Sliming Sarah

I think its important for bloggers to lay their biases out in the open.
Particularly if one happens to be a moderate/centrist/independent.
Moderates are supposed to be more objective than their more partisan counterparts. Having said that here's my latest bias. I don't like Sarah Palin. Not one bit. And I don't have a good reason for it. Literally as soon as she came onto my radar the alarms started going off. The last time that happened during a presidential race was in 2000 when W declared his candidacy. So I'm going to trust my instincts about her but for the purposes of this blog try to be as objective as possible.

Having said that I do think that the feeding frenzy the media and blogtopia has gotten in over Sarah Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Certain actions of hers have been misrepresented and then in turn presented as the truth repeatedly
by both liberal and moderate bloggers. In particular the book banning inquiry and subsequent firing of the questioned librarian has been woefully misconstrued. The latest blogger of note to propagate that myth (and others) is Juan Cole over at Salon. His recent post, "What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick" presents several half truths as fact. So below are a list of his assertions contrasted with what FactCheck.org has to say on the same matter.

Cole:

while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her

Fact Check:

Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.

It's true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla's librarian, on at least two occasions.
...
Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned
...
Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a "loyalty" purge, she rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for two-and-a-half more years. Actually, Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation in October 1996, four days before the public discussion of censorship. That was at the same time she requested that all four of Wasilla's department heads resign.

Cole:

Palin argued when running for governor that creationism should be taught in public schools, at taxpayers' expense, alongside real science.

Fact Check:

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

Cole:

The GOP vice-presidential pick holds that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest or severe birth defects, making an exception only if the life of the mother is in danger. She calls abortion an "atrocity" and pledges to reshape the judiciary to fight it. Ironically, Palin's views on the matter are to the right of those in the Muslim country of Tunisia,
...
Palin's stance is even stricter than that of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In 2005, the legislature in Tehran attempted to amend the country's antiabortion statute to permit an abortion up to four months in case of a birth defect. The conservative clerical Guardianship Council, which functions as a sort of theocratic senate, however, rejected the change. Iran's law on abortion is therefore virtually identical to the one that Palin would like to see imposed on American women
...
Saudi Arabia's restrictive law on abortion likewise disallows it in the case or rape or incest, or of fetal impairment, which is also Gov. Palin's position.

Fact Check:

*crickets chirp*

(OK, he's right on that count.)

There are real issues that Palin can be taken to task on like fiscal responsibility, accepting earmarks while claiming to be a reformer, CCing her husband on all executive level emails. In fact if you'd like to see a conservative do a fine job of it check out the blog Eunomia over at American Conservative magazine. He smartly points out her faults without ever once propagating a single falsehood. Ultimately that is what separates vetting from sliming. We need more of the former and less of the latter. I may not like Palin but that doesn't mean I don't want her to be treated unfairly.

However at the rate mistruths are being propagated about she may eventually catch up with Obama on the slimed scale. And given how heated things get during presidential election that might be about as fair as blogtopia can manage.

Thanks to Northloop Neighborhoods for linking to this post.

Credibility Lost

Is almost impossible to regain.

For the second time in a week an author on the Huffington Post is claiming that the war in Georgia was a GOP plot. This time its Truthdig editor and former journalist Robert Scheer...

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal (emphasis added) that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy that McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, will be provided with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

This is starting to look like a trend on the Huff Po. The question is is it ideological or editorial in nature. Either someone involved in the hiring process is predisposed to the particular line of thought espoused by these writers or there is a severe lack of editorial oversight (or both). If this trend continues the Huff Po will lose its credibility to all but the far left and therefore will only be preaching to choir. At the rate the Huff Po is going however it'll be on my "do not read list" by next week.

H/T to PoliGazette

Credit Where Credit is Due

As you may recall I used to have a Schmap widget at the top of my sidebar that showed who won which state during the Dem primaries. I took it down once it became apparent that the race would be decided by the super delegates. A couple of days later I got an email from Emma at Schmap asking why I had taken the widget down. I explained and added that if they ever came up with a widget that the tracked polling data of the two nominees I'd install it on my sidebar.

A month passed....

I received another email from Emma stating that they had such a widget and that they'd be happy to customize a widget for me. I asked for red, white, and blue one and not only did they design it within a few days they even created a mockup of my site to show me what it would look like.

Kudos to Schmap for having a good product and proactive customer service. I hereby officially award Schmap the Crapomatic Seal of Approval. Remember folks, if its not Crapomatic its just crap.

