of British novelist Salman Rushdie after Khomeni said Rushdie's novel, "The Satanic Verses," was blasphemous.

But Islam has said his comments were taken out of context by a reporter, and that he opposed anyone "taking the law into their own hands."

Here's what I remember of the Salman Rushdie "Satanic Verses" incident (15 years after the fact): After Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie and ordered Muslims to kill him, some reporters asked Stevens about the death sentence. Yusuf Islam's response was something like this: "Well, blasphemy against the Koran is a very serious matter. I acknowledge the authority of Muslim religious leaders, and in principle I support their decrees." The headlines the next day read:

Cat Stevens Says Rushdie Must Die

Of course Stevens hit the roof when he read the newspaper, and he angrily called a press conference. He said his comments had been taken out of context, that his position had been exaggerated, and so on.

I think he deserved it. One does not equivocate and give vague statements of implicit support when death sentences are issued publicly against authors of books. Either Khomeini is an out-of-control theocratic idiot or he's a revered Imam of the true Islamic faith. Khomeni didn't leave us with many choices in the middle.

Yusuf Islam seems to have learned his lesson: "He also condemned the recent attack on a school in the southern Russian town of Beslan that killed more than 300 people, many of them children." Good for him. Maybe he'll donate money or blood to help them.

By the way, nobody claims that Cat Stevens is a terrorist, despite the disingenuous remarks by him and some American Muslims like Ibrahim Hooper (spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations). The complaint is that some of the charities he supports may be funneling money toward non-charitable causes that support terrorism.

Amazing Race 5 Finale

The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Chip and Kim won because they came in last on the events in Canada and so got on an earlier flight than Colin and Christie, and Brandon and Nicole who's flight was delayed because the fog in Calgary kept their plane from landing the night before. So despite the maniacal efforts of C&Cs taxi driver in Dallas, C&K were able to hold the lead they got from the earlier flight. The two later teams also learned a lesson about airline safety -- you can't fly on a different flight from your bags (unless the airline goofs).

I like Chip -- he just seems like an easy going guy. My wife wasn't happy with him because he lied to Brandon and Nicole, but I thought B&N were being lazy in letting Chip do all the work, and they shouldn't have put that million dollar temptation in front of him. How hard was it to get of the boat and jog over to the route marker? So my hats off to the big guy, and Kim, you're along for the ride just like you were on the show (except for the hike up the mountain to the Continental Divide).

I was happy it just wasn't Colin and Christie who won. Colin doesn't think much of the editing of the show, but I'm sorry, it didn't make up your multiple psychotic episodes. Colin proposed on the Early Show, and Christie accepted. Good luck to both of you, and I hope you never have the unrelenting stress that you experienced during the show.

I was bummed the Bowling Moms didn't make it into the final three, but then they had to face the wall of death. OK, it wasn't exactly that, but being strong and fit sure did help one scale that cliff. Is it just me, or have they increased the difficulty of a lot of the detours, roadblocks, and fastforwards? They always got your heart racing, but it seems that they also require strength, stamina, athleticism, all that stuff I have in such short supply. It was really nice to see a mature team keep up, play smart, and be such nice people.

The amazing thing in this episode is that my wife and I stayed in the hotel at the Calgary airport on our honeymoon. The one that the teams crossed the street from the terminal and then sacked out in some room. We went to Lake Louise for the honeymoon, and spent the first night of our marriage in Calgary.

I thought the finale was pretty taut, with good guys, villains (yes, Colin, I mean you), and some along for the ride (as much as my wife likes Brandon, I find him and Nicole a little, well, clueless). Jenspeaks also liked it, and has much more.

Meta Media Questions

Does the success of Fox News tell us something? Does the MSM resemble more a cartel or the rough and tumble of real competition? Why was Dan Rather still anchorman after years of dismal and declining ratings? Why does MSM attack Fox News so regularly and so vehemently? Is Fox News part of the MSM?

Can I fire the MSM? Does the MSM have any idea about how popular or trusted any particular member is? Do its members rise through the ranks more on the opinion of their fellows than their audience? If the work of the MSM is judged by the MSM and rewarded by the MSM, is groupthink the only possible result? Why doesn't MSM make better use of all the tools and resources at it's command?

Do the vaunted layers of editorial control add to or subtract from the final product? Is MSM focused on the method of delivery (a particular newscast or a particular edition of the paper) to the detriment of providing their customers the information they need? Will this fixation carry over into the internet age? Does it make sense to bundle information in the internet age?

Do we need a source of trusted, unbiased information? Is it even possible to have an "information referee" who is completely unbiased?

Are TV shows and movies part of MSM? Do they reinforce, contradict, or have no effect on MSM message? If what MSM says has no effect on its consumers, wouldn't advertisers be wasting their money?

Carnivals of the Vanities

The 105^th installment of Carnival of the Vanities is up at the Eleven Day Empire. There is lots of good stuff, and I even entered a post. I have to admire all the hard work that goes into picking a theme, executing it well, and writing all the intros.

Going And Going And ...

Ra^thergate just keeps getting bigger, weirder, and more corrupt. It's reminds me of when I first saw Independence Day: You think you're watching just another disaster epic, some character starts talking about Roswell and area 51, and the next thing you know all the crazy conspiracy theories about aliens are coming true. Well, that's where we're at on this story, we started off with a story of sloppy journalism and all of a sudden CBS news is just another cog in the Kerry Campaign -- and it sure seems like we're still closer to the beginning of the story than the end.

The story as of now - CBS learns by means/people unrevealed that Bill Burkett has some info on Bush's National Guard service. Despite the fact that Burkett had already fabricated a story about Bush's TANG files, CBS talks to and believes Burkett (he must be mighty persuasive in person). Burkett tells them he has some documents, gives one to them, and then names as his price for the rest that CBS has the Kerry Campaign talk to him. Mary Mapes, CBS producer, calls Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland, tips them off that Burkett is their source on a big story about Bush's National Guard service complete with documentary evidence. Lockhart talks with Burkett, but he claims he only humored him, talking about how Kerry could respond to the Swift Boat Veterans ads, and never discussed what Burkett was telling to CBS. It's pure coincidence that the Kerry campaign had ready that whole "Fortunate Son" theme ready to go immediately after the 60 minutes report. Oh that's right, Burkett slipped Cleland a copy of the documents (perhaps when Cleland was down at Bush's ranch?) so why should Lockard spend time yaking with the guy when he can look at the documents for himself.

