Slashdot Mirror

I guess you haven't heard about these popular blogs:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
http://instapundit.com/

Yeah, except for the fact that no libraries or bookstores were ever subpoenaed for their records under this act. But don't take my word for it. Check out this entry over at http://powerlineblog.com/:

This week's silliest Congressional action was the House's vote, 238-187, to amend the Patriot Act to prohibit its use to subpoena records from libraries or booksellers. I haven't yet seen the specific language the House adopted today, but I assume it was similar or identical to the "Freedom to Read Act," which Bernie Sanders introduced last year. That amendment said:

None of the funds available may be used to make an application under section 501 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] to require the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet records, bookseller sales records, or bookseller customer lists.

The amendment would thus operate as a limitation on section 215 of the Patriot Act, which itself amended section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. At risk of authoring the most boring blog post in history, I think it is important to set out the complete text of the relevant portion of section 215 of the Patriot Act, at which the "library amendment" is aimed:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

"SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

''(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

''(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall-- (A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and (B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

''(b) Each application under this section--

"(1) shall be made to-- (A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or (B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and 50 USC 1861.

"(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

"(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

''(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

''(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things

The Italians have their story, but it's looking thin.

satellite tracking covered in the news . My guess is because that kind of info is higher than S/NF, and therefore may not have made this report at all.

So why is it the MSM hates/is so afraid of the blogs? Anybody still remember the "guys in pajamas" remark by Jonathan Klein, then of CBS? Indicative of the way the industry fears Powerline, Instapundit, Kos, etc.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_04.php%2301 0083
that last part is 2005_04.php
then a #
then 010083

rtf404

"The requested URL /archives/2005_04.php#010083 was not found on this server." and the url was "2005_04.php%23010083"

Don't take a contrary opinion to the professor

In other words, don't defend Israel in your term paper at Columbia. Heck, don't even let them know you're Jewish!

Sorry, but my interpretation of a blog is a self-absorbed self-referential monologue about one or more subjects that's been transcribed and marked up with html. Sort of like public masturbation, but with css styling.

Your interpretation is inaccurate. Although there are many blogs that do contain nothing but trash, there are lots of others that cover news stories and provide perspectives otherwise unavailable through the mass media.

Blogs are a way for people to easily communicate their thoughts to a wide audience, nothing more, nothing less. Some of them are bad, some are good, but to write off all blogs just because you've never seen a good one is ignorant.

Now, I won't disagree that "open source journalism" is just a buzzword that was created on a blog somewhere, but have a little patience; they're trying to describe something we don't have a word for yet. And the words we do have are weighted down with pos./neg. connotation. Really, what we're talking about here is non-corporate media, which can encompass anything from indymedia.org to powerlineblog.com to engadget.com.

I dunno about anybody else, but I'm tired of the negative, cynical, close-minded mindset that so envelopes slashdot about such issues. Open-source is an ideology, and it's an extremely important one. But let's not deride people whose interest lies outside of technological pursuits; people who (gasp!) use technology to do work rather than work on technology. Bloggers have different opinions and interests than you. Is that so wrong? Can they not be united in the struggle against the corrupt and fascist mainstream media/evil software companies? Do they not value their freedom, just as we do?

Furthermore, I've read many posts in this thread already, and even open-source advocates can't seem to agree on what open source is! Some say it's a way of working cooperatively. Some say it's simply not closed-source. Could I pry a few minds open here and suggest that it is both and much more? It is nothing less than the united struggle against tyrrany, the tyrrany that we all KNOW that those in power will impose if given the chance. Without our resistance ("our" including all who stand up for their rights), can you imagine the distopian hell we would live in? We only have to look into our recent history to find examples, and we only have to look to totalitarian states currently in existance to realize the importance of freedom.

Simply put, open-source is about freedom and openness (glasnost). Surely most of us here recognize the power of open-source, but we do not yet know it's full potential. Conversely, we do not yet know the power of blogging. Yes, "blog" is just a stupid word, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that blogging has the power to take down totalitarian governments. If, through the internet, people in a restrictive regime are enabled to communicate effectively the government no longer controls the flow of information. When that happens, a critical mass can be achieved and revolution is possible. Look at Ukraine's election for a recent example.

