Peenie Wallie: A firefly, swarms
of which can be seen flickering at night in the rainforests of Jamaica.
PeenieWallie.com: A confused jumble of politically
incorrect rambling diatribes, worthless photographs, and disturbing
CNN: The New Terrorists
CNN, still reeling from the Eason
Jordan debacle where their chief potentate was
deposed for deliberately, falsely, and repeatedly
accusing the U.S. military of horrendous war crimes
abroad, has now decided to attempt to foment fear
and anguish at home.
In their relentless and despicable
assault on the 2nd amendment, CNN cobbled together
a hit-piece on the safest weapon ever sold in the
United States. A weapon that is so safe, it has
never killed a single person in the United States,
since the weapon was introduced, shortly after WWI.
CNN, ever vigilant of the perils
of living in the "free society", appear
to have committed at least one felony, and possibly
more, in their reckless assault on the 2nd amendment.
They flew a talking head from Georgia to Texas to
buy a .50 caliber rifle from a private citizen,
and then returned the weapon to Georgia. The problem
with this is that it's illegal for a Texas citizen
to sell a firearm to a non-resident in a private
firearms sale. A licensed FFL would have to be involved
in the purchase. Even the BATF admits that a felony
was apparently violated, according to Say
has a roundup of links.
I'd like to point out that I posted
on Feb 12th, somewhat presciently, that the next
time the news media did a hit piece on the .50 cal,
blogs would be watching. Once again, CNN has
stepped into it big time. Someone needs to sit them
down and tell them to stop terrorizing the American
citizens. Stop peddling fear about the dangers of
a free society to the citizens. We don't need this
kind of foam and spittle reporting that these left-wing
liberals are peddling.
If CNN can't reign in their vociferous,
liberal, talking heads and left-wing editors, and
get their weak-kneed liberal tendencies under control,
someone is going to carve this network into pieces
and auction it off to the highest bidder in a Louisiana
Here's a link to the BATF
web page, which lists the following: Report Illegal Firearms Activity: 1-80-ATF-GUNS (1-800-283-4867)
Firearms General Questions: email@example.com
The NRA guys still
don't have a peep about this story
on their website. Contact them here
and tell them to get on the ball.
CNN's main phone number
is (404) 827-1500. Call them and let
them know what you think of their
stories that deliberately attempt
to terrorize U.S. citizens.
Let's all contact these people
and make sure that this doesn't get swept under
the rug. Let's get these CNN guys prosecuted. I guarantee you that if I were guilty
of a similar crime, the BATF wouldn't be sitting
around, tossing paper airplanes, and attempting
to decide whether or not charges should be filed.
I'd be in prison. Let's make sure the BATF treats
CNN the same way that they would treat an ordinary
"criminal" like you or me.
This slideshow is a 17 Meg
self-playing executable produced using Imagematics
StillMotion PE. The audio track is "So
Far Away" by Staind. Click on the photo
above to download the slideshow. Click here
if you need help.
Sharks are one of nature’s
most perfect predators. They evolved over
millions of years into perfect killing machines.
Sharks have no known predators, except for
other sharks. Interestingly, they have to
swim constantly, or they die.
Many people have an irrational
fear of sharks. My daughter said that sharks
are “bad” and “mean”.
But I told her that sharks aren’t
inherently “bad” or “mean”
or “evil”. They’re just
hungry. They are basically swimming appetites
with teeth. And, if we stay out of the ocean,
the odds of being attacked by one are next
The sharks live in the
same oceans with their prey, schools of
smaller fish. The little fish don’t
like the sharks, but they understand that
they’re not going away any time soon
either. So, the fish learn to stay alert
at all times. They try not to do stupid
things that would single them out for unwarranted
attention from the sharks.
The Blogs As Predators
The blogs are a very interesting
phenomena. For good or bad, the blogs clearly
have a propensity to operate with a mob
It’s true that,
when there is blood in the water, the blogs
do have a tendency to go into something
akin to a frenzy. There are some facets
of the process that are somewhat disconcerting.
Once they reach a certain critical mass,
in their collective actions, they do tend
to resemble a frenzied mass, not unlike
a swarm of killer bees, school of sharks
or piranhas in a feeding frenzy, or a mob
By this I mean that, there
is clearly a competition occurring in the
nucleus of the blog. People want to get
their story on the web first…post
the most insightful comments…collect
quotes to support their assertions…link
and trackback as much as possible…cover
the best angles…etc. The blogs that
will get the most hits will be those that
make the most posts with the most references
with the best summarizations of the other
posts, etc. So, there is clearly this clarion
call to arms once the blood is in the water.
Furthermore, it is impossible
to strike back at the blogs. You can only
answer their allegations or stick your head
in the sand, but you cannot strike back
at the blogs. The reason is that they are
too numerous and they operate independently.
By the time Eason Jordan resigned, there
were thousands of independent blogs all
chanting in near perfect cacophony. “Release
the tapes. Release the tapes.”
