Month: October 2005

If you’re an epileptic, or easily prone to anxiety attacks, you’ll want to stay away from this site. Otherwise, turn your computer speakers up and prepare yourself for Badger Badger Badger!

See if you can stand it for more than 10 seconds…

Starting Monday, Yahoo News will publish work written by bloggers side by side with news from professional journalists.

Yahoo said its move to combine professionally edited news alongside the work of grassroots commentators promises to enrich the sources of information on breaking news events.

“Traditional media doesn’t have the time and resources to cover all the stories,” Joff Redfern, product director for Yahoo Search said. “It really does add substantially to what you are looking at when you are looking for news.”

The Reuters story quotes blogdaddy Jeff Jarvis who argues that sites like Yahoo and Google patronize bloggers by treating them like second class citizens.

Jarvis, who is a former TV critic for TV Guide and People magazines, mocked the notion that journalists live by a shared set of professional standards, that they are better trained or more trustworthy than the anyone-can-join blog movement.

“What made the voice of the people somehow less important than the paid professional journalist?” he asked. “You don’t need to have a degree, you don’t need to have a paycheck, you don’t need to have a byline,” Jarvis said.

“If you inform the public, you are committing an act of journalism,” he declared.

Indeed.

Adrian Warnock lists the Top 25 Christian Blogs (by links). After browsing the list, I’m left wondering what makes these blogs particularly ‘Christian’? There are some that are named in a way which would lead one to believe that they have some kind of biblical focus, but then there are blogs listed like Scott Ott’s ‘ScrappleFace‘, La Shawn Barber’s Place, and Hugh Hewitt’s blog. Most of what I’ve read from ScrappleFace is irreverent commentary on political news and cultural issues. I know that La Shawn and Hugh identify themselves as Christians, but their blogs are more often focused on politics and not on essays about being Christian.

Heading over to N.Z. Bear’s place, and looking at the larger list of blogs that belong to the ‘Blogdom of God’ community, it gets even more confusing. Apparently, bloggers who join the Blogdom of God group are ones who identify themselves as ‘God blogs’. Would The Anchoress really identify her site a ‘God blog’? If so, in what way? She does comment on Catholic issues from time to time, but I mostly see her site as a current events/political commentary blog. Yet, she’s identified as a member of this community. Likewise, Ian Schwartz, better known as The Political Teen runs a site that focuses heavily on video-blogging. His place is the go-to blog for breaking news video clips. I haven’t seen anything overtly ‘Christian’ about the content he publishes, yet The Political Teen is listed as being a ‘God blog’.

And then there’s ‘Dean’s World‘. Last time I checked, Dean Esmay had several articles published on his blog where he identified himself as an atheist. Why is his site labeled a ‘God blog’?

What am I missing here? I’m not looking to start a jihad, and I’m not trying to question anyone’s personal faith. I just want to understand the basis for the makeup of this community. Why would you list your site as being a member of the Blogdom of God if the content you publish doesn’t align with the identity of the group?

What purpose do blog rings like these serve if the member sites don’t necessarily focus on the community theme? How valuable is a Top 25 ‘Christian’ Blogs list when a some of the ranked sites publish content that has little or nothing to do with being Christian?

With all the recent focus on terrorism aimed squarely at New York City’s subway system, one wonders if the threat to the Big Apple is nothing more than a diversionary tactic being used by the terrorists. Are they intentionally setting a decoy in an obvious location like New York so they can successfully execute simultaneous terror events in other less logical locations throughout the country?

On October 2, 2005, an explosion outside a packed Oklahoma Memorial Stadium on the University of Oklahoma campus was first reported as an individual suicide. Later, upon further investigation by authorities, it was revealed that the suicide could have been part of a larger planned event. The explosive used by the individual, identified as 21 year-old Joel Hinrichs, contained a component called TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide), known as the ‘Mother of Satan’ by Islamist extremists. According to a report by TV station KOCO Channel Oklahoma: 

Experts say it is made by mixing common household items such as drain cleaner and bleach to create a white powder with a strong smell.

