What is Joe Klein For?

Stories

What Are They For?

I’m sure most readers know why I
highlight the absurdity that is Joe Klein on a regular basis, but maybe
I should explain. The institution of Elite Punditry is premised on the
notion that there are smart people with good judgment who have the
unique ability to distill the complexity of the world, and nuance which
is potentially not present in straight news stories, into an
understandable narrative. Their role isn’t simply to opine, but to
provide guidance and analysis – tempered by that supposed good judgment
– for people who presumably have less time than they do to sort through
the all of the news of the day. And, at times, especially when they go
on the teevee on roundtable or other situations when there are a
variety of viewpoints being expressed, they are there to represent, if
not parrot, an ideological position. So, when Shields and Brooks go on
the Newshour every Friday their role is, in part, to represent the
liberal and conservative viewpoints at least in broad terms.

Klein
has failed on all of these counts. On Iraq, he failed to have, or at
least express, good judgment. On the teevee where he plays “the
liberal,” he not only didn’t take the anti-war position, he actually
took the pro-war position.

Even worse than that, he wants to
absolve himself of any responsibility, undermining the entire premise
of Elite Punditry – That Words Mean Things and They Matter. If Joe
Klein thinks there should be no accountability for the positions held
by Elite Pundits, that their influence is unimportant and irrelevant,
then it isn’t clear what exactly they’re for. His judgment sucks and
that doesn’t matter, Klein seems to think. He had a chance to take a
stand when it mattered, and he didn’t, and that doesn’t matter, Klein
seems to think.

Fine. So why the hell should anyone listen to him?

Eschaton

Mike Stark Interviews Jonah Goldberg

Stories

Now
I had my IPod recorder with me, but somehow forgot to turn it on.
 We all know Jonah is an honest sort of fellow, though, so I’m
sure there won’t be any dispute.

Jonah, I asked, may I put you on the record?  He assented and
it was off to the races.  The following is paraphrased and
reasonably accurate (nothing is entirely pulled out of my ass – the
questions were all asked and answered in the spirit they are presented
here).

Me:  Jonah, can I put you on the record?

Jonah:  Sure, sure…

Me:  Great…  Listen, something that
has always bothered me is that I don’t think there was ever any real
honesty in the whole lead up to the war or at any point afterwards from
this administration.  I just don’t understand why you folks afford
them so much credibility, over and over again…  For example, the
war was sold premised largely on the idea that Saddam with WMD was an
intolerable risk…  that the nuclear threat, in particular, was
impossible to ignore and required action…

Jonah:  Yeah…

Me:  But then when we took Iraq, it took us
weeks to secure the largest known nuclear site, Tuwaitha, and in fact,
by the time we got there, all the UN seals had been busted and the
entire facility had been looted.  Why didn’t you folks on the
right immediately begin to question your leadership?  This was
summer of 2003 – accountability then would have meant something…

Jonah:  Well, I’m not intimately familiar with the details of that incident, but, it’s war…

Me:  Well, when we took Baghdad, we
surrounded the oil ministry with over 50 tanks and had snipers
stationed on every floor in order to keep it well protected – meanwhile
the rest of Baghdad was looted – including the Ministry of Defense and
Intelligence…  Don’t you think if the war was really about WMD,
we might have been concerned about preserving records in those
buildings?  Why would we only protect the Oil Ministry?

Jonah:  Well, I obviously wasn’t a General
in Baghdad and had nothing to do with war plans, so I can’t really
speak to the issues they faced.  But I’ve been more than willing
to say that there has been an incredible level of incompetence
tolerated in the planning and waging of this war – that there are all
sorts of choke points that could have and should have been managed
better…

Me:  Well, I’d begin that retrospective with
the idea of going to war in the first place.  I was one of the
protestors in NYC in Feb 2003 – I knew we were going to war then and I
knew it wasn’t necessary.  The French, for example, were
advocating beefed up inspections.  Now, I’m not sure exactly what
they had in mind, but for me, that means you give the inspectors some
serious military support – you give them a team of apaches, light armor
and air support.  They surprise whatever facility they want to
inspect, demand entry within 15 minutes, and convey that the
consequences of non-compliance would be that the facility would be
bombed to dust.  Either way, in the end, you would know if Saddam
had WMD…

Jonah:  Sure…

Me:  And we wouldn’t have 150,000 troops in an intractible situation…

Jonah:  sure…

Me:  So the French were right!

