Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Noticia de Despidida Muy Triste
Today, la blogsfera says adíos to one of eet's most beloved members.
Teddy was one of the gatas primeras, one of the first cats that I ever encountered by thees curious and marvelous practice of "Cat Blogging",
the regular maintenance of said habit having an unmeasured yet inarguably beneficent effect on the level of discourse throughout la blogsfera.
Por favor, go over to First-Draft and help the wonderful Scout Prime say farewell to Teddy, one of the most vivacious gatas ever to grace la blogsfera weeth her loveliness.
En la paradiso de los Gatos,
the mice are just as slow or as fast as you choose,
the dogs all carry trays brimming with delicious kitty-treats,
and all the people who hated them on earth are put to work,
cleaning the solid-gold, heated and perfumed litter-boxes.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Put Jour Money Where Jour Meow Ees.
Amigos, thees seems to be fundraising week for many across the public media.
Now, our leetle treehouse-of-integritude runs no ads and accepts no donations
(bathe, bathe), so I could no raise money from our two dozen readers
(las bendiciones de la madre de las dias de las gatas de paradiso be upon joo)
even eef such was my weesh.
Amigos, leesten to the gato, verrry, verrry, carefully.
Take all the dinero that joo used to geeve to Nacional Públicos Relacións and put eet to work over at Orcinus.
David Neiwert and Sara Robinson are experienced journalists whose site helps fulfill a necessary role of la blogsfera.
Sr. Neiwert has done valuable work een showing how hard-right extremist thought has tried to spread eetself throughout the public discourse. He has related een a very thorough way where these ideas originated and who has largely been responsible for transmitting them een the traditionally compliant media.
Now Sra. Robinson and Sr. Neiwert have begun to address how to effectively respond and marginalize those extremist ideologues who profit from mixing together hate and nonsense and modern media.
Todays post from Sr. Neiwert, por ejemplo, looks at the hierarchical model of the media, originally promulgated by Walter Lippman (who has geeven the U.S. such wonderful curiosities as "The New Republiculo"), and what happens when that model breaks down, and why the whiny leetle sociedad des frotacionados profesionales stuck on the broken down heap expostulate so intemperately against their newer, faster, more accurate and si, less arrogant counterparts en la blogsfera.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Becky the Calico: Transcript
Last Monday, ¡El Gato Negro! wrote about how the traditional media can best begin to show respect for la blogsfera.
(Stossel, that litterbox weel no clean eetself, joo know.)
At the end of the post I offered what I felt was an insructive visual metaphor for the relationsheep between the traditional media and la blogsfera.
Thees involved a brief run-in between one Kathleen Cochrane, a reporter for Cleveland FOX affiliate WJW, and Becky, a Calico Cat weeth some strongly held views.
That wheech makes thees piece a perfect example of the media/blog dynamic ees made a leetle more clear when joo take into account not just what was said by Ms. Cochrane, but also the statements Becky made throughout the piece.
I know that thees was promised for earlier een the week, yet due to an extended bout of hairballs, I was unable to provide the full transcript of the encounter until today, but I am certain joo weel find eet an enlightening read for a Friday.
-Female News Presenter: "Hi, everybody, thank you for joining us tonight. (camera change)
Jail is not enough for the judge who sentenced the pair on animal abuse charges."
-Male News Presenter: "Fox News Reporter Kathleen Cochrane, live in Russell Township-"
(camera shows Kathleen Holding Becky)
-Becky the Calico: "-ust want it on the record that this is under duress."
-Male News Presenter: "-has the details."
-Becky the Calico: "Please, let me go!"
-Kathleen Cochrane: "Hi, Bill and Stacy, well, the couple is accused of throwing two cats like this one here -"
(Kathleen hefts Becky the Calico, and jiggles Becky like the cat was a human child (Cats hate thees-egn))
-Becky the Calico: (looking directly at Ms. Cochrane) "Set me down! Who are you people?"
-Kathleen Cochrane: (overtalking) "-out of their car and killing them."
-Becky the Calico: "They did WHAT!? Oh my god! I have to get away from these lunatics!"
-Kathleen Cochrane: (overtalking again) "Now, as part of their sentence- this little guy (sic) is having fun-"
-Becky the Calico: (looking directly at floor, reaching down towards floor with her paws) "Please let me down, please?"