It’s so volatile that it can explode even if it’s merely dropped. It can even explode spontaneously, experts say.

There have been very few reports of TATP being used in the United States; however, there have been more documented cases overseas — including Richard Reid, who was arrested after he used TATP in his shoe and tried to light it on a flight.

More clues about Hinrichs came to light on October 4, 2005, in a report from the AP:

The Pakistani roommate of a man authorities said died when he detonated an explosive device outside a crowded football stadium was led in handcuffs from a party shortly after Saturday’s explosion, the head of an Islamic student group said.

Fazal M. Cheema, a finance major, shared a university-owned apartment with Joel Hinrichs III, 21, who died Saturday when a device attached to his body exploded as he sat on a bench outside George Lynn Cross Hall.

Cheema and three other Muslim students were led in handcuffs from a party by police after the blast, Ashraf Hussein, president of the Muslim Student Association, said Tuesday. They later were released.

Cheema is “a really, really nice guy,” Hussein said.

A day later, journalist / blogger Mark Tapscott brought this information on Hinrichs:

A Lincoln Town Car believed driven by OU Suicide Bomber Joel Henry Hinrichs III remains in the parking lot of the apartment where he lived and a U.S. Department of Justice inventory of the contents found by law enforcement officials is visible on the seat, Tapscott’s Copy Desk has learned.

Among the items listed on the inventory are “13 plastic bottles” in the trunk. The inventory did not note if there was anything in the bottles, their size or coloration.

Other items on the inventory include a title, insurance certificate, a 2003 Rand McNally Road Atlas and two other highway maps with indecipherable titles. The car’s license tag is Oklahoma VUL014, with a February 2006 expiration date. Tapscott’s Copy Desk has also learned that a tree near where Hinrichs’ bomb detonated displays a number of small round holes and some areas of a metallic substance.

Ever since then, a variety of bloggers have been following the drama (see Malkin, Tapscott, and Hoft). They have collectively found that the FBI is now rather tight-lipped about their investigation into Hinrichs and the event of October 2nd. In fact, the whole thing has had very limited play among the MSM.

Last Friday, an explosive device was found on the campus of UCLA.

Now today, news is breaking about bombs found on the campus of Georgia Tech. TV station WXIA reports that three explosive devices were found in a courtyard between two dormitories. Atlanta police have called it a terrorist act. An additional bit of evidence was found which could link today’s event with the earlier one in Oklahoma. The explosives found on the GT campus were made up of chemicals placed inside plastic bottles, similar to the ones found in the trunk of Hinrichs car.

We’re left now with lots of lingering questions about these events. Are they linked? If so, are they part of a coordinated effort by American recruits of Al-Qaeda? By assuming that New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and other large US cities are logical targets for terrorism, are we being lured into taking our eyes off of smaller, low key locations that when combined, could destroy more infrastructure and kill more Americans than those lost on 9/11?

I hope not.

Angela Merkel will be the first female chancellor Germany has ever known.

No matter how hard he tried, Gerhard Schroeder could not change political reality. He conceded today.  

Germany broke new political ground as Angela Merkel won the battle to be its first female chancellor, heading a government uniting the country’s two biggest parties and ending Gerhard Schroeder’s grip on power.

Pressed by reporters how she felt, Merkel broke into a smile. “I feel good, but a lot of work lies ahead of us.”

Schroeder, who has led Europe’s biggest economy for the past seven years, will play no role in the new left-right administration, sources in his Social Democrats (SPD) said on Monday, but secured key ministries for his party.

As luck would have it, I’m heading out to Germany this weekend. I’m sure there won’t be any immediately visible affects from this change of political climate, but it will be interesting to follow this remarkable story from the local perspective.

