Gee, Why Don’t They Call Anymore?

Chucky "Dead to Me" Hagel is out and about again. After pushing his non-binding, look-at-me, histrionic resolution slapping our soldiers in the field, he voted against cloture, thereby refusing to end debate (not block it as the press and the left keep trying to spin it). And now, in an attempt to prove that he can achieve a much, much higher megaflop rating than John Kerry could even dream about, he is now trying to sink his own vote against invoking cloture! The Farce is strong in this one, Luke.

Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush's new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate.

In a letter distributed yesterday evening to Senate leaders, John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and five other GOP supporters of the resolution threatened to attach their measure to any bill sent to the floor in the coming weeks. Noting that the war is the "most pressing issue of our time," the senators declared: "We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate."

Even the media isn't printing any more gushing tributes to Chucky "2000 Megaflops Per Second" Hagel. Gee, I wonder why…..

A Solution To A Major Ruckus

Well, the ruckus over whether or not Nancy Pelosi asked for a personal jet to fly her around appears to have been answered. Yes she did. (Who was the left-wing blogger that tried to prove conclusively that she had not even asked just a day or two ago?)

Feb. 7, 2007 — A source close to the controversy over the request made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for use of a military plane that can fly to and from her home district in San Francisco, Calif., without having to stop to refuel, tells ABC News that the Pentagon has rebuffed Pelosi's request.

The source says that Pentagon officials and the Bush administration have instead offered Pelosi use of the same plane made available to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: a C-20, which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members.

A C-20 can make the 700-mile flight to Hastert's Aurora, Ill., district easily but would generally have to stop to refuel to complete the 2,800-mile trip from Washington, D.C. to the San Francisco Bay Area, depending on the headwinds.

Pelosi has expressed concern about having to stop and refuel, primarily for security reasons, her office says. Since 9/11, the Speaker of the House — second in line of presidential succession behind the Vice President — has received what the Air Force refers to as "shuttle service," the use of military planes to travel for security reasons. Pelosi's predecessor, Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., used a C-20, the military version of the Gulf Stream 3 business jet, a twin-engine turbo-fan aircraft that seats 12 passengers with a crew of five.

Pentagon spokesman Cmdr J.D. Gordon outlined the rules and restrictions governing Speaker Pelosi's use of the C-20:

• No more than 10 passengers (C-20's only seat 12 passengers, not including up to 5 crew members);
• No travel to political events;
• Members of the Speaker's family cannot fly unless the Speaker puts a request in writing. The Pelosi family has to reimburse the US Treasury for the cost of a coach ticket per person for the travel, as well as for any food;
• Members of Congress cannot fly on the plane unless their travel has been cleared with the House Committee on Standards (the Ethics committee);
• Pelosi's husband can travel for free, but only for official protocol purposes.

In response to the Pentagon offer, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly tells ABC News, "We appreciate the Defense Department's continuing concern for the Speaker's security. We are reviewing their letter."

Pelosi: I Want an Aircraft That Will Reach California

Earlier today Pelosi responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.

"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.

Happily, there is a solution! We here at Blue Crab Boulevard suggest that the Air Force simply go out to the boneyard and drag one of these beauties out! With a range of 5,400 miles it could just about make it both ways on one tank of gas! Pelosi says she doesn't care what kind of plane it is, problem solved! Damn, we're good.

Greg Tinti has a different solution. Oh, we still like ours better, but we're certainly fairly balanced around here.

UPDATE: We are very pleased to be the first to announce the ultimate solution to the problem! Bonus: Unlimited hot air, unlimited range!

Mistrial For Watada

But that is most definitely not a good thing for Ehren Watada. The presiding officer decided that Watada had not meant what he said to settle two counts of the original charges against him. That deal is now off the table and he will again face six - not four - years in prison for his dishonorable actions. His lawyers did him no favors at all here.

The case's judge, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over after a day of wrangling over a stipulation of facts that Watada had signed before the trial and that would have been part of the instructions to the jury. The judge decided that Watada never intended when he signed the stipulation to mean that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his unit.

Again the issue was Watada's views on the Iraq war — opinions that kept him from going with his unit to the conflict and that the judge didn't want brought up at the court-martial.