Jonah:  Yeah, yeah…

Me:  Wait a minute Jonah – I just want to
repeat what I just said and remind you that you are on the record – I
said the French were right…  You agree…

Jonah:  yeah, yeah, yeah, the French were right…  but that was then…

Me:  Wow…  well thank you – this interview was really worth it!!

Daily Kos: My talk with Jonah Goldberg: He says the French were right!

U.S. government says war objector abandoned unit

Stories


Reuters from WaPo

By Daisuke Wakabayashi
Reuters
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; 3:25 PM

FORT LEWIS, Wash (Reuters) – The U.S. government began its
case against an Army officer being court-martialed for refusing
to fight in Iraq by accusing him on Tuesday of making
“disgraceful” statements and abandoning his unit.

First Lt. Ehren Watada faces up to four years in a military
prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted on a charge of
missing movements for not deploying to Iraq and two charges of
conduct unbecoming an officer for his criticism of the war.

Watada, whose supporters say is the first commissioned Army
officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq, has called the war
illegal and immoral. He rejected conscientious objector status,
saying he would be willing to fight in Afghanistan.

Government and defense lawyers laid out their arguments to
a seven-member panel of officers, the equivalent of a jury in a
civilian trial, who will determine Watada’s fate.

“The accused sat comfortably in his office while the
soldiers in his unit deployed to Iraq,” said Capt. Scott Van
Sweringen, the prosecuting attorney. “The manner and content of
his statements were disgraceful.”

Watada, 28, does not deny that he refused to go to Iraq,
criticized the war and accused U.S. President George W. Bush’s
administration of deceiving the American people to enter into a
war of aggression.

“There are no real facts in dispute here,” said Watada’s
lawyer, Eric Seitz. “The only real question is why.”

The defense aims to show that Watada acted on principle and
tried to avoid a public confrontation with the Army by offering
to resign his commission or fight elsewhere.

Seitz told reporters on Monday he would consider a lighter
sentence for Watada as a victory after the military judge
limited the scope of the defense strategy.

The judge, Lt. Col. John Head, denied the defense’s motion
to argue the legality of the war, saying it was not a matter
for a military court. He also disallowed the defense’s entire
witness list as irrelevant.

The two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer stem from
public comments Watada made encouraging soldiers “to throw down
their weapons” to resist an authoritarian government at home.

Defense lawyers had intended to argue that his comments
were free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. The judge
decided prior to the trial that there are limits to an
officer’s rights to free speech.

The military panel will decide whether Watada’s criticism
amounted to misconduct posing a danger to the loyalty,
discipline, mission and morale of the troops.

“He was acting out of his own conscience. He was not
compelling anyone to act out,” said Seitz. “At most, he engaged
in an act of civil disobedience.”

The defense is expected to present its case on Wednesday.
If a guilty verdict is returned, the trial will enter the
sentencing phase.

© 2007 Reuters

llegal nanny in the basement. Frantic 911 phone calls. Midnight inauguration…

Stories

I At NevadaTODAY,
we round-up news links and offer opinion and analysis on the
always-entertaining Gov. Jim Gibbons of Nevada. Our Governor

 
makes your
Governor look pretty good!

DAVID KELLY COMMITS SUICIDE AFTER SPILLING THE BEANS ON IRAQ INTELLIGENCE

Stories

BBC NEWS | Politic

Hutton report in depth

Timeline: Hutton report

24 September, 2002

Iraq dossier published by the government.

The dossier of intelligence material was published to highlight what
Tony Blair considered the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the
foreword, he claimed that weapons of mass destruction could be launched
by Iraq within 45 minutes. In May the following year BBC reporter
Andrew Gilligan was to claim that this document had been
&”;sexed-up&”; by Downing Street and that the 45 minutes claim
was wrong.

22 May, 2003

Kelly tells Foreign Office official Patrick Lamb that he has spoken to the BBC.

29 May, 2003

Andrew Gilligan’s Today programme report is broadcast.

In his radio report Andrew Gilligan brought to light the concerns of
what he said was a senior source. The source had told him that the
intelligence community had not been comfortable with some of the
dossier’s contents, especially the 45 minute claim. On the day Downing
Street denied the thrust of Mr Gilligan’s story and said the dossier
was entirely the work of the intelligence services.

