Recently in
Around The Blogs Category

Next year the YearlyKos convention will be expanded in order to accomodate more the idea of the progressive blogosphere in general. It will be called Networks Nation. Suz and I attended a Forum where bloggers were able to question some members of the mainstream and also alternative media and asked some hard questions. In the process of reading some of the current articles on the mainstream media and bloggers I came across this article by Juan Cole, who was one of the speakers at YearlyKos. He makes some thought-provoking points.

Mainstream Media and Bloggers
by Juan Cole

Matthew Haughey says he won't read our blogs if we use the term "mainstream media" (a.k.a. MSM).

A news flash for Matt: We don't care.

We don't care if you read our web logs.

The difference, Matt, is that we are independent actors, not part of a small set of multi-billion dollar corporations. The difference is that we are not under the constraints of making a 15% profit. The difference is that we are a distributed information system, whereas MSM is like a set of stand-alone mainframes. The difference is that we can say what we damn well please.

If we were the mainstream media (perhaps better thought of as corporate media), we would care if you threatened to stop reading us. Because although we might be professional news people, we would have the misfortune to be working for corporations that are mainly be about making money.

We would be ordered to try to avoid saying anything too controversial (and I don't mean "Crossfire" controversial), because we would be calculating what would bring in 15% profits per annum on our operating capital. Would hours and hours of television "reportage" and discussion of Michael Jackson or of Terri Schiavo or Scott Peterson (remember?) bring in viewers and advertising dollars? Then that is what we would be giving the public. Bread and circuses.

Would giving airtime to Iraq, where we Americans have 138,000 troops and are spending $300 billion that we don't have, be too depressing to bring in the audience and advertising and the 15% profit? Then we would dump it in favor of bread and circuses. We'd dump Afghanistan as a story even faster, since there are "only" 17,000 US troops in that country, and it is only a place where Ben Laden may be hiding out and from which the US was struck on 9/11, leaving 3,000 dead and the Pentagon and World Trade Center smouldering.

If we were the mainstream media as Ashley Banfield was, our careers would be over if we mentioned a little thing like the replacement of journalism with patriotism in the coverage of the Iraq War. Or if we said things like Ashley did of March-April 2003,

"You didn't see where those bullets landed. You didn't see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage-? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you're getting the story, it just means you're getting one more arm or leg of the story . . . I can't tell you how bad the civilian casualties were. I saw a couple of pictures. I saw French television pictures, I saw a few things here and there, but to truly understand what war is all about you've got to be on both sides. You've got to be a unilateral, someone who's able to cover from outside of both front lines, which, by the way, is the most dangerous way to cover a war, which is the way most of us covered Afghanistan. There were no front lines, they were all over the place. They were caves, they were mountains, they were cobbled, they were everything. But we really don't know from this latest adventure from the American military what this thing looked like and why perhaps we should never do it again. The other thing is that so many voices were silent in this war. We all know what happened to Susan Sarandon for speaking out, and her husband, and we all know that this is not the way Americans truly want to be. Free speech is a wonderful thing, it's what we fight for, but the minute it's unpalatable we fight against it for some reason."

If we were mainstream media we would be wholly owned subsidiaries of General Electric, the Disney Corporation, Time Warner, Rupert Murdoch, Viacom and so on and so forth. Ninety percent of cable channels are owned by the same companies that own the big television networks.

It isn't a matter of journalism being a business. How good journalism is when practiced in the service of a business depends on the owner's philosophy and economic goals.

(for continuation by Ted Turner, keep reading)
(photos of bloggers, young cameraman and Fox News cameraman by DiAnne Grieser)

There's much discussion underway in the blogosphere and in the media on the use of the term civil war to describe the violence in Iraq in the mainstream news media. NBC applied the term yesterday on the Today Show and in its nightly news broadcast--after much editorial forethought.

The conclusion that the sectarian violence in Iraq was a civil war is not new. It was drawn over five months ago by Monica Duffy Toft for the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. It was confirmed through the scrutiny of six questions identifying the players, their roles and the type of conflict for this country. And the blogosphere has been saying the same thing for the last three years. Check out Steve Gilliard's 2003 post on Daily Kos (hattip to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake for the heads up).

The use of the term civil war has raised serious red flags in the White House, who are now engaged in a full fledged jihad against the use of the term. The mission: to keep all ten fingers and toes in the holes of the leaking seawall of fact. Yesterday, in the face of the use of the term civil war, the President blinked, and instead of seeing or acknowledging the writing on the wall, today, he just saw the wall.

It's interesting to watch the twists and turns of the bubble reality and acrobatic contortions of the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Set as they encounter this new concept called reality. How much more reality will it take before it's acknowledged and something can be done? How can we allow one more American or Iraqi to die for a mistake when a mistake can't even be recognized?

Casey and I thought it might be a good idea to reflect on all the things we can be grateful for as the results of the 2006 midterms come in:

Here's one.

Here's another.

How about this one. (buh-bye Ms. Harris wherever you are...)

And I personally like this.

And speaking on behalf of the city by the Bay, I would like to add this:

S P E A K E R P E L O S I

And who can deny this one makes your heart feel quite full. (Thank you again for your courage, Michael J. Fox.)

We will be adding more updates as the tight races open up, particularly the ones in the Senate, where Montana and Virginia are still neck and neck.

I'm sipping a beautiful Cab Syrah. Last time I spoke to Karen, which was 4pm my time, she said Dick told her to get the champagne. It's 11:30pm in California, and the Daily Show Midterm Midtacular is on.

But before I go, Casey INSISTED I add this to the list as the most important reason why we should be grateful for the 2006 midterm elections:

We won't have two years of this.

UPDATE: More good news on the Senate front, from the great states of MT and VA.

[This is a real-world post and reply culled from the progressive blogosphere. If there's a thought-provoking exchange that you'd like us to revisit here, please send us an email with the posts and replies along with the original source URL.]

Dear Liberals,

The get-out-now protesters are simply wrong on Iraq. We can't just leave Iraq like that. It's not that simple. War is tough. Most Americans are now against the Iraq war but it has nothing to do with morality. The public is simply against it because currently we're not winning it. If Iraq was stabilizing and there was much less violence, then support for the war would go through the roof. We need to put even more troops in Iraq if necessary to help the Iraqi forces and defeat the insurgents. Nobody asked "When will our troops come home from Europe?" after we suffered heavy casualties on the beaches of Normandy.

signed,
R. Joe Voter


---------------------


Dear R. Joe,

Here are some points for you to ponder, then.

DCP blogger dwahzon introduced me to a blog called, The Fourth Rail. Here is DW's take on it:

Please check out Bill Roggio's The Fourth Rail. He's former military and a reporter who's done 2 rounds of embed, 1st in Iraq in 2005 and then in Afghanistan in 2006. His reporting on what’s going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan is unlike anything you’ve seen or heard or read in mainstream media. He's very nicely summarized many of his postings in this entry called "The Fall of Waziristan". After his (somewhat lengthy) intro, he links to his series of posts on the Taliban takeover of Waziristan, each with a short synopsis, including his remarkable posts, Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and Greater Talibanistan. The foreign policy and military significance of this information is incredible and he started raising flags in January of this year and kept on doing so.

The detail and background information I've seen on this blog is altogether MIA in the corporate media.

This is why Americans are "surprised" when something happens overseas that finally breaks through the threshold of ignorance. The info was there all along -- the clues that something was going on -- but very few were paying attention.

