» 2004 » December


Monthly Archives: December 2004

Weak Strategery

December 29th, 2004 - 2:36 am

An insightful WaPo op-ed today from liberal activist Michael Gecan. Here’s the meat:

Scores of thousands of people, many of them paid (how else do you squander $200 million?), knocked on millions of doors during this campaign. The Democratic-leaning canvassers left information, repeated a canned sales pitch and moved along. They did not engage the people in real conversation. They did not listen to their concerns. They did not recruit real volunteers to work on their own blocks. They did not take the time to find out which pastor or rabbi was a leader in an area and which congregations people attended. They were progressive salespeople with a high quota of contacts and no time to relate, who disappeared from people’s towns and lives the very moment, on election night, that they learned the sale had not been made.

It was as if they had never been there. And in a way, they never were. These two tendencies — celebrity worship and quick-hit canvassing — betray the central problem at the heart of the Democratic Party’s political culture. The party has no time or patience for the complex work needed to listen to Americans, to understand their range of views and positions, and to engage them on their deepest interests. Even worse, many in the hierarchy of the Democratic Party have contempt for ordinary Americans — for their red faces and moderate churches and mixed, often moderate, views.

We didn’t get a lot of Democratic canvassing in very Republican Cobb County, Georgia, but Gecan’s description tracks very closely with the kids I saw in Seattle last summer campaigning for Kerry against Bush. Back then, I had the strong suspicion that they weren’t going to be terribly effective; they were just repeating cant, and obnoxious cant at that. Even if you agreed with them, you weren’t likely to stick around and listen to the same canned script for very long–and if you didn’t agree, you were going to shrug them off in a heartbeat.

Comments Off bullet bullet

The Airing of Grievances

December 23rd, 2004 - 7:01 am

I was all ready to post a “Happy Festivus” note this morning, and then that no-good law prof from Dentally Challenged U. goes and beats me to the punch (as usual). And damn if he didn’t dredge up a great article about it, too.

Sometimes I hate that guy.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Brief Update

December 22nd, 2004 - 8:12 am

Just checking in briefly here. To answer everybody’s first question, no, I don’t know what’s up with Steve. Haven’t heard from him in about three weeks, and I’m guessing he’s busy. I know I am. As for myself, I’m going to be incommunicado between Christmas Eve and New Year’s, so unless Martini Boy pops up, y’all probably shouldn’t count on finding anything new here next week.

In the meantime, here are a couple of things that caught my eye this morning. On the college football obsession front, I am reacting to the Associated Press sending a cease-and-desist order to the BCS with unmitigated glee. Now the AP needs to take the next logical step and cancel its football poll altogether until and unless a playoff is instituted in Division 1-A.

Everybody with a blog is going to link to Lileks’ demolition of snob-blogger James Wolcott. Never let it be said that we here in the Vodkasphere are afraid to join the crowd when it’s called for–and in this case, it’s called for.

I’m going to be in the market for a large, flat-screen HDTV in 2005. I’ve been leaning plasma, since they’re just entirely freakin’ cool, but now I read that Sony is abandoning plasma technology in favor of large-scale LCDs. My question is, how large, and how much? LCDs have been small and pricey compared to the other formats thus far. If Sony can make them large and cheap (well, okay, just not astronomical), that’ll have a major impact on my decision, and I imagine a lot of others, too. On the other hand, the Motley Fools think Sony is just getting out of a business that’s on its way to being commoditized and less profitable. Hmm.

Okay, so this guy is probably a nerd’s nerd. It’s still a heck of a lot cooler than a homemade Tron costume.

In case you missed it, Christopher Caldwell has an interesting piece on the Islamification of the Netherlands and recent repercussions. Well worth the read.