1 June, 2003

In the Mail on Sunday Gilligan says Alastair Campbell ‘sexed up’ the dossier

2 June, 2003

Newsnight broadcasts a story sourced from Dr Kelly.

Newsnight’s Science Editor, Susan Watts, reported that there were
problems with the 45 minute claim made in the dossier, calling it
&”;shaky&”;. br brHer reporting was also sourced from David
Kelly although her stories did not go as far as Andrew Gilligan’s in
pointing a finger at Alastair Campbell.

6 June, 2003

Campbell complains to the BBC about Gilligan.

Tony Blair’s communication chief challenged the BBC to stand by Andrew
Gilligan’s original story. In his letter to the Director of News,
Richard Sambrook, Mr Campbell said that the BBC’s reporting had given
the impression that the government took Britain into the war in Iraq on
a false basis.

17 June, 2003

Lamb tells deputy head of defence intelligence, Martin Howard, that Kelly had spoken to the BBC

19 June, 2003

Gilligan gives evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

25 June, 2003

Campbell gives evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

26 June, 2003

Campbell writes to the BBC, backing up his apology demand

27 June, 2003

Gilligan tells the BBC’s director of news the source for his story

30 June, 2003

Kelly writes to his line manager, admitting dealing with Gilligan

4 July, 2003

Kelly is warned against further contact with journalists by the MOD

7 July, 2003

Parliament clears Campbell of ‘sexing up’ the dossier.

After studying the issue MPs clear Alastair Campbell of including the
45 minute claim in the government’s dossier. Writing in the Mail on
Sunday in May Andrew Gilligan said his source believed the opposite.
MPs also said that Campbell &”;did not exert or seek to exert
improper influence&”; on the dossier’s production. Although the
committee did conclude that the 45 minute claim &”;did not warrant
the prominence given to it&”;.

9 July, 2003

Kelly is named in the press as Gilligan’s source.

When asked, the Ministry of Defence press office confirmed David
Kelly’s name as the source of Andrew Gilligan’s stories to a few print
journalists. This proved to be a crucial turn of events. Once Dr
Kelly’s name was out, he was caught up in a very intense row between
the government and the BBC. How his name became known is key to the
Hutton Inquiry.

15 July, 2003

Kelly appears before the Foreign Affairs Committee.

16 July, 2003

Kelly gives evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee

17 July, 2003

Kelly goes missing and is later found dead.

At 1520 BST Dr Kelly set off for a walk near his Oxfordshire home. When
he did not return his wife called the police at 2340 BST. The search
continued through the night but Dr Kelly’s body was not found until the
following day. It was presumed that his death was suicide after cuts to
his wrist were discovered. Tony Blair announced that a public inquiry
would be held into his death.

19 July, 2003

A post-mortem on Kelly is released

20 July, 2003

The BBC publicly acknowledges that Kelly was Gilligan’s source.

1 August, 2003

Lord Hutton’s inquiry investigating Kelly’s death officially opens.

11 August, 2003

The Hutton Inquiry starts taking evidence, Gilligan appears on day two.

During the first week of evidence Dr Kelly’s role in the production of
the dossier (he worked on the historical aspects of the paper and
advised on other parts) was set out. BBC reporters Andrew Gilligan,
Susan Watts and Gavin Hewitt all attended the inquiry. Andrew Gilligan
admitted that his reporting was &”;not perfect&”;.

19 August, 2003

The second week of evidence includes Alastair Campbell.

Week two was dominated by evidence from journalists and press officers.
Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s communications chief, attended the
inquiry and denied that he had anything to do with adding the 45
minutes claim to the dossier. Journalists from the Guardian, the
Observer and the Times also told of their dealings with Dr Kelly.

28 August, 2003

Tony Blair is the main witness for week three.

The prime minister’s appearance was the main headline from the third
week of the inquiry. He took full responsibility for the decisions
taken in relation to David Kelly. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon claimed
to know little about his department’s role in the affair. The BBC
Chairman Gavyn Davies also appeared, and admitted that he was unaware
of Andrew Gilligan’s editor’s opinion that Mr Gilligan’s 45 minute
claim report had been flawed.

1 September, 2003

The Kelly family appear at the inquiry in week four.