Trying to say that the
blogs are backed by this group or that group
is fruitless, as is saying that they are
rank amateurs, with no journalistic integrity.
You’re just shouting into the wind.
There is no one accuser that can be singled
out, prosecuted, or exposed to stop the
bleeding. In the end, the charges must be
answered to, or you must be prepared to
suffer the consequences.
In the final analysis, it really doesn’t
matter who owns and operates the web sites.
Whether each one is backed by liberals or
conservatives, gays or heterosexuals, Catholics
or Jews. All that matters is that, their
charges must be answered to.
That the blogs behave as
efficiently as they do, not by some grand
conspiracy of design, but as a result of
behavior”; behavior that arises
in complex systems, that isn't readily explainable
by the individual properties of the components.
In 1984, no one knew that everyone would
have a computers within 10 years. In 1993,
no one knew that every computer on earth
would need to be wired together in a global
network. In 1997, no one knew that everyone
on earth yearned to be posted their stories
on the internet. And in 2000, no one was
predicting the rise of the blogs.
The blogs are clearly a
product of “emergent behavior”.
When a non-trivial number of people start
posting and cross posting stories on the
internet, the phenomena that arises is infinitely
more than the sum of the individual components.
As the number of participants in the blogs
increases, the resulting phenomena assumes
properties that were not forseen. . The
blogs are a self-correcting, multi-tasking,
multi-threaded, massively multi-participant,
online, real-time application.
That they behave similarly
to complex systems found in nature was is
not necessarily expected, but nor is it
necessarily surprising. The fact that the
behavior of the blogosphere in its excited
state closely resembles an agitated swarm
of bees or a school of feeding pirahanas
to me means that the blogosphere has evolved
to operate as efficiently as other complex
systems have. It has realized a new point
of equilibrium, that was not entirely predicted.
It took the sharks millions of years to
evolve. The blogs achieved the same result
in a few short years.
The less for the MSM? Learn
to live with the blogs, because they’re
looking more and more like a school of perfect
predators that aren’t likely to be
going away any time soon. Maybe it’s
time for MSM to start studying the lifeforms
further down the food chain to crib from
their techniques of survival.
Social Security: There
May Be An Elephant In The Living
The Social Security program
tarnishes the U.S. balance sheets like a herpes
sore on a beauty queen. But, up until now,
no one has had the kahunas to actually bring
it up. Mentioning the words "Social Security"
has historically been viewed as political
suicide. Mentioning the challenges facing
the program was to subject oneself to extraordinary
rendering at the hands of the AARP. Social
Security is widely referred to as the “third
rail” of American politics. As in the
rail that carries enough electricity to kill
anyone that touches it.
So, for Bush Jr. to mention
it means that he’s either stupid, or
crazy, or a true leader. He certainly raised
the stakes on his presidency when he dragged
the Social Security program into the limelight
recently. Bush basically pointed out that
"there is, in fact, an elephant in the
living room". In doing so, he caught
the Democrats flatfooted. Predictably, they
collectively lambasted his plan as reckless,
irresponsible, and financially insolvent,
but then realized that they didn’t really
have a plan of their own. So, right now, the
Democrats are saying “there may or may
not, in fact, be an elephant in the living
room…we’re looking into it.”
So, for the time being, it’s a Mexican
Sometime around 1993, the
feds decided to split FICA(Federal Insurance
Contributions Act) into two components, Medicare
and OASDI(Old Age, Survivors, and Disability
Insurance - this is what is commonly known
as Social Security). To oversimply things,
Medicare is for poor people, and Social Security
is for old people(retirees). Medicare is financially
destitute, and has been since it's inception.
We won't even talk about Medicare. It's a
freaking train off the rails.
The Social Security program,
however, has always been self sufficient.That
is, Social Security contributions collected
from the payroll taxes have been more than
enough to offset the expenses incurred by
paying benefits for retirees. (Not too surprising
when you realize that they’re confiscating
12.4% of every employee’s salary for
three hundred million people.)
The problems with Social Security(OASDI)
a) The surplus funds have
been raided for as far back as anyone can
remember. (I don’t care to get into
a blame storming game of who tapped into the
surplus first or who tapped it the hardest
or who liked it the most. It really doesn’t
matter at this point. The only thing we need
to mention now is that almost all of it is,
in fact, gone.
b) People are living longer.
c) There are less people
entering the workforce. So, with less people
paying for more benefits, there will come
a day of reckoning, when there won’t
be enough funds collected to cover the benefits
paid out under the system.
The reality is that the Social
Security program, as it was envisioned, implemented,
and operated, up to this point in time, is
an illegal Ponzi
scheme. If you or I tried to start an “investment
program” where the contributions of
one group of people were used to pay off another
group of people, we would be charged with
a felony, arrested, and incarcerated.
investment schemes and Multi-Level
Marketing schemes have been around for
some time. The problem with them is (1) they
become unsustainable after only a few iterations
and (2) they’re illegal because of (1).
