home

Ruffling Big Media's Feathers

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:28:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll make my point at the outset: Mainstream media will not weaken Daily Kos. Daily Kos is more than just Markos. It's a community of diarists whose views on issues may or may not mesh with his. What Markos has done is provide progressives, those who feel their government and the ideals of our country are being hijacked by the radical right, with a place to express themselves. If Markos retired to a remote island off of Fiji tomorrow, Daily Kos would continue for years.

Markos has never held himself out as the Pied Piper of the netroots. He repeatedly has expressed his discomfort at the media's attempts to cast him in this light. He has no ambitions of being the maestro or rock star of the movement. I have known Markos for 4 years. He designed TalkLeft. I've spent time with him and his family in San Francisco and at their home in Berkely. I've hung out with him in Washington, Boston, New York and Denver. Here's how I see him.

What Markos has is passion and a vison. While he has been hugely successful in implementing his vision through Daily Kos, trust me on this one, he's only just begun. His plans for the future will take progressive activism to heights not dreamed of today. The mainstream media is playing catch-up and Markos is way beyond them. In short, anyone who discounts Markos does so at their peril.

The latest brouhaha in big media by the Times' David Brooks, in Newsweek and by Jason Zengerle on a blog at the New Republic, a publication that seems to be in the throes of an identity crisis, is just that -- a brouhaha. And it is one that will fade quickly.

First off, David Brooks' article is behind the paid firewall of the New York Times. It's a blip on the radar screen.

As for Zengerle, now that he's admitted he made a factual mistake in his original reporting and acknowledged that his unnamed sources were wrong, it's even less of a story. Except for the innocent accused Steve Gilliard, who if he is the bulldog I think he is, won't let sleeping dogs lie until he receives a full vindication through the outing of the list-serv snitches, this is a non-story.

Big media has a dog in this fight. Newspapers are losing readers like a sieve to bloggers and online media. Have you noticed that every newspaper now has "blogs," most of which seem more like articles that didn't make the cut of the paper's final edition -- articles written by traditional journalists in that impersonal, reporting tone with too much prose and too few external links? It's like they don't have a clue what this blogging thing is all about.

By the time the word "blog" is understood by mainstream Americans, bloggers will have moved on. Markos and those in the netroots once again will leave big media in the dust. Politicians, if they are smart, will hang with the netroots to avoid a similar fate.

I'm not sure that I or any other solo blogger with a day job will make it to these next levels -- the medium will be far too advanced for one person, as opposed to a community like Daily Kos or Firedoglake to get there. But I think you can take one thing to the bank. Markos not only will be there, he'll be leading the charge.

Others reporting and commenting on the brouhaha: Matt Stoller, Digby, and James Wolcott.

Compounding the silliness are the attacks on Jerome Armstrong, Markos's "blogfather," former consulting partner and co-author of Crashing the Gates. First were the attacks on Jerome's long ago beef with the SEC, the settlement terms of which currently prevent him from commenting; then it was a purely speculative and false allegation that Markos endorses the candidates for whom Jerome does paid consulting; now it's that Jerome used to be into political astrology. Jerome responds here (scroll down.)

Update [2006-6-25 8:44:56 by Jerome Armstrong]: Let me just state for the record that any payola allegations or some quid pro quo deal involving Markos and myself are complete fabrications. Perhaps they are obsessed because they represent a party that has shown it's complete inability to govern in this country, and they recognize that a people-powered movement is happening in this country that is going to oust them into the bin of history. No one person is the leader of this movement, but as it grows, the fight from the opposition that resists the change that must happen in this nation will arise. Let them fight, we will still win.

Another Update [2006-6-25 14:13:39 by Jerome Armstrong]: Oh yea, on the astrological stuff. I have done the new age type things over the years--life's never boring that way. Down that line, I dabbled with planets and predictions in the most abstract manner, as one of several different predictive mathematical disciplines, when coming out of finances and into politics during my early blogging days (nobody is surprised that remembers the early 2001 days here), and since then have completely tapered out of it over time. So yea, the cons got me on this one being a little out of the ordinary... It has nothing to do with what I consult with in online political strategy. But hey, like JP Morgan once said, "millionaires don't use astrology, billionaires do!" I hope to see those wingnuts that are obsessed with every little thing I do at the next bikram yoga or vipassana meditation session in DC-- but fair warning that I believe we evolved from monkeys!

All these stories do is make the entire online media community appear petty and superficial. They are a distraction and it's time to move on.