Blogging is not just ranting and boring shit (although that boring shit might actually serve as "cover" for the more explosive material), it's about communication, freedom and openness. Blogging and open source are going to change our world. Are they over-hyped? Well duh. Who do you think is doing the hyping? The mainstream media, because they don't know how to do anything else. And if you hate blogs because the media hypes them, well then I guess you're just buying what they're selling.

Just like on my blog, I don't expect anybody to care or read what I have written, but I feel a heck of a lot better for having written it. Mod me as you will.

is the dismantling of CBS's attempt to flaunt the(obiviously) fake National Guard memos

Of course, none of those examples allow left-wing bloggers to pimp their "outing" of some who-dat journalist whose biggest crimes seem to be asking questions from a conservative viewpoint.

is the dismantling of CBS's attempt to flaunt the(obiviously) fake National Guard memos

Of course, none of those examples allow left-wing bloggers to pimp their "outing" of some who-dat journalist whose biggest crimes seem to be asking questions from a conservative viewpoint.

is the dismantling of CBS's attempt to flaunt the(obiviously) fake National Guard memos

Of course, none of those examples allow left-wing bloggers to pimp their "outing" of some who-dat journalist whose biggest crimes seem to be asking questions from a conservative viewpoint.

is the dismantling of CBS's attempt to flaunt the(obiviously) fake National Guard memos

Of course, none of those examples allow left-wing bloggers to pimp their "outing" of some who-dat journalist whose biggest crimes seem to be asking questions from a conservative viewpoint.

The reaction to that comment was so great, Kerry's official website pulled their link to the site with a statement that they didn't agree with such opinions.

Like with poor software, open source journalism also means having the freedom to say really stupid things (and delete the post later and backtrack about it).

Although I am a little surprised such a politically-minded website as DailyKos gets free press on Slashdot like that. I've never seen a link to LittleGreenFootballs or Powerline, even as they broke the biggest "closed source" journalism scam of the year--CBSNews' phony documents. If there was ever a case of open source journalism cracking open the flaws of closed source journalism, that would be it. But Slashdot rejected submissions about it. D'oh.

Show me a "lie" on Powerlineblog.com and I'll give you a cookie.

There may be conclusions that you disagree with but everything written there is far more honest,insightful, and truthful than any of the nonsense coming out of the NYT/WashPo/WashTimes/WSJ editorial pages.

What a sheltered life you must lead. You think newspaper columnists have any meaningful oversight from editors? Wake up and smell the coffee... http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009073.php#00907 3 As Jeff Jarvis and Glenn Reynolds regularly point out, the whole point of weblogs is that the good ones provide you with links to the original reports so that you can evaluate their claims for yourself. Most newspaper columnists just pontificate and expect you to trust them.

In RatherGate, it was blogs like Little Green Footballs and Powerline which actually broke the story, quickly determining that the RatherGate documents where not only frauds, but poor, obvious frauds at that. And it wasn't TV news "experts" who made the determination, but real experts out on the Internet chipping in their particular bits of knowledge about computer typographer, Air Force National Guard procedures, etc. Tens years ago, CBS probably would have gotten away with it. Now they can't.

In the case of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, here was a story the MSM didn't want to touch with a ten-foot poll because it went against the narrative the had already decided on ("John Kerry, War Hero Turned Protestor"). (Just imagine if there had been an organization with some 80-odd National Guard vets swearing that they witnessed Bush shirking his duty; there would have been an hour-long prime time special...) Since no media outlet was covering their ads, it was the blogsphere that carried information about the group. It's ironic that the Swift Boat Vets spent about 1/100th what Moveon.org did, and was still 100 times more effective.

They should have held up one or two exemplary examples of blogging done right - good content and timley information (and a lack of words like "dat", "ur", "OMG", "LOL", and "ROFLMAO")

You mean, like, instead of holding up our buddy Howard "YEEEEEEEEEAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!" Dean (who, according to Dave Barry, is most famous for "making a sound like a hog being castrated with a fondue fork"), they could have mentioned, oh, I dunno...

The people who broke Rathergate, maybe? A marketing guy in DC who dug up a forensics document expert or Charles Johnson and his famous reproduction of the faked memos?

How about Glenn Reynolds? Or Moulitsas Zúniga? Who really rallied the troops this election season?

Howard Dean??

What about some of the many Iraqi blogs - written by, you know, people on the ground, as it were? How about Spirit of America's Arabic blogging tool, and the bloggers who took the the challenge to raise money for it?