-Kathleen Cochrane: (still overtalking)- "having fun. But now, as part of their sentence, the couple is going to have to come right-"
-Becky the Calico: (fed up) "I said unhand me foul news creature!" (lunges towards Kathleen Cochrane's face)
-Kathleen Cochrane: (drops Becky, makes tiny noise) "ooooooerp!" (looks at camera for half a second, then bursts into tears)
-(Brief moment of silence as camera switches to shot of the floor of the shelter entrance, Becky the Calico is trying to claw the door open to get back inside, then camera switches back to Kathleen)-
-Kathleen Cochrane: (arms crossed protectively over chest for rest of piece)
"Well, there are lots of cats here. All of them are nice, y'know? And, honestly it's just my luck that something like that would happen. I'm obviously not a cat person. But the people here do say that they are looking forward to the people coming in and hope that they can leave here withsome type of education. You know, I had been holding that cat, everything had been going well until right when we came on the air, but I'm fine. Maybe just a little... scratches" (sic).
-Male News Presenter: "Uh, you know about reporters and animals, and that will end up on a reel for some reason."
-Kathleen Cochrane: "Oh, no kidding, that was like an out of body experience, how embarrassing."
-Female News Presenter: (suppressing a smile) "No, we're glad you're OK, that's all that matters."
-Male News Presenter: (suppressing smile) "Thanks, Kathleen."
-Kathleen Cochrane: (voice breaking) "I'm just fine." (gives half-hearted "thumbs-up" gesture)
-Female News Presenter: (suppressing smile) "Thanks."
-Kathleen Cochrane: (arms crossed protectively over chest) "Thanks."
Amigos, I theenk the lesson here ees that eef reporters do no pay attention to what ees going on right een front of them, they may become the story themselves, eh?
**¡Koff! ¡Koff!** ¡Hrnrnrnrnrnrnrrrrnnn! ¡Koff-Koff! ¡Kinsley! **Koff-splat**
Eet should be noted for the record, that een the follow up to the first piece, Kathleen Cochrane denies having broken down in tears. ("I was instantly laughing...") Also Becky ees shown having suffered no ill-effects from her ordeal.
Reached for comment, Becky said "I expressed myself rather forcefully, [and] felt better after I had done it,"
Oh, and as for why Kathleen Cochrane was ignoring the impatient and rapidly-becoming-cross ball of fur that she was holding, she says: "I just got into reporter mode"
Thees, then, ees emblematic of what ees wrong weeth so much of what passes for journalism these days.
But as to Kathleen, well, eef she can maintain that oblivious "reporter mode", and lie weeth a straight face about what we all saw on camera, I'm sure she has a long, prosperous career ahead of her on FOX.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Teh Eagles Have Crash-Landed/ Sadly, Mirrored
Teh Eagles Have Crash-Landed
Originally Posted 20Mar06 at 23:31 by Gavin M.
So how many people were there, really, at the Gathering of Eagles demonstration? We don’t know, but here’s the final word on that ‘National Park Service’ figure of 30,000 pro-war demonstrators, now ubiquitous on the Web and in the right-leaning media.
Michelle Malkin wrote on Saturday that the figure came directly from the Gathering of Eagles:
***Update: Kit at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more.***
Then at some point, the attribution changed:
***Update: Heidi at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more.***
Here’s what the Gathering of Eagles site now says. That text, as well, has been changed since Sunday evening, when it only read, ‘the first unofficial estimate.’ (Emphasis ours):
2) the first unofficial NPS estimate of the Eagle turn-out today…
That figure may be adjusted upward as more figure are tallied during the week.
Now here’s what the Park Service has to say about it:
Dear Mr. […]:
I am the spokesperson for the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. I never issued any statement of any kind about anything related to this past weekend’s events, let alone anything about crowd size. In fact, I was never asked that question by anyone.
Anyone who gives any crowd size number or figure for this past weekend is making the figure up and does not have any authorization whatsoever to attribute those figures to the National Park Service. Since I never issued any such statement nor was ever the question raised in the first place, it is impossible to attribute any figures to the National Park Service for this past weekend’s events.
Lastly, Congress prohibits the National Park Service from giving or providing any crowd estimate for any permitted event on the National Mall.
I hope this is of help and clarification for you.
Communications & Tourism Officer
National Park Service
National Capital Region
1100 Ohio Drive, SW
Washington, D.C. 20242
Looks like someone has some ’splaining to do.