Now if only someone would design a Crapomatic Seal of Approval for me.

Finally

Over the course of my blogging career I've had a few major technical setbacks. The first is when Real Clear Politics' Buzztracker moved to Fox News they dropped my blog from their rolls which resulted in a 50% decrease in traffic. The second being that Technorati quit indexing my blog for about a year resulting in further loss of traffic (I really was blogging about Ron Paul because he and his followers were interesting and not just trying to suck in extra traffic). While the former was eventually fixed it didn't matter as it appears that RCP Buzztracker lost a lot of traffic due to the move. The latter however was finally fixed Technorati began spidering my blog as of today and that means that all links here now count towards your Technorati authority. The downside is I lost fifty points of authority in the process. Frankly I'd rather have the extra traffic and be able to help those that I link to gain a little authorotai.

So enjoy the link love folks. You deserve it.

Blog Traffic Tips

Over the past year and half I've listed myself on hundreds of blog and feed directories and have discovered that I wasted a lot of time doing so. Below is a short list of sites/services that actually do generate daily traffic.

1: Blogrush (referral link) a relatively new service that exchanges post titles between your blog and other blogs in your category. For every person that views your blog you get one recent post title displayed on someone's blog. They are also really generous with free credits and have a referral program. (You can preview it on the right hand sidebar) Just make sure to filter out profanity if you don't curse on your blog.

2: Memeorandum the trick to getting listed on Memeorandum is to link to them often or install their widget on your blog. Then link specifically to the articles it lists. It almost seems to be traffic activated so check it by clicking the links on your own blog.

3: Daylife if you blog about current events, do not hesitate to submit your feed to them.

4: Google Adwords The link leads to a 50$ ad credit (5$ setup fee though) I'm targeting blogger.com and a few blogs that I like that use adsense.

5: Blogburst Syndicates your blog on various newspapers. The first time a post appears on USAToday.com is a pretty cool feeling.

6: Feedburner: Make sure that you've set it up to ping all the major aggregators particularly sphere.com if you blog about daily news of some sort.

7: The following directories don't generate daily traffic save when added together blogcatalog.com, blogtoplist.com, blogflux.com, and toppoliticalsites.org

There you go, no SEO optimization crap, no traffic exchanges, no BS. Of course the two best ways to increase your readers is to make good quality comments on other peoples blogs and lots of them and trade links with other bloggers (like me).

Now Appearing At

Pete Abel has invited me to contribute at Central Sanity. I of course said yes before Pete had a chance to come to his senses/sober up/get back on his meds/or any combination thereof. Since Central Sanity is one of my daily reads needless to say I'm pleased as punch to be posting there.

Of Note

Michael J. Totten has post up detailing an intelligence gathering session he was privy to in Iraq.
It does a great job of pointing out the difference between cultures:

"This is how soldiers spend most of their time when they gather intelligence on terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. Not until the very end of the meeting, which is almost strictly social and takes many hours, does anyone get down to business. Jumping right in with a list of intelligence questions is considered the height or rudeness except in extreme or unusual circumstances."

Take some time today to read the whole story.

Poll: U.S. Public Distrusts Media

More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America". more

No surprise there. Considering that since the last such poll was taken reporters been exposed for making news up and not checking major facts (ala Dan Rather). Add to that the influence of talk radio and the poll results make perfect sense. As for bias, it happens. Its human nature to filter stories with personal perspective. Thats where bloggers come in. Bloggers hold the medias feet to the fire by double checking their facts and pointing out their biases. Its a strange relationship but in the end we increase the accuracy of the news we opine about. And in the end its possible that bloggers may help restore America's faith in the media. That is of course provided that it doesn't completely devolve into infotainment and sound bites before then.

Happy Blogaversary

to Instapundit.com which turned six today. May you blog long enough so that senility eventually causes you to send an Instalanche my way.

Of Note

Michael J Totten's third article since he arrived in Iraq is up and its my fav so far.

Administration Targets Shield For Bloggers

The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.

The latest draft of the Free Flow of Information Act would pose a grave threat to national security and federal criminal investigations by protecting far too large a segment of the population, a U.S. Department of Justice official told Congress.

The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."

Justice Department opposition has bedeviled Congress throughout its numerous attempts in recent years to enact federal shield laws. Supporters say such legislation is needed in light of high-profile cases involving New York Times reporter Judith Miller and what free-press advocacy groups characterize as a sharp rise in subpoenas to reporters in recent years.

