The socially conservative responses to last week's post about ideological divisions in the GOP were animated and varied.

First, let's sample a "good" response (and by "good," I mean "annoyingly logical"):

Please, not the old “legislating morality” canard again. Advocating for your position is one thing, but admonishing me that I shouldn't try to “impose my values on others” is something else entirely.

Let's make one thing clear - virtually every action taken by a legislative body is, in effect, “legislating morality.” When a group of lawmakers passes a law banning murder, they are by their very action defining a moral boundary for society and by extension, “imposing morality” on said society.

Thus, the question is not “can morality be imposed on society?”; rather the question is “who's morality will be imposed?”

He got me. But to be a little more specific, we need to explore the definitions of the words "morality" and "impose." I don't think that it's all that smart or effective to push unpopular action on highly devisive and subjective social issues that will alienate other portions of your coalition, in addition to almost the entirety of the natural opposition. Compelling majorities agree on things like murder, thus no divisive "imposition" of "morality;" other issues that are primarily dependent on widely varying personal ethics or socialization, not so much.

For a thorny example, I think that it's fair to state that a popular socially conservative goal is the repeal of Roe v Wade, followed by incremental legislation that will restrict (and theoretically eventually ban) abortion. But given the fact that public opinion is largely well-reflected in the current combination of judical and legislative public policy (Only 36% say Roe should be overturned, 66% believe first-term abortions should be legal, 70% are against late-term abortions, nearly 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester), much of the social right's rhetoric and noises about an end to abortion are strategically dissonant; I can't even recall the last time that I witnessed a pro-life commentator tackle the fundamental challenge of these statistics in lieu of simply railing against the judicial activism of Roe. Depending on the measure, why do 2/3 of Americans disagree with a strident pro-life agenda and nearly 8-in-10 oppose an outright ban? And what's really the best way to address that?

A strategy centered around making the effective case to build a natural majority on a specific issue should eclipse and precede any strategy that's reliant on government, especially when that vision only reflects the will of a majority of the winning political coalition. And in the abortion example, based on shifting medical definitions that move the definition of "fetal viability" closer and closer to conception, there are still socially conservative legislative advances that can be made within the current atmosphere of public opinion.

Am I advocating moral compromise? I don't think so; I'm merely addressing the political reality required to achieve sustainable goals within the framework of our government. And this holds true for a variety of socially conservative issues, from ethical medical research to deciphering indecency.

Which brings us to our sample of the just plain "bad" responses to my original post:

Bill has made the preposterous suggestion that moderates may be ready to bolt the Republican party if social conservatives don't play nice.

No biggie. Goodbye. You can pad your arse with some Hillary-Care paperwork for when the door hits it..

...

Secondly, although for moderates economic concerns are paramount, for social conservatives they are not. Moderates rail about how if we social conservatives don't tone it down the Democrats will win and then we'll have high taxes and blah blah stinkin blah. But folks like me would rather have a good nation than a rich nation. Forced to choose, we'd rather have a nation where life is protected than where taxes are low. But we don't believe we have to make that choice.

Lastly, the picture is really just comical. The rhetoric of the so-called moderates in the party who mock the Christian right for taking credit for the Republican majority is much like Europeans who object to the United States taking credit for the liberation of France and ultimately winning World War II. Obviously, the war was being waged before we got there, but how far would they have gotten without us?

(Emphasis mine)

Where to begin? In addition to the anger and defensive projection against those "mock(ing) the Christian Right," (huh?) this post displays a fundamental failure to understand how a modern Republic works. The "choice" isn't "life" or "low taxes," as much as it's "some of both" or "all of neither." But hey, righteous histrionics and self-destructive pride are important to some people, I get that. Wear that persecuted outrage like a hat, brother.

And finally, a response that features the "anticipated" sprinkled with the "pyrrhically amusing:"

Second, of Bill of INDC Journal's threat ("One day [we moderates] simply snap ...
...
Been there, done that. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. Every time you do that, the country comes back, righter than ever. In fact, you wandering "moderates" helped get us Reagan (response to Carter) and the Republican Congress (response to Clinton). Every time the coalition squabbles, it gets reminded of the importance of sticking together. And a few million other people are reminded, too.

(Emphasis mine)

And conservatives only had to sacrifice 12 of the previous 29 years of executive power (that's 41%) in order to make the point. This assessment also skips over inconvenient contradictions like the 1986 midterm elections - where Democrats retained the House and recaptured the Senate, 55-45 - and the fact that Democrats maintained a "majority of House seats, governorships, and state legislatures" during the Reagan era.

But other than that bit of attribution bias, Ms. Ridenour makes some common conservative points that are worth addressing in detail.

I'll start with "smaller government" and "judicial activism" in Part Two.

Heed the words of wisdom from the venerated white trash sage of the Republican Party:

KID ROCK has attacked celebrities who offer their opinions on the war in Iraq, because he doesn't think stars are intelligent enough to publicly criticise the US President.

The Republican rap-rock star admits he's the last person who should comment on political matters and, though he doesn't always agree with President GEORGE W BUSH, he does support the commander-in-chief and troops fighting for Iraq's freedom.

He rages, "I'm not educated enough to speak about it (the war), and I don't think any of these other motherf**kers are, either.

"I'm pretty sure Janeane Garofalo's and that chick from the Dixie Chicks' educations don't stretch that far.

"Look up CONDI RICE or GEORGE BUSH's education, where they went to school. They've been doing this shit their whole f**king lives, while we've been out dicking around with guitars, entertaining people.

"F**kers in Hollywood who want to use the camera to be like, 'Guess who I'm f**king now?' and 'Oh, stop the war!' - all that shit just makes me sick."

Overestimation of Bush's early resume aside, yes indeed, wise one. Now, I know that Michelle is probably thinking that Mr. Rock's colorful vernacular - along with his recent expulsion and arrest for fighting at a Nashville nudie bar - probably taint his membership in the GOP, but to her I say this:

"Let he or she that has never sworn about "the F*ckers in Hollywood" - or been tossed for beating a DJ at a strip club - cast the first stone."

I mean, who hasn't? And how many times can you watch a table dance set to "Cherry Pie" by Warrant, anyway?

(Via IP)

Also known as "tipping points" and "Kuhnian paradigm shifts."

I think that someone owes Harvard President Larry Summers an apology:

The human brain is composed of two types of tissue--gray matter and white matter. While men and women have about the same amount of gray matter and white matter, men appear to use more gray matter, while women use more white matter. Before we proceed further, it's important to note that while the two genders may think differently, this does not affect their intellectual performance or overall intelligence.
...
What is the difference between gray matter and white matter? Gray is central to processing information and plays a vital role in aiding skills such as mathematics, map-reading, and intellectual thought. White matter connects the brain's processing centers and is central to emotional thinking, use of language, and the ability to do more than one thing at once. Because women use less gray matter--critical to map-reading--they tend to have more difficulty with this skill than men.