Of course, it's hard to pay attention when news corporation have slashed foreign bureau operations to maximize profits and minimize actual news. But the real news is, in fact, out there. It's just not likely to be found on the "news" outlets. It's on the blogs. And when we find good sources of information, such as Bill Roggio's blog, we want to pass them along to you so you can pass them along and we can breakthrough what DW has aptly labelled, The Threshold of Ignorance.

I came across a few interesting things that I think folks would be interested in.

At Daily Kos, diarist Tarhellian51 has a piece up (part of a series I believe) about understanding the dynamics of voter turnout. While I understand that voter turnout might not be the sexiest part of politics, knowledge is power. And I think there will be an interesting discussion arising out of the 2004 election on in-state grassroots for GOTV operations versus importing the paid masses to come in and do it. Bear in mind, that the same consultants who are the inside the beltway types that hate Dean's 50 state strategy, are also the same folks, in a number of instances, who run these professional grassroots-for-hire firms. This is a discussion that parties should be having as soon as possible.

Over at Talking Points Memo, guest blogger Matt Yglesias points us to a piece on understanding Arab media, written by David Ignatius. The explosion of Arab media and its influence in the Middle East on politics and terrorism is barely discussed here, other than to call Al-Jezeera names. This is a mistake. The effect of the recent ability for Arab populations to reccieve mass communications is a component of understanding the Middle East that must be taken into account. In a related item, Anthony Shadid did an interview with Terry Gross on NPR which aired last night. Once of the things he discussed was how media played a role in the War In Lebanon, and how the US media becamse part of the story. Go give a listen while you wash the dishes or fold laundry. You'll be glad you did.

Last, but not least by any means, is Melissa Block's interview with Sarah Chayes. Here's the introduction, which gives you an idea of Chayes background, but her story unfolding throughout the interview, and the true story of the US role in Afghanistan will astound you.

Sarah Chayes is a familiar name to NPR listeners. She reported for NPR from Paris, the Balkans, and after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan. She became so captivated by the potential of Afghanistan that she left reporting, and started a nonprofit group in the southern city of Kandahar.

She still lives in Afghanistan, now running a cooperative agricultural venture that sells local soaps and oils. Chayes has written a book about her years in Afghanistan. Her book tells a story of corrupt warlords, counterproductive U.S. policy, and murder.

Sarah Chayes has written a book about her experiences in Afghanistan titled, "The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After The Taliban". Again, go give a listen. You will be glad you did.

People ask me how I pick out the blog pieces for roundup. I don't have a process or guidelines. That's probably bad. Oh, well. I just try to find things that I think will add to the conversation, things that will add to our collective base of knowledge for future use, and sometimes things that me me laugh. Today was not one of the things that make me laugh days, but I did find a number of platinum nuggets out there that will enrich anyone who cares to read or listen.

Hope you enjoy.

[photo from the New Haven Register]

A good friend of mine once said, "Words are weapons", and in no uncertain terms, so are names.

Naming someone or something puts a spotlight on that person or thing, defining them in a way that can uplift (e.g., "hero" or "patriot"), or accuse (e.g., "traitor" or "terrorist"). Naming joins you to a community, or removes you as an outcast.

Naming also demeans. Take for example Presidential hopeful George Allen on the re-election stump for his Senate seat in Virginia, pointing out a young man, S.R. Sidarth, while speaking before a predominately white audience. Mr. Sidarth, of Indian descent, is a volunteer for Allen's opponent Jim Webb. Allen questioned Sidarth's presence, repeatedly calling him a "macaca".

Today's editorial in the WaPo framed it as life in "George Allen's America". And yesterday, Josh Marshall ironically referred to it as one of Allen's more relatively "innocent" gaffes.

Racism by any other name still remains what it is. We're still recovering from battle scars caused by a long history of racial tension, divide and oppression. Now was it just Allen's gaffe or a revelation on his history, preferences and predilections? Did he think he could get away with it without consequences because he was surrounded by a predominately white audience? In all his years as a Senator of the United States, let alone his consideration to run for President in 2008, wasn't there a message somewhere on his desk that such sentiments are frowned upon as abhorrent in multi-ethnic America?

Perhaps he should ask Trent Lott. He knows the consequences of such words. All too well.

Day 17 and no cease-fire.

Dr. Rice aims for a "durable peace".

And on top of that: John Bolton's re-confirmation hearings.

This is your diplomacy roundup, where the range wars are waging madly out of control, and now there's a surprising new player in an old conflict.

Happy Friday everyone.

UPDATE: Via Nim, this is seriously messed up.

On days like yesterday, I am full of gratitude for other bloggers, both here and elsewhere. My ethernet connection was down all day yesterday, but thanks to the posts of people all over, I can go back over the days events from a wide variety of perspectives and get a real-time sense of what happened.

It always amazing to read across the blogs and see the fine writing, knowledge, and depth of personal commitment different bloggers bring to their craft.

These are just a few of the things I came across that I found interesting:

AJ at AmericaBlog gives an excellent explanation of the Israel-Lebanon situation, in a thorough, concise and clear-eyed way that our addled media seems incapable of. (It was painful and embarassing today to watch CNN, who couldn't seem to keep straight the difference between Palestine, Lebanon, Hezbollah and Hamas).

A TPM reader writes in on why Bush's jaw-dropping frat-boy behavior at the G8 is actually newsworthy. Robert Scheer, writing at Truthdig, explores this further. As an aside, I wonder how annoyed the White House is at their experience with warrentless eavesdropping?

NYCEve heartbreakingly documents her one-woman fight for healthcare justice here.

The NYT headline on Ralph Reed's loss in GA Lt. Governor race speaks volumes: "Ex-Lobbyist in Abramoff Case Loses Georgia Race". No more the saintly "Christian Coalition Leader"? One can only hope...

Personal observation: Is it me, or is this administration incapable of recognizing crisis until it's at least three days old? Witness 9/11 response, Tsunami relief, Katrina and now evacuation of Lebanon.Not only do they seem incapable of leading in a crisis, they seem utterly incapable of even recognizing one.

Professor Juan Cole of Informed Comment posts a letter from a friend in Beirut.

And finally, Billmon guest posting at FDL on the party yet to be heard from in the latest conflict: Al Qeada.

That's what I have this morning. What do you have?

So far, the week has been a strange series of the weird and unexpected. Ken Lay dies. The all-European FIFA Match. North Korea test-launches long-range missiles.

Take your pick. It's Open Thread time, ladies and gents...

My son and I have argued over time about the potential influence of political blogs, ie. whether they constitute "netroots" or "nutroots". His fairly traditional coursework taught him that the left cancels out the right in the grassroots and the numbers of the liberal blogosphere were not significant enough to make much difference.

Recently, as he nears graduation, his position is beginning to shift as the influence of blogs continues to grow as political science professors and political candidates watch with fascination. I gave him Joe Trippi's book about the internet. It turned out to be the text for one of his classes. I think he's almost ready to admit that mother knows best.

Recently Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos was in Seattle to promote his book Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics, with Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, who coined the term "netroots". I wrote about it here the next day, and he referenced the article in a diary on his blog. This morning I read a very interesting article in one of our local papers called "Political Bloggers Step in to Rally the Troops: Sites create buzz, raise funds for candidates."

