Happy New Year, everyone! Here's my last cartoon of the year.
Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday Funnies
posted by TheDon
4 days to Iowa, and I don't really care about predicting the horse race, so this post should be short by Sunday Funnies standards. As if there are Sunday Funnies standards.
Meat the Press
Huckabee and Obama. One can't say anything that would make me like him, the other probably won't say anything new that will make me dislike him. By the way, this picture:
posted by TheDon
4 days to Iowa, and I don't really care about predicting the horse race, so this post should be short by Sunday Funnies standards. As if there are Sunday Funnies standards.
Meat the Press
Huckabee and Obama. One can't say anything that would make me like him, the other probably won't say anything new that will make me dislike him. By the way, this picture:
has been touted as an image enhancer. I really, really don't understand Republicans.
First up, Huck. Let's see - polls are all over the place; Mitt is lying; Mitt was a bad governor; Republicanism is indefensible in real life; Huck will bomb Pakistan as soon as a target is fixed (!); Huck was "prophetic" for talking about Pakistan in September (eek! all the way back then?!?!?); Huck is a bridge builder; Mitt is running a desperate and dishonest campaign, McCain is not; Huck stands by everything he ever said, although he would like to "clarify" some things; Huck is ok with atheists (ok, that was unexpected); Huck links homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia and sadomasochism (ok, that one was not unexpected); abortion is murder, but you wouldn't punish the mother because she is a victim (?).
Ok, one surprise, but on a claim, not a deed.
Now, the big O. O gets big crowds; O expects a tight race; (side note - Timmeh points out that without a big turnout, O could be in trouble. That's right up there with football analysts who recommend outscoring the other team in order to win. Just.Fucking.Brilliant.); people are looking for change; O declines to name Bhutto's killer (for all the right reasons); he also clears Hillary in the case, despite Timmeh pressing; voting against O is a bigger gamble than voting for him; O has been sniffed, prodded and poked; O is ready to lead and change how government works; O won't mandate insurance enrollment, Edwards and Clinton will (none of them get rid of the insurance companies - the only good solution IMHO), O focuses on affordability; O is "not that far away from normal" (very recently lived an ordinary life).
No surprises, just a reminder of how likable and inspiring the Big O can be. He isn't perfect, but if he gets the nomination I will enthusiastically support him.
Fawkes News
Nothing says "We're Rudy!'s network and we don't care about Iowa" quite like putting Fred! on for the first quarter of the show. Then the next quarter of the show predicting the caucuses.
Now it's time to bash Huck with the panel, and I'm pretty sure that Huck didn't say that Pakistanis were "scurrying over the border". ew.
Time to get back to Rudy!, who Wallace says is in the lead nationally. Ummmmm.... a three-way tie with nobody above 20% isn't a lead. But let's continue...
Kristol seems worried that Daddy Warbucks won't do well if he isn't competitive in the first several states (as seems likely), says Huck can win if he makes it about likability, McCain wins a commander-in-chief election, and Romney has the resources to win if it becomes a race to the gutter. Ouch. Kristol appears to be in pain, and joins in the Romney-bashing with gusto.
Time to chat about the Dems. Juan Williams makes the most sense, as always, and Kristol can't hide his sneer, especially when talking about Hillary. Yap.Yap.Yap. Mail. Hummer commercial, Rudy! commercial (Rudy invokes the Greatest Generation and 9/11, follows with threats to enemies - a new strategy!), and we're out!
This Weak
First up? Hillary. Oh NO! Peggy Noonan says to not vote for Hillary because the right has spent almost 20 years demonizing her. That's great logic! If you're a right-wing drooler. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to vote against her, but the fact that she's "polarizing" ain't one of them. George S goes after her for reports that she didn't have a security clearance and didn't get PDBs, and therefor isn't experienced at all.
Clinton handles questions on Rwanda, Bhutto and Musharraf very well, comes off as presidential. She talks about experience and Obama, focusing on herself and her husband. She's still not my first choice, but is someone I can enthusiastically support, given who her opposition will be. I get all emotional with the realization that nobody on the D side is running to be torturer-in-chief.
Hillary calls for public financing of elections. I love her a little more for that! She downplays expectations, says she's working as hard as she can and ducks out. Nicely done.
Now, The Straight-Out-The-Ass Talk Express, beginning with the latest Romney attack ad, and McCain's response commercial. Jeebuz I have a low tolerance for Johnny Mac, and he's not going to win anything, so as much fun as it is watching him call someone else mean-spirited, it's on to the panel.
Ugh. It's a Bhutto-off montage between the candidates. I have to admit that George Will says what I was thinking about the propriety of John Edwards calling Musharraf in the wake of the murders. (Basically, What the FUCK?) George Will, of course, is a "serious" commentator who thinks the assassination will make a difference in how we choose the next president. Yeah. Right. He really has no more feel for the electorate than David Brooks, who is also on this panel. If Donna Brazile wasn't on it, I'd be outie. Shockingly, Brooks is only impressed by candidates who expressed support for the Bush policy for Pakistan. Didn't see that one coming.
Lots of inside baseball on Iowa, and the fracturing of the Republican party. Will and Brooks are worried about Huck's "economic populism". Some talk about the Dems in Iowa and the excitement on that side, worry about Edward's populism by Brooks and Will (I'm spotting a theme here).
A very moving In Memoriam closes the show for the year. We lose big names every year, but this year we lost real pioneers and leaders - Benazir Bhutto, Kurt Vonnegut, Luciano Pavarotti, Lady Bird Johnson, Boris Yeltsin, Eddie Robinson and 1014 service members in illegal wars as of air time. Of course we also lost Jerry Falwell, so it wasn't all bad.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Literary Agent Shoutout
My brilliant literary agent Toni Mendez died in 2003, at the age of 94. In the industry Toni was known for her exquisite sense of style and amazing collection of French designer hats. I knew her as a friend, someone I talked to at least once a week for many years, someone who despite her age (or perhaps because of it) didn't shock easily and understood my work better than a lot of people half her age.
It has been a long time without Toni. I still can't believe she's really gone.
Now it's time to find a new literary agent. I have ideas for new books that I can continue to pitch myself, but the guidance of a smart agent is something I could really use. So...if you are an agent or you know a good one, please email me. I'm at chet@rall.com.
Thanks and Happy New Year!
My brilliant literary agent Toni Mendez died in 2003, at the age of 94. In the industry Toni was known for her exquisite sense of style and amazing collection of French designer hats. I knew her as a friend, someone I talked to at least once a week for many years, someone who despite her age (or perhaps because of it) didn't shock easily and understood my work better than a lot of people half her age.
It has been a long time without Toni. I still can't believe she's really gone.
Now it's time to find a new literary agent. I have ideas for new books that I can continue to pitch myself, but the guidance of a smart agent is something I could really use. So...if you are an agent or you know a good one, please email me. I'm at chet@rall.com.
Thanks and Happy New Year!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Liberation by Starvation
posted by Susan Stark
If anybody doubts that this is a genocide being committed in Iraq, please read the following:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20071227/wl_oneworld/65731564101198796661;_ylt=Ajt9AZJR5kiWdKpgZ0Is2OkE1vAI
Iraq Slashes Food Rations, Putting Lives at Risk
Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service (IPS)Thu Dec 27, 5:31 PM ET
The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.
The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.
Iraq's food rations system was introduced by the Saddam Hussein government in 1991 in response to the UN economic sanctions. Families were allotted basic foodstuffs monthly because the Iraqi Dinar and the economy collapsed.
The sanctions, imposed after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, were described as "genocidal" by Denis Halliday, then UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Halliday quit his post in protest against the U.S.-backed sanctions.
The sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children, and as many adults, according to the UN. They brought malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicines. Iraqis became nearly completely reliant on food rations for survival. The programme has continued into the U.S.-led occupation.
But now the U.S.-backed Iraqi government has announced it will halve the essential items in the ration because of "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation."
The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.
"In 2007, we asked for 3.2 billion dollars for rationing basic foodstuffs," Mohammed Hanoun, Iraq's chief of staff for the ministry of trade told al-Jazeera. "But since the prices of imported foodstuff doubled in the past year, we requested 7.2 billion dollars for this year. That request was denied."
The trade ministry is now preparing to slash the list of subsidised items by half to five basic food items, "namely flour, sugar, rice, oil, and infant milk," Hanoun said.
The imminent move will affect nearly 10 million people who depend on the rationing system. But it has already caused outrage in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad.
"The monthly food ration was the only help from the government," local grocer Ibrahim al-Ageely told IPS. "It was of great benefit for the families. The food ration consisted of two kilos of rice, sugar, soap, tea, detergent, wheat flour, lentils, chick-peas, and other items for every individual."
Another grocer said the food ration was the "life of all Iraqis; every month, Iraqis wait in queues to receive their food rations."
According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, "60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."
The report said that "43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty," and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. "Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now."
While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.
"My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children," 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. "The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life."
"The high increase in food prices led people to condemn the delays in the ration every month," Salah Kadhim, an employee in the directorate-general of health for Diyala province told IPS. "The jobless just cannot afford to buy food."
"The food ration still represents a big part of the domestic budget," Muneer Lafta, a 51-year-old employee at the health directorate told IPS. Without the ration, she said, families have to go to the market. Because Iraqi families are large, usually six to 12 people, shopping for food is simply unaffordable.
"I and my wife have five boys and six girls, so the ration costs a lot when it has to be bought," 55-year-old resident Khalaf Atiya told IPS. "I cannot afford food and also other expenses like study, clothes, doctors."
People in Baquba, living with violence and joblessness for long, are now preparing for this new twist.
"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.
Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. "The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government's mistakes in other fields like security," a local physician told IPS. "The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government."
posted by Susan Stark
If anybody doubts that this is a genocide being committed in Iraq, please read the following:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20071227/wl_oneworld/65731564101198796661;_ylt=Ajt9AZJR5kiWdKpgZ0Is2OkE1vAI
Iraq Slashes Food Rations, Putting Lives at Risk
Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service (IPS)Thu Dec 27, 5:31 PM ET
The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.
The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.
Iraq's food rations system was introduced by the Saddam Hussein government in 1991 in response to the UN economic sanctions. Families were allotted basic foodstuffs monthly because the Iraqi Dinar and the economy collapsed.
The sanctions, imposed after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, were described as "genocidal" by Denis Halliday, then UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Halliday quit his post in protest against the U.S.-backed sanctions.
The sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children, and as many adults, according to the UN. They brought malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicines. Iraqis became nearly completely reliant on food rations for survival. The programme has continued into the U.S.-led occupation.
But now the U.S.-backed Iraqi government has announced it will halve the essential items in the ration because of "insufficient funds and spiralling inflation."
The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.
"In 2007, we asked for 3.2 billion dollars for rationing basic foodstuffs," Mohammed Hanoun, Iraq's chief of staff for the ministry of trade told al-Jazeera. "But since the prices of imported foodstuff doubled in the past year, we requested 7.2 billion dollars for this year. That request was denied."
The trade ministry is now preparing to slash the list of subsidised items by half to five basic food items, "namely flour, sugar, rice, oil, and infant milk," Hanoun said.
The imminent move will affect nearly 10 million people who depend on the rationing system. But it has already caused outrage in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad.
"The monthly food ration was the only help from the government," local grocer Ibrahim al-Ageely told IPS. "It was of great benefit for the families. The food ration consisted of two kilos of rice, sugar, soap, tea, detergent, wheat flour, lentils, chick-peas, and other items for every individual."
Another grocer said the food ration was the "life of all Iraqis; every month, Iraqis wait in queues to receive their food rations."
According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, "60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."
The report said that "43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty," and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. "Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now."
While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.
"My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children," 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. "The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life."
"The high increase in food prices led people to condemn the delays in the ration every month," Salah Kadhim, an employee in the directorate-general of health for Diyala province told IPS. "The jobless just cannot afford to buy food."
"The food ration still represents a big part of the domestic budget," Muneer Lafta, a 51-year-old employee at the health directorate told IPS. Without the ration, she said, families have to go to the market. Because Iraqi families are large, usually six to 12 people, shopping for food is simply unaffordable.
"I and my wife have five boys and six girls, so the ration costs a lot when it has to be bought," 55-year-old resident Khalaf Atiya told IPS. "I cannot afford food and also other expenses like study, clothes, doctors."
People in Baquba, living with violence and joblessness for long, are now preparing for this new twist.
"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.
Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. "The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government's mistakes in other fields like security," a local physician told IPS. "The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government."
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Bhutto Assassinated
This is huge.
I've been writing since 1999 that Gen. Musharraf's regime wasn't the prescription for, but rather the cause of, instability in Pakistan and South Asia. Here's where the rubber hits the road.
Now the only salvation for a post-Musharraf Pakistan--and Pakistan MUST get rid of Musharraf--is Nawaz Sharif. It's far from certain that he enjoys the political credibility and broad-based support to rule the country. But if he fails, my long-predicted nightmare scenario could be at hand. Fracture, disintegration, warlordism, full-on Talibanization leading to Islamists waging (possibly nuclear) war against India.
