Bloggers: Younger And Richer. Ain't That Nice?

A new Nielsen/NetRatings study on the blogs reported by MediaWeek says this:

Nielsen//NetRatings found blog readership has grown 31 percent since the beginning of the year, as blogs attracted 29.3 million visitors in July. About one in five Internet users visit blogs, the research firm said. ComScore Media Metrix, another Internet research firm, last week released a study that found blog readers are younger and more affluent than other Internet users.

Growing by 31%, some 30 million readers and as we know, liberal blogs are kicking the ass of rightwing blogs. Hey, they got cable news and radio, at least we have the Internet.

Most of the article is about RSS, which I don't use and don't really understand either. Any of you on it? As for being more affluent, tell it to my landlady -- she's still waiting for August's rent. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Take it... Read the rest of this post...

Mockery Of The Fallen: Why No Outrage?

USA Today described that rancher harassing Cindy Sheehan with shotgun blasts as "a little excitement." And now Bush's neighbors are running over crosses erected as memorials to fallen soldiers? That is outrageous. I don't care what political group you belong to. Trashing CROSSES - and crosses devoted to our dead in Iraq -- is unconscionable.

How does Bush feel about his neighbors? Does he support or condemn trashing of memorials devoted to the soldiers who died in Iraq? He couldn't be bothered to go to a single funeral or even the mass memorial in Ohio. Bush didn't even bother to send a representative. And now his neighbors are running over crosses placed in remembrance of those soldiers. If he doesn't get angry and condemn these despicable acts, isn't he telling his neighbors to keep it up? And any paper that downplays this as some sort of prank is crazy. If Cindy weren't on the left, Fox News would lead with this every hour on the hour for days. Imagine someone on the left RUNNING OVER CROSSES. Where is the outrage? Read the rest of this post...

Michael Wolff is Absolutely right about Rove and the Media

E&P; covered a panel in NYC sponsored by Court TV on journalism and the law. Lots of talking heads on the panel. This was my fave, from Michael Wolff at Vanity Fair:

Wolff, whose column in the September issue of Vanity Fair sharply hit the role of journalists in the Plame story, pushed his argument even further this morning over a plate of scrambled eggs and pancakes. He posited that if Time magazine had run the Matt Cooper story -- i.e. Rove as the leaker and master puppeteer -- a year ago, President Bush may not be in office serving a second term or we may not have had as many deaths in Iraq.

Further, Wolff called this the "biggest story of our age."

Instead, Time and the rest of the MSM dutifully reported that Bush was a better candidate for national security. The MSM were Rove's puppets, too. Read the rest of this post...

Will Roberts Leave You Alone?

USA Today says it's concerned about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. It also says a right to privacy -- the right to be left alone, as Justice Brandeis put it -- is a fundamental American right deeply rooted in our nation's history and a deal-breaker. The Supreme Court already has three Justices who don't believe in a right to privacy and it doesn't need a fourth. USA Today says Roberts MUST be asked about a right to privacy and if he's unwilling to uphold 200+ years of legal precendent and a bedrock American principal like the right to be left alone, then he MUST be rejected.

A vast majority of Americans support "the right to be left alone," from hippie liberals to far right conservatives. Most Americans would be deeply troubled by a Supreme Court judge who doesn't agree with such a simple proposition. It's a winning position, a popular position and the right position. Imagine Republican Senators who support Roberts having to defend in 2006 why they don't believe Americans have the right to be left alone. Too bad the Dems can't see this. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Bonjour Read the rest of this post...

Get well soon, Corretta

Coretta Scott King is in the hospital today and we wish her a speedy recovery. Mrs. King has been an unyielding and courageous advocate for all forms of civil rights for many years. The bigots at NCFR could learn a lesson from her:

Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal
protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do
nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.

God bless you Coretta, and get well soon. Read the rest of this post...

More media sponsors of pro-Bush Pentagon march to abuse memories of 9/11 victims

Washington Post:

Other media co-sponsors of the event are WTOP Radio, WJLA television and NewsChannel8. Officials with those outlets were out of the office and could not be reached late yesterday.

Those are local DC media oulets. Still, they need to pull out. Any other sponsors? Read the rest of this post...

My latest Radar article on Judge John Roberts

From Radar. Read the rest of this post...

Pro Cindy Sheehan Protest at US Embassy, Paris - Wed Aug 17

From the protest organizers:

Demain, mercredi août 17, nous voulons joindre des milliers d'Américains qui tiennent des manifestations aux Etats-Unis à l'appui de Cindy Sheehan et son combat pour finir la guerre en Irak.

Veuillez nous contacter si vous souhaitez nous joindre.

Nous proposons de sembler devant l'ambassade des USA a Paris, à midi 1200 le mercredi le 17ème

email : rubinson@kab.com
vous remercient.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tomorrow, Wednesday August 17, we want to join thousands of Americans who are holding demonstrations in the USA in support of Cindy Sheehan and her fight to end the war in Iraq.

