Thursday, September 30, 2004


Setting in front of me are 4 tickets. Two for each to the two playoff games the Rangers were to play in the opening round. Section 236, Row 1. Pretty decent seats. I received them in the mail yesterday. Today, they will go back in the mail in the ceremonial "Refund for Post-Season Tickets" process. Sort of like a Viking Funeral. Except without, the body of water, the vessel, or the flames...but you know what I mean. Today, I will go the the ballpark just for the pleasure of the experience. I can't recall a year when it felt any better to say,"Wait 'till next year." I will applaud wildly. Not for what occurs today, but for the previous 158 games that made us idiots and liars.

That's what I love about sports (baseball, imparticular) and life. We think we got this thing pegged, but we don't. The hubris overwhelms us and we pronounce the future based on preconceived notions. So, self-inflated are we that we expect reality to bow to what we "know". And then it doesn't. Sometimes that's bad, but sometimes it's good. I think that's important. In the immortal words of MTV, "You think you know, but you don't." I read along time ago that sports are a microcosm of life. Played out in periods, games, season, careers. I still agree. In some (maybe stretched analogy) degree, we see the various emotions, trials, and challenges that life might sling our way...except without the same level of consequence. In this instance, I get some hope. Hope that the negative pundits aren't always right. Hope that tomorrow, or "next year", will be better. Hope that I haven't seen it all. And a reminder that I shouldn't expect others to stay in the box in which I've put them.

(teetering analogy coming)
For some reason, I keep thinking about this in the context of abortion. All the arguments those on the pro-choice side make about how children shouldn't be born into lives of poverty, desperation, or to parents who don't want them and therefore end up in a orphanage. Their argument seems to be that the unborn's potential is too small to warrant a chance. I WILL NEVER EXCEPT THAT. If there is 1/10 of 1/100 of 1%, that's enough. It's a chance. I believe life is the first and greatest gift God gives us all. Without it, we have no way to CHOOSE to follow him and open up existence to all the other blessings God offers. And if you've got .000001 percent chance to make it, and change the world, well...batter up. (I didn't say it wasn't a flawed analogy.)

Well, that's all I got...besides, I've got a ball game to go to.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Joltin' Joe is safe

Well, I failed yesterday, the streak is over...of course,"If a tree falls..." yada, yada, yada. I have come back to earth, and so have the Rangers. The math now is not so good. Oh well, they were supposed to be 42 games back by now, and instead they made it apparent that baseball experts aren't really experts at all. If they lose out, they still deserve a 10-minute standing ovation. I'll be there tomorrow to do my part. Now I guess I'll turn all my attention to the Cowboys (2-1).

...And to the upcoming election. There are probably several things I could write about--and poorly so-- like CBS's most recent gaff. Instead, I'll let two pictures do the talking. Remember, the election offers you two distinct choices. Choose wisely.


He there any choice?

Was that crass? Probably. Unfair? Maybe. Funny? Uh, people he's orange.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Books and Letters

So as I perused the Arts section of my local Sunday paper (The Dallas Morning News) I stumbled upon a book review about a guy who wants to assassinate President Bush. Whatever. I don't care about that. Fiction is fiction, I guess. What did bother me was the efforts of the writer of said critique to bash Bush and conservatives in the process. Read review here. It resulted in a letter to the editor which will suffice as today's, or at least one of today's blog entries...

I bemusedly read the leading paragraph of Candy Fowler’s letter as she referred to "[t]he pro-Bush Dallas Morning News staff." Apparently, this doesn't extend to the "Arts" section and its book reviews.

Regarding Jerome Weeks review of Checkpoint, I have little doubt as to how the author will be voting on November 2nd. Mr. Weeks first notes "President Bush's lousy performance in the National Guard" to balance out his chastisement--to use the term loosely--of Dan Rather and CBS's handling of the fake memo "story." The only problem with that would be the evidence reported by Byron York of The Hill in his September 9th article. In it he shows that the President first had to complete 80 weeks of full-time training before even beginning to fulfill his Guard obligations. During that time Guard members were required to "...accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation." In the years following, Bush earned 253, 340, 137, 112, and 56 points respectively. His hours did drop off that last year, but the war was ending and it did still meet the requirements. I guess that could be termed as "lousy", but I wouldn't want to work for Mr. Weeks.