"This may help explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing, like mathematics and map-reading, while women tend to excel at integrating information from various brain regions, such as is required for language skills," co-study author and neuropsychologist Rex Jung of the University of New Mexico told the Daily Telegraph. "These two very different pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests."

(Emphasis mine)

Captain Ed has more.

As an aside, I can't read a map worth a damn.

But I'm all man, baby.

Oh yeah.

UPDATE: The backlash begins:

I was just over at INDC Journal, and Bill has the audacity to claim that men use more "gray matter" than women! I just think this is a horribly sexist thing to say and all women should begin an immediate boycott of all things Bill!

Thanks for dredging up those cherished high school memories.

... for the light/slow posting. It's just that ...

I know, I know.

I know.

Yes.

I know.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Uh huh.

Yes.

I know; you're right.

Totally.

Mmmm Hmmmm. I know.

I tell you what - how about tonight we have your mother take the kids ... and you and I will take a drive on up to the Inn at Little Washington and ...

But -

Look, I said I was freakin' sorry. What do you want from me, my immortal soul?!

Oh Jesus, this again. That was eight months ago and I was drunk! You'd be drinking too if you weren't so used to the pitch of your mother's caterwauling.

Oh yeah?

Well maybe, just maybe, if your relatives weren't so damn easy none of it would have even happened! Did you ever consider that?

Look, honey, I didn't ...

Honey ... honey!

Damn.

*** Lebanese protest leader Walid Jumblatt:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Some of the unfairly maligned could always see it.

(Via TKS)

*** You may recall a magnificent WaPo article by Steve Fainaru that detailed the bravery and grief surrounding the death of 1st Lt. Nainoa K. Hoe.

Fainaru has penned another moving piece:

BALAD, Iraq -- When the Iraqi troops arrived that morning, three American servicemen lay dead at the bottom of the Isaki Canal.

The body of a fourth, Sgt. Rene Knox Jr., 22, had been recovered from a submerged Humvee. Patrolling without headlights around 4:30 a.m., Knox had overshot a right turn. His vehicle tumbled down a concrete embankment and settled upside down in the frigid water.

During the harrowing day-long mission to recover the bodies of the Humvee's three occupants on Feb. 13, an Air Force firefighter also drowned. Five U.S. soldiers were treated for hypothermia. For five hours, three Navy SEAL divers searched the canal before their tanks ran out of oxygen.

What happened then, however, has transformed the relationship between the Iraqi soldiers and the skeptical Americans who train them. Using a tool they welded themselves that day at a cost of about $40, the Iraqis dredged the canal through the cold afternoon until the tan boot of Spec. Dakotah Gooding, 21, of Des Moines, appeared at the surface. The Iraqis then jumped into the water to pull him out, and went back again and again until they had recovered the last American. Then they stood atop the canal, shivering in the dark.

"When I saw those Iraqis in the water, fighting to save their American brothers, I saw a glimpse of the future of this country," said Col. Mark McKnight, commander of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, which had overall responsibility for the unit in the accident, his eyes tearing.

I'm hopeful that this tiny slice of life presages a larger improvement in the performance of the Iraqi security forces.

(Thanks to David Johnson)

*** Jeff Goldstein is asking for a hand.

*** I'm gleeful over Robert the Llama Butcher's impending frog-march to Disney World. Something tells me that his delicately snobby, lovingly affected 18th Century sensibilities will overload on the air-brushed plastic building facades, the unsettling aura of manic joy and the $8 ice cream cones shaped like Rodentia. Given Hunter S. Thompson's recent passing, "Fear and Loathing in the Magic Kingdom" seems like a fitting title for his pained travel journal.

*** I noticed that INDC's comments on the Bush tapes were excerpted in Howard Kurtz's Media Notes today. Notwithstanding Kurtz's belated softball coverage of the Eason Jordan affair, his column is one of my favorite daily reads, and it's a nice surprise to see him branching out beyond the usual blog suspects (specifically when it's me, of course).

*** Marble steps out from the shadow of his self-declared irrelevance and pens the common sense post of the month:

Look. Bush is not Hitler, nor is her or his administration fascist. Those on the right aren't all gun-loving nuts who think gays should be executed and hate poor people. There isn't even really a 'right' anymore. Look at the divide starting to pop up in the GOP already. To classify people as right-wingers and automatically denounce them is a seriously flawed flow of logic that does more to hinder your argument than help.

Now, even more pronounced, at least to me since these people tend to be on my side, is the 'right's' disdain for the left. Most liberals do not hate America. Most liberals do not want a pure socialist state. Most liberals (in today's sense) that I know are all for gun ownership and more personal responsibility for your actions. They love their country and think that in order for it to continue to be great, some wealth must be redistributed to protect the poor. I actually believe that myself, it's just that I don't believe the government should be the vehicle to provide said funds.

That's just a taste of the sweet sanity - read the whole thing.

*** And, as always, Reynolds has the definitive round-up on the "social cons vs. center-right-libertarians" cage match. I'll be loosing part two of my thoughts sometime within the next couple of days. I can smell the anticipation.

UPDATE: Nope, someone was making popcorn.

Geraghty makes some astute comparisons between blogs and the major dailies, though I don't think that the papers in question have a predetermined narrative that's merely anti-war; it's also paint-by-numbers, "if it bleeds it leads" journalism.

And while levying criticism, it's also important to note this aspect of the problem: whereas blogs are largely unconstrained by (financial) market forces and driven by their own ideological desire to include positive coverage, how do you sell mainstream papers with good news about potential peace accords and diminishing infant mortality rates? Prior to the election, I ran an experiment, posting an excerpt from one of Chrenkoff's "Good News from Iraq" round-ups immediately before a post that discussed the New York Times' missing explosives story.

Comments in the "discussion" under the positive post: 1.
Comments in the discussion under the negative post: 81.

Good or "not bad" news can be compelling (note Jim's excerpts from blogs), and ideology certainly plays a huge role in typical news coverage, but drama and the unquenchable human gravitation towards negativity are other reasons why major dailies have fallen into this grating pattern.

Though it's ironic that by this point, a desensitization to bad news might have actually increased the public's appetite for something else. Do you still read all of the stories about car bombs?

UPDATE: One of my commenters nails it. Congrats, Baron.

*** A pictorial examines the Syrian cult of personality.

*** Perhaps CPAC wasn't quite as conservative as it seemed?

*** Bill Burkett is waving his legal saber at CBS. Exxxceeellent - this is the trial where the subpoenas would really count.

*** Big Bang Redux:

A huge explosion halfway across the galaxy packed so much power it briefly altered Earth's upper atmosphere in December, astronomers said Friday.

No known eruption beyond our solar system has ever appeared as bright upon arrival.

