Thursday, September 30, 2004

More live blogs, from Instapundit. 9:49:04 PM    comment []

Live debate blogging Bush blog Kerry blog NYT Lefty-blog fact check 9:28:36 PM    comment []

OK, here's an example of what I don't like about political ads on my site. The one running to the right today says, "Tired of conservative hate and lies?" That's one of the first things people see when they come to this page. That bothers me. Hate and lies are bad bad things, and sometimes some conservatives do hateful or dishonest things, but there's something about that phrase that makes it sound like hate and lies are defining tenets of conservatism. It's branding conservatives, and branding this page. In the ad we learn that radio moron Michael Savage said something dumb about Ted Kennedy. Who cares what Michael Savage says? And now he's the voice of conservatism? So that's an example of why political ads at this site make me uncomfortable. They talk about some of the stuff I talk about, but not in my voice, and not when I feel like talking about it, even when I do agree with them. The cheap tix ad, that doesn't bother me a bit. 3:11:50 PM    comment []

Playboy shoot gets Chapel Hill prof in hot water. Eric Muller has the details. Notes for discussion: The chemstry prof is named Malcolm Forbes. Questions: Is nude photography inherently exploitative? Are there nude figure studies in art classes at Chapel Hill? What do the women who posed for Playboy have to say about this? 3:00:38 PM    comment []

Wired News: Bush Team Prepares Net Assault "In some respects, the real debate, or a better semblance of one, will take place in cyberspace." UPDATE: A Democratic response site set up by Oliver Willis. 2:47:45 PM    comment []

News & Record editor John Robinson on the tension between blogs and corporate media: "Newspaper editors fighting it don't seem to know that they've already lost the battle. The only way to win now is to figure out how to play." 8:55:59 AM    comment []

I'll be nattering as part of the political roundtable on WUNC's State of Things, noon today, 91.5 FM, streamed here. 8:18:14 AM    comment []

I will be moderating the session on politics and weblogs at BloggerCon III, Stanford Law School, November 6. It will be more like the participant-driven, Jarvisesque local gig we did here in August than the formal panel on media I emceed at the first Harvard B-Con -- is it possible that was only a year ago? 8:11:30 AM    comment []

Martin Kozloff emails to say his letter does not represent his true beliefs. Strange, in that Kozloff left beneath the original letter a comment (September 27 at 10:45 PM) in response to all the huzzahs: "It's more than nice to know that my feelings are shared by so many other folks...thanks for making me feel less alone. And I am heartened to know that there are many other fellow hoplites in our country who are willing to defend our families, values, and freedoms." I asked him via email about that comment. He replied: "I thanked a lot of people (who had written me off line) for supporting the fact that I wrote a letter whose intent was to get people to think."   But the comment doesn't say anything about offline support. It concludes: "I was writing to express the burning rage I feel every time another of our soldiers is killed and every time politicians, media heads, and academics discredit our nation and weaken our morale. I was writing what I believe will happen if our enemies attack us again."   Atrios has some more info on Kozloff's past postings, and blogger Christian Grantham says he spoke to the professor yesterday.   Kozloff emailed me to say: "The letter is a fiction. A rhetorical device.  From a summary of what I take to changes in ordinary Americans as this war goes on.  I am very saddened and afraid that we will replace democratic discussion with violent rhetoric. I had hoped the letter would get people on both sides to look at themseles. And I said as much inj the comment section when it was clear that it had evoked such heat.  Unfortunately, they merely attacked me. I do NOT advocate any of the racist and violent statements in that letter.  Again, that letter is NOT what I advocate." I then emailed him this list of questions: What do you advocate in terms of relations with Americans of Arab-Muslim extraction?    How do you feel about the comments you receive at Horsefeathers that are in complete accord with the views stated in the letter?   If you are just adopting a persona in the letter, how does it jibe with previous posts at that site, and in comments elsewhere?   At what point are readers expected to understand your game?   Do you in fact own an arsenal of any size that you purchased after 9/11?   His response: "I can't answer all your questions, Ed. I can merely say, I DON'T ADVOCATE ANYTHING IN THAT LETTER. It was written to get people to look at THEMSELVES after I saw Jack Hensley beheaded, and then read some blogs that appluaded it and others that wanted to nuke the mideast. In other words, we are so polarized that rational discussion is nigh impossible. And THAT's the way Greek and Roman democracy died   So, I MADE UP a letter as if it were written by an angry "ordinary American," to get people to see their own reactions to it--both the right wing that would applaud and the left wing that would attack me.   Horsefeathers is usually a calm place.     I had NO idea just how polarized things are. And now I am even more afraid for our country--no matter HOW the war ends.   Again, THAT LETTER WAS NOT ME."   The original post has now vanished from Horsefeathers. The author of that blog has not responded to my query about his view of Kozloff's alleged trick on his readers. 8:01:05 AM    comment []