Right Wing Nut House

John Cole was kind enough to respond to my sometimes overheated diatribe accusing him of unfair criticism of Hugh Hewitt and other conservative bloggers. And while I won’t pick apart Mr. Cole’s defense on a line-by-line basis, I’d like to respond to one point he made regarding a treason accusation.

I want to make it clear that I had no intention of accusing John Cole of treason. The problem, as I see now, is poor paragraph construction. In other words, lousy writing.

And in his desire to do what he thinks is best for our military, it appears to me that Cole has unconsciously adopted some of the themes and talking points used by people who actually do hate the military, who lovingly dote on each and every casualty, who oppose the military’s efforts in recruiting and retention, and who by word, by thought, and by deed seek to have the United States military defeated on the field of battle.

We used to call this treason. In this day and age, these sentiments get you invited to the best cocktail parties, has the MSM hang on your every word, and procures the lickspittle a book contract. And these are the people espousing these sentiments who agree with Mr. Cole?

John Cole served this country for many years in the military. His love for the institution and for our country comes through loud and clear on many an article Mr. Cole has written about the war. He was, I believe, one of the first bloggers to take the Pentagon to task for the lack of armour on vehicles. If I in any way impugned his honor, I apologize.

That being said, I was trying to point out that while John may be animated by a spirit of patriotism, the themes and talking points he has used to bash conservativest are similar to those used by people who are driven by ideology, by hate and loathing of the President, and yes, by hatred of the United States of America, to attack our war effort and undermine the US armed forces in the process.

These people are dead serious. They are well funded, extremely well organized, have attractive, articulate spokespeople, and are determined to succeed. They attack recruiting efforts for the military on campus and even on city streets in front of recruting offices. They seek to destroy the morale of active duty military personnel by encouraging them to go absent without leave. They facilitate the escape of deserters.

The actions I’ve documented above are, by any rational definition, treasonous. We are in a war for our survival. To have private citizens deliberately trying to undermine the morale of the military in time of war cannot be excused. I’m sorry that my clumsy writing didn’t make absolutely clear that Mr. Cole’s motives are different from those who seek, for whatever reason, to undermine our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One more note…Jay Rosen links to my article and says that I’m accusing Mr. Cole of “defecting” from the conservative side. Looking back through the piece, I see this:

After all, I look at his defection as temporary, a momentary fever brought about by a confluence of events that have disturbed many, including myself. And although it was never his intention, Mr. Cole’s attacks have resonated on the left side of the Shadow Media and given conservative critics plenty of unnecessary ammunition.

I think I make it pretty clear there that my half-jestful reference to “defection” was not a serious accusation. Chalk it up to more bad writing.

Besides, the liberals would never have you, John. You usually make too much sense.

John Cole of Balloon Juice is on a tear. In the last 6 days he’s excoriated Hugh Hewitt, raked Senate Republicans over the coals, hyperventilated over right-wing bloggers, ripped LaShawn Barber a new one, and generally ranted, raved, frothed, flaked, and fulminated against what he sees as misplaced loyalty to the military and shilling for the Bush Administration by conservative pundits in the Shadow Media.

On the seventh day, I hope he takes a break.

There’s no doubt that Mr. Cole is passionate. The biggest reason I began reading him was his logical and inspiring defense of the war in Iraq. His arguments, laced with the occasional expletive, are marvelously syllogistic and thought provoking. He was and is great fun to read.

Lately though, reading Mr. Cole has been like having a root canal without a local. And while Cole doesn’t know me from Adam, his bill of particulars against conservatives have hit me where it hurts. I’m sure this was his intention, although not in a personal, blog-to-blog way. In that spirit, I’ll try to address Mr. Cole’s ideas while not attacking him personally. After all, I look at his defection as temporary, a momentary fever brought about by a confluence of events that have disturbed many, including myself. And although it was never his intention, Mr. Cole’s attacks have resonated on the left side of the Shadow Media and given conservative critics plenty of unnecessary ammunition. Contrarily, after doing a cursory Technorati search, I find precious little in the way of conservative response to Mr. Cole’s self described rants. Hence, the reason for this post.

It all started with this post on the Newsweek imbroglio and the response of conservative media critics to the story about the Koran flushing and subsequent riots:

Apparently in the myopic worldview of Mr. Hewitt, reading and reporting the just-released documents the Army itself created is both ‘anti-military’ and ‘re-hashing’ an old story. Let’s not focus on the fact that few, if any, have been punished for these transgressions. Let’s not focus on credible reports that these incidents continue to occur. Instead, if Hewitt is to have his way, we should all focus on the ‘anti-military’ stance of the media.

What is particularly disturbing is how he and others have artificially conflated the Newsweek error and the NY Times story. This is no accident, but an act of intentional and outright propaganda. The Newsweek story may have been inaccurate, but the NY Times story was not. To read Hugh, you would think both were inconsequential and simply the result of a media hostile to the military. “Nothing here- just the military-hating mainstream media.”