Watada, a Stryker Brigade soldier, is the first commissioned officer to refuse to be deployed to Iraq. Watada's unit left this sprawling base for Iraq in June, but Watada remained behind. He said he believes the war is illegal and that his duty is to not abide by illegal orders.

But Head tried to keep the court-martial from becoming a tribunal on the war and its legality and has ruled that Watada's attorney cannot present witnesses to question the war's legality. Outside the base, that has been the issue as peace activists from across the country have rallied to Watada's side.

Watada is charged with missing movement to Iraq and with two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. Those last two charges result from statements Watada made against the war in a video tape released to reporters after he made his refusal to go to Iraq public and to a Veterans for Peace convention at the University of Washington.

He had been charged with two other counts of conduct unbecoming for interviews he gave. Prosecutors dropped those charged in return for Watada's signing a stipulation that he had given the interviews. He also acknowledged in the stipulation that he didn't go with his unit to Iraq, though he didn't admit his guilt to the missing movement charge.

This did not - at all - work out well for Watada whether he sees it or not yet. But he'll have a bit longer to think about it once the next trial concludes. About two years in fact. And his journalist buddies are back on the hook as well. This should be interesting.

Edwards Fires Bloggers

UPDATE: Thursday, early afternoon: The two bloggers are not fired.  

Reports are roaring through the blogosphere that the Edwards Campaign has fired the two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, that have been at the center of the latest blogstorm. That is actually a bad thing for Edwards as well as the blogosphere as a whole (not to mention the two women). There are a lot of reactions already.

I think the extreme rhetoric of the two bloggers should have been enough to keep them from getting the jobs in the first place. The left believes things like putting Wolf Blitzer into blackface is cutting edge humor. They don't quite understand that outside of their echo chamber the rest of the world thinks they are completely hateful. So the Edwards campaign set themselves up for this situation in the first place. But Edwards looks like either an idiot or a wimp right now. And the nutroots will be in full attack mode on him (and on the right as well) over this whole situation. It is about to get kind of ugly for a while, folks.

Captain's Quarters, The Jawa Report, Althouse, Political Insider, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Hotline On Call, Outside The Beltway, The Sundries Shack, MyDD, TAPPED, Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Patterico, Sister Toldjah, David All, Wizbang, Andrew Olmsted, Beltway Blogroll, Vox Popoli,

UPDATE: Bloggers NOT fired.

That Whole Petard Thing

From Dictionary.com:

4.	hoist by or with one's own petard, hurt, ruined, or destroyed by the very device or plot one had intended for another.

Why bring that up? Well, this item from Eugene Volokh, writing over at The Volokh Conspiracy:

A New International Law "Value" — Freedom from "Defamation of Religions"?

Washburn University law professor Liaquat Ali Khan has an interesting article in The American Muslim called Combating Defamation of Religions:

A new value is emerging in the realm of the peoples' rights. Now two years in a row, the United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution called, Combating Defamation of Religions. Although the Defamation Resolution applies to all religions, it highlights "the negative projection of Islam in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims." …

The General Assembly resolutions may contain soft international law. With the passage of time and compliant state behavior, some resolutions pave the way for the formation of a multilateral treaty or customary international law. In almost all cases, these resolutions reflect the international community’s views, which cannot be dismissed as mere opinions. These views, even when they fall short of opinio juris, influence multilateral relations and compose the sociology of international law….

[T]he Defamation Resolution urges states to prevent political institutions and organizations from fomenting discrimination, hostility, and violence against religious groups….

Brings to mind a couple of bloggers currently under fire for anti-Catholic/anti-Christian rants on their blogs. The left being champions of International Law and all, what exactly would such a new "human right" do to them? Those who regularly enjoy bashing Christians might want to seriously think about this issue in light of the UNs continuing efforts to get this "right" recognized. And Volokh is pretty well merciless in tearing it up, by the way. Such a "right" would be anathema to the American constitution. As he puts it:

Our Constitution is far from perfect, both as written and as interpreted. I think courts should indeed change their views on many issues, and people should try to press courts to do so. But this should be our decision as Americans. We should not cede our control over our constitutional rights to international bodies, international professional elites, or even to our own President and Senate.

But it will be kind of amusing to watch the bob and weave this brings about if any of the far left even acknowledge that they are in violation of the "international community’s views", won't it? After all, they have repeated said the administration is acting in defiance of the international community's views.

