- I went to the library today.  After paying off a late fee that's about, say, 20 years old (hey; it was only four bucks), I decided to grab a couple of books:  one political, one sports.

The political book is Thomas Sowell's Affirmative Action Around the World.  Sowell is one of the biggest reasons why I am a conservative, as my mindset changed after reading the astonishing Race and Culture: A World View.  Although I'm sure he relied on Race and Culture to help him with this book, I am still looking forward to it.

My sports book is ESPN:  The Uncensored History by Michael Freeman.  I was browsing the shelves and it just happened to catch my eye.  Freeman takes a candid look into the personalities and management at ESPN and how it became a juggernaut and a disaster almost at the same time.  From the antics and offensive nature of Keith Olbermann to the sexist and raunchy practical jokes on the female members of ESPN, it's all in this book.  I'm going to find some reviews for this book, if possible.

Josh Howard, the executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday" that is being forced to resign, isn't leaving without making some noise first.  The guys over at RatherBiased.com along with The Drudge Report are previewing a New York Observer article that claims Howard is demanding that CBS President Les Moonves retract certain remarks in regards to the scandal, retract the original Bush Air Guard story, and clear Howard's name.

According to Drudge, Howard also wants CBS to disclose to the public the role upper management had in the story, and is threatening to subpoena emails, documents and place Moonves on the stand himself if he is forced into a lawsuit.  Two other employees that were asked to resign, execs Mary Murphy and Besty West, are refusing to resign, and have threatened legal action as well.

I've read the report, and although I felt Howard was in the wrong by not initially telling White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett about the documents so he'd have enough time to examine and respond to them, I would like to see how this will turn out.  To me there were some holes left by the report in regards to what Rather, Heyward and others have done to help aid in the report.  I was also disappointed that there wasn't more quotes by Mapes and Rather.  There has also been some criticism levelled towards the investigators due to conflict of interest and sloppiness of the gathering of evidence.  I doubt if Howard wins, but it'll be interesting to see what new information arises.
UPDATE:  RatherBiased found Howard's worries about the memos on page 162 of the Investigation Report:

By early on Friday, September 10, it was clear that the controversy over the Segment had not abated but had increased. Not only had ABC News continued to cover the story but The Washington Post (page A1) and The New York Times (page A17) ran lengthy stories on the controversy on September 10.94 Thus, as of early on September 10, CBS News needed to decide how it should respond to the controversy.

Howard had developed concerns about the September 8 Segment on September 9, and acknowledged that the bloggers and other matters, such as the differences in the superscript “th” in the official Bush records as opposed to the Killian documents and the ABC News Nightline report that he found “credible,” had shaken his confidence. Indeed, when asked by the Panel if he found the events of September 9 unsettling, Howard stated: “Yes, that is an understatement.”

Thus, in an e-mail sent at 4:53 a.m. on September 10 to West, Howard proposed a media strategy that would acknowledge the possibility that 60 Minutes Wednesday had been the victim of a hoax:

I wonder if it’s time for us to take the offensive and say, look, we think we’re on solid ground, but we’re not just sitting on our hands. We’re continuing to investigate, and if we were the victims of an elaborate hoax, no one would be more anxious to get to the bottom of it than CBS News.

A statement might say:

There have been allegations that the documents on which we reported were either forgeries or re-creations. Nothing we have learned over the past 48 hours leads us to believe that. We remain enormously confident in the thoroughness and accuracy of our reporting.

If indeed one or more of the documents is not authentic, it would mean that CBS News was the victim of an elaborate hoax. We have no evidence that that was the case. But we are continuing to aggressively investigate, and should we find that anyone - the Kerry campaign, the Bush campaign, or anyone else – – was responsible for circulating fraudulent documents and orchestrating a hoax, no one would be more anxious to break that story than CBS News.

The point would be to shift the conversation from CBS did something wrong, to something wrong was done to us and we’re mad as hell.

West rejected Howard’s suggestion via a return e-mail at 8:39 a.m.:

I think we need to defend ourselves specifically [and] not even concede that we think it could be a hoax.

Later on September 10, Howard would again express concerns to West, Mapes and Heyward about the Segment after speaking with Peter Tytell, an individual with extensive typewriter experience. At that time, Howard’s concerns again were not acted upon and thereafter Howard did not have a major role in the Aftermath, with West apparently taking the management lead and Mapes taking the production lead on follow-up stories that defended the Segment.

