Posts from January 15, 2004

On the other hand…

On the other hand…
: In an otherwise fine feature on Daily Kos, the SF Chron has to go and ask somebody for perspective and finds somebody who has nothing to say but takes a paragraph to say it:

Not everyone is ready to write off the mass media and old-style politics.

Paul Grabowicz, who teaches new-media courses at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, has some doubts about the political importance of blogs.

“They may play out like a lot things that exploded on the Internet and were going to change everything,” said Grabowicz. “On the other hand, the sophisticated answer is that they’re an interesting addition to the public discourse and a welcome check on journalism.”

Sweetheart, get me rewrite.

Aren’t we past this by now?

Aren’t we past this by now?
: The New York Times calls it a “so-called blog.” The San Francisco Chronicle insists on putting quotes around “blog.” It’s a copy-editor’s put-down, trying to act as if we don’t exist.

Alms for Salon

Alms for Salon
: Why would anyone more “invest” in Salon? Why don’t they just call it a charity and let the poor suckers get a tax deduction?

Outeractive

Outeractive
: Mark Glaser at OJR takes on AOL’s bragging that they have interactive news. I pooh-poohed this last month.

Clark testified for the war

Clark testified for the war
: Drudge dredges up Wesley Clark’s testimony before Congress in favor of the war in Iraq:

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

“There’s no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense,” Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

“Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He’s done so without multilateral support if necessary. He’s done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn’ t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution.”

Clark continued: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”

More Clark: “And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that’s longstanding. It’s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.”

I don’t disagree with his stance then. Too bad he does.

: Update: Josh Marshall smells something fishy.