Yeah, that whole petard thing applies.

Rodents Occupy Church

Rodents from the Animal Uprising™ have forced their way into a church and are occupying the structure. The old chapel, in Seattle's Discovery Park, is currently held by about 150 rabbit storm troopers.

SEATTLE — An old chapel in Seattle's Discovery Park has become an unlikely focus of controversy because of what are inside: rabbits.

The old Fort Lawton chapel was saved from the wrecking ball, but it's not operating as a church. Instead it is a sanctuary for rabbits.

The rabbits were rounded up at Seattle's Woodland Park, which for years has been a dumping ground for unwanted pet bunnies which breed and burrow, damaging the park.

They have humans helping them with their nefarious schemes, too! They set up a website and everything. We know the rabbits didn't do that. They are notoriously bad typists.

Foreign Correspondence - Odds And Ends Edition

My son sent the following to me in an email to post today. I've been kind of busy battling computers (I'm winning, but just barely) so haven't really been posting at the usual insane pace. I'll let my son take over for a bit so you have something to read.

A few blurbs this week, just little things that have caught my attention:

First, thank you all so much for your words of support after my last post about the hatemongers on myspace.com. The petition that I mentioned had been going around apparently drew some attention: the group has been removed from the site. Nobody pointed it out, but it's been on my mind nonetheless that this could appear as censorship. I have very strong opinions about editing people's opinions, and though myspace is a public site that is open to everyone, my point was that it is also a place that caters to a lot of soldiers who are currently serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a group like that does not make those soldiers or their families feel welcome on the site. Again, thank you for your support and your kind words.

Second, one of my soldiers sent an essay to me in an email that I thought was very poignant. The statistics are a bit dated (it has the deaths in Iraq at about 2200, so I figure it was written early last year), but it's a very intelligently written paper about the cost of the war in Iraq and how it compares to the cost, both monetarily and in terms of casualties, to World War II. Rather than post the text, I've found a link to the site. I urge you to read it and remember what losing that war would have cost the world.

http://www.youdontsay.org/Kraft.htm

Third, upon coming back "inside the wire" (the term we use when we return to base after a mission) I was flipping through the channels on AFN and found coverage of the tornado aftermath in central Florida. AFN, the American Forces Network, borrows its programming from dozens of American channels, getting feeds from CNN, FNC, MSNBC, occasionally C-Span. This particular day the feed was from CNN's Headline News, and I cannot even describe how disgusted I was. Every fifteen minutes they were playing the 911 calls of the victims. These were screams from frightened people who probably thought they had only seconds to live, pleas to send help, laments for missing family members. To the sensationalist, opportunistic meatheads in charge at CNN, these people are VICTIMS! Their desperation is not entertainment, and a simple look at the helicopter views tells all just how serious the situation is and was. Don Henley wrote the song "Dirty Laundry" in 1982; I'd be curious to see how much more caustic that song would be now, because in the intervening twenty-five years, the media has become infinitely more shameless and less respectful of their subject matter.

Next, the Superbowl! Longtime readers will know that I am a huge football fan, and though I root for one of the lowliest underdogs in the sport (the Buffalo Bills), I'll watch almost any game that's on. This was not a banner season for the Bills, but it was an improvement and things look like they're starting to click. However, another team I've had my eye on for a few years did make it to the big dance this year, the Indianapolis Colts. I sympathized with their plight of consecutive playoff berths without championships, and I think Peyton Manning is one of the best quarterbacks to play the game. Around him is a strong supporting cast of fantastic professional players, and despite a few early missteps, the Colts soundly thumped the Chicago Bears to be crowned World Champions. Though the game slowed down dramatically in the second half as both teams dealt with the monsoon conditions in Miami, it was still the most exciting Superbowl I've seen since Superbowl XXXIV. Lots of big plays and a strong team who'd been oh so close to the big game for eight consecutive seasons coming out on top makes for great entertainment. As an added bonus, the halftime show was conservative in comparison to recent halftime shows, where it seems a constant attempt to fill up the stage with as many marginally talented artists as possible. Lewis Black has done some extremely funny comedy bits regarding this practice. Prince may not be the first musical guest you'd expect at a halftime show, but he performed an excellent medley of his own hits as well as a few other artists'.