Laws recognizing some form of "reporter's privilege" already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia--but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there's no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs. more

I think this further highlights a truly disturbing trend from this administration. This has been the most secretive administration in decades and one of the few that has sought to punish those that report leaks legally. If the press (and bloggers) have to fear being prosecuted for telling the truth then what real reporting would get done? The free flow of information is central to the strength of our democracy.

Additionally this behavior sows more seeds of distrust causing citizens to become increasingly wary of this administration's attempts to further increase its surveillance powers. Such behavior actually hinders needed attempts to change current surveillance laws to help combat terrorism.

Furthermore as the press moves more towards infotainment bloggers are increasingly becoming a source for news not covered by the press and thus deserve some protection under the law.

Our founding fathers valued free speech enough to make certain that it was among the first rights to be protected and America has rarely been ill served by erring on the side of its own liberties.

We Now Return to our Regularly Scheduled Blog Post

From the NY Times
Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs

The whole controversy involving Lou Dobbs and leprosy started with a “60 Minutes” segment a few weeks ago.

The segment was a profile of Mr. Dobbs, and while doing background research for it, a “60 Minutes” producer came across a 2005 news report from Mr. Dobbs’s CNN program on contagious diseases. In the report, one of Mr. Dobbs’s correspondents said there had been 7,000 cases of leprosy in this country over the previous three years, far more than in the past.

When Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” sat down to interview Mr. Dobbs on camera, she mentioned the report and told him that there didn’t seem to be much evidence for it.

“Well, I can tell you this,” he replied. “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”

(snip)

According to a woman CNN identified as a medical lawyer named Dr. Madeleine Cosman, leprosy was on the march. As Ms. Romans, the CNN correspondent, relayed: “There were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.”

“Incredible,” Mr. Dobbs replied.

Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Romans engaged in a nearly identical conversation a few weeks ago, when he was defending himself the night after the “60 Minutes” segment. “Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy,” she said, again attributing the number to Ms. Cosman.

To sort through all this, I called James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen’s Disease Program, an arm of the federal government. Leprosy in the United States is indeed largely a disease of immigrants who have come from Asia and Latin America. And the official leprosy statistics do show about 7,000 diagnosed cases — but that’s over the last 30 years, not the last three.

The peak year was 1983, when there were 456 cases. After that, reported cases dropped steadily, falling to just 76 in 2000. Last year, there were 137.

(snip)

Finally, Mr. Dobbs is fond of darkly hinting that this country is under attack. He suggested last week that the new immigration bill in Congress could be the first step toward a new nation — a “North American union” — that combines the United States, Canada and Mexico. On other occasions, his program has described a supposed Mexican plot to reclaim the Southwest. In one such report, one of his correspondents referred to a Utah visit by Vicente Fox, then Mexico’s president, as a “Mexican military incursion.”

When I asked Mr. Dobbs about this yesterday, he said, “You’ve raised this to a level that frankly I find offensive.”

(snip)

The most common complaint about him, at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing. But I think this misses the point. Americans, as a rule, are smart enough to handle a program that mixes opinion and facts. The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.

There is no denying that this country’s immigration system is broken. But it defies belief — and a whole lot of economic research — to suggest that the problems of the middle class stem from illegal immigrants. Those immigrants, remember, are largely non-English speakers without a high school diploma. They have probably hurt the wages of native-born high school dropouts and made everyone else better off.

More to the point, if Mr. Dobbs’s arguments were really so good, don’t you think he would be able to stick to the facts? And if CNN were serious about being “the most trusted name in news,” as it claims to be, don’t you think it would be big enough to issue an actual correction? full article

I've always known that Mr. Dobbs was hyping illegal immigration problems but haven't watched enough episodes of his show to catch him scaremongering. Mainly because after the fourth show I watched I started changing the channel as soon as the words illegal immigration came out of his mouth.

Why is this my third post about irresponsible/untrue reporting in two days? It seems to be a little bit rampant as of late although Lou Dobbs did so a long while ago. But it still shows a bad trend both in the MSM and Blogs. Looks like the disease has jumped mediums.

Of Mountains and Molehills

I recall seeing posts about a fake memo earlier this week but frankly the issue at hand was so unimportant to me that I skimmed over it and went on with blogging about really important things like the war against Spam. Little did I know that certain large blogs completely blew it out of proportion launched vicious four letter word laden attacks on
former Green Berets for refusing to take down the relatively harmless memo only to find out said memo was real. (You can read the whole story here.)