This is America's mess: we made Musharraf and we supplied him. Calls for military involvement there would not necessarily be legally or morally illegitimate.
Again: this is huge.
This is huge.
I've been writing since 1999 that Gen. Musharraf's regime wasn't the prescription for, but rather the cause of, instability in Pakistan and South Asia. Here's where the rubber hits the road.
Now the only salvation for a post-Musharraf Pakistan--and Pakistan MUST get rid of Musharraf--is Nawaz Sharif. It's far from certain that he enjoys the political credibility and broad-based support to rule the country. But if he fails, my long-predicted nightmare scenario could be at hand. Fracture, disintegration, warlordism, full-on Talibanization leading to Islamists waging (possibly nuclear) war against India.
This is America's mess: we made Musharraf and we supplied him. Calls for military involvement there would not necessarily be legally or morally illegitimate.
Again: this is huge.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Merry Christmas
posted by SantaDon
Help where you can. Spay and neuter your pets. Treat people better than they deserve. Call out BS when you see it. It all adds up in the end, and we're kinda in a deficit. And yeah, that's me posing with pets for charity. If anyone ever asks you "Do ferrets stink?", you can tell them that I said yes. A lot.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Sunday Funnies
posted by TheDon
Meat the Press
Oh Goody! We're starting off with a round of "How Crazy is Ron Paul?" The over-under is "raving loon", and I'm taking the over.
First notion - get rid of income tax and the IRS. Make up the difference with spending cuts. I'm liking my chances of winning this round.
Russert: "But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?"
This clip should be required viewing for all the liberals who are attracted to Paul's anti-war views. And he's just getting warmed up!
He then defends his view that Israel wants us to bomb Iran for their needs, and that he would cut foriegn aid to Israel, and all others. He uses the same arguments used to destroy our social safety net, that making them stand on their own two feet will make them stronger.
Paul then successfully defends his (correct) assertion that Al Qaeda attacked us because we provoked them in many ways for many years. He equates neocons and their empire-building ways with the (small number of) Islamists who want to take over the world, and dates planning for the invasion of Iraq to W's first cabinet meeting.
Paul's reaction to 9/11 was a fear of big government. Not (as I understand him) the kind we got (spying, torturing, police state), but he says he was concerned about an expansion of the "nanny state", and is happy that people are rejecting surveillance and the abolition of habeas. He seems to mix up the two concepts, and must be seeing a rejection that I don't. Last time I checked, we still don't have habeas or any real checks on the spying and torture.
During his 1988 presidential campaign, Paul wanted to abolish the FBI, CIA, every agency except the Justice and Defense Departments, public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies. (side note - many Libertarians call for private currencies as well, in case you were wondering about the Treasury.) He would no longer abolish the FBI and CIA, just stop them from secret wars, torture, spying on citizens. He doesn't "recall" calling for the abolition of public schools, and doesn't call for it now. He wants to "offer the kids a chance to get out" of Social Security.
Timmeh nails Paul for voting against Katrina aid, but loading up on earmarks. Paul says that he put the earmarks in because of his duties as a representative, but says he never voted for an earmark. Timmeh calls shenanigans. Paul says that he's just recovering the money that the Feds stole from his constituents, so it's all good. Tells Timmeh that he (Timmeh) is "confused." He portrays it as a holy duty, and votes against all spending. He's a hoot!
Timmeh nails Paul for running on term limits, then serving for 18 years. Paul's quote? "I never ran on VOLUNTARY term limits." heh. He's honorable.
Paul really goes off the rails on immigration. He's for unlimited immigration, but with no "subsidies". No food stamps, social security, free health care, free education and amnesty. Well. That WOULD be cheaper. Slaves always are, in the short term. He wants to take away birthright citizenship from illegal immigrants.
He admits to wanting to treat all drugs like alcohol (no real limits on production, sales or consumption by adults), so he's not all bad. End the war on drugs! He rails against arresting sick people for using medical marijuana. Hear, hear! He then says that he wants to de-regulate at the federal level, but let the states do what they want. I don't think I've ever heard a Libertarian make that argument.
Wow. Ron Paul, in 2004, spoke out against the "forced integration" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Respond, please! Paul frames it as a property rights issue, and invokes the holy name of Barry Goldwater, completely skipping the part where he said it "did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the CRA of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." He also claims that he has more black support than any other Republicans (by some measures) because of his freedom loving, war hating ways. I'm pretty sure that most of his black supporters are happy that the schools, lunch counters, neighborhoods, pools, restrooms and water fountains are no longer segregated. As much.
Paul argues that Abe Lincoln should not have gone to war, that there were better ways of getting rid of slavery. Why, look what the Brits did - buy the slaves and free them. Every other major country phased out slaves without a war. Lincoln went to war to eliminate the original idea of a republic,and did it to demonstrate the iron fist of Washington.
So... his PhD wasn't in history? To buy his argument, you have to ignore the reality that the South fired the first shots, and declared that they were a new country. Slavery may not have existed by now, but neither would the USA.
Heh. Ron Paul's web site brags about his support for Reagan against Ford in 1976. That would be a good thing in their primary, if only he had not spent a good deal of time disassociating himself with Reagan and calling him a "dramatic failure". Paul says that Reagan ran on a good platform, but failed.
Timmeh asks Paul why he's running as a Republican, since he says Reagan was a failure, 41 was a bum, he didn't vote for 43, and he sent in his Republican decoder ring in 1987. Paul says it's because he rolls Old Skool Republican! He stands for everything Rs run on, but never deliver.
Ron is "pretty darn sure" the he doesn't intend to run as an independent if (if!) he doesn't get the nomination.
Paul responds to himself quoting Sinclair Lewis ("When fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.") He backed quickly away from a Huckabee comparison, and takes the time to bash the PATRIOT ACT, corporatism, "support the troops" mentality as having a fascist tone. Says we're getting close to fascism. I don't disagree at all.
Overall I'll give Paul an 8 on the loony-meter, but only because the bar has been raised so very, very high.
Now, a mini-panel discussing polls, commercials and upcoming votes. My take? When your top candidate polls at 20%, you don't have a top candidate. Lying about marching with MLK in at a Republican primary seems stupid - why would they care? When you are up by 25% in the national polls, your campaign has not imploded, no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire. National head-to-head presidential polls at this time are meaningless.
Next Sunday: Obama and Huckabee. That should be good TV.
Fawkes News
The surge is "working"! Now the question is how fast US troops can come home.
oh.dear.god. And they are going to ask General Betray Us himself.
Speaking of god, they will also have Rev Joel Osteen.
And a look ahead to what's coming in 2008 with the panel.
I don't have the stomach for this one. I'm out.
This Weak
Rudy! There's no way I'm sitting through that interview. It's straight to the panel.
Oh good, they are going to talk about the xmas campaign commercials. I can normally take the insipid and look for the gems, but the family is on the way and I still don't have Santa nailed to the cross. Good night, and good luck. Maybe I can watch more next week, but I make no promises.
posted by TheDon
Meat the Press
Oh Goody! We're starting off with a round of "How Crazy is Ron Paul?" The over-under is "raving loon", and I'm taking the over.
First notion - get rid of income tax and the IRS. Make up the difference with spending cuts. I'm liking my chances of winning this round.
Russert: "But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?"
Paul: "A lot." (Seriously. That was his answer.)
Russert: "Over a trillion dollars."
Paul: "That's good!"
(shortly after that)
Paul: "You need the income tax to police the world and run the Welfare State. I want a Constitutional-sized government. Use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax."
This clip should be required viewing for all the liberals who are attracted to Paul's anti-war views. And he's just getting warmed up!
He then defends his view that Israel wants us to bomb Iran for their needs, and that he would cut foriegn aid to Israel, and all others. He uses the same arguments used to destroy our social safety net, that making them stand on their own two feet will make them stronger.
Paul then successfully defends his (correct) assertion that Al Qaeda attacked us because we provoked them in many ways for many years. He equates neocons and their empire-building ways with the (small number of) Islamists who want to take over the world, and dates planning for the invasion of Iraq to W's first cabinet meeting.
Paul's reaction to 9/11 was a fear of big government. Not (as I understand him) the kind we got (spying, torturing, police state), but he says he was concerned about an expansion of the "nanny state", and is happy that people are rejecting surveillance and the abolition of habeas. He seems to mix up the two concepts, and must be seeing a rejection that I don't. Last time I checked, we still don't have habeas or any real checks on the spying and torture.
During his 1988 presidential campaign, Paul wanted to abolish the FBI, CIA, every agency except the Justice and Defense Departments, public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies. (side note - many Libertarians call for private currencies as well, in case you were wondering about the Treasury.) He would no longer abolish the FBI and CIA, just stop them from secret wars, torture, spying on citizens. He doesn't "recall" calling for the abolition of public schools, and doesn't call for it now. He wants to "offer the kids a chance to get out" of Social Security.
Timmeh nails Paul for voting against Katrina aid, but loading up on earmarks. Paul says that he put the earmarks in because of his duties as a representative, but says he never voted for an earmark. Timmeh calls shenanigans. Paul says that he's just recovering the money that the Feds stole from his constituents, so it's all good. Tells Timmeh that he (Timmeh) is "confused." He portrays it as a holy duty, and votes against all spending. He's a hoot!
Timmeh nails Paul for running on term limits, then serving for 18 years. Paul's quote? "I never ran on VOLUNTARY term limits." heh. He's honorable.
Paul really goes off the rails on immigration. He's for unlimited immigration, but with no "subsidies". No food stamps, social security, free health care, free education and amnesty. Well. That WOULD be cheaper. Slaves always are, in the short term. He wants to take away birthright citizenship from illegal immigrants.
He admits to wanting to treat all drugs like alcohol (no real limits on production, sales or consumption by adults), so he's not all bad. End the war on drugs! He rails against arresting sick people for using medical marijuana. Hear, hear! He then says that he wants to de-regulate at the federal level, but let the states do what they want. I don't think I've ever heard a Libertarian make that argument.
Wow. Ron Paul, in 2004, spoke out against the "forced integration" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Respond, please! Paul frames it as a property rights issue, and invokes the holy name of Barry Goldwater, completely skipping the part where he said it "did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the CRA of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." He also claims that he has more black support than any other Republicans (by some measures) because of his freedom loving, war hating ways. I'm pretty sure that most of his black supporters are happy that the schools, lunch counters, neighborhoods, pools, restrooms and water fountains are no longer segregated. As much.
Paul argues that Abe Lincoln should not have gone to war, that there were better ways of getting rid of slavery. Why, look what the Brits did - buy the slaves and free them. Every other major country phased out slaves without a war. Lincoln went to war to eliminate the original idea of a republic,and did it to demonstrate the iron fist of Washington.
So... his PhD wasn't in history? To buy his argument, you have to ignore the reality that the South fired the first shots, and declared that they were a new country. Slavery may not have existed by now, but neither would the USA.
Heh. Ron Paul's web site brags about his support for Reagan against Ford in 1976. That would be a good thing in their primary, if only he had not spent a good deal of time disassociating himself with Reagan and calling him a "dramatic failure". Paul says that Reagan ran on a good platform, but failed.
Timmeh asks Paul why he's running as a Republican, since he says Reagan was a failure, 41 was a bum, he didn't vote for 43, and he sent in his Republican decoder ring in 1987. Paul says it's because he rolls Old Skool Republican! He stands for everything Rs run on, but never deliver.
Ron is "pretty darn sure" the he doesn't intend to run as an independent if (if!) he doesn't get the nomination.
Paul responds to himself quoting Sinclair Lewis ("When fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.") He backed quickly away from a Huckabee comparison, and takes the time to bash the PATRIOT ACT, corporatism, "support the troops" mentality as having a fascist tone. Says we're getting close to fascism. I don't disagree at all.
Overall I'll give Paul an 8 on the loony-meter, but only because the bar has been raised so very, very high.
Now, a mini-panel discussing polls, commercials and upcoming votes. My take? When your top candidate polls at 20%, you don't have a top candidate. Lying about marching with MLK in at a Republican primary seems stupid - why would they care? When you are up by 25% in the national polls, your campaign has not imploded, no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire. National head-to-head presidential polls at this time are meaningless.
Next Sunday: Obama and Huckabee. That should be good TV.
Fawkes News
The surge is "working"! Now the question is how fast US troops can come home.
oh.dear.god. And they are going to ask General Betray Us himself.
Speaking of god, they will also have Rev Joel Osteen.
And a look ahead to what's coming in 2008 with the panel.
I don't have the stomach for this one. I'm out.
This Weak
Rudy! There's no way I'm sitting through that interview. It's straight to the panel.
Oh good, they are going to talk about the xmas campaign commercials. I can normally take the insipid and look for the gems, but the family is on the way and I still don't have Santa nailed to the cross. Good night, and good luck. Maybe I can watch more next week, but I make no promises.
