reyonthehill

It has been made well aware that Bush is not the most articulate of a speaker. Okay, let us all admit it (one more time), he slaughters the english language every time he speaks. I have also mentioned previously (see the recently archived list below) how often Bush says, "I appreciate that," from Russian killing machines to religious devotees pledging their vote. Judy Keen of USA Today, however, has concluded that Bush's "appreciative" language is simply a stall tactic.

Image: USA Today

I do agree with Ms. Keen that Bush primarily uses this language as a stall tactic, however, I also feel Bush may not truly understand when and when not to use the word "appreciate," either politically or grammatically.

Flash forward. Bush at his press conference today informed the American people about the meaning of "disassemble."

"...people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth."

Source: Washington Post

It startles me constantly that this president, Bush is his name, who self-admittedly is not the greatest english language scholar, condescendingly illustrates the incorrect meaning of a word to the American public.

UPDATE- Apparently, the word Bush attempted to say was "dissemble", which was word of the day at Dictionary.com coincidentally the day before Bush's press conference. I guess we now know what Bush does all day. -UPDATE

Bush, on another point, must be breathing a large sigh of relief, along with his entire administration, after the big news of the day, the supposed outing of Deep Throat, knocked what could have been the news of a disastrous press conference by Bush out of the television news-cycle completely. There may be a call for irony in that W. Mark Felt, who once helped bring to an end the corrupt Nixon administration, aided, albeit briefly, the corrupt Bush administration through what could have been a very tough news-cycle. As the adage goes (I believe), always air your dirty laundry out on Friday. (Okay, I may have made that one up.) But by holding a news conference on a Tuesday, the ballsy president and his belligerent answers to important and tough questions posed by the press corps, risked the development of a devastating week for the administration.

Recently archived: Bush Appreciation Day; It is Raleigh nice to be here.; Bushism No. ten-thousand two-hundred forty-six; Mr. President? About your future memoirs...

Markos, of Daily Kos, recently posted a frustratingly pompous blog-entry regarding Josh Marshall's latest attempt at fame, TPM Cafe, a play on his current blog, Talking Points Memo. Kos went on to state that now all top progressive bloggers run community blogs. First of all, what about reyonthehill, does it make the list of "top progressive" blogs? Secondly, in the comments section, a contentious debate ensued arguing over what makes up a blog, including a series of rants on whether or not non-community blogs are blogs at all (e.g., Wonkette, reyonthehill). I posted the following comment.

Let me go further with this. Is Salon.com War Room not a blog because it doesn't actively solicit reader opinions? Is Dan Froomkin's blog at the Washington Post not one either? He certainly takes email. Is my blog not a blog? (Is it a good ol' fashioned website?) Is yours?

Wow. What a day!! What a week!!

I go away for one week on business, and go camping one long weekend, and then have one additional day away from my office, and what happens?!? Everything.

Nevermind the goings-on of last week. The thoughts I had on last week's happenings are now a distant memory. And today... a Bush news conference (which I listened to as I drove to the office), and quite possibly the most exciting bit of news that I have heard in a long while, the confirmation of who was Deep Throat.

I have been obsessed with the Deep Throat/Watergate story since I first saw the film "All the President's Men" one summer evening a few years back. I later purchased the film, researched like hell on the intenet, and even bought the book. Hold on, scratch that last item. I added the book to my Amazon.com Wishlist. It remains there to the day.

I will be posting shortly on my thoughts on Deep Throat, but first a quick ditty. As I read on the Washington Post's website the caption below the lead photo, "Former FBI associate director W. Mark Felt emerges from his Santa Rosa, Calif., home today with daughter Joan Felt and grandson Nick Jones," I think to myself how odd it is that I was out of town last week drilling in Santa Rosa, Calif.