There's a lot more going on out there than ABC is reporting.

Congratulations to Hindrocket, The Big Trunk, and Deacon for producing such an excellent blog.

The PowerLineBlog was chosen by Time Magazine as "Blog of the Year" perhaps in no small part due to PowerLine being a clearing house for Dan RaTHer's education about MS Word vs Typewriters

Perhaps like other less-frequent Slashdot readers, I am puzzled why anyone would want to $ub$cribe to $la$dot ;-);-);-) given that Slashdot continues to miss "BIG" news for nerds, stuff that matters stories like ... Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet and RaTHerGate

Right under the nose of the Slashdot Editors the really BIG story broke on the blogosphere back in August (SwiftVets) and many (e.g. Slashdot readers and the few $ub$criber$) were completely detached from the discussion of the long-term implications.

The more stereotypical SlashDot discussions at the time were about "BusHitler", raTHer (grin) than an informed discussion about the long-term impact of the internet on society.

From the Belmont Club blog ... The undercard in the Kerry vs Swiftvets bout is Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet, two distinctly different fights, but both over information. The first is really the struggle over the way Vietnam will be remembered by posterity; .... But the undercard holds a fascination of its own. The reigning champion, the Mainstream Media, has been forced against all odds to accept the challenge of an upstart over the coverage of the Swiftvets controversy. Joe Strupp at Editor and Publisher writes:

"There are too many places for people to get information," O'Shea said. " I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."

Yet for good or ill, the genie is out of the bottle. Before the Gutenberg printing press men knew the contents of the Bible solely through the prism of the professional clergy, who could alone afford the expensively hand copied books and who exclusively interpreted it. But when technology made books widely available, men could read the sacred texts for themselves and form their own opinions. And the world was never the same again.

The PowerLineBlog was chosen by Time Magazine as "Blog of the Year" perhaps in no small part due to PowerLine being a clearing house for Dan RaTHer's education about MS Word vs Typewriters

Perhaps like other less-frequent Slashdot readers, I am puzzled why anyone would want to $ub$cribe to $la$dot ;-);-);-) given that Slashdot continues to miss "BIG" news for nerds, stuff that matters stories like ... Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet and RaTHerGate

Right under the nose of the Slashdot Editors the really BIG story broke on the blogosphere back in August (SwiftVets) and many (e.g. Slashdot readers and the few $ub$criber$) were completely detached from the discussion of the long-term implications.

The more stereotypical SlashDot discussions at the time were about "BusHitler", raTHer (grin) than an informed discussion about the long-term impact of the internet on society.

From the Belmont Club blog ... The undercard in the Kerry vs Swiftvets bout is Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet, two distinctly different fights, but both over information. The first is really the struggle over the way Vietnam will be remembered by posterity; .... But the undercard holds a fascination of its own. The reigning champion, the Mainstream Media, has been forced against all odds to accept the challenge of an upstart over the coverage of the Swiftvets controversy. Joe Strupp at Editor and Publisher writes:

"There are too many places for people to get information," O'Shea said. " I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."

Yet for good or ill, the genie is out of the bottle. Before the Gutenberg printing press men knew the contents of the Bible solely through the prism of the professional clergy, who could alone afford the expensively hand copied books and who exclusively interpreted it. But when technology made books widely available, men could read the sacred texts for themselves and form their own opinions. And the world was never the same again.

The trouble with blogs, is that no-one writing them has the time to follow up these stories.

You've got it backwards. The blogs follow-up on stories that the mainstream media is "disinclined" to follow until they become hot. Remeber the 60 Minutes memogate? That was a direct result of the blogosphere following up on the obvious fakery should have been almost immediately spotted by seasoned journalists or their experts. That is, it should have been spotted if they weren't on an Ahab like quest, a la Mary Mapes the 60 Minutes producer who was on a five year quest to get the goods on George Bush while at the same time disregarding their own experts warnings about the documents.

The real reason that this won't go anywhere is because there is nothing to it. The "present climate" that you speak of is one in which anyone with the goods on Bush would be considered a hero by 80% of the media and 30% of the country..

exactly! That's why you should read blogs like PowerLine which features very well educated commentators. Ever heard of Dartmouth, Stanford, or Harvard?

Be careful though... they're clearly part of the vast right wing conspiracy!

exactly! That's why you should read blogs like PowerLine which features very well educated commentators. Ever heard of Dartmouth, Stanford, or Harvard?

