A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I linked to the Kerry-Edwards campaign blog a few posts back to make the point that just because you post stuff on the internet, it doesn't implicitly suggest that you are holding yourself out as an impartial, disinterested observer. Like Kos, it's perfectly possible to hold yourself out as an advocate.

I don't think this goes to objectivity. I think it goes to credibility.

If you hold yourself out as a journalist, you have no business taking money to slant your coverage. Everyone here agrees about that -- your question seems to be, why doesn't that principle extend to others, like bloggers, who say things that the public can read? I think it's a question of whether they're trying to deceive people. Williams was. Kos wasn't. IMHO, the Thune bloggers were, but it's a closer call there.

I don't think there is a choice in the matter. Once you've posted, you've published. The only motive in doing so is for others to read it, otherwise it's called a personal journal. And if others are reading it, they should be able to discern from what they are reading whether it is really a paid ad.

If you are really bothered by these sorts of conflicts, you should check out astroturfing campaigns. This happens particularly on the GOP side, since the GOP more commonly aligns itself with corporate interests that have more money than popular support, and would like to pretend otherwise. Astroturfing involves fake citizens groups, the planting of paid-for op-ed pieces, and so on. Relatedly, TechCentralStation is a collosal conflict of interest -- it's basically running op-eds as an extension of corporate lobbying efforts, but you have to very closely and read between the lines to try to figure this out.

I'm less bothered by the campaigns than by the journalists. I expect politics to be dirty. I expect those that cover politics to act as a detergent for that dirt. No one is served with blurred lines.

I will not pretend that these sorts of conflicts never happen on the Dem side, but it's far more pervasive on the GOP side, and the reason is simple: You have monied interests trying to turn that money into the appearance of public support.

Whatever.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think this goes to objectivity. I think it goes to credibility.

I can no longer tell what you're trying to say about blogs from people like Kos.

I don't think there is a choice in the matter. Once you've posted, you've published. The only motive in doing so is for others to read it, otherwise it's called a personal journal. And if others are reading it, they should be able to discern from what they are reading whether it is really a paid ad.

Before there were blogs, there were (and are) on-line journals. Perhaps the only blogs you read are those that aspire to be a low-budget, on-line sort of journalism, but most of the blogs in the world, IMHO, have no pretense at being the sort that get cited on this board, and are just places where people are posting things that interest them. If your view is that as a general matter, anyone posting anything that anyone else might read should be telling everyone about any conflicts of interest, OK then.

I'm less bothered by the campaigns than by the journalists. I expect politics to be dirty. I expect those that cover politics to act as a detergent for that dirt. No one is served with blurred lines.

There's an odd disconnect between the first and second sentence here. I expect pit bulls to attack small children, but I'm bothered when it happens.

Whatever.

That professed expectation for those that cover politics, and your concern about blurred lines didn't last very long there, did it?

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Washington Post

This is interesting, but I would certainly question whether it really serves any purpose. Yes, Iraq probably has replaced Afghanistan -- for one thing, regime change in Afghanistan has removed the state-provided safe haven, so it's only logical that the training ground would move. For another, with the active "conflict" in Iraq, it seems logical that jihadis would go where the action is. Throw in the general lack of power exercised by the new Iraqi gov't in many areas, and, well, no kidding. Iraq is a pretty good place to be if you're a terrorist wannabe.

The only way to make sense of this is to bold the NIC guy's preface: At the moment. I guess they don't want to try and predict the future of Iraq.

This is the world's top counter-terrorist minds at work?

[Replaced_Texan]

What you hear is my head hitting my desk repeatedly.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h/bush_regrets

• President Bush says he now sees that tough talk can have an "unintended consequence."
  
  During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, the president, who not long ago declined to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term, expressed misgivings for two of his most famous expressions: "Bring 'em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
  
  "Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

[sgtclub]

• SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea told a visiting U.S. Congressional delegation that it is ready to return to six-party nuclear talks and would treat the United States as a "friend" if Washington doesn't slander the rule of totalitarian leader Kim Jong Il.
  