Gee, I wonder why CBS didn't also contact the Bush campaign to let them know about the report they were going to do. That way they too could have their comments ready following the show. Maybe CBS found it too hard to think with all those alarm bells going off. I mean, Burkett had lied before about something and cited George Conn as someone who could back him up, and here he tells CBS he got these documents from Conn again (did Burkett pick him for the name alone?). CBS is apparently so dazed and confused that they can't figure out what their document experts are telling them, don't bother to check with George Conn to see if they are getting conned, rely on noted liar Ben Barnes to be the face of the piece, and then seemed defensive and shocked that anyone would question CBS authority. I mean, if CBS says they have authenticated the documents (they didn't), have an unimpeachable source (I guess he's certifiable, not impeachable), and airtight chain of custody (so airtight they don't need to check it), who but partisan idiot scumbags can question them? And just because they already told the Kerry Campaign who they're top secret source is doesn't mean they should tell the public.

USA Today also received the documents, but seemingly they could hear the alarm bells well enough they didn't run with the story like CBS. And when they went back to Burkett, they got the greatest shaggy dog story ever told: Lucy Ramirez gave them to me, and I burned the originals because, well, Ramirez didn't want forensic evidence coming back to name her. Who's Lucy Ramirez? Apparently USAT doesn't know either, but didn't think to ask.

If this were a movie, people would think it too contrived. Sadly, it's not, it's the network news in action. I suppose this way they can go out with a bang, not a whimper.

The Softer Side Of Linkage

Happy Birthday to Busymom! The Big 40 is nothing to trifle with, youngster. I'd go out and buy a pair of those magnifying glasses for far-sightedness right now, because very soon you'll need them. And remember, you're only as old as you feel, so if you're feeling old, go out and feel something young. Works every time.

Fran Mason urges you to visit the Ozarks, and I have to second that sentiment. And by all means follow her link to the MSNBC story that extolls their virtue.

The Obvious? reports that Tom Peters, yes, THE Tom Peters who is the top management guru around, has a blog. A real blog.

Some simple advice for herself that works for me, and probably you too from Da Goddess.

I can't help myself, Tom McMahon tells an oldie but a goodie, and he discovers that a team of top flight doctors have concluded that The Red Baron was shot down because he was suffering impaired judgement as the result of a nasty headwound.

Justin Katz asserts that Truth must be conveyed honestly by looking at some attempts to convert Catholics by less than honest means.

Science Blog reports that volunteering is good not just for the soul but the health as well (no word on desert and floorwax effects). They also report that some smart person has figured out why some paintings have eyes that follow you around the room: "All it takes for the effect to work is to have the person in the painting, or photograph, look straight ahead. If a person in a painting is looking straight out, it will always appear that way, regardless of the angle at which it is viewed.'' And rounding out the trifecta, the FTC is considering offering bounties for spammers. I think $50 a head is about right.

Shelley Powers went to the balloon race here in Forest Park and has the pictures to print it. Poke around to discover more, lots more.

I must be watching the wrong TV shows, but I can't recall seeing one of the Miller High Life ads Brad Rolfe likes so much. Perhaps it's because I watch girly man shows (hey, Oprah is very informative), or perhaps I can't think of anything I like to watch less on TV than poker, except perhaps for golf. I do remember the cat fight ad, although for the life of me I couldn't tell you which Miller product they were pushing.

Eamonn Fitzgerald reports that Mel Gibson and John Boorman (the latest version of the odd couple?) are going to make best-seller The Professor and the Madman into a movie. The crazy thing is (no, not that I read and enjoyed the book) that the book was about the making of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Would that there were more people in Hollywood who can make movies that interest them.

I'm going to let Brian Tiemann handle that whole pirate thing, which I neither understand nor care about.

Are you ready for some football? Ben Domenech is.

I've heard of White Punks on Dope, but David at Cronaca warns about pigeons on dope.

Oh yeah, they handed out emmy's last night but frankly I couldn't care less about stupid award shows anymore. OK, I'm sure I'll watch the Oscars with my wife, but I don't enjoy it.

Gee, Ya Think?

It's not just rumored anymore, it's official: CBS admits that it cannot vouch for the authenticity of documents used to support a "60 Minutes" story. The network said it was wrong to go on the air with a story that it could not substantiate.

And for reasons known only to ABC news, they choose to run the story with a picture of John Kerry speaking at a fund raiser. That's enough to make me wonder if I shouldn't start complaining about a rightward tilt in the media.

A New Discovery

I was watching Singing In The Rain with my daughter tonight. I take the position that no matter how much I have to do, if my 13 year old daughter wants to spend time with the old man, I spend it. And I'm a big fan of the movie. Anyway, we tuned in at the start of the "Moses Supposes" song, and when we got to the "Gotta Dance" number, I was struck by a thought (I assure you, I'm used to it so it doesn't hurt when it happens).

There is an amazing structural similarity between musicals and action flicks. In musicals, they periodically sing for no particular reason; in action flicks, they periodically do violence for no particular reason. In musicals, they have these large, elaborately staged production numbers that may or may not have anything to do with the plot or characterization, but they sure are fun; in action flicks, they have these large, elaborately staged action sequences that may or may not have anything to do with the plot or characterization, but they sure are fun. In fact, musicals often have the flimsiest of plot and characterization, and stuff is added clearly not because they make any sense but for their worth as spectacle -- which is just like action flicks. No musical would be complete without a buddy and the guy getting the girl in the end, which is also the standard for action flicks.