It’s hard to know right now what overall effects the change will have in American-German relations. I doubt we’ll suddenly see a huge difference in the day-to-day relationship, and I’m fairly certain there remains no chance that Germany will become a part of the Iraq war coalition of the willing. But then again, no one could have predicted that in 2005 the Germans would elect a woman to lead the country.

Never say never.

I filled the gas tank of my Toyota Pickup this morning which cost me $3.02 per gallon. If only I lived in Lincoln, Nebraska, today.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News conducted a poll last week regarding the Harriet Miers nomination. Here’s a snapshot of the results:

The bloggers who thought George Bush made a “bad or terrible decision” in selecting Miers outnumber those who thought he made a “good or excellent decision” by more than 5 to 1.

The bloggers who “view George Bush less favorably” because of the nomination outnumber those who “view George Bush more favorably” by more than 13 to 1.

At the moment, only 41% bloggers think George Bush should “continue to support Harriet Miers” while 59% are either “not sure” or think he should “withdraw the nomination”.

Only 33% of bloggers think Republican Senators should “vote to confirm Harriet Miers” while 67% are either “not sure” or would prefer that Republican Senators “vote against Harriet Miers”.

This landed pretty much where I thought it would. Head on over to John’s place to view the full results.

MEANWHILE: The folks over at PoliPundit say ‘Nevermind’. They now oppose Miers’ confirmation.

IT’S A PARTY: John Fund has ‘Miers Remorse’.

If you missed the 60 Minutes interview with former FBI Director Louis Freeh, you can download and watch it here. After that, head on over and check out Pamela’s wrap up.

Howard Kurtz has a write-up in the WaPo.

It’s a surprisingly even-handed interview given that it’s coming from CBS. Freeh comes off as credible, and he doesn’t seem to be releasing a book simply for the money. This man was clearly annoyed by the previous administration, and he did the right thing by revealing the dysfunctionality he witnessed.

Now, I’m sure they’ve had to deal with their fair share of Bourbon Street drunks, but come on.

And don’t give me any of that ‘it’s the stress’ nonsense. Just watch the video and see how these guys all worked together to hide their acts from an AP photojournalist. They deserve to be arrested, and their careers should be over.

UPDATE: Officers plead not guilty. Trial is set for January 11, 2006.

Ed Morrissey delivers his ‘state of the conservative blogosphere union’ speech as it regards the reaction to the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, and in Ed’s view, the union is far from sound.

Well, he’s finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and any number of Democratic heavyweights have been unable to do: He has cracked the Republican monolith. Split his own party activists. And how.

So much for the gentle approach. By invoking the names Gore, Kerry and Daschle, Morrissey tosses a flash bomb into the room and quickly gets our attention.

The president’s surprise pick to replace Sandra Day O’Connor has ignited a massive debate among his former loyalists, especially in the blogosphere, where I spend a fair amount of time. Wails of betrayal are clashing with assurances of the president’s brilliant strategic thinking. Meanwhile, the heavyweights of punditry drop columns like artillery shells into what already may be a conservative civil war.

The question on so many minds on the right is: What in Bork’s name was Bush thinking?

And there it is…the most apropos reference one can make to thoroughly frame the discussion. Morrissey conjures up the perfect word picture, because a majority of us understand what the verb ‘to Bork’ means. For those of you in the minority, here’s a primer to review.

You have to understand. Conservatives have dreamed for decades of reversing what we see as the court’s hijacking of legislative prerogative to advance a liberal agenda. It’s what fueled the drive to develop new voters for the GOP and push for a majority in Congress. And finally the political stars have aligned — giving us a Republican White House, a solidly Republican Senate, and a Republican House to boot.

Bush himself ran on the promise that his election would guarantee Supreme Court nominations in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But when he finally got an opening on the court — whom did he pick? An unknown quantity named John Roberts. After an initial round of puzzlement over this selection, conservatives backed the nomination, even though Roberts never gave any solid indication of whether he agreed with the philosophy of judicial restraint.