One more thing: Below is the attendance petition circulated widely on the Internet by the Gathering of Eagles organizers, in order to gauge the number of demonstrators:
To: All Interested Parties
We, the undersigned, pledge to attend the March 17th Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C. We intend to stand guard at our nation’s sacred memorials to honor the memory of our troops who died in service of our great country. We promise to recognize and reflect on the sacrifice of our fallen heroes.
Please sign here only IF you WILL be in attendance at the Vietnam War Memorial on March 17th. We are trying to obtain an accurate total so we know how many to expect. There is another petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/GOE317/petition.html - please sign there if you will be with us IN SPIRIT.
Our troops, current and prior, are true heroes and we will honor each and every one of them by standing side by side, heads held high, defending the sanctity of our nation’s monuments to veterans. Our sacred pledge is that our actions will honor those heroes and that we will respect their service and their sacrifice.
I WILL be at the Gathering of Eagles on March 17th in Washington, DC.
1826 Total Signatures
One would have to say that 1,826 doesn’t seem very close at all to the figure the right-wing noisemakers have been cheering about.
Then again, another petition for people who pledged to ‘be there in spirit’ has 4155 signatures, so maybe there was also a big pro-war demonstration in Second Life or something.
Putting the "C" een CPAC
Earlier this year, just after Ann Coulter's annual bout of verbal dysentery at the CPAC conference, Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece in Salon(watch the ad to see the post) from wheech I would like to quote the first few paragraphs, purely to help others play connect-the-dots:
The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity
In a very vivid way, this Ann Coulter moment is shining a light on the right-wing movement that is so bright that even national journalists would be able to recognize some important truths if they just looked even casually. Kirsten Powers was on Fox last night with Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin and, as shocking as it is, Powers managed to ask the only question that matters with this whole episode, thereby forcing Malkin to make the critical concession, the one which right-wing pundits have been desperate to avoid:
KP: [Coulter] has said a lot of horrible things . . . . she's done all these things. And I don't understand why if this is the pre-eminent conservative movement place to be speaking, why she is chosen as a person to speak . . .
BO: Why do you think they invited her, Michelle?
MM: She's very popular among conservatives. And let me say this. I have been a long-time admirer of much of Ann's work. She has done yeomen's work for conservatism. But I think, lately, over the last couple of years, that there has been this penchant for hurling these kinds of bombs.
And there is a divided opinion among grass-roots conservatives about what she did. I was one of the people who condemned the raghead comment last year . . . . If going into 2008, that is what the Republican Party is trying to do and win back the Congress and take the Congress and win the White House, having her there is not going to be a help.
This is why -- the only reason -- Coulter's remarks are so significant. And the significance lies not just in this specific outburst on Friday but in the whole array of hate-mongering, violence-inciting remarks over all these years. Its significance lies in the critical fact that Malkin expressly acknowledged: "She's very popular among conservatives." The focus of these stories should not be Coulter, but instead, should be the conservative movement in which Ann Coulter -- precisely because of (not "despite") her history of making such comments -- is "very popular." (Note, too, that Malkin urges that Coulter be shunned not because her conduct is so reprehesensible, but because her presence "is not going to be a help" win the 2008 election)
(emphasis Greenwald's except for the first statement een bold)
Greenwald, as usual, heets the nail on the head as to the matter of Coulter's popularity among Movement-Conservatives.
Now, intrepid and perspicacious journalist Sara Robinson, from Orcinus, has a more specific answer to Kirsten Power's question about
"why she is chosen as a person to speak . . . "
My, my, my. It's such a cozy little world… especially if you're a conservative.
We all know Ann Coulter's said some grotesquely hateful things over the years. What you may not realize, though, is how many of the most memorable bombshells got dropped in just one venue. She seems to save up her most horrific stuff for the annual CPAC conference, where she's been a fixture for many years. In fact, looking back on just her CPAC performances alone is a fairly comprehensive summary of Coulter's most gobstopping moments:
Mrs. Robinson lays out a number of Coulter's sheet-headed audible gnashings from past CPAC conferences, and leaves no doubt about one theeng.
Kicking Coulter out of CPAC would be like kicking Cheney from the Republiculo party, and ees just about as likely to happen.
Go, read the whole piece to get the full effect, Coulter and CPAC are intertwined. Greenwald was more right then he knew.