Finally, I wanted to comment a bit on the political climate, something I've been pretty tight-lipped about. My father has politically "outed" me recently, sharing some of my likes and dislikes about some of the candidates out there. In the 2000 race, I watched my favored candidate, John McCain, beaten out by presidential royalty, and I looked at George W. Bush unkindly in his first year in office. That said, I think he did a fine job in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. In the years since, my opinion of both those men has risen and fallen like the tides. I won't get into my current opinion of the President because I think it would be in poor taste considering my situation. Soldiers are not, in most cases, politicians, and we are happy to share our views with friends and family, but a soldier's duty is not to question his president; it's to follow his orders. Regarding Senator McCain, I think of him these days as a Republican John Kerry, a man who is like a boat that sails wherever the political winds carry him. Though I applaud the fact that despite popular sentiment he continues to support the war (see Chuck Hagel), his plan for troop increases is unrealistic at best. It would be worse than the current situation in that it would virtually guarantee longer tours and would stretch the military probably beyond the breaking point. Switching gears, I like Rudy Giuliani as a candidate for president. He's a man with strong convictions and courage (anyone who goes head to head with the mafia could be said to have "brass ones") who did a lot of good for a very troubled city. Of all the candidates running from both parties, he's the one I respect most by a very big margin.

Well, that's all I've got for this edition of Foreign Correspondence. As always, feedback is welcome in the comments section.

Strong Words

The New York Post has a very strong condemnation of the bad political theater being played out in Washington right now. The language is harsh, the judgment passed even more so.

Any resolution - short of an unambiguous endorsement of the troop surge - would be irresponsible.

Besides, Democrats (and Republicans who side with them) just had their chance forcefully to oppose the war.

If they have a beef with the Bush strategy, why did they overwhelmingly vote to confirm the nominations of Gen. David Petraeus as chief U.S. commander in Iraq, and of Adm. William Fallon to head the overall U.S. effort in the region? Those officers not only endorse the troop surge, they're the ones charged with carrying out the policy.

As Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who remains a beacon of light on Iraq, told his colleagues: "We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in Gen. Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle."

Worse still, those pushing for this resolution - which would have no actual practical effect on the war effort - fail to appreciate its potential impact on the troops now risking their lives in Iraq.

Indeed, said Lieberman, the Library of Congress confirmed that "never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy."

Professing support of U.S. troops is meaningless in the face of such a resolution, he added: "When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops."

Joe Lieberman's extremely powerful words can be read here. The Post's conclusion is brutal, yet it is also spot on.

Undercutting the effort with wrongheaded resolutions is at once dishonorable and cowardly.

Bottom line: Congress sent Petraeus and Fallon off to war. Does it now mean to shoot them in the back?

Some people in Congress believe they won a mandate to lose a war and devastate the United States in the process. They did not. It is time to stop the posturing and start thinking about the good of the country and of the soldiers in the field. Joe Lieberman said it best:

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider this history carefully. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a resolution like this one.

Stop the posturing.

Junk Science And The Creation Of Media Myths

Dennis Byrne, writing over at Real Clear Politics, has a column up that shatters the latest junk science fueled media meme that the Bush administration pressured scientists about global warming. It is not his opinion, either. He is drawing from a report by the Statistical Assessment Service of George Mason University. Seriously, any of the global warming true believers who stop by here now and then to comment really, really should read one or both of these to see how media myths are generated then perpetuated. Because this "study" by the Union of Concerned Scientists is bogus and so are the conclusions drawn from it.

You don't have to be a social scientist to understand that the survey was deceptive, for example, when it lumped into the same category scientists who said they actually experienced the alleged tampering and scientists who simply "perceived" that it happened to someone else. For example, the group's press release said "Forty-three percent of respondents reported they had perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings." But turn to the study's appendix, and you'll find that only 15 percent of the respondents said that they had actually experienced such interference.

Other examples abound: 43 percent perceived or experienced "fear of retaliation for openly expressing concerns about climate change outside my agency." Actually, only 14 percent personally harbored such a fear; the other 29 percent apparently thought they saw it in others. Notice, the question didn't ask how many actually experienced retaliation, instead of just fearing it.

