SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: LindyBill11/24/2005 6:47:53 PM
   of 764828
 
This "Pajamas media" play has really caused hostility among my favorite bloggers. Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds are no longer talking to each other. :>) They went "corporate" and really screwed up.

Somebody get these guys a mirror
By Jeff Jarvis on Weblogs

Well Pajamas Media, nee OSM, nee Open Source Media, nee Pajamas Media is trying to do some navel-gazing on Thanksgiving and one thing becomes painfully, loudly, self-apparently apparent:
pajamasmedia.com

They have no idea what they want to be or why they exist.

Which is what I’ve said from the start.

Really: Just read the closed-loop discussion among only the PM people — no outsiders allowed, no comments allowed (though Roger is thinking about requiring a donation to God-knows-what charity to be allowed the privilege of allowing comments), no different perspectives welcome. And boy, do they need some.

Here’s the challenge, folks: Stand back and see whether you can agree on just one thing. Finish this sentence in no more than 10 words: Pajamas Media is _________________.

Until you can do that, there is no sense in arguing over logos, names, functionality, linking, comments, anything. What are you? Why do you exist? Until you can answer that, you shouldn’t exist. You don’t exist. You are just, everyone there seems to agree, a corporate-looking page that does too little.

But it sure is amusing to watch.
buzzmachine.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill11/24/2005 6:50:37 PM
   of 764828
 
GINGRICH TO CONGRSS: “Time is not on our side”
FDD blog

Former House Speaker (and FDD Distinguished Advisor) New Gingrich recently testified on the Hill about the threat that Iran represents to the United States, to Israel and to the Free World.

Excerpt:

Not since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy, and Germany have we seen the willful avoidance of reality which is now underway with regard to Iran.

In the 1930s Winston Churchill read Hitler’s Mein Kampf and came to understand that Hitler meant exactly what he said. Churchill found himself isolated and alone among British political leaders as the British government refused to recognize the depth of Hitler’s evil and the seriousness of his statements.

The League of Nations found itself able to issue press releases and diplomatic condemnation but unable to do anything effective about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and later China, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) and later Albania, Germany breaking the Versailles Treaty by remilitarizing the Rhineland and then absorbing Austria and occupying Czechoslovakia.

Each weak, paper response of the democracies simply increased the contempt and boldness of the dictators.

There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran.

Indeed, the new Iranian President does not even require us to read a book like Mein Kampf to understand how serious he is. He enthusiastically makes speeches proclaiming to the world his commitment to genocidal annihilation of another nation …

Meanwhile the civilized world wrings its hands and the United Nations acts with contemptible weakness.

The central proposition of this testimony is this: the combination of two elements – the virulence of the ideology of Iran’s current regime and advanced military capabilities it is working energetically to acquire – when added to Iran’s inherent endowment – its strategic location, natural resources, population, and proximity to the vital resources of other nations in the region and the seaways through which these sources reach the rest of the world – poses a threat of such scope and magnitude which leave us with no choice but to take it with the utmost seriousness. We must prepare and take actions of the same intensity and seriousness as the threat.

Yet, time is not on our side.

Read the rest here. defenddemocracy.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lane3 who wrote (148632)11/24/2005 6:52:37 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764828
 
It's better than acknowledging that subconsciously distorted their readings and judgments and that's what lead them astray.

subconscious, schmubconcious. None of the clowns making the "I was misled" argument can point to any piece of intelligence that would have been read differently by non-hawks. They cry about how "the President saw more than me" without mentioning that the evidence the President saw (according the Senate Intelligence Committee report) was even MORE scary about Saddam Hussein than the evidence shared with Congress.

This is no more than a demand that the President conduct foreign policy with 20/20 hindsight, and absolve the Congress of the responsibility of their votes.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


From: LindyBill11/24/2005 6:58:05 PM
1 Recommendation   of 764828
 
The contacts below are priceless. I am putting a link to this in the header.

How Do We Send a Message?
Media Blog
Stephen Spruiell Reporting
Media Culture

MB reader Barb H. wrote on Monday, Nov. 21, with the question that puzzles all of us who critique the media over and over, yet rarely see any meaningful change:

First, I want to tell you how much I enjoy your blog as well as your recent article on NR digital specific to Chris Matthews. My question is whether you have any advice how best to 'send a message' to the MSM, people like Katie Couric, Chris Matthews and the like, to influence any sort of change at all in their reporting. I know that changing deep-rooted beliefs/mind-sets is almost impossible, but you can't change anything unless you try. My frustration is that I don't know where to start. Do you send a generic e-mail via the 'contact us' link on a website? Do you write a handwritten letter? What makes them nervous?