UPDATE: A reader points to this article, in which Sony denies they’re getting out of the plasma business. My suggestion to Sony: send me a freebie for evaluation, and I’ll advise you on whether or not to build any more…

Comments Off bullet bullet

Fake Journalism from the CSM

December 16th, 2004 - 5:13 pm

Brad Knickerbocker, described as a “staff writer” for the Christian Science Monitor, weighed in today with a heavily-slanted piece reporting that morale in the US military has tanked. Knickerbocker’s piece, full of suggestive but unsubstantiated phrases like,

While some don’t see much defiance – and, in fact, have been surprised by the depth of solidarity – others see an unusual amount of tension surfacing for an all-volunteer military force.

He continues with the following startling charge:

Evidence includes numbers of deserters (reportedly in the thousands)

Unfortunately for his readers, Knickerbocker didn’t provide any context or sourcing for the “thousands of deserters” statement. Fortunately for us, Pamela Hess, UPI’s Pentagon correspondent, did some actual (and serendipitous) reporting on the subject today:

The number of annual military desertions is down to the lowest level since before 2001, according to the Pentagon.

The Army said the number of new deserters in 2004 — 2,376 — was just half the number of those who deserted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. That number was 4,597.

The numbers of deserters has dropped annually since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The fiscal year 2004 total number of Army deserters is the lowest since before 1998, according to Army data.

Advantage: Hess! Caught committing slanted and dishonest “journalism”: Knickerbocker!

Comments Off bullet bullet

Most Blatant Plea For An Instalanche, Ever

December 14th, 2004 - 12:28 pm

The subject line is a joke. The post isn’t:

Every December, Time Magazine selects what used to be called its “Man Of The Year.” That name was changed to allow for political correctness a while back, but ostensibly the MOTY is given to the individual (or group, or ridiculously in one case, a planet) who in Time’s estimation, had the largest impact on the preceding year’s news.

Many of Time’s prior selections have been dumb (the aforementioned award to “Planet Earth” in 1988, a silly dodge avoid to giving the title to a victorious George H.W. Bush) or specious (Soviet dictator Gorbachev as “Man of the Decade” in 1989), but also occasionally interesting (Andy Grove in 1997), inspired (The American Soldier in 2003), and even uplifting (the crew of Apollo 8 in 1968). Others have been unpleasant, but still accurate (Khomeini in 1979).

Newly-elected presidents almost always win the POY, while second-term presidents tend to be snubbed following their re-election. In general, commanders-in-chief fare badly in any second appearances. A besieged Richard Nixon shared the cover with Kissinger in 1972, Ronald Reagan with the despot Yuri Andropov (euphemistically called a “politician” by Time) in 1983, Bush 41 with himself in 1990 (maybe the dumbest cover ever), and Bill Clinton with Kenneth Starr in 1998, a combination that probably offended everyone who saw it.

At any rate, I don’t expect George W. Bush to be named Man of the Year in 2004, and this post is not an effort to nominate him. While the ’04 election was certainly more “about” Bush than any other individual, I think it’d be appropriate this year to look beyond the big picture of the election results, and concentrate on one way in which the election of 2004 was fundamentally different than any in the past: the existence and influence of the Blogosphere.

In 1996, the web as we know it today barely existed. In 2000, the internet was a buzz-word and a curiosity, but the only serious impact it had on the presidential race was when Al Gore claimed to have invented it. Prior to 2004, it was inconceivable that an ad-hoc group of graphic designers and political aficionados could knock down a network anchorman in a matter of hours, or that two political activists with laptops could have a major impact on the defeat of a senior US Senator, or that an entirely different grass-roots campaign could elevate an obscure vanity candidate to a front-runner, albeit briefly.

All of those things and more happened in 2004. A year ago, the words “blog” and “blogger” were obscure techno-ese. Today, they’re on the lips of every pundit on television, and the print journos who haven’t talked about the Blogosphere are now avoiding mentioning it out of spite, not ignorance.

So should the Blogosphere be named “Sphere of the Year” in 2004? I don’t think so–mostly because I dislike anthropomorphising broad, indistinct phenomena. And besides, Time already gave the ‘award’ to a large (and deserving) group just last year. Let’s return the title to its roots, and settle on an individual.

