Washington Post destroys Jason Leopold

Okay, I'm not amused. What this story says about this guy has nothing to do with the kind of journalism I practice. The Internet is just another means of getting your message out - to me at least. Your ethics, and the law, don't stop being important at the click of the mouse.

Having said that, there is certainly a current of crazy running through the Internet, as much as there's a current of crazy running through American life and mankind (Jerry Springer, anyone?). We all got crazies. But where the crazies used to be stuck in some backwater part of the country, never to be heard from other than the occasional ransom-looking-pasted-together note sent to a Senate office, now the crazies, and the less-than-ethical, and the too-big-for-their britches all have the ability to broadcast to the entire world.

That still doesn't make the rest of us like them. It simply makes it harder to distinguish us from them.

PS Then again, the Post had next to no problem with what Bob Woodward did hiding his involvement in the Plame affair while trashing the prosecutor for two years. This doesn't excuse Leopold, but he's in darn good company.

And another thing. It's ironic that an article about 'Internet ethics' - put aside for a moment that the guy is a traditional reporter who is now writing online - contains a big factual error. Namely, claiming "the blogosphere went wild" over Leopold's Rove story. Well, if by "went wild" the Washington Post means that only one - count 'em - one top lefty political blog reported on Leopold's story (and actually followed up with his sources and partially debunked his story) while the rest of us totally ignored his story and refused to link to it because we didn't believe it (and Peter Daou even publicly criticized the story) - then yes, the blogosphere went wild.

Ironic, isn't it. A story about journalistic ethics just making shit up. Ah to be the Washington Post. Read the rest of this post...

Saturday Evening Open Thread

What's going on tonight? Read the rest of this post...

So do the "45 dead insurgents" in Afghanistan count or not?

After previous refusals to give body counts, then the change by DoD to give body counts and then Tony Snow's "2500 American dead in Iraq is just a number" I'm confused. Are we counting dead? Not counting them? Selectively counting? When we bloody well feel like it counting? Only count when it's part of a propaganda campaign? Talk about flip floppers...Kerry has nuthin' on this crew. Read the rest of this post...

Interesting, and creepy, gene research tied to Mormons

The View, a show I watch occasionally, had a guy on Friday who is with the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation. For free, they will test your DNA and add you to a database that helps you find who else in the world you might be related to. That's all well and good, and Barbara Walters is participating with her DNA, but others on the show expressed privacy concerns about what might happen to such gene data some day, even if the Sorenson folks promise they have lots of protections in place.

Well, when I hear about some private citizen compiling a massive DNA database, for free, simply out of curiousity, my mind immediately leapt to the Mormons. You might be aware that they are trying to compile a list of every human ever born so they can help them off go to heaven or some alien planet or something. It's all a bit creepy.

Well, imagine my surprise when I read a Newsweek article about the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation and found out they're a non-profit based in Utah. Utah. Hmm. Mormoms live in Utah. So I read on.

That took me to the last paragraph of the Newsweek article:

Some of the projects have understandable links to religion. The SMGF's chief financial backer, James Sorenson, and its chief scientist, microbiologist Scott Woodward, are Mormons, whose church emphasizes genealogical research.

"Emphasizes genealogical research" is putting it mildly.

Now, I have no evidence to suggest the Mormon church has any kind of role in this project. But I do wish the folks at The View had mentioned this little Mormon tie-in when Barbara Walters was promoting this project to their viewers. It's free, and I almost took them up on their offer. But after reading about the Mormon angle, I'm taking a pass.

Having said that, National Geographic (the magazine people) are offering a similar test for $100. The results will suggest where your ancestors originally came from, migrated to, etc. It sounds pretty cool, and it's from National Geographic, so I trust it a tad more than the Mormon Church (which, as an aside, is rabidly anti-gay). I'm going to do the National Geographic test - I'll let you know what kind of results they provide, and perhaps what I find out. :-) Read the rest of this post...

8 mortar and bomb attacks in Baghdad, 27 dead, 2 US soldiers missing

So do George Bush and the Republicans still want the fall elections to be a referendum on how well things are going in Iraq?

The violence included a suicide bomber who blew up his car as it was being towed near a police checkpoint in Mahmoudiya, south of the city, killing four civilians and injuring 15. The bomber had claimed his car broke down and hired a tractor to tow it while he rode inside, police Capt. Rashid al-Samarie said.

A mortar barrage also hit a residential area in Mahmoudiya, a predominantly Sunni town about 20 miles south of Baghdad, killing one civilian and wounding three.