When the survey finally got around to asking how many scientists actually received "requests by officials for scientists to provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information to the public," only 12 scientists (4 percent of respondents) did. Let's see, 12 out of the 1,630 scientists who received the survey amounts an underwhelming 0.7 percent. Hardly the kind of statistic that supports the claim of a "wide-spread epidemic" of interference.

The media has, for the most part, gone completely wild with this study and its mythical findings. So have politicians like Henry Waxman. But the fact of the matter is they are basing all of their anger and attacks off of a myth. I really urge readers to take a look at Byrne's article or even go right to the STATS report by Dr. S. Robert Lichter. If you can read that and admit part of what you take as gospel may be based on bad science and worse reporting, then maybe you can start to wonder what else you believe is being manipulated.

Same Events, Differing Conclusions

It is always interesting when two different journalists attend the same events, here the same speakers and yet come away with widely differing takes on those events. I mentioned last night the report of the Politico than anointed Hillary! Clinton as the next president because Republicans were in "despair". Toby Harnden from the Telegraph has a slightly different take on the entire situation.

The ultimate nightmare for Republicans is that the road now appears clear for Hillary Clinton to sweep back to the White House. Although many Democrats worry that she is not electable, Republicans tend to be convinced that the Clinton machine can succeed against Barack Obama and beyond.

But it is far too early for Republicans to despair. To start with, Democrats appear to be betting on defeat in Iraq. Scarcely a day goes by without a candidate offering a more radical solution to ending the war by capping troop numbers, withdrawing funding for Iraqi forces or censuring the president.

While this approach is producing some snappy sound bites and approving headlines, it leaves the Democrats with two problems. The first is the possibility that Mr Bush's troop surge could succeed in pacifying Baghdad. The second is that voters might balk if they feel they are being asked to embrace defeat.

Americans are not against the war because soldiers and marines are dying but because they are dying and there seems little prospect of success. But even by the end of next year they might not be ready to accept that defeat is inevitable.

There's more, but you really should read the whole thing. Is there gloom? Sure. Is that really remarkable at this point? No. But Harnden points out pretty much what I did last night. There is still time and there is still a long way to go until the next election. Frankly, I think Hillary! is in a lot worse shape than the myth-makers would have everyone believe. I also believe the Democrats (and, sadly, a few Republicans) are making a huge mistake by thinking they were given a mandate to lose a war. And the more they scramble over one another to see who can be first at the exit, the worse the payback will be during the next election cycle.

Frauds

I imagine Robert Samuelson will get a ration of flak from the true believers for writing his column today. But in trying to point out the impossibilities (not difficulties, impossibilities) of eliminating CO2 emissions in the short term, he is telling the truth. Which is why it won't sit well with the folks who are the most rabid advocates of the whole global warming agenda.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2 emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009.

Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth — lowering poverty, fostering political stability — to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity.

Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renew ables" (solar, wind, hydro power, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise.

I posted yesterday about remarks from the Chinese government about global warming.They will be more than happy to blame every bit of global warming on the West and do nothing whatsoever to change what they are doing. And they will soon take the lead on CO2 emissions. Samuelson says that what is needed is a push for real solutions, not politically-motivated feel good actions. His disdain for the "cap and trade" schemes is absolutely spot on, by the way. Those are fundamentally slapstick solutions, meant to make everyone feel better but with minimal real impact. And oh, boy, will some people get rich off those schemes.

One thing I think Samuelson has wrong, however, is his call for higher energy taxes to spur development. Europe has had astronomical gasoline taxes for decades and they are not exactly a hotbed of innovation in increasing mileage. Frankly, anyone who tells you that there are easy solutions to any of this is either lying or completely misguided.

Another Chance

I really never read anything written by either Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon or Melissa McEwan from Shakespeare’s Sister, or if I have caught bits and pieces, I don't really remember them. So I stayed right out of the blog controversy when the two were hired by John Edwards. The New York Times, however, has now weighed in. And they can't miss a chance to slam blogs and bloggers, now can they?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”

Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

The article points out a number of things written by the two that are vulgar or vitriolic. Ed Morrisey points out the problem Edwards got himself into on this by failing to examine the record of the two. He also points out that this incident is a setback for bloggers in general. He's right. And the New York Times and the other media outlets are going to use it as a way to tar and feather all bloggers.