COLUMN: THE UNFUNNY PAGES
Artsy Comics Are Alienating Readers
Love them or hate them, people react to cartoons. Comic strips like "The Far Side," "Peanuts" and "Doonesbury" inspire devotional cults. Political cartoons, such as the recent Danish Mohammed illustrations and my own post-9/11 Bush-bashing scribbles, can arouse hateful mobs. What's weird is when cartoons elicit no reaction at all.
Which is what has (not) happened since 2005, when The New York Times began running "The Funny Pages," a literary supplement to its Sunday Magazine section that includes a full-page comic strip in every issue. First up was "Building Stories," a graphic novel by Chris Ware serialized in 30 weekly installments. To call Ware an award-winning graphic artist is like calling a cockroach prolific; the only accolade he hasn't won is the Nobel. Yet.
Comic book fans had hoped that The Funny Pages would convince normal adults, who limit their graphic art consumption to political cartoons and comic strips, to buy graphic novels. (Articles espousing comics-as-art typically bear the headline "Comics: Not Just for Kids Anymore.") I don't know why anyone cares about what other people read, watch or listen to. It's not like reading is a communal activity. But grown men (they are mostly men, often so grown as to be terrifying) crave "mainstream acceptance" of their comics habit even more than sexual companionship.
Anticipation yielded to disappointment as Ware, in his typically mannered and obtuse style, rendered the paint-drying anti-drama of a dowdy middle-aged, one-legged (<--call her Ahab, in search of the Great White Male) spinster wallowing in self-inflicted depression in a hundred thousand earth-toned squares. Unless you count phony, plot-less, generalized angst, nothing happened in "Building Stories." Ever.
Ware's word balloons were so small that many mistook them as evidence of his contempt for his audience. Those who scrounged up magnifying glasses learned the sad truth: just like Michael Stipe's mumbled lyrics on early R.E.M. albums, hyper-reduction was Ware's attempt to cover up his inability to write dialogue.
Nothing wrong with working around your weaknesses, right? But cartoons need great writing more than they need great art. Which is why Gary Larsen is better than Winsor McCay. "Little Nemo" was high art. "The Far Side" is hilarious.
Seven months passed. (To those who didn't give up on "Building Stories," it felt like seven years.) Disappointment yielded to apathy. Fixtures of the tiny world of "art comics" Jaime Hernandez, Seth and Megan Kelso followed with their serialized graphic novellas. Daniel Clowes' "Mister Wonderful" treads standard art-comics territory: unattractive boy meets dowdy girl, insecure girl meets shoe-gazing boy, reader prays for Al Qaeda to blow up their café.
For whatever it's worth, Clowes' entry is the best of a crapulent lot. The life of an artist is a lonely one, sometimes it's hard to get laid, people are mean to dorks. Who cares?
Among that class of New Yorkers for whom the Times is required reading, no one talks about The Funny Pages. Even cartoonists, who argue about every aspect of the medium until their spouses eventually divorce them, care about the high-profile feature about as much as the average American thinks about the latest Baghdad car bomb. The Times' experiment to "engage our readers in some ways we haven't yet tried--and to acknowledge that it takes many different types of writing to tell the story of our time" has received the harshest possible verdict: indifference.
An online poll by the media blog Gawker asked 1,680 readers whether they found The Funny Pages "funny." 92 percent voted "no." Granted, Internet surveys are unreliable. Still, I want to know: Where'd they find the 8 percent?
Part of the problem is serialization. Nowadays we don't want to wait a whole week for the next part of a story. (When I hear about a cool new TV series, I wait for it to get canceled so I can watch it all at once on DVD.) But the Times' main error has been its choice of cartoonists, art school graduates with little to say but draw real purty. Comics are about telling stories--not trying to dazzle, as Ware does, with innovative (but confusing) graphic design. Comic bookshops are bursting with exciting books by creative storytellers that deserve a wider audience, and that the 1.6 million readers of the Times Magazine might actually enjoy (or hate, which would be an improvement over the current yawnfest).
"Why," a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist asked me recently, "are these graphic novelists so empty? They're void...nil." A lot of newer cartoons, I protested, do feature characters motivated by bigger concerns than their feelings of awkwardness and alienation. But they appear in alternative weekly newspapers and in books put out by independent publishers. The Times, and comics anthologies that reflect the official social imprimatur of the journalistic elite, like "The Best American Comics 2007" (edited, naturally, by Chris Ware and featuring his friends), censor important comics.
"I found myself drawn to this...group of work," writes the New York Times Book Review about "Best American Comics," "mostly because I couldn't understand much of it, and, O.K., I worried whether this was a failing of mine or the artists'." This was, incredibly, from a positive review.
Memo to Times Book Review critic: Cartoons are a form of communication. When a reader doesn't understand a cartoon, it isn't because he is stupid. It is because the cartoonist has failed.
Comics Journal critic Noah Berlatsky thinks the current crop of art comics stars are obsessed with trying to overcome some perception that the medium is all about caped superheroes like Superman and Batman. "Alt comics have a huge chip on their shoulders, and they have responded by rejecting everything superhero in favor of Serious Art--which, alas, often means seriously boring art."
Whatever the reason, the literary establishment's insistence on promoting dull cartoons is destroying the chance for comics to become more than what they are today--a small, barely noteworthy, niche.
Clarification: In a previous column about the newspaper business, I wrote: "In his book 'The Vanishing Newspaper' Philip Meyer predicts that 2043 will mark the death of printed newspapers in the United States, 'as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition.'" Meyer e-mailed me to inform me that those words never appeared in his book, but from a speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 2005.
Meyer says that, in his book, he said that "a straight-line projection of the declining percentage of adults who report reading a newspaper 'every day' brings their number to the zero point in 2043. But to take that as a prediction would require assuming that no one will do anything to change the equation and that newspapers will relentlessly keep turning out their products until there is only one daily reader left. Publishers tend to be stubborn, but not that stubborn!"
Fair enough. But if a columnist can't trust the BBC and The Economist--both of whom misquoted Meyer--who can he trust?
COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL
Artsy Comics Are Alienating Readers
Love them or hate them, people react to cartoons. Comic strips like "The Far Side," "Peanuts" and "Doonesbury" inspire devotional cults. Political cartoons, such as the recent Danish Mohammed illustrations and my own post-9/11 Bush-bashing scribbles, can arouse hateful mobs. What's weird is when cartoons elicit no reaction at all.
Which is what has (not) happened since 2005, when The New York Times began running "The Funny Pages," a literary supplement to its Sunday Magazine section that includes a full-page comic strip in every issue. First up was "Building Stories," a graphic novel by Chris Ware serialized in 30 weekly installments. To call Ware an award-winning graphic artist is like calling a cockroach prolific; the only accolade he hasn't won is the Nobel. Yet.
Comic book fans had hoped that The Funny Pages would convince normal adults, who limit their graphic art consumption to political cartoons and comic strips, to buy graphic novels. (Articles espousing comics-as-art typically bear the headline "Comics: Not Just for Kids Anymore.") I don't know why anyone cares about what other people read, watch or listen to. It's not like reading is a communal activity. But grown men (they are mostly men, often so grown as to be terrifying) crave "mainstream acceptance" of their comics habit even more than sexual companionship.
Anticipation yielded to disappointment as Ware, in his typically mannered and obtuse style, rendered the paint-drying anti-drama of a dowdy middle-aged, one-legged (<--call her Ahab, in search of the Great White Male) spinster wallowing in self-inflicted depression in a hundred thousand earth-toned squares. Unless you count phony, plot-less, generalized angst, nothing happened in "Building Stories." Ever.
Ware's word balloons were so small that many mistook them as evidence of his contempt for his audience. Those who scrounged up magnifying glasses learned the sad truth: just like Michael Stipe's mumbled lyrics on early R.E.M. albums, hyper-reduction was Ware's attempt to cover up his inability to write dialogue.
Nothing wrong with working around your weaknesses, right? But cartoons need great writing more than they need great art. Which is why Gary Larsen is better than Winsor McCay. "Little Nemo" was high art. "The Far Side" is hilarious.
Seven months passed. (To those who didn't give up on "Building Stories," it felt like seven years.) Disappointment yielded to apathy. Fixtures of the tiny world of "art comics" Jaime Hernandez, Seth and Megan Kelso followed with their serialized graphic novellas. Daniel Clowes' "Mister Wonderful" treads standard art-comics territory: unattractive boy meets dowdy girl, insecure girl meets shoe-gazing boy, reader prays for Al Qaeda to blow up their café.
For whatever it's worth, Clowes' entry is the best of a crapulent lot. The life of an artist is a lonely one, sometimes it's hard to get laid, people are mean to dorks. Who cares?
Among that class of New Yorkers for whom the Times is required reading, no one talks about The Funny Pages. Even cartoonists, who argue about every aspect of the medium until their spouses eventually divorce them, care about the high-profile feature about as much as the average American thinks about the latest Baghdad car bomb. The Times' experiment to "engage our readers in some ways we haven't yet tried--and to acknowledge that it takes many different types of writing to tell the story of our time" has received the harshest possible verdict: indifference.
An online poll by the media blog Gawker asked 1,680 readers whether they found The Funny Pages "funny." 92 percent voted "no." Granted, Internet surveys are unreliable. Still, I want to know: Where'd they find the 8 percent?
Part of the problem is serialization. Nowadays we don't want to wait a whole week for the next part of a story. (When I hear about a cool new TV series, I wait for it to get canceled so I can watch it all at once on DVD.) But the Times' main error has been its choice of cartoonists, art school graduates with little to say but draw real purty. Comics are about telling stories--not trying to dazzle, as Ware does, with innovative (but confusing) graphic design. Comic bookshops are bursting with exciting books by creative storytellers that deserve a wider audience, and that the 1.6 million readers of the Times Magazine might actually enjoy (or hate, which would be an improvement over the current yawnfest).
"Why," a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist asked me recently, "are these graphic novelists so empty? They're void...nil." A lot of newer cartoons, I protested, do feature characters motivated by bigger concerns than their feelings of awkwardness and alienation. But they appear in alternative weekly newspapers and in books put out by independent publishers. The Times, and comics anthologies that reflect the official social imprimatur of the journalistic elite, like "The Best American Comics 2007" (edited, naturally, by Chris Ware and featuring his friends), censor important comics.
"I found myself drawn to this...group of work," writes the New York Times Book Review about "Best American Comics," "mostly because I couldn't understand much of it, and, O.K., I worried whether this was a failing of mine or the artists'." This was, incredibly, from a positive review.
Memo to Times Book Review critic: Cartoons are a form of communication. When a reader doesn't understand a cartoon, it isn't because he is stupid. It is because the cartoonist has failed.
Comics Journal critic Noah Berlatsky thinks the current crop of art comics stars are obsessed with trying to overcome some perception that the medium is all about caped superheroes like Superman and Batman. "Alt comics have a huge chip on their shoulders, and they have responded by rejecting everything superhero in favor of Serious Art--which, alas, often means seriously boring art."
Whatever the reason, the literary establishment's insistence on promoting dull cartoons is destroying the chance for comics to become more than what they are today--a small, barely noteworthy, niche.
Clarification: In a previous column about the newspaper business, I wrote: "In his book 'The Vanishing Newspaper' Philip Meyer predicts that 2043 will mark the death of printed newspapers in the United States, 'as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition.'" Meyer e-mailed me to inform me that those words never appeared in his book, but from a speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 2005.
Meyer says that, in his book, he said that "a straight-line projection of the declining percentage of adults who report reading a newspaper 'every day' brings their number to the zero point in 2043. But to take that as a prediction would require assuming that no one will do anything to change the equation and that newspapers will relentlessly keep turning out their products until there is only one daily reader left. Publishers tend to be stubborn, but not that stubborn!"
Fair enough. But if a columnist can't trust the BBC and The Economist--both of whom misquoted Meyer--who can he trust?
COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Cartoon for December 22
As noted, all the dialogue in panels one, two and five are real. Giuliani said this stuff on an interview with Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer. Of the current crop of presidential hopefuls, it's a toss-up as to whether Giuliani or Huckabee would be the bigger fascist. But Giuliani does seem to have the unhealthiest obsession with torturing. What's in HIS dungeon?
As noted, all the dialogue in panels one, two and five are real. Giuliani said this stuff on an interview with Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer. Of the current crop of presidential hopefuls, it's a toss-up as to whether Giuliani or Huckabee would be the bigger fascist. But Giuliani does seem to have the unhealthiest obsession with torturing. What's in HIS dungeon?
Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.
Friday, December 21, 2007
ITMFA - Teapot Museum Edition
posted by TheDon
"I'm instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."
With those words, George W Bush started the process of his impeachment. A Congress which has watched (or participated in) the loss of free speech, the loss of habeas corpus, the loss of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, signing statements, the torture of non-whites, the indefinite detention of people designated as enemies of the state, illegal wars, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, outing of CIA agents, leaking of classified material, lying to congress, contempt of congress, no-bid contracts, firing of US Attorneys, lying about firing US Attorneys, soviet-style handlers in every government office, destruction of White House communications, destruction of White House visitor logs... you get the idea... THAT Congress, will not tolerate a president with the temerity to mess with the Teapot Museum. I didn't know what it would take to get him impeached, but I'm pretty sure this is the big one. An anxious nation awaits.
posted by TheDon
"I'm instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."