Also, his characterization of Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Cal Thomas or Mona Charen as hate-mongers seems highly unnecessary…especially Hume. Would the editors have said something if Hume's name was replaced with Jennings, Rather, or Blitzer?

Finally, Mr. Weeks casts liberals in "...the role of the noble-minded punching bag who never fights back -- see Al Gore and the Florida recount..." Excuse me? This would be the same Al Gore who had lawyers throwing out votes of military personnel like week-old bananas? Or the one who to took his attempt to ascend to power to the highest court in the land following an election he lost, even after several recounts?

I don't mind Mr. Weeks or others of the "pro-Bush Dallas Morning News staff" giving their opinions, especially in a book review. If the book was bad, say so. If you don't like Bush, say so, as long as you make it clear that it is your opinion. However, when the opinions of one begin to usurp the facts, that is when someone (aka editors) should say, "No."

Friday, September 24, 2004

Sound the trumpets!

Two games...TWO GAMES! Well the Rangers did it in dramatic fashion yesterday. Down two in the bottom of the ninth. Then down one with two outs and only a solitary strike left. Yet a guy who was in a oh-fer-23 slump doubles in the two guys on base, and the Rangers find themselves a mere two games out...TWO GAMES! This occurred as I was driving down Greenville Ave. on my way home from work. So if you saw a guy pumping his fist and yelling wildly while trying to keep it in the lane, that might have been me. Two of my buddies called me before I was even able to get home. One had been at the game(yes I'm in a jealous rage) and sounded quite hoarse. It's hard to be in a bad mood when you got good friends and baseball on your side, and I find myself approaching giddy.

Quickly, on the Kerry front. I see this today in the WashPost about the candidate who is now running on an anti-war platform. I will quote the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts reacting after the "U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians." He said:
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take preemptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

Bush couldn't have said it better himself.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Back up to the plate...

(I will now attempt a dual tie-in to the title.)
Glory, Glory! The fact that with their win last night my little Texas Rangers find themselves a mere 3 games out of first place with less than two weeks remaining in the season is staggering and source of something nearing pure delight. As you can see by the link at the left, I have a certain affinity for baseball. Because of that, I see this as just another proof there is a God. Not because "my team" is still in the race, nor the "miraculous" nature of this season, but because I am allowed to enjoy it and have my spirits buoyed by simply, a game. CHoP pitches today, though. A win today could approach apocalyptic.

(Attempt #2)
After re-reading yesterday's woeful "effort", I'm glad I get to step back in the box and try again (I didn't say it wouldn't be a stretch).

I have been pegged by a certain compadre as being partisan. Basically, that I support all things "Republican" and reject anything "Democratic." While I would dispute that, based on such examples as my abhorrence of term limits, I can not argue that recently I find no reason to lend any support to a Democrat...except Zell Miller, of course. The reason doesn't have as much to do with their beliefs (if they still have any) as it does with their tactics...scare tactics. I find them utterly despicable. They're usually targeted at some minority group or other category of the populace. The basis for the claims are typically some minute morsel of fact and always ignore some obvious incongruous aspect. Just yesterday a new one was torn out of the shrink-wrap.

In case you weren't aware, Bush is bringing back the draft! As ridiculous as this notion is, not only is Kerry saying it, he's got his surrogates out preaching to college students about the threat a second(or is it 3rd?) Bush administration poses. AND Not only does he have his "boys" out talking up this nonsense, MTV is on the case. AND they're embracing new technology by spamming colleges. What all these sources fail to mention is HR 163 was introduced by prominent Democrats like Charlie Rangel, Jim McDermott, John Conyers, and John Lewis. That's a little thing I like to call dishonesty.

Other examples include the Dem's claims that Republicans are preparing to suppress the black vote. The party of Lincoln has come a long way. These accusations come from the same party who reportedly had operatives in Florida gleefully tossing out military votes in 2000.

As always, there's the omnipresent Democrat threat that Republicans want all senior citizens destitute. They are either in the process of taking way Medicare, Social Security and probably even their pets if they get a chance.

Of course, when the DNC takes a break from this constructive type of debate, it's usually just to accuse Bush of negative campaigning...right-o.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Where did I go wrong?