(Via Dean)

*** And finally, ha!

I find that man's style refreshing.

(Via Ace)

Ryan Sager writes about ideological tensions at CPAC, divisions that mark a larger looming split in the GOP:

Arrogance toward Democrats isn't the problem -- though that was everywhere, from Ann Coulter's conservative stand-up routine (kind of a Republican version of "You might be a redneck if�" delivered to wildly cheering fans) to the popular t-shirt slogan, "What blue states? I only see red?"

No, the arrogance that will prove problematic, ultimately, was that directed at the libertarian-leaning conservatives by the social conservatives. The message in that regard was clear: We Christians can do this alone, y'all who ain't down with J.C. best be running along.

I would advise all of my respected socially conservative friends and fellow bloggers to take note: a lurch towards sane national defense and fiscal policy by a charismatic Dem or three (it could happen), coupled with one too many sneering "RINO" jokes from you hard righties, and this moderate - and many like me - are gone. One day we'll simply snap, our judgment overwhelmed by a wacky sense of humor and stewing anger, and you'll wake up to your personally nightmarish world where the senior senator from Mass rides into the sunset as SecState and Billary is floating doomed socialized medicine schemes out of the Oval again.

Ok, surely I'm exaggerating about a short-term decision to hand over the executive (after all, the President's the one with his hand on the trigger), but my traitorous ilk and I have little compunction about turning and biting you on midterm elections. I'm certainly willing to ratchet up the tension between the legislative and executive branches, if only to keep Coulterian schtick out of the halls of real power.

As Sager concludes:

Conservatism can't survive by religious extremism and tax cuts alone.

There needs to be something more than Ann Coulter's substanceless ranting and faux-provocative calls for a "new McCarthyism." There needs to be something more than immigration opponents comparing Mexicans to burglars stealing American jobs. There needs to be something more than treating the Log Cabin Republicans like a punchline conservatives would rather forget.

Some or all of those themes may resonate with some of you, but they don't lay the groundwork for a long-term majority that's necessarily comprised of a coalition of interests. Conservative control of government shouldn't be a tool to legislate federal morality, social engineering or lynch-mob populism, rather serve as a lever to further disengage government from unsuccessful bureaucratic equations, let ideas rise and fall in a marketplace of honest debate, and allow decentralized localities to decide the mores and taboos of particular regions.

Political power can't create a moral society; it can only set the preconditions that allow Americans to convince other Americans that their "morality" is the correct course.

So, if you're a dead red righty, please recall my admonition as that next giddily satisfying "RINO" joke rolls off the tip of your tongue.

(Via TKS)

UPDATE: Q and O has a more sober, detailed recitation of the brewing conflict. No use of prison slang, natch.

I'll never come out and beg like this, but ...

Notice how I only have two left?

UPDATE: Though one of my advertisers apparently has a broken link at the moment ...

For the record, I didn't find anything particularly surprising or embarrassing about President Bush's secretly-taped comments that were just released by historian Doug Wead. Panning rivals, discussing (and implying) former drug use and outlining political strategy with the Evangelical base all seem pretty much par for the course.

Trey Jackson has CNN video that includes audio clips of the recordings.

You be the judge.

UPDATE: Vodka Pundit highlights a good point by Mickey Kaus.

I thought that Bush's private statements about not "kick(ing) gays" in order to score political points with the religious right were somewhat admirable and sincere, though I'm also aware that many gays aren't buying his execution of the sentiment.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) made some eyebrow-raising comments at a community forum in Ithaca, New York, on The Future Of Social Security:

They’ve (The Bush ADministration) had a very very direct, aggressive attack on the, on the media, and the way it’s handled. Probably the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they — and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only — what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They — the people there — they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had ’em. They didn’t care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.

Read the rest of the transcript and hear the audio at LGF. Powerline puts it best:

It's easy to write off this kind of thing as limited to the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party, but here's the thing: when is the last time you heard any Democrat criticize this kind of nonsense, or try to distance himself from it?

The Democratic Party's far left elected officials in the lower chamber are consistent sources of embarrassing soundbites, actions and proposals. From unpunished racist comments, to obsequious letters to Fidel Castro, to routine conspiracy theories, they've got all the paranoia and zesty panache of the DKos message boards - and a vote on legislation.

UPDATE: As counterbalance, what about wacky soundbites from Republican elected officials? Off the top of my head, I can only name Trent Lott's comments regarding Thurmond (a sentiment ironically mirrored by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd), Sen. Rick Santorum's wild leap of logic from incest and bigamy to homosexuality, and just about anything that's come out of Alan Keyes' mouth in the past year.

And note that two of the three offending parties faced harsh criticism from within their own ranks, and I opened up the balloting to both chambers and a notable wannabee (admittedly tapped for a Senate run by the GOP).

Feel free to add your favorite examples of political stupidity (right and left) in the comments.

UPDATE: Myopic Zeal has a great blog round-up on Hinchey's statements.

The transcript of Harvard President Larry Summers' controversial comments about gender differences in the hard sciences was released, and Scylla & Charybdis has an analysis:

Short subjective version: Summers does not say that men generally have a greater innate science ability that women. Rather, he makes a narrow observation about the statistical data, corrected for differences in a family's economic means and ethnicity, at the VERY HIGH END - e.g., 4 standard deviations about the norm, the edge of the bell curve where high-end specialists reside. Summers states that at such extremes, in certain sciences, men receive those aptitude scores in a 4-to-1 to women. Summers notes that small, insignificant differences between the sexes in the middle of the bell curve, nonetheless become highly pronounced when you run data in the far extremes of the bell curve. Every stat person knows this.

Summers suggests that if science institutions continue to use "highest scores" as the key aptitude qualifier for these science jobs (which might not be a good idea, one of the conference themes), then society has locked itself into the decision that this statistical difference in aptitude between the sexes, in the outlier 4x standard deviation area, will render the upper level science corps as lopsidedly male.

Have any of those critics calling for Summers' head properly stated Summers' position? As in, actually read the transcript. Of course not.

The attack on Summers' eminently reasonable comments seems to be an excellent example of the chilling of honest academic debate by the tired meme of exaggerated political correctness. And Summers deserves at least as much of an academic defense as Ward Churchill, whose incendiary rantings were completely subjective and far more offensive.

More on this from Kathleen Parker and Wizbang.

Trey Jackson has video of Jim Pinkerton discussing Eason Jordan's fate on FOX News Watch.

Drawing by "Ariail" in South Carolina's The State newspaper. A larger image can be found here.

Thanks to George King.

Apparently, the Wall Street Journal's John Fund was rude at the CPAC Convention, snaking the computers of bloggers in order to file reports and/or check e-mail.

But when blogger Kevin McCullough bizarrely turns one man's rudeness into some larger narrative about MSM disrespect for blogging ...

