Amazing. CNN and Larry King just broadcast the tepid beginning of Michael Steele's speech before the RNC. And (so predictable it shouldn't surprise me) when he got into the middle of his speech and started to hammer on Kerry's record, CNN cut to a floor reporter who had nothing to say.

Yet there's no media bias.

CNN is pulling their oar on the Kerry rowboat with such incredible enthusiasm, they don't even notice that the boat's sinking. And it's taking them with it as it goes down.

In this vein, please, please read Professor Reynold's latest Tech Central Station column, if you are at all interested in the impact of blogging and the new media. i think he hits the nail right on the head.

The rise of the blogosphere is revealing the old media as an emperor with no clothes, which must get its act together or be crushed. Professional journalists are lazy, uneducated hacks, as i've said so many times before. When they have to compete with superb "amateurs" like Reynolds, Volokh, Hinderaker et al., Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, Wretchard, etc.* they can only lose.

Professional journalists simply can't match the top bloggers' ability to research and articulate the news at the speed of light. In the world of the new media, amateurs produce like professionals and the professionals are exposed as amateurs.

Reynolds quotes Hinderaker:

A bunch of amateurs, no matter how smart and enthusiastic, could never outperform professional neurosurgeons, because they lack the specialized training and experience necessary for that field. But what qualifications, exactly, does it take to be a journalist? What can they do that we can't? Nothing. Generally speaking, they don't know any more about primary data and raw sources of information than we do-- often less. Their general knowledge is often inadequate. Their superior resources should allow them to carry out investigations far beyond what we amateurs can do. But the reality is that the mainstream media rarely use those resources. Too many journalists are bored, biased and lazy.

Update: David Boxenhorn points out more strengths inherent in the new media.

Who would you trust more to give you the right answer? Four million randomly chosen people, or your buddies in the newsroom who were all chosen because the boss likes the way they think? The blogosphere has the characteristics of wise crowds, as set down by James Surowiecki:

1. Divesity of opinion – each person should have some private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the facts.


2. Independence – people’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them.


3. Decentralization – people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.


4. Aggregation – some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into collective decision.

Even if the mainstream media weren’t ingrown and biased, you would find that the blogs win – always.

* Yes, in spite of his few successes, i most intentionally omitted Andruw Sullivan, who is an intellectually dishonest, self-promoting shill.

Posted by: annika at 07:00 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 4 kb.

1 It would be interesting to know the SAT scores of those who major in journalism. My guess would be higher than education majors, but lower than most other subjects. We can't declare victory yet, though. The proportion of the population that reads blogs is still probably only 5% or so...a very influential 5%, but still far fewer than the people who get their news and opinions from the MSM.

Posted by: David Foster at August 31, 2004 09:04 PM (XUtCY)

2 Very well said, Annika

Posted by: jake at August 31, 2004 10:12 PM (h4tU8)

3 Funny, I came to the same conclusion about Sullivan about a year ago. He is ultimately a one issue guy who won't admit it to himself. The intellectual contortions that result make him not worth my time.

Posted by: Mark at September 01, 2004 05:45 AM (oQofX)

4 David, I happen to be good friends with a journalism major who was National Honor Society in HS and is quite intelligent & literate, so be careful about generalizations. As it is, she works as a technical writer and jokes that her degree is really in grammar.

Posted by: Victor at September 01, 2004 06:11 AM (L3qPK)

5 Excellent post! And Sullivan is a shill!

Posted by: Scof at September 01, 2004 07:44 AM (XCqS+)

6 "...i most intentionally omitted Andruw Sullivan, who is an intellectually dishonest, self-promoting shill." He became a one trick political pony a long time ago, and a hypocritical one at that. I actually don't mind single issue voters(okay, some of them are nuts). What does piss me off is when they claim NOT to be a single issue voter, just like Sullivan.