It relates how one of our local congressional candidates is a former blogger who decided to run for office in a Republican district, against a popular Sheriff who was instrumental in catching the Green River Killer. Bloggers helped her raise enough to qualify for inclusion in the national "red to blue" program, which qualifies her for additional aid. "If that's not a sign of the growing power and influence of the local blogs, I'm not sure what is," Markos Zuniga wrote online.

President Bush will speak to the nation tonight in yet another not-really-ready-for-prime-time attempt to repair his hopelessly damaged Presidency.

Josh Marshall wrote a comment on the highly public pandering involved in the President's desire to send the National Guard on border patrol:

But am I wrong to think that the president simply couldn't square the circle between the corporate cheap-labor forces who fund his campaigns and the cultural conservatives who supply his voters? Growing out of that failure, this 'militarize the border' hokum is the policy announcement equalivent of crawling under his desk and screaming "Help!"

Nail meets head.

And Josh also tells us that the White House is now saying that this plan to militarize the border is only temporary.

Riiiggghhht. Tell that to the troops who are doing their third tour of duty in Iraq.

The problems of border security in the United States are serious, and politically expedient solutions are dangerous to our national security. We need real solutions, not election theater that use our troops to try to get Republicans elected.

It's not just a stupid idea. It's a shameless one as well.

There is an important piece of legislation before the Commerce Committee in Congress this week and everyone who reads this should get involved.

The Democracy Cell Project, as a 501(c)(3) will not argue one way or another on this piece of legislation, except to point out that we think neutrality of access on the net is a principle of democracy, part and parcel of freedom of speech, or in this case, freedom to be heard.

One commentor, as noted over at Eschaton this morning, called this legislation, Medicare Part D for the internet. Kevin Drum doesn't understand it, or why people think it's so bad. You see the problem.

Fortunately, there are MANY MANY posts on blogs about this issue that will help you to understand the fate of the internet is this legislation passes.

Please get involved. Here's a short list of blogs that are posting on this matter with links to the issue. There are also several blogs that have been started to deal specifically with this issue.

My DD - Has a good round-up on the issue

Taylor Marsh guest posting over at FireDogLake with a more in-depth essay and great links

You Tube - This short video explains the issue.

SaveTheInternet.com - The name says it all

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo - Josh gives the crisp explanation

Political Animal - Comment section helps to answers the questions on the issue that Kevin poses that you may share.

Get involved now. The vote could come as soon as tomorrow. The National Journal reports that the raised profile of this issue is making a difference. Be part of that difference.

Go visit the links and make your voice heard today on this important issue.

Here are some of the things I have been reading in the comments sections that are rational and well thought out:

From a Daily Kos commenter:

This op-ed was not written by a senator or a former presidential candidate, though John Kerry is both those things.

It was written by a former soldier who has been fighting for fellow veterans and for the safety of our troops for 35 years. This former soldier is pissed off at the needless suffering and death he's seen on his visits to Iraq, he's pissed off that he was lied to by his own president and that kids are dying as a result. He's had enough and this is both a warning shot to the Bush administration and a call to arms.

A call to all of us who care about the heartless, heedless, ignorant foreign policy of this administration which is throwing away lives every day. A call to me and a call to you.

This op-ed was written by a guy who's been there and wants our troops HOME and out of danger. But he's also a decorated officer and an excellent, educated military strategist and possibly the most informed, caring member of the Senate Foreign Services Committee. What you're reading here is the result not only of combat experience but also of conversations with generals on the ground and troops on the spot. It is also the result of careful assessment of the diplomatic possibilities of the region and discussions with the leaders of surrounding countries.

So forget all your opinions about Kerry the Senator and Kerry the Candidate -- answer this call and spread the word of Kerry the Veteran and Patriot. What he's saying here makes SENSE.

Send letters to the editor, forward this op-ed to everyone you know, call your local TV stations and talk about it and demand they cover it, and forward it to your members of congress and make sure they know you want them to do whatever they can to make it happen! What John Kerry is calling for here is important not for Democrats or Republicans, but for our country and for the world.

And from Tena at the blog First Draft in response to a commenter (who is not a troll). The commenter's post is in italics:

I mean, I'm grateful that he did, but in both cases it's kind of a day late and a dollar short..... steve simels

I don't think so, and I'll tell you why, and it isn't because I think Kerry is the shizzy. It's because the first goddamned thing out of every Repug's mouth and every f****** pundit's mouth for months has been: The Democrats have no plan. The Democrats have no ideas. Ok, here's a plan and it's based on reality and I like it - it's a good damn plan, the best I've seen. With the most well-reasoned support, and rather succinctly put, at that.

Can we put aside moaning about Kerry long enough to have some appreciation for the plan? Am I the only one who thinks it make perfect sense?

And steve simels responds:

No...as I said, I'm glad Kerry is doing this and I think the party should get behind him on it. steve simels | 04.04.06 - 11:52 pm | #

The above is a good example of what supporting Kerry on the blogs looks like, and how we can use blogs to gain more active support for an issue we are working on, or rebut complaints folks may have, and change opinion through discussion.

From Phoenix Woman:

Kerry's throwing out a lifeline to the other Democrats, and saying "Here's a workable stance on Iraq, a lifeline you can use to set yourselves apart from the Republicans who are chained to Bush and his war. F*** Lieberman, ignore him; he's just a Bush groupie anyway. Use my lifeline to ease away from the Bush/Iraq sinking ship and onto the waiting lifeboat."

From David in Austin:

I am surprised, to this day, the number of Democratic supporters who refuse to support Democrats (Lieberman excepted), who chose to stand up and display some attachments.

Should Kerry have been more forceful in 2004?

What does it matter in 2006.

Good point, not to mention the fact that the majority of Americans still supported the war in Iraq in 2004. That has changed dramatically. That is what gives this proposal an excellent chance of having impact.

I put these posts up because they demonstrate some of the arguments being thrown around out there, and because they are effective in addressing them.

Effectiveness in addressing arguments against one's position is not a partisan issue. It's a political skill that takes constant practice.

Please take these ideas with you as you post around the blogs today, showing support for the solutions that are being presented.

And then come back here and post in the comments what you are hearing and seeing out there, and what the effective responses are.

Sometimes I read pieces by Digby that are just so good, that I think I will just quit writing altogether. Digby wrote a great piece that says everything I wanted to say, only better.

So here it is. Digby on the media contortionists.

And I guess as long as there is politics, I won't run out of things to write about anytime soon. Probably by this afternoon.

In the meantime, there's Digby.

Oh, and about Ben Domenech, plagiarist extraordinaire, somebody might want to give WaPo a call and tell them the building's on fire.

In Frank Ahren's column about the intersection of culture and the internet, he asked readers a pretty basic question, but one I am sure elicited some pretty complex responses.

Why do you blog?

Here are some of the answers:

For some, blogging is not a hobby -- it's crucial:

· "Blogging is engaged democracy. It creates an end-run around power publication, in that the people with the most power control what is heard."

· "In a sense, blogging allows more than simple social feedback; it provides a digital foundation on which individuals, who frequently feel increasingly divorced from society, can build their relationship to the rest of the world. It is the new PlayStation, in many million more homes, and with a terribly far social reach."

· "I blog for the same reason lots of 20-somethings blog -- if I didn't blog, I wouldn't have any friends. Blogs may be the most complex pen-pal system ever created. . . . As sad or self-indulgent as it may seem to an older generation (of mostly Luddites), the Web log is just one facet of a new kind of community and a changing world. My Web log is the family newsletter, the virtual refrigerator door, the rotary club meeting, the office water cooler, the love letter and the town newspaper."