In Baghdad itself, a mortar shell hit one of Baghdad's best known markets, in the predominantly Shiite suburb of Kazimiyah, killing at least four people and wounding 13, police said.

About a half hour later, two people died and 24 were wounded when a bomb left in a plastic bag exploded at an outdoor market where secondhand goods are sold in central Baghdad.

Police said a suicide bomber targeting an Iraqi army patrol near Wathiq Square in the same neighborhood killed seven people when he blew himself up.

A parked car bomb in southwest Baghdad killed six people and wounded 36, police said.

Three mortar rounds hit a popular open-air market in the al-Bour area of northern Baghdad, killing two and wounding 14.

One other person died from a roadside bombing.

And that's just one day. Read the rest of this post...

Former Family Research Council lobbyist allegedly offers $1000 for lesbian 3 way

"He asked if I made exceptions for men at all, and I was like, 'not for Republicans.'"

"Faith, Family and Freedom" is the religious right group FRC's slogan. Perhaps they should change it to "Faith, Family, Freedom and Fornication."

Now, we don't have a problem with sex. We don't have a problem with sex with lesbians. We even don't want to make judgments about paying for sex. But we do have a problem if a self-proclaimed Republican "family values" lobbyist offers a pair of lesbians 1,000 bucks to join him at a high-class Washington, DC hotel in a hot homo three way, which is what Wonkette is reporting.

So much for protecting marriage. I wonder if the Family Research Council will demand their money back? Or do hot lesbian three-ways now protect marriage?

Crooks and Liars has more. Read the rest of this post...

Buy Boehlert's Book

Atrios is right, buy Salon.com reporter Eric Boehlert's book "Lapdogs: How the press rolled over for Bush".

I'm reading it now, have gotten through about half, and it's very good. Lots of horrifying detail as to just how bad the media has gotten. And there's lots of new information and analysis regarding things such as Bob Woodward's Valerie Plame memory loss, the press' reaction to Bush's "mandate" from 2004 election (uh, no mandate at all, thanks), and more. It's a good book, a great reference tool actually to keep around and have to win arguments with lying Republicans.

And in any case, as Atrios notes, buy the book - it's what Republicans do, they just by their guys' books to get them on the best sellers lists and help spread their message even further. You can click the link on the book image above to check out the book. Read the rest of this post...

Rove Version 2006, no major updates from Versions 2002 and 2004

The Washington Post does a story today to let us know Rove is "back". Okay. We knew that. They also give us Rove's 2006 campaign strategy:

Now Rove has the freedom to concentrate on preserving the GOP majorities in Congress, and an opportunity to purge the mistakes of the past two years. Based on recent Rove speeches and interviews with senior GOP officials, his plan for the midterm elections echoes the strategy he plotted out in 2002 and 2004, adapted to a new and more difficult environment. He hopes to make the election a choice between the philosophies of the two parties, especially on national security, rather than a referendum on Bush's performance. He also aims to stoke the Republican base with such issues as tax cuts, same-sex marriage and judicial appointments. Rove declined to comment for this article.

Okay, we knew that too. Because, as the Post notes, it is the same strategy from 2002 and 2004. It's all Rove knows.

We know what's coming.

The question -- again -- is whether the Democrats are ready for it. Is the Democratic "brain trust" -- that cabal of consultants who helped bring us to the place where we don't have the House, we don't have the Senate and we don't have the White Houes -- prepared for this battle? Are they going to advise candidates to fight back? That crowd spends a lot of time preserving their power -- and their high fees. They better be playing to win this time. Josh Marshall and one of his readers pose good questions about the effectiveness of Democratic consultants based on that pathetic Lieberman ad.

Rove is not infallible. The GOP can be beat. Most Americans are on our side. But, the Democrats have to fight, hard.

UPDATE: Piehole makes a very, very important point in the comments: The Dems. can't just wait around to fight back, they have to PUNCH FIRST. That's right. They know what's coming from Rove and the GOP. Hit first hard. Read the rest of this post...

All of the DoD, CIA, WH propaganda still can't change the reality of Iraq

It's a mess. More explosions today, more dead and more of the same. Read the rest of this post...

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Getting off to a slow start. Read the rest of this post...

Labour wants Blair to leave

No surprise there. The only surprise is that only 37% want him gone by the annual party conference in September. Most (two thirds) want the Poodle to be out by the end of 2007. So what is it that they don't like about his policies?

Asked to name the Blair government's six worst mistakes since first being elected to power in 1997, 52 percent said the invasion of Iraq, 49 percent said subservience to the United States, 46 percent said public service privatisation while 36 percent said refusing to raise income tax for middle and high earners.

Read the rest of this post...