So, taking contributions
from people coming into the workforce to pay
for an ever growing number of people retiring
from the workforce, in the long run, isn’t
going to work. This is, in a nutshell, what
President Bush has had the courage to point
out. Although Bush is right in asserting this,
and on some level, even the Democrats can’t
dispute this, their argument is that it won't
happen for a long time, and Bush’s plan
might make it worse, so let’s just not
meddle with it at this point in time.
There is a certain amount
of truth to this. Bush’s proposal is
a bold, if controversial, one. Perhaps the
best model of what he is proposing is Chile’s
retirement system. In their system, workers
are forced to set aside 10% percent of their
earnings into a private retirement fund. Then,
when they retire, they can receive distributions
from their fund based on their life expectancy.
This is radically different than Social Security
because there are no surplus funds for the
government to raid. Your money is set aside
for you in a private account in your name.
In Social Security, the money they withhold
from your check is used to subsidize rice
farmers in the Sonora Desert. So, I’m
sure you begin to see the difference here.
An Elephant In The Living Room
So, if it’s intuitively
obvious to the casual observer that there
is, in fact, an elephant in the living room,
and a relatively large one, at that, why don’t
we fix it? Or, alternately, why isn’t
it in the news?
The answer, predictably, is a variety of
reasons(It's a little long winded, but your
retirement may depend on it, and, if not yours,
then your childrens' surely will, so do it
• The American Association
of Retired People(AARP) is vociferously against
changing Social Security, for obvious reasons.
These are the people who have paid into the
plan all their life, and they feel that they
are entitled to the benefits they were promised.
Go figure. So, if you’re a politician,
you don’t mention the third rail (Social
Security) because the AARP will send you packing
before you can say “Gericycle”.
• Not everyone in Congress is enrolled
in Social Security. Up until 1983, Congress
did not participate in Social Security. They
have their own retirement plan called the
Civil Service Retirement System(CSRS). If
they were hired after 1983, they have to contribute
to Social Security, but I assume it would
be a more pressing issue if they were all
subject to the financial whims of the same
retirement system as the rest of us. Interestingly,
Colorado, California, and Oregon public employees
have their own retirement system: PERA, CalPers,
and PERS, respectively.
• People, in general, are not great
at long-range planning. Governments, in particular,
are abysmal at long range planning. Governments,
by their nature, are risk averse. In a bureaucracy,
there’s no reward for solving problems
until they become a full-blown raging crisis,
and there’s a great incentive not to
fix something unless it is a crisis. Don’t
fix it if it ain’t broke. Don’t
go out on a limb. You get the idea here. So,
Social Security, although it is clearly headed
for a disaster, is not there quite yet.
• Privatizing Social Security has many
inherent risks, and, in the short run, may
cause more problems than it solves. If people
start contributing to private savings accounts,
and reduce contributions to FICA, then that
destabilizes the current Social Security program,
at least in the short term. Where would the
money come from to make up this difference?
• You manage what you measure. Conversely,
you don’t manage what you don’t
measure, and Social Security isn’t on
the books. I should back up here. The Financial
Accounting Standards Board(FASB) is an organ
of our government that writes rules for companies
to follow when reporting their financial health.
The theory is that we want to make sure we’re
comparing apples to apples when we’re
evaluating the prospectus of a company to
make an investment through the stock market.
About a decade ago, they decided that companies
should show unfunded pension obligations as
an unfunded liability. This was not a trivial
accounting change. GM took a one-time charge
of twenty billion dollars over the issue.
Predictably, the United States government’s
Congressional Budget Office(CBO), is not subject
to FASB. So, they don’t show our retirement
benefits as an unfunded liability on their
books. If they did, they would have to take
a charge of tens of trillions of dollars,
which would require them to stick their neck
• Even if the CBO were subject to the
rules of FASB, there’s nothing that
says the United States has to have a balanced
budget anyway. Until we require the CBO to
play using FASB’s rules like everyone
else, AND require the CBO to submit a balanced
budget and, at worst, break even financially
every year, it’s really a moot point.
It really doesn’t make sense to talk
about what we can and can’t afford to
do, if we don’t hold the books to a
certain standard of principles and hold the
deficit down to a certain amount of money.
Why not just double the benefits we’re
paying out and stop collecting FICA contributions
altogether? We’re already the largest
debtor nation in the world. So what? What
difference does it make? Obviously, other
countries keep lending us money. Who’s
to say it matters one iota if Social Security
is financially insolvent or not?
The Ultimate Shell
Game: Three Card Monte in D.C.
So, these are the challenges
facing us today. And, this is why the Democrats
and the Republicans find themselves in a standoff
over the issue. Bush gets credit for mentioning
the elephant in the living room, and for proposing
a long-term solution to the problem. But,
he also ran up record deficits over the last
4 years, so he’s partly to blame for
our current financial catharsis.
