| EdDriscoll.com |
|
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Posted
7/17/2004 07:46:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Friday, July 16, 2004
Posted
7/16/2004 09:41:44 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/16/2004 01:00:49 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Extra! Extra! The big news of the past decade in America has been largely overlooked, and you'll find it shocking. Young people have become aggressively normal. Violence, drug use and teen sex have declined. Kids are becoming more conservative politically and socially. They want to get married and have large families. And, get this, they adore their parents. The Mood of American Youth Survey found that more than 80 percent of teenagers report no family problems -- up from about 40 percent a quarter-century ago. In another poll, two-thirds of daughters said they would "give Mom an 'A.' "In the history of polling, we've never seen tweens and teens get along with their parents this well," says William Strauss, referring to kids born since 1982. Strauss is author, with Neil Howe, of "Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation." In an article in the latest issue of City Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, Kay S. Hymowitz writes: "Wave away the smoke of the Jackson family circus, Paris Hilton and the antics of San Francisco, and you can see how Americans have been self-correcting from a decades-long experiment with 'alternative values.' Slowly, almost imperceptibly during the 1990s, the culture began a lumbering, Titanic turn away from the iceberg." Adults are changing, but kids seem to have changed most -- and they may comprise the new "greatest generation," as Tom Brokaw called the World War II cohort. "What is emerging," writes Hymowitz, "is a vital, optimistic, family-centered, entrepreneurial, and, yes, morally thoughtful, citizenry."Glassman goes on to write that the return to normalcy by America's youth is trouble for the Democratic party.
Posted
7/16/2004 12:38:27 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Those who want the enemy to win should indeed have their patriotism questioned. How can you love your country if you want its enemies to win? This is a question that should be put to all those "liberals" who want to be seen as patriotic but who have embraced America's enemies, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly by embracing anti-American supporters of the terrorists like Michael Moore, and through him the Zarqawi "resisters" in Iraq."Unfortunately we're not getting this message across as a nation", Horowitz writes--illustrating his case with painful results. Thursday, July 15, 2004
Posted
7/15/2004 11:50:58 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Computer-savvy and interested in presidential politics, 13-year-old Erin was upset to learn that America Online's Instant Message (AIM) robot, "Smarter Child," favored Democrat John Kerry in this year's election. Erin, whose last name is being omitted in this article, is a fan of President Bush. Internet instant messaging is one of the most popular methods for teens and even adults to stay in touch with friends and family. One of the better-known messenger programs, AIM, offers the feature called Smarter Child, a robot programmed to provide automated responses to those with whom it chats. Built and programmed by Conversagent, Inc., a privately held firm that develops technology for creating and operating interactive agents, Smarter Child is able to dispense facts and figures, movie times, or just plain conversation with AIM users. But when Erin told the robot that "George Bush is awesome," she was shocked by the response. "No way. George W. Bush is way uncool," the reply stated. She asked, "Do you like George W. Bush?" and the program replied, "I'm a Kerry supporter myself." Testing the waters, she typed in "John Kerry rocks." The robot's response: "Absolutely. John Kerry rocks."Nothing like getting them while they're young, huh AOL?
Posted
7/15/2004 10:07:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Bob Dole got the nomination because it was "his turn." Kerry got the nomination because at the last minute Howard Dean imploded, and Democrats settled on Kerry because they thought he was the most electable. Neither were smart ways to pick a candidate. The jubilation over Edwards is, I believe, a sign that the Democrats are in denial about how bad a candidate Kerry is. Time will tell if I'm right.RTWT.
Posted
7/15/2004 08:49:05 PM
by Edward Driscoll
1. It’s almost impossible to explain what a blog is to someone who’s never seen one. That's the mark of a true innovation.I don't think it's too difficult to explain what a blog is without seeing it. But, as I've written before, for me, it took seeing InstaPundit back when he was on Blogger, and had that Blogger logo on his site, to put the pieces together, and "get" that blogging could be something entirely unrelated to a personal "day in the life" diary. And I'm not entirely sure I agree with this one: 12. Art blogging will never be as popular as war blogging. More people care about politics than the arts.I think it depends on what your definition of the arts is. If it's expanded to include music and film, sites like Blogcritics get a ton of traffic for their reviews. Ultimately, blogging is really a content neutral-platform, especially when sites like InstaPundit has lots of posts of 50 words or less, and sites such as Steve Den Beste's and Blogcritics have posts of 500 words or more (sometimes a lot more in the case of Den Beste). Then there's this item: 8. For now, blogs presuppose the existence of the print media. That will probably always be the case—but over time, the print media will become increasingly less important to the blogosphere.A big part of Insta-style blogs (like this one) is that they link to, and analyze articles written by others. Often these articles are original pieces of reporting. The big advantage that AP, Reuters, UPI and others have over bloggers is that they've built up a huge amount of reporters and stringers to cover stories. Of course, they could very well lose their effective monopoly on reporting over time: I once did a piece where I spoke to the US rep of IFRA, a European news agency, and he had some very interesting ideas for organizing competitors to the old-line wire services. (While it's publication date is November of 2001, it was originally written a couple of years prior--before 9/11 and the blog explosion.) I've long thought that the real power in blogging is going to be in group blogs--and it's possible that they could make a real impact in the AP/Reuters/UPI style of reporting--but as Teachout implies, it's going to be a while before that starts to happen. But it probably will--because as Roger Ailes once said, "you don't need a license to report. You need a license to do hair". (Via Betsy Newmark.)