I sense that I owe you an apology. I feel like I've been talking about Rather/CBS exploits since the beginning of time. While I still see the importance of shining the light on the biased, unethical, elitist faction the media has become; one can only handle so much(including me). All that being said, we've got a Presidential election going on here, people!

I guess the big question is for whom to cast one's vote. Well, there are only two viable candidates, and by viable I mean "has a chance to win the election." There are no perfect candidates. Do I wish Bush would stick to his conservative guns on issues like the NEA, smaller government, and states rights? Of course. I may secretly long for New Zealand. But that seems "pie in the sky." I try to remind myself that nothing happens in a vacuum. Also, I carry around in my head something that I have been told since my first government/history class in middle school. That one of the main tenets of politics is compromise. I hate compromise. If I have a belief I assume that I'm right and there's really no need to consider other possibilities...ergo if small government is better we should have a smaller government. Why compromise? Something tells me the President doesn't exactly get to think the same way.

Many are worried about the war, why we're there, and when we'll get out. I'm not one of those. We are there because we believed that Saddam and Sons had become too chummy with terrorists (true), had WMD's (true, though expected more), had the capability begin production of weapons when we stopped watching (true) and had refused to cooperate with U.N. sanctions. Honestly, the latter gives more credence to the first three. Why else would inspectors not be allowed to enter? Saddam's principled stand for the sovereignty of nation-states? Where was this principle in '91? As for getting out? Well, we have a duty and a responsibility to, as my mom used to say,"leave things better than we found them." If we walk out on the Iraqis a second time they will never forgive us...and I don't know that I could blame them.

Now, as far as the other guy goes, that's all he is...the other guy. For you ABBer's out there, have fun. This guy stands for nothing. Or at least, the things he does stand for are so shockingly liberal that even he recognizes that he can't mention them. I read today that the newest Swift Boat ads will focus on his meeting with North Vietnamese leaders during the war. The thought that such an event would be "unprecedented" for a future commander in chief does not instill in me a confidence in his Foreign policy potential. I think arguing over if it was secret or not might be "burying the lead." I trust nothing about this guy...ok, except that he will say whatever to get a vote.

I guess I must amend my earlier statement. There is only one viable candidate in this election.

(BTW, there's nothing like writing something twice. It always seems so inferior to the first draft.)

Blogger 1, Me 00000

Well, Blogger won a battle today. My whole entry disappeared before publishing. Beating. I might try again.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Whoosh!...or is it "Dangit!"?

Well, the leak sprung yesterday turned it to a full-out flood today. Reports from the USA Today reveal that the Kerry Campaign was given special dispensation. A heads up, a helping hand. Honestly, this even mildly shocks me. Not that it happened per say, but that they admitted it. Key Kerry men were advised by the producer of the story to give the provider of the forgeries a call. Some have suggested that both campaigns were contacted to get a reaction. The only problem is that the Wall Street Journal reports that the White House requested the documents the night before CBS was set to interview Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, on their revealing content...and they were told, "no." They did not get copies until the next morning, but aides only had three hours to review the documents once they did get them. Not exactly equal time. So to this humble observer you have what appears to be some level of cooperation between a major news outlet and the Kerry Campaign. One that one seem to be pretty standard and accepted, at least the LA Times thinks so. Hugh Hewitt posits on if this is the same reaction we should expect if the Letters were "R"'s instead of "D"'s this way:
"Put it another way: Would it be a big deal if FoxNews Carl Cameron had called Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign manager Ken Mehlman to urge Mehlman give Swift Boats Vet leader John O'Neill a call so that O'Neill would provide some after-action reports on a Kerry mission that, once provided, turned out to be forgeries?...Remember the outrage that Ben Ginsburg had lawyered for the Swifties --a perfectly acceptable practice under the law?"
I think we all know the answer.

Once again, I think the big story here is that news agencies and political campaigns have no problem with such coziness. In Sneakers, a movie that came out when I was in high school, there is a line that has always stuck with me. The quote is basically,"[I] learned that everything in this world--including money--operates not on reality . . .(b)ut the perception of reality." Banks, stock markets, governments, politics, media; they are allowed to function with some level of authority because the public agrees to the fact that they're doing their best for the right reasons. Yes, it's a little naive to operate that way--relying more on hope than reality--but, I believe there's truth in that quote.