< Murray Waas Tells All | Federal Judge Blocks GA. Sex Offender Law >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Ruffling Big Media's Feathers | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:34:53 AM EST
    The MSM just don't get it. If they can't kick UBL, or Saddam, they need to seek another individual to demonize to avoid dealing with the duplicity of the current regime. The idea that the blogosphere is about Markos or Jerome rather than forum they provide for progressives to come together and learn how to "Crash the Gates". We can't let them make the blogosphere about personalities rather than ideas.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:13:35 AM EST
    gee, i never thought this guy markos, or anyone else for that matter, led me, or anyone else around. i read the brooks column, and the blog idiocy. david brooks was an idiot before his column was paid. i always assumed they did that so fewer people would actually read the drivel that passes for his "thoughts". as far as the blog is concerned, never heard of it until this latest contratemps, and i wasn't impressed with its intellectual vigor. i've seen much better right-wing blogs. as for blogs taking over the world of politics, don't hold your breath on that one, it's an ugly way to die. perhaps in 20-30 years, but not any time soon. why? simply put, to few people even have the remotest clue who and what they are, to pay even the slightest attention to them. this isn't to say that at some point in the future, as more people get hooked to the net, it won't happen, it just isn't really going to have a dramatic effect on the next few election cycles. if progressives (read: liberals) bank on that, they will surely lose. i'm inclined to believe, as tip o'neal once noted, "all politics is local". absolutely, use the internet for communicating ideas, etc., but don't discount the value of face-to-face communication so quickly. sorry for the blathering.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:33:46 AM EST
    the scary scary "radical right" how is the country being hijacked when people are voting for policies u dont like obviously the country is against your ideals

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:38:42 AM EST
    One thing that I don't entirely understand is why people have freaked about the listserv email. So Markos is doing spin control... so what? All political figures in our society are required to strategically manage their media exposure. This has been true of political and public figures forever, and gains additional dimensions and complexities in a media-satured world. Do people really think that the folks in the White House press office or any other politico's media apparatus don't say stuff like this, and far worse stuff, all the time? Oh, the horror. Speaking of the horror, two questions for the forum. * Is DailyKos reflexively partisan? I often feel as though it is and find it to be a major weakness. * Can DailyKos, or any blog for that matter, capably reach out to the American lower classes -- arguably those most affected (and sometimes most supportive) of the current turn towards an American form of political fascism? On the last point. Where I live, the good liberals of the people-powered movement that Armstrong touts have fueled massive social and economic change in the city where I live, to the detriment of a just democracy for minorities and the lower class. These folks are reading Kos while sipping lattes in newly purchased condos. There's nothing wrong with that, but as long as the DailyKos demographic is primarily white, educated liberals, I believe that the impact and the ethical and discursive scope of the netroots movement will be necessarily and significantly limited.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldtree on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:14:10 AM EST
    big media doesn't like the blog? no kidding. they are losing all their credibility because the truth is obvious the MSM is desperately trying to kill blogs, because the internet is destroying newspapers. the real problem is, money is going to cause the rift, not altruism. the MSM is now obviously a tool of their owners, no further truth will out.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:39:39 AM EST
    David Eads wrote:
    One thing that I don't entirely understand is why people have freaked about the listserv email
    The Right freaked because it caught Markos attempting spin control. The Left freaked because it caught Markos attempting spin control. Either side is happy to admit that the other does it. You also wrote:
    Can DailyKos, or any blog for that matter, capably reach out to the American lower classes -- arguably those most affected (and sometimes most supportive) of the current turn towards an American form of political fascism?
    No, because that "lower class" is not as dumb as everyone thinks. First it sees the US as the best country, even though we have faults. So it will defend the country, and take an instinctive position against those who are anti-war. Especially if they view the anti-war crowd as more political than truly anti-war, which is the true position of (I believe) the vast majority of the Far Left. The Left's base continues to be college educated, largely in the soft science courses, etc. TL - From the post:
    the settlement terms of which currently prevent him from commenting;
    In an earlier thread graphicus wrote.
    What you should also consider, however, is that Armstrong's case is a civil proceeding -- he is not prohibited from speaking about it in any way.
    In that thread you commented that was not for discussion. Since you have brought the subject up again, I am hopeful that you take a different position in this thread, because it is quite germane to the issue. If graphicus is incorrect then this dust up does become much smaller. If, however, graphicus is correct, the things are put in a different light. So I ask. Is graphicus correct? Et al - Reporting and opinion was merged in "journalism" quite sometime ago, only it was contained on the editorial pages and a few magazines. It spread to TV/radio in the 60's and 70's almost without notice. As the Right recognized the advantages they started using it. Political blogs are an extension of that, are worked by both sides. Neither do a good of reporting and both are engaged in the rough and tumble of politics.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:53:28 AM EST
    ppj - All give you all day to come up with a link that backs up your fantasy that the "hard sciences" i.e., the rational, clear thinking ones, is right wing territory. Better yet, I'll give you all week. Ditto for any hard facts to back up your Jacksonian/Evansian fantasies about what "the lower classes" believe and think. And I'll clue you right now, despite what you and down home country gal Ann might like us to believe, "the lower classes" dont attend Nascar races; its too expensive an outing for them.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:55:16 AM EST
    oldtree writes:
    the MSM is now obviously a tool of their owners, no further truth will out.
    The MSM has always been the tool of their owners. The thing was the political views/positions of the employee was of no particular interest because it had no apparent effect on ciculation, and when challenged, "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" could be wipped out and waved to detract the bull. What has happened is that as the country shifted Right, readers started being more selective and that just increased the trend of fewer readers. Newspapers costs kept, and still are, going up and the WOT has just exploded the opposition. People who wouldn't care about social issues do care about defense and support of the troops, so they have become vocal, and they have given up in disgust. This letter says it all.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:05:52 AM EST
    Heavan forbid that a political base should be well educated. We should go back to crawling on all fours 'n let the decider-er do our thankin for us.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:08:52 AM EST
    Jim, the true voice and man of the people speaks. The man has his finger on the pulse of the real Americans.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:12:53 AM EST
    So I ask. Is graphicus correct?
    I'm on the run, but I believe graphicus is incorrect -- Armstrong entered into an injunction, and one of the provisions is that he can't talk about the case. Maybe somebody has a link.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:14:54 AM EST
    Jondee - That is an opinion. And I have one or two. But I ask you this. If the so-called "lower classes" do not support the country, why do they join the military. And if they do not support the country, why is the military meeting their enlistment and re-enlisment goals? (Think I'm wrong? Google, dear Jondee, Google.) I cannot think of a single journalist that is educated in the hard sciences. How many can you name? So believe what you will, it won't affect the truth and accuracy of my comment one bit. As for your inane insults about Jacksonian, keep it up. You look dumber everytime I post a link to it and people read it. Link