With those words, George W Bush started the process of his impeachment. A Congress which has watched (or participated in) the loss of free speech, the loss of habeas corpus, the loss of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, signing statements, the torture of non-whites, the indefinite detention of people designated as enemies of the state, illegal wars, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, outing of CIA agents, leaking of classified material, lying to congress, contempt of congress, no-bid contracts, firing of US Attorneys, lying about firing US Attorneys, soviet-style handlers in every government office, destruction of White House communications, destruction of White House visitor logs... you get the idea... THAT Congress, will not tolerate a president with the temerity to mess with the Teapot Museum. I didn't know what it would take to get him impeached, but I'm pretty sure this is the big one. An anxious nation awaits.
TGIF - Lucky Me
posted by TheDon
I can now publicly reveal that I had sex with Jamie Lynn Spears. Of course it wasn't on the same day, in the same city, or with each other, but I am invoking the Romney Saw to justify my assertion. I also saw my father single-handedly beating the Nazis, but that's a story for another post.
It just kills me that Al Gore is still mocked to this day for things that he never said. References to "Al Gore invented the internet" are guaranteed to bring chuckles, despite the fact that he never even implied any such thing. Al Gore is a braggart. Al Gore is a liar. These memes are part of our national folklore, and for no reason except the cynical repetition of a series of lies about him. Lies repeated on hate radio, in national newspapers, on evening talk shows and on national news programs.
On the other hand, Romney and Giuliani can engage in a series of lies and exaggerations, each lie knocked down with air-tight evidence, usually with video of the candidate himself, and neither one has his honesty questioned in a serious way. Each story dies an early death, laughed off as unimportant. This morning, Joey Scar, after a story on Romney's latest lie, said this, "If that's all you've got on Mitt Romney, he's in pretty good shape." Yes, Joe, all we have is that Romney will say anything, invent important events in his life, and change any political positions, just to be elected POTUS. I am only half-kidding when I say that I expect Romney to convert to Evangelical Christianity any day now.
But it's Friday, the end of the week, and most of us are off for the holidays. From my family to yours, have a happy holiday if, in fact, you celebrate any holiday at all. And knock back a drink in honor of my new relationship.
Blushing Teenage Virgin
Mix equal parts pomegranate juice and coconut rum over ice. Splash on some chocolate liqueur and it will taste a lot like a chocolate covered cherry. Come to think of it, that's probably a much more appropriate name for the drink.
posted by TheDon
I can now publicly reveal that I had sex with Jamie Lynn Spears. Of course it wasn't on the same day, in the same city, or with each other, but I am invoking the Romney Saw to justify my assertion. I also saw my father single-handedly beating the Nazis, but that's a story for another post.
It just kills me that Al Gore is still mocked to this day for things that he never said. References to "Al Gore invented the internet" are guaranteed to bring chuckles, despite the fact that he never even implied any such thing. Al Gore is a braggart. Al Gore is a liar. These memes are part of our national folklore, and for no reason except the cynical repetition of a series of lies about him. Lies repeated on hate radio, in national newspapers, on evening talk shows and on national news programs.
On the other hand, Romney and Giuliani can engage in a series of lies and exaggerations, each lie knocked down with air-tight evidence, usually with video of the candidate himself, and neither one has his honesty questioned in a serious way. Each story dies an early death, laughed off as unimportant. This morning, Joey Scar, after a story on Romney's latest lie, said this, "If that's all you've got on Mitt Romney, he's in pretty good shape." Yes, Joe, all we have is that Romney will say anything, invent important events in his life, and change any political positions, just to be elected POTUS. I am only half-kidding when I say that I expect Romney to convert to Evangelical Christianity any day now.
But it's Friday, the end of the week, and most of us are off for the holidays. From my family to yours, have a happy holiday if, in fact, you celebrate any holiday at all. And knock back a drink in honor of my new relationship.
Blushing Teenage Virgin
Mix equal parts pomegranate juice and coconut rum over ice. Splash on some chocolate liqueur and it will taste a lot like a chocolate covered cherry. Come to think of it, that's probably a much more appropriate name for the drink.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
COLUMN: DEMOCRATS--THE OTHER WHITE MEAT
Let's Fight a Doomed War in Afghanistan, Not Iraq!
NEW YORK--There is too a difference between the two major parties. Republicans want us to spend, die and lose in Iraq. Democrats want us to spend, die and lose in Afghanistan.
There's a difference between the two major wars, too. Afghanistan is even less justifiable than Iraq. It's also less winnable.
The lily-livered libbies' "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq" meme is back.
"Six years after we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan--the origin of the 9/11 attacks--we still don't have our priorities straight," Barack Obama said in Des Moines this week. That followed an October speech in New Hampshire in which he described George W. Bush's response to 9/11 as "perfectly reasonable."
"I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban had been supportive and the base camp for Al Qaeda," Obama said. "So I had no problem with that."
In fact, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban were not involved. The "base camp" for Al Qaeda was, and is, in Pakistan. (Different country! Look it up.)
Democrats, reports Tom Curry of MSNBC, have embraced an election-year "out of Iraq, shift to Afghanistan" strategy. It's a drone of rhetorical distraction worthy of Karl Rove, and one not one mainstream media outlet has bothered to question. Obama and his fellow Democrats (John Edwards is a laudable exception to the lunacy) say they were for Bush's first war--the one he lost because he didn't spend enough money or enough lives--before they were against the second one.
Obama's hoary sports metaphor, regurgitated since 2005 by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and virtually every other luminary of the lame left, followed a December 17th vote by Congressional Democrats (201 to 30) to send $30 billion for war against Afghanistan, but nothing for Iraq. No wimps here!
"Afghanistan is the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism, but for too long we have taken our eye off the ball," parroted Rep. Ike Skelton, Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
In fact, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan the whole time U.S. forces were "looking" for him in Afghanistan. So was Al Qaeda, and most of its training camps. The money for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good sound byte.
I'm not convinced the military can fight terrorists. Blowing up schools and weddings is a lousy way to fight Islamic extremism. The history of counterinsurgency shows that it's easier to kill your enemies with an open mind than with bombs. But if you're determined to go the military route, you'd be better off taking on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt--in that order.
The New York Times, comrades in clueless centrism with the (oxymoron alert-->) Democratic leadership, reported that the normally implacable Bush Administration is gripped by "a growing apprehension that one of the administration's most important legacies--the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001--may slip away."
Then the paper editorialized: "Unless the United States and Europe come up with a better strategy--and invest more money, attention and troops--the 'good war' will go irretrievably bad."
Ugh. "Good war," indeed. Doesn't anyone care that Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are entirely separate countries?
Committees are being empanelled to analyze why Afghanistan is a mess of warlords, opium farmers and suicide bombers. Could it be the decision to send one-tenth as many troops as Iraq to a nation the same size, but with more daunting terrain and a fierce population of warriors renowned for slaughtering invaders? Was it a PR mistake to replace the Taliban, who stoned rapists and murderers to death, with the Northern Alliance government, whose officials are rapists and murderers? Did the lack of reconstruction increase resentment? How about the grinding poverty, which the U.S. invasion made worse?
Yes.
But here's what we keep hearing instead: "I have a real concern that given our preoccupation in Iraq, we've not devoted sufficient troops and funding to Afghanistan to ensure success in that mission," said Skelton, the Congressional Democrat.
The cold, hard truth is that Afghanistan can't be won. Not with more money, and not with the 6,000 more troops Obama wants to send there. Not with 60,000, or 600,000.
With the recent exception of 9/11, America's wars have been fought overseas. We have a deadline: we can't stay over there forever. The Afghans, on the other hand, live there. They have time--all the time in the world. They know that all they have to do is wait us out, and hassle our forces in the meantime. They're damned good at it--ask the Brits and Russians.
Not everyone is falling for the Democrats' "forget their war, let's fight our war" spiel, though. A letter to the editor of the Times began: "I hope that when the Bush administration and NATO conclude their analyses of the Afghanistan mission they will reach one inescapable, common-sense conclusion: that Western-style democracy cannot be militarily imposed on a culture that is based on tribal loyalties. Maybe at that point, our nation and the world will be able to finally use our economic and human resources in a more efficient manner."
The letter writer's name was Bill Gottdenker. Too bad he's not running for president.
(C) 2007 Ted Rall, All Rights Reserved.
Let's Fight a Doomed War in Afghanistan, Not Iraq!
NEW YORK--There is too a difference between the two major parties. Republicans want us to spend, die and lose in Iraq. Democrats want us to spend, die and lose in Afghanistan.
There's a difference between the two major wars, too. Afghanistan is even less justifiable than Iraq. It's also less winnable.
The lily-livered libbies' "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq" meme is back.
"Six years after we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan--the origin of the 9/11 attacks--we still don't have our priorities straight," Barack Obama said in Des Moines this week. That followed an October speech in New Hampshire in which he described George W. Bush's response to 9/11 as "perfectly reasonable."
"I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban had been supportive and the base camp for Al Qaeda," Obama said. "So I had no problem with that."
In fact, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban were not involved. The "base camp" for Al Qaeda was, and is, in Pakistan. (Different country! Look it up.)
Democrats, reports Tom Curry of MSNBC, have embraced an election-year "out of Iraq, shift to Afghanistan" strategy. It's a drone of rhetorical distraction worthy of Karl Rove, and one not one mainstream media outlet has bothered to question. Obama and his fellow Democrats (John Edwards is a laudable exception to the lunacy) say they were for Bush's first war--the one he lost because he didn't spend enough money or enough lives--before they were against the second one.
Obama's hoary sports metaphor, regurgitated since 2005 by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and virtually every other luminary of the lame left, followed a December 17th vote by Congressional Democrats (201 to 30) to send $30 billion for war against Afghanistan, but nothing for Iraq. No wimps here!
"Afghanistan is the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism, but for too long we have taken our eye off the ball," parroted Rep. Ike Skelton, Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
In fact, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan the whole time U.S. forces were "looking" for him in Afghanistan. So was Al Qaeda, and most of its training camps. The money for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good sound byte.
I'm not convinced the military can fight terrorists. Blowing up schools and weddings is a lousy way to fight Islamic extremism. The history of counterinsurgency shows that it's easier to kill your enemies with an open mind than with bombs. But if you're determined to go the military route, you'd be better off taking on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt--in that order.
The New York Times, comrades in clueless centrism with the (oxymoron alert-->) Democratic leadership, reported that the normally implacable Bush Administration is gripped by "a growing apprehension that one of the administration's most important legacies--the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001--may slip away."
Then the paper editorialized: "Unless the United States and Europe come up with a better strategy--and invest more money, attention and troops--the 'good war' will go irretrievably bad."
Ugh. "Good war," indeed. Doesn't anyone care that Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are entirely separate countries?
Committees are being empanelled to analyze why Afghanistan is a mess of warlords, opium farmers and suicide bombers. Could it be the decision to send one-tenth as many troops as Iraq to a nation the same size, but with more daunting terrain and a fierce population of warriors renowned for slaughtering invaders? Was it a PR mistake to replace the Taliban, who stoned rapists and murderers to death, with the Northern Alliance government, whose officials are rapists and murderers? Did the lack of reconstruction increase resentment? How about the grinding poverty, which the U.S. invasion made worse?
Yes.
But here's what we keep hearing instead: "I have a real concern that given our preoccupation in Iraq, we've not devoted sufficient troops and funding to Afghanistan to ensure success in that mission," said Skelton, the Congressional Democrat.
The cold, hard truth is that Afghanistan can't be won. Not with more money, and not with the 6,000 more troops Obama wants to send there. Not with 60,000, or 600,000.
With the recent exception of 9/11, America's wars have been fought overseas. We have a deadline: we can't stay over there forever. The Afghans, on the other hand, live there. They have time--all the time in the world. They know that all they have to do is wait us out, and hassle our forces in the meantime. They're damned good at it--ask the Brits and Russians.
Not everyone is falling for the Democrats' "forget their war, let's fight our war" spiel, though. A letter to the editor of the Times began: "I hope that when the Bush administration and NATO conclude their analyses of the Afghanistan mission they will reach one inescapable, common-sense conclusion: that Western-style democracy cannot be militarily imposed on a culture that is based on tribal loyalties. Maybe at that point, our nation and the world will be able to finally use our economic and human resources in a more efficient manner."
The letter writer's name was Bill Gottdenker. Too bad he's not running for president.
(C) 2007 Ted Rall, All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Love Notes
posted by TheDon
The post office is busy this time of year, so I am posting notes to the notable here, where I know each of my recipients checks in most days.
posted by TheDon
The post office is busy this time of year, so I am posting notes to the notable here, where I know each of my recipients checks in most days.
To: Jon Corzine
You are my hero today for signing a law banning the death penalty in New Jersey. You announced proudly that you were signing the law because the death penalty is immoral, since there can never be a guarantee that innocent people won't be executed. I am in awe.