What this is - is a total and complete disrespect for the medium of blogging. It is the actions of the self-superior "big media" journalists (be they on our side even) steam rolling over the pajamaboys and pajamagirls and not caring one ounce about the end result.

... methinks that he needs to return to terra firma. My advice for all involved: if someone takes your computer without asking, and you'd like it back, whether that person is John Fund, Karl Rove or your 12 year-old cousin Ricki, grow a spine and tell them to get lost. Or patiently grant them access. But don't (non-humorously) fume about it on your blog.

Behold more of McCullough's moaning about Hewittian blogswarms on the matter:

Read More »

... but may I remind you that while you were watching cartoons or eating a leisurely brunch, the AMERICAN TRUTH was still UNDER SIEGE.

Now go take a long look in the mirror - a long, hard look - and ask yourself if you're alright with that.

With a rapidly clearing head, I finally figured out answer to whether or not Brit Hume's representation of FDR's quote was dishonest ...

Though the interpretation by lefty bloggers that Hume's implication is misleading is reasonable, and the final piece of legislation was more similar to today's Social Security than Bush's proposed changes, Hume's specific mention was, in fact, a 100% accurate recitation of FDR's stated intent for Social Security.

And it is ironic that some of Bush's current ideas are similar to FDR's stated triple-tiered proposal.

You can either trust me and go on with your life, blissfully unaware of the details of voluntary and compulsory annuities, or you can brew a strong pot of coffee and read the painfully long-winded explanation below the fold.

Read More »

*** John Hawkins revisits Howard Dean quotes from the recent and not-so-recent past. There are some howlers there, though I can't quite sense any irony or stupidity in the quote related to gays, religion and civil unions (Perhaps I'm not right-wing enough to get it). My favorite? Dean's most recent shoe-swallowing:

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." -- Howard Dean

Nice.

*** Val Prieto va a enseñar a los cubanos cómo se "blog" (You'll have to click for translation). And also read his wrenching post about saying goodbye to "Kiddo McFiddo:"

You love that cat. He is a badass. Not only did he survive for weeks as a kitten living in the root of a felled tree, but despite getting pawed around like a little stuffed doggy toy he can whup the dogs ass. He boxes with this big canine ball of puppy energy until he relents. The damn dog relents! And the cat sprawls on the floor in front of him and starts licking all that dog slobber off his fur. What a cat!

*** Chrenkoff isn't the only one rounding up positive news from Iraq:

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

(Via Beautiful Atrocities)

*** And finally, notorious conservative gun-nut Cam Edwards outs everyone! Well, except ...

FOREWARD (I'm STILL keeping this at the top, people. COME ON!):

Brit Hume is the anchor of Fox News Channel's prime time news report, Special Report with Brit Hume, and he makes things up. On February 3rd (UPDATE: 2005) Hume intentionally manipulated the words of the 32nd president, Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (UPDATE: The GREAT), to make it appear as if FDR supported privatization of social security. This is a brazenly false falsehood. (UPDATE: That's A LIE, people. Don't you IDIOTS get it? JESUS. A LIE.). President Roosevelt's grandson, the saintly James Roosevelt Jr., (UPDATE: Rest his soul) describes Hume's journalistic malfeasance as an "an outrageous distortion" (UPDATE: Again, this was back in 2005). We agree.

To intentionally twist the words of the father of social security in order to support a political plan to destroy it is DISGUSTING (UPDATE: Added all caps. UPDATE AGAIN: And italics.). Hume has offered NO apology nor explanation for his intentional deception. For this fraudulent act, Hume should resign. (UPDATE: For the love of Christ already, please?!)

Read More »

No, there will not.

UPDATE: I lied. We interrupt our feverish intermission to note this silly crusade for Brit Hume's downfall. Appetite apparently whetted by felling the mighty Gannon, the most powerful elements of port side of the blogosphere want a high profile scalp of their very own to counterbalance Rather and Jordan. Note how the bloggers in question jump straight to demanding a resignation over an offense of rather subjective proportions (a misrepresentation of a single quote), rather than kicking off the effort by demanding a retraction or clarification (Admittedly, some rightward bloggers prematurely jumped to this tactic with CNN).

If truncation or distortion of quotes were inherently fireable offenses, the ranks of journalism would be thin indeed - Maureen Dowd would certainly be a foundation-spackled sales clerk at a Macy's perfume counter by now.

And this analysis gives the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt that Hume committed an egregious misrepresentation. Villanous Company and Confederate Yankee have posts examining and contradicting the merit of the charges (I'm tabling final analysis and judgment until this bug clears up and I stop hallucinating that Donald Rumsfeld is standing at my bedside wearing a purple chiffon gown and cooing a soothing soliloquy about "known unknowns").

But to be blunt - and certainly using the context of a Hewitt or Powerline at their most zealous - these bloggers remind me of spiteful, dissonant and vaguely amusing children. Their form is off, their case isn't particularly strong and the exhortations smack of outraged histrionics as an outlet for desperate jealousy of their efficacious counterparts on the other side of the ideological 'sphere. I'm positive that there are some highly legitimate targets that will afford lefty bloggers the opportunity to make an impressive impact,* but their form and stated goal in this case strikes me as overblown.

Odds of success for a resignation or firing? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "zero." And the leap to that tactic, for this offense, may have even sabotaged any chance of acquiring a quick retraction or clarification, something that FOX has been willing to do in the past.

* Josh Marshall's takedown of Carl Cameron's pre-election foul-up was a good example of effective watcher-watching, though I believe that he unsuccessfully called for Cameron to be removed from Kerry campaign coverage.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum opines that Hume did misquote FDR, but quite sensibly avoids demanding the FOX anchor's pelt.

(Via IP)

UPDATE: Thanks to Bluemerle (I think) - I told you! Such talent.

Ratherbiased previews "a blockbuster story in tomorrow's New York Observer:"

Josh Howard, the executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday" during Memogate and the only CBS employee who had the guts to suggest that the network admit to wrongdoing before Memogate became a mess is threatening CBS with a lawsuit if it does not sufficiently retract the original Bush Air Guard story and fully come clean about the role of upper management in the network's stonewall defense.
...
Howard is threatening to sue the network for wrongful termination and is said to be willing to testify under oath and subpoena secret internal documents and emails from his former employers.

Let the information come out.

UPDATE: The Observer article is up:

Mr. Howard and two other ousted CBS staffers—his top deputy, Mary Murphy, and CBS News senior vice president Betsy West—haven’t resigned. And sources close to Mr. Howard said that before any resignation comes, the 23-year CBS News veteran is demanding that the network retract Mr. Moonves’ remarks, correct its official story line and ultimately clear his name.

Mr. Howard, those sources said, has hired a lawyer to develop a breach-of-contract suit against the network. Ms. Murphy and Ms. West have likewise hired litigators, according to associates of theirs, and all three remain CBS employees and collect weekly salaries from the company that asked them to tender their resignations.