Posted
7/15/2004 08:10:17 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 02:52:26 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 02:33:15 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 02:17:02 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 12:55:10 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 12:48:30 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 12:40:31 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 11:24:47 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 11:19:00 AM
by Edward Driscoll
What's really surprising about this is that this suggests this wasn't part of an orchestrated effort to have Hillary make a "surprise" appearance, that it really was a glaring oversight by Kerry, his campaign, and convention organizers. How do you schedule a convention lineup and leave out the party's most popular woman?
Posted
7/15/2004 11:00:38 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 01:42:34 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/15/2004 12:47:11 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Posted
7/14/2004 11:10:14 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 08:53:27 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 08:18:10 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 08:02:31 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 06:35:42 PM
by Edward Driscoll
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry, whose campaign demanded to know on Wednesday whether President Bush read a key Iraq intelligence assessment, did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.Nice to see just a smidgen of the bloom come off of the "collective glow" of the media's lovefest with Kerry.
Posted
7/14/2004 06:30:24 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 05:04:52 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 04:36:03 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 03:51:55 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 03:46:10 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 03:04:34 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 02:30:00 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 01:11:24 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 12:52:11 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/14/2004 12:02:33 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Posted
7/13/2004 11:02:48 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/13/2004 10:45:40 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/13/2004 10:43:03 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/13/2004 02:36:50 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Monday, July 12, 2004
Posted
7/12/2004 09:41:27 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/12/2004 09:40:47 PM
by Edward Driscoll
In an interview with The New York Times Magazine, William F. Buckley Jr., on the occasion of his taking leave from National Review, the magazine he founded 50 years ago, was asked a series of questions. Needless to say, given the politics of The New York Times and its interviewer, the questions were nearly all challenging. But nothing quite prepared a reader for this one: "You seem indifferent to suffering. Have you ever suffered yourself?" In one sentence, a New York Times interviewer summed up the liberal view of conservatives -- "indifferent to suffering." As I have long believed, in general, conservatives think liberals are fools and liberals think conservatives are evil.Ronald Reagan frequently called himself a National Review conservative. He ended the Cold War and freed hundreds of millions from the literal and figurative Gulag that was the Soviet Union. With National Review, Bill Buckley virtually created the modern conservative movement. If it were up to the Times, the Soviet Union, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would all still be in power. Tell me again who seems indifferent to suffering.
Posted
7/12/2004 12:54:37 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/12/2004 12:44:23 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/12/2004 12:38:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/12/2004 12:34:02 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/12/2004 12:15:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/12/2004 12:06:37 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The media “wants Kerry to win” and so “they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” and “there’s going to be this glow about” them, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted on Inside Washington over the weekend. He should know. His magazine this week sports a smiling Kerry and Edwards on its cover with the yearning headline, “The Sunshine Boys?” Inside, an article carrying Thomas’ byline contrasted how “Dick Cheney projects the bleakness of a Wyoming winter, while John Edwards always appears to be strolling in the Carolina sunshine.” The cover story touted how Kerry and Edwards “became a buddy-buddy act, hugging and whispering like Starsky and Hutch after consuming the evidence.” Newsweek’s competitor, Time, also gushed about the Democratic ticket, dubbing them, in the headline over their story, “The Gleam Team.” Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz also realized the media’s championing of the Democratic ticket and made it a focus of his Sunday Reliable Sources show on CNN. The on screen topic cues: “Edwards Lovefest?” and “Media’s Dream Team.” Kurtz’s Washington Post on Sunday well illustrated the media’s infatuation with Kerry and Edwards. “Kerry Vows to Restore 'Truth' to Presidency,” announced a July 11 front page headline. Inside, on page A-8, a headline declared: “Kerry, Edwards Revel in Brotherhood of Campaign.” The subhead: “Energy, Enthusiasm Infectious as Democrats Take Message to Battleground States.”Gee, no wonder polls keep producing results like this. UPDATE: And Kerry himself sites two New York Times reporters as being favorable to him. James Taranto writes: A few months back, when Kerry claimed to have been endorsed by various "foreign leaders," he insisted he was not at liberty to say who they were. But when he asserts he has the backing of New York Times reporters, not only does he name names, but the Times views the claim as neither newsworthy enough to report prominently nor embarrassing enough to rebut. It's as if Times reporters taking sides in a political race were the most ordinary thing in the world.
Posted
7/12/2004 12:00:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
What makes the liberal bias in the mainstream media so pernicious is that they deny that they're biased and insist that their twisted version of events is "reality," and anyone who disagrees with them is either mentally or morally suspect. In other words, they're fanatics. And, like all good fanatics, they're utterly convinced that they're in sole possession of virtue and truth.RTWT. Sunday, July 11, 2004
Posted
7/11/2004 05:17:02 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/11/2004 04:28:15 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/11/2004 03:02:00 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
7/11/2004 02:24:52 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Home |