The Demagogues get credit
for stonewalling Bush, and forcing a more
in depth study of the issue, which is certainly
warranted. But they’re far from blameless
though, as FDR initiated the New Deal program
to begin with.
Both parties get an F-, though,
for not suggesting the obvious. Namely, that
it really makes no sense what-so-ever to have
any discussion at all without forcing the
CBO to adopt the FASB guidelines, signing
a Balanced Budget Amendment, and showing Social
Security as an unfunded liability on the books.
Until we take these first, very basic steps,
any pain associated with changes to the currently
social security plan will be hidden as a footnote
and kept off the books for the future generations
to deal with. And we owe our children more
than a shell game of benefits, financed by
a Ponzi scheme. We owe them more than that,
The Liberal Blogs: All Dressed Up, But
No Place To Go
The liberal blogs (Talk Left, Kos, Atrios,
et. al.) got Gannon, a whitehouse plant asking softball questions.
Meanwhile, the conservative blogs got Eason Jordan, Betsy West,
Josh Howard, Mary Murphy, Mary Mapes, and Dan Rather, just to
name a few. While the liberal blogs are curled up under the
porch, licking their wounds, the conservative blogs are dancing
a jig. At best, the liberal blogs are the wallflowers at the
Why is this?
Firstly, the mindless pseudo-intellectual drivel
of the left won't stand up to close scrutiny. It never has been
able to. The only reason they were able to hypnotize so many
people for so long was that they owned all of the networks and
the newspapers, where the news was a one-way feed. A push of
poorly hashed out brain burps. Socialized medicine. Sensible
gun control. Environmental scare tactics based on junk science.
Campaigns to eat the rich. It was all just mindless demagoguery
piped in through the various liberal media channels. Their rabid
bleating would never stand up to a sound, logical debate. As
the "news" becomes a two-way communication in the
blogosphere, where the "audience"
is allowed to reply in real-time to the slanderous lies, inuendo,
and half-truths of the media elite, they're reeling and tripping
over themselves, stumbling backward, like cockroaches from the
light. (Sorry Eason - the truth hurts.)
Secondly, the liberal blogs really don't have
a very large pond to fish in. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR,
LA Times, New York Times, etc., are puppets of the Leftern Socialists.
The only news program on television that isn't owned and operated
by the pseudo-intellectual liberal sycophants is Fox. So, there's
only one real news channel for the liberal blogs to target.
In theory, you’ve got Bush and his regime(John Ashcroft
was the only man in history to lose a U.S. senate race to a
dead man), but the reality is that the liberal MSM has a choke-hold
on that job, and has had since Bush Jr. waltzed into office
four years ago. Because all of the other networks are embarrassingly
liberal, it isn't like there are a lot of rocks that haven't
already been turned over for the liberal blogosphere to exploit.
Any conservative voice in America already has every news network
in the country trying day and night to skin them alive. So,
the liberal blogs are basically sitting on their hands, whistling
idly, and dreaming up new ways to peddle the same old warmed-over
ideas: reasonable gun control, shutting down the economy to
save the snail darter, and socialized medicine (where does it
hurt? - not how will you pay?)
So, these two issues account for the difference
in scalp totals on the opposite ideological ends of the blogosphere.
They wouldn't have you believe it, but that's the case.
They argue that the conservatives are just
inherently more evil, better at fighting dirty, and better financed,
but that's just lipstick on a bulldog. The reality is that the
conservative blogs are living in a target rich environment.
I mean, come on. The high priest of CNN is at a tony soiree
for the media elites and, in an open forum, he accuses the U.S.
military of deliberately assassinating non-combatants without
a shred of evidence? Hello??!!! Responding to unadulterated
idiocy such as this is a slow-pitch-softball type of journalism.
This is low-hanging fruit.
Finally, the myopic MSM, always looking to
paint themselves as a victim, are lashing out at the blogs.
They claim that the conservative blogs are a bloodthirsty, savage,
and unrepentant lot. Obviously, they still don't understand
the nature of their enemy. They're desperately waging a Quixotic
battle with a windmill from the back of an ass.
The blogs weren't calling for Eason Jordan's
resignation. At least, not the ones I was reading. They were
calling for the WEF to release the tapes of the conference.
Eason Jordan and CNN never have asked for these tapes to be
released. Jordan "resigned" without mentioning the
tapes. Obviously, there can only be one reason for this. Because
the tapes would show exactly what the pundits claimed they did.
Otherwise, he could have just said "I didn't say that...please
release the tapes, and I will be vindicated." Eason Jordan
deliberated slandered our troops to curry favor with the 2nd
world countries of Europe and the terrorists that rule the oil-drenched
deserts. He was pissing on the graves of the men and women that
gave their lives to make this world a better place.
So, obviously, the left is going to be fighting
a rear-guard action for some time, in a futile attempt to postpone
the inevitable...the MSM will have to shed their liberal bias,
or the blogs
will destroy them. They can do it now, adapt
to the new environment of the blogosphere, and save their
companies, or they can continue to fall on their swords (witness
Rather, Mapes, Jordan, etc.) and their companies will be replaced
by less biased ones. It's their choice.