Some of the notable parts:

Mr. Howard also believes, those sources said, that the report itself excludes evidence that would implicate top management at CBS and restore Mr. Howard’s reputation in the television news business.
...
In the event of a lawsuit, Mr. Howard has told associates that he would like to see Mr. Moonves and Mr. Schwartz put under oath to talk about their own roles in the network’s stubborn, hapless defense of the flawed segment on President Bush’s National Guard service.

Mr. Howard has also indicated to colleagues that he would subpoena specific CBS documents, including the e-mails of top executives. That might shed further light on what members of management were saying to each other on Friday, Sept. 10, two days after the segment aired—a day that Mr. Heyward and Mr. Schwartz were making important decisions about CBS’s defense strategy.

Interesting. And perhaps he has a right to be angry:

That was also when Mr. Howard’s leadership role, judging by CBS’s own account, stopped being so important. The network held Mr. Howard, as executive producer, responsible for airing the flawed segment. But it apparently ignored him when he asked management to reconsider the strategy of categorical denial that led to 12 days of stonewalling.

(Emphasis mine)

CBS is between a rock and a hard place on this - either they cave to the employees and face the renewed wrath of a blogosphere outraged over lack of accountability, or they go to court and watch helplessly as potentially embarrassing details come out via supoena. I'm certainly hoping for the latter. We want the full story.

It seems that my Helen Thomas joke struck a nerve with a poster called "monkeyfister" aka "Tony B" on the message boards at the far leftist web site Bartcop:

I shouldn't even be repeating this filth, mods, if you agree, then sqeltch this post at your discretion.

The story at the link below, reveals the depravity of the Right's sickness. It seems that they are STILL trying the Invasion of GiGi's privacy angle, but, they've taken it to the most deplorable I could ever imagine.

I'm thoroughly disgusted.

From INDCent Journal... (That's what the Llamas call me! -- ED)

fucking sick bastards.

When a couple of commenters opined that the p-shop was funny, his outrage only sharpened:

"Well, I Simply Have Too Much Respect For Ms. Thomas ..." In response to Reply #2 To abide by this bullshit. Sure, my spleen is working overtime, but, I see notyhing funny or benign in this mockery.

Sorry if I seem breathless-- I see no comparison between the two subjects that justifies an attack on a paragon of Democracy in the Press Pool, such as Ms. Thomas, I love and respect her too much. I'm going to continue to hold onto my special hatred for these bastards.

Hold on to the hatred, Tony! Don't you ever let it go.

Then, when Tony/monkeyfister was asked about my web site by another commenter, I learned some surprising details about myself:

"They're Just Your Typical Right Wing Idiots Outta DC..." In response to Reply #4

Stacey McCain-- Moonie, Assoc. Editor of the Moonie Times, FReeper, Neo-Confederate, and racist bastard is a buddy and supporter of theirs.

Just your typical, right-wing blog of doom.

Tony B.

Huh? Stacey who? Am I supposed to be getting paid?

I'm rolling on the floor and wiping away tears over here.

UPDATE: I also received the exact same e-mail (along with similar ones) that Reynolds mentions. And my response is similar, though I think I may have been [otherwise occupied] in college (and not exactly writing books) when Clinton was having a hard time.

UPDATE: Another post from that thread:

Well, at least we don't have to photoshop the pictures of Guckert.

The truth enrages these vermin

I'm enraged by the TRUTH! (Makes scrunchy rat face)

Ace has the link and analysis.

A responsible leftie blogger denounces the seedier tactics used against Jeff Gannon:

This piece started by calling certain bloggers bottom-feeders and yellow journalists. Exhibit A is Americablog, which has dug up and posted the most unsavory dirt it can find about former Talon News "reporter" "Jeff Gannon," aka "James Guckert," who joined the White House press corps and asked embarrassingly softball questions at White House press conference.

Americablog spends quite a bit of time outlining his allegations, but they all come to one allegation: that "Gannon"/Guckert was a gay prostitute before taking up his career as a conservative ringer in the media circus.

This is beyond reprehensible. All that Americablog has done is to dig up a person's dirty laundry, air it in public, and crow loudly about what a great a great feat of journalism or activism has just been committed.

He also makes an excellent point about head-hunting that's applicable to bloggers and journalists of all ideological stripes:

Read More »

Jim acquitted himself very well on PBS Newshour yesterday, thankfully pointing out to the panel (and PBS viewers) that Eason Jordan had made similar accusations against the US military in the past. Audio and a transcript can be found here. David Gergen opined that the drumbeat for Jordan's resignation was loud and unruly, but ...

A. I didn't consider the momentum to be very strong at the time of Jordan's resignation; Gergen overstates the volume of the bloodthirsty mob.

B. Much of the demand focused around the release of the tape, not calls for the man's pink slip.

And Gergen deftly shimmied away from Geraghty's challenge for him to request the release of the tape:

DAVID GERGEN: I have no objection to the tape being released whatsoever. That's ordinarily respected. But in these circumstances I have no problem with the tape being released and let it be settled that way. But, you know, I think the damage is done now.

Well, I suppose it's good that he has "no objection" to the tape's release.

Video of Bill O'Reilly's interview with blogger Rony Abovitz can be found here. Despite being a part of the rumor-mongering internet (O'Reilly's bete noir), Abovitz seemed to win Bill over, which is impressive.

*** INDC XXXCLUSIVE MUST CREDIT INDC ***

Yesterday's outing and scandalous accusations about Jeff Gannon's alleged career as an escort were outrageous; the methodology of bloggers swarming to dig up questionable personal business associations and post graphic pornographic pictures of a partisan right wing journalist was perhaps the most deplorable example of the politics of personal destruction that I've ever witnessed. At first, I was shocked. Then I became angry. And finally - I decided to get even.

If these leftist sleaze merchants are going to employ depraved means to take down the mighty Gannon - previously the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's most valuable and powerful undercover asset - then I'm going to return the favor by shaming one of their treasured left-wing hacks into early retirement.

Some of you may judge me harshly, but I hope that in time, you'll come to understand.

Please be advised, the picture below the fold is quite explicit ...

Read More »

You know who really ducked responsibility for Rathergate? USA Today:

In some unfinished business from the "Rathergate" scandal, we continue to come across people who don't know that USA Today ran the same virtual story as CBS News, based on the same bogus Bush National Guard documents. CBS apologized and fired four. USA Today hasn't apologized or fired anybody. It hopes the scandal will simply go away. But we won't let it.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the Boston Globe also had early access to the information in the story and ran cooperative print companions. Assessing whether these entities bear an equivalent burden to CBS is subjective, though they certainly failed to meet basic journalistic standards of fact-checking, probably relying on the assumption that CBS had the bases covered.