At the tail end of that article is the part I find interesting because I recently discovered it to be true when I caught Red State lying and numerous blogs reporting that lie as truth. In the end I found statement below to completely accurate.

"right-wing bloggers continuously hurl accusations like this and then, when proven wrong, simply move on to the next accusatory orgy without any real acknowledgment of wrongdoing or apology."

Whats sad is that some of those blogs have actually broken real news stories in the past. I mean one of the beauties of blogland is that it keeps the MSM on its toes and lately some blogs are just really screwing the pooch in that area.

I was taught that there were men and then there were Men. Meaning that men had exterior plumbing and Men did their best to do the right thing. Part of that meant that if you made a mistake, you owned up to it and then apologized. That should also be the difference between a blogger and a Blogger one has a blog and the other also has integrity.

Daily KOS Turns 5 (and still acts it)

Kudos to Atrios at Eschaton for this post:

Worst American Birthdays Vol. XVI

The Daily Kos, born on this date in 2002, is perhaps the most malevolent force in American politics today. Since its establishment, it has done everything possible to silence other voices through the establishment of its diary system, to stop the progress of progressive candidates by bankrolling (with the help of its primary backer George Soros) a series of neo-Nazis like Ned Lamont, and has been openly hostile to the concept of open politics on the internet with its insistence on supporting "net neutrality" and an internet free of FEC regulation.

When historians look back on the decline and fall of America, May 26, 2002, will mark the point when order turned to anarchy, where liberal society turned to fascism, where our political discourse was snatched away from our betters and handed over, without thought to consequence, to the dirty masses whose ignorance and incivility drove our elites into hiding and our country into the abyss.

Happy Birthday Daily Kos, may Joe Lieberman outlive you so he can spit on your grave.

I rarely see eye to eye with Atrios but today we are on even ground if only in italics.

Fame, Fortune, and Maybe Even Power 2.0

Bear with me here, I'll get to the political crap eventually....

I was visting Jonathan Coulton's blog earlier and he scored a write up in the NY Times. If you're not familiar with Mr. Coulton hang with me while I bring you up to speed. Mr. Coulton left his programming job to pursue music which he then made available on the internet via podcast for free. He turned out 1 song a week for a year (that's five albums) most of which were originals and allowed his fans to muck around them however they saw fit (according to CC licensing) resulting in multiple videos for certain songs which were distributed via YouTube. Fans opted to buy songs, listen to songs and then donate to Mr. Coulton, and many listeners paid him jack. However he managed to make a living off of voluntary purchases/donations to an average of 4 grand a month.

How did he manage it? By interacting over the web with his fan base over the web via his blog, forums, MySpace, and email. Now I like some of his songs but he's no Mozart. His strength lies in catchy rhythms and melodies, good although often odd subject matter (monkeys, mad scientists, robots, and the difficulties of becoming a parent), and an honest sounding voice.

If you'll check out the Times article you'll find out that he just one of several artists that have manged this. (He's just the only one that quit his job before the model was tested.)

Now given those results I'm left wondering how long it will be before a mayor, state congressman or federal congressman manages to pull out a victory using a similar model ie spending six hours a day answering emails and blog/MySpace comments. Admittedly the demographics of the area would have to be right but if one had that they could theoretically fund raise and interact daily with their future constituents thereby bridging the gap between elected official and voter. After all the Netroots have already proven what a fund raising machine the interwebnetthingy can be.

With online services that allow for blog posts, text messages, and emails to be sent to cell phones one could theoretically be plugged into ones city or district 24/7. And as the old beltway guard gives way to a new generation of political newcomers the possibilities on a local or district level become endless like oh say fund raising without donations from special interests or corporate sponsors. The question is who is going to be the first to explore the possibilities of digital democracy to it fullest extent?

Now back to Mr. Coulton. I hereby award him the Crapomatic Institute's coveted Golden Cajones Award for taking an incalcuable risk and succeeding. And if you happen to run for office using a similiar model drop me a line. I'll cover the race and you'll be the prime nominee for the same award.

You can listen to all of Mr. Coulton's Songs here

I advise listening to "You Ruined Everything" first, "Code Monkey" second, and if you appreciate dark comedy "Skullcrusher Mountain" third.

I'm Calling BS...