As for Malkin's recent tiff weeth Ann (& her leetle cabana-boy), I would just like to point out that while CPAC security apparently allowed Michelle Malkin to be accosted by a someone more dangerous than a serial killer, they were going above and beyond the call of duty to protect poor, helpless Ann from thees guy:
(Dan) Borchers is the most mild-mannered, humble Christian. He is critical of the way Ann Coulter has "mainstreamed extremism" and has written articles about her. He accused her of plagiarizing her early books, and at the CPAC conference two years ago, he tried to distribute press kits calling for Coulter to stop her hate speak.
...and just for that, when Borchers made an appearance at CPAC thees year, he was grabbed, roughly dragged around the conference area, threatened, publicly embarrassed, and allegedly assaulted.
I guess we know where their priorities are, no?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Anatomy of a Con Job/ Sadly, Mirrored
Anatomy Of A Con Job
First Posted 19Mar06 3:26 by Gavin M.
As we know, opinion against the war in Iraq, and against President Bush, now stands at between 60 and 70 percent in America. If you’re a right-wing authoritarian follower, how do you continue to prop up the necessary belief that you represent a silent majority of downtrodden patriots, and that someday a real rain will come and wash the scum off the streets?
Luckily, there are people out there to do that thinking for you.
Above: Right-wing astroturfer Larry Bailey
Step One: Invent a phony threat — for instance, to the Vietnam War Memorial:
As a Vietnam veteran, and suffering through fox-hole combat, and knowing what the anti-war movement did to America and to my morale of me and the morale other troops during the Vietnam era, the thought of elements of those same vile and vicious people attempting to resurrect their venom and use the Vietnam Memorial Wall as a proxy was intolerable. My view was it must be challenged, and in short it cannot happen.
The current anti-war movement is no different than the Vietnam era group, in fact many current participants are the same people who were involved in the 60s and 70s. They lie, deceive, distort, damage, desecrate, spit on our military, curse, hurl insults, and dishonor not only historical sites but hallowed ground if given the opportunity.
Step Two: Create a fake-nonpartisan campaign to ‘protect’ the memorial from the vile and vicious spitters-on and desecrators-of, who are converging on DC in a mammoth hippie tidal wave:
Our Mission Statement
1. Gathering of Eagles is non-partisan. While each member has his or her own political beliefs, our common love and respect for America and her heroes is what brings us together.
Actually, they’re about as non-partisan as this. Note the Vets For The Truth address through which contributions are funneled:
Please send checks or money orders to:
Vets for the Truth
ATTN: Gathering of Eagles
PO Box 291
Chocowinity, NC 27817
And note, as well, the enthusiastic pre-publicity from commentators such as Michelle Malkin:
SAYING ‘NO!’ TO CINDY
A ‘GATHERING OF EAGLES’ TO MARCH FOR AMERICA
How many times have you sat in front of the TV over the last four years, watching anti-war activists march on Washington, chase the ROTC off your local college campus, vandalize war memorials, insult the troops and wreak havoc under the surrender banner?
How many times have you thought to yourself: What can I do?
As your planning continues, begin referring to all supporters as ‘veterans’ regardless of whether they’ve ever served in the military. This makes it look like it’s a rally of non-partisan veterans — which is altogether much better, and much more likely to be taken seriously by the media, than a rally of Republican zealots frightened that the zeitgeist is escaping them.
Also be sure to stir up the Freeper beehive, because a Freeper will fall for anything if you slap a flag on it — let alone a flag, an eagle, and the word, ‘troops.’
Serious Media Inquiries:
Above: Taylor, national spokesman of Free Republic
Join forces with other phony-nonpartisan groups:
Move America Forward Foundation
At last the day arrives. Have a bunch of people stand around heckling war protesters for a few hours:
Step Three: Declare victory! The Vietnam Memorial was saved!
A pure, grass-roots effort, the Gathering of Eagles’ volunteers matched the massive Soros-funded anti-war machine sign for sign, chant for chant, and marcher for marcher. The contrast was most stark right before the entrance to the Memorial Bridge, where Eagles gathered with a field of American flags–while anti-Bush, 9/11 conspiracy nuts wrapped themselves in a figurative blanket of yellow “Out of Iraq” placards. Several of the vets shouted, “Yellow! How appropriate!” in between spirited chants of “U.S.A! U.S.A!” While the classless Cindy Sheehan ranted profanely, the Eagles raised their voices in polite, but roaring disapproval and raised their American flags in answer to the ANSWER socialists’ Che banners and peace pennants.