And recall that after the story broke and the documents were questioned, the Globe even tried to distort the narrative by publishing a phony headline suggesting that the documents had been verified by Dr. Philip Bouffard (quite the opposite - The Globe eventually issued a correction).

Both print outlets have essentially succeeded in slinking out the back door of Rathergate.

Leftie blogs are now publishing insane speculation (via some random web site) about a married White House staffer being gay - based on an anonymous rumor that he's visited gay bars - and wondering aloud about ties to Gannon.

Stunning.

No proof. No reliable sources. Salacious details about private lives. Grossly irresponsible rumor-mongering based on third party anonymous sources published on a random web site. And by the standard they use, even assuming reliability of a completely unidentified source from a shady web site - just unattributed words on a page - I'd be gay, as would the many, many straight guys I know that have set foot inside a gay club/bar at various points in their lifetime with girls that "love the music."

Every bad stereotype about "the irresponsible internet" has been adopted by the leftie blogs in the homosexual witchhunt aspect of this story. I'm more than a bit disgusted and alarmed, and someone needs to get sued. Pronto.

And responsible leftie bloggers need to denounce this behavior.

This link fulfills my obligatory monthly lip service to Compassionate Conservatism.

(Via Flea)

This is the funniest thing that I've read in ages. A tease:

I'm a republican. I have a condo in Vail, a summer home in Maine, and a beach house in Florida. We don't need any National Parks or protected forests. Fuck you.

I'm a republican. I'm white. I'm perfect, and I'm not like all those brown, yellow and black people. Fuck you.

This is the cliched expression on the most popular leftist political blog on the internet, read by DC Dems in the halls of power, and previously bought as an advocate by the new DNC chair. I'd say that this post buttresses Michael Barone's recent analysis:

So what hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans' adversaries in Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans.

How do you spell long-term political minority status?

D-a-i-l-y K-o-s.

(Barone link via IP, pleasant screed via LB's)

UPDATED: With expanded spelling ...

Eason Jordan discussed the honesty of CNN's Iraq coverage in a 1999 lecture at Harvard:

Question: I want to ask about access in Iraq.

Eason: Look, CNN is imperfect, as are all news organizations. We would like to have entirely unrestricted and unfettered access everywhere around the world, but this is not an ideal world; it's a real world, and that's not the way it works.

CNN has had tremendous difficulties with the Iraqi government, a government that's accused me during my own trips to Baghdad of being a CIA station chief for Iraq. I feel lucky to have emerged alive from that. But it's very difficult working from Baghdad. It was during the war, and it continues to be today.

Our view is, first of all, we will not consciously pull punches. If I ever find anybody doing it, then those people will be history at this network, as well as with our Iraq coverage.
...
So it's tremendously difficult for us, as it would be tremendously difficult for any news organization, reporting on a regime like the Iraqi regime, when you know your own reporting is being seen by those very same people. Most news organizations don't have that problem, but we are trying to make the best of an extremely challenging situation. And if there's any proof that we're compromising our journalistic standards as part of that process, I would love to know about it, because that's totally unacceptable.

Considering what he admitted after the war, it looks like his own stated consequences belatedly caught up with him. Eason Jordan had a credibility problem.

Some other interesting lecture snippets about a second tyrannical regime:

Read More »

Apparently, some large aspect to the Gannon story is due to break today. One of the lead bloggers on the hunt is giving cryptic hints and cautioning would-be assassins:

PS Just so the bad guys out there know, several of my friends already have copies of my files. I'm just saying...

Very crafty - we must also assume that this one is clever enough to double-wrap the aluminum foil to avoid the influence of our mind rays.

My wild guess? The clue indicates that he's found a picture of Gannon in some compromising position.

UPDATE: Links removed and post altered. If it turns out to be personal allegations, I don't want to promote a malicious attack on the guy. If not, I'll link it back up.

UPDATE: Via Dean's World, David Gergen weighed in on Gannonron on CNN:

GERGEN: I am sorry, I really have a hard time getting excited about this story. I think it's trivial compared to paying off journalists like Armstrong Williams or others and giving them money to go out and support you. In this case, the White House has had a lot of wild cards in there over the years, and you well know that. And various presidents — President Kennedy made no bones of the fact that there was a woman from Texas who was sort of — who was a liberal, and she was out there in the audience, and when he got in trouble on a question, he'd always find her. He knew where she sat. And he turned to her in press conferences because she'd get him off the took. This has been going on for a long, long time.

UPDATE: And the aforementioned brave blogger's commenters were worried that he'd been assassinated overnight by the Man:

Glad to see you're safe. Good luck with it all. Ken | Email | Homepage | 02.14.05 - 9:45 am | #

Other choice quotes from one of the tease threads:

tell us now damn it, i've been refreshing for 8 straight hours and my brain is melting. rob | Email | Homepage | 02.14.05 - 9:48 am | #

Ah, a single-sheeter (of foil).

Maybe they intercepted him? Yikes. John...? Hello...John? Fred | Email | Homepage | 02.14.05 - 9:53 am | #

If only we could silence this brave investigative voice of Truth.

Don't worry about typos!!! You can correct those later! pontificator | Email | Homepage | 02.14.05 - 9:49 am | #

Excellent advice.

UPDATE: The suspense is over - Gannon was apparently allegedly hawking services as a gay escort, and they've got invoices and the dirty photos to buttress the claim. The supersleuth blogger discusses why this matters to him:

So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." (He acquired credentials under his real name -- Ed) They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. (Unproven speculation stated as "reported" fact! -- ED) Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

None of this is by accident.

Of course, this analysis skips to the conclusion that Gannon was a White House plant and that he was leaked documents, with no evidence. The man had day passes to White House Press briefings. Are these details about a conservative reporter's extracurriculur activities salacious and ironic? You bet. Are they evidence of some conspiracy, gross incompetence or nefariousness on the part of the Bush White House? Give me a break. If anything, unless these qualms were known and overridden by someone in the White House, the Secret Service would bear the burden.

A leftie blogger is triumphant in uncovering seedy activity by a relatively unknown partisan reporter, and reduced to sterling investigative work like this:

Even more photos show Jeff wearing the same silver watch with a black band that Jeff Gannon is known to sport. Some show that Jeff and Jeff Gannon have the same short and pointed eyebrows, same ears, same face structure, chest structure and nipples. Same wrinkles/creases in their stomachs when they bend forward. The resemblance is astonishing.

Same "nipples[!]" Way to go, Bob Woodward.

More rationalization:

Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy?

"Surrounded by gay hookers." "They use."

Ludicrous hyperbole.

I haven't come to a definitive conclusion about the innate newsworthiness of outing an allegedly former gay escort that had day credentials to White House briefings (escort services aren't even illegal on their face), but I'm sure of one thing: these bloggers are pathetic. If I had information that Dan Rather ran a bondage cat house out of his New York Penthouse during Rathergate, I don't think that I'd exactly make it a centerpiece of my work, and I certainly wouldn't dig for it. Or be proud of ruining the guy’s life.