Some blog for one reason, then end up blogging for another:

· "I started blogging when I was deployed to the Green Zone in Baghdad and the funniest thing happened: I got an e-mail from my 13-year-old daughter saying, 'I don't even know who you are anymore.' The strange thing about it was that for the first time she actually was learning about who I am -- what I think, what some of my opinions are; things that did not come up in our normal daddy/daughter relationship."

· "When I started blogging, I ran into a maxim, which I'll paraphrase: If only the birds with the best song sing, the forest will be very quiet."

These are just a few of the responses he got.

We'd like to hear from you. Why do you blog?

(Please feel free to use a different blogging name if you want to contribute an answer but feel it's more personal than you would be confortable with under your regular blogging name. We mention this because we are a community here; one that has grown and shone through adversity and victories. Since we would like to hear as many responses as possible, we would do our best to remove any bars to people responding.)

Thank you.

It's been a rough week -- shucks, a rough winter -- for hard news and heavy thinking here on the DCP blog. With that in mind, it seems only appropriate to lighten things up for a little while this afternoon by calling your attention to the most recent skirmish in the ongoing feud between William James "Blah Blah Bill" O'Reilly and Keith "Don't Call It SportsCenter" Olbermann.

The public feuding between the two commentators has been heating up to full-blown Hatfield-McCoy levels in recent days, and the blogosphere is having a field day with it.

William F. Buckley, America's leading conservative and founder of the National Review Magazine (and NRO) penned a column last week, declaring the Iraq War Is Lost.

Bill Buckley has never been what anyone would characterize as a cheerleader of the Iraq War, either before or during what has now become a barely organized carnage-in-the-sand/civil war. However as a well-mannered conservative, he was willing to stand by and watch uncritically as the Bush Administration proceeded to destabilize the entire Middle East, throwing the hope of peace in that troubled region, in our time, or our children's time, out the window.

All of that has now officially changed. He has now declared the war lost. Ya think, Bill?

I'd be fascinated to know upon which particular disaster he has based his pronouncement. Is it one incompetent choice, or the sum of the incompetent parts that has caused the clouds to lift and Buckley to have a clear view of what has been obvious to over 60% of Americans for some time now (despite the media ignoring that fact). Among the bare points he makes against the administration his arguments run mostly towards the Iraqi blaming front: America gave Iraq a great chance at democracy-too bad they just weren't up to the magnificent opportunity we blessed them with. Or a hearty, "Hey, we gave it our best shot," as if the politics-first decision making over the policy-last decision making had no influence whatsoever on how the war was lost. As such, while Buckley's made a step in turning his face toward the reality in Mecca, his body politic has not yet followed.

Even this much though, is enough to blow the burnt embers of free thought on right into Buckley effigy-burning flames of indignation.

To be sure, there has been a clash of reaction among the third-rate fifth columnists of the fourth estate to Buckley's about-face in facing reality. I generally don't have either the time or the stomach to read them all.

Yet, there has been one standout among the Buckley opinionists, Jeff Goldstein.

Goldstein has only dim view of Buckley's enlightenment. He seems to think that since Buckley is a conservative purist, the fact that he has prounounced the war is lost, doesn't really count against him, you know, the way it would if he were on the political left, which has always seen the war as a losing proposition.

That is just a bizarre accounting of responsibility, no matter how you look at it.

No, Goldstein contends that is wasn't the Bush Administration mismanagement of the war that has caused this result, but rather the failure of those opposed to the war before its beginning, to then fall in line and goose-step our way to a cheery victory. If only we hadn't noticed that the war wasn't going well and said something critical about the poor decisions being made, it would all be different. Bill Buckley is not included among the non-marchers who have caused this sad result. He is excluded by virtue of the fact that even though he knew better, and believed the war was wrong, he did nothing to dissent.

I see. To stand and watch massacre and do nothing is now a virtue.

Well, there have been a number of reactions to Goldstein's idiotic contention, many snarky and witty, but amongst them there was this gem of an interesting point that is important and not snarky, from Sifu Tweety at The Poorman Institute:

Got that? He accepts complete responsibility for his continuing support of the war, because it’s totally going awesome and will work out great. Unless it doesn’t turn out great, in which case liberal critics of the war need to understand their grave responsibility for pointing out from the very beginning how not-great it would, in fact, turn out to be.

Here’s my little translator’s key to this emerging talking point: Republicans attach incredible importance to media criticism of the war, because they genuinely believe that the war is won and lost IN THE MEDIA. The American media, that is. Their partisan selves are so thoroughly embedded in the culture-jamming electioneering of the Rovist personality cult the GOP has become that they genuinely don’t recognize the difference between actually achieving peace and a non-doomed secular democracy in Iraq, and just being able to plausibly claim that peace on American TV.

Such is the state of the American media. Such is the power that the consolidation of the media into the voice of corporatism, instead of voice of the people, wields. The power to wage war, or at the very least, the power to sharply and decidedly influence the conduct and outcome of a war.

So the new reality is now the war is all the media's fault. And when it's not the media's fault, it's the Iraqis fault, for not being responsible enough to handle democracy. And when it's not the Iraqis fault, it's the political left's fault for not clapping harder for Peter Pan.

I wonder how long it will be until the pro war gang blame the left for the United States going to war in the first place.

Sadly, I doubt it will be very long. It seems that blame-shifting is the new black.

[Editor's note: The version of this article that was first published was a draft, and not the final product (such as it is) as is seen here. Blog software, user error, argghhh, blah, blah, blah. You've heard it all before. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thanks for understanding.]

Have you ever thought, "Hey, I could do that-" while you were watching Jib-Jab, or a snippet of South Park, or any other short political comedy bit?

Have you ever thought, "You know, I could put together a short montage of scenes from the war that would be way more powerful than what we are seeing on CNN?"

If you have, then I have just the place for you to go to. It's called the Contagious Festival.

Here's the announcement from festival organizer, Jonah Peretti:

The Contagious Festival is a unique opportunity for talented designers, political activists, filmmakers, comics, and everyone else to reach millions of people with creative, viral online work. The Huffington Post is expanding our pool of contributors beyond bloggers and we are looking for contributors with creative ideas that could become the next JibJab, Numa Numa dance, Detroit Project or Black People Love Us. The contestants that create the best projects get Internet fame, prize money, and the chance to meet with friends of the Huffington Post from the worlds of entertainment and politics to discuss future projects and opportunities.

The first round of entries went live, beginning on February 1st, but don't worry. You can join in the March entries. I urge you to go visit the site and watch these entries and vote for your favorite. There is quite an array of talent on display.

To enter the Contagious Festival, click here to get started.

For more information of the Contagious Festival, click here.

This is a great way to find new and creative voices coming from all over the globe. One of them could be yours!

Hell in Iraq just became one giant step closer to Hell in America.

As a result, there will be Hell to pay.

As we have discussed in this space many times, the media skews right. It's almost impossible not to notice the mulititude of conservatives vs. neutral reporters/very occasional progressive, on Sunday morning newschat shows. And yet we have seen something of a debate taking place over at Media Matters over just that fact.