Having been displaced from the internet, and alright, the "blogosphere," for almost a week, my only source for endless information from the world was, ugh, cable news. I was unable to get my daily fix of Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing, Salon.com's War Room, and even Wonkette. In looking back at what I had missed over the past week, I have been utterly disappointed by the consistent posting of an apparent bushism. I call it an "apparent" bushism because, although everyone has blogged it, or so it seems, I do not see it as a bushism at all, even as I try so mightily to believe it.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Source: Slate

The play on the web is that Bush is admitting that his administration is propagandizing the issue of Social Security (which it is). Am I the only one who reads this differently though? Bush is insisting that he is catapulting, or hurling or launching, the propaganda from his opponents by repeating things over and over. And we mean over and over. Sixty days worth. And he is still going at it. Maybe people are unfamiliar with the definition of "catapult."

The fact is this is not a bushism despite what seems to be the entire blogosphere insists. Maybe this is what is wrong with the blogosphere, or at least what is wrong with the left-oriented blogophere. Once someone posts a supposed bushism everyone else follows suit in trumpeting the charge in attempt to ridicule the president. This means you, Ms. Wonkette. No one has debated the merits or argued if it were even a true bushism.

The sad truth of the matter is that Bush's statement above makes sense. And it hurts to write that.

This snippet is from the incredibly hilarious one-hour season finale of the Simpsons. (Actually, it was two half-hour episodes.) The Simpson family is at the dinner table discussing Bart's most recent activities; Homer threatens Bart that he will be sent to the military and thus be sent fighting in an ill-guided war since we have "Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge."

Source: Overspun.com

I have been out of town on business the last four days and I will be gone on a camping trip this long holiday weekend. I will post again shortly... that is, if anyone has noticed.

A new series delving into the wide range of alumni of Syracuse University.

Second, CBS News correspondent and 60 Minutes co-editor, Steve Kroft.

Kroft graduated from Syracuse University in 1967 with a Bachelor of Science degree. He was honored by his alma mater in 1992 with the George Arents Medal, the highest honor the university gives to an alumnus.

Source/Image: CBS News

Recently archived: Syracuse Pride: Safire

Every now and then I email my favorite columnist at the Washington Post. Here is the lastest give-and-take discussing the outbreak of the Newsweek controversy.

First, Dan's response...

Thanks for writing. Hughes doesn't start till the end of summer, I believe!

Dan

And the original email I sent...

Dan,

Where is Karen Hughes? Has she shown up for work yet? And is she getting paid?

The fact is that the Bush administration has completely discarded the importance of communicating with the Muslim world the purpose and importance of a war against terrorism. (The war in Iraq may be bogging things down a bit, too.)

The Bush administration is unfairly pinning blame for Muslim resentment on Newsweek. In my opinion, the White House is issuing yet another one of their infamous "fair" warnings: write negative things about the administration and consequences will be had. Could this be the worst thing that has appeared in print, in the eyes of Muslims, since the war on terror began? And another question, is it true? And finally, will Scott McClellan even come close to answering that question?

I wonder if this will take heat off Bush's controversial judicial appointments.

I apologize for rambling.

Does anyone agree with my assessment? I couldn't get a clear reading out of Dan Froomkin's response as to whether he concurred or not. Do you? (Please comment below or email me at reyonthehill@reycorp.com.)

Howard Kurtz, whose "Media Notes" column in the Washington Post and television program "Reliable Sources" on CNN has earned him much regard in political analysis, has made his way, albeit slowly, to the level of a right-wing shill. It has been a slow transformation, but it surely has taken place. He has hidden it well on his television shows; he often comes off as a liberal, when actually, he is being a plain old moderate. But in his writing, and as his most recent column proves, without a doubt, Kurtz has made the transformation over to the dark side: a shill for the right-wing.

Kurtz's column today, titled "Screaming at Dean," a not-too-clever attempt at an obvious pun, attacks Dean for purportedly offensive comments he has made since becoming Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). However, his attack is based solely on a column by Bob Novak. Yes, the man who outed under-cover CIA operative Valeri Plame, illegally, and at the behest of the Bush administration, is his sole reference for his title subject.

First, let's examine the following Kurtz statement.