Be careful though... they're clearly part of the vast right wing conspiracy!

The problem is that the mainstream media tries to paint itself as some kind of oracle of information. The "blogosphere" is an organic system in that there is no official channel for information. So for instance, when Dan Rather stated to the world that the Bush National Guard documents were proof that Bush was AWOL, where were the dissenting voices? Where was the actual analysis?

Instead what we got was CBS news using blatant forgeries, selectively shopping them around to "experts" and pushing a story that doesn't even pass the smell test. The Bush docs story stunk to high heaven, and it took bloggers a matter of hours to determine that CBS lied through their teeth. Bloggers like those at Powerline devastated CBS' story because the media was not willing to do the ground work they should have. Whether that was through sheer laziness or bias I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

The mainstream media doesn't do reporting anymore. The blogosphere allows for a lot of crap, but through that crap comes a lot of valuable research. How many Iraqis are allowed to give their opinions on the nightly newscasts? Yet I can chose any number of Iraqi blogs and get a point of view that I would never see on the evening newscast - and because of it I've learned things about Iraqi culture and the situation there that the media would never have time to delve into.

It would be much better if those crying about the lack of journalistic standards with bloggers were any better - but the only thing that seems to separate journalists from bloggers these days is that bloggers have a greater tendency to check their sources when called and don't carry around the façade of officious objectivity like a shield.

Quite frankly, I give more credence to Glenn Reynolds than I do to Jayson Blair, Howell Raines, Andrew Gilligan, or Dan Rather - all of whom have shown that the combination of arrogance and groupthink in the mainstream media is far more pernicious than the open biases of bloggers.

The view from the right, http://www.powerlineblog.com/, the further right http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/, and the stridently right http:www.anncoulter.org/.

Of course, for the view from the further left, one need only turn on the television, which is the whole point about the exit polls.

Enjoy!

You know, it's interesting that people (even Republicans, i find) totally ignore Democratic cases of voter fraud. Republicans are not the only ones responsible for it -- in fact, they seem to me like they're less likely to do it than Democrats, on the whole.

Some of these are really biassed, but here are some examples:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article385 5.html

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004765.html (LOTS of articles about it here)

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007968.php

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250035/p osts (admittedly, Free Republic is a pretty bad place to go for potentially reputation-harming information about Democrats, but there it is anyway <_<)

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund20040913 0633.asp

Even The New York Times had a story about Democratic voter fraud.

This isn't to say that the Las Vegas thing and Chuck Hagel's involvement with that voting-machine company and the convenient Diebold incident in Georgia aren't troubling, because they are, very much. But so many people mysteriously forget that the other party isn't the only one that can be 'filthy'.

I don't think that it is very surprising that people who bother to inform themselves about stuff that matters are mostly pro Kerry.

Yet, from reading this, it would appear that you are completely unaware of some specific and very serious accusations against Kerry.

For example, The Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Now, the first thing that's often brought up by Kerry supporters when mentioning the SBVT is that they've been 'discredited'. However, this 'discreditation' consists of only having been shown to be funded by Bush supporters.

No shit. Who do you think was gonna fund them? George Soros?

You won't hear, however, that Kerry has now retracted his two decade old 'christmas in cambodia' story, which he has previously stated was a strong basis for his political beliefs. Swift Vets said Kerry was never in Cambodia. Kerry's people later agree. Then the swiftvets said at least one of his purple hearts was bullshit, and given for a self inflicted wound (no one ever said it was intentional, which would have been a court marshal level offense.) Kerry's people later changed their tune on that.

So, as someone who says he bothers to inform himself, why aren't you bringing that up?

Are you also aware that Kerry is either a war criminal or a liar? In the 70's, there was the 'winter soldier investigation', where Kerry and a bunch of veterans- some real and some not- claimed that US soldiers routinely commited the worst war crimes against the vietnamese, and that Kerry had seen or participated in such activities. If Kerry had seen them and not reported them, that makes him complicit and a war criminal.

More than likely he lied, however. Under oath and in front of congress. Kerry served a year on the gridley and 4 months on a swift boat. He would have never been in a position to see any such war crimes that he testified to.

Kerry stabbed our soldiers in the back for political points.

Okay, so you might say 'so what, that happened thirty years ago' And it is possible that people can change dramatically in thirty years.