Media Matters produces a study, states its methodology, and then the television folks from the traditional media strain credulity in their eagerness to refute the study's findings. In separate letters/columns to Media Matters, CBS's Public Eye's Vaughn Ververs, and Meet The Press' Executive Producer Betsey Fischer snipe at Media Matter's findings for not studying things that Media Matters never claimed it was studying in the first place, and, in fact, specifically claimed it wasn't going to study. It's roughly the equivalent of me doing a study on Idaho potatoes and including the methodology that I was studying only Idaho potatoes, and you sniping at me because I didn't include in my study the fact that there are also potatoes grown in parts of Russia.

Here's an excerpt from the back and forth between Media Matters and Fischer:

Betsy,

You ask why our report did not discuss Clinton's first term, and you say that "perhaps it's because statistics from Clinton's first term do not support their ill-defined 'conclusion.' " Later, you call our study "intellectually dishonest." You seem to be suggesting that we analyzed the data from those years, decided it didn't fit the point we wanted to make, and thus excluded it from our public report. That would have been appallingly dishonest, and it is frankly offensive for you to suggest that we have done so. I have been asked in a number of interviews why there is an imbalance on the Sunday shows, and I am always careful to say that we ascribe no sinister intentions to the producers. It is unfortunate that you apparently couldn't bring yourself to extend us the same courtesy.

Let me be clear: We didn't examine the guests from those years, so we have no idea what doing so would have showed. We decided to go back only as far as the second Clinton term because there were gaps in the Lexis-Nexis data, and we had to stop somewhere. Gathering and analyzing the data for all the nine years was itself an enormous task. Since you seem to have a complete list of guests on Meet the Press available, if you send it to us, we would be happy to analyze the first Clinton term.

As for the numbers you provide, it is you who have mixed apples and oranges. You say that for the first Clinton term, the guest breakdown was 56 percent Democrats to 44 percent Republicans. Since you are speaking only of Democrats and Republicans, the relevant comparison in our data is not the overall guest list, which includes not only elected and administration officials but all guests, including journalists; the relevant comparison is the list of elected and administration officials.

The complete inability for the traditional media to even hear the word bias, let alone be willing to examine that bias honestly and forthrightly is disturbing. This sort of snarky knee-jerk response that Fischer gave to Media Matters provides nearly as much insight into the problem as the Media Matters study itself. For how can you solve a problem, when you spend all of your time denying its very existence?

UPDATE: Well, there you have it. The Attorney General just told Senator Biden that we will be at war forever, as long as there is one person alive that could possibly be considered a threat to the United States or its interests. Any questions?

Glenn Greenwald will be doing much of the legal-blogging coverage, as he's both a lawyer and an expert on these issues.

And if you are up, Glenn will be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal tomorrow morning from 7:45-8:30 a.m EST debating the NSA scandal with University of Virginia Professor Robert Turner.

Glenn sez:

This clip of George Bush should be talked about all week -- why, if the Administration had all the legal authority in the world to eavesdrop without warrants and outside of FISA did it repeatedly make false statements to the public and to the Congress assuring us all that it was eavesdropping only in accordance with FISA? Parties make false statements in order to conceal their behavior only when their behavior is improper and wrong, not when it is justified and legal. And deliberately false statements of that sort from our government officials happen to be unacceptable and wrong, and really constitute a scandal unto itself.

Or at least they should constitute a scandal in and of themselves.

Glenn also has the inside scoop on Ted Kennedy's line of questioning and you can read about that here.

While Senator Kennedy's line of approach may be unexpected, it shouldn't be. There are only two real ways to win this fight, and one of them is already been somewhat lost. The first way, would have been to control the conversation. The White House wanted the coversation to be about National Security, while the rest of the folks who have read the Constitution, want it to be about The Constitution. That point has been lost, I fear.

So Senator Kennedy has done what I think is a wise move, which it appears would be to pivot, to cede nothing to the administration or Gonzales on National Security, but rather make them prove that this program actually worked, and worked so damn well, that it was worth breaking the law, et cetera.

Of course, having seen this committee at work during the Alito hearings, I kicked my expectations to the curb last week for any democratic coordination or effectiveness during this set of hearings.

I'm with Dr. Greenwald on this one - we'll all wait and see.

Consider this an open thread on the NSA hearings.

The Democracy Cell Project is reporting live from the Capitol, and will be doing so all evening.

WASHINGTON D.C.-Live Blogging the SOTU, and the Alternative SOTU happenings around Washington DC from today's activities and the plans for the evening events.

Karen is reporting in to us right now.

She is standing directly front of the Capitol. A cold wind is blowing in Washington tonight. Interestingly enough, there are about 14 FEMA trucks between the protesters and the Capitol itself. It's possible, though hard to believe, that these trucks somehow got lost on their way to provide relief in Louisiana, for what other purpose could they be here, when help is still so desperately needed there?

It's sadly heartwarming to see that flags are flying at half-mast in observance of the death of civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. To the program tonight for the Alternative SOTU, we have added a bagpiper who will be playing Amazing Grace at the beginning of the event, to honor Mrs. King's memory.

Right now nationally known performers Chris Chandler and David Roe are setting up the and sound checking their instruments. They will be contributing spoken word and musical performances this evening, along with geurilla poets, jazz musicians, folk musicians, a few tap dancers (and you thought they were all tap dancers in Washington were members of Congress, busily answering corruption charges), along with The Rhythm Workers Union, who will be bringing in the "mother drum ship". We're not quite sure what a "mother drum ship is", but it is certain to be more interesting than watching Mrs.Sob Sister Alito in the gallery sitting with the self-styled Laura "I AM a Desperate Housewife" Bush.

Earlier today, Karen wandered through many alternatives to the State of the Union. One highlight of the afternoon was the large "Impeach Bush" sign being driven around the neighborhood, courtesy of The Velvet Revolution.

Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan is doing many events today and Karen has run into her several times, and can report that it's much warmer in Venezuela than Washington, in more ways than one.

As the day wore on, it became clear that more people than ever before, are coming out of their homes and into the street to protest this president's policies and the lies and deceptions he and his administration have used to sell them to an unwitting, and sadly, and unquestioning public. But the public of years before, is not the public this administration will be facing this evening. The public is sending this President a message-his popularity is at 39% for a reason. People are angry, dissatisfied, and remember the sixteen words from the State of the Union of two years ago. And they remember that they were lied to. And the anger and the questions have just begun.

The limosines are beginning to arrive, carrying the scions of political power once more behind the gates, and away from We the People. But not for long.

Evening has fallen in Washington, and the perfume of dissent is sweeping briskly through the air.

Written and reported by Karen B. and Casey Morris, The Democracy Cell Project

[Editors Note: Cross-posted at The Daily Kos. There will be live blogging of the SOTU this evening beginning at 8:45 here on The Democracy Cell Project Blog, and in the IRC Chat Room. Please come join us.]

There's alot going on and alot being written about what is going on, so I thought I'd do a short round up of what I have been reading and hope others will contribute links to their favorite or most compelling blog post of the day:

Wolcott: On Bush's Big Adventure and other fluffy puppy stories.

Digby: On the persistence and prevalance of intellectual dishonesty on the right.

The Washington Note: Today is our very lucky day. Steve Clemons (with Chris Nelson's permission) reprints the entire Nelson Report, which, as Steve rightly notes, is "one of the single best daily US-Asia policy and national security issues analysis letters in Washington. Normal beings can't subscribe, and it's not available on the web." But today we get it for free via Steve Clemons. Yippee!

juancole: Professor Cole is best expert on Middle East politics and policies I have ever read. Period.