In this case, we know that reporters have biases, but hope they're bound by the obvious ethics of their profession. Sure, sometimes they might have to blur the line to get all the facts, but we "trust" that their motives are somewhat pure, and therefore in the end we able to get news that we can trust. But with today's development, I believe that has all been turned on its ear. The players have shown not only by their words, but by the level of comfortableness they relate that, "Of course, they called me, and I called a known partisan hack that helped forge documents. But what's so odd about that? It's just a phone call?" From the same Society of Professional Journalists
Code of Ethics linked yesterday, we find this:
"Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

-- Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
-- Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
-- Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news. "

I guess CBS says, "Oh well, we'll get'um next time." Well, next time, shame on me.

Monday, September 20, 2004


Well, despite the large dam that Rather and his cohorts built trying to stop the flood...some truth finally leaked through. Dan "apologized". Whatever.

This so-called apology seems about as fake as the documents. Still no outrage or concern as to who faked them and why this "nut's" word was taken. It won't be found, because they still want to tell this story. Once again they're left grasping for some supporting evidence for what they want to say, not looking for actual news. But this part of the "retraction" is a joke: "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism." If you still believe there was no favoritism here, well, I guess you need some time to take another hit...

Favoritism is the sole reason this happened. Any story or thesis that supports a liberal idea is at first accepted, and might be questioned later. That's the way it is. And that's exactly the reason CBS is where they are right now. What tired head this gives me...I guess I should finally be happy they admitted some amount of failure. But I'm not, for there was never a possibility that they would not. The evidence was so overwhelming that it was a certainty. The only question was the how, which they have now answered insufficiently. Yawn...

I always thought there were rules to journalism. Rules like, report the news, don't become the news. Of course, I also thought that the truth might be a standard for which to shoot. Silly me.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Ride the Wave

Well the LATimes at least admits it. There something that still irks me, though. Also in that article you get this:
Whatever the truth, CBS' real error was trying to prove a point that didn't need to be proved. It doesn't take documents for anyone to realize that Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard. And, during the Vietnam draft, nobody went into the National Guard out of passion to defend his country. It also doesn't take new documents to establish that Bush shirked even his National Guard duties when he moved to Alabama and then to Harvard Business School in Massachusetts.

The brouhaha all but managed to place Bush's Vietnam-era service off-limits as a campaign issue, after weeks in which John F. Kerry's impressive record has been under savage attack. Bush gave a smirky speech Tuesday to the National Guard Assn., waxing on about the patriotic sacrifices of the Guard's men and women over the years. All of that is true, but not about him.

I might be willing to give you the point that Bush found his way in the Guard partly because his name was "Bush." But the rest of those two paragraphs just drive me nuts. Shirked? There's evidence suggesting that Bush more than fulfilled his yearly Guard requirements. Much more. Next, "John F. Kerry's impressive record"? I not here to question it. But there are those that have, and with some authority on the subject. Yet, once again, one story is accepted with only some forged documents and hearsay as back-up, while another is ignored on the "understanding" that it's baseless.

In the end, that is exactly was makes the Mass media liberal and me crazy. Bad suppositions become truth because they are never challenged or checked...until now...but it still drives me crazy.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

"See! We were right all along!"...he says.

Day 7. As someone who's tv viewing habits are haphazard at best, I can consider it only something short of divine intervention that I turned on the picture box at the exact moment the Dan "Believe what I say, not what I show you" Rather interview of Marian Carr Knox began. An article on the CBS "news" site talks about the "extraordinary scrutiny and criticism" placed on these documents. EXTRAORDINARY? Some ordinary scrutiny was placed on them by the public after the story aired. Maybe if any amount of scrutiny had applied, none of this would have occurred. But CBS and Big Dan had a "gotcha" on W, and they had to go, go, go.

So in the interview, Ms. Knox goes on to say that the memos are fake but..BUT the content is true. Now, I'm not saying Ms. Knox is lying. But she is 86 years old and is recounting events that would have occurred 32 years ago. I'm not saying either of those factors precludes her from being able to recount said events, but it does make it less likely. And one other thing, in a Dallas Morning News article Ms. Knox is quoted as saying Mr. Bush is "unfit for office" (OK?) and was "selected, not elected." (WHOA.) The selected not elected chant doesn't usually emanate from a "moderate" or an "undecided".