There are plenty of worthy candidates. Like him or not, Markos Zuniga and Daily Kos had a significant impact in terms of readership and fundraising–if not in actually winning any races. Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs and the team at Powerline drove a wooden stake into the flailing undead corpse of Dan Rather’s career–and the mainstream press in general. Joe Trippi and the Deaniacs online changed the way Democrats raise political money, and their methods transposed to the eventual nominee gave John Kerry a fighting chance in the general election.

But there’s really only one choice that represents the Blogosphere at its best, and at its most influential. He’s still the focal point, still the prime reference, and still the standard by which all others are judged.

He’s Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, and he ought to be the Man of the Year.

I’m Will Collier, and I approved this message.

UPDATE: A reader, er, suggests that Burt Rutan and his SpaceShipOne crew would be great MOTY nominees. I agree. I bet Glenn does, too.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Greatest “Holiday” Website Ever

December 13th, 2004 - 11:19 am

DING! Already a modern classic.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Encouraging Signs

December 13th, 2004 - 5:57 am

Just a bit of a follow-up here on the BCS/Associated Press poll discussion below (sorry, folks, but until Steve gets off his ass healthy, you’re stuck with me and my college football obsessions).

Since last week’s final polls and the ensuing hullabaloos, there’ve been some encouraging signs regarding the future of the college football polls. One paper, the Charlotte Observer, has announced that it is resigning from the AP writer’s poll:

The credibility of this newspaper is more important than the prestige of voting in the AP poll. [Observer writer Ken] Tysiac will complete this season, the last in which a reporter from the Observer will vote in a poll tied to the BCS.

The AP basketball poll? We don’t have a vote this season, but we would consider voting in the future. That poll is for fun and to drive fan interest, and it’s basically meaningless because the NCAA basketball champion is determined in a playoff.

Now that’s a responsible, and long-overdue decision. While no other papers have followed the Observer’s lead to date, a growing number of sports writers have noted their own discomfort with the conflicted and arbitrary nature of the media polls: Carey Estes of the Birmingham Post-Herald (scroll down) notes,

For the past few weeks, many members of the media

Comments Off bullet bullet

It Didn’t Start (Or Stop) With Politics

December 10th, 2004 - 5:43 am

Newsroom arrogance certainly isn’t limited to the political or “news” desks. Check out these two columns, by sportswriters voting in the Associated Press college football poll. Both are well-nigh obsessed with emails received from football fans who (gasp!) dared to question the all-knowing wisdom of the writers in question.

The first, by Huntsville Times (AL) beat writer Paul Gattis, was so nasty that the Times’ editor, Melinda Gorham, was moved to run a public apology for it two days later. The second, by Ann Arbor News (MI) writer Jim Carty, hasn’t (as far as I know) generated as much controversy, but it does include gems like this one, directed at Carty’s readership:

The real e-mails were often more than 1,000 words long, each containing schedule breakdowns, game-by-game analysis of the weakside linebacker, and historical PROOF that the Big 12 and Southeastern conferences are heads and shoulders above the Big Ten and Pac-10 conferences.

We’re talking geeks here.

Giant, boring, absolutely no-chance-of-getting-a-life geeks.

Dozens of them a day.

For future reference, in case you’re ever unemployed with a lot of time to kill and tempted to do this yourself, let me share what your average Top 25 voter does with these e-mails: Immediately deletes them, and then makes fun of the people who send them to anyone who will listen.

But Jim, you ask, isn’t that arrogant? Don’t you think someone out there could possibly make a good point or teach you something you don’t know about Auburn and Texas?

The answer? Absolutely. That insightful man or woman is most certainly out there.

Unfortunately, for every person with a good point there are 100 more trying to get me to change my vote by making a scientific case for Auburn’s right guard being better than Oklahoma’s or that beating Louisiana-Monroe is a much, much, MUCH more quality cupcake than Bowling Green or that everyone playing Pac-10 football is a bunch of wussy boys.