America was strengthened:
When history is written, March 17th, 2007 will at long last eclipse March 17, 1967, as the day when soldiers in faraway Iraq and Afghanistan knew for certain, no matter what real time saw them doing, love and respect await their safe return. The day when it was proven to a watching world that Washington war memorials stand for what they always stood for, time immemorial, the day when the graves of fallen American soldiers the world were warmer.
Never again will America’s brave warriors and their cause be abandoned and the people our country has pledged to liberate be left to perish at the hands of tyrants. Those days are most definitely over.
Whilst enjoying the afterglow, make up a jaw-dropping unofficial attendance figure, for instance that 30,000 heroes stood up for America against the dirty-hippie communist menace — of whom there wasn’t really a mammoth tidal wave after all, which also equals a victory.
What an outstanding day! The Eagles soared!
You should be very proud of your fellow veterans, families, and supporters. There’s so much to tell, and we encourage you to post your experiences in the the comments.
In the meantime, two items of business: 1) we have a gallery open for you to upload your digital photos to the website. That way you can share your photos with others. See the tab in the top right corner of the site. 2) the first unofficial estimate of the Eagle turn-out today…
That figure may be adjusted upward as more figure are tallied during the week. Fox News reported today that the anti-war protesters had significantly less than they expected. However, they are erroneously reporting that the Eagles were there in “equal numbers”. The truth is that we outnumbered them by at least three to one!
Go farther! Here Michelle Malkin claims without any evidence that it’s an official number (emphasis added):
Blogburst: Gathering of Eagles–30,000 strong
By Michelle Malkin
***Update: Kit at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more.***
Here’s Brent Bozell’s Newsbusters:
Gathering of Eagles (GoE): An Indicator of Old Media Decline
Gathering of Eagles’ web site reports that they were told by the National Park Service that their GoE estimate is ….. is …..
GoE’s site is also saying that the protester counts being reported elsewhere were 5,000 to 10,000 (the Times reported “thousands” and WaPo said “several thousand,” but both papers acknowledged that the protester turnout was much lower than at a similar event in January).
Remember not to check the original source: Citing AmericaPundit who cites FreedomWarrior who cites someone else citing three other people who cite what Michelle Malkin says about what the GoE site says, is what they mean by ‘the self-correcting blogosphere.’ If it weren’t true, someone would have said so.
Anyone who is not a dirty hippie should be thrilled by the turnout. I figured a few thousand people would show up, not 30,000. This is an estimate from the National Park Service, not from the GoE organization.It’s a testament of rational people trying to take the country back. The sad part is that most of the press was given to the psychotic, immoral moonbats there protesting the war.
Also, if other published figures contradict the 30,000-heroes one, don’t forget to keep up a constant drone of indignant complaint about the biased liberal MSM, because they super-lie about everything with gigantic crazy lies, just for the sake of dragging America down. Malkin updates:
***Update March 18, 2007 1:30am: The NYTimes lies…***
Pure bullcrap. Yup, the journalistic standard-bearers of the NYTimes relied on “several veterans of the antiwar movement” to give them crowd estimates of the Gathering of Eagles. It’s the domestic equivalent of MSMers relying on dubious Iraqi stringers to provide them with war coverage while they sit in their comfy Green Zone offices in D.C. and Manhattan.
Don’t believe the MSM — either their lying by entirely omitting any mention of the numbers of people attending the Gathering of Eagles, or their deliberate playing down of the numbers who did come. The Parks and Service people counted thirty thousand patriots gathered to protect the Wall.
So what else is new, except in this case their lies are more than usually blatant in favor of their personal agenda. The National Park Service’s first estimate of the turnout of Eagles is, wait for it: 30000.
Say guys, I heard some hippies are threatening to desecrate various locations in and around Baghdad. Why don’t the 30,000 of y’all surge on over?
…Hey wait, where did everybody go?
Update: No such Park Service, Parks Service, or Parks and Service estimate has appeared in any form, and no publicly available photo on the Web — although please correct us if we’re wrong — shows more than a couple of hundred pro-war demonstrators in any place at any time.
¡Sagrado Sagrante Saguaros de Santo Salvador Dali!
The events, how they overtake one, earlier thees week, ¡El Gato Negro! posited that eef los bloggeros weere ever to be respected by the traditional media, one of the theengs they would have to embrace was a scrupulous accuracy.