All this to say that if a someone with similar attributes tried this from the other side, they would be tagged immediately as a "partisan" or a "conservative operative". More likely they wouldn't get on the air. Like say, a 59 year-old Vietnam Vet comes forward with support of over 250 of his fellow soldiers, has footnoted, documented proof of a certain presidential candidate's apparent attempts to misrepresent his military exploits for political gain(which was recently backed up by after-action report penned by said candidate). Does this man get invited to the Today show? "Sorry, we've got that time booked for Kitty Kelly, respected journalist" (Eyes roll)

In a recent development. The possible source of the fake documents has been traced back to a Kinko's in Abilene, TX, by none other than the Washington Post(Thanks, Rick). As chance would have it, I spent four years in that "electric city" (sarcasm people!) attending Hardin-Simmons University. I have been to said Kinko's ("It's a Small World" being sung in the background by a creepy Micky Mouse voice). Apparently, this guy has an axe to grind. Plus, isn't any guy from Baird, TX, who's willing to drive 30 to 45 minutes(one way) to a Kinko's with such frequency that the employees know of him and of his "standing account" a bit of a nut? Maybe I just hate Kinko's...

It's nice to see the WashPost coming around. Unfortunately, many others are still in the circle of wagons. That might work for bows and arrows but I'm afraid that instead they have a 50 ton boulder rolling down the hill.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Today, the day after yesterday

I've been fighting with the blog today, and it almost won. I made a late rally, though.

Pertaining to yesterday's news. CBS promising some sort of e-mail, or memo, or release. That was the morning....still waiting....probably don't want to be holding any breaths out there.

(TOPIC CHANGE!) Baseball...what to say. The Rangers are still in it, and that is the most unlikely of sports happenings. Yesterday was no good, though. Someone threw a chair. Very bad idea. Shouldn't have done it, no doubt. But we still only have one side of the story. Maybe the other side has nothing to offer, but athletes of this caliber are accustomed to this sort of annoyance, aren't they. To see veteran players and some coaches have to be restrained makes you think that the heckler's story is exactly fair and balanced.

And once again, let me reiterate, in no way do I condone the activity of throwing a chair into the crowd. But anyone who doesn't consider the fact that their arse could get kicked if they harass and berate someone for 3 straight hours is dumb at best. That's part of the rush for that sort of fan, they think they're impervious to counterattack. Would he do it to the bouncer at his favorite watering hole? No, he'd be a bloody mess on the pavement. But since he plopped down 30 bucks and the other guy is wearing a uniform with the name of a different place on it, he's got free reign.

I make it a point not to screw with certain groups of people. These groups include: guys bigger than me; policemen, especially when in uniform; athletes, except for maybe soccer players(they're wee); and anyone who has ever been in a war. Being a man to these groups of people can be very important. So acting surprised at a violent outcome when you question their manhood...? Yeah, who would've thunk it.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Dan Rather and my horn

Well here we are. I left on a little non-traveling holiday after my "prediction". Little did I realize that the great "lion of journalism" from Wharton, Texas, would go and ahead and be the catalyst for the beginning of the end some six days later.

In case you haven't been keeping up, Dan Rather is a flaming liberal and hopes to further their cause. His latest "Hail Mary"-esque attempt was running with a story based entirely on some "found" documents that detail G. W. Bush's "lackluster" military service. The only problem? The documents are completely fake. Don't believe me? Go here. Or here. Or anything here. Basically, at the time the "memo" was supposedly created, there were basically no such machines-- typewriters, computers, or otherwise-- that could have produced such typeset. And of the very few possibilities, there is no chance that a Texas Air National Guard office would have any of them. NONE. I won't even go into all the other inconsistencies of the timing of the memos.