Dr Kelly’s wife, Janice, appeared at the beginning of the week. She was
followed by her daughter, Rachel. Their testimony painted in detail the
stress that Dr Kelly was under once his name was connected with Andrew
Gilligan’s story. Later in the week a former intelligence analyst shone
more light on the dossier’s production. Brian Jones told the inquiry
that in his opinion the dossier had been &”;over-egged&”; in
certain respects.

4 September, 2003

Part one of the inquiry closes

15 September, 2003

The Inquiry re-opens.

The inquiry re-opens with both Andrew Gilligan and the BBC director
general Greg Dyke giving evidence. On Monday Mr Dyke called Alastair
Campbell’s attacks on the BBC &”;unprecedented&”;. But he also
called Andrew Gilligan’s e-mail leaking Dr Kelly’s name to MPs
&”;unacceptable&”;. Appearing for the second time two days
later Mr Gilligan admitted making mistakes with his story. He put it
down to &”;a slip of the tongue&”; during a live broadcast.

22 September, 2003

Campbell and Hoon return.

Alastair Campbell and Geoff Hoon testify to the inquiry on the same
day. The defence secretary insisted that there wasn’t &”;the
slightest shred of evidence&”; that the government had deliberately
leaked Dr Kelly’s name. While the out-going government communications
chief had extracts from his diary published. They showed how he
believed that the naming of Dr Kelly would place Andrew Gilligan in a
very difficult position.

25 September, 2003

The inquiry closes.

The inquiry closes with Lord Hutton saying his report would be
published by December. Statements from the legal representatives of the
government, the BBC, Andrew Gilligan and the Kelly family were all
heard. The Kelly family QC said the weapons expert had been used by the
government &”;as a pawn in their political battle with the
BBC&”;. The government QC argued it was &”;completely
unjustified&”; to criticise the government for trying to reveal Dr
Kelly’s name.

28 January, 2004

Lord Hutton delivers his report

Lord Hutton delivers his longawaited report into the death of the
government weapons expert Dr David Kelly. In it he criticises BBC
journalist Andrew Gilligan for reporting “unfounded” allegations
against the government.

29 January, 2004

Greg Dyke resigns as director general

The director general became the second high profile casualty at the BBC
in the wake of the publication of Lord Hutton’s critical report. He was
replaced by Mark Byford on a temporary basis. Mr Dyke said that he
hoped his resignation would draw a line under the affair.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3099378.stm

Published: 2004/01/28 16:45:03 GMT
s | Timeline: Hutton report

STICKING TO THE SCRIPT :: FLASHBACK, HOWARD DEAN

Stories

above: HOW OUR FRIENDS HONOR THEIR DEAD

As Howard Dean’s behavior in the past days has become more
and more curious, it has also become more and more outlandish.
Dean continues to lash out at John Kerry as one who is hostage
to “the special interests” and even went so far as to
call him a Republican, no less. Dean’s proclivity for becoming
unhinged continues apace. Hardly a day passes without Dean providing
further proof that he is not fit to be the President of the United
States, let alone a primary election candidate.

It is a shame Dean doesn’t get it. He is finished, and as
Laurence O’Donnell of MSNBC so aptly put it on Dennis
Miller Live, Dean was already finished before his post Iowa
tirade. Laurence also astutely pointed out how embarrassing it
was for Al Gore and Bill Bradley to get suckered in to endorsing
Dr. Dean. As we suggested earlier on this site Dean probably peaked
on the day Gore endorsed him. From then on it was all down hill.

From: Analyze-Media.com/Television.html

According To Sources Familiar With The Probe: WALTER PINCUS/REPORTER

Stories

washingtonpost.com

Probe Focuses on Month Before Leak to Reporters

FBI Agents Tracing Linkage of Envoy to CIA Operative

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, October 12, 2003; Page A01


FBI agents investigating the disclosure of a CIA
officer’s identity have begun by examining events in the month before
the leak, when the CIA, the White House and Vice President Cheney’s
office first were asked about former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV’s
CIA-sponsored trip to Niger
,
 according to sources familiar with the
probe….. (irony alert)

The name of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, a clandestine case
officer, was revealed in a July 14 column by Robert D. Novak that
quoted two unidentified senior administration officials.

In their interviews, FBI agents are asking questions about events
going back to at least early June, the sources said. That indicates
investigators are examining not just who passed the information to
Novak and other reporters but also how Plame’s name may have first
become linked with Wilson and his mission, who did it and how the
information made its way around the government.