Of course, een just that few days, some leading lights en la blogsfera begin to get the grudging nod from The New York Times (FDL), and the L.A. Times (TPM).
Now, joo must understand, ¡El Gato Negro! had geeven thees matter less than a Goldbergian amount of thought, so perhaps eet was predictable that he would make hees case een an unwieldly manner. Wheech ees no to mention that the mighty paws of ¡El Gato Negro! are unsuited to the straightlaced regimen of the standard qwerty-type keyboard, wheech may have aided ¡El Gato Negro! een inadvertently mis-stating hees thesis.
He deed no mean to suggest that la blogsfera ees innaccurate, only that the commonly held misperception that we are such should endeavour us to strive for accuracy, as a watchword, and a hallmark of all the bloggers who would be said to have integrity, both een the stories we report, and een the targets we choose.
Nor deed he mean to suggest that all bloggers should stoop to gain the affection of la sociedad de los frotcaionados profesionales de la prenza, apestosa maracon des playas sin cojones qui chingas ses madres that they are, nor las Democratistas Invertebradas and their leek-speetle toadies een the Consultaría politica.
Recently, Media Matter's Eric Boehlert said:
"It's also time for [them] to show influential liberal bloggers a little love."
He was speaking of the WashingComPost een particular, but the same sentiment has been expressed more widely, about the media een general.
As a matter of mere strategy, ¡El Gato Negro! does no hold weeth the otherwise fantastic Boehlert on thees point. ¡El Gato Negro! theenks that the media needs to geeve the la blogsfera more than just "a litte love", he believes that the media needs to show us some respect.
By wheech he does NO mean "treat us like we were just like them".
No, no... joo would need to have a pretty funny definiton of "respect" to theenk that ¡El Gato Negro! would endorse such a theeng.
Allow me to geeve joo half a dozen examples of what ¡El Gato Negro! means when he mentions the traditional media "showing respect" for los bloggerros.
-The Rude Pundit has hees own Broadcast Network Sunday Morning Show
-Katherine Q. "Kit" Seelye is relieved to learn that she can use Norbizness as an anonymous source on background, and refers to heem as "the left".
-CNN pre-empts "The Situation Room" een order to cover the Fafblog Reunion live.
-Chris Matthews develops an embarrassing man-crush on a certain "Sweaty lunk".
-On "Reliable Sources", Kate O' Bierne, Howie Kurtz, and George Will squabble over who gets to present Jane Hamsher weeth the Sacred-Bejeweled-Weenie-Tongs.
-John Stossel ees cleaning ¡El Gato Negro!'s litter-box.
-Sadly, No! ees handling election night coverage.
Thees, then, ees what ¡El Gato Negro! means, when he says the traditonal media should "show respect" to los bloggerros.
The goal ees eminently attainable, the point of my last post was seemply that accuracy ees an essential, an "Integral" part of the engine that weel get us there. Accuracy een the sense that los bloggerros must remain streectly accurate to be trusted as a primary source of information, and een the sense that we must be accurate regarding our choice of targets. Some sources of poisonous discourse are too large to be effectively addressed by la blogsfera alone, some are weetheen range, and can be pressured to reduce or reform their ruinous effect, or pay a price een advertising dolares and loss of influence weetheen their political party.
I regret any confusion that may have been caused, and so, to illustrate my point, I would like to apply an instructive visual metaphor.
The role of los bloggerros ees portrayed herein by "Becky", a tailess calico of the sort that reportedly made Ex Attorney General John Ashcroft "anoint heemself".
The role of the traditional media ees portrayed by FOX/WJW Cleveland's Kathleen Cochrane.
One final note: Een anticipation of an attempt by some to suggest that by presenting the behavior of la gata calica as a metaphor for the relationsheep of los bloggerros to the traditional media, I am advocating violence:
Nothing could be further from the truth, and een support of thees statement,¡El Gato Negro! weel endeavour to next publish the full transcreept.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Melanie Morgan's Response to Walter Reed Scandal
Melanie responds at Move America Forward:
When it comes to supporting the troops, you can't beat a Yellow Ribbon Patriot. Right, Mel?
More to come...
Thursday, March 15, 2007
All the yellow ribbons on all the cars in the world
If you’ve never read Milo’s accounts of serving in the Middle East, you’re missing out on some heavy, and heady, stuff. You owe it to yourself to check out his blog, The Calm Before the Sand.
