Washblog

I've actively culled information sources which spew views which are against my interests.

I see no reason why I should fund people who are out to destroy me and everything I hold dear.

I will not read or listen to anything by the Bush enabling pundits. I've been wanting to create a list of insane people. To keep track, to share with others, and to make it easier to cull these viewpoints from my life.

Off of the top of my head: Karl Rove, Maureen Dowd, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, David Brooks, George Will, Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Joe Klein, James Carville, Sean Hannity...

I used to read The Economist, mostly to keep tabs on the enemy. The articles are generally good. But the editorial section is whacked. They sort of had a mea culpa in 2004 and endorsed Kerry. But it was a weak apology and I don't forgive them.

I don't have a TV (meaning I don't pay for cable). I donate to local public radio stations. I currently subscribe to Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and Scientific American.

---

That all said, I do plan on reading Markos' (kos) Newsweek article. Maybe online. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but less and less over time.

I won't watch the Shields-Brooks yapping on Lehrer (rarely watch it period)  because the sight and sound of David Brooks is offensive. He has an arrogant little smirk on his face at all times, even when addressing deadly serious topics, that says "We both know I'm full of shit, but I HAVE to do this spin, I'm paid to."

I put Rove in that category also. He's a paid liar, why would anyone pay attention, except to pick up the week's deceptive Repub talking points?

I stopped reading Newsweek long ago. Last year I was desperate for reading material during a 4-hour wait in an emergency room for a lacerated hand. The hospital wants to make it as miserable a wait as they can, so people won't choose to hang out there. The only read in the room was the N-rag.

The first page my eye fell on was a pro-Iraq occupation article - by William Kristol the NeoCon. That tells you all you need to know about Newsweek.

This is from Wikipedia:

On January 2, 2007, David Corn of The Nation posted a list of Mr. Kristol's pre-Iraq war statements "about the justification for the war, the costs of the war, the planning for the war, and the consequences of the war." All the statements listed have since been shown to be wrong, leading Mr. Corn to conclude that "Kristol displayed little judgment or expertise ... [I]n an effectively functioning market of opinion-trading, Kristol's views would be relegated to the bargain basement."

So if Kristol is bargain-basement punditry, Rove should be whatever basement is below even that.

Either the magazine believes that the thoughts of a progressive blogger are as important and meaningful as those of the creator of Dubya ... or they're saying that Rove's essays are as unimportant and meaningless as those penned by a 30-something computer nerd.

IOW, don't get your pants in such a tight bunch.  It's just an opinion piece, clearly labeled as such.  You'll know it's Rove's opinion, not Newsweek's, just as you'll know that what Markos writes isn't what the people running Newsweek are thinking.  In both cases, there's some value to hearing what a clearly-partisan observer has to offer, even if you vehemently disagree with every word.  And, unlike the immense majority of the "pundits" identified by zappini, Rove has BTDT.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
Blogging at Peace Tree Farm