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    David - I sked the question to TalkLeft because yesterday she didn't want the subject discussed, and it's her blog. I am hopeful TL has changed her mind and can use her considerable legal talents to answer the question. Jondee - Your attacks continue to feature claims that I have not made. Go back and read. No one has said anything about people "shouldn't" be educated. Why do you make such obvious statements? They are so easy to refute.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    ppj - Judging from the fact that I've yet to see you mention "the Left" in any positive context, I assume that when you say the Left's base is primarily college educated, you mean to attach some kind of stigma to that fact. Not much of a leap considering your history. And your comment about soft and hard science backgrounds was made in reference to "the Left's base" not about journalists, as anyone who scrolls up can read. Now lets see you back it up with some hard facts.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    David Eads is correct. Page 3 of the settlement agreement says:
    Defendant agrees not to take any action or to make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis.
    Jim, if you'd like to discuss Jerome's civil case which he is not at liberty to discuss, (and, by the way, in which he was not represented by counsel because he couldn't afford one and there is no right to appointed counsel in civil cases) please visit the right wing blogs. TalkLeft will not engage in it.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:54:51 AM EST
    I'm so confused on this issue. Markos, tell me what to say!! LOL

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    The "MSM" needn't fear the pending rise of blogs. I read very recently that only 15% of those with Internet access regularly read blogs (if I can recall exactly where I read that, I'll post the survey source). the blogosphere's greatest contribution is to serve as oversight on the MSM. As far as mobilization of voters for political change, one need look no further than the Kossack List of Failed Candidates. At last count, candidates with the support from DailyKos (both editoral and financial) were something like 0 for 14.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    ppj is obviously way outta touch. He is pulling out all the currency in his impoverished intellectual bank account (Mead and some wingnut GI) here because this thread represents his raison d'ĂȘtre, a wannabe Rovian operative where MSM lapdogs rule. Ironic that he is blogging away here. He does so only with the hope of extinguishing the growing power of the left blogosphere. Subversive?, no he is too much of a lightweight. His job (hobby) as a regular commenter on a lefty blog is to disseminate spin and defend it. I guess he thinks he will somehow convert a few of us. No chance as his points are always transparently derivative and obviously bogus. I, for one though, do find it interesting to see what garbage passes for right wing talking points, so for me ppj is functionally interesting, and occasionally amusing. Engaging with him is always dissapointing though, because he is so intellectually dishonest. Par for the course, I guess.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    ppj: TL quoted the operative provision of the settlement agreement:
    Defendant agrees not to take any action or to make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis.
    So, he can talk about the case but his speech is restricted: he can't suggest that the complaint is without factual basis. As TL observed, he was not represented by counsel, and en entirely different result may have obtained if he had been. In any case, TL doesn't wish to have this matter discussed at length here, and it is her board. Enough said.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    The "MSM" needn't fear the pending rise of blogs. I read very recently that only 15% of those with Internet access regularly read blogs
    I wonder, of the 15% (or whatever) with internet access that regularly read blogs, what % are regularly reading political blogs rather than blogs for their breed of pet, make of car or other hobby/interest?

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:33:57 AM EST
    Talk Left - I have no particular desire to discuss his civil case, I just assumed it was back on the table when you mentioned it again today so I asked for the correctness of graphicus' opinion. And yes, I would guess the Right Wingers are pumping away. Both sides do it. Jondee - You brought the journalists in when you brought up that well known Right Winger, Ann Coulter. Squeaky - I only wish I had the power you give me. I would use it to convert all of my poker opponents. "Give me your money. Give me your money." And convert you? Sir/Madam, you assume someone would want you. ;-) croc_choda - It isn't the owners of the MSM who fear the blogs, but those who have worked for the owners. Corproations grow and morph, people much less so. So the fight is in the yard, not in the house. You can expect to see less and less free access to any "formal" (for lack of a better word) news site, and more and more charging. It is easy to see how the site could sell a subcsrciption for say, $20.00 and then let the subscriber select only what they want to read, payment for same to be deducted from their account balance. Advertising and real news content would be free. This would put everyone in the position of "singing for their supper." The NYT could "carry" everyone and let the money fall were it falls. Since this will be done by all, the issue will be, who does the best job on the "news." If the subscriber thinks that the NYT has a bias that floats into the news coverage, they can go elsewhere. So the owners will have a much greater interest in what their "reporters" are saying as opposed to what the "journalists/columnists" are writing because "hits" will control ad pricing and ala carte editorial/column pricing stands on its own.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    One particularly funny thing from Brooks: he compares Kos to Delay, but also mocks Kos for thinking that he's powerful - in his own mind. Which is it? The smell of fear!

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:17:06 PM EST
    Ha, ha,ha suo. Nice spin. Quoting a winger who heard something somewhere.... Irrespective of the validity of your quote by croc, It does seem that downplaying the competition is usually a sign of fear. If the MSM were feeling secure they would welcome blogs. A good restaurant welcomes the opening of more restaurants nearby as it increases their own business. Only restaurants that are resting on their laurels need fear competition. Funny how the MSM allegedly uttering the words "blogs are inconsequential" speaks volumes to the opposite. It seems that stating the opposite of what is true is the current fasion these days in wingnuttia. Lewis Carol and George Orwell experience their comuppance. ppj's latest
    Squeaky - I only wish I had the power you give me. I would use it to convert all of my poker opponents.
    There you have it.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    Squeaky, you are a character.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    the stupid meme about Kos not having any successes is yet another example of wrongwingers lying:
    surely you know that the kos endorsed reps. stephanie herseth of s. dakota and ben chandler of kentucky, sens. barak obama of illinois and ken salazar of colorado, gov. tim kaine of virginia, and most recently, jon tester of montana.
    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#26)
    by Rick B on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:00:03 PM EST
    The fact that Znegerle's article is a hit piece is given away by his "mea culps" in which he smears Jerome Armstrong with a reference to his apparent belief in Astrology. Jerome appears to be good at technology, and writes well. Using his Astrology (which I will assume is serious) is the same as smearing Jerry Fallwell, Oral Roberts, or Dobson with comments about their irrational belief in Biblical Inerrantism, the Rapture and the coming Apocolypse. Frankly, I don't recall the chapter in Crashing the Gate regarding the Astrology of crashing the gate. Would have skipped it if I did, just as I generally skip the sermons of the Biblical Inerrantists and Jack Van Impe. [Though I do miss the early morning radio shows from Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God. Very entertaining when driving through East Texas at 3:00 AM since I detested most popular Rock music in those days.]

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    Squeaky - Blogs aren't newspapers. Totally different animals. And so far I have seen very little that would convince me that they are. Especially when I look at the result of Jason Leopold's "investigations." And don't tell me TruthOut is not a "blog." I know that, but it is an internet site with an attitude, as is NewsMax, PowerLine, etc. et al - I repeat. "Newspapers" aren't frightened of "blogs." Some of the MSM journalists/columnists may be because anything that threatens the status quo challenges them. And what will the blogs do when the papers decide to charge for access, or react in a manner that I posited. I note Squeaky didn' care to disuss that possibility, just posture about "fear."

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    PPJ: No, because that "lower class" is not as dumb as everyone thinks. First it sees the US as the best country, even though we have faults. So it will defend the country, and take an instinctive position against those who are anti-war. The minority that opposed the war at the outset, myself included, have been joined by enough others for whom the scales have dropped from their eyes, that those who now oppose the war are a solid majority of Americans. So you are saying that the undefined "lower class" holds a minority opinion, a minority that shrinks by the hour. How does it feel to be on the losing side of a trend? I've never been there myself, because I have always been on the side starting the trends, including this one. I was anti-war when it was treason to think that way. Now most of America is composed of traitors like me.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    PPJ And what will the blogs do when the papers decide to charge for access, or react in a manner that I posited. Josh Marshall is already paying his own reporters at TPMMuckraker.com, and their work so far surpasses the MSM's that the MSM have already started ripping him off without crediting the source. Next question.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:26:54 PM EST
    Repack - Opinions, opinions and you are welcome to'em, but let us not confuse them with facts. Now, if some internet based newspaper is paying its reporters, good-o. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with the problem of opinion seeping into news and the slow death this is causing print media. Or for that matter, how that proves anything regarding the supposed hostility big media has for the blog world. As to who is opposed to the war in Iraq, I could ask if the opposition is to "war" or is it for "political" reasons, or is it a case of people weary of the current strategy and think it wrong. Wrong, of course could mean anything. I know folks to roundly criticize Bush for not carpet bombing Iraq as we did Japan and Germany. You write:
    I've never been there myself, because I have always been on the side starting the trends, including this one.
    Careful there, that ego may become so heavy that you will find it difficult to carry. I won't ask the logical question of if you have always been perfect at spotting trends, why aren't you rich?

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:25:50 PM EST
    Repack - Opinions, opinions and you are welcome to'em, but let us not confuse them with facts.
    actually repack quoted facts and linked them. It is a fact that the SCLM lifted the text and didn't credit it.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:45:36 PM EST
    I apologise my last post was OT, this thread is about how the SCLM doesn't realise they are behind the curve of tech.

    Re: Ruffling Big Media's Feathers (none / 0) (#33)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:32:30 PM EST
    As to who is opposed to the war in Iraq, I could ask if the opposition is to "war" or is it for "political" reasons, or is it a case of people weary of the current strategy and think it wrong. I opposed it first, because the president was lying so transparently that you had to whistle "Dixie" very loudly while he was speaking in order to believe him. I opposed it because strategically it reminded me of Hitler and Napoleon's attempt to take Moscow, while defending long supply lines. I opposed it because Vietnam taught us that you can't use heavy infantry tactics against an enemy that is embedded in the landscape and the populace so deeply that you have to kill lots of innocents if you want to get one of them. I opposed it because we were told that it wasn't going to be expensive or take very long, and falling for the same lie every time it is offered seems like a slow learning curve. I opposed it because the Constitution says that only the Congress can declare war, and I hadn't seen a formal declaration or even a debate. I opposed it because it was stupid, immoral or illegally fattening of profiteering campaign contributors on absolutely every level of consideration. I won't ask the logical question of if you have always been perfect at spotting trends, why aren't you rich? What makes you think I am not? Have we discussed my income here? I do well enough, own my business, own a home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country, and have a modest empire that is a size that I consider managable. I had a hand in one of the most successful trends of the last 25 years. I can go to any city in the world and see my personal impact on modern culture. Every book on the history of bicycles will have to mention me for as long as such books are written. I am married to my first and only wife, my kid gets straight-A's and I do not mind working hard for every day for the family I love. My work is demanding, challenging and fun, honest as the day is long, it pays great, it pays in cash every day, and I do it in the company of a couple of Black ex-convicts who roll blunts when I ask them to. Sometimes I think I must be the luckiest person in the world. That ever happen to you?

    Accuracy (none / 0) (#34)
    by Maryscott OConnor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    The title of the book is "Crashing the GATE."

    Singular. Not plural.

    Spelling (none / 0) (#35)
    by Maryscott OConnor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:33:36 PM EST
    Berkeley.

    and (none / 0) (#36)
    by Maryscott OConnor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:33:56 PM EST
    Vision.

    Ruffling Big Media's Feathers | 36 comments (36 topical)