But we've seen his bald-faced lies for cheap political points in the last debate. See here.
Short story: Kerry claimed to have met with the UN security council and was making buddies with them. Security council members later say that never happened at all.

Now, we all know politicians are liars, but what kind of man does it take to make such an easily and immediately provably false statement on national TV?

What else? When Kerry was skiing some time ago, he fell on the slopes after a collision with a Secret Service agent. When asked about it, he said "I don't fall, the son of a bitch knocked me down." I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't insult someone who was supposed to catch a bullet for me. What kind of a man does that?

I could go on, but that's enough for now. I've been paying attention and bothering to inform myself, and I find Kerry to be a reprobate. You don't seem to have taken much time to inform yourself of Kerry's failings, have you?

Now, why vote for Bush?

Because he knows what the stakes are, that's why. I'm no Bush fanboy, as I think his domestic agenda sucks (though probably for different reasons than you.) However, Overall he's the right president at the right time.

For the past several decades, terrorists- the muslim, middle eastern variety- have been carrying out attacks against the west of increasing adaucity, culminating in 9/11. They've carried out significant attacks in other countries since then- that russian school, spain's trains, etc. They're in a war against the west. Bush realizes this, and has a decent plan that he's been executing for the past 3 years. Strangle off state support for Al-Qaeda and their brothers, and spread liberty in the middle east. Is it easy? No. But

Ever notice how certain groups love to take the NYT as the gospel? Ever think that they sometimes don't have it quite right?

What about this one, where the NYT got hosed like everyone else?

Let us not forget that the NYT sometimes plays dirty games.

And this.

And this.

And this.

Also do not forget the "journalists" that actually fabricate stories.

The fallout.

Supporting my argument

Michael: When you rip off posts from Drudgereport.com, The New Scientist and other well-read sites, make sure you follow the thread through to the point where they explain that the story was nothing more than a political hit piece.

For instance, check out an earlier NY Times piece that actually reinforces the administration's position. Or you could review that this hit piece was to be joined by CBS News in another attempted effort to push fraudulant information and sucker all the sheep out there.

Or should we expect a post from you about "critical national guard documents damage Bush" and experience a deja vu Slashdot experience?

Slashdot readers - you too can read it before Michael (or some alleged anonymous reader, just like the CBS anonymous sources) reads it and makes up a libelous headline damaging Slashdot credibility and objectivity:

Drudge Report
The New Scientist

and other excellent critical reads include:

Power Line
Weekly Standard
Little Green Footballs

Oh... I should warn you - if you're determined to vote for Kerry in spite of everything, do NOT go to the any of the above sites. It'll destroy any opportunity for ignorance you might have.

Ever since the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat made it clear that he would accept nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel, by rejecting a deal that got him everything he asked for EXCEPT for that, we suspect that he is more interested in killing people than talking to them. This is all President Bush's fault.

NVP a front for the left?

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007968.php

Will there be massive vote fraud in Wisconsin?

My favorite blog list has been expanding, lately. I regularly read InstaPundit and The Right Coast, among others. I've recently begun reading Powerline and Michelle Malkin. My favorite "political" blogs, though, are actually economics blogs. I can't let a day go by without checking Marginal Revolution and The Volokh Conspiracy, which are two of the most interesting blogs I've read since I started reading Slashdot.

In addition to all of that, I read a wide variety of news sites every day, listen to news radio and watch news in the morning. That's all so I can do a better job in the writing on my own blog, where I cover politics, amateur radio, life, and anything I think is cool. Check out Lockjaw's Lair and don't forget to buy the T-Shirt.

Right Wing News Allah Is In The House Little Green Footballs Cavalier's Guardian WatchBlog Iraq The Model Instapundit Power Line Michelle Malkin Ace Of Spades HQ A Small Victory The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Israpundit Jihad Watch IMAO Moxie Niel Boortz Lonewacko Wizbang Dumb Celebs Fear And Loathing In Iraq Kim du Toit PABAAH Ann Coulter La Shawn Barber Mark Steyn David Limbaugh

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

http://realclearpolitics.com/

http://althouse.blogspot.com/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

http://www.intel-dump.com/

http://denbeste.nu/indexlofi.shtml

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevoluti on/

http://www.parapundit.com/

http://www.allahpundit.com/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/

Yeah I have to agree, Fact Check is pretty good.