To: Mitt Romney
I just sat through an hour of Tim Russert hammering on you. It is an hour I will never get back, but I must say I came away very impressed. You are one of the most talented politicians I have ever seen, able to lie with a straight face, completely unfazed by video evidence of flip-flops, focused and on-message. But, and you knew there would be a but, I have a couple of suggestions.
When you make up a story about a major turning point in your life, don't put in details that are easily disproved. For instance, you graduated from law school in 1975, so your big emotional moment when you heard about god telling the leaders of your church to allow black folks full rights could not have happened while you were driving home from law school. Also, you might consider telling the story in a way which cannot be headlined "Romney: The Decision to Raise Blacks to Status of Whites Made Me Cry". Just sayin'.
Also, I think your perception of church/state duties is a little off. You said, "If we're all children of the same god, we have a duty to one another, to care for one another. Americans first, and the people of the world second." If we're all children of god, with a duty to each other, nationality doesn't matter, even a little bit. If we're all citizens of the same country, with a duty to each other, then it's Americans first. Hope that clears it up for you.
To: John McCain
To: John McCain
So you got the coveted Holy Joe endorsement. Nice. That translates to exactly zero votes in New Hampshire. There is a reason none of the Democrats asked him for an endorsement. In other endorsement news, Ron Paul got the coveted Andrew Sullivan endorsement. Same result.
To: Fred Thompson
If you don't want to be president, just drop out of the race. Saying that your most prized possession is your "trophy wife" is just embarrassing. For everyone. Go home and catch up on your naps.
To: Tucker Carlson
To answer your question today, you are not the only person upset at the prospect of the US Senate outlawing incandescent light bulbs. In fact, our very own Ted Rall wrote about this almost a year ago. TR wrote, "I would rather watch the oceans boil than live in a world lit by fluorescent light bulbs." I am guessing that you will re-think your position.
By the way, calling Hillary Clinton's campaign "so Clintonesque" is "so Tuckeresque".
To: Rep. Pete Hoekstra
You are going against you favorite preznit to push a Congressional investigation of the CIA for destroying torture tapes. You said it is important to "hold this community accountable" and opined that "there's a constitutional responsibility for (the CIA) to keep us informed, and they have not". I agree completely with you, but I have one simple question for you.
Why the sudden interest in Congressional oversight after disuse for a period of time associated with atrophy? Is this part of the "CIA is incompetent and plotting against W" conspiracy theory?
To: The Congress of the United States of America
ITMFA. What are you waiting for? The list of outrages grows and there is still not a serious attempt to stop the assaults on the Constitution. You swore an oath! As harshly as history will judge those morons who went after Clinton, it will judge you even more harshly for sitting on your hands during this dark period.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Fair and Balanced
posted by TheDon
Examples 87,563 and 87,564 of why "balanced" reporting is lazy and stupid.
On MSNBC, during a report on the House Intel bill, Kelly O'Donnell talked about what the House is trying to gain from the bill, and how the White House responded. In both cases, she simply quoted and paraphrased official sources. She concluded with this "analysis", "So this is one of those classic Washington struggles. Congress wants more access to information, wants to be briefed on some of the intelligence things that have been going on, and the White House is saying, 'Well we know you have some, some rights in this area. Don't restrict us.' So it's the kind of storyline we've been seeing between the President and Congress."
Here's a little unsolicited help from me. The line is "Congress is trying to re-ban torture, and conduct its Constitutionally mandated oversight, but this administration, once again, is resisting with all of its might, using methods legal and illegal, waging a dishonest PR battle, scaring the electorate, and destroying critical information in an attempt to run out the clock on every investigation." Or something like that.
This was followed by a story on Contempt of Senate charges pending for Rove and Bolton. Kelly started with, "Well if we wonder why there might not be friendly relations between the White House and Congress, this is one of those snapshots that tells you something about it", and then almost presented the facts, but never bothered to mention that both men ignored subpoenas from Congress. She ended with this, "But in terms of pure gestures, this is again a time when the Senate is trying to sort of tweak the White House." Yes, Kelly, it's not about this administration using "executive privilege" to cover up criminal activities, and a refusal to cooperate with constitutionally mandated oversight. It's about tweaking the White House. You idiot.
posted by TheDon
Examples 87,563 and 87,564 of why "balanced" reporting is lazy and stupid.
On MSNBC, during a report on the House Intel bill, Kelly O'Donnell talked about what the House is trying to gain from the bill, and how the White House responded. In both cases, she simply quoted and paraphrased official sources. She concluded with this "analysis", "So this is one of those classic Washington struggles. Congress wants more access to information, wants to be briefed on some of the intelligence things that have been going on, and the White House is saying, 'Well we know you have some, some rights in this area. Don't restrict us.' So it's the kind of storyline we've been seeing between the President and Congress."
Here's a little unsolicited help from me. The line is "Congress is trying to re-ban torture, and conduct its Constitutionally mandated oversight, but this administration, once again, is resisting with all of its might, using methods legal and illegal, waging a dishonest PR battle, scaring the electorate, and destroying critical information in an attempt to run out the clock on every investigation." Or something like that.
This was followed by a story on Contempt of Senate charges pending for Rove and Bolton. Kelly started with, "Well if we wonder why there might not be friendly relations between the White House and Congress, this is one of those snapshots that tells you something about it", and then almost presented the facts, but never bothered to mention that both men ignored subpoenas from Congress. She ended with this, "But in terms of pure gestures, this is again a time when the Senate is trying to sort of tweak the White House." Yes, Kelly, it's not about this administration using "executive privilege" to cover up criminal activities, and a refusal to cooperate with constitutionally mandated oversight. It's about tweaking the White House. You idiot.
I Was The 20th Hijacker
posted by TheDon
To: Mr Sumner Redstone, Chairman of CBS
Re: Ongoing WGA Strike
Mr Redstone,
You're welcome,
TheDon
posted by TheDon
To: Mr Sumner Redstone, Chairman of CBS
Re: Ongoing WGA Strike
Mr Redstone,
As the WGA strike approaches its 7th week, reporting indicates that network television will soon consist of reruns, reality shows and American Idol. I'm sure that thought haunts you as much as it does me, so I am offering you a free idea that came to me during a commercial for Fox's "The Moment of Truth". I propose a game show called "I was the 20th Hijacker".
The idea is simple, and doesn't require any of those nasty union writers. Have viewers make home videos of themselves and their families explaining how patriotic they are, and giving their alibis for 9/11/2001. They need to prove that they could not possibly be involved in the attacks on NYC and Washington.
You pick contestants to come on the show, and screen edited versions of their submissions. I would really stretch this part out, because the rest of the show will be brief, but the payoff is huge! After a commercial break (which will sell for huge bucks), come back to the contestant strapped to a waterboard. Just get a team of ex-CIA officers (they seem to be everywhere these days), and get to work. The contestant gets a prize (I suggest $1 million, but it doesn't really matter - you will NEVER have to pay), if he/she makes it through 5 minutes of waterboarding. They can stop the process one way, and one way only - by looking into the camera and declaring, "I was the 20th hijacker!".
It's brilliant, it's TV gold and your production costs will be almost nothing. You can put on variations, like two teams racing to find the 20th hijacker first, or keep track of the all time records (short and long) and award prizes at the end of the season. Maybe specials where different "enhanced techniques" are used? How about a one-off, where you torture question one spouse, and the other one has to confess to stop the questioning? This one is a little trickier, though, marriages being as complex as they are.
As for the show's losers? They get handcuffed and turned over to the DOJ for processing, since they have just admitted, in a way that our government considers actionable, to being part of a murderous plot against the USA. You get credit for helping in the Global War on Terror. Your ratings dominate. Win, win, win, win, win!
TheDon
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
TED RALL COLUMN: FUTURE IMPERFECT, PART III
Last week, I pointed out that print still accounts for more than 90 percent of newspaper revenues. This week, the third of a three-part series on the future of newspapers.
Buy Stock in Newspapers, Weep For America
In his book "The Vanishing Newspaper" Philip Meyer predicts that 2043 will mark the death of printed newspapers in the United States, "as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition."
Not a chance.
Media companies report that their Internet editions are newspapers' fastest growing sources of revenue. But the Web isn't why I'm bullish about the industry.
First, there is no Internet--not one that makes money for newsmongers. "Newspapers are growing the amount of revenue they derive from their Web operations," reports E-Commerce Times, but "that revenue stream is growing too slowly to replace the losses represented by plunging circulation."
Merrill Lynch estimates that online ads generate seven percent of newspaper income. The firm's media analysts say it'll take at least 30 more years before it accounts for half--and that's assuming current trends continue. They never do.
Second, print is all there is. The pessimists aren't crazy: A Pew poll finds that only 23 percent of Americans under 30 read a daily newspaper, compared with 60 percent of old codgers. Circulation is down 2.6 percent since 2006, continuing a trend that began in the 1990s. 1.2 million people canceled their subscriptions last year alone! Those are scary numbers. But, Internet evangelist hype aside, print accounts for 93 percent of newspaper revenue over a decade after newspapers committed to online.
"Print is dead," Sports Illustrated President John Squires told newspaper and magazine execs in 2004. "Get over it" and embrace the Internet, he counseled. But not everyone is ready to abandon a sure thing (albeit one in crisis) for a pipe dream. "It depends on a particular person's view as to whether the industry is going through a rather difficult transition from which it will emerge stronger, or whether things are really in a long-term decline," says Rick Edmonds, a newspaper industry analyst at the Poynter Institute.
Smart newspaper publishers understand that Web 2.0 is faith-based. At most, the Internet is a way to promote their print editions. "It's...possible to get online readers to buy the printed version by trailing stories selectively between online and offline editions," says Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Information, Society and Media.
Third, some types of papers are prospering and growing. I believe that the business of printing news on dead trees will emerge from the current shakeout more profitable than ever. This will be thanks to three emerging trends:
*Big National Newspapers
*More Small Local Papers
*Freebie Dailies
At present, the biggest 50 dailies ("A" papers, in industry jargon) dominate the landscape. Below them is a swath of dailies in midsize cities (Akron, Austin, Albuquerque). Small town, suburban and rural dailies, weeklies and bi-weeklies, whose focus is highly localized ("New Stop Sign Stirs Controversy")--the "C"s--bring up the rear.
During the 20th century, most newspaper profits were generated by "B" papers. This is the market segment that has been hit hardest by the Web. Free online classifieds has decimated advertising revenues. Neither beast nor fowl, the midsize dailies' attempt to balance local, national and international coverage pleases no one in an environment where highly customized news consumption is available to readers online--for free. (Publishers were idiots for giving away their content, but that's another column.) MyYahoo feeds me the latest headlines from Itar-Tass and Agence France-Press every morning; how could the Dayton Daily News, the paper of my childhood, do as well for this half-Frenchman with a Central Asia obsession?
Amid the falling circulation numbers, there are notable exceptions. The three large national papers (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today) frequently post circulation gains. Their strategies differ: The Times and Journal offer a must-read experience to those who depend on information for their careers, whereas USA Today is a convenient digest for conventioneers rushing to snag a free croissant at the conference center.
In 20 years, the U.S. newspaper landscape will look more like Europe and Japan. The market will be dominated by two major segments. At the top we'll find a small cluster, perhaps 10 or 15, of huge national titles--papers such as The New York Times and USA Today will get even bigger. Existing papers (The Washington Post?) will expand; new ones will launch.
At the bottom will be a growing number of tiny weekly and biweeklies whose low overhead make them viable and local focus makes them essential reading. Middle-market dailies in midsize "B" cities--Hartford, Salt Lake City, Daytona Beach, etc.--will vanish or, in most cases, radically contract.
Freebie dailies are luring readers whom the old-school A and B papers have written off. If papers like AMNewYork are short on depth, they're convenient. These stripped-down mini-USA Todays are designed to be read in under 30 minutes--the length of a typical commute--and tossed. "Our free papers provide young people with something new and different: speedy news and bite-size information, which means they can keep up to speed with a minimum of fuss," says Steve Auckland, head of the free newspaper division at the publisher of Metro's London edition.
Stefano Hatfield is the former editor of the New York edition of Metro, a slim free daily given away free to subway riders. "This is a generation who grew up with the World Wide Web," he says of the papers' target audience, aged 18 to 35. "It is difficult to persuade young people that news should be something you pay for." There are Metro editions in Boston and Philadelphia. The Examiner chain has Washington, Baltimore and San Francisco. Chicago has Red Eye. Freebie dailies will spread to cities without integrated mass transit systems as they learn to distribute to shopping centers, corporate parks, college campuses and motorists stuck in traffic.
None of this will improve the quality of journalism. "Ultimately [free dailies] will breed in people the idea that news shouldn't cost anything, even that news is cheap," points out media commentator Roy Greenslade. "But in fact, news, done well and properly, requires investment and money. They will no doubt tell us what happened--but news should also tell us how and why things happen. I fear that approach will be lost."
It will. It's a trend that began decades ago, when newspapers closed overseas news bureaus and eliminated long-term investigative journalism to cut costs, and started embracing elites rather than exposing them. And it's terrible for our society, culture and politics. Government and business will face even less accountability than they do today. Democracy will lie in ruins. The print newspaper business, however, will be going gangbusters.
COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL
Last week, I pointed out that print still accounts for more than 90 percent of newspaper revenues. This week, the third of a three-part series on the future of newspapers.
Buy Stock in Newspapers, Weep For America
In his book "The Vanishing Newspaper" Philip Meyer predicts that 2043 will mark the death of printed newspapers in the United States, "as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition."
Not a chance.
Media companies report that their Internet editions are newspapers' fastest growing sources of revenue. But the Web isn't why I'm bullish about the industry.
First, there is no Internet--not one that makes money for newsmongers. "Newspapers are growing the amount of revenue they derive from their Web operations," reports E-Commerce Times, but "that revenue stream is growing too slowly to replace the losses represented by plunging circulation."
Merrill Lynch estimates that online ads generate seven percent of newspaper income. The firm's media analysts say it'll take at least 30 more years before it accounts for half--and that's assuming current trends continue. They never do.
Second, print is all there is. The pessimists aren't crazy: A Pew poll finds that only 23 percent of Americans under 30 read a daily newspaper, compared with 60 percent of old codgers. Circulation is down 2.6 percent since 2006, continuing a trend that began in the 1990s. 1.2 million people canceled their subscriptions last year alone! Those are scary numbers. But, Internet evangelist hype aside, print accounts for 93 percent of newspaper revenue over a decade after newspapers committed to online.
"Print is dead," Sports Illustrated President John Squires told newspaper and magazine execs in 2004. "Get over it" and embrace the Internet, he counseled. But not everyone is ready to abandon a sure thing (albeit one in crisis) for a pipe dream. "It depends on a particular person's view as to whether the industry is going through a rather difficult transition from which it will emerge stronger, or whether things are really in a long-term decline," says Rick Edmonds, a newspaper industry analyst at the Poynter Institute.
Smart newspaper publishers understand that Web 2.0 is faith-based. At most, the Internet is a way to promote their print editions. "It's...possible to get online readers to buy the printed version by trailing stories selectively between online and offline editions," says Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Information, Society and Media.
Third, some types of papers are prospering and growing. I believe that the business of printing news on dead trees will emerge from the current shakeout more profitable than ever. This will be thanks to three emerging trends:
*Big National Newspapers
*More Small Local Papers
*Freebie Dailies
At present, the biggest 50 dailies ("A" papers, in industry jargon) dominate the landscape. Below them is a swath of dailies in midsize cities (Akron, Austin, Albuquerque). Small town, suburban and rural dailies, weeklies and bi-weeklies, whose focus is highly localized ("New Stop Sign Stirs Controversy")--the "C"s--bring up the rear.
During the 20th century, most newspaper profits were generated by "B" papers. This is the market segment that has been hit hardest by the Web. Free online classifieds has decimated advertising revenues. Neither beast nor fowl, the midsize dailies' attempt to balance local, national and international coverage pleases no one in an environment where highly customized news consumption is available to readers online--for free. (Publishers were idiots for giving away their content, but that's another column.) MyYahoo feeds me the latest headlines from Itar-Tass and Agence France-Press every morning; how could the Dayton Daily News, the paper of my childhood, do as well for this half-Frenchman with a Central Asia obsession?
Amid the falling circulation numbers, there are notable exceptions. The three large national papers (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today) frequently post circulation gains. Their strategies differ: The Times and Journal offer a must-read experience to those who depend on information for their careers, whereas USA Today is a convenient digest for conventioneers rushing to snag a free croissant at the conference center.
In 20 years, the U.S. newspaper landscape will look more like Europe and Japan. The market will be dominated by two major segments. At the top we'll find a small cluster, perhaps 10 or 15, of huge national titles--papers such as The New York Times and USA Today will get even bigger. Existing papers (The Washington Post?) will expand; new ones will launch.
At the bottom will be a growing number of tiny weekly and biweeklies whose low overhead make them viable and local focus makes them essential reading. Middle-market dailies in midsize "B" cities--Hartford, Salt Lake City, Daytona Beach, etc.--will vanish or, in most cases, radically contract.
Freebie dailies are luring readers whom the old-school A and B papers have written off. If papers like AMNewYork are short on depth, they're convenient. These stripped-down mini-USA Todays are designed to be read in under 30 minutes--the length of a typical commute--and tossed. "Our free papers provide young people with something new and different: speedy news and bite-size information, which means they can keep up to speed with a minimum of fuss," says Steve Auckland, head of the free newspaper division at the publisher of Metro's London edition.
Stefano Hatfield is the former editor of the New York edition of Metro, a slim free daily given away free to subway riders. "This is a generation who grew up with the World Wide Web," he says of the papers' target audience, aged 18 to 35. "It is difficult to persuade young people that news should be something you pay for." There are Metro editions in Boston and Philadelphia. The Examiner chain has Washington, Baltimore and San Francisco. Chicago has Red Eye. Freebie dailies will spread to cities without integrated mass transit systems as they learn to distribute to shopping centers, corporate parks, college campuses and motorists stuck in traffic.
None of this will improve the quality of journalism. "Ultimately [free dailies] will breed in people the idea that news shouldn't cost anything, even that news is cheap," points out media commentator Roy Greenslade. "But in fact, news, done well and properly, requires investment and money. They will no doubt tell us what happened--but news should also tell us how and why things happen. I fear that approach will be lost."
It will. It's a trend that began decades ago, when newspapers closed overseas news bureaus and eliminated long-term investigative journalism to cut costs, and started embracing elites rather than exposing them. And it's terrible for our society, culture and politics. Government and business will face even less accountability than they do today. Democracy will lie in ruins. The print newspaper business, however, will be going gangbusters.
COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL
Sunday Funnies
posted by TheDon
Meat The Press
MTP has has a couple of good shows in a row, with panels as good as you could reasonably expect dealing with the presidential campaigns. Today is a change-of-pace, with a hard-hitting hour-long interview of His Honor, the Mayor of 9/11 himself. Yeah, right. I'm looking forward to a game of slow-pitch softball with Rudy! as the umpire.
I will only write about unexpected moments or insightful answers, so this ought to be a fast read.
Rudy! claims that he quit the 9/11 commission because he knew he would run for president, and his presence on the commission might unfairly cause people to accuse the commission of political bias in its conclusions. NOT because he would rather give speeches for money. Nope.
OK, that was way more empty than I dared dream.
What we "learned" from this show that we already knew:
Rudy!
Fawkes News
Oh God. McCain and Huckabee. I picked a bad week to give up political disengagement.
WOW! Wallace starts with Aw-shucks-abee's 1992 stance on quarantining AIDS patients, cutting federal funding for AIDS research, and the sinful nature of homos. Huck claims that it was 1992, and who really knew very much about AIDS? He was just pointing out that political correctness was keeping them from doing the right thing (locking up the "carriers"). Why, just look at the amusingly mispronounced avian flu pandemic! We were planning on locking up "carriers" for that! Does he just assume that his tone of voice puts people to sleep, and they won't notice what he is saying?
Since it's not Rudy! lying to him, Wallace attacks! He points out that the CDC said in 1985 that you couldn't go poz from casual contact. Huck counters with some "better safe than sorry" crap, and points out that some of his best friends died of AIDS. One of them was even "in fact, a homosexual". Well! That's different! Dick.
Wallace plays a Charles Krauthammer quote, calling Huck a religious bigot. I have to admit that this show is a lot more fun since they picked sides in the GOP primary, and now their chosen candidate is in a little trouble. Huck calls "Charles" one of his very favorite columnists, and says he only dislikes the ones written about him. Says he talks about his own faith, but doesn't talk about Romney'sbecause he only really knows about Christianity but defends every other candidate's claim to faith, even that Satanic bitch Hillary.
Huck goes much farther than I've seen him go before, and says that voters should not consider Romney's Mormon faith when they go into the voting booth, they should consider his flip-flopping on every single issue. I'm paraphrasing, but only a little.
Wallace attacks on the NIE gaffe, opposing waterboarding and wanting to close GITMO. He then asks how important other countries' opinions would be to his foreign policy. A really unfair characterization (but not unexpected), but Huck handles it well. Except for the pie-in-the-sky part about "as president I will make sure we have better intelligence".
Huck's against torture! And destroying damning CIA videos of torture. Now he's just trying to get me to like him. It won't work, but it's nice to be asked.
Next up, McCain.
McCain is glad that the AG is going to investigate the destruction of CIA torture videos? Huh? Is he breaking news here or just making it up? I'm thinking it's the latter. And he still opposes torture for all the right reasons.
DCI Hayden says they destroyed the tapes to protect the identities of CIA operatives. Ignoring what has to be the intentional irony, this is just plain BS. The tapes were destroyed because if they ever get out, lots of people are going to be charged as war criminals. I think that I would go to jail to get one of those tapes out, because nobody, after seeing what we did to get "confessions" from "terrorists" would ever support those methods. Except Cheney. And Limbaugh. Probably Coulter, too, but that's it.
McCain seems very tired this morning, and robotically recites the points that Iran is still "a significant threat and challenge", and would not take military attacks off the table, no matter what Robert Kagan says.
Wallace asks McCain what he thinks of Romney, and McCain talks about how much he respects and admires Romney, despite the fact that he doesn't know him very well, and that he has changed his position on many issues. And lied about McCain's positions in mailers.
McCain is still convinced that he's going to win New Hampshire. He's either deranged to the point of obliviousness, or the Straight Talk Express has a flat tire. Wallace points out that it's just kinda barely possible that the fact that independents in New Hampshire are breaking for Obama will kill his chances there. Then he admits that he may be engaging in wishful thinking. I'm starting to think this is his last hurrah as a public figure, and he's ready to retire.
Wallace takes a moment to wonder aloud why Obama and Edwards won't appear on their Fair-n-Balanced little show. Hmmmmmm... Can't even imagine why...
Panel time! Usual suspects Brit Humne, Nina Easton, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.
First topic is O!prah. Pardon me while I hit the fast-forward about 12 times...OK, 12 more...
Nina's husband is a Romney advisor, and she gives some love to Romney and his hate speech.
Next up is CIA tapes, their destruction and the cover up. Wallace smirkingly intros a Ted Kennedy tape about the incident. Brit dodges the real issues and defends Hayden, but wants a better sounding explanation. Brit seems puzzled by the fact that the White House and others urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes and they did anyway. Nina switches to waterboarding and blames the Dems for not blowing the whistle sooner. Says that when the threat was bigger, everyone supported the actions, but now that people feel safer they are getting softer.
Kristol snarks away about how the character of the man who destroyed the tapes proves that he must have had honorable intentions, and Kennedy is a poopyhead. So much for the rule of law vs the rule of men.
Juan points out that the CIA actions are indefensible in a democracy. Brit brings up the conspiracy theory that the CIA hates W, and will do anything to make him look bad.Which brings us to the NIE. Nina spouts the Cheney administration line about Iran still being a threat, but adds a rumor that in 2003, leaders in Iran stopped the weapons program because they didn't want to hide it from international inspectors. Kristol, of course, connects the dots in 2003, and gives credit for stopping the weapons program to... wait for it... drum roll... the best war evah! Cue smirks and self-congratulation.
Kristol actually says, and I swear I'm not making this up, "this is yet another feather in the cap of the invasion of Iraq, it seems to me." Cheepers. Juan kills him for it, but Kristol is incapable of embarrassment or introspection.
This Weak
The NIE discussed by Biden and Newt. Mitt Romney on Faith. Oprah on the trail. It's gonna be a quick trip to the round table...
OK, both the Attorney General and the CIA have announced (according to This Weak) that they will investigate the destruction of the torture tapes. There's no mystery what Biden will say (obstruction of justice, special counsel, straight to the office of the president, etc), so it's time to see what Newt says, briefly. Very, very briefly. To clarify, I don't think I will disagree with anything Biden will say, but we're too early in this to spend a lot of time on speculation.
George points out the Biden is at 4% in Iowa, asks him how he's going to make a move in the next three weeks. Biden says he's going to do it the same way he's been doing it. Ummmm... yeah.... nice plan... let me know how that works out for you!
Newt, of course, agrees that the NIE is an attempt by 16 different intelligence agencies to destroy W's god-blessed crusade. How this fuck-wit gets on the TV is beyond me. Newt opposes torture completely, unless the president approves of it. Whatever that means. It's unworthy of America, unless it's not.
Looks like Newt stopped losing weight in anticipation of a presidential run. He could really use a salad and a long walk. Every day. It might help him stop saying stupid stuff, like "this administration is in full appeasement mode" when he talks about foreign policy. Maybe. It won't stop him from being a pompous ass who talks about Mitt's speech being the first time a politician has publicly confronted the assault on religion.
Be still my heart! If someone asks Newt to be VP, he'll reluctantly accept. Thanks! The Democracy is safe!
Time for some fast-forward action...
Round Table!
Oprah's campaigning! Hillary has a mom! I.don't.care.