I don't think this clears Howard, as others are suggesting.  Howard sounds like he's trying to cover CBS's butt instead actually coming clean about the documents.  The statement, "The point would be to shift the conversation from CBS did something wrong, to something wrong was done to us and we’re mad as hell." suggests Howard wanted to point fingers at others to serve as a distraction from CBS's shoddy journalistic practices.  There's nothing in that piece that warrants any kind of sympathy for Howard, at least from me.

Here's my beef with Howard, from pages 116 and 117 of the report (same link as above):

By Tuesday, December 7, Dan Bartlett had heard that 60 Minutes Wednesday was working on a story involving the TexANG, and Ben Barnes and wondered whether anyone from the show would ask him to comment about it. Accordingly, Bartlett asked his assistant to reach out to 60 Minutes Wednesday to determine the status of the story.

Bartlett told the Panel that his assistant called Howard around 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday and said that the White House had heard about the story from sources outside of 60 Minutes Wednesday. Howard said that he could not confirm that the Segment was going to air the next night. Bartlett also said that his assistant told Howard that if the Segment was going to air, it was unfair that 60 Minutes Wednesday planned to give the White House only a few hours to respond.

Bartlett said that Howard left a message for him at 6:50 p.m. to inform him that 60 Minutes Wednesday did indeed plan to air a report involving Barnes, but Howard did not mention the
116

---

TexANG documents. Howard told the Panel, however, that he recalled that the person from the White House who initially called him about the story knew that 60 Minutes Wednesday had documents.

Howard spoke to Bartlett later that evening. Howard told Bartlett about Ben Barnes'
"side" of the story. Howard also told Bartlett that 60 Minutes Wednesday had obtained new documents from the personal files of President Bush's commanding officer in the TexANG.

Bartlett said that he told Howard that this was "new news" to him and asked Howard what the documents said. At that point, Mary Murphy read the documents to Bartlett over the telephone. Murphy's impression was that Bartlett took notes about the documents' content as she spoke.  Bartlett also recalled that Howard told him that 60 Minutes Wednesday had someone on camera verifying the documents.

Bartlett asked Murphy to fax the documents to him that evening. Murphy and Howard
did not want to give him the documents that night, however, but made arrangements to get the documents to Washington Bureau Chief Leissner so that she could have them delivered to the White House by seven the next morning. The four documents provided to Bartlett were the four used in the September 8 Segment.

Hence, Howard and Murphy wanted to jump the White House with this story, and IMO didn't want them to even look at the documents.  I also don't believe Howard had any intention to let Barlett know about those documents, as Bartlett was surprised when they told him about the documents Tuesday evening.  Howard lied when he told Bartlett "he could not confirm" that the Segment was going to air Wednesday, as all plans were go.  On top of that, they couldn't fax copies of the documents Tuesday night????  Why not?  That's how CBS obtained the documents in the first place!

So, pardon me if I don't shed a tear for Howard or Murphy.  They deserved to be fired.

I thought the Jordan apologists were only confined to the left-leaning mainstream.  Imagine my surprise when I read this (free email subscription req):

More troubling to us is that Mr. Jordan seems to have "resigned," if in fact he wasn't forced out, for what hardly looks like a hanging offense. It is true that Mr. Jordan has a knack for indefensible remarks, including a 2003 New York Times op-ed in which he admitted that CNN had remained silent about Saddam's atrocities in order to maintain its access in Baghdad. That really was a firing offense. But CNN stood by Mr. Jordan back then--in part, one suspects, because his confession implicated the whole news organization. Now CNN is throwing Mr. Jordan overboard for this much slighter transgression, despite faithful service through his entire adult career.

That may be old-fashioned damage control. But it does not speak well of CNN that it apparently allowed itself to be stampeded by this Internet and talk-show crew. Of course the network must be responsive to its audience and ratings. But it has other obligations, too, chief among them to show the good judgment and sense of proportion that distinguishes professional journalism from the enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs.

No doubt this point of view will get us described as part of the "mainstream media." But we'll take that as a compliment since we've long believed that these columns do in fact represent the American mainstream. We hope readers buy our newspaper because we make grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't.