MensNewsDaily.com collects pretty good commentary from a number of contributers on a number of issues that aren't forefront on the MSM. Their articles are short and poigniant. They have a forum you can discuss the articles in, so I would call that a blog.

Powerlineblog.com is pretty reasonable for commentary and was one of the big players in Rathergate. INDCJournal might be less reasonable but they have the quickest footwork in the business. They'll be the ones to call the sources, call experts, etc... Footwork that is a lost art in journalism. But their commentary is a bit off-balance and can often trip themselves up.

Little Green Footballs is often misunderstood, but I like them. They do their job very well. Even better though is Watch which is devoid of the sophmoric commentary.

But then there is an upper eschelon, which FactCheck belongs to, as does Belmont Club. When Belmont treats an issue, you've got gold.

But the absolute MOAB of the blogosphere is Bill Whittle. He posts seldomly, and when he does it is incredibly long. But there is no better writer on the Internet that I've found. As it says on his website: If Steven den Best is Spock, he is the Captain Kirk. Seriously there is no finer work on the internet than his "Strength" series, followed closely by "Empire".

For humor, Scrappleface and CoxandForkum are great. They not only give you the humor but they give you the stories that inspired it.

RealClearPolitics - Polling data and best of the MSM commentary.
Instapundit - Smorgasboard of daily links interspersed with commentary.
Hugh Hewitt - Law professor, author, and radio talk show host.
Powerline - Commentary and links. Were very influential in the Rathergate controversy.

Yeah the traditional press would never run a news story that was full of factual errors. And a blog could never do a more thorough fact checking job than traditional media.

• http://www.polipundit.com/
• http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/
• http://www.powerlineblog.com/
• http://oxblog.blogspot.com/
• http://www.instapundit.com/
• and of course, http://drudgereport.com/

One of the blogs that I didn't see anyone comment about is the Power Line blog.

http://www.instapundit.com/ - the king of all blogs
http://andrewsullivan.com/ - gone way down hill but still readable
http://www.allahpundit.com/- good mix of political fun
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html - guns and fun
http://www.powerlineblog.com/ - more right slant fun.

http://www.iraqthemodel.com/ - differnt view inside Iraq
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ - more good insight in iraq
http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/ - and again

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/ - used to be one of the best blogs in Iraq until the man cracked down on him. But MUST READ THE ARCHIVES!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

If you really want to read a high-quality conservative blog, here are two from National Review Online:

• The Corner, a braided-blog with constributions by many of NR's writers, run by Kathryn Jean Lopez, and
• The Kerry Spot, penned by Jim Geraghty, whichs follows Kerry and his campaign closely, as well as related subjects. (The Kerry Spot was one of the best sites to follow for updates on Rathergate.

• http://www.powerlineblog.com/
• Instapundit
• Little Green Footballs
• http://www.allahpundit.com/
• Rather Biased, which perked back to life after the scandal broke.
• http://www.rathergate.com/, which sprang into being shortly after the scandal broke
• http://www.indcjournal.com/
• Finally, although I'm less of a regular reader, it was a poster on Free Republic who first broke the story.

Well, that should get you started. in truth, except for the NR blogs, I was only an occasional readers of the others before the Rathergate story broke, but now I'm much more of a regular reader, much to the detriment of my productivity...

Drudge.. the original proto-bloger..
National Review's The Corner. http://nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
Captains Quarters http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Instapundit http://instapundit.com/
Powerline http://www.powerlineblog.com/
Tim Blair http://timblair.spleenville.com/
BerkeleySquareBlog http://www.berkeleysquarejazz.com/blog/

Dailykos & Atrios for "opposition" research....

" I believe Tom Rosenthiel got it right in that Boston Globe article when he said that the proper question is not whether you call yourself a journalist but whether your own work constitutes journalism. And what is that? I like his answer: A journalist tries to get the facts right, tries to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth not to help one side win or lose but to inspire public discussion."

And to quote a Boston Globe reporter on journalistic honesty is almost as funny. Next on to Rather and CBS, the Boston Globe was the most aggressive at defending those forged memos with bogus claims they could have been churned out on an early 70s typewriter.

The day after this now discredited CBS expose, Google news listed over 1000 stories in papers around the world. In none that I read did the reporter make even a cursory examination of those memos. They simply repeated CBS's doctored tale like parrots.