Romney is a religious bigot! This is getting stale, but George S points out that the speech was the opposite of the JFK speech. Sam Donaldson agrees. Cokie agrees and points out that JFK would be in trouble for the speech today. George Will agrees with me that Romney went after atheists and agnostics, and has a real problem with that. One of us needs a drink, and I think I'll volunteer.
Everyone agrees that Romney is about to attack AwShucksABee, and do it hard, out of necessity. This could get very interesting. Huck didn't have the time or money to run two different investigations of himself before he declared, like the last GOOPer did...
In Memoriam
The 8 victims of the mall shooting
Ralph Binder (cameraman)
Robert Anderson (oil exec)
Elizabeth Hardwick (novelist, co-founder The New York Review of Books)
6 US soldiers (average age - 24.5)
John Cusak has a new movie. Writers' strike means no jokes to end the show.
posted by TheDon
Meat The Press
MTP has has a couple of good shows in a row, with panels as good as you could reasonably expect dealing with the presidential campaigns. Today is a change-of-pace, with a hard-hitting hour-long interview of His Honor, the Mayor of 9/11 himself. Yeah, right. I'm looking forward to a game of slow-pitch softball with Rudy! as the umpire.
I will only write about unexpected moments or insightful answers, so this ought to be a fast read.
Rudy! claims that he quit the 9/11 commission because he knew he would run for president, and his presence on the commission might unfairly cause people to accuse the commission of political bias in its conclusions. NOT because he would rather give speeches for money. Nope.
OK, that was way more empty than I dared dream.
What we "learned" from this show that we already knew:
Rudy!
- is not worried about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina primary losses.
- is happy to keep a preemptive attack on Iran on the table.
- laughs a lot during what should be serious discussions. Not as much or as inappropriately as Pat Robertson, but a lot.
- doesn't publicly embrace Norman Podhoretz's desire to bomb Iran ASAP, but doesn't distance himself from his core beliefs, either.
- mouths a lot of meaningless platitudes about everything, including Iraq and terrorism.
- blames Bill Clinton for not telling him how serious the Al-Queda threat was when they declared war on the US in 1998.
- cannot pronounce Qatar, despite doing a lot of business with their leaders. Also, he's OK with doing business with people who apparently financed and protected the people
who conceived and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Says they are allies of ours. Really, really good allies. - won't release client lists because they've mostly been publicly discussed anyway. Nothing to see here! He is not a crook!
- claims he did not vet Bernard Kerik carefully enough. FOR TEN FUCKING YEARS!!! OK, I added the last part...
- takes "responsibility" for Kerik's corruption, but in the same way that Republicans always take responsibility. He claims ignorance of the situation, but says he "should have been more careful". Yikes.
- has a really high opinion of himself as Mayor of New York.
- says he was basically forced to give tax-payer funded security to his girlfriend. Damn you, NYPD!!!
- refers to his current former mistress as "my wife, Judith". Every time.
- won't go after Huckabee for his "not Adam and Steve" comments.
- has committed sins.
- opposes increasing CAFE standards.
- "intends" to balance the budget.
Fawkes News
Oh God. McCain and Huckabee. I picked a bad week to give up political disengagement.
First up, Huckabee (who Chris Wallace actually calls "The Cinderella Man of the GOP Race".) The Huckabeans are now at 39% in Iowa, +/- 7%. A poll with more than a 5% margin of error is technically called "a wild guess", but let's play along. Attacking Romney is good for Saint Rudy!, a theory which I'm sure doesn't influence this fine news network!
WOW! Wallace starts with Aw-shucks-abee's 1992 stance on quarantining AIDS patients, cutting federal funding for AIDS research, and the sinful nature of homos. Huck claims that it was 1992, and who really knew very much about AIDS? He was just pointing out that political correctness was keeping them from doing the right thing (locking up the "carriers"). Why, just look at the amusingly mispronounced avian flu pandemic! We were planning on locking up "carriers" for that! Does he just assume that his tone of voice puts people to sleep, and they won't notice what he is saying?
Since it's not Rudy! lying to him, Wallace attacks! He points out that the CDC said in 1985 that you couldn't go poz from casual contact. Huck counters with some "better safe than sorry" crap, and points out that some of his best friends died of AIDS. One of them was even "in fact, a homosexual". Well! That's different! Dick.
Wallace plays a Charles Krauthammer quote, calling Huck a religious bigot. I have to admit that this show is a lot more fun since they picked sides in the GOP primary, and now their chosen candidate is in a little trouble. Huck calls "Charles" one of his very favorite columnists, and says he only dislikes the ones written about him. Says he talks about his own faith, but doesn't talk about Romney's
Huck goes much farther than I've seen him go before, and says that voters should not consider Romney's Mormon faith when they go into the voting booth, they should consider his flip-flopping on every single issue. I'm paraphrasing, but only a little.
Wallace calls Huck out on immigration because, even though he's embraced an agenda that would embarrass Tom Tancredo, and requires people in this country to go the fuck back to Mexico return to their homes and apply, last year he called for a "pathway to citizenship". According to Huck, that's not a change because he never said what that pathway was! Brilliant! And the only reason it would take years to get back here legally is government incompetence. His administration would get everyone back in a matter of days. Riiiiiiight.
Wallace attacks on the NIE gaffe, opposing waterboarding and wanting to close GITMO. He then asks how important other countries' opinions would be to his foreign policy. A really unfair characterization (but not unexpected), but Huck handles it well. Except for the pie-in-the-sky part about "as president I will make sure we have better intelligence".
Huck's against torture! And destroying damning CIA videos of torture. Now he's just trying to get me to like him. It won't work, but it's nice to be asked.
Next up, McCain.
McCain is glad that the AG is going to investigate the destruction of CIA torture videos? Huh? Is he breaking news here or just making it up? I'm thinking it's the latter. And he still opposes torture for all the right reasons.
DCI Hayden says they destroyed the tapes to protect the identities of CIA operatives. Ignoring what has to be the intentional irony, this is just plain BS. The tapes were destroyed because if they ever get out, lots of people are going to be charged as war criminals. I think that I would go to jail to get one of those tapes out, because nobody, after seeing what we did to get "confessions" from "terrorists" would ever support those methods. Except Cheney. And Limbaugh. Probably Coulter, too, but that's it.
McCain seems very tired this morning, and robotically recites the points that Iran is still "a significant threat and challenge", and would not take military attacks off the table, no matter what Robert Kagan says.
Wallace asks McCain what he thinks of Romney, and McCain talks about how much he respects and admires Romney, despite the fact that he doesn't know him very well, and that he has changed his position on many issues. And lied about McCain's positions in mailers.
McCain is still convinced that he's going to win New Hampshire. He's either deranged to the point of obliviousness, or the Straight Talk Express has a flat tire. Wallace points out that it's just kinda barely possible that the fact that independents in New Hampshire are breaking for Obama will kill his chances there. Then he admits that he may be engaging in wishful thinking. I'm starting to think this is his last hurrah as a public figure, and he's ready to retire.
Wallace takes a moment to wonder aloud why Obama and Edwards won't appear on their Fair-n-Balanced little show. Hmmmmmm... Can't even imagine why...
Panel time! Usual suspects Brit Humne, Nina Easton, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.
First topic is O!prah. Pardon me while I hit the fast-forward about 12 times...OK, 12 more...
Second topic is Romney's "I'm a proud, proud religious bigot" speech.Brit thinks the speech helped with the evangelicals, but I can't imagine that he's right. Juan agrees with me. So does Kristol, but I suspect his grudging admiration (which Kristol makes a point of) is more to support their favorite candidate, the increasingly unsupportable Rudy!
Nina's husband is a Romney advisor, and she gives some love to Romney and his hate speech.
Next up is CIA tapes, their destruction and the cover up. Wallace smirkingly intros a Ted Kennedy tape about the incident. Brit dodges the real issues and defends Hayden, but wants a better sounding explanation. Brit seems puzzled by the fact that the White House and others urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes and they did anyway. Nina switches to waterboarding and blames the Dems for not blowing the whistle sooner. Says that when the threat was bigger, everyone supported the actions, but now that people feel safer they are getting softer.
Kristol snarks away about how the character of the man who destroyed the tapes proves that he must have had honorable intentions, and Kennedy is a poopyhead. So much for the rule of law vs the rule of men.
Juan points out that the CIA actions are indefensible in a democracy. Brit brings up the conspiracy theory that the CIA hates W, and will do anything to make him look bad.Which brings us to the NIE. Nina spouts the Cheney administration line about Iran still being a threat, but adds a rumor that in 2003, leaders in Iran stopped the weapons program because they didn't want to hide it from international inspectors. Kristol, of course, connects the dots in 2003, and gives credit for stopping the weapons program to... wait for it... drum roll... the best war evah! Cue smirks and self-congratulation.
Kristol actually says, and I swear I'm not making this up, "this is yet another feather in the cap of the invasion of Iraq, it seems to me." Cheepers. Juan kills him for it, but Kristol is incapable of embarrassment or introspection.
This Weak
The NIE discussed by Biden and Newt. Mitt Romney on Faith. Oprah on the trail. It's gonna be a quick trip to the round table...
OK, both the Attorney General and the CIA have announced (according to This Weak) that they will investigate the destruction of the torture tapes. There's no mystery what Biden will say (obstruction of justice, special counsel, straight to the office of the president, etc), so it's time to see what Newt says, briefly. Very, very briefly. To clarify, I don't think I will disagree with anything Biden will say, but we're too early in this to spend a lot of time on speculation.
George points out the Biden is at 4% in Iowa, asks him how he's going to make a move in the next three weeks. Biden says he's going to do it the same way he's been doing it. Ummmm... yeah.... nice plan... let me know how that works out for you!
Newt, of course, agrees that the NIE is an attempt by 16 different intelligence agencies to destroy W's god-blessed crusade. How this fuck-wit gets on the TV is beyond me. Newt opposes torture completely, unless the president approves of it. Whatever that means. It's unworthy of America, unless it's not.
Looks like Newt stopped losing weight in anticipation of a presidential run. He could really use a salad and a long walk. Every day. It might help him stop saying stupid stuff, like "this administration is in full appeasement mode" when he talks about foreign policy. Maybe. It won't stop him from being a pompous ass who talks about Mitt's speech being the first time a politician has publicly confronted the assault on religion.
Be still my heart! If someone asks Newt to be VP, he'll reluctantly accept. Thanks! The Democracy is safe!
Time for some fast-forward action...
Round Table!
Oprah's campaigning! Hillary has a mom! I.don't.care.
Romney is a religious bigot! This is getting stale, but George S points out that the speech was the opposite of the JFK speech. Sam Donaldson agrees. Cokie agrees and points out that JFK would be in trouble for the speech today. George Will agrees with me that Romney went after atheists and agnostics, and has a real problem with that. One of us needs a drink, and I think I'll volunteer.
Everyone agrees that Romney is about to attack AwShucksABee, and do it hard, out of necessity. This could get very interesting. Huck didn't have the time or money to run two different investigations of himself before he declared, like the last GOOPer did...
In Memoriam
The 8 victims of the mall shooting
Ralph Binder (cameraman)
Robert Anderson (oil exec)
Elizabeth Hardwick (novelist, co-founder The New York Review of Books)
6 US soldiers (average age - 24.5)
John Cusak has a new movie. Writers' strike means no jokes to end the show.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A Foreign Policy Victory
posted by TheDon
posted by TheDon
The Cheney administration has scored another stunning diplomatic victory! By saber-rattling for the last year, they have caused the Iranian "regime" to stop developing nukeyuler weapons 4 years ago. This is just the most recent success of the Bush Doctrine of Retroactive Diplomacy. Attacking Iraq in 2003 caused them to destroy their weapons of mass destruction 10 years earlier, not to mention Libya negotiating the end of their nukeyuler program a year earlier. The Surge in Baghdad caused the Anbar revival to start one year earlier.
Fortunately, Rudy! has embraced this policy, claiming in his latest commercial that swearing-in Ronald Reagan caused Iran to retroactively negotiate and sign the Algiers Accords, releasing the US hostages. Thank god for such backward-looking leadership, both now and in the future. Or past. Whatever.
Freedom Needs Religion
posted by TheDon
Those were the words of Mitt Romney in his JFK speech this morning. His reasoning was that people are so corrupt, cruel and evil, that without religion, you can't trust them with liberty.
posted by TheDon
Those were the words of Mitt Romney in his JFK speech this morning. His reasoning was that people are so corrupt, cruel and evil, that without religion, you can't trust them with liberty.
In Psych 101 they call that "projection".
I will take Romney at his word that the only thing standing between him and a 25-to-life sentence for strangling his wife with the severed arm of Tagg is his Mormon faith, but for most of us, it just doesn't work that way. This speech fit perfectly in the tradition of clueless bigots proudly giving speeches which they think cast them in a good light. (What? I called him articulate! It's a compliment to them!)
I will take Romney at his word that the only thing standing between him and a 25-to-life sentence for strangling his wife with the severed arm of Tagg is his Mormon faith, but for most of us, it just doesn't work that way. This speech fit perfectly in the tradition of clueless bigots proudly giving speeches which they think cast them in a good light. (What? I called him articulate! It's a compliment to them!)