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation
(SAF) today called upon the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
to “take an important step for public safety” and
close the Golden Gate Bridge, which has been a popular suicide
platform for more than 65 years.
“Several city supervisors want to ban handguns in San
Francisco on the mere presumption that such a law would prevent
crimes, accidents and suicides,” said SAF Founder Alan
M. Gottlieb. “Well, it is an absolute certainty that closing
the bridge would prevent suicides, and perhaps many accidents,
as well. And just for the sake of argument, one seriously might
question whether any of the more than 1,300 fatal falls from
the bridge since 1937 were cleverly-concealed homicides.”
As gun rights groups and activists, including many gay gun
owners, began putting momentum to their efforts to defeat a
gun ban initiative, Gottlieb turned his attention to the bridge
and its horrendous body count. USAToday reported that suicides
have tarnished the bridge’s reputation. The newspaper
recounted how the San Francisco news media created a macabre
circus atmosphere in the 1970s and again the 1990s as the body
count approached 500 and then 1,000 victims, respectively.
“Social do-gooders have gone on the warpath repeatedly
against firearms for the most tenuous of reasons,” Gottlieb
stated. “The Golden Gate Bridge is a proven killer, and
media fascination with jumpers is sickening. It has inspired
hundreds of people to end their lives. Anyone can simply walk
out there and jump, or be pushed. There are no barriers, no
waiting in line, and there is nobody assigned to the bridge
who can check the mental and emotional history of bridge visitors.
It’s far easier to walk out on the bridge and jump to
your death than it is to purchase a firearm in California. At
least when a person buys a gun, he or she must complete a background
check and endure a waiting period. But nobody screens possible
Golden Gate jumpers. Unlike a gun, you can’t even use
the bridge to defend yourself against a criminal.
“The only way to prevent future tragedies,” Gottlieb
said, “is to close the bridge. We need to stop the growing
body count. It’s up to the Board of Supervisors to act,
and they should do it immediately. If it saves just one life,
closing the Golden Gate Bridge is the right thing to do.”
If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it? Isn't
it the right thing to do? Support sensible bridge-control
laws...for the children.
The Pot and the Kettle:
Let the Name Calling Begin
I love that MSNBC decided to leap
into the fray of the patricide imbroglio over at CNN.
They were all over themselves, testing the waters,
foaming at the mouth at Eason Jordan's transgressions
from the safe distance affored by antillectual cowardice.
Too bad the blog wasn't around when MSNBC was fabricating
their hit piece on the ".50 Caliber Militia".
Funny thing is, the ".50
Caliber Militia" does not exist now, nor
has it ever. It was all a Fig Newton of their imagination.
They made it up just to get ratings, and scare the
sheeple of America into a bleating frenzy.
They wanted to drum up support to
ban the safest gun ever introduced into the country.
Number of people killed by this weapon in the United
States since it became available, shortly after WWI,
is...wait for it...0. Thats right. no one has ever
been killed with this gun in this country ever. So,
you can see why it has to be banned. There story centered
on the fact that it might could be used to
kill someone, and it sure makes for good ratings when
we hold it up on television!
Nice try, MSNBC. Too bad your little
fabrication didn't take off like you'd hoped. Keep
it up. Your day is coming. The blogs are watching.
to see MSNBC's pathetic hit and run attempt at sensational
journalism to promote "sensible and reasonable"
gun contol. Keep in mind, though, like most of MSNBC's
stories, this one is a complete fabrication. Just
do a google search for ".50 caliber militia"
and you can readily see...no such group exists. And
I shoud know. I've shot a .50 cal. Make that a couple
of them. And, for those of you keeping score at home.
It's fun. It's LOTS of fun. (See above photo of me
shooting a .50 cal down near the Colorado/Texas border
in April of 2003.)
The beauty of the blogs is that no
one owns them, and they aren't conrolled by any single
power, at least at this point. They don't clearly
fall under the direction of the FCC or the FBI or
the DEA or the NTSB. As such, they're basically the
embodiment of the "free press" our founding
fathers originally advocated. They warned against
"licensing of the press", which is, of course,
the sole purpose of the FCC and the NPA of 1970. The
blogs wouldn't be important, if it weren't for the
collosal consolidation of thought that has occurred
in the Main Stream Media(MSM). Specifically:
Newspapers - Most large U.S. cities are single-paper-cities.
Legal monopolies (technicllay Joint Opperating Agreements)
allowed by ill-conceived Newspaper Preservation Act of
1970). No competition of ideas in the editorial department.
If you don't agree with me, you won't work here. Next.
