December 7, 2005
There's nothing we can't face
Threads aren't just cute like everybody supposes.
December 6, 2005
Thread makes you do the wacky.
"Not Guilty Verdicts in Florida Terror Trial Are Setback for U.S."
No. They may be setbacks for individuals in the Justice Department, or for the members of the Bush administration (I'll except the shorthand "Justice Department" or "Bush administration.) They aren't setbacks for the "U.S." unless you either define the "U.S." as the "executive branch" or if the headline writer thinks s/he knows something the jury in the cases didn't.
Listen, should we thread forever Knowing as we do know fear destroys?
December 3, 2005
Now the threads I've sang don't add much weight to the story in my head so I'm thinking I should go and write a punch line.
FAIR confirms what must of us long knew - WJ leans more than just a little bit right.
Elected officials who appeared on Washington Journal were slightly more balanced than overall partisan guests. Of the 97 elected officials appearing on the show (senators and House members), 58 were Republican and 39 were Democrat—a 60 to 40 percent imbalance in favor of the GOP.
One might reasonably expect Republicans to moderately outnumber Democrats at a time when the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress, but a nearly two to one advantage is hard to justify—particularly in the wake of the national election that concluded in the first week of the study period with the Republican candidate receiving 51 percent of the popular vote. That election gave the Republicans control of 53 percent of the House and 55 percent of the Senate.
Journalists accounted for nearly a third of all guests (215, or 32 percent), the largest single occupational group on Washington Journal’s guestlist. The establishment-oriented Washington Post, with 20 journalists appearing as guests, was the most visible outlet, followed by the Capitol Hill–focused Congressional Quarterly with 12 and the right-leaning Washington Times with 10. USA Today and Time each provided eight guests, while five represented the Christian Science Monitor.
Despite its declaration of balance, the Washington Journal hosted journalists from right-leaning opinion magazines more often than it did those from the left. For instance, the conservative Weekly Standard furnished three guests, as did the like-minded National Review (including National Review Online). Only two guests from the liberal American Prospect were invited on the Journal, and only one guest from the left-leaning Nation.
When opinion journalists from all outlets were included, the right-leaning bias was nearly as strong: 32 right-of-center journalists appeared, vs. 19 left-of-center reporters (even counting editor Peter Beinart, the New Republic’s pro-war editor, as being on the left). Perhaps this tilt to the right could be rationalized if right-wing magazines were distinctly more popular than their counterparts on the left, but the reverse seems to be true; Mother Jones and The Nation both best National Review’s circulation numbers by a wide margin, and The Progressive outsells the Weekly Standard and American Spectator.
Ampersand has good advice.
This roughly applies to discussions of sexism, too. The fact that you don't have a set of robes in your closet or you don't think of yourself as a misogynist doesn't mean that nothing that ever comes out of your mouth has its roots in racism or sexism, whether there's any of that intention behind it. Relax, consider the criticism.
Leaving all the changes far from far behind. we relieve the tension only to find out the thread's name.
I asked my love to give me shelter And all she offered me were threads.
December 2, 2005
I noticed Showtime was not free for all, but how did the rest of you enjoy it?
Have you heard of a thread that will help us get it together again? Have you heard of the thread that will stop us going wrong?
Don't forget - Zombies. Showtimes. 10pm.
For the fainthearted don't worry, it isn't really scary.
According to CNN both Luskin and Viveca Novak will be testifying next week. At issue appears to be the fact that Fitzgerald "misinterpreted" (uhh) and thought that a conversation between Luskin and Novak actually happened between Rove and Novak.
OB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's very delicate. We're picking up that there could be two principals in this getting deposed next week giving sworn statements. Those two would include Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin and Viveca Novak of "Time Magazine."
Now it really comes down to, when all is said and done, a question of who said what to whom when.
And the who is very important because we're being told by a variety of sources that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was planning to indict Karl Rove for misrepresenting during the investigation an interview comments that he had made to a reporter. However, there was a key conversation, sources say, and there may have been a misunderstanding by the special prosecutor that a conversation that he was attributing to Rove with Viveca Novak of "Time Magazine" may, in fact, have really been held by Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.
As we've talked many times before, you and I, and just about any reporter who's been involved in this, has had conversations on the record with Luskin.
So now comes the process where Luskin is going to be testifying under oath during this deposition then Novak. Then Fitzgerald is going to have to make a decision on whether he will change his mind about indicting Rove.
It gets kind of complicated, and it gets even more complicated when you're told by the variety of sources this will not end the investigation. This is something that could go on for a while as they'll be looking for other parties who may have had a role in all of this--Wolf.
Third party group, Santorum campaign use same footage
WASHINGTON - If the grandfather and grandson walking together in Sen. Rick Santorum's Internet ad look familiar, it could be because the same two actors are in a television ad that a third-party group is running in support of Santorum.
A spokeswoman for Santorum, R-Pa., has repeatedly denied any connection between Santorum and the group, Americans for Job Security.
The campaign for Bob Casey Jr. - the leading Democratic challenger in his 2006 Senate race - said Friday the coincidence is too much to be ignored.
"I think it raises a lot of questions," said Larry Smar, a spokesman for Casey, the Pennsylvania treasurer who is leading in polls against Santorum. "Someone isn't shooting straight."
Screenshot from Americans for Job Security ad:
Screenshot from Santorum web ad:
Same pair, same clothes... They're claiming it's just a miracle of the coincidental stock footage.