Democratic Underground features tdaxp!

I’ve criticized Democratic Underground before, but mad props to DU for shouting-out tdaxp!


Some comments on the tdaxp article “4GPS1 v 4GPS2 (Netroots Think 4GPS1 Is More Important)

karynnj (1000+ posts) says:

It puts into very elegant form what many hear have argued about Kos. The most serious thing is that it’s likely not just Kerry. Kos will likely continue doing this. It’s interesting that the analysis posits that Kerry’s positions expand the party, Kos’s will continually shrink it to get to the perfectly pure people they agree with.

whometense (1000+ posts) says:

His technical political terminology slowed me down a bit, but I find his diagrams fascinating. It’s the first thing I’ve read (though probably there’s a lot out there that political scientists are aware of) that demonstrates the lefty freeper phenomenon in a scientific way.

beachmom (749 posts) says:

That diagram is disheartening, isn’t it? The media hasn’t really picked up on this too much, so hopefully nobody will know how bad the underbelly of our rank and file has gotten . . .

globalvillage (1000+ posts) says:

I can’t decide if the writer is correct, that kos and his ilk are intentionally subverting liberals and moderate Dems for some narrow ideological purpose, or if his ego is just so massive that he can’t stand to be wrong (bush* syndrome)and lashes out in response like a child having a tantrum. Whatever his motivation, this absolutely describes the result.
But the diagrams are particularly fascinating. Like someone snapped a photo of the left and the freepers, pixellated it and blew the dots up really big. That one with the big X through is is scary.

The diagram that got so much attention.


Read the tdaxp original, or the Democratic Underground reaction.

New York Times Ombudsman on Bookgate

Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence,” Byron Calame, New York Times, 1 January 2006, (from Drudge Report).

The second “public editor” of the , , criticizes his employer for covering up the circumstances around the release of possibly damaging information

The New York Times’s explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper’s repeated pledges of greater transparency.

For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush’s secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States.

I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.

Despite this stonewalling, my objectives today are to assess the flawed handling of the original explanation of the article’s path into print, and to offer a few thoughts on some factors that could have affected the timing of the article. My intention is to do so with special care, because my 40-plus years of newspapering leave me keenly aware that some of the toughest calls an editor can face are involved here – those related to intelligence gathering, election-time investigative articles and protection of sources. On these matters, reasonable disagreements can abound inside the newsroom.

Unlike whistleblowing in the face of subversion, this is troublesome. Revealing methods is dangerous, even if using foreign assets for surveillance is old news.

Let’s hope this is investigated, and the criminals are properly punished.

Caption this Blog!

I lost a medium quality post when my computer restarted, and I’m too exhausted to rewrite it (the exhaustion was explained in the lost post, by the way), so I’ll jump right to the end. tdaxp needs a new motto. So far its had “The Experience” and “Because a Great Nation Deserves Victory.” A new banner will be appearing at the top of all tdaxp pages soon. What snappy expression should go along with it?

Update: The new motto is Beauty, Victory, God

The new banner, for posterity:


The photo was taken the same day as my photo series, The Twilight Demolition of the Leaning Tower of Zip in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. My previous banner, as well as the original and original prototypes, are also available.