To those people, two pieces of advice: 1. Spell-check. Learn it. Love it. Live it. 2. There are outlets for your madness. There are local groups of Star Trek fans, Linux programmers and New World Order militias that will welcome you as one of their own.

Got that? Quick translation: If you didn’t waste four years of your life getting a journalism degree, and ten more covering junior-high track meets, you aren’t worthy of having any say on an issue that you follow on a day-by-day basis–and you’re certainly below the notice of any Very Important Sportswriter For A Mid-Market Newspaper.

Regardless of what you think about how the BCS and other football polls turned out (and I’m not trying to start another argument about them here, one was enough), the rant above is not terribly far removed from dismissing bloggers as “[some] guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.”

Memo to the sportswriters, as well as everybody else they work with: Insulting your best customers–i.e., the people who read your work the most carefully–is a really dumb way to do business. It tends to get subscriptions cancelled and your stuff ignored. More importantly (especially for those of you who hide behind stock phrases like “journalistic integrity”), it devalues your work and your reputation.

It also makes you look like a bunch of jerks. Columns like Carty’s and Gattis’s are among the major reasons why most people can’t stand the press.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Required Reading

December 9th, 2004 - 10:31 pm

Tom Friedman. Now.

Just do as you’re told, or Santa will add you to his naughty list.

And for my Jewish friends, I must add that if you don’t read it, we’re going to have to cancel the last five days of Chanukah. You’ve been warned.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain

December 9th, 2004 - 10:17 pm


American outrage over the diversion of U.N.-supervised Iraqi oil-for-food money seems to miss three salient points. First, no American funds were stolen. Second, no U.N. funds were stolen. Third, the oil-for-food program achieved its two objectives: providing food to the Iraqi people and preventing Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his military threat to the region — and in particular from reconstituting his programs for weapons of mass destruction.

Enron employees got their paychecks, too. Does that mean the shareholders should have kept investing money in the company?

I’d tell you to read the whole thing (a sad little WaPo op-ed piece by James Dobbins), but what would be the point?

UPDATE: Elsewhere on WaPo’s op-ed page, Krauthammer says that

“Afghanistan grows poppies” is the sun rising in the east. “Afghanistan inaugurates democratically elected president” is the sun rising in the west. Afghanistan has always grown poppies. What is President Bush supposed to do? Send 100,000 GIs to eradicate the crop and incite a popular rebellion?

Or maybe Bush should ask the UN to run an Oil-for-Poppies program. Then maybe we’d be able to get the UN enough kickbacks to support us in the Terror War.

Comments Off bullet bullet

From The Bleachers

December 8th, 2004 - 4:37 am

This year’s penultimate Auburn football column is (finally) up, over at my site, covering the SEC Championship Game. There are also a few words about the media “championship” awards.

UPDATE: Auburn convert Fred Barnes has a very nice column about the Tigers on the Weekly Standard’s site this week.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Flu Season Update

December 5th, 2004 - 10:02 pm

For those who asked, I didn’t have strep throat – but thanks for all the warnings. I took them to heart, and went to see the doctor.

OK, that’s not true. I usually won’t see a doctor for anything less than a compound fracture, and even then I’d better be able to see the bone sticking out before I’ll get in the car. I did, however, log on to WebMD to look up the symptoms.

Turns out, the only one I had in common with strep was the sore throat. Nope, what I had was the common cold – just a really nasty one. That one where you wake up with your eyelids gunked closed and your throat so sore that swallowing feels like a drowning man finally gasping air. You know – each gulp feel like acid, yet you can’t do without.

Also, I learned a valuable lesson. Want to get rid of that awful Nyquil aftertaste? Chase it with a swig of good brandy. Or just skip the Nyquil and double-dose the brandy. Or both.

I usually went with the third option.

Anyway, feeling much better now, even if not quite running on all eight super-charged cylinders.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Bullets, Ballots, or None of the Above?

December 5th, 2004 - 9:44 pm

Just when things were looking rosy in Ukraine. . .