Radio Stations - A massive consolidation of radio stations
is undeniable, and bad for the medium. Clear Channel owns
something absurd like 60% of all radio programming in
the United States. So, if your thoughts disagree with
theirs, you're not likely to be heard on the radio any
Television - Ditto with the radio stations. Massive
consolidation of ownership equates to massive thought
consolidation. Collin Powell's little boy ran the FCC
into the ground during his tenure. When the rest of the
country could clearly see that consolidation of thought
would be detrimental to the medium, Powell punted and
allowed still greater concentration of television station
All of these three mediums are, unfortunately,
a one way push of ideas. From producer to consumer. Shut up
and take it...here it comes. This is the news...I'm going
to read it to you know.
The only chance people had to refute the
inuendo and half-truths that results from the consolidation
of though, coextant with the consolidation of ownership, was
to write letters to the editor. Then, the editor would decide
if the letters were printed or aired. It was a rigged game,
and the consumers of this facile news product were sick of
Enter the Blogs
The blogs are a breath of fresh air. It's
a chance for people to participate in a true two-way communication
where a guy can hammer out a scathing rebuttal in his home
office, and be the talk over the office water coolers all
over the world the next day, if his ideas and facts check
out, and make logical sense.
The line that separates news producers from
news consumers, the journalist from the reader, the publisher
from the subscriber, has been unequivocably eradicated, as
Eason Jordan and Dan Rather learned the hard way. No longer
will the talking heads be allowed to lecture down their pretentious
noses to the huddled, unquestioning masses. Those days are
The MSM has lost their ability to censor
the consumer of the news. Their relationship has been changed.
The genie is out of the bottle. There's no turning back. The
MSM will be forced to adopt or to wither completely.
Can The Old Media Survive?
Because people will still want to read their
newspaper on the train into work and want the news read to
them in the evening, the dead tree papers and the talking
heads will still have a place in our society, but it will
be radically different than the way it is today.
The talking heads will have to re-introduce themselves
to the very basic principles of journalism. Make a least
a half-hearted attempt to be fair and balanced for a start.
They will have to open their own windows into the blogosphere,
allow viewers to post comments, and read them.
They will have to use the blogosphere to help identify
stories from conception through resolution. They will
have to work with the blog swarm, instead of against it.
They will have to post their stories online, and cross-link
to other competing news sites to lend credibility to their
"facts". Currently, their facts are often not
entirely true, and they have suffered a tremendous loss
of credibility due to this.
They can still have reporters writing stories, checking
facts, but they will do this in very close concert with
the blogosphere. Something similar to what Michelle Malkin
did with the Eason Jordan story. She came to it somewhat
late, but then hit the ground running. She got the big
players to go on the record with quotes. That's journalism.
That's what drives the blogs.
So, this is the only place where the MSM can add value to
journalism. Using existing relationships to get people to
go on the record with quotes, producing informed balanced
opinions, etc., and adding them to their own blogs on the
internet. Then, the talking heads will essentially read their
corporate news blog the air. The newspapers can print the
blogs onto dead-trees.
In the long run, news on the televsion, radio,
and in print will become nothing more than a mouthpiece to
report what is occurring in the blogosphere. The old media
can survive in the new world order only by realizing this
and adopting the new media and adapting it's methods to survive.
If they don't do this, then they will find themselves as flatfooted
as CNN, that didn't have a blip on Eason Jordan until he was
forced to resign. Then, they were in the awkward position
of reporting that he had resigned over an issue they had chosen
not to cover. This will not be allowed to continue. If the
mainstream media doesn't wake up, and adopt the blogosphere
to their own purposes, then other news channels will rise
to repleace them on television, radio, and in print.
Death to the Talking Heads: The Implosion
of the Main Stream Media
Another anti-llectual, liberal, talking head
has fallen victim to the blog swarm. It couldn't have happened
to a better person.
In some ways, the capitulation of Eason Jordan
sets a new high water mark for the blog osphere. On January
27th, Eason Jordan made his outrageous assertions that the U.S.
military was deliberately targeting non-combatants in the Iraq
war. Although the major media outlets stuck their collective
heads in the sand for as long as possible, a blog swarm ensued
and Eason was forced to resign just two weeks later.
When blogs called publicly for the release
of the tapes, main stream media yawned. Even now, as I write
this story, searching for Eason Jordan's name on CNN's website
brings up nothing. They still haven't covered the story they
tried so hard to ignore.
The real story here is much bigger than Eason
Jordan. No one that watches CNN should be surprised that their
lieutenant is slandering U.S. troops in Iraq. You couldn't watch
CNN and think that a soul in Iraq wants us there or that anything
good has come from the overthrow of Sadam Hussein. It's obvious
that CNN is, and has been, against the war in Iraq. Against
Bush. But, this is intuitively obvious to the casual observer.
The story here isn't that Eason Jordan was
caught accusing maliciously slandering the U.S.military and
was forced to resign. The real story here is much larger. The
real story is the rise of the blogosphere.
What is the blogosphere and what does
A "blog" is an abbreviation for a
"web log". Basically, an online journal, somewhat
akin to a diary that is open to the public. People use "blogs"
for any conceivable purpose, from sharing photographs and family
news to sharing stories, news, or linking to interesting web
sites. Frequently, others are allowed to post their comments
to the web site also.