Posted by: physics geek at September 01, 2004 08:12 AM (Xvrs7)

7 I think the decline of the Old Media can also be traced, at least in part, to the moment that journalism stopped being a trade and started being an academic discipline. A hundred years ago, most journalists openly wore their politics on their sleeves, but they also went out and worked hard getting stories: they had no sense of entitlement. By contrast, modern hacks, as the secular priestly class they aspire to be, have been spoon-fed for generations with a mix of largely useless jargon-filled "communications theory" and self-important "journalists will save the world" political propaganda.

Posted by: Dave J at September 01, 2004 08:36 AM (VThvo)

8 Victor...of course there are exceptions. But is it coincidental that she works as a tech writer instead of a journalist...or is she just too smart to do journalism as it is now done?

Posted by: David Foster at September 01, 2004 09:12 AM (XUtCY)

9 Gawd u r so fucking right on.

Posted by: Casca at September 01, 2004 04:34 PM (q+PSF)

10 Should have seen the shithead editor of the NYT on Washington Journal this morning with Brian Lamb. What a fucking buffoon. He wasn't even capable of following the questions. His major at university... English Lit.

Posted by: Casca at September 01, 2004 04:43 PM (q+PSF)

11 "Link via Instapundit." Isn't that ironic when you could have gotten it from your own blogroll. Guess that's the strength of the Internet.

Posted by: NZB at September 02, 2004 05:29 AM (7Ucg1)

12 Fair question, David: She works as a technical writer because the pay is better, and has never worked as a journalist. She's liberal but practical

Posted by: Victor at September 02, 2004 07:00 AM (L3qPK)

13 As one who benefits from ongoing sharing of information, the blogoshere is just another example of evolution in action. There was a need for wide ranging, informed opinion and the dissemination of multiple sources of news. The current waddling excuse of "mainstream" news media will continue on for a time and will be slowly but inexorably replaced. By what? I don't know but that isn't important (at least not to me).

Posted by: Kelly at September 03, 2004 01:02 PM (kuGVj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The "old media" tomorrow will be saying that the Republicans went "negative" on the first night of the convention.

To that i say: "yesssssss!"

Politics is not a knitting club.

The Democrats are upset because a few delegates are wearing band-aids to mock Kerry's purple heart wounds. They want the RNC to crack down on this "inexcusable" behavior.

i say okay. Just as soon as the DNC cracks down on the "Bush=Hitler" signs outside. And the "Bush=Evil" signs inside MSG.

Until then, why not enjoy a nice cup of STFU, MacAuliffe.*

After Giuliani's rousing, albeit long-ass speech, Mara Liason* commented on the Michael More* moment in John McCain's equally good speech. She didn't like it. She said it was "a gift" to More and out of character for McCain.

i thought it was great, and i bet a lot of people agree with me.

So Mara, how about a nice cup of STFU for you, too.

Giuliani's speech was as if someone had translated Charles Krauthammer's address to the American Enterprise Institute into language that could resonate with the common man. And i was glad he did. It was the meat of his speech and he articulated the pro-war argument better than i've heard anyone in the administration explain it. Too bad the networks didn't cover it.

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.

They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorists were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was 'accommodation, appeasement and compromise.'

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

i think it was a good night for us Republicans.

* Nota bene for those new visitors out there: intentionally misspelled.

Posted by: annika at 09:27 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

1 You picked my favorite part of Rudy's speech. Well done.

Posted by: jake at August 30, 2004 10:04 PM (h4tU8)

2 I'm almost afraid to ask, but STFU?

Posted by: wobots at August 31, 2004 06:49 AM (djVNl)

3 anyone?