I haven't decided whether or not to link the post itself, which is pornographic. And I'll be curious to see whether this blogger at "AmericaBlog" decides to dig into the personal lives and business dealings of Helen Thomas, David Gregory and the rest of the reporters with White House access. As it is, I find this precedent chilling.

UPDATE: Goldstein sums up my feelings with much greater efficiency.

UPDATE: Wizbang is unmoved.

RedState is disturbed by the ideological irony of the attack:

The movement of "not that there's anything wrong with that" has disintegrated into using what they once lauded as just a different kind of normal as a weapon against anyone who doesn't toe the line of *their* political orthodoxy.

Say Anything has more.

And some great, succinct analysis here.

*** John Hawkins interviews Peter Schweizer, author of "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism."

*** I enjoyed this video of Sean Hannity trying to take credit for Rathergate.

*** Some folks just know how to have a good time:

Tammy Jean Warner said late husband Michael Warner had an alcohol problem and enjoyed giving himself wine or sherry enemas because his body would absorb the spirits more quickly that way.

"That's the way he went out and I'm sure that's the way he wanted to go out because he loved his enemas," she told the Houston Chronicle.

Michael Warner, 58, died on May 21 and was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent, or nearly six times the level considered too drunk to drive in Texas.
...
"He did coffee enemas, he did Castile soap, Ivory soap," she said. "He had enema recipes."

How quaint.

*** Arthur Chrenkoff once again rounds-up the good news from post-election Iraq.

*** Captain Ed looks approvingly at a NYT article about the Eason Jordan blogswarm.

*** And an Iranian blogger faces trial and imprisonment for dissent:

"Excuse me, Miss, but here in my hand I have a warrant for your arrest," said a middle-aged man with a few days' growth of beard. "Please do not make any noise as you walk calmly to the Mercedes parked at the corner."

When the man approached me, I had just left a bookstore. It crossed my mind to resist, but I thought better of it.

In the car, I was flanked by two broad-shouldered men in black jackets. The man with the arrest warrant drove up Enqelab Avenue and waved the arrest warrant to assure me they were not kidnappers. "We are from the judiciary branch, and everything will be done within the framework of Islamic law," he said. "Do not worry. The whole thing should not last more than a couple of hours."

I was annoyed but relieved, and not especially surprised. Arrest and interrogation of anyone who writes stories critical of the regime has become commonplace in Iran. I am a blogger, and I have written often and honestly about life in my country, so it's an occupational hazard.
...
I remained in prison for 36 days. Now I am awaiting trial. On my release I was reminded, "Be thankful to God that we arrested you. If you had been detained by the intelligence department of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, they would surely have beaten you. Here you were our guest."

The promise that "everything will be done within the framework of Islamic law" certainly wouldn't make me all that comfortable.

And on the Seventh Day, the Lord's Day, thou shalt mock the one called Willis.

Jeff is fulfilling the letter of my pledge with precision and unmatched enthusiasm.

You may recall my post two weeks back that took issue with the histrionic complaints in a WaPo article on rising property taxes ... which mirror rising property values:

Oh, for the average homeowner to have such problems. The poor dear, struggling to keep up with the still amazingly underassessed DC taxes (trust me, they are a steal) on her home and rental property that are appreciating by six figure leaps in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods.

Lean in and listen close, lady: take out a miniscule low-interest home equity loan on all that appreciation so that you can pay your taxes and afford groceries, and watch as the 30-40%+ gains in appreciation outpace the 4-6% interest on your small loan - which you then turn around and write off on your taxes.

This isn't sophisticated financial planning, yet half of the theme of a newspaper article bemoans the relatively small tax burden of people that are in fact reaping the fortuitous benefit of vast increases in property values. This appreciation is relatively liquid, and the problem in the article is essentially an illusory construction of perception.

In today's WaPo, an article by David Brunori mirrors my annoyance:

The devastating news has hit again, as it does around this time every few years. Sometimes, the media deliver it somberly, like casualty reports from a distant battlefield, with photo spreads of depressed Americans shaking their heads in despair. Other times, it's delivered like a call to arms, quoting angry citizens demanding that their government do something to alleviate their suffering.

No, it's not news of war, disease, poverty or crime. The terrible news is that . . . property values are increasing.

That's right. This collective unhappiness is a reaction to the property tax assessments going out around the area, informing people that -- gasp! -- their houses are worth more. Mine certainly is. The assessed value on my house in Northern Virginia is up some 70 percent over what it was three years ago.

I, for one, am celebrating. But so many other people seem suddenly to have forgotten that this is a good thing. I know that lots of us don't view purchasing a home the same way we view investing in the stock market. But the economic effect is just the same. If you buy a house for $250,000 and it doubles in value in a couple of years, you've just made a remarkable return on your investment. If it doubles again, you could be a millionaire. You can sell your house for a substantial (and, for most Americans, a tax-free) profit. You can borrow against it on favorable terms. You can leave a substantial inheritance to your loved ones. You are -- in short -- rich.

Brunori also goes on to highlight why he believes that the property tax is a stable, straighforward way to raise money for local government services.

UPDATE: A rebuttal. But here's the key issue:

Property tax defenders like that property taxes fund much of local government needs - schools, fire and police, sanitation and the like. But rising property taxes are like a built in, and unjustified, raise for local government - just because property values increase does not mean that local government needs have gone up at anywhere near the same pace.

There may be no argument from me - it depends - but from my experience, tax assessments do not rise at anywhere near the same pace as values in DC. Or Florida. So again, carping about a $500 - $800 in tax increase when your property may have gained six figures strikes me as overwrought. The strength of the argument either way depends on the specifics of your area with its relative gains in property value and pace of assessments.

And this is non-contextual:

Let's continue with pointing out that increases in property taxes represent taxes on unrealized gains. You're not taxed on other investments you make prior to selling that investment, nor in general are individuals taxed on income prior to their receiving it; why should one's home be the exception to the rule?

First of all, real estate gains may be technically unrealized, but increases in home values, especially in a primary residence, are much more stable than something like the stock market. And why is being taxed on unrealized gains in a house more or less fair? Because when you sell a house that you live in, you pay NO taxes on the profit if you've lived there a certain amount of time, up to $250,000 in gain, I believe. So unlike other forms of wealth, you skip capital gains altogether. I'll take the miniscule property taxes, thank you.

As for Bill's suggestion that we all go and borrow money to pay our taxes, what kind of terrible investment advice is that? Who in their right mind tells people to go out and borrow money - even at today's relatively low rates - to pay for recurring expenses? I don't borrow money to pay for my food, nor my clothes (when I buy any, that is), nor my gas bill, nor my satellite bill...