The resulting medium, is, essentially, a web
of integrated documents. Each linked and cross linked to each
other, with comments posted, annotated, and updated. Because
it is hosted on the internet, it can be updated simultaneously
from anywhere in the world, any time, day or night. The "blogosphere"
is the sum of all of the blogs on the internet.
At first, the implications of this weren't
intuitively obvious. Just like, when everyone started buying
personal computers back in the early 1990's, it wasn't obvious
that they should all be networked together. The internet didn't
really reach critical mass until 1997. Once the internet became
commonplace, people started sending emails and creating web
pages and "web logs" or "blogs".
Each blog is, for the sake of argument, independently
operated. One blog or two or five could disappear, and the blogosphere
would remain in tact. The traffic would be routed to other blogs,
the same way that the internet routes around hubs that drop
out of the network.
Some comments have been made that it isn't
always obvious who owns and operates the blogs. My thought is
that this is immaterial. The MSM has been feeding us biased,
liberal drivel for decades under the false premise of "objectivity",
so how could this be any worse? If you don't like the ideas
of the blog, you're free to move on to another blog. If you
do like it, read it. It really doesn't matter who owns it or
operates it. If the facts don't check out, it won't survive.
But, only fairly recently has the nature of
the blogs really come to be understood and utilized appropriately.
The blogs allow people to share information instaneously across
time and space. So, they link and cross link to each other's
documents, building a news story in the process, in a "grass
Because the overall picture is shaped by many
different authors, each person brings their own expertise to
the story. The facts are assimilated into an unassailable rock-solid
news story that anyone can follow.
The beauty of the blog is that it is self-correcting.
The more people that read it, the stronger it becomes. If anyone
one earth sees the story and can refute any one portion of it,
they do so. Any person can sit down at a computer, day or night,
and click through all of the facts, from personal, eye witness
accounts, to photographs, to news stories, etc.They post comments,
link to other evidence that contradicts the premise, etc.
Most of these blogs are run by people in their
spare time. They don't get paid for what they do. They do it
because, like most of us, they're tired of having some talking
head reading lies and half-truths from a teleprompter. Collectively,
they are destroying the MSM. The reasons for this, once you
understand the nature of the blogs, are obvious.
The blogs have an infinite number of resources
across the globe working day and night to break a story. To
shove the lies back down the throats of the talking heads we
all love to hate. There is no possible way that the MSM will
ever be able to respond effectively to the blogs. You can't
possibly have one reporter, or two, or five, or even a thosand,
go out and do a better story on the Eason Jordan story than
what the blogs did. The blogs assimilated the information from
every person on earth, distributed it across a few thousand
websites, that each had thousands of viewers a day.
The Eason Jordan story began with the seed
of a single person(Rony
Abovitz) posting his eye witness account on a web site,
expressing his displeasure with Eason's disparaging comments
toward the U.S. military. In the old world order, that would
have been the end of it. No news site wanted to touch the story
with a 10 foot pole.
But that seed was observed by the blogs, evaluated,
and analyzed. The story began to grow as others corroborated
his observations. Eventually, the blogs laid out every eye witness
account from Davos, every person's response to the eye witness
accounts, and called for the release of the tapes, a boycott
of CNN, and Eason's resignation.
So, we begin to see the blogs as this network
of inter-linked web sites, updated constantly, by an infinite
number of resources laboring around the clock, in perpetuity.
The blogs have gained the most media attention when they do
something spectacular like forcing Dan Rather's resignation.
But I think the blogs are more interesting when they're out
of the spotlight. When they don't have something juicy to chew
on like the Easongate fiasco.
Sharks have to keep swimming or they die. They
have to have oxygen flowing through their gills all the time,
so they have to swim all of the time. (Some actually sleep in
caves with their mouths open to catch an underwater current,
but I digress.) Blogs are like sharks. They're predators, and
as such, are always on the hunt for a story. They see every
single story in the world. Every potential story is kicked back
and forth between one or two or three people and, if it is important
enough, it gets kicked to more and more sites. Each blog decides,
independently, if the story has legs or not. If it's worth covering.
If the facts are true. If the topic is newsworthy. So, it isn't
that the blogs got lucky and stumbled onto the fact that Dan
Rather had rushed forged documents onto the air to try to stop
Bush from getting re-elected. It wasn't serendipity that caused
the blogs to stumble across the story of CNN's potentate slandering
the U.S. troops.
Once a story is elevated, it turns into a frenzy
that is difficult to imagine. Each story that rises to the top
of the blogosphere draws a level of scrutiny and analysis that
the main stream media cannot conceive of. Essentially, every
fact is checked by everyone of earth. This is true because,
even people that don't read the blogs are deliberately introduced
to them. If you see a story on a blog, and know of someone that's
an expert on some particular aspect of the story, you run the
idea by them. Email them a link, and bring their expertise to
bear on the story.