Posted by: annika! at August 31, 2004 07:27 AM (4RhLb)

4 Shut The F*** Up!

Posted by: Matt at August 31, 2004 07:55 AM (CF/QI)

5 I thought it was some sort of anti-mammalian thing that meant "Stop The Ferret Underworld". I did find it ironic that, after all his efforts (along with Feingold & others) to stifle speech McCain then gives one. & Guiliani...he speaks of the neccesity for defenidng ourselves against terrorists but did nothing to help the people of his city defend themselves against common street thugs. (i.e. his support of civilian disarmament). McCain, Guiliani, & Krauthammer are pro-war but anti-personal self defense. I would hope they are the exceptions but odds are they are typical of what's to come from the GOP unless it changes in a hurry. At least there'll be one real conservative who has some respect for the Right to Arms (as opposed to republican) at the convention. Unfortunately he's a democrat.

Posted by: Publicola at August 31, 2004 02:33 PM (Aao25)

6 I hope the GOP stays loyal to the NRA's cause, otherwise I'll have to vote Libertarian. Anyway, I found a link at some other blog that you might find amusing: http://blogmosis.com/pwguest/anarch_attack.mpeg It's a video of the anti-RNC mutants in NYC getting into fisticuffs with some of the Protest Warriors.

Posted by: reagan80 at August 31, 2004 02:58 PM (hlMFQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In this Chicago Sun Times piece:

A handful of Kerry's 'band of brothers' are traveling around with his campaign. Most of the rest, including a majority of his fellow swift boat commanders and 254 swiftees from Kerry's Coastal Squadron One, are opposed to his candidacy. That is an amazing ratio and, if snot-nosed American media grandees don't think there's a story there, maybe they ought to consider another line of work. To put it in terms they can understand, imagine if Dick Cheney campaigned for the presidency on the basis of his time at Halliburton, and a majority of the Halliburton board and 80 percent of the stockholders declared he was unfit for office. More to the point, on the swift vets' first major allegation -- Christmas in Cambodia -- the Kerry campaign has caved.

Thirty-five years on, having no appealing campaign themes, the senator decides to run for president on his biography. But for the last 20 years he's been a legislative non-entity. Before that, he was accusing his brave band of brothers of mutilation, rape and torture. He spent his early life at Swiss finishing school and his later life living off his wife's inheritance from her first husband. So, biography-wise, that leaves four months in Vietnam, which he talks about non-stop. That 1986 Senate speech is typical: It was supposed to be about Reagan policy in Central America, but like so many Kerry speeches and interviews somehow it winds up with yet another self-aggrandizing trip down memory lane.

Re: Kerry as a "legislative non-entity," allow me to recycle an old post of mine, about Clinton's regard for that great senator from Massachussetts, John Kerry. Bill didn't have much to say, in fact.

Link via Mark at The Scrolldown.

Posted by: annika at 07:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Regular listeners to Professor Hewitt's radio show are already aware of this story, but i thought i'd reiterate it with some links.

In the recent Colorado Senate primary, the pre-election buzz was that the GOP candidates, Pete Coors and Bob Schaffer, were in a statistical dead heat. In fact, AP repeated this assumption on the day of the election.

Then, Pete Coors won by a margin of 61% to 39%!

Twenty-two percentage points is a pretty decent margin of victory, and while the press avoided calling it a landslide (the Democratic candidate won his primary with 73% of the vote) i would not hesitate to call it just that.

How did the pre-election polls get it so wrong? Were the pollsters biased? Maybe not, the primary was between two Republicans, after all. Were the polling methods faulty? i don't know the details of that particular Colorado poll, but in my opinion, most polls are screwy and inaccurate by nature.

The only polls i put any stock in are Zogby's exit polls, because they've been shown to be the most accurate after the last two presidential elections.

Another problem with poll accuracy is that people who do vote are increasingly less likely to pick up the phone, thanks to telemarketing abuse. i don't think this problem necessarily favors one party over the other, but it does make the raw data suspect. And that requires the pollster to make assumptions about who is being underestimated when the pollster adjusts the numbers for "accuracy."