The Buffalo Beast: The Beast gives us the 50 most loathsome people in America. Agree or disagree, you gotta admire the time and stomach it takes to even identify these folks.

majikthise: Today, Lindsay brings us up to date on the activities of one Kenneth Blackwell of Ohio. It seems Mr. Blackwell is getting pretty cocky-enough to allegedly hold illegal campaign-related inteviews in his taxpayer-funded office. (When I was both employed by the state and working on a campaign, I couldn't even use the phone in my office to make an interview appointment, let alone hold an interview in my office.) Of course, even more disturbing, as Lindsay points out to us, is what he say during the interview.

Dependable Renegade: Blogger Watertiger provides us with completely inappropriate humor at completely appropriate times. (may be unsafe for work or those who don't care for the colorful vocabulary of others).

Eric Boelert: How the collectively plays dumb about K Street. K Street? What K Street?

Feministe: My favorite law student blogger Jill, takes on the WorldNetDaily article by Joseph Farah enumerating
the anti-abortion folks position one by one.

Freeway Blogger: IMHO Everyone should read Freeway Blogger. It's inspirational, even if you don't freeway blog yourself. Who knows, you just might give it a try! Or maybe you already have!

Jesus' General: For humor, this is one of the funniest blogs around. Just as John Colbert stays endlessly in character for his show, the General is always in character, and always an 11 on the manly scale of absolute gender. If you already read this blog, here's a little tidbit I bet you didn't know--The General is a grandfather.

The Poor Man Institute: They do wingnut watch so I don't have to. The are also the group who bestows the Golden Winger Award to the Wanker of the Week.

FireDogLake: Jane, Reddhedd and Loren post about the United States happily outsourcing torture. In this story, Reddhedd links to Bob Geiger's blog who linked to us with nice word of praise for our blog yesterday (thanks Bob!). Below this story is also a good piece on the Alito vote today.

Bob Geiger: Bob Geiger opens the frameshop for the 2006 elections in this piece about Rove's strategy speech.

Ezra Klein: Ezra Klein is one busy guy. Today he is filling in for Ana-Marie Cox of Wonkette fame. He also writes his own blog and writes for Tapped. It's the Tapped article to which I direct folks, as it contains an interesting primer for the President's State of the Union speech next week.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of stuff out there, but I realized that we have posted an Around the Blogs Piece in a while. This is what I like. I'd lovee to hear about the blogs, besides this one of course, that you enjoy reading.

P.S. I left out the tops-in-pops folks like Atrios and Daily Kos, Josh Marshall and HuffPo, DU and others, since everyone seems to read those already.

Hope I directed you to something which will help move the gray cells around. Feast away!

[Editor's Note: I opened my mail this morning and it was full of requests to post on Alito. The first post is a call to action from DCP member Rick Albertson. The second post comes to us from DCP member Barry Schwartz. As some of you may know, Senate Majority Leader Frist has refused Senators time to speak on the floor of the Senate about Alito until January 25 (the day after the scheduled committee vote). In response, Senators are fanning out across America to give speeches urging action against the Alito confirmation. I will reprint a short portion of Senator Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) speech with a link to the full text. The upshot of these posts is clear. ACT NOW.]

CALL NOW

From Rick:

This news alert slash call to action comes direct to you from the fine folks over at Political Cortex. We're reproducing it here body and soul because goshdarnit, fellow DCPeople, this is important stuff and we all need to get on the horn and on the keyboard and make your feelings known before it's too late!

Via Political Cortex
[gently edited to comply with DCP's federal regulations]

Alito's not a done deal!

Over at Daily Kos they estimate he no longer has 60 votes!

Let's make sure thatwe are heard: CLICK HERE TO CALL YOUR SENATORS

John Edwards has endorsed this petition for FILIBUSTER

Phone, fax, and email addresses for the Judiciary Committee

People for the American Way has collected over 60,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours: Save the Court Petition

MoveOn.Org's Stop Alito Petition

Democratic Party's Reject Alito Petition

Stop the NRA's Oppose Alito Petition

And while you're at it, sign: Planned Parenthood Petition

NARAL Say "No" On Judge Alito

Brady Campaign

Human Rights Campaign

National Abortion Federation

National Council of Jewish Women

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

National Organization for Women

National Partnership for Women and Families

National Women's Law Center

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

US Action

From Barry, via WaPo:

It's all in the record.

Law professors at Judge Alito's alma mater, Yale Law School, analyzed more than 400 of his published opinions and concluded: "In the area of civil rights law, Judge Alito consistently has used procedural and evidentiary standards to rule against female, minority, age and disability claimants..."

"In the context of these civil rights cases, Judge Alito seems relatively willing to defer to the claims of employers, the government, over the individuals advancing civil rights claims."

KENNEDY: And other objective observers who have examined Judge Alito's record have reached a similar conclusion. According to an analysis by the respected University of Chicago law professor, Cass Sunstein, said, "when there is a conflict between institutions and individual rights, Judge Alito's dissenting opinions argued against individual rights 84 percent of the time. In almost all of the cases in which Judge Alito dissented in order to reject an individual rights claim, he was sitting on a court with a majority of Republican appointees."

A comprehensive review of Judge Alito's published opinions by Knight-Ridder similarly found that Judge Alito has "seldom sided" with "an employee alleging discrimination" and "almost never found a government search unconstitutional..."

An analysis published by The Washington Post found that "routinely, he defers to government officials and others in positions of authority" and has "very little sympathy for those asserting rights against the government."

In sum, in case after case, Judge Alito's decisions demonstrate a systematic tilt toward the powerful institutions and against individuals attempting to vindicate their rights. He cites a few instances in which he has decided for the little guy, but they are few and far between.

Justice Lewis Powell captured the spirit of America best when he said: "Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring idea of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists."

In evaluating Supreme Court nominees, there are no more important questions than whether they are dedicated to equal justice under law. Judge Alito is a highly intelligent man, but his record does not show a judge who is willing to enforce the constitutional limitations on executive power when government officials intrude on individual rights.

His record does not show a judge who is open to the claims of vulnerable individuals asking only justice against powerful institutions. His record does not show a judge who upholds the liberty and privacy of citizens seeking to protect their fundamental rights.

His record just does not show a judge who is committed to equal justice under law.

Full text of Senator Kennedy's speech can be found here.

It's clear. The time to act is now.

Blog entry written by Rick Alberson and Barry Schwartz, with contributions by Casey Morris and Suz Krueger.

In reviewing the blogosphere coverage of the Abramoff Corruption story, Think Progress seems to have the most comprehensive site listing all of the players involved and their areas of involvement.

For those that do not have the time to become Abramoffologists, this is a wonderfully user-friendly resource.

I have to say, seeing all of the information in one place and organized in this format, the scope of corruption is truly breathtaking.

If you have time, you might also want to stop by the Auction House at TPM Cafe, where Josh and Company have been following this story for months. TPM editorial assistant, Kate Cambor gives a helpful primer on the facts, backstory and color commentary available at their site.

Happy reading, folks!

[Editor's Note: This guest piece comes to us from Daily Kos commentor and diarist, Karateexplosions, who generously let us reprint it in its entirety. Click on the link to read more of K.'s writing. Many thanks Karateexplosions, and please visit us often!]
-----------

A major characteristic of the [United States] media is the extremely skewed sense of providing "balance".