Death to the Talking Heads: The Implosion
of the Main Stream Media
Today, Eason Jordan of CNN was forced to resign.
Barely a month ago, CBS fired or asked to resgin Mary Mapes,
Betsy West, Josh Howard, Mary Murphy, Mary Mapes, and Dan Rather,
after the blogs pointed out that they were using forged documents.
People are tired of being fed liberal inuendo
and half-truths by the talking heads under the false guise of
objectivity. Main Stream Media, as we know it, is dead. They
just don't know it yet.
The bloggers are evaluating every story in
the world, and, once a story catches on in the blogs, moving
with inconceivable speed in all directions. In short, the MSM
is facing the most perfect journalistic system ever conceived
in the history of the world, and they think that they're up
against a bunch of pajama clad hacks. (I don't even wear pajamas.
So, turn off your television. Cancel your subscription
to that dead-tree newspaper. And welcome to the world of real,
honest journalism. Here's some of my favorite blogs to get you
Why don't you send Eason Jordan an email and
ask him to release the tapes. If he didn't make the outrageous
claim that U.S. forces are deliberately murdering and torturing
journalists, then releasing the tape(s) from the Davos, Switzerland
meeting will vindicate him. Why on earth would he not call for
those tapes to be released? You can ask him yourself. His e-mail
address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
CNN's main phone number is (404) 827-1500. Ask
for Eason Jordan and the operator will put you through.
CNN: Reporting The News When We Damned
Well Feel Like It
Just what did Eason Jordan know, and when did he
know it? Eason Jordan, the disengenuous potentate running CNN, admitted
that he had exclusive, inside knowledge of Sadam Hussein's atrocities,
concealed the information. Nice. That makes me feel better.
I wonder when he knew the North Koreans had nukes? I wonder what
else he knows that he's sitting on? I'd bet dollars to donuts he's
not sitting on any bombshell stories that would reflect poorly on
Bush. Any takers?
At a cozy meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Eason
Jordan, the mental dwarf of CNN, indicated that American soldiers
were deliberately targeting and killing journalists. That is, if
you believe what Richard Sambrook of the BBC, David Gergen of Harvard,
Senator Christopher Dodd, and Rony
Abovitz have stated.
Eason Jordan is a deeply stupid little hypocrite.
If he truly believed the U.S. military was deliberately assassinating
the press, why wouldn't he be running stories on it? This is an
extremely serious accusation. To say that our military is deliberately
slaughtering non-combantants, particularly if they are liberal talking
heads under the employ of CNN, is a very serious accusation. If
he truly believed this, then why not whip up a little MSM-style
damn-the-facts investigation, forge a few documents, and have a
talking head go on the air with it? The fact that this hasn't occurred
is reasonable proof that even he doesn't believe his outlandish
So why would he make false charges? Well, lets
consider his audience. The welfare states of Europe and the oil
drenched desert dictators love this sort anti-American breast thumping.
When you live in a country that doesn't stand for much, anti-American
sentiment fills the void of patriotic zeal.
These synchophants and socialists encouraged Eason
Jordan for standing up to the U.S. Military, even if it was only
a whispered lie between weasels and scallywags. When David Bergen
and Barney Frank called him on the carpet about his ludicrious,
callous accusations, what did Eason do? He began to crawfish, squirming
in his seat like a school boy. Shortly thereafter, Mark Adams of
the World Economic Farce announced that the session titled "Will
Democracy Survive the News?" was "off the record"
and the tape won't be released. Nice. You can't make up stories
any more absurd than this. Send Mark Adams an email and let him
know your thoughts. His email address is Mark.Adams@WEForum.org.
1: San Francisco to Pismo Beach
Here's a slideshow of what will probably be the
last of my California photographs. These photos were all taken between
San Francisco and Pismo Beach. Some of the specific places I shot
were the 49 Mile Scenic Drive, the Great Highway, Pescedero State
Beach, 4 Mile Beach(Santa Cruz), Monterey Bay, the Carmel Valley,
Big Sur, the Pacific Valley, San Luis Obispo(Slow-town), Lompoc,
and Pismo Beach. (The pictures of the Sand Dunes are Pismo Beach,
which was, of course, the ultimate destination of Bugs Bunny when
he missed that left turn at Albuquerque). The Blue Prelude on the
beach is my car and that's me on the red ATV doing donuts in the
Unfortunately, Canon is in the process of repairing
my EOS 20D in Irvine, so I was forced to shoot these photos with
my backup camera, the Canon Pro-1. Be forewarned - this is a miserable
camera. Stay away from it at all costs. The designer should be severely
pummeled with a dull 9-iron. Most of it's shortcomings, however,
can be mitigated by shooting stationary objects using a steady tripod.
The audio track is "She Will Be Loved" by Maroon 5. The
slideshow is a 9 Meg self-playing executable produced using Imagematics
StillMotion PE. Click on the photo above to download the slideshow.
if you need help.