On Erick and Jeff Emanuel over at Red State:

So I'm looking at Memeorandum this morning to see what's being blogged about today and I see the article below over at Redstate and I go over to see what all the fuss is about:

"For the Legacy of These Men, You Should Call Congress and Stop This Bill.
These are the heros of Guam. The men of the United States military who rescued Guam from the Imperial Japanese. These men shed their blood that Guam might be free.

And yet, the House Majority Leader thinks this is not enough. Steny Hoyer thinks we should also have to pay Guam reparations for what Imperial Japan did to Guam.

(snipped out call congress at this no. part )

You can stop this madness. You can call your Congressman and tell him to vote against this bill. Call right now and tell your Congressman to oppose H.R. 1595." whole thing


Followed by a list of every serviceman who died liberating Guam. And at the bottom of that post is a link to the original post of which I am only posting the pertinent parts of here some parts of which I am putting in bold as I'll be talking about them specifically in a minute:

"Are you wondering what the heck I'm talking about? I mean, seriously - what in the world does the US have to do with this anyway, and why in the world would we owe reparations to a country for an action that we had no part of?

That's a question for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and his eight compatriots, all of whom have co-sponsored a bill that would require that America pay reparations to the people of Guam for - get this - the actions of the Japanese in World War II.

According to the bill (HR.1595, the "Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act"), the people of Guam:

suffered unspeakable harm as a result of the occupation of Guam by Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II , by being subjected to death, rape, severe personal injury, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, or internment.

For this reason (?), "the Secretary of the Treasury shall make payments" to WWII survivors and their descendants on Guam for the brutal actions of a third party.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? After all, the US is the largest aid donor on the planet; it's only logical that we should rebuild, repatriate, and reparate every country that has been hurt by every war that we can find. Let's not stop with Guam - let's include everybody from Carthage on up to the present. Should we pay reparations to the Koreans for the Mongol invasions of the 14th century, and to the Spanish for the loss of their Armada in 1588? Why not?

And while this bill holds up $126,000,000.00 for the repayment of the people of Guam for what the Japanese did (as well as $5,000,000.00 for "the Secretary of the Interior [to] establish a grants program [to]...award grants for research, educational, and media activities that memorialize the events surrounding the occupation of Guam during World War II, honor the loyalty of the people of Guam during such occupation, or both, for purposes of appropriately illuminating and interpreting the causes and circumstances of such occupation and other similar occupations during a war"), our soldiers can't even get a dime in supplemental appropriations.

Way to go, Democrats. Your "blame America first" (even for things we have nothing to do with), anti-US soldier attitudes, actions, and mindsets have just been taken to a new level. " whole thing

So I decide to read the actual bill itself as it would appear from the post that there is a provision in it to pour salt on the graves of our honored dead. And I'll darned if I couldn't find that clause anywhere. So allow me via The Pacific Daily to boil the bill down for you:


"The bill is based on recommendations from the Guam War Claims Review Commission, which found that Guamanian Chamorros, were not treated the same as other Americans on war claims matters.

The compensation would be limited to an estimated 9,000 Chamorros who survived the occupation or their direct survivors.

The bill is based on recommendations from the Guam War Claims Review Commission, which found that Guamanian Chamorros, were not treated the same as other Americans on war claims matters."

The compensation would be limited to an estimated 9,000 Chamorros who survived the occupation or their direct survivors.

The bill includes a $5 million grant program for research, education and other activities to memorialize the events surrounding the occupation."


And after reading the bill I discover it has 28 co-sponsors including 6 Republicans: Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA], Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL], Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R-MT], Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI], Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN], Rep. Donald Young [R-AK]. see here


That left me with the question of who created the Guam War Claims Review Commission when?


That was H.R. 308 (in the 107th Congress) see here

Jan 30, 2001		Introduced
Jun 24, 2002		Scheduled for Debate
Mar 13, 2001		Passed House
Nov 20, 2002		Passed Senate
Dec 16, 2002		Signed by President

Hey, wasn't the House and the Senate run by a Republican majority then? Wasn't it signed into law by a Republican President? So essentially the Democrats and Republicans that sponsored and cosponsored the bill were just finishing up work that the previous congress started?
So if this is a bad bill then its a bad bipartisan bill.

Mr. Emmanuel, either you didn't do your homework or lied about the facts in the name of partisanship.

Erick, you didn't double check the facts and proceeded to invoke the names of almost every serviceman that gave their lives to free Guam (in order to mobilize your readers). That is never to be done lightly and by doing so under false or erroneous pretenses you did them a great disservice and that is unforgivable.