To them, balance = fairness. And usually, they fail at both.

Let's say the Democrats hold a press conference to say that the sky is blue. The story the next day would look like this:

DEMS OBJECT TO SKY COLOR CLAIMS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats held a press conference late yesterday to dispute President Bush's (News - Links) recent claims that the sky is yellow. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (News - Links) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (News - Links) spoke to reporters from the Capitol steps to proclaim the sky as blue.

"Of course the sky is blue," claimed Reid. "Just look up and you can see it."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, however, later declared the Democrats' claims to be false, irresponsible, and misleading. "The President has proven -- and I have said -- this office has said that, in fact, the sky is yellow. That question has been asked and we have answered it and I am telling -- the president is saying -- that the sky is yellow. I think the American people understand that the sky is yellow. The Democrats would like to have the American people believe that things are blue, when they are not. That's irresponsible, and they are distorting the facts."

The controversy comes after President Bush visited a kindergarten class in Little Rock last week and colored a picture where he made the sky yellow. When one of the children questioned him on his color choice, the Secret Service removed the child and Bush declared the sky yellow. Following the incident, 49 White House scientists signed onto a letter the the New York Times confirming the color of the sky is, in fact, yellow.

Other Republicans have also weighed in on the matter. At a briefing at the Pentagon (News - Links), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (News - Links) addressed the issue by asking himself questions and then answering them while reporters silently transcribed. "Do I think the President of the United States has the right to determine the color of the sky? Yes, I do. Do I think the Democrats are filthy liars for suggesting otherwise? Absolutely. Do I think Democrats should find a different sky to live under if they don't like a yellow one? Definitely. Do I think it's racist against Asians to suggest the sky is not yellow? Well, you said it, not me."

In general, the public puts their trust in the Bush administration. "I think the truth might be somewhere in the middle," said one homemaker from Nebraska. "Maybe the sky is actually green. Or, probably closer to a greenish-yellow."

[K nails it exactly. Again, our thanks.]

[Editor's note: Just a reminder that The Democracy Cell Project is non-partisan. The opinion of the blogworld expressed below is the opinion of the writer. Thank you.]

I try to read alot of blogs. I am always on the hunt for who's writing something interesting, and who's offering a different take on the day's news. For fans of the former, there's the blog firedoglake, and for fans of the latter, there's Paul Begala's entry at Josh Marshall's TPM Cafe. Here's a bit about each:

Over at TPM Cafe, former Clinton advisor Paul Begala has written a very interesting piece on what it's like to be working in a White House that is 'under siege'. Here's a snippet, but it's worth going over for the whole read.

...This I know first hand: when The Boss explodes like that, there are two kinds of aides -- those who fight and those who flee. When he came to Washington, Mr. Bush surrounded himself with tough-minded people who seemed not to be afraid to stand up to him. But now his team is loaded with weak-kneed toadies, and Mr. Bush is home alone. Karl Rove, of course, is fending off a potential indictment. His prodigious brain has not entertained another thought in months. (That's why, I suspect, some months back Rove popped off and said liberals wanted to give terrorists psychotherapy after 9/11. It was a loopy, stupid, and distinctly un-Rovian, meltdown - the first public sign that the pressure was causing Karl to crack.)

Go here to read the rest.

The other blog I have been reading is called Firedoglake. Primarily written by an attorney and a former federal prosecutor (Reddhedd and Jane Hamsher, respectively), Firedoglake provides insight and context to the legal proceedings surrounding the leak investigation. They research the news exhaustively and put the pieces together in a way that is extremely helpful and understandable while steadfastly refusing to condescend to their audience.

Also, they are witty and clever without being either cutesy or mean. A perfect example is this morning's post. Everyone knows that Fitzgerald's office is leakproof. The only comment they ever have is no comment. And yet, Jane manages to get a story anyway:

"The spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Sanborn, refused to comment." I can't tell you how many times I've read that line. Every time I open a paper, it seems. And I'm always thinking, I want this guy's job -- he could be phoning it in from the high Himalayas for all we know.

So when I called him up the other day I expected the same thing. Since I'm working on a post on Fitzgerald, I had to do the obligatory request for an interview, which I knew he'd turn down, which he did.

"One more thing," I said. "I'd like to know if you could confirm the Viagra pen story."

As commentor Spinnaker noted below in the previous thread, Lindsay Beyerstein of the blog, Majikthise, held a fundraiser a short time ago so she could travel to Texas and cover the Tom DeLay perp walk and arraignment.

Having reached her fundraising goal, Lindsey was at the event yesterday and has posted her photo gallery and Amanda's account of the proceedings on her (sic) blog here.

Aside from Tom Delay's maniacally beaming mug shot, I have yet to see any other photos of this historic event in any of the major news outlets. Nice work, Lindsay, and thank you for giving us the insider's view.

Armando over at DailyKos posted this article from Yoo and Paulsen at the LA Times. Let's ignore the snarky implication of "Where were these guys on Robert's?", and move forward to what is obvious--that this is the approach the Senate should be taking on all nominees.

The administration's stealth strategy assumes that it is improper for senators to ask, or for a nominee to answer, a question about Roe vs. Wade or any other substantive constitutional question. This has things exactly backward. The Constitution not only permits such questioning, it arguably requires it. Although the Constitution makes judges independent after appointment, it sets up an explicitly political appointment process before a judge is approved. Why on Earth would determining a nominee's approach to interpreting the Constitution be thought to be out of bounds, before giving her a lifetime appointment to do exactly that?

Is there any line of inquiry that the Constitution does not permit? Yes. It would be improper to try to exact a pledge as to how a nominee will rule in future cases. As long as the inquiry stops short of that, it does not violate the Constitution's protection of judicial independence, nor does it violate judicial ethics. Parties before the courts are entitled to judges who will consider their cases without bias. But they are not entitled to judges who have no views of the law. An open mind is one thing; an empty head is another.

Well said.

[Editor's Note: Art has always been a powerful medium for political expression and remains so, perhaps now more than ever. As such, the Democracy Cell Project is pleased to announce a new Saturday morning feature, "Art and Politics". Each Saturday morning, we wil be presenting an item of political expression in art we have discovered or has been brought to our attention. Since we would like to present a range of items, we would also ask your participation. If you come across something that would fit here, please send it to casey@democracycellproject.net. You can submit a blurb with it or not. If we publish it, we will be sure to give you credit for submission. Thank you. ]

This week's submission is from a British graffiti artist, Banksy, who is painting murals on The Wall being built by Israel. Whether you believe that Israel has every right to build this wall for self-defense and to secure its borders, or think the wall is illegal, as some courts have opined, there is little doubt that it is stirring feelings in the region.

This is one artist's acting on his feelings. Some of his work is submitted here. For a tour of his online gallery, please click here.

Window on the West Bank

Indicating why he undertook the trip from London, where he made his name as a 'guerrilla' artist, Banksy's website says the West Bank barrier is "the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers".


Escapism

(Conversation reported on www.banksy.co.uk)

Soldier: What the f*** are you doing?
Banksy: You'll have to wait until it's finished. Soldier (to colleagues): Safety's off

Unwelcome intervention

Banksy also records on his website how an old Palestinian man said his painting made the wall look beautiful. Banksy thanked him, only to be told: 'We don't want it to be beautiful, we hate this wall. Go home.'