Image: Washington Post

Kurtz implies that Tom DeLay, whose illegal actions in the House of Representatives have earned him three admonishments from the House ethics panel and lost support from fellow republicans, is on the same playing field as former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. This is an unfair comparison of two political players. DeLay is a publically-known (not wide, however) dirty politician and Dean's claim to fame, his ill-fated presidential run in 2004, does not bring the two together in any sense; yet Howard Kurtz does so just to make the comparison and strike an interest in the reader by invoking a controversial person, Tom DeLay.

Second, Kurtz publishes a great portion of Novak's column as a means to make a case against Dean. Here is a portion of the quoted material, in which Novak rips into Dean for making outstanding charges against the GOP...

Image: Washington Post

First of all, for one to be a conservative, it is required that he/she be evil, corrupt, and/or brain-dead. That is where Dean erred. Instead of insisting that House GOP leaders are evil, corrupt, AND brain-dead, Dean should have allowed there to be the possibility that it was a combination of the three (maybe two out of the three) by throwing in the and/or.

Secondly, let us delve into the last sentence... "without accusation of any crime." Delay has been thrice-admonished by the House ethics panel. This is a fact. Search Google News for "delay ethics" and read for yourself. This is the type of rhetoric that destroys the integrity of journalism. I understand that Novak is a right-wing nut and his column is made purely of his opinion, but he is outright lying.

If a liberal, especially a liberal politician, were to spin such a tale from obvious facts, he/she would be lambasted for exaggerating, embellishing, or spinning. Gore was tore up for "inventing the internet" and saying in the 2000 debate that an elderly woman found it "cheaper to buy medication for her dog than to buy her doctor-prescribed medication." These may have been exaggerations; however, Gore was attempting to make a point (and he certainly did not do a good job at it). Health care costs have been skryrocketing, and seniors were to suffer the most from those rising costs. What is Novak's point, that Tom DeLay hasn't been admonished by the House ethics panel, that he hasn't been stranded by his fellow GOP congressmen? No. Novak is simply throwing mud, and lighting fire to it by defending Tom DeLay. Howard Kurtz should be ashamed of himself by injecting Novak's sheer political bigotry, and in turn, defending Tom DeLay.

And Tom DeLay is an evil, corrupt, brain-dead troglodyte that should spend time in jail courtesy of the Texas taxpayers. Amen.

There have been recent attempts by those in the blogosphere, whatever that is (Am I apart of it? I don't know.), to criticize the New York Times, the official newspaper of record, for charging an annual fee for some of its online content. I will not be one of the many parrots, including the very own Salon.com, which also charges a fee for unlimited site access. The NY Times plan, called TimesSelect, costs $49.95/year and allows you unfettered access to the Times many noted columnists, sports, and archived materials.

The truth of the matter is that most online content providers will be, and should be, charging customers for access to the content. (Salon was once free as well.) If you normally would purchase the paper, why should you be able to read it free online? Does the magical world of the internet completely render publishing costs meaningless? And, as Google has sought and successfully accomplished, banner ads will never be a source af adequate revenue to publish original content online without subscription. (Google offers content-based advertisements. And still, Google does not produce much original content, and not nearly the level of journalistic content that the New York Times produces.)

The future of the internet, if one deems a profit is necessary for survival, is subscription-based, and not the current trend of endless promises of free original content. The losses are too grand, the costs too high, and the providers of the original content will quickly and surely vanish. (Unless someone comes up with a better idea.)

Currently, a consumer pays his/her internet provider twenty to fifty dollars per month to gain access to the internet. None of that money goes to the websites the consumers visit on a daily basis. Compare that to cable television, where cable channels get a portion of the revenue cable companies gain by charging its customers monthly subscription fees.

I have long been a prognosticator that the internet will eventually become a pay-per-click medium. My principal example is Amazon.com, the world's largest online retail store. How long will Amazon suffer losses as they provide an endless source for people to window shop, compare prices, and then buy the product elsewhere online, or even in a brick-and-mortar retail store (and god forbid a mom-and-pop store and not another Walmart)? Not much longer, I predict.

That being said, this blog now charges a nominal $1 fee for every blog-entry an individual reads. And $2 if that individual finds said blog-entry humorous. That means you.