First, I hardly think it “myopic” on anyone’s part to criticize the fact that the New York Times was reporting on charges of abuse that have been made and reported on in the past. It’s all a matter of context. While Mr. Cole is correct in pointing out that the Times was quoting from the military’s own investigation of the abuse, what he fails to mention is that the story itself doesn’t say that until about the 20th paragraph. Shouldn’t that fact have been the lead? Why a 5000 word front page story on incidents that have been reported on in the past? Mr. Hewitt was pointing out that the context of this story was deliberately misleading. Hard to argue with that.

Next, Mr. Cole accuses Mr. Hewitt of propagating “outright propaganda.” Cole may disagree with the substance of Hewitt’s arguments but one would need to be a psychic to glean motives from Hewitt’s statements. In short, Cole ends up accusing Hewitt of exactly the same thing he himself is guilty.

Next, Mr. Cole practices a little myopia of his own:

A free, open, and unrestricted press, to include one not cowed by idiotic calls for de facto censorship, is a vital component of a healthy democracy. While I concede and have written at great length that many in the press have all too often painted the picture that everything in Iraq is a failure, or tried to portray everything in Afghanistan as ruinous, I draw the line at bullying the press into refusing to cover stories of abuse, torture, and murder- which appears to be what Hugh and his supporters want.

I would like balanced stories about the progress we are making as well as our shortcomings and the failures. The wise path to media balance is not the suppression of our failures, but the promotion of our successes as well as the acknowledgment of our shortcomings. If we, as a public, are unaware of what is wrong, we and our representatives and leaders can not make the appropriate corrections. To admit errors in judgment in order to correct the mistakes made is reasonable, rational, and wise. To demand a loyalty test of the media, requiring that they cover up our shortcomings and mistakes, is petty, demagogic, and a recipe for disaster.

This is a great exposition on the importance of freedom of the press. It’s also hopelessly romantic and idealized baloney. In a perfect world, Mr. Cole’s statements would be applauded for their nobility and purity of purpose. But John, we’re not in Kansas anymore. It isn’t that the media is publishing these stories or even the fact that most of them are probably true. I’ve written on several occasions that I have no doubt the Koran flushing story (or something similar) is probably true. The question is again, one of context. The people responsible for shaping opinion in the Arab world could give a good goddamn about whether the allegations have been investigated by our military or not. They’re not giving us brownie points and patting us on the back for being good world citizens and cleaning our own house. They are using the stories of abuse - stories Mr. Cole points out proudly that have been investigated or are being investigated by our own military - to impede, obstruct, and otherwise hinder our efforts to win the war and bring democracy to the benighted 10th century peasants who are so easily led and misled by their holy men and holy warriors.

Am I saying the press shouldn’t report some stories of abuse? Absolutely. Unless a particular incident can be confirmed independently or is gleaned from the military’s own investigation of abuses at camps around the world, why publish what amounts to a rumor? Should a different reportorial standard be in place to report these abuses than news organs have for reporting criminal activity at a private corporation? This should be the gold standard to follow, not the Newsweek single sourced rumormongering that despite Mr. Cole’s protestations, was indeed the proximate cause of rioting that killed 17 people. To say otherwise would be like saying it wasn’t Germany that started World War II but rather the Polish response to violations of their frontier by the Wehrmacht. It may be technically correct but hardly the point.

Mr. Cole then takes flight with a little hubris of his own:

As I noted earlier, the foreign press is going to cover these issues, and attempts to hide the truth by attacking the media are doomed to fail, so I am at a loss as to what this approach may be attributed to other than partisan domestic political considerations. Acknowledging there is rot in the military is painful and inconvenient. That might entail the admission that we are not a perfect society, but merely a good society. That might require admitting that we have made mistakes, which, in and of itself, requires a level of maturity many in my party have not yet, and in some cases, appear unwilling, to attain. Rather than working on our problems, some choose to instead pretend nothing is wrong, or, in the case of Mr. Hewitt, scold those who refuse to play along.

Nowhere in Mr. Hewitt’s post or in anything written by a conservative blogger has there ever been a hint, a suggestion, a whiff that analyzing media motives in reporting abuse is an attempt to “hide the truth.” (Note: See LaShawn Barber’s defense of her statement regarding the Newsweek story that Mr. Cole attack’s here) Mr. Cole is accusing Mr. Hewitt and, by extension me, of being dishonest. I resent it. I’m sure Mr. Hewitt resents it. And anyone who cares about this entire issue should resent the spurious charges made by Mr. Cole that somehow our concerns are related to “partisan political considerations.” Is it a fact that the left is using Abu Ghraib and other abuse stories to skewer the Bush Administration and try to undermine the war effort? The question answers itself. Demanding that the press treat this issue more carefully by getting their fact straight is hardly cause for accusing bloggers of wanting to hide the truth. How about a little context? How about a little fairness? Evidently, Mr. Cole believes this is too much to ask of our poor, put upon media because by asking this we’re practicing “de-facto censorship.” Rot!