The point i want to make is this: i think there's a lot more support for the GOP, and specifically for Bush-Cheney, than the pollsters and the media are willing to recognize or admit. Most of the presidential polling is deliberately skewed in favor of the Democrats, in my opinion. (Dick Morris explains how the media accomplish and justify thier biased polling in his book, Off With Their Heads.) i'm not saying the pollsters are lying. i just think they overestimate the amount of Democratic support when they adjust the raw data.

The Coors election shows how wrong the polls can be. The lesson i'm hoping to extrapolate from Colorado is that in this post 9/11 era, polling and voting are two vastly different things. i think people are a lot more serious about their vote when they actually get in the booth. They may support any number of candidates during pre-election polls, but when it's time to pull the lever, i think there's a newfound tendency to lean towards the conservative side.

i'll be very interested to see if my theory holds true in November.

Posted by: annika at 10:46 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

MTV.com, a highly respected and perfectly objective news source, thinks that a certain personal lifestyle choice of New Jersey governor James McGreevey's is none of your damn business.

No, i'm not talking about his sexual preference. In fact, i'm sure they're overjoyed that McGreevey has come out of the closet.

But why won't they tell us that he's a Democrat?

Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

Posted by: annika at 03:56 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Isn't the fact that Kerry pronounced "Genghis Khan" as if it were spelled with two J's enough to disqualify him for sheer annoyingness?

Maybe not. But the full quote, considering the fact that it is a BOLDFACED LIE, is more than enough to disqualify him from getting my vote:

. . . not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . .

They told the stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . .
[emphasis added]

Whether or not he was in Cambodia or whether he deserved his medals or whatever else he's being pilloried for nowadays, it's the "Winter Soldier" statement that i personally can't forgive him for.

More: Kerry is such a pompous ass, i'm surprised he didn't say "reminiscent of Temujin."

Posted by: annika at 04:50 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

1 He gave as his source for these atrocities a list of “soldiers” that he had talked to. Not one of those “soldiers” had been in Vietnam and most of them had never been in the military. It was all made up. This week Kerry said he got carried away and misspoke. He says this even though there are tapes of him reading his prepared speech to the Senate Committee.

Posted by: jake at August 10, 2004 05:00 PM (h4tU8)

2 What a good sign that your species is going to be so easy to conquer that some of you actually think this Kerry guy would be a good leader. Mwuhahahaha! Dum - dum - dum - dummmmm!

Posted by: Zongo the Ruthless at August 10, 2004 05:45 PM (G5PGV)

3 Here is an example of a bold-faced lie: John Kerry is a great guy. Kerry's lie about Genghis Khan, by contrast, was a bald-faced lie.

Posted by: Xrlq at August 10, 2004 05:59 PM (3AgfD)

4 "But the full quote, considering the fact that it is a BOLDFACED LIE, is more than enough to disqualify him from getting my vote..." Damn Miss Annika, I wonder if Kerry realizes how close you were to throwing your support behind him & how he blew it? I think he'd regret it if he knew you were on the fence till that quote came to your attention.

Posted by: Publicola at August 10, 2004 07:29 PM (Aao25)

5 As a fan of Bush and not Kerry, I have to admit that Bush's butchering of the English language is just as annoying. I can't believe noone on his staff has said "psst, Mr. President, its pronouced nu-clear ... not nuke-cular"

Posted by: Peter at August 10, 2004 08:16 PM (7435K)

6 Peter, why did no one ask Jimmy Carter the same thing? As much as I can't stand him, could it, perhaps, do you think, have anything to do with the fact that he was an engineer on a nuclear submarine, and still pronounced it that way? That's the way the word is pronounced in the South; get over it.

Posted by: Dave J at August 11, 2004 07:08 AM (VThvo)

7 Publicola, are you getting me back for that 2% joke i made? ; ) Dave J is right, Peter. i myself have heard Carter pronounce it "nucular." Like i said about Teddy Kennedy's butchering of the language, Carter gets a pass from the media because he's a democrat.