Update
So I check my little traffic meter and see a few hits from Red State and wander over to see whats going on but there's no link in the comments thread or anything and then I see comments 5,6, and 7 and considering that one of those hits was from a secure section of Red State it's likely that came from Kowalski's email to Erick to which this is his response:

"Thank you Kowalski. I appreciate it. I do, however, want to leave the names on the front page a while longer. I think you understand the point and I'm pleased by the reaction it has gotten."

Since when did things like truth and integrity become of less value than reaction? And what does it that say about you that you do? It's that type of thinking that cost the GOP the House and the Senate in the first place. And if the DNC starts heading down that slippery slope it'll put them out of power too.

Midtopia linked back with Ripping Redstate

Leashing the Blogs of War?

From the WaPo:




Blogs Chronicle War from Soldiers' Perspectives




(major snip)

On April 19 the Army released an updated OPSEC policy, Army Regulation 530-1. This policy requires Army personnel to consult with a supervisor and their OPSEC officer before posting information in a public forum. This includes letters, e-mails, Web site postings and blog postings among others types of information, according to the policy.




...Army OPSEC Program Manager Maj. Ray Ceralde, who helped author the revision, said bloggers shouldn't be concerned.

According to Ceralde, the new regulation does not require bloggers to have each post approved by officers, but rather instructs bloggers to alert commanders and OPSEC officers when they initially create a blog. This is similar to the policy already put in place in Iraq, he said. "Soldiers have the right to express themselves as long as they don't reveal information that will subject their unit or personnel to harm," Ceralde said.

Dr. Leonard Wong, an associate research professor in the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, said he believed the information on blogs could be used against American forces.

"We have a very open society, and we are starting to realize that the enemy takes advantage of that," Wong said.

While he couldn't cite a specific example of information from a blog being used against troops, he said the incident of Basra insurgents using Google maps to hit British military targets proves that they're capable of using information posted on the Internet in their attacks. full article

Captain Ed at Captains Quarters explains the new regulation and its potential effects:

"If that's the extent of their concern and the extent of the violations, then they have sacrificed a powerful voice of support for the Army and the mission in favor of an almost-useless silence. The author of the new rules, Major Ray Ceralde, claims that it won't kill milblogging, but the regulations make it so cumbersome that it will be impossible to maintain blogs -- or even e-mail. Here's the relevant section:

g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.

(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site
postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation.

(2) Supervisors will advise personnel to ensure that sensitive and critical information is not to be disclosed. Each
unit or organization’s OPSEC Officer will advise supervisors on means to prevent the disclosure of sensitive and
critical information.

In practical terms, a commanding officer would have to approve every blog post, every e-mail, and every forum post before the soldier could complete it. With the prodigious red tape of the military and the other duties of commanding officers, that means it could take days, weeks, or even forever before those requests get addressed. The immediacy of the information will be lost, and so will interest in it.""

Lieberman: "Bloggers Have Added Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity" To Politics

Courtesy of Think Progress by way of the GTL
Sen. Joseph Lieberman said recently on C-Span2:

"And I do think there is a larger message here for our politics. I think the public is fed up. They feel that both the political parties, mostly because of the primaries, maybe because of attack ads, the kind of divisiveness of the cable news coverage of politics, talk radio, the bloggers have added another dimension of vituperation toxicity to it. The majority of people are sick of it. They think our political system is sick. I will just end with this warning that if the two major — the fastest growing political party in america is that no party. people are registering as an event is because they are fed up with — they don’t see them in the two major parties and they are sick of the kerri, the partisanship and on civility and i think if the two major parties wouldn’t hear this going into ‘08, there is a real chance of an independent third-party candidacy. and watch out if that happens."

And ya know what? He's right. I don't like him as he strikes me as smarmy. But he's 100% right in this case. Many bloggers, most of talk radio, and tons of talking heads have poisoned the process of rational political debate. And the political parties have been more than happy to spew vitriol in order to turn out the base. If that weren't the case there would have been no reason for Unity 08 to come into existence.

I've blogged about this before and not much has changed since then. We now have the ability to pick and choose our radio, TV, and opinion sources so that we can effectively never hear an opposing voice outside of the comments section of our favorite blog. And in order to drive up their readership, listeners, and viewers too many media sources cater to that fact.