Administration sources said they believe that the officials who
discussed Plame were not trying to expose her, but were using the
information as a tool to try to persuade reporters to ignore Wilson.
The officials wanted to convince the reporters that he had benefited
from nepotism in being chosen for the mission.

What started as political gossip and damage control has become a
major criminal investigation that has already harmed the administration
and could be a problem for President Bush for months to come.

One reason investigators are looking back is that even before
Novak’s column appeared, government officials had been trying for more
than a month to convince journalists that Wilson’s mission was not as
important as it was being portrayed. Wilson concluded during the 2002
mission that there was no solid evidence for the administration’s
assertion that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Niger to develop
nuclear weapons, and he angered the White House when he became an
outspoken critic of the war.

The FBI is trying to determine when White House officials and
members of the vice president’s staff first focused on Wilson and
learned about his wife’s employment at the agency. One group that may
have known of the connection before that time is the handful of CIA
officers detailed to the White House, where they work primarily on the
National Security Council staff. A former NSC staff member said one or
more of those officers may have been aware of the Plame-Wilson
relationship.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in response to a
query for this article: “I think it would be counterproductive during
an ongoing investigation for me to chase rumors and speculation. The
president has directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that is
exactly what we are doing.”

Investigators are trying to establish the chain of events leading to
the leak because, for a successful prosecution under the law
prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of a covert U.S. officer’s name,
the disclosure must have been intentional, the accused must have known
the person was a covert officer and the identity must not have been
disclosed earlier.

The first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, albeit
without identifying him by name, was in the New York Times on May 6, in
a column by Nicholas D. Kristof. Kristof had been on a panel with
Wilson four days earlier, when the former ambassador said State
Department officials should know better than to say the United States
had been duped by forged documents that allegedly had proved a deal for
the uranium had been in the works between Iraq and Niger.

Wilson said he told Kristof about his trip to Niger on the condition
that Kristof must keep his name out of the column. When the column
appeared, it created little public stir, though it set a number of
reporters on the trail of the anonymous former ambassador. Kristof
confirmed that account.

The column mentioned the alleged role of the vice president’s office
for the first time. That was when Cheney aides became aware of Wilson’s
mission and they began asking questions about him within the
government, according to an administration official.

In the meantime, Wilson was pressing his case. He briefed two
congressional committees conducting inquiries into why the president
had mentioned the uranium allegation in his Jan. 28 State of the Union
address. He also began making frequent television appearances.

In early June, Wilson told his story to The Washington Post on the
condition that his name be withheld. On June 12, The Post published a
more complete account than Kristof’s of Wilson’s trip. Wilson has now
given permission to The Post to identify him as one source for that
article.

By that time, officials in the White House, Cheney’s office, the CIA
and the State Department were familiar with Wilson and his mission to
Niger.

Starting that week, the officials repeatedly played down the
importance of Wilson’s trip and its findings, saying it had been
authorized within the CIA’s nonproliferation section at a low level
without requiring the approval of senior agency officials. No one
brought up Wilson’s wife, and her employment at the agency was not
known at the time the article was published.

Wilson’s oral report to a CIA officer had been turned into a routine
one-and-a-half page CIA intelligence memo to the White House and other
agencies. By tradition, his identity as the source, even though he went
under the auspices of the CIA, was not disclosed.

“This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends,”
a senior intelligence official said last June in describing the
agency’s view of the mission. Regarding the allegation about Iraq
seeking uranium, the official said: “He relayed back to us that they
said it was not true and that he believed them.”

The Post article generated little public response. But behind the
scenes, Bush officials were concerned. “After the June story, a lot of
people in government were scurrying around asking who is this envoy and
why is he saying these things,” a senior administration official said.

Wilson said he attempted to increase pressure on the White House
the day after the June 12 article was published by calling some present
and former senior administration officials who know national security
adviser Condoleezza Rice. He wanted them to tell Rice that she was
wrong in her comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on June 8 that there may
be some intelligence “in the bowels of the agency,” but that no one
around her had any doubts about the uranium story.

Wilson said those officials told him Rice was not interested and he
should publish his story in his own name if he wanted to attract
attention.

On July 6, Wilson went public. In an interview published in The
Post, Wilson accused the administration of “misrepresenting the facts
on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war.” In
an opinion article the same day in the New York Times, he wrote that
“some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was
twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

On “Meet the Press” that day, Wilson said: “Either the
administration has some information that it has not shared with the
public or, yes, they were using the selective use of facts and
intelligence to bolster a decision in the case that had already been
made, a decision that had been made to go war.”

