Update: Thank you for all the suggestions. I decided to go with the iPod Mini. My sister has the Dell 20 GB DJ, and while she loves, it just felt way too heavy for me. The iPod Mini, at around 3 ounces, weighs half as much. I would have liked something that hold more songs (the Mini holds about 1,000), but for now it was the best choice. I was really able to get a great deal from Amazon by using some coupons and my A9.com discount.

Update #2: So, I ordered the mini iPod from Amazon around midnight on Tuesday. I used the super free shipping and they estimated I'd receive my iPod anywhere from the 11th to the 14th. Now, I know that you normally get it way before then, but imagine my shock when my iPod arrived at my office TODAY! Wow. They only way I could have gotten it faster is if the guy at the warehouse in Addison personally drove it up to me. I'm impressed.

Even though I've yet to purchase a DVD player or join the Tivo cult, I think I'm ready for an MP3 Player. But, I don't really know what to buy. I could use a player with the capability to hold 10,000 songs, but right now I'd be fine with something with as little 1,000 songs.

I doubt I'll use it in my car right away, but I would like to be able to strap it onto my arm to wear to the gym. I plan on using it to play both downloaded music and music from my own CDs.

I want something that's sturdy enough to use while running or working on something like an elliptical machine. I probably won't bike with it as I'm not comfortable not hearing traffic, etc., while I bike. However, I could see using it while kayaking, if that's a consideration (note: I kayak on a generally mellow lake, not whitewater).

I have a few possibilities in the poll below, but what would you all recommend?

Well, I just got back from a week in Toronto. A few thoughts:

-In the interests of full disclosure, I have many fond feelings for Canada. I find that, on the whole, Canadians are decent people...kind of like a nation full of Boy Scouts. Whenever I go up there they are always ready to help out a stranger. For example, a couple of days ago I got turned around in downtown Toronto and asked a passerby where Yonge street was...and he very courteously answered me. Try getting that reaction in Georgetown.

-The flight to Toronto was delayed by about two hours due to a mechanical problem. In my spot in the Dulles airport, I noticed the people who were sitting quietly were mainly the Canadians in the crowd. Similarly, the plane leaving Toronto was two hours late for unspecified reasons (United Airlines seems incapable of offering on-time flights) and again, the Canadians in the crowd were more accepting of the inconvenience. I don't know that I can draw many conclusions from that factoid, but make of it what you will.

-The Canadian Government, on the other hand, is something I don't think the Canadian people deserve. On the whole, it seems the Canadians are content to allow the "elite" to rule things, while they focus on their everyday lives. However, the idea of a government involving a queen thousands of miles away and only holding elections when they feel like it is, to my American idealism, looney.

-One area where the Canadian Government excels is, of course, the bureaucracy. Going through Canadian customs from the States was a breeze...less than 5 minutes in line, despite a fairly large crowd of people. Forms were distributed efficiently and requirements were made clear before anyone got in line. When I got to the customs officer, she was friendly and efficient.

-Contrast that with going through American customs. At Pearson airport, US Customs is done while still in Toronto. The forms were haphazardly distributed, and I didn't receive mine until I was turned away from getting in line. Once filled out, I stood in a rather long line (although it was made up of fewer people than the line to get into Canada), and line management was haphazard. The customs agent was surly. And the design of the area meant after one was finished with the customs guy, one had to meld into a huge crowd going through a very tight bottleneck to check luggage. Now I'm not saying I would like the US to have an efficient bureaucracy...but the entire thing seemed a little third world to me.

-One thing a visitor to Canada always finds striking...the abundance of national symbols. Most everywhere you look, you see maple leafs, and even corporate logos tend to incorporate them. Flags are flown unapologetically. From what I could tell this was all done from free will and not some law which requires PetroCanada to use national symbols in their logo. Remember after 9/11 when the Democratic Undergrounders criticized the outpouring of American patriotism? If I recall, it was denounced as cheap and phony, and that tends to be the complaint of our Left about most forms of naked patriotism. Well, if that's the case then Canadians must be the cheapest and phoniest people on the planet.

-The Canadian Budget was passed during my stay. As Paul Martin (the Canadian Prime Minister) heads what's a Minority Government (meaning his party holds a minority of seats in Parliament), the Conservatives could call an election pretty much whenever they want. So that the budget passed while averting an election is good news for a country who prefers to allow the professionals to deal with things. As for the budget itself, it features some tax cuts, more funding for the military, easing of restrictions on RRSP accounts (kind of a cross between a 401(k) and Social Security), and other, well, conservative things. From the thumbnail sketch I got from the news, there wasn't much to complain about from a conservative point of view.

-The press in Canada can be vicious, in stark contrast to the average Canadian's demeanor. The National Post is considered Canada's conservative paper (from my reading, it just reads less liberal) and excoriated Paul Martin in no uncertain terms. For example, on Thursday Paul Martin made somewhat contradictory statements about missile defense in North America. The Post took issue with that, saying things in straight news articles that I'd rail against mightily if they appeared in the New York Times.

-The NHL lockout is hitting Toronto hard. It's a huge hockey town (and you'd be too if the only other sports you had were the Raptors and the Blue Jays) and the lack of the sport has not only hit the team hard...but all the subsidiary businesses. Bars near the Air Canada Centre closed early and business was light. Ditto with restaurants (that I could walk into Jamie Kennedy's Wine Bar with a few coworkers and get served fairly quickly says volumes). I don't mean to make the Toronto economy sound like it's faltering. It isn't (the 7:30 am Tim Horton's line makes that clear). But the NHL lockout does have an impact, both material and on the town's morale.

-Most of the people in Toronto I've talked to about the lockout seem to be on the side of management. One fellow opined that if the players are asking for too much money, just fire them and put out some of the guys in the minors. While I don't agree entirely with that, I do think it shows just how much hockey is loved in this town. Any hockey game, even minors, is considered a good game for the town's residents. And one side development of this lockout...minor league games are getting a degree of recognition they haven't had before. For example, a minor game was getting prime-time televised coverage...and it was a good game. Keep this up and the NHLPA's case will evaporate.

-So now I have some mail, and current events, to catch up on. See y'all later.

Although it's not nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, Hotel Rwanda is one of the two or three movies from last year that stayed with me longer than the car ride home. It inspired me to read We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families for more information about the Rwandian genocide.

I still think about the movie, and when I do I'm filled with horror at what happened. I'm amazed that so many Rwandians could give up their humanity and literally hack to death their classmates, neighbors and coworkers. And, finally, I'm filled with rage at the United Nations. There are individuals like General Romeo Dallaire and Capt. Mbaye Diagne who did the best they could to help prevent the genocide and then to save some of the 800,000 Tutsis who were killed, but as an organization, the UN was worse than ineffectual. This post from Ghosts Of A Flea sums it up perfectly:

"Ghosts of Rwanda" represents the best of PBS' Frontline series. Anyone who thinks the barbarism in Fallujah could be assuaged by withdrawal of Coalition forces should watch this show. Anyone who thinks the word "barbarism" is more offensive than the murder and desecration of free people should be ashamed. Anyone who cannot find the word "evil" in their vocabulary may not be capable of that emotion. But that shame is nothing next to what we should all feel for standing by as genocide was perpetrated in Rwanda. Canadian General Romeo Dallaire sums it up with brutal clarity.