You could remake Singing In The Rain as an action movie very simply - snip out all the singing and dancing and replace it with violence and explosions and you'd be done. Then I could watch that version with my 10 year old son.

Penultimate Amazing Race 5

Watching Colin rage while trying to plow up a clue in the Phillipines was must see TV. I have to admit it was a guilty pleasure, since I now I can get pretty steamed when frustrated. In Colin's defense (I never thought I'd write that), Christie sure didn't help. If Kim could get down and dirty leading the Ox around (just like the other teams where both members worked together), why couldn't Christie?

Watching them both fume at getting yielded was priceless, but what did they expect? Ther other teams aren't goint to do nothing to stop their string of first places. I have to wonder if the producers didn't derail C&C in Singapore by asking (paying?) the airline to not board them. All that enjoyments was salve for C&C non being eliminated when they came in last. I guess they put those non-elimination legs in the race to pad the show out to the proper length whil keeping the number of teams to a managable level.

Next week we have the 2 hour finale to look forward to. I like 3 out of the 4 teams, and if Colin and Christie do win, at least they've provided a lot of the entertainment value of the show. I have to admit though, my wife is leaning towards the Brandon and Nicole team while I'm hoping for Linda and Karen AKA the bowling moms.

Conrad Does Sully (And More)

The multi-talented Conrad reveals Andrew Sullivan's gaycentricity [is that a word? It is now]. He also shines the light on Laos and it's treatment of the Hmong. Above my fireplace hangs a piece of Hmong artwork given to me by a friend (yes, they do exist). Their story illustrates that there is rarely any justice in this world.

One Of My Favorites

I've been busy (forcast - no clearing in the busyness for a long time), so thankfully Carl has provided a good substantial post below. I'm going to have to go with one of my favorite topics: intestinal bacteria. They have a good side, and a bad side, and the latest is bad -- intestinal bacteria cause Crohn's disease, an unpleasant ailment. Here's hoping that knowing what strain causes it will lead to a cure.

Is John Kerry a Christian?

My daughter attends a private Christian school. This morning she told me that her second-grade classmates "don't want to vote for John Kelly [sic] because he's not a Christian. They want to vote for George Bush."

I was appalled to hear this, but I restrained myself. Who told them that John Kerry is not a Christian? I explained that John Kerry is a Roman Catholic, and that the Catholic Church is one of the "denominations" in the worldwide Christian church. "We don't go to John Kerry's church because we are Protestant (Anglican), but his church also believes in Jesus." That was enough for a second-grader.

But I'm a big seventeenth-grader. Is John Kerry a Christian? The facts show that John Kerry describes himself as a Roman Catholic. His web site says:

"Not long after John Kerry was born, the family settled in Massachusetts. Growing up there, his parents taught him the values of service and responsibility and the blessings of his Catholic faith, lessons John Kerry carries with him to this day."

I have also seen a news photograph of John Kerry receiving Communion. This indicates that he is at least somewhat active in his church. So we can conclude that John Kerry is a practicing Roman Catholic. So far, so good.

A fair number of people claim that Kerry is not a true Christian because he doesn't vote against abortion. That stance may not make him a "good Catholic", but that's not the question here. I have heard laundry lists that a "true Christian" should: believe in Jesus, oppose abortion, be against homosexuality, tithe, attend church regularly, be in favor of a balanced budget, and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Frankly, I have very little interest in definitions of "What is a true Christian?" that fail to cite the Bible by book, chapter, and verse. If the official definition of a Christian includes opposition to abortion, then the Bible ought to state that pretty clearly. So - what does the Bible say?

Romans 10:9-10 says: "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (NIV) That passage tells us how to be saved, but it's not quite a definition of what is a Christian.

John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Again, this tells us how to be saved, but not what constitutes a Christian. (Maybe the Gospel writers cared more about Salvation than what exactly is "proper Christianity.")

James 1:27 says: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." Some translations use the phrase "true religion" here. I don't see anything about abortion in James 1:27, although one could argue that not opposing abortion is "being polluted by the world." Good luck with your exegesis.

There are lots of things a Christian should do, according to Jesus: love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, and be faithful unto death. In fact, a Christian should not sin! But as Peter learned after the resurrection, even the sin of denying Jesus does not kick you out of the Christian club.

The Gospels are more concerned about pointing the way to Salvation than about defining what makes a proper Christian. The Pharisees were very concerned about defining what makes a good Jew, and Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. I'll take my definition of "What makes a Christian?" from Romans 10:9-10:

1. Believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God, and make Him the Lord of your life.
2. Believe that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter morning.

That's it. Everything else is commentary.

I would like to ask Kerry personally about points 1 and 2. But until I find evidence to the contrary, I'll have to assume that he follows the position of the Catholic Church, which is in agreement with points 1 and 2.

I think John Kerry is a Christian. I think he's wrong about abortion. I hope he changes his mind.

I expect to see John Kerry in heaven when I get there.

Not Good

Putin appears to be actually doing what Bush's critics accuse him of: becoming a dictator. My feeling is that this is what Putin has wanted to do and now feels that he can do. Will taking full control of the goverment help in the fight against terrorism? I don't think so, and it may cause more division than unity. The problem Russia has had in fighting terrorism seems to have more to do with petty corruption than lack of central control. But what do I know, I'm just a guy on the other side of the world from Russia.

Same As It Ever Was

It’s clear CBS lied to us. No, I’m not claiming they or any employee (e.g. Dan Rather) were the forgers of what are clearly forged documents. No, they lied to us about how they checked the authenticity. None of their so called experts authenticated the documents. They never did have a document expert as they claimed, and now they’re trolling blogs looking for any help they can get.

I think this is business as usual for the MSM. There was no golden age. The authority and trustworthiness on any story has always depended on the individuals doing the reporting and fact checking, not with the organization as a whole. Some people had integrity and were consciencous; other were not. Jason Blair exposed the same problems on the newspaper side that Steven Glass exposed on the magazine side that are now revealed on the network news side by Ra^therGate.