Think about this experience, and multiply it by thousands and thousands of troops and families, thousands of times over the last 4 years.
Melanie Morgan can shriek about supporting the troops, Move America Forward can run their pro-war ads 24/7, George Bush can babble about higher callings and greater causes until he’s hoarse – none of it will dull the pain or fill the void these families are experiencing, over and over again.
Bring them home.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Mike Stark's most wonderful blog, Calling All Wingnuts ees back online.
Sr. Stark's blog had mysteriously disappeared after he visited the notorious CPAC conference, where he inadvertently showed that the majority of the Cheetoh-sphere ees populated by histrionic bedwetters.
Vamos, go and say "hola" to Mike and tell heem joo are glad to see that he's back and ees once again enraging the weengnuts.
Monday, March 12, 2007
One of the hallmarks of Integrity, especially as eet relates to blogging, ees accuracy.
For the sake of thees discussion I would even posit that accuracy is the load-bearing-wall of Blog-Integrity (eef such a term ees to have any constant meaning beyond a cathartic parody of a similar conceptual portmanteau more broadly defined, and covering a wider range of reprehensible acts as a result).
¿Where was I?
Oh, si, accuracy.
Eef los bloggerros are to hold any longterm hope of being respected, even grudgingly, een the traditional media, they must be scrupulously accurate, for traditional media holds weeth the perceived sloppiness of la blogsfera as a dog stubbornly holds to a drool-encrusted, bedraggled and foul-smelling pet-toy.
No, thees ees not about Ann Coulter.
Let me begin again.
Amigos, accuracy ees the sine qua non of Blog-Integrity. Accuracy een blogging ees an ongoing process, as blogging ees a process. The increasing influence of la blogsfera means that thees process must be geeven a priority, and ees due constant attention.
Weeth thees een mind, eet was pleasantly reassuring to read the recent work of Michael Suskind, of the blog Drawing the Line. Over the course of three exhaustively well-researched posts at DTL (Cross-posted at Naranjo Diablo), Suskind challenges a claim that had been gaining ground across la blogsfera, to weet: That el Chimperador's administration has been scrubbing the Whitehouse web site.
Update 14Mar by egn: Suskind was responding to thees original blog-post, wheech ees also mentioned een the primero dKos diary leested below.
Thees ees a serious accusation, for, as Suskind tells us, El Chimperador's administration has been caught doing thees very theeng once before, and the information that had been removed was placed back on the site.
¿So why wouldn't they do eet again, eh?
¿Ees eet no rrreasonable to assume they would?
Suskind assumes nothing, thoroughly investigates the claim by digging through publicly available sources, and comes to an interesting conclusion. Then, being a thorough sort of journalist, he checks hees findings against a different source, a source weeth wheech joo may be familiar.
I weel no geeve away too much, only that eet makes a good read, so vamos, go and enjoy.
Oh, y tambien, I weel say gracias to Sr. Suskind for having shown heemself able to fulfeel such a necessary role en la blogsfera.
Drawing the line
What I did not find at Whitehouse.gov
Are Any Cheney Files Missing?"
Update: I wanted to post the original dKos diaries as well, for two reasons:
1. the comment threads are eenstructive, and
2. The original dKos diary from suskind carries thees leetle gem:
I emailed the author with 19 points of inaccuracies in his diary, and missing information, but received no answer. I also emailed two front pagers asking "What should I do?" I heard back from one of them it said "correct him at your own risk."(emphasees by egn)
What I Did NOT Find at Whitehouse.gov by suskind, dKos diary,
Sun Mar 04, 2007
What I Did NOT Find at Whitehouse dot gov by suskind, dKos diary,
Sun Mar 05, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
¡Spocko attains internet immortality!
Savage Weiner & Mann Coulter get "Spocko-ed"
Sara Robinson (of Orcinus) coins a handy phrase for what ees sure to become an even more popular tactic among los bloggerros.
Por favor, read the whole theengy.
Then, go forth and "Spocko".
Friday, March 02, 2007
New Orleans to Bush: We Rebuke You!
Mr. President, we, Katrina Survivors all, do notwelcome you to our city, we rebuke you!
Sponsored by Survivors Village, United Front for Affordable Housing
If you have a blog, please consider posting this today.
(via Spocko's Brain, from the inestimable Scout at First Draft, and via Humid City)