"I'm sure there would have been more reaction if someone had tried to exterminate Rwanda's 300 mountain gorillas," he said.

So much for the United Nations. So much for international law. So much for the international community. 800,000 people were murdered. And still the only thing that matters to so many people is marching in the streets against... against what exactly? Against civilization. Too many of those outraged by the toppling of dictators could not find Rwanda on the map.

One story stands out. A Senegalese peacekeeper saved a hundred, as many as a thousand, lives by escorting some of the few Tutsis left in Kigali away from one of many Hutu Einsatzgruppen. Captain Diagne saved these lives against the express orders of the United Nations. Remember that the next time someone suggests that parliament of dictators has the moral authority to point fingers as as it chokes back the lobster and champagne.

It's not just that the UN did nothing in Rwanda. Nope. It's worse than that. After the Tutsi rebels were able to take over and stop the genocide, the UN actually protected the perpetrators in their "refugee" camps. That's right. They wouldn't lift a finger to stop the murder of nearly 1,000,000 people, but they couldn't do enough to help the murderers. Sound familiar? If not, then perhaps you should talk to the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs.

The UN defenders will try to shift the blame for their inaction to America. They'll say America didn't have the stomach for another African "adventure" after Somalia. Of course, this conveniently ignores the fact that, months before the genocide began, Gen. Dallaire outlined a simple plan that he could implement with the UN troops already in Rwanda (mostly Belgians) to prevent the violence. The UN, and in particular Kofi Annan, said no. I have no idea how Kofi Annan can look the world in the eye. How in the world can you pretend to have some kind of moral authority when you have the blood of nearly a million people on your hands?

So, I'm watching the Oscars and sitting through Chris Rock's opening monologue. I know it's going to be bad when he starts out talking about Fahrenheit 911. He claims he doesn't want to do any Bush-bashing. Then, he proceeds to compare Bush to a Gap clerk who's a few trillion short at the register. He likens the Iraq war to a Gap clerk declaring war over non-existant toxic tank tops at Banana Republic.

First, Rock's an idiot because everyone knows that Gap and Banana are part of the same company.

Second, Rock's a giant hypocrite because he closes his monologue with a shout out to the troops "fighting for freedom". Huh? Didn't he just spend the last 5 minutes talking about how the war in Iraq was some grand adventure schemed up by Bush and Karl Rove? Now it's a fight for freedom?

If you're going to present yourself as a left wing looney, at least have the courage of your own convictions.

Update: You know, I think Chris Rock is funny too. I've never seen his stand up routine, but I did love him in Dogma.

I don't really object to his Bush-bashing last night either. If that's all he did, I'd be annoyed and would never have written this post. After all, it's expected for comedians to rip on the President, no matter who the President is.

What irritated me so much about Rock is that, after preaching the F 911 gospel, he turned right around and shouted his "support" for the troops. It was like he was using the phrase as a get-out-of-asshattery-free card.

Of course, for all I know Rock has performed for troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or has visited troops at Bethesda or something.

I think I just have a knee-jerk reaction to Hollywood celebrities talking about politics.

Entrepreneurial success stories have always captivated my attention. I was just watching an A&E Biography piece on Colonel Sanders and was impressed with his marketing ingenuity, particularly this piece:

Back in the 1940's, Colonel Sanders opened up a motel next to one of his restaurants which was located just outside of town. The Kentucky Colonel built a a "nice" motel with nice rooms, and he wanted it to be a family establishment. However, there was one problem: back then, any self-respecting family in need of a room for the night would stay at an Inn in town, never a motel on the outskirts of the city. Back in those days, roadside motels were used for one thing and one thing only, and that "thing" certainly wasn't a family activity.

His solution? The Colonel built a model motel room inside of the restaurant so that the customers could see what the rooms looked like. To ensure that the most important person in the decision making process saw the room, he put the women's restroom in the most strategic place possible: inside of the model room.

That's right: in order to get to the powder room, the lady of the family had to walk through the model motel room, where she would see the nice beds, the dining table with flowers on it, etc., thus showcasing for the likely decision maker that his place was a nice, clean, "family" establishment after all.

It's ingenious thinking like that that makes America great.

Much has been written in the last couple of days about Condi Rice and her sexy boots. Some may think this obsession with potential Presidential footwear is silly, I think it's important. You can tell an awful lot about a man (or a woman) just by looking at their shoes.

Condi's boots show that she knows she has sex appeal and she's not going to hide it. She's going to use whatever tools are at her disposal: brains, beauty, wit or connections. Now, that's great, but is this choice an indication that Condi is selling herself as a candidate rather than her ideas? That's my fear. Sure, personality counts, but I do want to know what a candidate stands for, not just that they're "cool".

Contrast Condi's boots with Rudy Giuliani's understated footwear. Rudy's all about the power of personality, but his shoes certainly don't reflect that. All Giuliani's shoes say to me is "I'm appropriate". Maybe that's the message he's going for. Perhaps his footwear choice is yet another way of reassuring the Republican base that he really does share their values and isn't too liberal to win the nomination in 2008.

I need two pictures to illustrate how Hillary Clinton must feel about shoes. Hillary does seem to care about how she looks. She gets expensive haircuts (and it shows, her hair looks so much better now than it did back in 1992) and is fond of attractive pantsuits. But look at her shoes. They're horrible. I think you have to purposely choose to wear such ugly shoes. Shoes, jewelry and handbags are, for many women, a way to show their sense of humor and whimsy. She might not be willing to wear an outlandish clothes, but she'll add some color or pattern into her accessories. Hillary doesn't. And frankly, that meshes with her personality. She's not colorless, but she does seem overly serious. It's fine if she wants to live her own life without any fun, but I'm afraid that she doesn't want any of us to have fun. She's a Debbie Downer.

Finally, we come to John Kerry. When Kerry's biking, he wears bike shoes. When he's windsurfing he wears water socks or goes barefoot. When he's at a formal event he wears black shoes. When he's pretending to be a hunter, he wears brown boots. And, when he's on the campaign trail, he wears flip flops. Okay, just kidding about that last one. But seriously, Kerry's shoes are always appropriate for the activity he's engaged in. In many ways, that's a good thing. It shows you think about what you're going to need in each situation. But, as we saw in 2004, it could also be a sign of pandering - he wants to be all things to everyone.

Presidential candidates want us to look in their eyes or read their lips. Go ahead and do that, but don't forget to look down and check out their shoes.