I tell ya; if there is one thing that Bill O'Reilly says that you can take to the bank, it's his saying about the powerful protecting the powerful.  There isn't any doubt in my mind that WSJ heard about Jordan on Friday night and said, "That could be us one day."

For the WSJ to dismiss the blogosphere as amateurs with "vendettas" shows a denial of thee transformation of media and journalism that is taking place, and they come off as illogical by doing so.  How is it "good judgement" for CNN to allow someone who has been shrouded in controversy and criticism several times before - one of which WSJ said was a firable offense, I might add - to keep his job when he goes overseas to a public forum with U.S. politicans and journalists present and accuses the U.S. military of deliberately targeting journalists with no evidence supporting this whatsoever?  That's "good judgement" to you?

After his accusations are leaked to the internet, he then stonewalls the people who hold him accountable for his statements, something that the mainstream media (yes, that's you, WSJ) didn't want to do, because according to the High Court of the Wall Street Journal Editoral Board, it wasn't "a journalistic felony".  If left to them, the public has the right to know everything except what they are doing, and what they are saying.  Instead of encouraging accountability, the WSJ would rather duck it.  It's amazing when "amateurs" show more integrity than international media companies that have been "serving the public" for decades.

They don't realize this, but the WSJ might have given us a look at their employment practices.  It makes a lot of sense to keep someone employed that continues to embarrass the company time and time again, but since it wasn't that bad, to wait until he REALLY embarrasses the company.   The WSJ should ask the New York Times if that approach worked with Jayson Blair.

Fortunately for the public, but unfortunately for the WSJ, they nor any of the MSM can totally control what is considered news and what isn't anymore.  If left up to the HCOTWSJEB, no one would have heard about this incident, with the exception of their email diary readers.  It's not a coincidence that less people are reading newspapers and watching network news and are looking to alternative sources for information.  Some of them are doing the journalism that the MSM used to do.
AND ANOTHER THING:  I couldn't help but notice Prof. Reynolds's column on Governor Phil Bresden on OpinionJournal from Sunday.  That means the WSJ took it upon themselves to rip a bunch of "amateurs" the day after featuring one of the most popular "amateurs" on the internet. 

And not to take away from Reynolds's scholarly work and accomplishments, but it's doubtful that Reynolds would have been a guest columnist for WSJ if it wasn't for Instapundit.  In fact, Instapundit was listed and linked at the bottom of the column when describing him.  If I were Reynolds, I'd be a bit insulted.

Also, what is "Best Of The Web" supposed to be?  Nothing more than a collection of web links and opinions, similar to...BLOGS!  And Taranto frequently quotes bloggers and gathers information off of their sites. 

It makes you wonder if the editorial board was lobotomized over the weekend.

- to prepare for basketball, I have added HoopsJunkie.net and CollegeBasketball Blog to my sports links.  Hopefully this will help me keep up with some of what's going on in college basketball.  Also, I think I've found a top notch website called Slamdunk.com.  If you know of any others, leave me a note.

- After reffing today, I did keep an eye on Maryland's sweep of Duke (I'm surprised Deacon @ Powerline isn't whooping and hollering about this as he was when they took the Dookies out at Cameron).   I would have WATCHED it, but ESPN's hogging of the broadcast rights means that JP Sports has a smaller piece of the pie.

I remember a time when every single ACC basketball game was aired within the Raycom/Jefferson Pilot network on local television (I have Dish Network, but only one receiver and someone was watching it before me, and doesn't like sports.  Ugh.).  Now we only get Carolina/Duke and whatever games ESPN doesn't want.  It's an absolute joke, and makes me sick of the ACC leadership as well as ESPN.

Anyway, I'm glad Maryland whupped Duke's butt, albeit they had to foul out five Devils to do it.

- I also noticed the two big comebacks by Pacific over Utah St. and UNLV over San Diego St.  Pacific continued winning and remained in the Top 25 by rallying from eight down with 27 ticks left (well, AP says five, but they were fouled while shooting a three at the :27 mark and hit all three FTs) to win by a point.  UNLV rallied from 10 down with 30 seconds left, put the game into overtime, and won by two.

Wow.

Personally I have only taken fleeting glances at the coverage of this story around the blogosphere.  I didn't think it was that big of a deal since media personalities are always going to forums saying something stupid.  I suppose he thought he was safe since he was in the presence of a couple of left-wing politicians (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd).  I'm sure he didn't expect them to react the way they did.

Somehow the conservative side of the blogosphere got involved, and started bringing heat to Jordan.  I didn't feel like getting involved because (1). I wasn't interested in the story, and (2). I didn't think Jordan nor CNN would ever succumb to pressure.  So, I left it alone.

But let this be a fair warning to the media that wasn't paying attention while the CBS scandal went down; the blogosphere has stroke. That's two media companies bloggers have brought down, and it didn't take but a week or so for each to be exposed.

It's a shame that Jordan is going down while still denying it, but it is great that the blogosphere helped call him into account for his statements.

The left-wing propaganda machine Media Matters have been making a fuss over a supposed distortion of a quote by President Franklin Roosevelt in regards to Social Security privatization by Fox News anchor Brit Hume and talk show host Bill Bennett.

While Media Matters is correct in that FDR didn't advocate Social Security being completely replaced by voluntary individual contributions, as they caught Hume stating on his show "Special Report", the fact still remains that Roosevelt did advocate individual accounts that was to be added on with compulsory (in other words, the forced payroll tax) retirement funds.

As Media Matters noted at the top of their story, President Bush's plan is to partially privatize Social Security, not completely privatize it.  In fact, the federal government wouldn't be able to completely privatize the system and still give retirement benefits to citizens 55 and older; they'd have to keep a part of the payroll tax (more on that below).  Therefore, FDR's quote of individual accounts - albeit he never advocated private investments, as Bennett tried to assert - does go hand-in-hand with Bush's Social Security reform plan.

Also, Media Matters erred in this statement:

The second element, "compulsory contributory annuities," is the backbone of Social Security's current system of guaranteed retirement benefits, which are funded with payroll taxes that employees pay throughout their working years.

This isn't the current system.  As they state in their piece, the annuities "will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations."  But today's system is set up so that current workers are funding the retirement benefits for current retirees, not to fund current workers when they retire.  If that was the case, there wouldn't be a problem with the system, as workers could look forward to the money they put into into the system when they retired.  The reason why Social Security will run a deficit in the future - and thus, why reform is being talked about in the first place - is due to the fact that there are more and more workers retiring and thus using more SS funds.

In fact, it could be argued that FDR would not support this "pay-as-you-go" system, as it is in it's current state, just as easily as it is to make an argument that FDR wouldn't have supported privatization.  FDR on several occasions meant for future citizens to pay their own way into the system, not to use their money to fund current retirees.  As Media Matters stated, FDR's plan wanted retirees when Social Security started to be paid through "welfare pensions funded by the states with federal contributions", not under the same payroll taxes that workers were investing in.  The fact is, the system that FDR advocated is NOT the same system that is being implemented today.

Isn't it great when you can use someone's own arguments against them?  I thought so. :-D

---

UPDATE:  If you get a chance, check out the conversation that's going on in the comments section of the Media Matters piece.  A poster named Walter Hart is simply levelling almost every assumption Media Matters has had and is making a pretty strong argument that Media Matters has distorted FDR more than Brit Hume had done.

Looking back, I can't recall any team that has been more of an embarrassment after losing a Super Bowl than the Philadelphia Eagles.  It was as if they planned all week to make a number of excuses and complaints once they lost the game.

First, we had Terrell Owens whining because he isn't loved like Brett Farve or Curt Schilling.  Aw.  There's no doubt that people should give Terrell Owens his just due.  I mean, the guy was playing with a broken leg and ripped ligaments that hasn't fully rehabbed.  That doesn't make TO the greatest athlete in the world, as some TO-loving propagandists have yelled, but still, it was a noble effort.  I never thought he was selfish, because he was realistically the offensive weapon that could keep that team in the game.

However, if TO wants to be appreciated and applauded the same way Brett and Curt are, then guess what?  You have to act like them all the time.  Last time I checked, Brett Farve didn't run out to midfield of Dallas Stadium and pose on the star after scoring a touchdown.  Curt doesn't rip his teammates and calls them homosexuals.  Brett doesn't complain to the press about not getting the ball enough when they are 13-1.  Until you change your attitude, you're not going to get the adulation you expect.  You have to do more than one achievement on one night to turn around all the animosity that you have built up in the last eight years.

Next, we had Hank Fraley and Freddie Mitchell saying McNabb was sick during the fourth quarter.  McNabb denied he was sick, just tired, and Freddie didn't call any plays inside the huddle.  Generally I would give McNabb the benefit of the doubt, but the fact is that SOMETHING was wrong with him, and getting beasted by Richard Seymour is as good of a reason as any.

I can see why McNabb didn't want to admit he was hurt/sick.  He didn't want to be seen as making excuses.  That's fine, but there should be some explanation other than "my bad".  And I don't see how Fraley and Mitchell felt disclosing it would make the loss look any better.

Speaking of Mitchell...

Does the man know any shame at all?  Does the man know how to shut his mouth?  His interview on ESPNRadio's "AllNight" last night makes him look like a total fool.  Blaming TO because you didn't get any looks from McNabb?  Dude, you're the FIFTH OPTION for that team.  McNabb looks to TO, Pink, West, and Smith before he even thinks about looking for you.  McNabb didn't go to you until the fourth quarter, a wide open pass for 11 yards.  Where was the belt then, Freddie?

And why would Freddie even mention the Patriots after that debacle?  Regardless of whether you got under their skin, the fact is that they used his words to motivate them to a Lombardi Trophy.  Meanwhile, Harrison and the boys have forgotten about him and are on to better things while he's still harping on them.

When Freddie is cut from the Eagles - and I believe he will as he's now embarrassed McNabb and TO in a matter of days, and shows no signs of shutting his mouth - and he's on that chopping block that is free agency, maybe then he'll realize how he should have kept his mouth shut.  I'm not holding my breath, tho.

The Eagles looked bad enough in losing the game, but days afterwards they've made themselves look a lot worse.  Andy Reid is a good coach, but if he can't keep egos in check during a run to the Super Bowl, what's going to happen when they lose games and come short in the future?  For the franchise's sake, they better hope they keep winning, or the Eagles will be in the same shape as the Sixers.

I'm trying out some new layouts, in order to see if I can get a larger and brighter font.  So if things look a bit wacky, you know why.

This is a rarity.  Tim Russert is used to making everyone else look bad.  But on Sunday's Meet the Press when he interviewed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he was one that sat in the hotseat.

It all started when Russert asked him about the now-infamous Q&A session in Iraq.  Just like other media outlets, as I discussed here, Rumsfeld response to a question about armor for tanks was taken out of context by Russert.

After Russert showed "selected" clips of Rumsfeld's response, here's what transpired:

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  Yeah, but wait a minute.  Let me get into this a little bit.

MR. RUSSERT:  Sure.

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  That was unfair and it was selectively taking out two sentences from a long exchange--there it is--that took place.  And when you suggested that that's how I answered that question, that is factually wrong.

MR. RUSSERT:  No, we...

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  That is not how I answered that question.

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Mr. Secretary, it clearly represents the exchange and...

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  It does not.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right.  What is missing?

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  You want to hear the exchange?  There is it.  It's right here.  I'll read it to you.

MR. RUSSERT:  I just...

SEC'Y RUMSFELD:  If you're going to quote pieces of it, I'll give you the exchange.

Now, that answer is totally different from picking out two lines.  And I think it's an unfair representation and it's exactly what some of the newspapers around the country did.  Now, let's go back to Susan Collins' comment, Senator Collins...

The Pentagon chief predicted that by mid-February "there will not be a vehicle moving around in Iraq outside of a protected compound with American soldiers in it that does not have an appropriate level of armor."

But Russert replied: "Which is a pretty dramatic change, because Newsweek had said that, of the 19,000 Humvees in the Iraqi theater, according to the Army's latest numbers, only a quarter were fully armored. So the fact is that Specialist Wilson's question in front of his troops in which he was cheered was helpful in getting people to truly focus and respond to this. Fair?"

To which Rumsfeld responded: "Well, you saw my answer."

UPDATE:  Via Booker, The Toronto Sun cites sources that say she has audio tapes of telephone conversations between the accuser and Cosby.  According to their sources, she has already given the tapes to Montgomery County's DA.  That doesn't sound too good.