The old media floats a lie...and within 16-24 hours the blog world has them completely debunked. I'm imagining Dan Rather in an oversized helmet with a butterknife trying to slay a dragon. He and his cohorts are so myopic that they don't even realize that they're in a battle, much less that they've already lost it. There may be some parallels between the old media and the most recent incarnation of the "Dream Team". They both think that all they have to do is show up and they win. The only difference being the "Dream Team" probably only needed another two or three weeks of practice and they would have rolled. The old guard media...? D-U-N...DONE, DONE, DONE. . Lileks says it better. Plus he sorta backs up my theory (My stock rises!). I quote:
"Blogs haven't toppled old media. The foundations of Old Media were rotten already. The new media came along at the right time. Put it this way: you've seen films of old buildings detonated by precision demolitionists. First you see the puffs of smoke, then the building just hangs there for a second, even though every column that held it up has been severed. We've been living in that second for years, waiting for the next frame. Well, here it is. Roll tape. Down she goes. And when the dust settles we will be right back where we were 100 years ago, with dozens of fiercely competitive media outlets throwing elbows to earn your pennies." Read the whole thing here.

The old guard medidiots (Can I copyright that?) don't even know to stop talking after the quicksand is streaming into their own mouths. As of this moment Dan Rather is staking his reputation to the authenticity of the memos. The Boston Globe (Boston? Surely not) has not retracted it's story based on the same "documents" and still features a copy of the memo on it's website. Other media outlets realizing that the writing is etched on the wall, have turned there guns inward. Even the NYTimes and the WashPost are piling on.

The old guard has some gaps and can not longer hold the's about time.

My New Years Resolution

Ok, sure it's September...and I detest resolutions. BUT! I resolve to try to post something here that might be readable everyday. Amen...err...uh...blood oath?...uh...this is why I never do these things.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Pure Speculation

I'm not prone to predictions, at least not writing them down. But I fear I might have had an epiphany, or maybe I'm in the slow-motion version of one. I'm currently reading the book, Slander, by Ann Coulter. Basically, a treatise on the overly liberal nature of the media. I'm also becoming increasingly reliant on blogs to get actual news. (This week has been amazing for that as many bloggers have been creditialed at the convention.) In fact, just today I witnessed Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, contradict himself within 24 hours. Just go here and read the transcript of an interview done with him (focus on the questions in the beginning about Kerry and Cambodia) and then go here to see McAuliffe's response to an almost identical question (Quicktime required).
You're probably saying,"So what, who cares?" Well, these two coinciding occurrences--the reading of the book, and dependence on blogs-- have made me realize some things.
(1) People are getting more and more put off by the "main stream" media each day. Conservatives get just plan hacked off, and the rest I think, might be able to sense the condescension.
(2) Many major media outlets, the New York Times and Newsweek to name two, now openly admit that they're liberal(Op-ed Piece making claim), and that they back Kerry to the point that they rely on a bump in Kerry's (link) numbers based on that fact.
(3) There is already a new type of media rising up. The Weblog world. Bloggers are able to post what they know, and let you decide. The McAuliffe example above proves just that. I don't need editors to decide what I should read, I can read it all, and see what stacks up. (In this case the Democratic party is on the verge of a complete melt-down.) Many of these blogs get more readers than some attempts by the media elite to have a web anyone? The fact that blogs are free doesn't help the big-business media either. The popularity and vitality of these blogs proves that people are looking for alternatives.
(4) The kicker was this...I had already spoken this mild "prediction" two nights ago, but then today these numbers come out on Drudge...



So the prediction. (Oh yeah...he did say something about a prediction). Based on the fact that the media is now in a --it would almost seem attempt-- process where they polarize themselves politically. Also that while they run from the middle--almost always to the left-- there will be left a void, an unbiased void of which the print media was supposed to be the last bastion. AWe've become almost accustomed to the Walter Cronkites and the Dan Rathers of the world railing on the stupidity and meanness of W, Reagan, Nixon, well I guess any President or other political figure with an R by their name. But the print media? Not until now. They at least lied and tried to fake it. And since we now know that the public has begun to embrace "other" media outlets. The tide is turning. FoxNews and the blogs are just the first line. They were already here and are easy to get up and running. Next will be a new wave of newspapers that will, most likely, not be completely unbiased either, but will instead lean right. I don't know if that's good. It's probably not the best. The current media has made it's choice, though. It can subvert it's true feelings no more. Circulation of the Times, the Wash. Post, the Chicago Trib, etc. will fall. The public will make their feelings heard with their dollar.

We might end up with a media similar to that found in can choose the conservative paper or the liberal one. And all because a bunch of liberal journalists couldn't do their job and just report the news.