Finally, in an impassioned peroration, Mr. Cole ignores the facts of life and, by logical extension accuses bloggers who disagree with him of unwittingly aiding and abetting the enemy:

Maybe it would be best to ask the soldiers. Would they rather labor in harm’s way with the rest of the world suspecting the worst of them, or would they rather there be a clear and open prosecution of those who ARE the worst of them? Which do you think they would prefer? Which approach makes their lives more dangerous and more difficult? Whose approach to this problem is going to create more IED’s, suicide attacks, and bombings?

To suggest that we do otherwise and to try to bully the media into ignoring these abuses does the administration no good, does our servicemen no good, does America no good, and leads me to believe that Hugh Hewitt and those like him are nothing more than our own right-wing versions of Michael Moore.

Again, no one I’ve read on the right has called for not prosecuting criminal abuse. Why does Mr. Cole persist in this outrageous exaggeration of press criticism - criticism he calls “bullying.” This is nuts. How can the proverbial 98 pound weakling “bully” the 400 pound gorilla? Let’s get our David and Goliath identification right or at least put the matchup in some kind of perspective, shall we?

And being told that my criticism of the press will create “more IED’s, suicide attacks, and bombings” really sticks in my craw. This is the argument used by the left about our entire war on terror - that we’re creating more terrorists by our policies. The idea that the fanatics need any excuse at all to kill us is absurd as is the idea that some mythical “openness” on our part will change some hearts and minds. There is nothing we can do short of surrender, giving an abject apology for all the real and imagined sins we’ve committed, and a humiliating retreat of both our military and our policies to affect a change in the H & M department. And that’s a price I’m not willing to pay.

Neither is Mr. Cole, I’m sure. And in his desire to do what he thinks is best for our military, it appears to me that Cole has unconsciously adopted some of the themes and talking points used by people who actually do hate the military, who lovingly dote on each and every casualty, who oppose the military’s efforts in recruiting and retention, and who by word, by thought, and by deed seek to have the United States military defeated on the field of battle.

We used to call this treason. In this day and age, these sentiments get you invited to the best cocktail parties, has the MSM hang on your every word, and procures the lickspittle a book contract. And these are the people espousing these sentiments who agree with Mr. Cole?

For Cole, it hasn’t just been the Newsweek story. He’s taken conservative bloggers to task for landing so hard on Senate Republicans for the judicial compromise:

I am bashing them for making the option necessary by refusing to play by the rules we lived with for years, and I am outraged that the idiots, upon hearing a reasonable compromise has been achieved, still want to pursue the nuclear option. They don’t have to go nuclear, BUT THEY STILL F**KING WANT TO.

Worse than that, they want the heads of the seven Senators who dared to go against the will of the wingnuts. Because, in the world of idiots, those seats are guaranteed seats for Republicans. Lincoln Chaffee- why, he owes Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council his job.

It is all or nothing for these assholes. You are with us or against us. There can be no middle-ground. We must have complete power, complete control, or we just blow up the fucking system and remake it our way, because, after all, we won an election by 2% of the vote

“Refusing to play by the rules…” Which rule is that? The one that says the minority party that got slaughtered in a Senatorial election has the right to dictate to the Chief Executive which judges he can choose? What’s the point in having an election then?

Elections are about power - the acquisition and exercise thereof. If we had a parliamentary system with many different parties making up a coalition, then Mr. Cole would be making some sense. Instead, Cole takes the position that because the Democrats are yammering about not being able to choose judges - a constitutional privilege clearly reserved for the Chief Executive - that somehow the Republicans (and by extension the “idiots” who support the constitutional option) are a bunch of power mad, precedent-breaking morons hell bent on controlling everything.(See this article that quotes Hillary Clinton saying exactly the same thing).

Just as an aside, I lived and worked in Washington during the 1970’s and 1980’s when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress by huge majorities and saw the exercise of power that left Republicans out in the cold on every national issue. Only when Reagan took office (and Republicans captured the Senate) was there a shift. But that didn’t stop the Democrats from practicing a little power politics of their own in the House of Representatives by severely limiting Republican committee membership and the like.

What conservative bloggers are mad at is that the entire exercise was drawn out over months when competent leadership could have resolved the issue almost immediately after the Senate convened in January. Bill Frist is a disaster as leader. And the Republicans who took part in the compromise are a clear cut example of Frists’s incompetence. The caucus was ready in January to take this step. The fact that all this compromise does is delay the use of the nuclear option has escaped Mr. Cole’s attention. There are three judges who will not get an up or down vote. So Republicans will be forced to change the rules or have the President withdraw the nominees and have the Democrats dictate to him what judges would be acceptable.

Great choice, huh.

Mr. Cole’s recent rants were, as usual, mostly logical and extremely well written. I only wish he would have stayed his poison pen long enough to realize that, in the end, we’re on the same side. Emotionalism is fine as long as it doesn’t allow one to take flights of fancy regarding the motives of people with which you disagree.

In short, Mr. Cole, it’s time to chill. Kick back, open a brew, and dream of the Steelers Victory parade next year. Please no more gratuitous slaps at people who look upon you as a friendly in a media populated by snakes.