Please contact us if you wish to join us.

We propose to appear in front of the US Embassy ion Paris at 1200 noon on Wednesday the 17th.

Email: rubinson@kab.com

Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Stir it up. Read the rest of this post...

USA Today Does Terrible Job On Evolution "Debate"

USA Today devoted its opinion page to the "debate" on evolution (a debate which doesn't exist in the scientific community, of course). It gives one half of the page to the people from the Discovery Institute, the group devoted to pushing its religious beliefs into our classrooms. The other half is given to the real scientists. Fine.

The problem is the primer provided by USA Today's Alejandro Gonzalez getting readers up to speed on the definition of "Neo-Darwinism," "Theory of Evolution," "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism." (You can find it under either link.) The first two are okay as far as they go, though USA Today makes no reference to the 150 years of evidence and studies and experiments that support them nor the widespread acceptance they enjoy, how they are bedrocks of modern biology, etc. Apparently out of fear of offending anyone, USA Today simply gives a dictionary definition of "Creationism," as if to say, "Don't blame us for saying it's religious; that's what Webster's says."

The real problem is USA Today's definition of Intelligent Design. Both Neo-Darwinism and Theory of Evolution are properly termed theories. And ID?

"A new and developing theory that says certain features of living systems are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected mechanism...."

A new and developing theory? That is simply ridiculous for a major newspaper to say. ID is not a theory in any sense of the term as it's used in science. Moreover, it is simply wrong to describe it as a "new and developing theory" alongside Neo-Darwinism. It is not a theory because a theory in science must have mountains of evidence and years of study before an idea gets elevated to that level of seriousness. More importantly, ID is not a scientific idea in any way shape or form. It is a religious belief, pure and simple. It cannot and has not be proved or disproved by experiment. It cannot and has not inspired any experiments or studies. It cannot and has not predicted certain patterns or behaviors for scientists to look for. After decades of proselytizing, ID remains absolutely outside of science for the simple fact that it isn't science.

USA Today was not being respectful by describing ID this way. USA Today was lying, pure and simple, or grossly incompetent. They really should run a correction. Any scientists, any science foundations out there, any university professors, please write to USA Today and correct this error. It's absolutely crucial to this fight that major newspapers not start to lie to their readers and mislead them out of a fear of retribution from fringe groups.

To report corrections and clarifications, contact Reader Editor Brent Jones at 1-800-872-7073 or email accuracy@usatoday.com

Explain why you think this is an error -- as opposed to an opinion. Letters to the editor go to editor@usatoday.com and need address and daytime phone number. Act fast: some letters have already appeared in today's edition and none address this issue. Read the rest of this post...

How Settled is Rove v. Wade for Roberts?

Roberts testified that Roe v. Wade was settled law during his confirmation hearings for the Court of Appeals a couple years ago. Since the Democrats have decided not to oppose Roberts, they better hope that's true. It still seems we don't have enough information about this guy. And it sure sounds from his days in the Reagan administration that he is a pretty damn strong opponent of a woman's right to choose:

As a young lawyer in the Reagan White House, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts concluded that a group's memorial service for aborted fetuses was "an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy."

Roberts' wrote the advice in an October, 1985 memo after he was asked to review a proposed telegram from President Reagan to the memorial service promoted by the California Pro Life Medical Association.

"The president's position is that the fetuses were human beings, or at least cannot be proven not to have been, and accordingly a memorial service would seem an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy," wrote Roberts.

Okay, he's using the anti-choice crowd's language. You have to think he is one of them. And, as Michael notes in his earlier post, Roberts scoffed at the concept of equal pay for equal work. Reading today's news, you don't get the sense that John Roberts had a lot of respect for the rights of women. Now, that could be just my interpretation.

We still don't know a lot about John Roberts. And, the White House won't give all the information that the Senate Democrats want. Think about this. They did release info. that says Roberts is against equal pay for equal work and the he refers to "the abortion tragedy."

What else is the Bush White House withholding? Read the rest of this post...

The Neighbors are getting REALLY UGLY

Man, talk about disrespecting the troops...not only the troops, the ones who died in the service of their country. Someone driving a pickup truck mowed down a row of crosses that were along the side of the road in Crawford. Each cross bore the name of a soldier killed in Iraq.

I saw the video of the vandalism on NBC this morning during the Today Show. Ugly, Ugly, Ugly. I think for a lot of these guys, it's hard to see a woman taking a strong stand.

But knocking over the crosses honoring dead soldiers? I want to see O'Reilly, Drudge and Malkin defend that. Here's the coverage from CBS/AP:

Cindy Sheehan — the mother who's camped out near Crawford, Texas, demanding to speak with President Bush about her GI son who died in Iraq — is continuing her vigil but the makeshift memorial erected at her campsite has taken a hit.

The campsite has close to a thousand white crosses, each representing GIs who, like Sheehan's son Casey, were killed in Iraq.