European mediators were expected to hold a new round of talks today to break the latest impasse over Ukraine’s disputed presidential elections after the parliament refused to pass revised electoral laws for a court-ordered vote scheduled for Dec. 26.

It is unclear whether the parliament, which adjourned its emergency meeting for 10 days, might reverse itself, or whether the election may be postponed. But the protests and political recriminations have repeatedly brought Ukraine to the brink of crisis.

If the election goes as scheduled on the 26th without the court-mandated reform laws, then the results could be as (ahem) suspect as the first one last month. Or is that really such a worry? The opposition is quite energized, and it would take fraud on a scale unseen in even November to prevent an Yushchenko victory.

Arguable, things could be worse if the Ukrainian parliament were to cave in and pass the reform laws. Why? Because in a young nation like Ukraine, legalities don’t make much difference. The outcome probably wouldn’t be any less rigged than a new election without the reforms – yet hardliners could claim, “Look, we did everything the reformers wanted except lose a fair election.”

In other words: An election, fair or foul, might not pull Ukraine out of its post-Soviet sinkhole. What would? Revolution, baby.

Elections didn’t bring down the Berlin Wall. Elections didn’t put the Ceaucescus up against a wall. Elections work in countries where freedom has already been won. Case in point: The American Revolution was won in 1781, confirmed by treaty in 1783; George Washington was elected our first President in 1788.

Revolutions win freedom. Elections “merely” underscore and legitimize a people’s newfound liberty.

The do-over election, whenever it ends up being held, will do little more than reinforce the decision being fought over right now in the streets of Kiev.

Comments Off bullet bullet


December 2nd, 2004 - 9:53 am

Oooooh-kay – what I thought was a stomach bug is something else. The back of my throat feels like somebody took a long pair of rusty tongs and used them to work a Brill-O Pad down there.

Gonna go buy drugs.

Comments Off bullet bullet

Required Viewing

December 1st, 2004 - 10:36 pm

America: Fuck Yeah!

I’ve already watched it twice.

UPDATE: Three times. And that’s it for me for the night – the stomach bug I thought I’d fought off yesterday has come back for another round. Betcha I beat the thing by morning. Again.

Comments Off bullet bullet


December 1st, 2004 - 1:33 pm

Political shakeup in Israel:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sacked his main coalition partner on Wednesday after a humiliating parliamentary defeat that left him scrambling to avoid early elections and save his Gaza withdrawal plan.

In a twin political drama across the Middle East divide, jailed West Bank leader Marwan Barghouthi decided to run in a Palestinian presidential election and Hamas militants vowed to boycott the vote to choose a successor for Yasser Arafat.

Sharon dismissed the Shinui party shortly after it defied him by voting against the 2005 state budget in a first reading in parliament, and aides said he would immediately approach the center-left Labour Party to prevent his government’s collapse.

This is probably good news for Sharon’s plan to pull out of Gaza, but bad news for Sharon personally. Shinui was probably already on its way out over the Gaza plan – and Labor is far more likely to support it.

However, they’ll be able to wrangle concessions out of Sharon, who is already hurting from today’s news.

Comments Off bullet bullet

It’s Broke; Fix It

December 1st, 2004 - 10:11 am

Two op-eds today in favor of Social Security reform. First up, John Kasich:

How do we get out of this mess? To preserve the system for the long term, we must change the way first-time benefits are calculated. Growth in initial benefits should be linked to the consumer price index – not to wage growth.

A switch to price-indexing from wage-indexing would accomplish two things. It would eliminate the need for future payroll tax increases, and it would still allow initial benefits to rise over time, albeit at a slower rate. Instead of rising eighteenfold over the next 75 years, benefits would likely increase by a factor of eight.

Sensible, perhaps – but any kind of “cut” in benefits is almost certainly doomed to failure. You and I know that an eightfold increase is hardly a cut, but that’s not how it would play in Washington and the MSM.

Next up, Chile’s Jos

Comments Off bullet bullet