MSM has long been part of the trial lawyer media complex, an unholy alliance designed to win money for both trial lawyers through damage awards and journalists through advertisers. When NBC news allowed the destruction of a pickup truck to be staged using model rocket engines by trial lawyers, this connection was clearly exposed, not that anything happened beyond junior partners catching heat. The way for huge breast implant verdicts and awards was carefully paved by a media campaign that hyped non-existant dangers.

Where once reporting on social issues like gun control and abortion, or how different wars were portrayed based upon who occupied the oval office, or even economic news itself were and are slanted by the liberal views and biases of MSM, we know have a clear indication that political reporting suffers the same fate.

Trust is the only currency MSM has to spend, and for me they've spent it all. And that's terrible, we need reliable information.

UPDATE: I've been busy, but the new developments are even worse for CBS. The reason they didn't provide the names and reports of their authenticators is that the people they asked to authenticate didn't. That's right, after CBS looked into the memos for weeks the expert's verdict was not authentic. Yet CBS went ahead anyway. T hey didn't make a mistake, they lied, and they knowingly peddled a lie. Okay, CBS hasn't just spent all their trust with me, they are into me for a lot of trust.

Funny Ha Ha

I found this post including the comments at Mudville Gazette very funny (odd, because usually Mudville is not a source of laughs).

I found this post at Ipse Dixit funny too, but in a different yet somehow related way. Just remember, the Democrats decry the politics of personal destruction.

It looks like I picked a bad day to give up linking to sarcasm.

What MSM Can Learn From Blogs

Blogs can’t replace the full range of MSM, but blogs have demonstrated that they can do certain things, like fact check, much better than MSM. Ra^therGate is a prime example.

The guys at Powerline are bright guys, Charles Johnson is a bright guy, same goes for Bill at INDC Journal, Donald Sensing, Pacetown, and all the rest. But two things sets them, and bloggers in general, apart from MSM (OK, more than that, but I’m only going to focus on two things. So keep Pajama cracks to yourself).

Number one is that they are happy to credit the people who send them information. You want your name mentioned, they’ll do anything short of the blink tag. When a reader sends them good info, they use it and credit the sender (or withhold the name if desired). They don’t act like they’re figuring out everything on their own or that they discovered all the info on their own. This is a huge multiplier effect – they are giants on the shoulders of thousands of other giants, people who may be experts in a given field, people who may be talented amateurs in a given people, people who might have just had a great idea or key insight. The point is, for MSM, I’m sure they have to rely on people giving them info, but they always act like somehow as good journalists they did all this on their own. They seem to actively discourage the notion that any part of what they present was even influenced by non-MSM participation. Yes, they get outside experts on occasion, but the experts come from MSM’s rolodex, not the other way around. But for whatever reason, MSM thinks any whiff off non-MSM participation dilutes their authority.

The other difference is that bloggers don’t try to be “exclusive”; that is they link to other bloggers. No blogger pretends to be a one stop shop. This is a big help because on something like the CBS forgery story nobody has the complete picture all by themselves; a bunch of people contribute various amounts but by linking the reader can get a full picture. It’s no skin off of Powerline’s nose to link to a INDC Journal post that makes a good point if it helps the reader. Actually, it’s better than that because Powerline doesn’t have to worry about all the angles, it just works it’s angle on the story and links to the other angles. MSM doesn’t work that way. MSM wants you to stay with them or a “partner” – usually another media entity with common ownership. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming the blogosphere is one great big love-in where nobody cares about traffic. It isn’t, they do. But competition takes a different form – if you don’t link where appropriate, traffic goes down. It’s that simple. Part of your importance as a blogger isn't just original content, but putting it into context.

Jeff at Caerdroia and The Daily Pundit also have thoughts on differences between blogs and MSM.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

CBS and the Boston Globe have decided if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your B.S. Put your waders on boys and girls, because it's getting deep around here.

Dan Rather's response on national TV: "Today, on the internet and elsewhere, some people -- including many who are partisan political operatives -- concentrated not on the key questions the overall story raised but on the documents that were part of the support of the story." I have to question Dan Rather's news judgement (please note, not his patriotism), since he thinks allegations of activity that wasn't either illegal or unethical that happened 30 years ago is far more important than allegations of outright fraud that happened 2 days ago.

I can almost see the thought bubbles above Dan Rather's head "must tough it out -- if I can just tough it out long enough, it will all go away." Since I'm not a journalist, I won't go the extra mile and claim I really can see them.

CBS put on the lamest defense: an expert witness on handwriting who has said in the past that you can't positively authenticate a signature from a photocopy. Well, guess what, he positively authenticated a signature from a photocopy. CBS had no expert on documents themselves though -- not that they've named yet. As I said before, if they can't name one, can't produce his or her work, I have to doubt they exist. There's far more evidence for Santa Claus than there is that CBS did a thorough investigation of these documents.

The Boston Globe took up the slack on that and announced that a top expert on documents authenticated the documents. This one will blow your mind. They used the expert that Bill at INDC first contacted and who said 90% chance of forgery. After a Globe reporter talked with Dr. Bouffard, they ran the following headline:
Authenticity backed on Bush documents
OK, we can all get back to pummelling President Bush for his actions 30 years ago. Well, not so fast. It seems the good Dr. is "pissed" at the Globe for misrepresenting his views. What he told them was that he was still looking into it, getting more information, somethings he thought at first weren't quite true, and he was still considering it. But he still thinks the documents are most likely forgeries.

The guys at Powerline are ahead of the curve on all this (why not, they've been at the head of the pack so far) and have come out with a great idea:

"The next question is, how old are the "first-generation" copies that CBS has? If those copies, based on testing the paper, are themselves twenty or thirty years old, it would add considerable plausibility to the claim that there were, in fact, authentic originals, even if those originals cannot now be recovered. But I'll bet they're not. I'll bet that if tested, the CBS copies would be very, very recent. (I don't know how precise dating of paper can be. If any readers are experts in this, let us know.) So, here is the bottom line: if the CBS copies are recent, then the alleged originals were recently in existence. So where are they? Were they recently destroyed? If so, why and by whom?