UPDATE

Dean Esmay also has some criticism for Mr. Cole:

Meantime, John Cole says that those of us who are mad at the media should take it all back. Sorry John, none for me. The people in the war-coverage press appear to run a broad spectrum: from those who are not on America’s side to those who outright want us to fail. That impression did not occur in a vacuum. As much as some people would like to believe that impression is all the fault of the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, the truth is that the talk radio people are the symptom–not the disease.

Uh-huh.

And Mr. Cole wonders why we criticize the press when they “try to get it right?”

This is a combat unit. They have a gym, and a place to eat. Yet, a consequence of these media releases is that they allow the press to appear omnipresent on the battlefield, when in fact they usually stay close to the Green Zone in Baghdad. Reporters in places like Miami or Flagstaff also scan the stream of media releases on official military information websites. They can report “news just into our station” as if they had a live feed. Satellite communication has made this speed and sleight of hand possible.

Maybe if they tried harder?

There will be light posting this weekend for a variety of reasons:

1. Cubs-White Sox. Need I say more?
2. I’m working on two different articles for publication.
3. Yardwork beckons…and beckons. I may blow it off for another weekend - but risk sleeping alone.
4. Got the first three discs of Sci-Fi Channel’s mini-series “Taken.” Sue and I missed it when it was on last year so we plan on watching it tonight and tomorrow.

I’ll have something up this afternoon around 4:00 pm with the same tomorrow.

For all of you who may have discovered this site in the last few days, may I suggest browsing the archives? I’m particularly proud of the “History” archives. And for some good laughs at the left’s expense there’s Marvin Moonbat, my fictional next door neighbor and the general “Moonbat” category.

Thanks for stopping by…Y’all come back.

About a half an hour ago, my sitemeter registered the 50,000 visitor since February 12 which is when I officially got off Blogspot and opened the New and Improved Rightwing Nuthouse. To everyone who visits on a regular basis, I’d like to say a great big “Thank You” and hope you continue to visit the House for news, opinion, and a few laughs.

And to all who wrote such supportive comments and sent nice emails about my defense of my brother I’d like to also say thank you. For those who weren’t so supportive and sent nasty, insulting emails…

Get stuffed.

Here’s a bunch of good stuff I found shadowing the “Shadow Media” - nomenclature I got via Ace of Spades who thinks along with the folks at The Corner that “Blogosphere” is too unwieldy. I always thought of Captain Nemo and the Nautilus using a blogosphere to traverse the uncharted depths…But then, if asked, I would have not named them “blogs” in the first place. How about “Webbies?” Or “O-Jo’s” for online journals?

Sheesh. Hugh Hewitt will never link to me again…

John Little at Blogs of War links to a very funny video made by British soldiers in Iraq that’s so popular it’s crashing the Ministry of Defense Computers!

A group of soldiers who jokingly filmed a version of the video for the hit song (Is This The Way To) Amarillo? were coping yesterday with sudden stardom. And rather than being punished for acting like pop stars instead of privates from the Royal Dragoon Guards serving in Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has promised that none of them will be disciplined.

The MoD has offered the video to Comic Relief, which could use it to raise thousands of pounds for charity. The shakily filmed video ended up bringing one of Britain’s most sensitive computer systems to its knees, crashing the MoD’s e-mail system

La Shawn Barber has found “Some Holy Books are More Holy than Others.”

Physical objects are not to revered or worshiped, and they hold no “sacred” power. Islam obviously teaches something entirely different. I think it’s ridiculous for the United States to cater to prisoners of war in this way, no matter what their religion. But I don’t run anything except this blog.

Yes…and you do that quite well, thank you.

Kender informs us that Mae Magouirk has passed away. She was the 80 year old woman whose daughter thought she’d be happier “with Jesus” despite the fact that she had no brain damage and her condition was treatable:

Some people on the left are probably feeling a bit smug about this story today, much like they felt when Terri finally died.

Those same people are probably wringing their hands that people on the other side of the globe are dying in places that our military is stationed and wondering what they can do to stop the Big Bad Evil Bush War Machine.

Yup.

The Captain has been blogging the Canadian political crisis since its inception. It looks like things are about ready to come to a head:

Canada feels Ms. Parrish’s pain, waiting as they are for a resolution to the political crisis facing them in an almost-stalemated Parliament. The only prediction anyone can make now is that more potential vote-skewing developments will almost certainly occur between now and the vote.

God I almost wish we had a Parliament. Well, not really. But in the last two weeks they’ve had the Prime Minister buying votes with the budget, bribing a Tory to leave the party by giving her a cabinet post, more revelations of electoral shennanigans, etc.

I bet Canadian bloggers haven’t been suffering from writers block recently.

The Commissar has a special school for the Intelligent Design folks…They let kids decide what’s true. Example:

Chemistry - “Alchemy 666″ - Using the latest principles of Theodoric of York, the students will explore the wonders of transsubtantiation. Woot! They are going to have a special lab on converting lead into gold

Read it all…it’s a stitch.