We've had a number of links and discussions about the interplay between the Libertarian and Republican parties over the last week or so. This piece by Randy Barnett over at The Volokh Conspiracy makes the following point:

Like other Americans, however, many libertarians think of political parties like sports teams. They want their own team to root for and cannot root for the other teams. Voting Libertarian gives them psychological satisfaction, while in the aggregate diminishing their political impact.

Libertarians should stop thinking of parties as teams and think of them instead as the playoffs. In NFL football terms, The Democrats are the AFC and the Republicans [t]he NFC. To get into the Superbowl, you have to survive the season and the playoffs in your respective conference. In effect, Libertarians want to form their own league which no one but themselves is interested in watching. And they assure themselves of never making the playoffs much less the Superbowl.

Given the longtime historical dominance of the NFC over the AFC and the recent reversal of this trend with the AFC handily whipping the NFC in almost every category, I probably would have likened the Dems to the NFC and the Republicans to the AFC.

Notwithstanding this techincal oversight, an excellent point.

We'll start this morning with a charming story out of Lowell, MA with a novelty plate on the red Mustang belonging to a staff member at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School.

The novelty plate reads "Fight Crime, Shoot First."

So guess where this is going. We have an elementary school in Massachusetts, and a car on their parking lot expresses a message which is, shall we say, proactive and involves a gun. Of course some parent is going to figure out a way to be upset about it. And right on cue, we have an anonymous mother who complained to her kid's teacher about it, then moved up the food chain to the school's principal and the superintendent. And her concerns sound, well, a little hysterical:

"Being a member of the staff, well, you have to be an example to the kids," the mother insisted. "You don't just do whatever."

"I can listen to parents and listen to their concerns," [School Principal Sandra] Dunning said. "But we do live in America. That's part of our democracy, free speech."

The parent, however, says the school's responsibility to provide positive role models to children supersedes [sic] the right to free speech, and that the offending license plate is a breech of the public trust placed in school employees.

"I don't think it's just a question of freedom of speech," the mother said, noting that while her son is still learning to read, the school's older students have full reading ability. "You don't leave it for the kids to see every day."

I don't know about anyone else, but someone who would stand up to a criminal intent on doing him harm would be a role model I wouldn't mind my son having. But let's play with this parent's train of thought a little more. I don't think it's such a great example for a car in the school parking lot to sport a bumper sticker advocating abortion on demand, or a Kerry for President slogan (and odds are the parking lot features cars with just those sentiments). Would my outrage be justified?

That aside, as the car is outside there really isn't a problem here other than the one being manufactured by this parent. But, because one person complained, now the employee has to cover up this plate while the car is parked in the parking lot (Personally, I'd cover it up with a piece of paper that quoted the First Amendment with, in parentheses: "Unless, it seems, you're talking about scawy guns in a jocular manner"). To that compromise? The parent says:

"I'm aggravated because they only did something when I said I was going to talk to The Sun," the mother said. "I feel that I had to go outside the school to solve a little problem, because this could have been solved within the school."

OK, lady, stop treating me like I'm Montel Williams. Obviously it was a BIG problem to you, because otherwise you wouldn't have gone to a newspaper with it. You saw something that offended your sensibilities, and when told by the school staff that it wasn't an issue you decided to MAKE it an issue. Give me a break.

And I can't help but wonder how this parent falls on the Ward Churchill thing. Here's a guy who said flat out the innocent people who were murdered by al Qaeda on 9/11 were "little Eichmanns." Well, MR. Churchill (I say Mr because he doesn't actually have a doctorate, you see), I happen to have a rather personal connection to 9/11, in that a very good family friend of ours was in the WTC when it went down. Dan McNeal was an incredibly smart and gifted human being, and unlike you, Mr. Churchill, he never lied on his resume nor did he ever misrepresent himself in order to get ahead. He honestly earned everything he had. And anyone who knew him will tell you of the extraordinarily kind and selfless man that was Dan. That you, in the comfort of a life based on fraud and public subsidy, see fit to denigrate this man's memory is the real outrage here. Yet there you are trying to play the victim when you're finally called to account. Well, buddy, the real victims are the ones murdered by terrorists, not you. The real victims are the people you duped into thinking you are a serious human being.

In fact, what's going on with campuses today? Also in Massachusetts, Lawrence Summers of Harvard is going through the roaster for daring to suggest that men and women think differently, after warning his audience that he wanted to offer some out of the box ideas. Out of the box? I seem to remember a fairly popular book that says the same damn thing. And yet, for all of Academia's complaining about the witch hunt over Mr. Ward "Actually White" Churchill, not one peep over the free speech rights of Lawrence Summers...a guy who actually has academic credentials and who FLAT OUT SAID he wanted to be provocative in his statements.

It's interesting. The Left likes to hurl charges of hypocrisy. In fact, I'm of the opinion that the Left considers hypocrisy to be the worst thing a person can be guilty of (indulge in a quick tour of the Dummocrats comment pages, for instance). But for a group of people who claim to honor intellectual consistency, they sure have some challenges on this issue.

Law & Alcoholism serves up the quote of the day with this little gem on the misguided angels who have pushed through new minimum wage laws in Milwaukee and Madison:

Most grocery stores don't accept leftist ideology as legal tender to exchange for food.

Hey! Don't be giving our Madison overlords any bright ideas. Next thing you know local grocery will have to accept "Socialized Sustinence Cards" and we'll all end up having to drive to Fitchburg to buy a gallon of milk.

Note: Brainpost does a great job of picking apart these stupid wage laws.

The Supreme Court will hear a case about Eminent Domain that originated in New London, Connecticut. The issues of the case revolves around the city government's desire to buy some residents out of their homes in order to make way for private economic development.

I'll certainly be curious to hear what James has to say on this, being our resident Legal Beagle. At first blush I have to say I hope the citizens get to stay in their homes. It's pretty clear Eminent Domain rules when we're talking about land for public use, but when it comes to demolishing someone's home so private companies can build "a riverfront hotel, health club and offices," we're contorting the plain meaning of the 5th Amendment into uselessness.

If this development is so needed, let a private development company make the residents an offer. Government has no business being in the middle of this.

We've been having lots of fun with the Moral Politics Test. It's enlightening to see where our political philosophies put us in comparision to recent Presidents and where we stand in comparision with other readers.

Some readers have already taken the test and have posted their results in the comments on the Daily Page thread. I plotted them on the matrix below.

Update: I updated the chart to show where we all stand as of Wednesday night.

If you take the quiz and post your results on the Daily Page thread, I'll add your results to the chart. Hopefully we can get a somewhat complete visual sampling of where our readers lie.

(if you would prefer to be a particular animal, include that in your post or email me - though i can't guarantee that i'll be able to honor your request - i'm a marketer, not a graphic designer.)

I'm hoping we have at least one poster that can make it into one of those top quadrants (BV Big Bro, I'm looking in your general direction...)