His exclusion of people without faith even surpasses W's speechwriters who have gone to great lengths to include the faithful and faithless, at least on paper. I can only assume that the evangelical focus groups who lump Mormons in with Satanists didn't appreciate being grouped with people like me.
There was a lot to dislike in the speech, and a whole lot of harmless, empty, patriotic rhetoric.
“A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”
"His"? And I assume from the context that a lack of faith is... different?
"His"? And I assume from the context that a lack of faith is... different?
“Nativity scenes and Menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”
Pentagrams? Upside-down crucifixes? Flying Spaghetti Monster monuments? I'm guessing that Mitt's tolerance for religion does have limits, and that's the point. He respects people of all faiths, as long as he gets to define what faith means, and they don't get chicken blood on him.
Speaking of the founding principles of this country, Mitt said, “They’re not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation united.”
No mention of the faithless. None. Would this be a bad time to point out that the people who are killing each other in Iraq are quite religious, and full of faith? They are not killing despite their faith, but because of it. The leaders in this country who are quite content to kill indiscriminately in Iraq are equally faithful, although I suspect they kill for reasons completely unrelated to faith. Mitt, who thinks he knows who Jesus would bomb, and who would double GITMO also claims faith. Less religion, more liberty, please.
The real howler to me was the standard rightie construction on where liberty originates. “Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of god, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world.”
Nice gift. When Mrs. TheDon gives me a gift, I normally don't have to go kill for it. Conversely, when I work my ass off, and spend thousands of dollars on something, I don't consider it a gift from anyone. Liberty is, and always has been, taken from the government by force, and guarded fiercely by people who want it badly enough.
So... nice speech, Mitt. There's not a chance that you convinced a single evangelical that you are a Christian, and there's no chance that they will come out and vote for you. They would rather vote for a corrupt autocrat who's on his third marriage, supports abortion rights and gun laws. At least he's Christian!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Cartoon for December 6
Oprah's nefarious influence on the book business--directing millions of new sales to mass-market tripe that needs no help whatsoever while deserving indie-press types get no help--is irritating enough. Now we have to listen to her unoriginal political opinions, too?
Oprah's nefarious influence on the book business--directing millions of new sales to mass-market tripe that needs no help whatsoever while deserving indie-press types get no help--is irritating enough. Now we have to listen to her unoriginal political opinions, too?
Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.
Monday, December 3, 2007
TED RALL COLUMN: FUTURE IMPERFECT, PART II
This is the second of a three-part series about the media.
Blind Newsman Gums Internet Dog
Last week, I discussed the blind faith that is leading media executives to invest heavily in online ventures at the expense of print. This week: will the Internet ever be profitable?
Americans are optimistic to a fault. Overthrow Saddam, we thought--yeah, that "we" includes a lot of liberals--and whatever came next would be better. I was skeptical. You couldn't ask for a worse government than the Taliban, yet what followed them in Afghanistan--anarchy, chaos, rape, genocide--was even worse. Which is what happened in Iraq.
Optimism is for suckers. Entropy rules the universe. In the absence of a powerful positive force to counterbalance it, things usually get worse.
Media executives are like the neocons, in their blind faith that a brighter future will inevitably emerge from the rubble of the crumbling edifice of print media. Sometimes the old order just goes away. Sometimes there is no new one.
U.S. newspapers report that quarterly revenues are up 21 percent for online, and down 9 percent for print. At first glance, it looks like new media is picking up the slack from dying old media. But total print revenue was $10.1 billion. Online totaled $0.8 billion. As a percent of overall newspaper industry revenues, online is up a smidgen over 1 percent. There's more Internet money coming in, but not nearly enough.
At The New York Times, which analysts point to as one of the most Web-savvy old media outfits, 13 million people read NYTimes.com every day. Only 1 million read the dead trees version. But print readers--7 percent of their customers--continue to generate 92 percent of the company's revenue.
The old order is in trouble. And the Thrilling! Shiny! New! Internet can't take its place. Online evangelists are tearing down the ancien régime without planning for the occupation phase. And they're inflating another Dot-Com Bubble.
If the future of media looks like the Web does now, things are about to degenerate from grim to grisly. Media outlets are firing professional journalists, replacing them with random bloggers. Musicians with sizeable audiences are collecting insulting pittances for downloads of their albums. Some creators are soldiering on, working for free or for pennies. But they won't do it forever.
Venture capitalists are investing in "consolidators," websites like the Drudge Report and Huffington Post that link to columns and articles written by unpaid bloggers and professionals who've managed to hold on to their jobs. Creative people who actually make the product they sell, meanwhile, are receiving squat.
It's inevitable that, sooner rather than later, these intellectual property vampires will suck creators dry. Professionals with mortgages and car payments will flee for greener pastures, replaced by hacks and rank amateurs happy to work for "exposure." We're already seeing the effect as journalism increasingly suffers deprofessionalization; 16-year-old bloggers with mad HTML skillz are demanding, and often receiving, equal access to readers.
Last week, I wrote about the content-is-dead mantra. The principle that intellectual property has value, and that those who create it ought to be paid, is in mortal danger. But people are willing to pay for content on the Internet. It just has to be easy.
Would you pay for Mapquest? I'd pay a quarter or a dollar for reliable directions from the airport to my hotel in a new city. Sometimes, while researching this column, I encounter a link to an archived newspaper article that I could use, but it charges a $2 or $3 download fee. The cost isn't the problem--it's a miniscule, and in my case tax deductible, expense to make my work better. But I don't bother. I don't pay for Mapquest, either.
I don't care about the money. I just can't stand filling out all those fields.
Each website requires you to enter personal data--your name, address, credit card number, expiration date, that stupid security code next to the signature on your card, and the billing address (as opposed to the shipping address). Frequently, website interfaces are buggy; make a mistake and you have to start all over again. I'll suffer through the ordeal if it's a site, like Amazon or Expedia, that I'll use repeatedly. But an archived article? Ain't worth my time to figure out how to get them my two bucks.
There is a solution to the online payment problem, says Simson Garfinkel, a fellow at the Harvard University Center for Research on Computation and Society and the author of "Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century." (Disclosure: We're friends.)
"If content is appropriately priced, of an appropriately high quality, and easy to access, people will pay for it," asserts Garfinkel. "What is required is a system that is easy to use and licensing terms that are not onerous."
A universal single-click payment system won't work, he says, because it would be vulnerable to hackers. We could overlay a national ID card or credit card system over the existing Internet. One of several competing micropayment systems may become dominant, creating a market-based solution. You'd register your debit or credit card info at one place. Then, when you wanted to download a song or read an electronic book or order shoes, you'd go to the vendor's website and click one button: "Buy."
Amazon sort of does this. After you've registered, you can buy a book by clicking one button. Just like that, it's on its way. We need something similar for vendors we've never dealt with before.
The solution will almost certainly have to be technology-based. And it will require us to give up the illusion of privacy. The government doesn't--and can't--know every time you access the Internet. But they do know enough, enough of the time, to separate the Usenet Bible study group members from the kiddie porn fans (OK, so those are sometimes the same folks, but you get the point).
Newspaper editors and publishers could reverse their decline by agreeing, en masse, to charge a substantial fee for their online editions--at least as much as for print. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Avoidance of long-term thinking is what's gotten the news biz where it is today.
In the long run, despite their suicidal tendencies, I suspect newspapers will survive, and even thrive, after the current shakeout. When radio was introduced in the 1930s, many analysts predicted the death of the record industry. Instead, radio promotion increased record sales. When television became popular in the 1950s, people said radio was doomed. The radio business is bigger than ever. The Internet was supposed to kill TV.
The newspaper business will change. Three major trends ensure that. They will also make it bigger than ever.
Next Week: The bright (sic!) future of newspapers.
COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL
This is the second of a three-part series about the media.
Blind Newsman Gums Internet Dog
Last week, I discussed the blind faith that is leading media executives to invest heavily in online ventures at the expense of print. This week: will the Internet ever be profitable?
Americans are optimistic to a fault. Overthrow Saddam, we thought--yeah, that "we" includes a lot of liberals--and whatever came next would be better. I was skeptical. You couldn't ask for a worse government than the Taliban, yet what followed them in Afghanistan--anarchy, chaos, rape, genocide--was even worse. Which is what happened in Iraq.
Optimism is for suckers. Entropy rules the universe. In the absence of a powerful positive force to counterbalance it, things usually get worse.
Media executives are like the neocons, in their blind faith that a brighter future will inevitably emerge from the rubble of the crumbling edifice of print media. Sometimes the old order just goes away. Sometimes there is no new one.
U.S. newspapers report that quarterly revenues are up 21 percent for online, and down 9 percent for print. At first glance, it looks like new media is picking up the slack from dying old media. But total print revenue was $10.1 billion. Online totaled $0.8 billion. As a percent of overall newspaper industry revenues, online is up a smidgen over 1 percent. There's more Internet money coming in, but not nearly enough.
At The New York Times, which analysts point to as one of the most Web-savvy old media outfits, 13 million people read NYTimes.com every day. Only 1 million read the dead trees version. But print readers--7 percent of their customers--continue to generate 92 percent of the company's revenue.
The old order is in trouble. And the Thrilling! Shiny! New! Internet can't take its place. Online evangelists are tearing down the ancien régime without planning for the occupation phase. And they're inflating another Dot-Com Bubble.
If the future of media looks like the Web does now, things are about to degenerate from grim to grisly. Media outlets are firing professional journalists, replacing them with random bloggers. Musicians with sizeable audiences are collecting insulting pittances for downloads of their albums. Some creators are soldiering on, working for free or for pennies. But they won't do it forever.
Venture capitalists are investing in "consolidators," websites like the Drudge Report and Huffington Post that link to columns and articles written by unpaid bloggers and professionals who've managed to hold on to their jobs. Creative people who actually make the product they sell, meanwhile, are receiving squat.
It's inevitable that, sooner rather than later, these intellectual property vampires will suck creators dry. Professionals with mortgages and car payments will flee for greener pastures, replaced by hacks and rank amateurs happy to work for "exposure." We're already seeing the effect as journalism increasingly suffers deprofessionalization; 16-year-old bloggers with mad HTML skillz are demanding, and often receiving, equal access to readers.
Last week, I wrote about the content-is-dead mantra. The principle that intellectual property has value, and that those who create it ought to be paid, is in mortal danger. But people are willing to pay for content on the Internet. It just has to be easy.
Would you pay for Mapquest? I'd pay a quarter or a dollar for reliable directions from the airport to my hotel in a new city. Sometimes, while researching this column, I encounter a link to an archived newspaper article that I could use, but it charges a $2 or $3 download fee. The cost isn't the problem--it's a miniscule, and in my case tax deductible, expense to make my work better. But I don't bother. I don't pay for Mapquest, either.
I don't care about the money. I just can't stand filling out all those fields.
Each website requires you to enter personal data--your name, address, credit card number, expiration date, that stupid security code next to the signature on your card, and the billing address (as opposed to the shipping address). Frequently, website interfaces are buggy; make a mistake and you have to start all over again. I'll suffer through the ordeal if it's a site, like Amazon or Expedia, that I'll use repeatedly. But an archived article? Ain't worth my time to figure out how to get them my two bucks.
There is a solution to the online payment problem, says Simson Garfinkel, a fellow at the Harvard University Center for Research on Computation and Society and the author of "Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century." (Disclosure: We're friends.)
"If content is appropriately priced, of an appropriately high quality, and easy to access, people will pay for it," asserts Garfinkel. "What is required is a system that is easy to use and licensing terms that are not onerous."
A universal single-click payment system won't work, he says, because it would be vulnerable to hackers. We could overlay a national ID card or credit card system over the existing Internet. One of several competing micropayment systems may become dominant, creating a market-based solution. You'd register your debit or credit card info at one place. Then, when you wanted to download a song or read an electronic book or order shoes, you'd go to the vendor's website and click one button: "Buy."
Amazon sort of does this. After you've registered, you can buy a book by clicking one button. Just like that, it's on its way. We need something similar for vendors we've never dealt with before.
The solution will almost certainly have to be technology-based. And it will require us to give up the illusion of privacy. The government doesn't--and can't--know every time you access the Internet. But they do know enough, enough of the time, to separate the Usenet Bible study group members from the kiddie porn fans (OK, so those are sometimes the same folks, but you get the point).
Newspaper editors and publishers could reverse their decline by agreeing, en masse, to charge a substantial fee for their online editions--at least as much as for print. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Avoidance of long-term thinking is what's gotten the news biz where it is today.
In the long run, despite their suicidal tendencies, I suspect newspapers will survive, and even thrive, after the current shakeout. When radio was introduced in the 1930s, many analysts predicted the death of the record industry. Instead, radio promotion increased record sales. When television became popular in the 1950s, people said radio was doomed. The radio business is bigger than ever. The Internet was supposed to kill TV.
The newspaper business will change. Three major trends ensure that. They will also make it bigger than ever.
Next Week: The bright (sic!) future of newspapers.
COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