What would have the best chance of actually making someone, anyone in a position of power within those organizations, stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they really aren't supporting our troops — that they really are hurting this country?

I know the work you do on your blog holds them accountable, just wondering if there is anything the common reader can do to help support change.

These are great questions, Barb. I don’t know the answers, but I can point out a couple of links with media contact points. I think that when media organizations get lots of e-mails with the same basic wording, they tend to tune them out and think, “Oh, this must be some right-wing plot against us.” But when they get a lot of e-mails and they seem unconnected, maybe over time this will have more of an impact. I don’t know. In any case, here are some sites that have contact links:

Daily Alert Action Recommendations
dailyalert.org
Honest Reporting Media Contacts
honestreporting.com
LGF Media Contacts
mrc.org
MRC Media Contacts

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (148637)11/24/2005 7:00:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764828
 
Now this is a new development:

DEBKAfile Exclusive: US Marines are locked in battle with Syrian troops after crossing the border from Iraq into Syria at a point west of al Qaim

November 25, 2005, 12:27 AM (GMT+02:00)

Both sides have suffered casualties. US soldiers crossed over after Damascus was given an ultimatum Thursday, Nov. 24, to hand over a group of senior commanders belonging to Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s al Qaeda force. According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148638)11/24/2005 7:04:43 PM
From: LindyBill
   of 764828
 
According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.

About time we got rid of this "Cambodia" crap. Look for the left to scream about us "widening the war."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148636)11/24/2005 7:04:55 PM
From: Lane3
   of 764828
 
None of the clowns making the "I was misled" argument can point to any piece of intelligence that would have been read differently by non-hawks.

I think we're talking about two different things. You're into the technical partisan infighting. I couldn't care less about that. I'm interested in the rationale for the war.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Lane3 who wrote (148640)11/24/2005 7:09:51 PM
From: LindyBill
   of 764828
 
I'm interested in the rationale for the war.

What are you looking for? I am not going to bother to "laundry list" the reasons we went in. They have been chewed to death here, and we both know them.

I suspect that you now don't agree with the reasons we went in. I don't remember you being outspoken against us going in before the war, but I am not sure when you started posting here. So I don't know if you have changed your mind, or if you held the same views earlier.

Either way, it's obvious that you no longer accept the reasons we used when we went in and that no amount of discussion is going to change your mind.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lane3 who wrote (148640)11/24/2005 7:15:36 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764828
 
I think we're talking about two different things. You're into the technical partisan infighting. I couldn't care less about that. I'm interested in the rationale for the war.

They are all related - the partisan stances spring from the different world-view that the left and the right have held since 9/11. And, imo, the left's unwillingness to face the realities of the situation because there are no answers for it in their playbook. You may not like the neocon answer, but they had one ready. The liberals were caught completely on the hop; the paleocons and the realists too for that matter.

You can suppose all you like the neocons read too much into the evidence because of their subconscious views or whatever, but you won't persuade me until you find some evidence. And no, just saying 'they were wrong in the event' is not evidence because policy decisions cannot be made in hindsight.

Saddams track record was of development and use of WMDs of all kinds, and of persistent attempts to evade the UN sanctions and keep developing them. Whenever the US was caught by surprise by Saddam before 2003, it was always because Saddam had MORE than we knew about, whether it was his nuclear program in 1991 or the biological weapons program that Hussein Kamel spilled the beans on in 1995. The evidence of 2202 was sketchy, but it pointed to more of the same pattern of behavior. Bear in mind that Saddam could have got the sanctions lifted if he'd come clean, and was costing himself literally hundreds of billions in revenue by his "cheat and retreat" policies.

No reasonable person would give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt in that situation, and none did. Not in the US, not in Great Britain, not in France or Germany or Israel.

So what special pro-war "rationale" are you talking about?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (148639)11/24/2005 7:18:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764828
 
About time we got rid of this "Cambodia" crap. Look for the left to scream about us "widening the war."

Naturally. Goes without saying.

Actually, to scream about widening the war, they might have to cover the war as a war, instead of list of explosions and body counts. So I don't know if they will.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10