Somebody get Beth at My Vast Rightwing Conspiracy an airsick bag. She’s found an Eason Jordan clone:

The more I look at this, I see that Ms. Foley is an avowed leftist with an axe to grind. For her it’s apparently all about the Pentagon being the bad guys (duh) who aren’t doing anything to protect journalists. She’s been wrapped up in efforts demanding investigations by the Pentagon for quite some time, so this latest thing isn’t surprising. She’s quite careful to not (publicly) accuse the military of targeting journalists outright, but she very CLEARLY implies it.

Giacomo of Joust the Facts links to an article by Charles Fried, former U.S. Solicitor General under President Reagan who makes a reasoned, powerful argument to bust the filibuster. Giacomo sums up:

The politics was decided, at this moment in time at least, in the 2004 election where Republicans not only kept but extended majorities in the House and Senate and President Bush was re-elected to a second term. Yes, it was close, but name the last Democratic president who got a larger percentage of the total vote. (Hint: you’ve got to go back 40 years.)

Majority rule. It’s a simple democratic concept. You would think elected public officials would understand it.

Giacomo is the optimistic sort, isn’t he…especially when it comes to Senate Democrats.

Van Helsing serves up his specialty - Moonbat Guacamole. He’s blogging the LA Mayorl contest won by Antonio Villaraigosa - a full blown Hispanic moonbat of the first order who believes in Reconquista; returning California and much of the Southwest to Mexico:

Villaraigosa is former Chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, a racist and seditious group devoted to the “Reconquista” of the Southwestern United States. The Reconquista is going well for the Mexicans, as anyone aware of our government’s outrageous refusal to defend the border will probably agree.

In closely related news, a 66-year-old woman suffered “inner cranial trauma” when she was assaulted for daring to protest the anti-American Danzas Indigenas monument in Baldwin Park, California, which features inscriptions in support of the notion that California should be ruled by Mexicans.

What’s the Spainish word for “nutcase?”

Don’t forget TJ’s excellent News - Interesting - Funny (NIF) for the best links to both the new and old media on the web.

And finally, Ferdinand T. Cat has the question of the ages for this weekend’s titanic match-up between the forces of good and evil here in Chicago. It’s my Go-Go White Sox versus the evil, corporate toady’s from the North Side. And while diplomatic, Ferdinand better stay away from my Ebony who adores the White Sox and whose 25 pounds of ferocious fatness would take out Ferdy in a heartbeat.

South Side cats rule!

It’s often been said that blogs are “new media.” I guess so. I mean, you can say that blogs are new media in the sense that no one has ever challenged the primacy of the mainstream media before. And the ease with which you can start a blog, build traffic, get noticed, and have your ego stroked by a multitude of sycophantic admirers offering you wealth, fame, and sex is truly amazing.

Well…maybe not the sex…

But ever since the much discussed and reported impact that blogs had on the 2004 Presidential election, it’s become de rigueur to talk of a “Blog Revolution” as if legions of geeky, bespectacled pajama clad fanatics are about ready to storm the moss covered walls of the MSM.

Maybe that’s why the New York Times is so worried:

The thing about influence is that, as bloggers well know, it is only a matter of time before people start trying to hold you accountable. Bloggers are so used to thinking of themselves as outsiders, and watchdogs of the LSM (that’s Lame Stream Media), that many have given little thought to what ethical rules should apply in their online world. Some insist that they do not need journalistic ethics because they are not journalists, but rather activists, or humorists, or something else entirely. But more bloggers, and blog readers, are starting to ask whether at least the most prominent blogs with the highest traffic shouldn’t hold themselves to the same high standards to which they hold other media.

Ethics? Us? Be real! I’m one of those bloggers who insist that we don’t need a code of ethics. If there’s one thing the blogosphere does extremely well it’s promoting sites with a distinctive voice and the talent to express it in unique and entertaining ways. Whatever ethics we have, we bring to the table ready made, forged by our life experiences and upbringing. We hardly need any advice on promulgating a “Code of Ethics from a group that collectively speaking has the moral standards of my pet cat Aramas.

At least Ari has several redeeming features; he can be extremely pleasant company, he’s very affectionate, and he doesn’t have a liberal bias.

And that’s not the Times’ only complaint. It seems that when blogs brought down both Eason Jordan and Dan Rather, we didn’t play fair. We didn’t call them first!

But Mr. Rather’s and Mr. Jordan’s misdeeds would most likely not have landed them in trouble in the world of bloggers, where few rules apply. Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first - or calling the target at all. They rarely have procedures for running a correction. The wall between their editorial content and advertising is often nonexistent. (Wonkette, a witty and well-read Washington blog, posts a weekly shout-out inside its editorial text to its advertisers, including partisan ones like Democrats.org.) And bloggers rarely disclose whether they are receiving money from the people or causes they write about.

First of all, does Mr. Cohen (whose piece appears on the Time’s editorial page and is, hence reflective of its thinking) really believe that Dan Rather would have taken a call from “Buckhead,” the Free Republic poster who first raised questions about the authenticity of the TANG documents? Or a blog called “Little Green Footballs?”

Yeah sure. And once that “blogmob” got going (thanks for the new blogword Adam) can you imagine two or three thousand bloggers all calling Black Rock wanting to get in touch with Dan Rather?