Don't post your results here!
Put them here, on the Daily Page thread.

25 years ago today, the United States hockey team beat the Russians in the 1980 Olympic hockey semi-finals. For the 25 years since then, me, my dad and my brother Doug have kept this classic Sports Illustrated safe:

I was eight at the time of the Miracle on Ice, and so I didn't know much about the political implications of the victory. I was drawn to it by the sheer joy that the Americans expressed at winning. When I think of the word exhilaration, this cover photo is what's in my mind's eye.

For some people, this game foreshadowed the renewed optimism of the Reagan years. Others saw it as a lesson in how underdogs can overcome the odds or how a great team working together can defeat a team of great players (you think the Patriots were the first?). For me, I learned that sometimes a game can be the most exciting thing in the world, and that's why I'm a sports fan today. You can sit through hundreds of awful defeats and they are all worth it for that one moment of triumph. And actually, that's really a lesson that transcends sports or politics, isn't it?

Wes Roth has a couple of great links up.

#1, Dated February 19, 2005:

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) -- Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

This might sound like "news" to you, but , as Wes points out with his second link:
#2, Dated March 26, 2003:

US defeat in Iraq 'inevitable''
Lisbon - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

Before lending any credence to these "reports," one would be wise to consider the source.

Ann Althouse links to a Kevin Drum piece questioning why there aren't more women in the blogosphere. Drum says:

Although its geeky Usenet roots were (and are) testosterone laden affairs, there are still no formal barriers to entry here, no old boys club in the usual meaning of the word. Yet if you take a look at the Blogosphere Ecosystem, which for all its faults is probably the closest thing we have to a consensus measure of popularity for political blogs, you will find exactly three women in the top 30: Michelle Malkin, La Shawn Barber, and Michele Catalano. (There are a few group blogs in the top 30, but those are very heavily male dominated too.)

That's a grand total of 10% of the most popular political blogs. And to gaze even more deeply into our collective navel, that 10% is 100% conservative. On the liberal side, Wonkette weighs in at #33 and TalkLeft at #48 — and that's it for liberal women in the top 100, unless I've missed someone.

So what's up? There aren't any institutional barriers in the traditional sense of the word, which means either (a) there are fewer female political bloggers and thus fewer in the top 30, or (b) there are plenty of women who blog about politics but they don't get a lot of traffic or links from high-traffic male bloggers.

First, I think looking at the top 30 blogs is an incredibly limited view of the blogosphere. The whole point of the internet is the breadth of options available, not to limit yourself to just the most popular ones. Just looking over at our blogroll, I see plenty of popular (more or nearly as popular as us) female blogs like Althouse, Rachel Lucas of Blue-Eyed Infidel, Risawn, e-Claire, Ambra Nykola, Sondra K and Cathy's World. That's not an insignificant sample. So, I'm not sure that there is a shortage of women in the political blogosphere. There's no need for some well-meaning liberal to set up a foundation and give female bloggers a financial incentive in order to have a "diversity of viewpoints" on the web. Although, if someone would like to bankroll me, I'm not saying I would resist :-)

Drum's hypothesis is that opinion writing on the web is too vitriolic and rough for delicate females. Clearly he's never read one of Lucas' takedowns of Michael Moore. But, all kidding aside, he may have a point. Sometimes the comments on the site do get pretty rough. The language is nasty and personally, I refuse to deal with that. Luckily, I'm quite sure that John & James would be willing to take care of such nasty visitors. Althouse says:

Each blog is a place unto itself, where a writer establishes a tone and a voice. As long as you keep the comments function off, you control your own space. A thousand vitriolic male blogs don't prevent one woman from setting up her own blog and making whatever she likes of it.

That's true, but getting comments and feedback is, to me, an integral part of blogging. I think that interaction leads to links from other bloggers. If you're not getting links, you can't blame it on the fact that you're male or female. Either your content isn't interesting enough or you don't make an effort to get known by linking to and commenting on other people's posts. For as much of a loner sport you might think blogging is, you can't overlook that whole social aspect of it. To be a popular blogger, I think you do have to put up with, or be able to ignore, a certain level of asshattedness. But that doesn't have so much to do with your sex as it does the thickness of your skin.

Finally, female bloggers have a huge advantage over their male counterparts. If they do get desperate for traffic, they can always post a glamourous picture of themselves. Somehow, someway the blogosphere can always be counted on to pass along a little T&A.

The finale of Project Runway is on Bravo Wednesday night. I can't wait. I know liking a show about fashion featuring some flamboyantly gay men doesn't fit the conservative stereotype, but hey, that's not my problem. It's a problem for the people who want to peg all conservatives as members of the Moral Majority. Sorry guys, the shoe doesn't always fit. But enough about shoes ;-)

For weeks I've watched these talented designers fight it out. For those of you who've missed a few episodes along the way, or just want to be able to join in the fun Wednesday, here's my review:

The Challenge: Design an innovative outfit suitable for a night on the town using only what you could buy for $50 at a grocery store.
My favorite: Austin created this dress by weaving corn husks. I don't know how in the world he thought of it, but it's wonderful. He gets lots of extra points for using something organic (some other designers took the easy way out and used, for example, shower curtains).

The Challenge: Designers were given white cotton cloth, which they could dye, and told to make an outfit that somehow represented the concept of "envy".
My favorite: Robert made this kickass pantsuit to show penis envy. I think that's pretty clever and I also think the suit is just beautiful. He was also helped by the lovely Melissa's ability to work the design on the runway. I'm convinced Melissa will be the next big supermodel.

The challenge: Make a holiday party dress that would fit in with Banana Republic's Holiday 05 collection.
My favorite: Jay's art deco dress is my favorite single piece from the entire show. This picture doesn't do it justice. The detailing on the bodice is so beautiful. Having hips, breasts and a big ass, I could never wear this, but I certainly envy the lucky lady who can. This was the start of my Jay love.

The challenge: Make a trendy outfit for alleged "rock star" Sarah Hudson.
My pick: Ms. Hudson was truly a moron to not pick this kickass ensemble by Jay, Kara Saun and Robert. The removable skirt was kinda stupid, but the rest is just great. Plus, I think they trimmed the crotch in fur. If so, that's just hilarious. Only a rock star can get away with that.

The challenge: Work with one of the models and make her dream wedding dress. The real trick here was to make the model happy while still maintaining your own design sensibilities.
My favorite: Jay's dress has some of Jay's casual, rock n' roll style, but it's done in a subtle way this time. The model, poor Morgan got a bad rap on the show, but I think, for all her problems, she understood the meaning of collaboration and her help pushed Jay to make a dress that was apporpriate, yet still funky.

The challenge: Design a swimsuit that could also double as an outfit for an industry party.
My pick: Austin's Esther Williams' inspired suit brought back some 1940s era style.