Posted by: annika at August 11, 2004 08:25 AM (zAOEU)

8 on the first day of nuclear physics ('for the informed citizen,' let's not pretend i'm a smarty) our prof spent forever making sure nobody left that room saying nucular. it's a pet peeve for me too. anyway. annika, i feel the same way. kerry's repeated lies are no misspeak. and he's not denying any of it, or even owning up to his past like bush did over his mistakes. the white house won't take him to task for it because bush didn't serve in vietnam at all and they don't want that to be an issue in the campaign. but the rest of us should not be afraid to condemn such blatant dishonesty. the medals thing is because one purple heart was self inflicted and another was from a rice grain, they were all insignificant and his means of getting out early (after four and a half months). he saved jim rassman when the guy fell from his boat because john kerry was quickly running away from fire instead of sticking it out with the other boats. he's so phony it hurts, and it's not even worth keeping track of all his lies. but his testimony is by far the lowest act.

Posted by: candace at August 11, 2004 09:47 AM (bkDNd)

9 annika, go find the Simpsons clip where the spoiled nephew (?) of Mayor Quimby forces a French waiter to repronounce the word "chowder" over and over. "It's Chow-der, Frenchie, not Chaud-er. . . "

Posted by: jcrue at August 11, 2004 05:20 PM (G9kk0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

That line works much better with the visual aids.

Picture nabbed from INDC Journal. Read about Kerry's football faux pas there.

Posted by: annika at 09:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

The Democratic Party is the party of anti-Christian hatred, their false "inclusiveness" rhetoric at the convention notwithstanding.

On July 23, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe announced the appointment of Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson as the Senior Advisor for Religious Outreach; she is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

Brenda has dedicated her life to showing us all how religion and politics intersect with integrity . . . We are proud to have her join the DNC, in order to spread John Kerry's positive vision to people of all faiths."

Unfortunately, that's complete bullshit.

Catholic League president, Dr. William Donohue said:

Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson was one of thirty-two clergy members to file an amicus curiae brief in behalf of Michael NewdowÂ’s attempt to excise the words ‘under GodÂ’ from the Pledge of Allegiance. The brief shows infinitely more concern for the sensibilities of atheists like Newdow than it does for the 90 percent of Americans who believe in God. And this is the person the Democrats want to dispatch to meet with the heads of religious organizations? Are they out of their minds? Would they hire a gay basher to reach out to homosexuals? [link omitted]

Thanks Dems. There should now be no doubt about where you stand.

Link via Bill.

Posted by: annika at 03:35 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Regarding stem cell research, at the Democratic Convention, Ron Reagan said:

[I]t does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?

It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings — that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person — parent, a spouse, a child.

But Ron, you failed to directly answer the central question. The one question that must be answered before anyone goes tinkering around in this area. The most important question of all: Is it a human life?

Posted by: annika at 09:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

From NRO, a column by a Los Angeles Police officer makes the following points:

[C]ops and firefighters are inherently conservative in that they understand the importance of following society's rules. Unlike John Kerry, they don't find 'nuance' in every question that confronts them. In their daily duties they see the often-deadly consequences that result when people fail to do what society expects of them. Nearly every call to 9-1-1 is the result of someone concluding that these rules, be they the criminal laws or the fire codes, can be ignored. They did a good job of hiding it last week, but the Democrats are the party of libertinism, the price of which is well known to those who come when people call for help.

Second, cops and firefighters are, if the women in the ranks will forgive the expression, Regular Guys. They drink beer, not wine, and certainly not French wine. They played football and baseball in high school, not lacrosse. Regular Guys think Al Sharpton is a fraud and Michael Moore (who pretends to be a Regular Guy) is a fool, and they think Ted Kennedy is a criminal. Regular Guys do not blame Secret Service agents (who are Regular Guys) for knocking them down on the ski slopes, especially when those agents are there to take bullets for them. And Regular Guys relate to and prefer the company of other Regular Guys; they do not invite people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck to their conventions.