The New York Times just doesn’t get it. I don’t really blame them because it takes a leap of imagination beyond their extraordinarily short-sighted and outmoded view of who and what blogs are to envision a media that really is self correcting. And the reason for the ease with which blogs are self corrected is simple; the blog universe really is a big place. Evidently, much bigger than Mr. Cohen and the Times are able to imagine. If they could see beyond their myopic view of news dissemination, they’d realize all the things Mr. Cohen wishes blogs had like verification procedures, a corrections regime, full disclosure of conflicts of interest, and a “clear wall” between editorial content and advertising are already in place and have been functioning quite well thank you.

Bloggers like John Hawkins plug their advertisers all the time and nobody would even think of accusing John of mixing into one of his posts a paean to his T-Shirt company (unless, like Ace he does it as satire.) And Nick Coleman of the Minneapolis Star-tribune tried to tar and feather the boys at Powerline with the accusation that they’re being paid by the conservative think tank The Claremont Institute, a charge they’ve not only denied but threatened to sue the Unhinged One over.

When it came out that the “Daschle V Thune” site was a paid organ of the Senator’s campaign, blogs both left and right came down so hard on the bloggers who ran it that they may have been chased out of the blogosphere all together. I haven’t seen or heard of John Lauck, the proprietor of Daschle V Thune since November.

Would that such punishment could be meted out to the MSM when one of their undisclosed affiliations with the Democratic party came out.

At this point, one would think that the Times would quit while they’re at least even. No such luck:

Many bloggers who criticize the MSM’s ethics, however, are in the anomalous position of holding themselves to lower standards, or no standards at all. That may well change. Ana Marie Cox, who edits Wonkette, notes that blogs are still “a very young medium,” and that “things have yet to be worked out.” Before long, leading blogs could have ethics guidelines and prominently posted corrections policies.

Bloggers may need to institutionalize ethics policies to avoid charges of hypocrisy. But the real reason for an ethical upgrade is that it is the right way to do journalism, online or offline. As blogs grow in readers and influence, bloggers should realize that if they want to reform the American media, that is going to have to include reforming themselves.

Evidently, since I haven’t written down and published my ethical guidelines I’m “in the anomalous position of holding [myself] to lower standards, or no standards at all.” He’s right, of course. I’m a shameless hussy about this blog. Being a polemicist, I make no bones about the fact that I’m conservative and biased about everything I write. What else would you expect from a site named “Rightwing Nuthouse?” I mean, it’s not like I’m trying hide anything! Now, if I’d called the site “Leftwing Whackjob” and then put out a lot of rightwing propaganda, The Times could then accuse me of acting shamelessly.

And if I were the Times, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that happening any time soon.

Some, like Nick Denton, publisher of Gawker Media which includes Gizmodo, Wonkette, Fleshbot, and a half dozen other blogs pooh-pooh the idea of a blog “revolution:”

At a time when media conferences like “Les Blogs” in Paris two weeks ago debate the potential of the form, and when BusinessWeek declares, as it did on its May 2 cover, that “Blogs Will Change Your Business,” Mr. Denton is withering in his contempt. A blog, he says, is much better at tearing things down - people, careers, brands - than it is at building them up. As for the blog revolution, Mr. Denton put it this way: “Give me a break.”

“The hype comes from unemployed or partially employed marketing professionals and people who never made it as journalists wanting to believe,” he said. “They want to believe there’s going to be this new revolution and their lives are going to be changed.”

(I do believe in blogs, I do, I do, I do believe in blogs)

I can see Mr. Denton’s point. If I had Skankette as an employee, I’d wonder about the future of blogs too, not to mention the future of western civilization especially if he thinks what the Skanker does is what blogging is all about.

It’s not, of course. The best blogs are either traffic cops (Glenn Anderson) or advocates (The Capn’, Malkin, etc.). The Smelly One may be a liberal, but she rarely deviates from a rather tiresome formula that’s at the same time conversational and condescending. And the penis jokes. Don’t forget the penis jokes.

Denton did get one thing right:

Other critics of the blog movement wonder whether the hoopla over the commercial viability of blogs - particularly as publishing ventures - is overstated. “Blogs primarily excel at marketing and promotion for companies or individuals,” Mr. Phillips of I Want Media said. “I think blogging can catapult unknown writers, and it can give them a platform if they’re talented. But as a stand-alone business, I think the jury is still out on that.”

I think he’s spot on there. Blogs as on-line opinion magazines are probably a pipe dream. But what if a blogger could come up with a neat little niche e-zine idea? John Henke may have come up with a viable product with his “The New Libertarian.” Using his blog to promote his writing, John may have hit upon a new business model that, if successful, will be much imitated. I’d love to see his progress six months from now.

Six months from now will seem like an eternity in the blogosphere. With Pajamas Media ready to launch and Blogger News Network off the ground, it seems pretty clear that this revolution - a revolution that some are still denying or wanting to go away - will continue on its merry way, oblivious to the naysayers and serial deniers until a truly authentic “citizens brigade” of new media disseminaters gets the respect it already so richly deserves.