Madame Defarge found this little gem this morning:

ABC reports that White House advance team FAKED the applause by John in DC - 6/28/2005 08:34:00 PM

ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did.

So even the applause was fake.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/abc-reports-that-white-house-advance.html

**************

So we are wondering: what do you think this means for the President?

In a continuation of sorts of the discussion started below about Political Theater as a means of bringing attention to an issue, Pandagon, a blog I have long admired, gets it.

Pandagon is doing a blogathon, a Pandathon, for Amnesty International. For the next 20 or so hours, they will be posting every half hour, while raising consciousness and cash for AI. And God bless them for it.

Go over and share the love, won't you? Then come on back, we have Polly Sigh coming up this afternoon.

Coingate. We've heard about it and read about it and seen it on television all of the...wait--whhhat's that?

Oh, right. Okay, let's try this again--Coingate, you've heard about it if you visit blogs which print the truth, and you've read about it if you have access to The Toledo Blade, or live in Ohio, and you have come nowhere near seeing it on television unless you've been taking peyote during some well deserved down time from your 9-5 gig.

But in a nutshell, Coingate is a story about the GOP led government in Ohio, and the looting of a $225 million Ohio State worker's comp fund. At least, that's how the story began--how it ends is anyone's guess. It was true for Watergate and it's still true. Follow the money, baby, follow the money.

The fact that there is all this money gone missing, and that Ohio had what was at best, poorly run elections, and at worst, fraudulent elections which led to the reelection of President Bush by a mere 10,000 votes, I am sure is a complete coincidence (pun intended).

And I haven't written about it before because I have been waiting to see what the lamestream media would do, the GOP would do, the Democrats would do, and how long it would take to get Coingate, Ken Blackwell, elections and Bush involved the same overall story.

We have crossed that threshold and the bride of scandal is in the house.

UPDATE FROM KAREN AT THE FILIBUSTERING FRIST EVENT IN WASH.,DC:
14:23 LIVE UPDATE FROM KAREN-SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG SPEAKS TO THE CROWD

Senator Lautenberg just took the microphone. He states in a clear strong voice that "the minority party has its rights." He states that, "Senator Frist should have more sense, having graduated from Princeton!" He continues, "the Senate is supposed to represent everyone...What Senator Frist is doing is a matter of politics over policy."

Lautenberg reminds the audience of the rank hypocrisy being practiced by the Republicans, given the fact that the Republicans themselves blocked 69 of President Clinton's judicial nominees for the federal bench.

Senator Lautenberg, speaking directly to the Princeton students at the Filibustering Frist event in Washington, DC., just moments ago:

"When you're stuck in the hole, you've got to stop digging. [Senator Frist] keeps digging further. I want to leave a country in harmony for my grandchildren. My oldest grandchild has childhood onset asthma and I want a country where a child can get through an event like this without his mother having to stand by his side, ready to take him to an emergency romm because he can't breathe the air."

Filling the warm spring air with strength and emotion, Senator Lautenberg raised his voice and called loudly toward the Capitol, "Look at what you're doing Senator Frist! You're taking away the rights of the minorities! You're taking away the rights of the minorities to have a voice. There's no mistake you want to run for President. Is that what you want to run on? "

Senator Lautenberg closed his remarks by congratulating the students on their courage for standing up for their convictions.

Thank you Senator Lautenberg, for standing with the courageous students from Princeton.

UPDATE FROM KAREN AT THE FILIBUSTERING FRIST EVENT IN WASH.,DC:

13:45 LIVE REPORT FROM KAREN

Hey Gang--it's hot out here! I'm going to get ice for these kids--Lautenberg at 2! Karen

ALSO, let's remember, these are students, as in POOR, BROKE, etc., so they could always use some greenbacks thrown their way if you can spare it. To help, please click on the Make A Donation button HERE.

UPDATE FROM KAREN AT THE FILIBUSTERING FRIST EVENT, WASH.,DC:

12:26 PM PHONE REPORT FROM KAREN AT THE FILIBUSTERING FRIST EVENT

Karen just called.

The Capitol Police have evacuated the Capitol. There was a low-flying plane that appeared to be headed for the White House, so they moved us all further down the Mall CLOSER TO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

More will reports will come in throughout the day, and later on, Karen will get online and try to upload more of the pictures she is taking.

The Princeton kids are remaining calm keeping things orderly, and not losing focus!

UPDATE FROM KAREN AT THE FILIBUSTERING FRIST EVENT, WASH. D.C.:

12:05PM PHONE REPORT FROM KAREN AT THE FILIBUSTERING FRIST EVENT

The weather is gorgeous. The filibuster has started. There are a number of tents set up with tired Princeton students in them. Right now there’s a student from Trinity College reading passages from Virginia Woolf.

So it’s just getting going… we've heard rumors that Senator Lautenberg, Senator Corzine and Congressman Rush Holt will speak in the next 24 hours. If anyone knows anyone in the DC metro area, please call or email them and tell them to go down to the Third Street end of the reflecting pool in front of the Capitol and offer the students their support.

Karen will be sending in more updates shortly.

Dear DCPers,

The Princeton kids are on the bus heading towards DC. They'll be setting up in front of the Capitol. I'll be over there around noon today, bringing them food and water, taking photos, and reporting here on the blog.

Please help. Let the blogs know that these kids, along with students from Georgetown, GWU, Trinity, Howard, and maybe a few others are standing up for the rights of all of us to have a say in the judicial process.

In addition to water and pizza, the best thing we can give them is our attention. The MSM will have a tough time covering this story because it is a story of consciousness, not lack thereof. So we have to help. Contact your local media, especially if there is a fristibuster near you (several campuses are holding these, including Stanford, Berkeley, Cornell, and several of the Boston colleges).

Filiblog the Filibustering Frist Event in Washington, D.C.!

Getting ready for the trip

I haven't watched too much news since discovering the corporate media isn't worth whatever they pay themselves. But I do remember the few scenes I saw of protestors outside Terri Schaivo's hospice, all praying for her life and for her hospitalization and feeding tube to continue. Now let's take a peek at the other side.

On that other side, I've witnessed inspirational unity on all the blogs (but especially Democratic Underground) to raise fifty thousand dollars to cover the surgery Andy Stephenson requires to possibly save his life. Andy was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer but he is one of the millions who does not have health insurance. (His name sounds familar to most of us because he was part of BlackBoxVoting).

Some friends of his and a bunch of strangers have raised close to 46 thousand in two weeks time to cover Andy's surgery so that he will be able to devote his energies to getting better instead of battling with bureaucratic hospital policies.

In the coming weeks, I will be making an effort to identify some good blogs who are writing about single political issues. Hopefully, this will achieve a few goals.

First, it's nice to have different sources and opinions on issues.

Second, it's also nice to give some less well known blogs who are very good in their own right, some wider recognition.

Third, it gives all of us feedback on what we are doing here, and blogs are a good and useful way of sharing message and building another branch in political communities. When we talk to people about issues, it would be helpful to give them a site where they can get more information.

Four, I didn't want to do this. Or rather, I didn't want to have to do this, but Josh Marshall is on his honeymoon, so I am forced to hunt down other resources for a reasonable explanation of the Social Security "plans" from the White House and Capitol Hill.

Lastly, to make this work to its best effect, we need you and your input and opinions. We would appreciate your comments on the sites