The challenge: Create a collection from the year 2055 using "deconstruction" as a theme.
My favorite: I actually liked almost all the designs in this challenge, because I love patchwork in general. But, I liked Kara Saun's suit best of all. I love the leather and all the different fabrics in the back.

The challenge: Make a new fashionable, yet functional, outfit for USPS letter carriers.
My favorite: It's Kara Saun again. I like the comfy looking pants, but I really dig the fur-lined vest and hat. Sure, it's impractical, but maybe if postal workers got to wear cute clothes they wouldn't go shooting each other so much. Just a thought.

The challenge: Make a dress for Access Hollywood's Nancy O'Dell to wear at the Grammys.
My pick: All of the dresses were too glamourous for the skankathon that the Grammys have become. Since this was the last challenge before the final 3 showed collections at Fashion Week I think the remaining designers were afraid to do something risky. By default, I liked Kara Saun's dress and pants the best. I love the color scheme and cut of the dress and I don't hate it with the pants. I know that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Wednesday the final three: Jay, Kara Saun and the hideous (on the inside and outside) Wendy will battle it out by showing their collections at Fashion Week. Fashion Week was actually a few weeks ago, so, while I don't know the winner, I have seen some of the designs they came up with. I put a few pictures in the extended entry, so only click on it if you really want a sneak preview.

Two from Wendy

I like the color. Hate the shapelessness and have no idea what the hell is going on with the feathers.

It seems like if you're going to design clothes and fit them to an individual you might actually have the ability to make sure their breasts fit in the dress. Wendy doesn't seem to have that ability.

Two from Kara Saun

Love the colors. I even like the fur capelet. Just beautiful.

I'm usually not a big fan of white, but Kara Saun does some good work with it. I really like the equestrian details at the waist.

Three from Jay

Jay's collection was called "Stereotypes", hence the color-coordinated headphones. Anyway. I think this is so frickin' cool. Love Jay's trademark dot pattern on the skirt. Love the boots and the extra long scarf. Love all of the colors.

Jay's take on streetwear. He does such interesting layer upon layer of clothing. Love him.

Finally, I think this quilted wrap is fantastic. I've never seen anything like it. I'm not sure I would ever actually wear it, but high fashion isn't always practical. Sometimes it's just art. Jay is an artist.

I've started getting interested in The West Wing again. The Bartlett administration is coming to an end and so the focus of the show has switched to the 2006 Presidential Election. It looks like campaign will come down to Republican Senator Vinick from California (played by Alan Alda) vs. Texas Democrat Rep. Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits).

Although the show's creators claim that they don't even know who will win the election, I'm sure they'll have the Democrat win, if for no other reason than that it will allow them to keep lots of their current characters on the canvas.

After crunching the numbers in a real Presidential election, I found it fascinating to read some fans' take on this mythical election. They seem to think that Santos could realistically win, even if he lost California, because he'd pick up Texas & Florida.

This spurred me into action. I went to the trusty Electoral College Calculater at WSJ's Opinion Journal and plugged in some numbers. Starting from the 2004 results, switching Texas and California and adding Florida to the Dems' column would still result in a 280-258 Republican victory. In fact, assuming California is lost, for Santos to win he would have to take all of the Kerry states, plus Texas, Florida and either Nevada & Arizona or Arizona & New Mexico.

There's certainly a case to be made that, as an hispanic, that's a reasonable scenario. However, Sen. Vinick is portrayed as something of a moderate, likeable guy. Given that Bush nearly won (or did win) Wisconsin, I think Vinick could take the state. Also, as a west coaster, he'd be far more competitive in Oregon & Washington. And I won't even get into the fact that only one sitting member of the House of Representatives (James Garfield) has ever been elected President.

I've no doubt that the 2006 election will be a nail biter, but I just have a hard time believing that Santos really has the numbers.

Joe the Unabrewer linked to this nifty Baby Name Wizard NameVoyager. WARNING: Java may crash your browser. However, despite the technical difficulties, the site is a lot of fun and lets you track the popularity of names through the last 100 years. Of course, the first thing anyone does is look up their own name.

Let's just say that I wasn't shocked that "Kristin" reached the height of its popularity in the early to mid-70s. My junior year in college I lived with two other Kristins and a Chrissy. Among our group of friends were two other Chrissys and a Kirsten. Suffice it to say, we looked for people to introduce ourselves to. We made their heads spin.

After checking myself out, I wanted to figure out why certain names gained or dropped in popularity. For example, Adolf was popular in the 1900s and 10s and then dropped like a rock. Hmmm, I wonder why? Similarly, Kobe shot up in the 90s and early 00s, but I expect that nurseries aren't exactly overflowing with little Kobes today.

Some names are popularized by world events. I noticed that kids were being named Monserrat following that island's volcanic eruptions in the 90s. It makes you wonder if Tsunami will be the choice of hip, but tasteless, parents this year?

I think lots of parents find names from soap operas. The emergance of Ashley in the 80s coincides nicely with The Young and the Restless' character Ashley Abbot. Harley started getting popular for girls when Guiding Light introduced their heroine Harley Davidson Cooper in the late 1980s.

Even politics can be an inspiration. James pointed out that Patricia peaked in popularity right around the time that Patricia Nixon was in the spotlight. First daughters get lots of namesakes. Amy was the second most popular name in the 1970s. Chelsea skyrocketed in popularity after Clinton's election, and even Jenna has been on the rise since 2000.

On the other hand, guess what name went from being the 290th ranked name for girls in the 90s to not even being in the top 1000 in 2003.

We've had a big spike in traffic lately, and much of that traffic is coming from search engines. Because of that, I think, we've had more liberal visitors to the site. That's fine with us. James and I have even talked about finding a liberal blogger who might want to occasionally post here (and vice versa). I'm not interested in "converting" liberals, but I would be interested in having reasonable debates. The problem is that with too many liberals, particularly online, a reasoned debate suddenly turns into this: "Bush=Hitler", "Halliburton!!", "Repugnicans hate the poor". And I'm not interested in playing that game anymore.

A couple of liberal sites have linked to James' post on class action lawsuits. While it's nice that they found something they think they agree with, there's a few issues I can't get past:

• They wrongly assumed that James' post was "anti-Bush"
• Their posts have titles like Right wingers aren't always stupid" or "Even the wingnuts are troubled by the bill to restrict class action lawsuits."
• Finally, even if James' post was a criticism of the Bush policy, that's not good enough for these liberals. Both of the posts above seem to think that if you disagree with Bush on one issue it's just the tip of the iceberg and you'll soon fall into step with your liberal betters. Norwegianity says, "The Bushies will fall from within as more and more “real” conservatives wake up to this massive power grab." while Dadahead writes that "Now, if only James would recognize that giving corporations license to rip off consumers without fear of reprisal is the essence of the GOP agenda!"