Even with the piles of dough they're sitting on, both George Bush and Dick Cheney still come across as Regular Guys, the kind of men you might find hanging around the fire station or the detective squad room. And with his recent suggestion to Pat Leahy on how he might spend his idle time, the vice president climbed several notches on the Regular Guy scale. John Kerry, on the other hand, owing to his valorous service in Vietnam, might have been a Regular Guy years ago, but he surrendered his membership when he came home to join the Jane Fonda crowd and brand his former comrades as war criminals. And whatever tenuous grip he may have had on Regular Guy status since then was lost when he married his current wife. Old-fashioned notions of chivalry prevent me from offering my full opinion on her here, but Regular Guys do not under any circumstances marry women like Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Posted by: annika at 11:26 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Regular Guys donÂ’t get 3 Purple Hearts for three bandages placed over three scratches. Regular Guys have to spend weeks in a hospital before they get a Purple Heart.

Posted by: Jake at August 03, 2004 12:09 PM (h4tU8)

2 "Unlike John Kerry, they don't find 'nuance' in every question that confronts them"...I think that the kind of work people do has an immense influence on their political and philosophical beliefs. People who work with things that are "real" and inflexible--farmers, machinists, engineers--don't tend to worship nuance. This *doesn't* mean that they don't understand it. An aeronautical engineer knows well that there is no perfectly good design; that there are "shades of gray" and tradeoffs among many factors....but he also knows that at some point the tradeoffs must be resolved, decisions must be made, and metal must be cut. People who spend their entire lives in a purely verbal environment often fail to recognize this. I think the "lifestyle" factors (beer vs wine, etc) are secondary to this factor.

Posted by: David Foster at August 03, 2004 02:38 PM (XUtCY)

3 I'm a full-time fireman at a fairly large city (250k), and I'm also one of the ones that actually goes into fires. Sadly, my city is one of those liberal stains on the map, and I'd guess a full half of our dept (about 400 FFs) falls into the Kerry column. Unfortunately, of those voting for Kerry, the overwhelming majority of them are just voting lockstep. Most of them are actually conservative, just as Dunphy implies, but at the same time couldn't imagine voting for Bush. It's a sad reality that the union mentality (or lack thereof) has brainwashed these men. If these guys (and their civilian counterparts) could resolve the internal conflict of BEING conservative, but THINKING of themselves as democrats, the GOP would win by a landslide. Every time. Only fear mongering and demagoguery keeps the Kerry (or Gore, in the past) troops in line. As for me, I was a Republican long before I got this job ten years ago, and it never occurred to me to vote the IAFF party line. I even have a "Firefighters for Bush" bumper sticker on my truck. Incidentally, IAFF never inquired as to my party affiliation. Asshats. Incidentally, regular guy that I am, I can appreciate beer AND wine.

Posted by: Andy at August 03, 2004 09:01 PM (bpH79)

4 Heavens. I am certainly not a regular guy, but I think a lot of any man who is willing to marry a strong, opinionated, spunky woman like THK. In terms of a conversation partner, I'd rather be married to her than Laura Bush (based on what I can tell!)

Posted by: Hugo at August 04, 2004 08:55 AM (ntfdi)

5 "Opinionated" is good, but only when the individual has thought seriously and deeply about their opinions...otherwise, it is just blather. Opinionated human beings--male or female--are not rare at all; what is much rarer is the individual who (a)listens to others and (b)thinks seriously and self-critically about their own opinions.

Posted by: David Foster at August 04, 2004 12:44 PM (E+yz/)

6 I'm sure JK can tap into an infinite supply of patience, understanding and nuance just by thinking fondly of 500+ million dollars.

Posted by: Andy at August 05, 2004 06:54 AM (bpH79)

7 Find the whole truth: http://www.regularguysforbush.org http://www.cheesesteakveteransfortruth.org

Posted by: REgular Joe at October 15, 2004 05:58 AM (AaBEz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment