3/21/2006

16 Responses to “WaPo Hosts Conservative Blog”

1. And CNN hired Bill Bennett, J.C. Watts and Glenn Beck.

   A perfumed pig.

   steve (56739f) — 3/21/2006 @ 6:53 pm

   
   

2. This is always an interesting question, since in this country the persistent allegation of media bias seems to be a fairly new thing. (I know the NYT has been more or less left-leaning for quite a while now, but beefing about it is a newer phenomenon.) In most of the rest of the free world, as I gather, the orientation of a paper is fairly well-understood to its readership/populace, and so this cycle of disappointment never really took root.

   I’ve tried a couple of times to come up with a mental list of the five best daily newspapers in the world, and it’s seemed to be:

   New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Times of London, Le Monde.

   Disclaimers: I speak English and French, so those are the boundaries of my universe. (I’m also gathering that non-anglophones don’t have quite the relationship to their newspapers that we do; certainly the massive Sunday paper is a more or less exclusively American thing.) I’m an east-coaster, so my exposure to American newspapers is affected by that, but my experience with midwestern papers (the Chicago Tribune, say) doesn’t lead me to reconsider the above list.

   It looks like three lefty and two righty papers (counting the Times of London) on that list. I dunno what to make of that. Is there another national-grade right-leaning US paper to consider? Some other international papers I’m too ingorant to take advantage of?

   Bobby (df25e0) — 3/21/2006 @ 11:09 pm

   
   

3. I think you’re wrong about that, Steve. The news reporting part of the post is sometimes an unperfumed pig, and the people who write the headlines are sometimes even worse. Nevertheless, the reporting does contain enough objectivity to keep it far ahead of the NYTimes (faint praise).

   But it’s the opinion editors at the WaPo who lift the organization to the top of the list. At least on the website, the paper’s blogs are part of their opinion page — so it’s no surprise that you would find a conservative blog among the others. And today’s editorial is just another example of the clear-headedness of the WaPo’s opinion editors.

   TNugent (6128b4) — 3/22/2006 @ 6:43 am

   
   

4. The Washington Post continually proves that it is the best major paper in the country.

   Weak. The dude is

   actus (6234ee) — 3/22/2006 @ 7:42 am

   
   

5. a creationist

   actus (6234ee) — 3/22/2006 @ 7:42 am

   
   

6. Ok, actus, if holding one irrational belief disqualifies him from commenting on everything else, then let’s disqualify everyone who believes in global warming, or believes that unionizing teachers actually improves the quality of public education, or thinks that if we had only let the inspectors do their job, Saddam’s weapons programs would have been permanently contained or derailed.

   TNugent (6128b4) — 3/22/2006 @ 7:59 am

   
   

7. I love lists:

   Or, who thinks Dems will lower your taxes.

   Or, who thinks AlGore won in Florida.

   Or, who thinks there’s anyone who actually has a job in a “working family.”

   Or, thinks Iraq is Vietnam all over again.

   Or, thinks Valerie Plame was a “covert agent.”

   Or, thinks there is no such thing as “liberal bais” in the MSM.

   Black Jack (d8da01) — 3/22/2006 @ 8:13 am

   
   

8. “Ok, actus, if holding one irrational belief disqualifies him from commenting on everything else

   Oh. Its going to be a fun ride at the WaPo.com.

   But now global warming is irrational like creationism. Its a fun ride over here too.

   actus (6234ee) — 3/22/2006 @ 8:34 am

   
   

9. So, you’ve already had your fill of the Kool-Aid, eh actus?

   Global warming is a religion, complete with its own version of the apocalypse, and its own means of achieving what it considers salvation (accept the Kyoto accords, don’t drive an SUV blah, blah blah). Its holy scripture consists of bogus, cherry-picked data and unvalidated computer models. Just as with other religious beliefs, its tenets may be true, but there’s no scientific reason to accept them. Intelligent design is more supportable than a belief that human activity is causing a potentially irrevocable and destructive warming of the planet. But both are matters of faith.

   TNugent (6128b4) — 3/22/2006 @ 1:50 pm

   
   

10. On a related topic, approximately one year ago (on 3/17/05) Patterico posted about proposed FEC regulation of blogs. Apparently that issue is back if this blog post is correct.

    DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/22/2006 @ 2:40 pm

    
    

11. “Global warming is a religion, complete with its own version of the apocalypse, and its own means of achieving what it considers salvation (accept the Kyoto accords, don’t drive an SUV blah, blah blah).”

    You disservice both science and religion with this crap.

    “Intelligent design is more supportable than a belief that human activity is causing a potentially irrevocable and destructive warming of the planet.”

    Intelligent design is a zero, a nullity, a fraud. Global warming? debatable, possibly even the consensus.

    actus (6234ee) — 3/22/2006 @ 8:39 pm

    
    

12. Intelligent design is a zero, a nullity, a fraud.

    Of course. But I thought the problem with ID was that it was NOT falsifiable? So which is it?

    I’m curious about the choice of words. A zero? A fraud? How so? Is there a straw man hiding here somewhere?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/23/2006 @ 12:02 am

    
    

13. Actus, you’re being Chef-like in your intolerance of criticism of your faith. My comment included the statement that ID is a matter of faith. It’s pretty clear that your issue is with my pointing out that Global Warmingism is also a matter of faith (your emotional response suggests that I’m right). I guess that makes me a heretic as far as the Global Warmingologists are concerned.

    Consensus, actus? Well, let’s start rewriting the history and science books now so that future generations will know that Galileo was wrong. We know this because there was then, as there is now regarding Global Warming, a consensus among the misinformed and gullible as to what constitutes the truth.

    TNugent (6128b4) — 3/23/2006 @ 7:19 am

    
    

14. “But I thought the problem with ID was that it was NOT falsifiable?”

    That’s part of what makes it a fraud.

    “I’m curious about the choice of words. A zero? A fraud? How so? ”

    Its nothing. It adds nothing. Calling it a zero is probably wrong though. Now that I think about it. It’s not that it has no effect on the debate, it has a negative effect on it. It takes religion and tries to pawn it off as non-religion. That’s the wrong way to debate. That’s the fraud.

    “Actus, you’re being Chef-like in your intolerance of criticism of your faith. ”

    You do both faith and science a disservice by confusing the two.

    “. It’s pretty clear that your issue is with my pointing out that Global Warmingism is also a matter of faith (your emotional response suggests that I’m right).”

    Whats emotional about my response? Global warming is a science being worked on, about which truths are being argued and capable of being argued. You can read some climate scientists discussing it at realclimate.org. ID? just a fraud.

    “We know this because there was then, as there is now regarding Global Warming, a consensus among the misinformed and gullible as to what constitutes the truth.”

    Why does their consensus matter?

    actus (6234ee) — 3/23/2006 @ 8:08 am

    
    

15. I’d never heard of this particular piece-of-shit blog until I read that you were proud of Ben
    “Plagarismo” Domenech.

    I hope you enjoy his blog while it lasts, because he’ll probably either resign or be fired on Friday.

    Every day I wake up I thank God that I am not a conservative fuckwit moron.

    [Indeed. You are one of the liberal variety. I guess they like those there at Cleveland State University Computer Services, where you posted from. Anyway, what is your evidence on this point — or do you just like to throw around accusations without evidence? — The Mgmt.]

    [UPDATE: Ah, never mind. Here it is. Well, if this is true, the guy should be fired. In any event, I never said I was proud of Domenech, which you would know if you had bothered to read my post. I said I was proud of the WaPo for publishing a conservative blog. But if the blogger is a plagiarist, then he should certainly be canned. — P]

    Italian Seasoned Croutons (423ac0) — 3/23/2006 @ 8:54 pm

    
    

16. ISC, very intelligent, civil and insightful comments.

    Give it time, perhaps you’ll grow …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/23/2006 @ 11:43 pm