If CBS would make its purported first-generation copies available for testing, it could go a long way toward verifying their authenticity, or--much more likely--proving that they are recently-created fakes.

One loophole in this approach: a clever forger could obtain thirty-year old paper, and use it to create the fake memos. So if the originals (or CBS' copies) are on old paper, it wouldn't necessarily prove they are authentic (they could, of course, have been forged long ago, but it's hard to see why anyone would have done that). But if CBS's copies are new, and they can't explain what happened to the originals, it would be the last nail in Dan Rather's coffin.

So let's get CBS's copies and test the paper.

I wouldn't worry about that clever forger too much - nothing has been particularly clever about it so far.

Wouldn't it be nice to put the whole sorry mess in front of an investigative inquiry, put everybody under oath, have CBS and the Globe put all their cards on the table, and get to the bottom of this? Maybe Lord Hutton is available. After all, when Hutton spoke, heads rolled.

I'd Ra^ther Not

It's deja vu all over again. Last year a star reporter makes blockbuster accusation; when his story is questioned, his company backs him to the hilt saying that his source was reliable; an inquiry is launched which discovers that the reporter distorted the information of the source and that his company didn't provide adequate oversight and then blindly backed the reporter; the chairman of the board, the CEO, and the reporter then resigned. In that case it was Andrew Gilligan and the BBC; today's case is Dan Rather and CBS.

The big difference (aside from the sexier accents across the pond) is that what the blogosphere did in a day took a government agency months. OK, that and we haven't gotten to the punishment of the guilty yet. Here's hoping that doesn't take too long either - a matter of days rather than weeks.

The first thing that strikes me about the whole thing is how bad a forgery the documents are. The forger don't even bother to spend a couple of bucks and buy an old typewriter to type them up. They then used the most common word processing software in the world, Word, and they just left all the standard defaults on. They didn't even change the font to Courier, which looks like a typewriter. They didn't even bother to proofread and so you have a "th" superscripted next to a number, and you have "th" not superscripted one space away from a number? Can you make it any more obvious that this was done on Word on a computer?

It's more understandable that the forgeries didn't get the military details correct. But I don't understand why LTC Killian would have written these in the first place. They seem to dovetail nicely with what some Democrats are saying today, but they make no sense in the context of LTC Killian writing them in 1973. For instance, why would an officer ever write a memo that says he caved to pressure from a superior, and title it CYA? Who's A is he trying to cover here? Not his, because he was admitting he lied in an evaluation. That wouldn't be covering his A, that would be uncovering his A, and waving a big red flag while doing so.

So I convinced that these are forgeries, and amazingly lousy ones at that.

Only blinding partisanship would let Dan Rather be deceived by such lousy forgeries, and put at risk both the reputation of CBS news and John Kerry. Those reputations were put at risk for claims that George Bush's superior really didn't think he was that good a pilot, that George Bush refused a written order to get a physical, and that George Bush didn't get permission to go to Alabama. Really, who cares? We've been throught this a dozen times already. At least Gilligan provided a blockbuster accusation of "tarted-up" dossiers (you got to love the brits, especially when they talk French). Rather provided a snooze fest of accusations, and did so with both skill, aplomb, and nothing but liars. The documents - fake. Ben Barnes - a liar. This is what passes for journalism these days?

But there is a certain deja vu with previous Bush scandals. Joe Wilson - liar. Richard Clark - liar. Michael Moore - liar. This latest non-scandal has the familiar ending: the accuser turns out to be a liar and the accusations baseless.

CBS has claimed they did a thorough investigation before they went to air. If CBS really did a thorough investigation of the documents, why aren't they able to release the results immediately? Why can't they simply provide their expert typologists report where they tracked down which typewriters in use by the TANG were able to use a proportional font and a superscripted th? Where is their comparison of other documents that have nothing to do with Bush also written by the LTC around the same time? They haven't even provided a name. Why can't they provide the chain of possession of the documents in question? Since they haven't, I'm forced to conclude that there was no thorough examination of the documents. Instead, they relied on people believing on CBS's say so. We don't live in 1973 anymore where just because Cronkite said it, we believe.

Dan Rather has responded and sadly provides no new information or a shred of support, just more of the same 'trust me':

"I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?."

I think there's a lot of credit to go around: the guys at Powerline, Charles Johnson, INDC journal and Pacetown just to name a few. Hayek would be proud of the display of distributed intellegence in the internet -- how no one source has all the answers, but the flood of information coming from all directions arrived at a conclusion. The forgery wouldn't have been detected before the rise of the internet. Not just because of bloggers or skeptics, but because the documents wouldn't have been released to the public before. Now you have everything input into the network and the distributed intellegence standing by. But back then the documents might have been flashed up on the TV briefly, and then never seen again. And if the White House did dispute the authenticity, well, that would be just what you would expect, and by the time it was resolved, the election would be long over.

And of course, the blogosphere as befits a super intellegent being has a sense of humor.

Amazing Racery

Tuesday night I got back from working on the parade float (will Saturday ever come? -- and will there be pictures?) and flopped down too dazed to realize that The Amazing Race was on. Lucky for me, my wife was on top of things and we got to see the twins come in last and get booted off. Yeah! Now I'm only rooting against half a team -- Colin and Christie are the new Flo and Zach.

The most amazing thing this time around is how well the bowling moms are doing -- Go Linda and Karen! The middle-aged lady teams never make it this far. No surprise from Chip and Kim though, when they got to the detour Kim told Chip "you're doing it!" Come on Kim, do more than one thing the whole show. And what was this, Colin behaved himself? Colin was nice to Christie? No screaming fits, no stalking around glaring at people? The scenes from next week promise a big Colin meltdown, so there is that to look forward to.