While Sheehan has gotten a lot of support in her vigil, and has been joined by dozens of sympathizers, she's also sparked some opposition.

Monday night, a pickup truck tore through the rows of white crosses.

The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U.S. soldiers. No one was hurt.

Read the rest of this post...

John Roberts Scoffed At Idea Of Equal Pay For Women

The more papers that get released about Supreme Court nominee, the farther to the right he appears to be. Why are the Dems caving in on this fight? Is he that comfortably within the mainstream? Here's USA Today on Roberts and equal pay for women -- in short, he compares the idea to communism, which is about the nastiest thing you could say about something in the Reagan Administration during the Cold War.

As an assistant White House counsel in 1984, John Roberts scoffed at the notion that men and women should earn equal pay in jobs of comparable importance, and he belittled three female Republican members of Congress who promoted that idea to the Reagan administration....

"I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept," wrote Roberts in a memo. "Their slogan may as well be, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.' "

Read the rest of this post...

US Pressure Could Backfire In Iraq

Very interesting from Reuters. Basically, the US is putting so much pressure on the Iraqis to finish a constitution, it is causing a backlash. Team Bush has screwed up every single aspect of the Iraq war and aftermath. Why would we not blow this, too:

The United States is pushing Iraqi leaders hard to reach agreement on a draft constitution but U.S. experts on Iraq warned on Monday that too much pressure could backfire and undermine the leadership's credibility.

Condi and Bush are pretending that the Iraqis are in charge, but that's not quite accurate:

But some U.S.-based Iraq analysts disagreed and criticized the United States for piling too much pressure on all sides to reach agreement and said it had made Iraqi politicians' jobs more difficult.

"Clearly the deadline is not working as there are still such big issues outstanding and putting pressure on them to meet the timetable is probably causing more division among the Iraqis than consensus," said Iraq expert David Phillips of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Middle East specialist Shibley Telhami said he thought the United States was playing too big a role in helping draft the constitution and this posed a credibility problem for the current Iraqi leaders.

"The U.S. ambassador there is very visible in his meetings over the constitution. There is the impression that the United States is driving this, and that is not a good thing," said Telhami of the Brookings Institution.

Read the rest of this post...

Early morning open thread

Another beautiful day in Paris. And I see finally a beautiful day back home as well. Off to get a haircut and snap some photos. Read the rest of this post...

Keeping The Peace In Iraq...With Private Armies

A very good NYT article about the 25,000+ soldiers of fortune/mercenaries or -- as they prefer -- private security company employees who provide extensive protection in Iraq. Since we have 140,000 troops there, it's obvious these often elite former soldiers are a crucial element in keeping the peace (not to mention the 50,000- 75,000 unarmed civilian workers from Halliburton et al). Frankly, we're desperately short of boots on the ground and Iraq would be in far worse shape if these hired guns weren't there as well. Some fascinating details in the story, which begins with a look at one company, Triple Canopy:

For guns, too, Triple Canopy had to make do. Transporting firearms from the United States required legal documents that the company couldn't wait for; instead, in Iraq, it got Department of Defense permission to visit the dumping grounds of captured enemy munitions. The company took mounds of AK-47's and culled all that were operable.

So Triple Canopy had vehicles and it had assault rifles, and when it needed cash in Iraq, to pay employees or buy equipment or build camps, it dispatched someone from Chicago, the company's home, with a rucksack filled with bricks of hundred-dollar bills. ''All the people in Iraq had to say is, 'We need a backpack,''' Mann said. ''Or, 'We need two backpacks.''' Each pack held half a million dollars....

Throughout his time as head of the C.P.A., L. Paul Bremer III, whom the insurgency may well have viewed as its highest-value target, was protected by a Triple Canopy competitor, Blackwater USA. Private gunmen, according to Lawrence Peter, are now guarding four U.S. generals. Triple Canopy protects a large military base. And throughout Iraq, the defense of essential military sites like depots of captured munitions has been informally shared by private soldiers and U.S. troops....

''Sure, they are performing a military role,'' Garner said of the companies. Then, while noting that he wasn't criticizing the Department of Defense, he added, ''The gut problem is the force'' -- that is, the U.S. fighting force -''is too small.'' And Bearpark, who has lately become a consultant to a large security firm, maintained that private protection might sometimes be better than what a regular army could offer. The private teams are more streamlined and flexible, he argued; they are often better trained for the job; and they may be willing to take more risks, allowing officials to move more freely. But about the fundamental reason for the C.P.A.'s hiring of the companies, he said: ''The military just hadn't provided enough numbers. It was stretched to the limit.''

There's much more, all interesting. By the way, these men are guarding generals but the Defense Dept. insists they're not performing military functions. Yeah right. Read the rest of this post...

Wash. Post pulls out of Pentagon March

Daily Kos has the story, via E&P.; Bottom line is that the Post is bagging their co-sponsorship of the Pentagon's pro-war march next month. How they ever thought this was a good idea is beyond me...but they are out now. Read the rest of this post...