After the election, we heard so much about how liberals and conservatives needed to find common ground and work together. I've found that many conservatives, whether they voted for Bush or not, disagree with the adminstration on some issues, but find other areas where they stand behind him. Is there any such phenomenon among liberals? For them it seems like everything Bush touches turns to pure evil. There's no room for a middle ground or for the moderates who would happily inhabit it. Madison's favorite moderate, Ann Althouse, has blogged on this topic before:

I'm just saying that I'm struck by the way the right perceives me as a potential ally and uses positive reinforcement and the left doesn't see me as anything but an opponent -- doesn't even try to engage me with reasoned argument. Maybe the left feels beleaguered these days, but how do they expect to make any progress if they don't see the ways they can include the people in the middle? If you look around and only see opponents and curl up with your little group of insiders, you are putting your efforts into insuring that you remain a political minority.

In the last few weeks, I've written about how important I think it is to not get caught up in this black & white/pro-Bush or anti-Bush world. Neither the far left nor the far right has all the answers, so how will we ever get anywhere if we're unwilling to explore the middle?

President Bush is going to sign a bill that would severely restrict class action lawsuits. I know that the reaction of most people is to say "good, lawyers are scum," but I don't think that those people fully understand how beneficial the class action lawsuit is to most consumers.

From a piece that I wrote last year on another blog:

Enter the class action - the class action allows an attorney to sue on behalf of a group of consumers, and to collect a fee on the totality of the judgment amount. This arrangement, while it may seem like a windfall for the greedy lawyers, it actually pro-consumer. First, it acts as an incentive for a lawyer to take the case. As I described above, without the class action lawsuit, many, if not most, of these cases would never be heard. The second major benefit to consumers is that the wrongdoing doesn't continue. For instance, a phone company may be charged in class action with overcharging 1 million customers $1 each. The settlement from that suit will be something like: each consumer gets 66 cents, and the attorney gets $334,000. True, the 66 cents doesn't benefit the consumer very much. But the stopping of the wrongdoing, the fact that he won't be overcharged $1 per month for the rest of his life, is where the real benefit comes.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with the class action system, but people should understand that the advent of the class action suit was a huge triumph for the consumer. Today, many seem to be trying to cast the class-action suit as somehow being "anti-consumer," saying that "we all pay for these huge judgments, so we should all stop them." Please - that argument is a bit like saying "we all pay to house and feed criminals, so we should stop putting criminals in prison."

The fact is, companies lose class actions when they rip-of consumers. Severely restricting or eliminating the class action will once again give companies license to do exactly that, without fear of reprisal.

One of the great benefits of having a Sirius radio setup in the Tantmobile is the ability to catch the Cam Edwards show on my drive time home. Yesterday Cam, like about a jillion other people, was at the Conservative Political Action Conference opening, broadcasting from the Reagan building.

There were, as always, interesting guests and engaging topics, but near the end of his first hour Cam had on...Al Franken. Apparently OffTheAir America was broadcasting from CPAC as well, and after Franken finished with his 22 listeners he had some spare time.

Cam started off asking about Franken's hypothetical Senate run, and Franken is not ruling out a 2008 run. However, he might want to think twice about it after his answer to a rather simple question posed by Cam (and this is paraphrased, as I couldn't write it down while driving):

"How do you stand on the Second Amendment?"

Franken went into a long, rambling dissertation, stating first he believed in all the amendments equally then going into ways the Second should be restricted (stating that he didn't like "guns that fired lots of bullets, so he doesn't like assault weapons), wrapping up with putting the whole thing in context with hunting, stating "some of my best friends are hunters," talked about his fishing,and finishing up with an environmental rant.

When Cam asked him what an assault weapon is, Franken had no answer. Then Cam read a listener-submitted question which went (again paraphrased) "If Franken doesn't like guns that fire lots of bullets, how about a gun which fires only one bullet for every trigger pull?" More hemming and hawing, until Cam and Company came to his rescue and told him those were "semi-automatic" firearms. Incredibly, Franken said something to the effect of "well, I don't know much about guns or anything, so I guess I'll look into that."

Most people at this point would suggest that if a high-profile pundit is going to offer an opinion on a heavy-impact policy issue like a gun ban, he should do his homework before proffering said opinion. And Cam made that very suggestion to Mr. Franken. Franken replied that he would do some research.

More amusing, the conversation turned to John Lott, and Franken accused Dr. Lott of going online in the past and posing as a female student in order to sing his own praises. Cam didn't believe it, but Franken corrected him (to be fair, the pseudonym was "Mary Rosh" and yes, Lott was dumb in using it as he did.). Cam immediately said he stood corrected and took Franken at his word. Franken then said "If you're going to be a talk show host you should really do your homework."

Yes, because having an ignorant opinion about gun policy and being ignorant about the online pseudonyms of John Lott is exactly the same.

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to hearing the fruits of Franken's "research" on "guns that fire lots of bullets." Something tells me I'll be waiting awhile. I mean, there might be more gay Republican journalists for him to out, which would naturally take precedence.

One of my guilty pleasures is golf on TV. There's nothing better after a rough Friday or Saturday night than golf. Think about it: everyone's nice and quiet, the settings are beautiful and the vibe is peaceful. Also, I love the mental game of major tournaments. It's fascinating to watch golfers collapse under the pressure. I admire Tiger Woods because he was immune to it, but honestly, he kind of took the fun out of watching the Masters or US Open for awhile.

Anyway, I read a great little golf article in USA Today this morning. Rory Sabbatini, a South African, has worn camouflage pants in some tourneys this year:

Sabbatini didn't intend to cause a clothing controversy when he donned a pair of camouflage trousers two weeks ago at the FBR Open in Phoenix. A South African who lives in Southlake, Texas, he wanted to show how passionate he and wife Amy were about the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, which benefits families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The PGA didn't want him wearing camo, but they're going to work with him to find some golf-appropriate way to show his support. In addition, Sabbatini is going to donate $250 to the fund for every birdie he hits this year and $1,000 for every eagle. Based on last year's results, that would add up to about $75,000 for the fund. To me, that's just an amazing amount from a golfer I've never even heard of before.

Now, in addition to peace, quiet and mental anguish, I have a great person to root for on the weekends.

I get a lot of hate mail as a result of this blog. Suffice it to say, some people just have nothing better to do with their time.

Here is one that I got in response to my latest post:

Subject: Porn post

As a member of the "far left" as you call it, I do not support the kind of porn you described, and I actually resent your comments saying that "people like me" are gonna cry violation of first amendment rights.

I've helped to put pornographers in prison, so fuck yourself.

When you start being honest about criminal activity on the far right, then maybe I'll have more respect for the Republican party, of which I was formerly a member. Your hypocracy is a little sickening, but I think the best solution is to donate some money to you and your comrades for your pshchiatric fund. Let me know a paypal address and I'll start with a seed-gift of $10.