This is exactly what I suspected. Roberts, rather smoothly, sailed into his confirmation hearings, answered (or appropriately didn’t answer) the questions thrown at him, then somehow everything shifted into fast forward. Suddenly, it’s October 4th and the new Chief Justice is shown helping Justice Stevens as he walks down the steps of the majestic Supreme Court building. Perhaps it was the death of William Rehnquist that diverted everyone’s attention, or maybe it was the 24/7 Hurricane news that held everyone’s focus. Whatever it was, conservatives collectively thought, “OK, fine. Let Roberts in and we’ll go hardcore on the next nominee. After all, Bush understands our little deal with him. He’s gonna follow through exactly as planned and give us ‘Thomas Scalia’ on steroids. Won’t that be great?”

Yeah, great. If only it happened that way.

Morrissey goes on…

Bush has presented us with even more of a cipher, one with no demonstrable constitutional scholarship or judicial record, and whose best qualification appears to be proximity to him. The White House hasn’t publicly used Miers’s evangelical religion as an argument for her conservative credentials, but her supporters haven’t shown any qualms about proclaiming it a deciding factor. But since when did that represent conservatism?

AMEN!!!

Oh…(ahem), sorry.

The selection of Miers does represent one of Bush’s core values: his loyalty to his inner circle of aides. Conservatives normally see that as a big plus, but it has its drawbacks. And Miers isn’t the first possible candidate for the court to raise conservative blood pressure. Some on the right have speculated that Bush picked Miers as a pay-back for the trashing Alberto Gonzales has taken from the right wing since O’Connor first announced her retirement. It’s no secret that Bush would like to leave office with his longtime friend and ally on the Supreme Court as the first Hispanic justice. But conservatives made it clear that they regard Gonzales as a potential David Souter, a moderate who would bend to the left the way the notorious Bush 41 nominee did almost as soon as his hand left the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony.

Souter, the festering wound, forever an example of when good Bush’s go bad.

Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any nominee. That’s why heavyhitters like Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist and others confronted the president’s men about the nomination at the White House last week. Some, however, think the president’s move demonstrates a hidden brilliance that may take a decade or more to yield fruit. And then there are those who think the president made a mistake, but that any attempt at correction will only compound the damage.

I agree with the latter, and I said so here. Bush is not the type to do the big turn around and say he was wrong about Miers. That just won’t happen.

Captain Ed goes on to highlight the fighting camps in the blogosphere – ‘The Loyalist Army‘ led by Hugh Hewitt, ‘The Rebel Alliance‘ who tote the line propagated by MSM’ers like Coulter, Buchanan, Krauthammer and Kristol, and ‘The Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces‘ the clan where Morrissey claims membership. He’s pretty much got everyone pegged.

With important mid-term elections next year and at least one more Supreme Court opening likely during Bush’s term, we want to avoid a party schism that could make him a prematurely lame duck and hand the Democrats an opportunity to seize control of one or both houses of Congress.

So who will prevail? All I can predict is that if Miers is confirmed, the debate will continue into the next election cycle. And with this much rage building, the mid-terms look more exciting every day.

I’m not sure exciting is the word I’d use. I myself am sympathetic to the Rebel Alliance in this civil war. I have been a little less than impressed with Bush over the past 6 months. When he spoke of the political capital that he had gained in his reelection, and of his intention to spend it wisely, I anxiously awaited each carefully thought out transaction. After all, this man had the experience of one term as president under his belt, was handily reelected, and surely knew what it was he wanted to accomplish in part two. Unfortunately, what I’ve seen lately is reacting rather than leading, and all that reacting has led to a squandering of his valuable capital. Yet I’m not sure the president knows this. Does he believe the ‘capital’ he spoke of is still available to him? I wonder.

As I gaze longly at what might have been, I am left with the realization that our man only has about $2.50 of his capital left in my account of him. And with mid-terms coming up fast, that has me worried, not excited.