UPDATE

Tim Worstall is a very clever fellow. I have to say that because Mr. Worstall has given many of the same arguments that I’ve made above for why Adam Cohen should take a remedial course in Blogs:

Blogs are quite rightly not held to those standards of “ethical journalism”. Only what comes out of the system, after the unsupported allegations, the rants, the foam-flecked screaming, only after the filtering process provided by 8 million blogs shouting at and correcting each other, only that should be considered ethical journalism. Each individual blog post, he is correct, is simply the unsupported word of a partisan (given the financial rewards currently available, there is no one doing this who doesn’t have some kind of bee in their bonnet) but the system as a whole works very well. It’s an economic thing (not a great strength of NYT writers I know, but try some Hayek), that information is distributed. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of reporteers and fact checkers the NYT has (or any other organisation), how many sources they speak to, how often they refine their words, 8 million blogs have access to more information than they do. (HT: Instapundit)

Tim also has a different take on The Skanker…sex jokes but a different part of the anatomy:

It would be quite wonderful to see a piece on blogging that did not include Ms. Cox but apparently anal sex jokes really are the way to the MSM’s heart. Not sure who that says most about actually.

And Greyhawk makes the same point I made about Mr. Cohen’s clueless suggestion that we bloggers contact our prey before devouring them:

He’s trying to create the impression of blogs as being akin to The National Enquirer, of course. And I’ll note that I didn’t call Mr. Cohen before writing this. You see, I have his commentary before me now - he’s on the record. That’s what blogs do when dealing with media outrages, respond. I suppose I could contact him for clarification on this point: is he really clueless about the blogosphere, and therefore wrong in his accusations, or does he assume his readers are clueless, and is willing to deceive them?

I think Mr. Cohen is right. Someone should track down his home telephone number so that we can all call him for his response to the 10,000 blog posts that are going to fisk this idiot’s lights out.

Do you think he’ll get it then?

What’s happening to the grandaddy of linkfests, the Carnival of the Vanities?

I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago about Eric Berlin choosing not to allow any posts for the Carnival that mentioned the Schiavo matter during a week in which literally thousands of bloggers were posting about precious little else.

A now this week, a dirty necked galoot who calls himself “Socialist Eurofag” and runs a site called “Yeah Whatever” has taken the idea of this friendly linkfest and turned it into a sneering, smirking, compilation of overheated rhetoric targeting points of view (those he bothers to read) he disagrees with. A few examples of Mr. Fag’s idea of “analysis:”

Watcher of Weasels watches weasels. No, not the furry, sharptoothed rodent-type things. Judging by this post on the differences between libertarians and conservatives, what he watches is rightwing politics. No shortage of weasels there.

This Blog is Full of Crap is a title that shows refreshing honesty. I won’t link the post: just make up your own racist shit that shows absolutely no imagination.

*sigh* Well, it was this or a long, equally ill-informed screed about Terri Schiavo, apparently, so I suppose I should be thankful.

And then this mountebank (who also goes by the pretentious nom de blog of Dr. Zen) has the temerity to write this of Christianity:

Mark thinks you will have a better life if you accept that two thousand years ago a man was hideously tortured because the omipotent, omniscient creator doesn’t like that you covet your neighbour’s ass.

Making fun of Christians has become the left’s number one sport; in Europe I hear it’s even become more popular than soccer hooliganism. But, shouldn’t Dr. Zen find it just a trifle, um, embarassing that he’s chosen to honor a philosophy where a large portion of adherents cling to the belief that the earth is flat and rests on the back of elephants? Or perhaps, this explanation of a Zen discussion forum will illuminate why only pretentious, egotistical nitwits with an inflated sense of self-worth could submit themselves to such outrageous tomfoolery:

One of the central points of Zen is intuitive understanding. As a result, words and sentences have no fixed meaning, and logic is often irrelevant. Words have meaning only in relation to who is using them, who they are talking to, and what situation they are used in. Some postings are indeed nonsense; other postings appear to be nonsense at first but this is because the meaning is all between the lines. Zen and poetry have gone hand in hand for centuries.

Only a charlatan or, more accurately, a bunko artist could sell a philosophy where “words and sentences have no fixed meaning and logic is often irrelevant.” Two more recent examples of this kind of nonesene are Foccault and Derrida, proponents of Deconstructionism, a philosphy that I believe has done more damage to the foundations of western civilization than even the socialist utopianism of Marx and Engels.

So what’s a blogger to do? Laurence at This Blog is Full of Crap took it upon himself to undo the harm caused by Mr. Fag’s hijacking of the COTV for his self aggrandizing purposes and with a herculean effort, posted and linked to each and every entry to make his own “counter-COTV” he calls “Carnival of the Vanities #134 - Avignon Edition. Avignon refers to a conclave of Bishops who, in 1080 CE overthew some apostates:

In 1080 a council was held under the presidency of Hugues de Dié, papal legate, in which Achard, usurper of the See of Arles, was deposed, and Gibelin put in his place.

And so, “Dr. Zen” is deposed…long live the counterrevelution!