David Lieder
Astral Universe

Wow, where to begin. This guy takes my post as a personal attack on him for some reason, throws in the F-bomb, claims that he has personally put people in prison, accuses me of covering up some sort of criminal activity commited by the Republican party, accuses me of "hypocrasy" (sic), and he should know, b/c he used to be a Republican, AND he throws in a reference to Soviet Russia by using the term "comrades." Quite a lot packed into that little nonsensical rant, don't you think?

My only question is: should I take the $10?

:-)

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Wednesday it would seek to reinstate an indictment against a California pornography company that was charged with violating federal obscenity laws. It was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' first public decision on a legal matter.

Billed as the government's first big obscenity case in a decade, the 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates Inc. and its owners, Robert Zicari, and his wife, Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., was dismissed last month by U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster of Pittsburgh.

Lancaster ruled prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the company's hard-core movies from children and from adults who did not want to see such material.

Oh, I can just hear the vocal left now, "Free Speech!!" "Bush is legislating morality, separation of church and state!" "George Bush is a Fascist!"

What most on the vocal left don't know, however, is the law - - there is no such thing as First Amendment protection for obscene material. If that were the only issue in this case, the only question would be whether or not this film is obscene.

Do this company's movies qualify as "obscene?" You be the judge:

One film, called "Forced Entry", includes shots of women getting raped and murdered. It also includes suffocation, strangulation, beatings and urination. Black calls "Forced Entry" a slasher film with sex, loosely based on the Hillside Strangler case.

more:

Extreme Associates is perhaps best known for the porn movie Forced Entry, which simulates a rape so violently that a camera crew for the PBS documentary series Frontline became disgusted and fled while filming the production.

more:

Extreme Associates bills itself as the hardest hard-core porn on the Web. "Forced Entry" features three graphic scenes of simulated rapes and killings. The women are also spat upon. "Extreme Teen 24" has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core scenes.

Paul Fishbein, president of Adult Video News, the trade journal of the pornographic film industry, said Zicari produced "horrible, unwatchable, disgusting, aberrant movies."

I haven't seen the films, and I don't care to, but based on the these descriptions, I have a hard time finding that they anything short of being obscene. In fact, the Judge Lancaster may agree with that assessment - in his opinion, he assumed that the films were indeed obscene and instead cited to Lawrence v. Texas to find that individuals have a right to "receive information and ideas regardless of their social worth [in the privacy of their own homes]."

The problem with that reasoning, though, is that the laws of the United States do not cease to exist at an individual's front door - if obscene material is illegal, it is contraband - and contraband is illegal wherever it exists.

Just as one cannot claim that he has a constitutional right to possess and use illegal drugs in the confines of his own home for "privacy" reasons, one should not be permitted to argue that he has that same right with respect to other illegal materials, obscene materials included.

The City of Washington is at it again, spending taxpayers' hard-earned money without as much as blinking an eye. The latest "necessity" that Mayor Williams decided that the city needs? A $2000 ceremonial key to hand out to "visiting dignitaries."

The cost of the key, which was designed by a Georgetown sculptor, is more than 20 times what New York, Chicago and San Francisco spend on their ceremonial keys.

The cost includes $850 for casting, $700 for laser engraving, $200 for a stainless steel plaque and $130 for a presentation box.

New York City spends $60 apiece on its ceremonial keys.

This from a Mayor that never misses an opportunity to complain about how underfunded the District is; this from a Mayor who talks about implementing a "commuter tax" because the District can't pay its bills; this in a city that is on the verge of a property tax revolt, a city where the restaurant sales tax is almost 10%, a city where school overcrowding and budget shortfalls have become the norm.

To all of these problems, what is Mayor Williams' solution? Taypayer subsidized baseball and a bunch of $2,000 keys.

Would you expect any less from a city that just elected twice-convicted crackhead and prostitute frequenter Marion Barry to city council?

Today, Gary Bettman held a news conference where he announced the official cancellation of the NHL season.

I'm sorry....

The U.S.S. Jimmy Carter?!?

My mind is starting to explode with all of the comedic possibilities. What, will the sub break down in the middle of the ocean on its way to rescue operations? Will everyone on the sub have to wear sweaters? Instead of a morale officer, will the boat feature a "malaise official?" What if the sub comes across a rabbit in the water? Will there be a "moral equivalent to combat operations" on this sub?

These jokes just write themselves.

Link via The Corner where I shamelessly tried to linkwhore this morning. Alas, Jonah posted my post but not the link. Where's Jordan Golson?!?

TSN.ca published recent correspondence between Gary Bettman (NHL Commissioner) and Bob Goodenow (NHLPA Executive Director).

The interesting part of the correspondence is that the NHL has dropped their requirement that team salary caps be linked to league revenues. Also interesting is that the NHLPA has apparently accepted the idea of team caps, as long as they're not linked to league revenues. So what's the holdup?

6.5 million dollars.

The cap proposed by the league is $44.7 million. The NHLPA came back with $51.2 million. NHLPA also has some interesting union requirements, such as minimum salaries and such, but at the end of the day the season is going to be cancelled over $6.5 million. Bettman is worried that if all 30 teams spend $51 million in salary, it will create serious issues with the league. The NHLPA turns around and points out not all 30 teams are going to hit that cap. But if Bettman is seriously worried about a bunch of teams spending a buttload of money, there is a solution, as offered by our own Kris:

Contract the league.

UPDATE NHL Season cancelled.

I'm blogging today from an Internet retailing conference in not-so-sunny Palm Springs, CA. While blogs are certainly a buzzword at this conference, another interesting tidbit I picked up was the fact that you can use the American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ASCI) as a powerful investment tool. This survey, done by the University of Michigan, surveys customers on their satisfaction with various retailers. The retailers are given a score and ranked according to industry. A very few great retailers will score in the 80s, while the average is around a 72.

That's all well and good, but what was really fascinating is the predictive power of this measurement. An investor can easily use these scores as a guide to what stocks to buy. High scoring companies have crushed the S&P 500 over the last several years. Now, that's kind of a no brainer: companies that satisfy their customers do well. But changes in the satisfaction score tend to cause changes in earnings and therefore changes in stock prices. So, a savvy investor can forecast future earnings with current customer satisfaction scores. A great example of this is with Amazon. Amazon's customers satisfaction scores fell a few points this holiday season. Their stock price has followed.

You can check out the Q4 results for free on the ACSI website. It's definitely worth looking at either from an investor perspective or even as a potential consumer.

We've reached a milestone today at Dummocrats: our 100,000 visitor came to the site. We started posting regularly back in May. Ah yes, I remember it will. John Kerry was cruising along in his presidential campaign. The Swift Boat Veterans were still just voices crying out in the wilderness. Dan Rather had a shred of credibility left. No one had ever heard of Ward Churchill or Eason Jordan.

We've blogged through a campaign, conventions and finally election day. We've been able to share our impressions of looney lefties in Madison as well as in the Capital of the Republic. And through it all, we've actually acquired some regular readers. Can you believe it?