  The North Korean overture on Friday came shortly after a bipartisan U.S. Congressional delegation concluded talks with senior communist officials in Pyongyang. The delegation called the meeting an "overwhelming success," and said in Seoul that North Korea appeared ready to negotiate within weeks.
  
  "Our unanimous impression is that the DPRK is ready to rejoin the six-party process," said Republican Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, using the acronym for the North's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050114/w011428.html

[Effete Liberal Snob]

[SlaveNoMore]

From the NY Post:

January 14, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — One of the most powerful men in America, cancer-stricken Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, looked very, very ill yesterday.
I say that because I unexpectedly came face to face with the 80-year-old, wheelchair-bound Rehnquist as his aides pushed him down an endless series of basement corridors in the Capitol.

The longtime chief justice hasn't been seen in public in several months and it was clear to me why.

Rehnquist was hunched over in his wheelchair, an old hunting cap pulled down low over his ears to cover up his blotchy skin and near baldness, possibly the result of the aggressive treatment he's getting for his thyroid cancer.

His eyes looked sunken and lifeless. A plastic collar was wrapped tightly around his neck, where his throat had been opened recently for a tracheotomy.

I tried to make eye contact and wanted to offer a word of encouragement. Our eyes never met.

Rehnquist, who has not been appearing at Supreme Court sessions this year, had arranged for a private view of the platform outside the Capitol, where on Thursday he'll swear in President Bush to a second term.

At the Capitol yesterday, Rehnquist struggled to get out of his wheelchair for a view, as police kept onlookers back and people averted their eyes to spare him embarrassment

[SlaveNoMore]

Effete Liberal Snob

Chirac introduces his new Minister of Surrender.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sen. Corzine, who should know a thing or two about this stuff, on problems with privatization:

• Many privatization advocates rest their case on claims that seniors will enjoy better returns. However, such claims are misleading. First, they generally overlook the costs of financing the accounts -- the higher interest costs that future taxpayers will be forced to bear. Also, privatizers typically ignore the fact that Social Security, in addition to its role in protecting retirement security, also includes insurance for workers who become disabled and for survivors of workers who die prematurely.
  
  Perhaps more fundamentally, privatization proponents generally fail to adjust projected returns for the added risk of investing in equities, as virtually all economists agree is necessary for a fair comparison.
  
  Having earned my living as a trader and investment banker for 30 years, and having run one of America's largest financial companies, I understand something about markets. I can assure you it is pure folly to assume that privatized accounts will always increase in value and will be at a high-water mark at the moment when an individual retires. The truth is, markets go up, down and sideways -- sometimes for many years. One thing they never do is provide guaranteed returns or protection against both inflation and the risk of outliving your savings -- only Social Security does that.
  
  There is another problem with privatized accounts: They are very costly to administer. One reason is that many accounts are quite small, so a significant share of any gains is eaten up by management fees. A University of Chicago study found that fees would reduce benefits by 20 percent. By contrast, Social Security's administrative costs are minimal, about one-half of one percent....

via Semi-Daily Journal

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Effete Liberal Snob

"At first I decided to button my jacket, then I saw President Chirac did not, so then I decided to unbutton."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Effete Liberal Snob

"Don't feel bad. Like we say in France -- you lose some and you lose some."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"Don't feel bad. Like we say in France -- you lose some and you lose some."

Oh. You mean, "Conceding is good, but we believe it best to concede a little earlier in the game."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. You mean, "Conceding is good, but we believe it best to concede a little earlier in the game."

Or: "Your mother's right, she's really up on things. Before we married, Mommy served in the WACS in the Philippines."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Or: "Your mother's right, she's really up on things. Before we married, Mommy served in the WACS in the Philippines."

Oh. You mean:

• I was feeling sick I was losing my mind- heard about these treatments From a good friend of mine
  he was always happy- smile on his face
  said he had a great time at the place
  Gimme gimme shock treatment

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. You mean:

• I was feeling sick I was losing my mind- heard about these treatments From a good friend of mine
  he was always happy- smile on his face
  said he had a great time at the place
  Gimme gimme shock treatment

"Gabba, Gabba, we accept you, we accept you one of us."