Into the breach stepped a handful of blogs, notably Powerline and Little Green Footballs. In less than a day and using the expertise of their readers much like open source and Groklaw, they demonstrated that the memos were clumsy forgeries done with a recent version of Microsoft Word. Five years ago, perhaps even two years ago, that would have been impossible.

It was easily the biggest Internet story of the year. A handful of blogs take on a powerful TV network, charge it with using forged documents, and win. It demonstrates perfectly the democratic, leveling influence of the Internet.

But those depending on Slashdot for their window on the world would have heard almost nothing about this amazing development. A story that should have been shouted from Slashdot's main page and updated several times a day, was buried on the politics page.

The select few that determine what stories Slashdot displays are free to vote for whoever they want in the November election. But they're not free to caption their pages with "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters" and expect us to trust them. If they want to champion Kerry by burying contrary stories, they should change that slogan to "Partisan Politics for Nerds. Vote for Kerry."

--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

I am writing to lodge an ethics complaint against Tom Hays and the Associated Press in connection with a story that you published on Friday, Sept. 3. The story was by-lined Tom Hays; it reported on a rally for President Bush in West Allis, Wisconsin. Mr. Hays' story said that: "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them." These statements were false. Later the same day, the AP released a second version of the article that did not contain these false claims.

I have written about this scandal extensively on my web site, Power Line, http://powerlineblog.com. I also have an informant who is a reporter covering the Bush campaign, who was at the West Allis rally, and who saw what happened. Here are what I understand to be the facts:

1) Tom Hays was not at the West Allis rally, even though his by-line appeared on the story.

2) The real source of the story was Scott Lindlaw. Lindlaw was at the rally, along with at least one other reporter from the AP.

3) Lindlaw is a well-known Democratic partisan; my source has heard him say, "My mission is to see that Bush does not get re-elected."

4) During President Bush's speech, Lindlaw had earplugs of some kind in his ears to deaden the noise. This is apparently a common practice of his.

5) After the speech, Lindlaw approached another AP reporter and said that he thought he had heard boos. The other reporter told him, "there weren't any boos." In fact, as the audiotape of the event makes clear, no one booed. No one. No one made any sound that remotely resembled a boo.

6) Despite the fact that he could not hear the crowd, and despite the fact that another reporter from the AP had told him that there were no boos, Scott Lindlaw--a vicious Democratic partisan--lied, and told the world that "Bush's audience of thousands booed," and "Bush did nothing to stop them." This was a conscious, deliberate lie, which Mr. Lindlaw perpetrated for the purpose of helping his own party in the ongoing Presidential campaign.

Now, you tell me--are the above facts correct? What investigation have you carried out of this matter? This appears to me to be a major scandal, which goes to the heart of the Associated Press's credibility as a news organization. Someone here should be fired--Tom Hays, if he really was responsible for the lie, or Scott Lindlaw, if, as my informant says, he was the actual source.

I know for a fact that the White House press corps is buzzing about this scandal and wondering what the Associated Press intends to do. You can't cover this up. You must take appropriate action against the individual or individuals who have betrayed their profession.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the status of your investigation, and what actions you intend to take.

John Hinderaker

UPDATE 11: CBS is sticking to its story. It's not entirely clear which story, however. Initially, CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said:

As is standard practice at CBS News, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity.

Later, however, Ms. Edwards sent out an email that appeared to revise the nature of the "authentication" process:

CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.

So what CBS is now saying is not that the documents are authentic, but that the opinions they express are authentic, based on the hearsay reports of anonymous persons alleged to be close associates of Col. Killian, who recall his views of thirty-two years ago. This is what passes for "authentication" in the mainstream media.

UPDATE 12: In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes:

Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.

But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal, citing Peter Nuss, points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.

The more I look at these "memos," the more obvious it appears that they are inept forgeries.

UPDATE: One Kerry Spot reader makes me laugh out loud by emailing in, "Doesn't all this business of fonts, typefaces, superscripts, centering, and spacing on 30 year-old documents, purportedly from the files of a man long dead, just make you appreciate the nicely-done, legally sufficient affidavits and personal testimonies of the still-breathing Swifties just that much more?"

Little Green Footballs here

"I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft's Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date "18 August 1973," then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian...The spacing is not just similar--it is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same...There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.

PowerLine here.

Pacetown here.

Heh, typical Slashdot. A bona-fide Microsoft-bashing story comes out and they miss it in favor of superficial Bush-bashing.