And what was with the fast forward on last week's show? It just isn't right to have people cut off all their hair as part of the show. At least they had the decency to make it a non-elimination leg, but what were they thinking? It is nothing like the other stuff contestants have had to do in the past and just seemed gratuitously cruel. I'm also getting tired of having the female contestants getting groped on trains in India, but at least that's an unfortunate part of actual travel. Nobody's using the fast forwards this time, so why discourage it with a stupid requirement like that?

It's only a TV show. It's only a TV show. It's only a TV show. Yes, that helps.

No Trumans Here

The Post ran one of my letters to the editor after a long absence. I would have liked to have written at greater length, but brevity is the soul of wit (and the secret to getting a letter printed). I wrote in response to both letters and editorials - it was a Post editorial that labeled Zell Miller's speach "vituperative." I suppose I labor under the illusion that anybody, and I include the paper's staff, reads the editorials or opeds or letters to the editor. I barely know anbody who gets the paper, let alone reads anything beyond sports and everyday (comics).

I reproduce the letter for your reading enjoyment:

The responses to the Republican National Convention make it clear that the Democrats are no longer the party of Harry Truman; they can't stand the heat. The Republicans told the truth, and the Democrats thought it was hell.

The Democrats can't tell the difference between ad hominem attacks and factual takedowns. Pointing out that John Kerry was on the wrong side of a number of issues and votes is called vituperative; calling George W. Bush a moron, a fascist, a liar and AWOL and Dick Cheney a war profiteer and a coward for obtaining draft deferments passes as reasonable debate.

Considering the identical responses of mainstream media and partisan Democrats, it's clear that the media represent the view of partisan Democrats and not unbiased reporting.

Global Moral Renaissance

(This is a blog. I'm supposed to be provocative, right?) Humanity's march toward righteousness continues. From CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/08/30/war.peace.ap/index.html

Despite headlines, global war casualties decline

Monday, August 30, 2004 Posted: 12:13 PM EDT (1613 GMT)
(AP) -- The chilling sights and sounds of war fill newspapers and television screens worldwide, but war itself is in decline, peace researchers report.

In fact, the number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meantime, are growing in number.

"International engagement is blossoming," said American scholar Monty G. Marshall. "There's been an enormous amount of activity to try to end these conflicts.

. . .

A collaboration with Sweden's Uppsala University, that report will conservatively estimate battle-related deaths worldwide at 15,000 in 2002 and, because of the Iraq war, rising to 20,000 in 2003. Those estimates are sharply down from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990's, a time of major costly conflicts in such places as the former Zaire and southern Sudan, and from a post-World War II peak of 700,000 in 1951.

The article cites studies by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the Canadian organization Project Ploughshare, and the Human Security Report from the University of British Columbia. Okay, I'm kidding about the "march toward righteousness", but I thought that story ought to be received as good news.

Monty Marshall and others attribute the cause of the decline to the end of the Cold War's aftermath, and to peacemaking and peacekeeping missions, often under U.N. auspices. And you thought Kofi Annan was just some annoying guy who runs onto the battlefield just as American armies are lined up ready to give the bad guy what he deserves! You may still be correct about that, but these researchers think that some good is being accomplished by peace missions that embody what the U.N. is supposed to be.

The fly in the ointment here is that humans have thought up other ways to be nasty to each other that do not involve armed conflict. "The Canadian center's director, Andrew Mack, said the figures don't include deaths from war-induced starvation and disease, deaths from ethnic conflicts not involving states, or unopposed massacres, such as in Rwanda in 1994." So North Korean leader Kim Jong Il can still allow 2-3 million people to starve to death during 1994-1998, and it won't get added to the number of combat deaths.

Probably the encouraging statistics from 2003 will not comfort any parents who lost a child in the Beslan terrorist attack on a school this past week. Still, the statistics suggest that for every Beslan school there are two or more schools where children coming running out to their waiting parents, hug them, and travel happily homeward with nary a terrorist in sight. Is Vladimir Putin our friend? I suppose not. However, Christian theology includes the idea of treating your adversary kindly in his hour of need, and possibly making him your friend. See the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 for details. God can make good come out of evil (Genesis 50:20).

As George Bush said shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks: "Hug your children!" Take them on whitewater rafting trips. And love their mother with all your heart.

My Big Picture

Radical Islam is on the move, not just bloodying its borders, but at times fighting with state Islam. Where once state Islam was the agent, now private Islam is the agent of Jihad, except where radical Islam can take over a country, like Afganistan. Russia is just the most recent target. The impotency of state Islam is the reason it is content to sit on the sidelines and let private Islam do the dirty work, and why the work is so dirty. Assymetrical warfare is not the first choice, but the only choice for radical Islam, and having made a virtue of neccessity radical Islam has embraced terrorism wholeheartedly.

First Armed Liberal posted his thoughts on Beslan and Chechnya and asked a vital question:

"If terrorism is about 'liberation' - about birthing new states, like Chechnya or Palestine, or about 'freeing' states like Iraq - we have to ask ourselves what kind of states will be born or won through that process."

Then Dan Darling provided background on Beslan and Chechnya and notes:

This should in no way be seen as an endorsement of Russian policies in Chechnya, which have been worse than brutal - they're simply ineffective. I'll conclude with a link to a reputable organization that is seeking to raise money for the victims of this tragic act of barbarism.

Allah wants you to realize that Putin is not our friend. And that's true. But it wasn't Putin who was attacked, it was Russia itself. Putin is the current ruler of Russia, and both the enemy of our enemy and a practioner of a realist and ruthless foreign policy.

You can look around the world and see of lots of separate fights between people who happen to be Islamic radicals and people who aren't, including one between Osama Bin Laden and the US, or you can take the holistic approach and see a fight between a particular political/religous philosophy and the rest of the world. If your vision is the former, you will have a disconnected, spasmodic response. If your vision is the latter, then you will seek coordination with all the various targets of radical Islam and ultimately the end of radical Islam. One way you fight each head of the hydra separately; the other way you try to kill the body of the hydra.