I still haven’t been able to fix the comments so that people with AOL browsers can comment. Since I reconfigured my spam plug in I keep getting that stupid message in the comments section accusing you, gentle readers, of being spammers. Fear not, it will be fixed sometime today as I’ve enlisted the services of my 5 year old nephew who knows far more about computers than I do.

Feel free to drop me an email by clicking the “Contact” link on the left top sidebar.

Trackbacks are still working fine.

ATTENTION AOL BLOG NEWS READERS

Welcome to the House! Feel free to browse the category section for some more goodies.

The most satisfying thing about writing is enjoying the appreciation of of your readers. I know, I know…I watch Charlie Rose too. And all those New York writers who toiled in obscurity for years when asked “what’s the most satisfying thing about writing?” will always say something stupid and insipid like “the recognition of my peers” or “satisfying my artistic cravings…”

Bull.

We writers are a vainglorious lot, needing the approbation and approval of our readers on a daily, even hourly basis. So it’s with a great deal of pride that I relate the news that my little blog got not one but two mentions on national cable TV today. Both CNN’s blog roundup on “Inside Politics” as well as the blog report on MSNBC’s “Connected” programs mentioned my post on the Schiavo memo. Couple that with my link from the Canadian news blog “Politics Watch” and it’s been almost as good a day as I had last week when Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, and Michelle Malkin all linked to me in the same day.

The CNN piece can be found at Jackson’s Junction. LaShawn Barber’s update on MSNBC can be found at The Political Teen.

Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great British man of letters and compiler of the first English language dictionary, once had occasion to remark on the protests in the American colonies against taxation without representation.

“Why is it,” Dr. Johnson wondered, “We hear the loudest yelps for freedom from the drivers of Negro slaves?”

Superhawk circa 2005 wonders “Why is it we hear the loudest yelps for free speech from the ones who wish most to regulate it?”

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors have been famous for their lenient attitude toward all kinds of free “speech” including nude dancing, sexually oriented “performance art”, gay bath houses, adult bookstores, massage parlors, and any number of pornographic and prurient outlets for their extremely broad interpretation of the First Amendment.

But when it comes to blogs, the Board has developed a case of blue nosed puritanism:

Just when you thought the Federal Election Commission had it out for the blogosphere, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors took it up a notch and announced yesterday that it will soon vote on a city ordinance that would require local bloggers to register with the city Ethics Commission and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate.

Blogs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee and will be subject to website traffic audits, according to Chad Jacobs, a San Francisco City Attorney.

(HT: Instapundit)

Maybe if bloggers were to lobby for an exemption if they post in the nude…

I suppose the crackdown on blogs had to start somewhere and I find it extremely significant that it’s happening in San Francisco. The fact that the good liberals on the Board of Supervisors think nothing of regulating the free flow of information proves that no bloggers are safe anywhere. The representatives of the nanny state believe we mere children are incapable of differentiating between fact and opinion. Plus, there’s just too much information out there for the average voter to read and digest.

I have no doubt that this ridiculousness will be repeated nationwide by both liberals and conservatives as a way to both intimidate and ride herd on the new media.

Perhaps the way to approach this is for thousands of bloggers outside of San Francisco to post like mad on the city’s primaries and elections. Then send emails to the Board of Supervisors with links to your post telling them if they want their goddamn registration fee they can come and get it!

The email address for the Board can be found in the link above.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

At the moment, it’s unclear whether this new regulation would apply to all bloggers or just those that accept money from a candidate to promote their campaign. The statement (not quoted) by the City Attorney would seem to indicate otherwise. I’m sure we’ll hear something on this later today at which time any clarifications will be posted here.

UPDATE II:

Bil Quick is also blogging the story and has this to say in a comment about whether or not the law targets all bloggers:

Unfortunately, as we have learned too many times to our dismay, it doesn’t matter what the intent of the law is. It matters what the law permits. And if it permits regulation of blogs, whether that was the intention or not, sooner or later, that’s what we’ll get.

I’ve been observing government for going on 30 years and I have to agree with Bill. If someone wishes to use this law to regulate bloggers in the manner outlined in the post, it won’t be that difficult to do. This is why our Founding Fathers were so adamant about Congress making no law to restrict free speech. Those guys had been in and around government most of their lives and they knew full well what people were capable of.

For a different take, there’s more here and here.

I find it interesting (or perhaps just a coincidence in this case) that those pooh-poohing the idea of blanket blog regulation in this case are liberals. Just as the Democratic appointees to the FEC did when Commissioner Smith came out with his warning (which later turned out to be absolutely true).

Do I detect a trend here?

UPDATE III

Like any decent capitalist, Ace is trying to make a buck off this attack on our constitutional rights:

Take a stand against The Man and buy a t-shirt.

You guys don’t… like tyranny, now do you?

Jeez…What do you think he would have done during the revolution?

Hey! Get your George Washington Tee-Shirts here! Guaranteed worn only once by the General hisself! Get your GW tees right here…!

Other views and updates:

LGF brings out the irony of the birthplace of the free speech movement now regulating it.

Polipundit urges action.

Bill at INDC thinks it’s “wacky overreach.” That just about sums it up.