It's not horrible investment advice, it's big boy investment advice, and I'm not suggesting that "we all" do anything. The counsel was directed towards the low-income folks in the first WaPO story that were reaping goldmine bonanzas of holding previously unwanted property in rapidly gentrifying areas. If they are on a fixed income and literally can't afford an extra $1,000 a year in taxes, yet are making vast sums of money on property appreciation, it makes perfect sense for them to take out a small $10,000 loan on the $200,000 in equity that they just made on their house, so they can still pay their bills, continue to live in their home and reap the benefits of cooling but still double-digit appreciation.

And aside from people with fixed incomes, it makes sense for people of means that can actually afford the property taxes (but just like to complain about them) to efficiently build wealth by tapping the equity in their house as capital for other investments, because interest rates have been so low for so long. If you have $200,000 in equity in a house and can borrow against it with a secured loan rate of 5%, it makes a world of sense to make that money work doubletime for you by borrowing against the house and investing in something else that can beat the interest rate. Like bonds, funds or other real estate. Beating 5% on a rate of return isn't terribly difficult.

Aside from mischaracterizing my advice, he makes some very reasonable points about problems with property taxes, and goes on to suggest abolishing them - an entirely different argument that I'm not prepared to engage in. To my layman's eye, I also wish that we had a flat or consumption tax, but it ain't gonna happen. And I'll maintain that when local governments faced severe financial shortfalls these past few years, reassessing undervalued land and taxing the vast new sources of wealth was one of the fairest ways to lurch towards the black ink. Along with spending cuts, of course.

This is especially true in areas like DC, where the assessments were ridiculously antiquated.

UPDATE: Again, in the comments, Boyd demands clarity - my comments are based around assessments compared to appreciation in my experience in DC and Florida, and specifically to WaPo complaints about 3 or barely-4 figure tax increases on 6 figure appreciation. I'd have a completely different attitude if I was referring to an area making only 6% appreciation and paying nearly 5 figures in taxes. In DC, this is especially not the case, so the published tax complaints of fixed-income folks worth half a million dollars were excessive in the first article that I linked. YMMV.

UPDATE: In the same edition of the WaPo, there's another article that somewhat* illustrates my point:

Read More »

*** Apparently, donated toys for Iraqi children reap security benefits.

*** Looks like Google is sticking up for Eason Jordan.

*** OTB rounds-up the mildly surprising Iraqi election results.

*** Kate makes the relevant point about the new chair of the DNC.

*** And Vodkapundit finds a glimpse of the sentiments that guide the Columbia Journalism Review's analysis of blogging. Presumably, this arrogance is what motivated their embarrassing January piece about Rathergate.

... is thin and weak, given current evidence. The Kossacks, Marshall, et al, are getting riled up over the possibility that Gannon had special, illegal access to the secret Valerie Plame memo. The only problem is, as of present information, it seems his first mention of the memo's contents took place after the Wall Street Journal wrote about its details. As I mentioned in my previous analysis:

... Gannon was "aware" of the report in October. The report was leaked and written about by Bob Novak in July. By the time Gannon interviewed Wilson in October [this is where he first referred to the memo's contents], the Wall Street Journal had written an overview of the memo earlier in the month - it was common knowledge. I was "aware of the INR report" as well.

JustOneMinute is on the same page, also taking apart the Kos speculation, based on the details in the Kos timeline:

Read the Journal story, and the Gannon question, and you can almost hear his copy of the Journal rustling. Do I need to highlight the matching phrases?

Now, for a bit of bonus hilarity, Intrepid Reporter Jeff Gannon also asked Amb. Wilson about a Nick Kristof column written on Oct. 11; this appears in the Kos timeline at Nov. 3, 2003.

So, the Alternative Explanation - Jeff Gannon reads the papers!

JustOneMinute also shares my analysis that Gannon's cryptic later statements about protecting sources may stem from dramatic license or the fact that he did receive the memo - late, from secondary sources other than the White House, and along with other members of the Washington and NY press corps - because Gannon never used any inside information before it was available in other large media outlets:

Well, in other forums Gannon has said other things. And why does he not just admit that he got his news from the Journal? Well, why should he admit it - the Special Counsel is ignoring him (we wonder why...), and pretending to be a Bold Reporter who is Bravely Protecting Sources may have a certain glam appeal. (I would fold up like a cheap suitcase in front of the Grand Jury myself, but I would never admit it that later. Well, unless you asked.)

Or maybe Gannon, the Journal, and others got this memo - that would be consistent with the WaPo account. Two WSJ reporters (Gigot and Hitt) were also subpoenaed - what is their status?

My guess - much less here than even the newer, calmer Kos Crew supposes. Maybe Gannon got the memo when some other folks did; I'll bet he reads the news. Time will tell.

It's amusing that the details in Kos's own ostensibly damning timeline go a long way towards actually casting doubt on their conclusions. Read the rest of Just One Minute's summation. I think that we're both leaving ourselves wiggle room in case some new information comes to light, but as of now, there's not much there there. The investigators trying to prove illegal receipt of classified documents will have to prove that he received the actual CIA memo or demonstrate that he displayed knowledge of the memo's contents before the information entered the public domain through other media outlets. Thus far, they haven't come close to doing this.

And the problem with stories like this is that the characterization that "Gannon may have had improper access to CIA documents based on speculation without objective evidence" winds up transmogrifying into the ideological boilerplate of "Jeff Gannon was leaked CIA documents by the White House. And he was a plant."

As evidenced by Congressional Democrats' and The NY Times' face value reliance on the flawed speculation at Daily Kos ...

(JustOneMinute link via BA)

UPDATE: According to Jeff Gannon's interview with Editor and Publisher, he was never subpoenaed and has never testified before a grand jury about the documents ...

AP:

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amid a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq.

Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.

During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.

He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong place where a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy.

"I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise," Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.

But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up. There was an online petition calling on CNN to find a transcript, and fire Jordan if he said the military had intentionally killed journalists.

I'm actually shocked. I'm starting to believe in Hugh Hewitt's theories about blogs having the omnipotence to warp space and time, cure baldness and raise the dead.

(Via Malkin)

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber has another great blogger/MSM round-up. And via INDC commenter Dave, see if you can spot CNN's coverage of the story on a screenshot of their homepage yesterday.

I agree with Goldstein's analysis:

My guess is that in the cold, clarifying light of morning, how Jordan’s remarks actually played on that Davos tape was even worse than we’d been led to expect—and that, recognizing this, Jordan didn’t so much resign as he was coached by the CNN brass on how to best salvage whatever remained of his dignity.

Jim Geraghty, who approached the story with sobriety and appropriate caution, also has a smart summary.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, and I'm starting a transmutation/alchemy blog.

Lorie Byrd:

I hope that Jordans resignation didnt stop the momentum to discover exactly what CNN knew and when they knew it. I still want to know why CNN didnt call for the tape or transcript of the Davos panel discussion to be released.