So despite my feelings towards Mr. Lieberman today I have to say, "Way to go Joe."

Sexual Threats Stifle Some Female Bloggers

From the WaPo

A female freelance writer who blogged about the pornography industry was threatened with rape. A single mother who blogged about "the daily ins and outs of being a mom" was threatened by a cyber-stalker who claimed that she beat her son and that he had her under surveillance. Kathy Sierra, who won a large following by blogging about designing software that makes people happy, became a target of anonymous online attacks that included photos of her with a noose around her neck and a muzzle over her mouth.

As women gain visibility in the blogosphere, they are targets of sexual harassment and threats. Men are harassed too, and lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly sexually threatening terms -- a trend that was first evident in chat rooms in the early 1990s and is now moving to the blogosphere, experts and bloggers said. more

This confirms something I figured out a decade ago, that the internet allows people to behave badly with no consequences. As internet usage has become more widely available across the globe the number of people the number of people that are inclined in that direction has increased. In fact one could probably argue quite successfully that the internet attracts the very worst of those as the media content they would be most interested in can be found easily, privately, and on demand 24/7.

Thats being said there are a few things that female bloggers can do to help prevent such threats and once they occur to assess the actual level of danger involved.

The article advises that one should have a code of conduct posted and then moderate any comments that don't adhere to that. I have a few additional ideas that may be of use.

1: I don't recommend that anyone gives out their whole name in a public forum (especially if you have an uncommon last name like me). Its easy to use someones IP address to locate the city and zip code of a site user and use that info to get your phone number and then your address. That doesn't work if you're blogging as an expert in an industry.

2: Always moderate and never respond to threats and for Pete's sake don't go posting on their blog afterwards or even visit it (unless you use a proxy server like anonymouse.org)

3: Asses the level of threat. Somebody half the world away isn't as much of a physical danger as someone in the same city. If your blog software doesn't provide user location data based on IPs then consider installing sitemeter which does track that info.

4: Report their threats to the local police, their web host, and their ISP. Such conduct is against the terms of service of most ISPs and hosting companies.

We can't stop this behaviour but we can all do something to discourage it. If I've overlooked anything feel free to make suggestions.

Red Vs Blue? Opt out

Believe it or not, I don't read a lot of blogs regularly. I tend to click a link on my alliance blog roll and see where it takes me and then follow a link from there to somewhere else. About once a week I visit DailyKoS or Instapundit to see what's up. Slowly this random blog surfing has reinforced one belief of mine and that's this: There are a lot of sheep out there. Red sheep, Blue Sheep, and just plain freaky conspiracy theory oriented sheep that think the Illuminati stole their wool. (That last herd of sheep can make for some highly entertaining reading though.)

I'll come back to that later. Having been on the internet now for 12 years and having been a BBSer before that I am well aware of one of the true downsides of e-communication. It allows people to behave really badly in "public" with no real consequences. Then came blogs where you could yell whatever you want all day long. And boy is it ugly out there. I get 1300 hits on Google when I search for the phrase "Kill all liberals". Is the country really that divided?

Nope.

But there are those who have elected to be spoon fed their information by sources they know are biased and they have bought every word lock stock and barrel. They have isolated themselves from any voice other than that which they already want to believe. And those media sources sell a "we are better than them" package of goods. And I'm sure that's comforting to some and its nice to feel that your right and superior and all. But its an illusion. Nothing more.
The Democratic Party stinks. The Republican Party stinks. Why? Because they are both all about money, influence, and agendas. Theirs. Not yours.

And to this end they are buying media so that more people can further insulate themselves from dissenting voices. And we are falling for it en masse.

So here's a radical idea.

Opt Out.

We aren't going to get real solutions that work to solve this countries problems until most of us decide to stop being spoon fed biased pablum and become engaged in the national debate. If all you are doing is regurgitating what some pundit or talking head said then you are part of the problem. Real answers come from real debate and the free exchange of NEW ideas. If you're buying what they are selling you then you aren't contributing new ideas.

And frankly this is a new world that's changing every minute of every day and America needs every new idea it can get. The competition is fierce out there.

Here is what I am asking you to do, watch some BBC News, read some Reuters, go see what the Libertarians are up to, go chat with members of the Reform party, and the next time someone spouts off an opinion that's the complete opposite of yours ask them why and then actually listen. Why? Because they may not be completely wrong. Complex problems get solved by looking at them from every angle. Not right angles or even left angles. (I know, but work with me here)