So we can be squeemish about our partners, not want to get involved in "their fight", or we can seek coordinated response, one that perhaps can be less brutal and broad brush than the responses that will surely come from fellow combatents
anyway.

Whitewater Rafting

When we were in Colorado we went whitewater rafting on the Cache La Poudre river and had a blast. I can recommend Wanderlust rafting -- and try to get Kate as your guide, because she is not only good at the rafting part, she's a lot of fun too (if you value your dryness, don't splash her first) and good with children. Look for the green rafting helmet. They take pictures of your trip and for a fee will provide you with either individual shots or the whole set. I plumped for the whole set on CD so you don't have to. We did the taste of wild as the other trips had age restrictions that would have left the Fruit of the Murphy Loins behind.

Some people always seem to know where the camera is and play to it. The two littlest fruit are mine; I'm the guy with the Pancho Villa mustache (since trimmed, thankfully), and my better half is the gal behind the Foster Grants.

Stroke, stroke, stroke, ... Boy, that Kate sure was a slave driver!

Yeeaaaagghhhhhh!!!!! A trip like this lets your inner Dean out (whether you want it out or not).

The other Fearless Leader and Kate are chatting away like they're in the line at the grocery store. Women.

Whitewater is fun. No, they didn't teach us that display paddle position -- it just comes naturally.

Well, I made it all the way to the end without a gratuitous Clinton joke about Whitewater. Good luck on a speedy recovery Bill!

If you get a chance, you should go rafting too as it is too much fun to be legal for much longer.

Into The Abyss

Lileks and Steyn cover the madness in Beslan better than I can.

Lileks handles the media reaction to the horror:

Cicadas, airplanes, wind in the trees. A peaceful weekend. At least here. There’s a bloody child on the front page of the newspaper. The Strib subhead calls them “Islamic guerrillas” and “fighters” and “militants,” because you know one man’s terrorist is another man’s disciple of God who practices his sharpshooting so he can nail children in the back at 50 paces. This teaser to an inside story made my jaw bruise my sternum: “This week’s bloodbath in Russia shattered the notion that innocents are taboo terror victims.” This is why I despair sometimes. Now we learn that innocents are no longer taboo terror victims.

Steyn covers why sadness isn't enough:

Sorry, it won't do. I remember a couple of days after September 11 writing in some column or other that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn't whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, that's still the difference. We can all get upset about dead children, but unless you're giving honest thought to what was responsible for the slaughter your tasteful elegies are no use. Nor are the hyper-rationalist theories about "asymmetrical warfare".

Good stuff about bad stuff.

Despicable

What a sad day -- what an evil day. Who would hold children hostage and not allow them to eat or drink for days? Who would shoot fleeing children in the back or blow them up? Who could do such things?

Who thought we'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Russians in a fight against evil 15 years after the Berlin wall came down?

Pretty Boys On The TV

There are times when I think I'm too hard on the press. But then I read something like this: Peter Jennings' interview of Karl Rove, and then I wonder if I'm not hard enough. This interview clarifies a few thing - while Peter is a very pleasant guy -- easy to look at, nice sounding voice (hey, these are all the things I lack!), he's not too bright and clearly looking not to inform the audience, which I think is what his job is, but looking to trap Rove and make him and the President look bad. Not surprisingly, Rove is ahead of him and rather easily avoids Jennings' snares. What a waste of TV time. No wonder more people were watching Fox News than any of the networks: Brokaw is an American version of Jennings, and Rather isn't even pleasant.

Via Frater Libertas, who also has good commentary (natch!) on the interview.

Bush's Speech

After School Night For Scouting and Open House at school I was too tired to take on Andariel, so I watched TV instead while I unloaded the dishwasher. I didn't get home until about 9:20, so when I flipped on the TV President Bush was in the middle of the domestic laundry list. He was taking about partial privatization of Social Security, which made me simulaineously think "Amen, brother!" and "Quit talking about it and do something about it."

I hate that State of the Union Style speech -- promises mixed with applause -- so I flipped over to the ballgame. No, not the Rams losing to the Raiders (I bet Dodd's happy), the Cardinals stomping on the Padres again (oh yeah, the Cardinals sure did look "beatable"). I was happy my wife and son got to see a good game, but I was surprised when they got home at about 9:35 -- I thought it would be closer to 10. So after I got my sons take on the game and he went off to bed, we flipped back to the President and got to the good part.

I thought he did a fine job - he poked fun at himself, always a plus for me (although that shoulder shake thing he does when he laughs is either deeply annoying or deeply endearing, sometimes both at the same time), he was serious and determined, and he was clearly teary eyed when he talked about the sacrifices soldiers and their families were making in the war on terror.

George Bush could be a cub master - you have to like being the butt of most of the jokes. I just can't imagine John Kerry making jokes at his own expense let alone having fun with it. While I've always said it's easy to fake sincerity, it's spontaneity that hards to fake, I do think Bush's teary eyes were sincere. I know Bill Clinton among others could turn the waterworks on and off at will, but I don't think Bush can (I don't think Kerry's that good a fake, either).

I can't make any predictions or claims about the effects on the famed swing voters, but I don't think Bush hurt himself with the speech, and I do think he's pulling ahead of Kerry. I'll be honest, I don't see how anybody but a hard core Democrat could vote for Kerry. But I know perfectly reasonable sane and smart people who think Kerry is the better of the two for President. Bush wouldn't be my first pick out of everybody for President, but there's only two in the race.

School Night For Scouting

We had 19 boys sign up last night (yeah!) and about 5-6 prospects at our School Night For Scouting. The prospects were all people who came late and so didn't hear me run through my spiel on what we do and what's expected of both the boys and the parents; I'm glad that after hearing me ramble on for 20 minutes (possibly more) nobody who did hear me backed out. I may not be a good public speaker, but at least I'm not repellant. I even managed to talk one lady who came in late while we were wrapping up the paperwork into joining. Her son wanted to, but she wasn't sure. After a few minutes of me talking while she just kind of looked at her paper work, the pack's committee chair asked if she was going to join tonight since he had to go turn all the forms and money in. At first she wasn't, but after I went over our calender and all the neat stuff we do, she was sold. It seemed like a lot of the 2nd graders were joining because their friends who were already scouts had a good time. I guess hard work and dogged determination do pay off.