Thanks to all of you for visiting the site and for reading what we have to say. We appreciate it and we hope we can continue to entertain.

Hi everyone, We've added a few new features to the website, most of which are accessible from the menu at the top of the page. The features include:

• A discussion-board-style comment system ("the threads") for the links listed on the Daily Links Page.
• An account is required to post comments on the threads. You can sign up for an account here. Note that you don't need to enter an email address to get an account. There are benefits to entering an email address, however, the biggest one being that if you forget your password, we can help you re-gain access to you account. Don't worry, we will never spam you. But like I said, you don't need to enter one. Your call.
  
• One of the benefits of signing up is that you will get a snazzy user profile page like this one. We have plans to add more features to the page in the near future.
  
• A general chat page where you can feel free to talk about anything and everything.
  

Like I said, it's a new system and we're still ironing out the kinks. If you have any suggestions or comments, we'd love to hear them - post them in the general chat thread or in the comments to this article. (you can still post anonymously in the blog comments, though that may be changing soon.)

Some of the reaction to Eason Jordan's resignation makes me question exactly why he resigned. At first, I assumed it was to ease the pressure to show his Davos remarks and spare CNN any further embarassment. But, maybe that's not all there is to it.

The spin on this has been that blogs have suddenly become powerful "lynch mobs". We (the American people) should be worried about the unregulated power of these irresponsible partisan "morons". Back in January, I asked "Are Blogs the Big Media Target of 2005?". Of course they are.

Bloggers are locked in a turf war with the mainstream media. But, Eason Jordan isn't a victim of that war as much as he is a martyr in it. Is is possible that he threw himself on his sword before his fellow mainstream media counterparts picked up on the story in order to shift the blame for his troubles from his own actions to bloggers? Perhaps Jordan, knowing he was probably on his way out, sacrificed himself now in order to give the MSM new material with which to pound their blogger opponents.

Of course, this is idle speculation on my part, but it's an interesting theory to ponder. What do you think?

Ace kicks butt with a good post blowing apart the memes currently put forth by the Eason Jordan handwringers out there.

Just one thing to add. He says:

Second, the WSJ is all wet about Jordan's offense being non-fireable or non-felonious. Reporters are supposed to report verifiable, or at least confirmed, facts. They are not supposed to traffic in ludicrous Al Jazeera level conspiracy theories, whether acting in their official capacity or a semi-official capacity as a CNN representative at a media panel.

I agree, but I want to go a little further. To me the main offense isn't just what Jordan said...but the MSM's decree that what he said wasn't that big of a deal. Journalism is supposed to report facts, as Ace points out in a rather, ahem, indecorous manner (Ace, I think Jordan Golson will soon be giving you a call about your Instalanche...). That's all anyone was asking here...that the MSM report the facts of what Jordan said. The offense was in the MSM deciding from its ivory tower that it wasn't a big deal and certainly didn't merit coverage...in other words, they showed lousy editorial judgement, and are rightfully getting hammered for it. One thing you can't do (or ought not do) as a journalist is let your biases decide what the news is. It's a breach of ethics.

Finally, if the MSM was trying to bury something like this into oblivion, it makes you wonder what else is sitting on their Spike Pile.

The Today Show just reported Iraqi election results. The current spin on the results is this:

1. Many of the Shiite leaders lived in, and were supported by, Iran during Saddam's reign. Therefore, Iran will have undue influence over the Iraqi leaders and constitution. Therefore, the election is a failure. Therefore the Bush administration is a failure. Bush lied. People died. So, pretty much the same old, same old.

2. The lovely Ms. Katie Couric mentioned the poor, "disenfranchised" Sunnis.

I'm so absolutely, completely upset about how people are throwing around this world, "disenfranchisement" in both Iraq and America. You are not disenfranchised if:

• you refuse to vote
• you are afraid to vote. Yes, that's awful, but many, many people throughout history risked their lives to vote. Everyone has that choice.
• the lines are long at your polling place
• the equipment at your polling place is old
• you see people who happen to favor the candidates you don't

All of these people in Iraq or Ohio or Florida or wherever haven't been disenfranchised. I, on the other hand, have been disenfranchised. Every fake voter in Milwaukee, Racine and Madison cancelled out the votes of people like me. That's disenfranchisement and yet few people seem to care. Basically, Republicans in Wisconsin have been told to suck it up. Oddly, the same sentiment hasn't been applied to Democrats or Islamofascists.

Howard Kurtz did a wrap up of the Eason Jordan resignation.

First, I'd like to point out the lede:

Eason Jordan resigned last night as CNN's chief news executive in an effort to quell a burgeoning controversy over his remarks about U.S. soldiers killing journalists in Iraq.

For most of the country (that is, those who get their news and information from the MSM), they have to be wondering "what 'burgeoning controversy?!?'" It's not like the MSM was reporting on this at all. So this is all coming out of left field for quite a few in the audience...and Kurtz takes that opportunity to, in my opinion, take a few liberties with his story...the largest one being in the last sentence of the lede. The issue wasn't about U.S. soldiers *killing* journalists in Iraq. The issue was Jordan's apparent belief that they were being deliberately targeted.

Kurtz continues to revise history:

Even as he said he had misspoken at an international conference in suggesting that coalition troops had "targeted" a dozen journalists and insisted he never believed that, Jordan was being pounded hourly by bloggers, liberals as well as conservatives, who provided the rocket fuel for a story that otherwise might have fizzled.

No, Mr. Kurtz. The issue wasn't that he "misspoke" and bloggers wanted him out as he tried to explain. The main issue lay in the initial reporting of his remarks, Jordan's evasion of that reporting (remember, first he denied the characterization of the remarks, saying they were "out of context."), followed by the revelation that he was videotaped and therefore we'd know exactly what he said...and Jordan's subsequent spin as having "misspoken."

That's key: First Jordan said his remarks weren't being reported correctly. Once it turned out there was a videotape floating around out there, his tune started changing. And that's quite a bit different than the story Kurtz is selling.

And Kurtz allows Jordan to give himself one final spin:

Jordan, 44, said in a statement yesterday that he was quitting after 23 years at the network "to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq. . . . I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise."

Jordan, there are at least nine people who say you did more than imply US soldiers were targeting journalists...they say you flat out said they were (and it's not the first time you've said something similar to that). However, if what was reported as your remarks was the result of an overeager inference or out-of-context reading, then why haven't you joined the chorus asking for release of the videotape of your remarks? If we're talking about a big Three's Company-style misunderstanding, then that video would clear things up pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

No definitive account of what Jordan said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 27 has been made public, including the forum's videotape of the off-the-record session. Two Democrats who were there, Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.), criticized Jordan's remarks. Others in attendance, including U.S. News & World Report editor at large David Gergen and BBC executive Richard Sambrook, said Jordan had clarified his remarks.

The first thing that comes to mind here is...if the sessio