Thursday Link Fest

Happy Birthday Brad! And good luck with your classes.

Tim takes on Quixtar, again. Go Tim, go!

Next destination, Barsoom (according to one of my alter egos). I’m also a big fan of the Pellucidar novels.

I have to admit, Chrenkoff brought a smile to my lips with this post

Cori continues to watch over the media so we don’t have to. I’m shocked, shocked, to discover that the WaPo continues to bury any good news in Iraq.

Brian Tiemann doesn’t think Father of the Pride is going to be around very long – not funny enough for a comedy is his verdict on the pilot.

Chris Johnson revels in the insightfulness of Reuters’ news analysis.

Mark at Kaedrin Weblog reacts to Steven Den Beste’s blog retirement. Charles Austin announces his retirement, again. I suppose it’s the quantity, not the quality, in Charles’ opinion. I for one miss Charles.

Matt Hoy despairs of his own abilities and winning a Pulitzer after reading Maureen Dowd’s latest. Susanna Cornett cheerfully reads Maureen, although I’m hurt that she didn’t notice when I gave the same explanation of how to enjoy reading Ms. Marueen. Have I mentioned several people have found my blog after searching on "Maureen Dowd Sexy"? Do you wish I had just kept that little nugget to myself?

ScrappleFace has Osama’s reaction to the Republican convention.

Geitner Simmons has more about the Great Plains. When I was driving to Colorado and back, I noticed how all the roads I drove on in Kansas and Colorado pretty much followed the railroads.

The Ombudsgod is hoping his readers will buy him a Porsche Carrera GT. The spirit is willing, but the pocket isn’t deep enough.

Tom McMahon sums up the election -- you’ll have to read it, as it is a brief summary.

Tanya is looking ahead to the next one.

Eammon Fitzgerald is looking back to Munich, no not 1938, but 1972, sparked by Rudy Guiliani.

Jason Goes To New York

My wife wanted to watch Zell Miller last night, so after I got back from working on the parade float and walking the dog, we turned on the TV to the convention. Since Zell wasn’t on yet, my wife called her Girl Scout co-Leader and then Zell came on. She was bummed she missed most of it, but I got to see the whole thing. Wow. It should go down as the “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” speech – an even better version of Howard Beale from Network.

I hope John Kerry took notes on the effective way to mention one’s military experience (“And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators”) – as little as possible and in context with the point.

Zell put on the hockey mask, revved up the chainsaw, and went to work on the objects of his wrath. He didn’t stop when he finished with politicians, he kept it up on Hardball. After that speech, the two Cheneys were anti-climactic and I didn’t stick out Dick’s speech for very long before I was back to handling Scout administrivia.

Tomorrow night is Bush – I have School Night for Scouting and Open House at school, but I’ll be back in time I hope. My wife and son are off to a Cardinal’s game, so she’ll miss Bush’s speech for sure. I’ll be torn – a politician speaking, or uninterrupted time to take on Andariel and go on to Act II. Decisions, decisions.

Political Wisdom

I try not to be a partisan. I try to understand what somebody truly means, not look for the gotcha! or blindly defend. I don't always succeed. Sometimes it's my fault; sometimes, the speaker is just too outrageous.

I didn't think I'd see this bit of wisdom topped:

"I will do the diplomacy necessary, and I have heavy cards to play -- I'm not going to lay 'em all out on the table, no future president, no president should negotiate this in public. But let me tell you, I've got big cards to play to bring people to understand the stakes here"

Who knew Big John was such a poker player.

But then the big daddy of politics preached the following from a church pulpit (thus demonstrating that God is merciful because he wasn't struck down):

"It's wrong to demonize and cartoonize one another, and to ignore evidence, and to make false charges and to bear false witness. Sometimes I think our friends on the other side have become the people of the Nine Commandments."

I guess it takes one to know one, eh perjurer-in-chief?

Andrew Agonistes

If I were Andrew Sullivan, I'd ask for the money back he spent on his month long vacation. I don't know about you, but one of the things I look forward to about my summer vacation is returning rested and relaxed from it, ready to put the concerns of the world in their proper perspective. Andrew seems to have returned completely stressed out, which is a darn shame.

UPDATE: Ace of Spade's thinks Andrew is an emotional rock of Gibralter. He sure convinced me with all the evidence he piled up.

And In Other News

I haven't seen much of the Republican convention. I've been too busy with important stuff. Monday I night I helped on my cub scout pack's parade float (I'll be doing the same thing tonight). My wife and I were mystified to flip on the TV and see McCain booed by the audience and a reaction shot of a large hairy man who bore a striking resemblance to Michael Moore. Fortunately, McCain repeated the line that started the booing and so we realized that we were seeing Michael Moore being booed by an audience (he ought to be getting used to it by now). I didn't find the rest of the speech too riveting so I caught up on my reading of Science News. We then caught the beginning of Giuliani's speech and boy, it was good, but we went up to bed about the time he started detailing how Germany failed humanity by releasing the terrorists from the Munich Olympics. My wife doesn't need her beauty sleep, but I sure do.

Last night I had to do some scout paperwork/planning, and I did manage to squeeze in some demon slaying with my Paladin before the Amazing Race, so all I saw of Schwartzenneger's speech was the walk backstage from the podium. We watched the Bush twins, who don't even look like sisters, and I thought that they were better than 99% of celebrety award show banter, which isn't exactly high praise. When George introduced Laura -- who seems to have more sense than to be a politician herself -- my wife and I wondered if anybody in the game going on behind him realized they were playing in front of a national audience. Laura was Laura, which means I'd vote for her for any office, but I can take only so much speechifying, especially those that have constant applause lines. So after discovering there wasn't much else on TV, we toddled off to bed.

Fortunately, Conrad has some insightful observations of his own.