On July 7, the White House admitted it had been a mistake to include
the 16 words about uranium in Bush’s State of the Union speech. Four
days later, with the controversy dominating the airwaves and drowning
out the messages Bush intended to send during his trip in Africa, CIA
Director George J. Tenet took public blame for failing to have the
sentence removed.

That same week, two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s
identity to least six Washington journalists, an administration
official told The Post for an article published Sept. 28. The source
elaborated on the conversations last week, saying that officials
brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson.

“It was unsolicited,” the source said. “They were pushing back. They used everything they had.”

Novak has said he began interviewing Bush officials about Wilson
shortly after July 6, asking why such an outspoken Bush policy critic
was picked for the Niger mission. Novak reported that Wilson’s wife
worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction and that she was the
person who suggested Wilson for the job.

Officials have said Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon and
National Security Council senior director for African affairs, was not
chosen because of his wife.

On July 12, two days before Novak’s column, a Post reporter was told
by an administration official that the White House had not paid
attention to the former ambassador’s CIA-sponsored trip to Niger
because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the
agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame’s name was never
mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to
generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson’s report.

After Novak’s column appeared, several high-profile reporters told
Wilson that they had received calls from White House officials drawing
attention to his wife’s role. Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said she
received one of those calls.

Wilson said another reporter called him on July 21 and said he had
just hung up with Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove. The reporter quoted
Rove as describing Wilson’s wife as “fair game,” Wilson said. Newsweek
has identified that reporter as MSNBC television host Chris Matthews.
Spokespeople said Matthews was unavailable for comment.

McClellan, the White House spokesman, has denied that Rove was
involved in leaking classified material but has refused to discuss the
possibility of a campaign to call attention to the revelations in
Novak’s column.

On July 17, the Time magazine Web site reported that “some
government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to
syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame,
is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.” On July 22, Wilson appeared on NBC’s “Today” show and
said that disclosing the name of a U.S. intelligence officer would be
“a breach of national security,” could compromise that officer’s entire
network of contacts and could be a violation of federal law.

Wilson said that brought an immediate halt to the reports he had
been getting of anonymous attacks on him by White House officials.

An administration source said, “One of the greatest mysteries in all
this is what was really the rationale for doing it and doing it this
way.”

© 2003 washingtonpost.com

Borg Your Blog

Stories

PUBLICIZING YOUR BLOG

ICE Free Tag Generator – Add tags to each blog entry to increase exposure in Technorati (and other services), as well as tags that allow people to easily subscribe using Simpy, Delicious, and other tools (scroll to the bottom of this entry to see examples of the possibilities).
http://www.egmstrategy.com/ice/tag-generator.cfm

Add subscribe buttons – These subscription buttons will help visitors add your blog entry to visitors’ Simpy, Delicious accounts .
http://www.edsupport.cc/mguhlin/blog/archives/2006/07/entry_1728.htm

Bloglines Subscribe Button – Get a bloglines account and then put subscribe buttons on your site for Bloglines:
http://bloglines.com/about/subscribe

iTunes Subscribe button – Save this graphic, insert it into your blog, then add this link (but customize the italicized part with your own RSS feed, of course).
Be sure to leave the ?format=pcast at the end:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/mguhlin-podcasts?format=pcast

Technorati Tags – Go to Technorati and get your own account, then follow directions to get the Technorati code to add to your blog page. It will look something like this:

<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://embed.technorati.com/embed/q3gvitatm7.js”></script&gt;

http://www.technorati.com/signup/


TRACKING BLOG SUBSCRIBERS AND HITS:

Feedburner.com – Lets you track who’s subscribed to your RSS Feeds
http://feedburner.com

FeedBlitz – Allows people to subscribe to email versions of blog entries
http://www.feedblitz.com

BlogPatrol – Get a hit counter for your blog (tracks unique IP Addresses)
http://www.blogpatrol.com

StatCounter – Put this code on every page, and you can find out which of your blog entries are popular by counting the hits, etc.
http://www.statcounter.com

ClustrMaps – See visitors as red dots on your map of the world; works like a hit counter, too.
http://www.clustrmaps.com

GeoVisitors – Allows you to see who has visited your blog in the last 24 hours on a global map.
http://www.digitalpoint.com/tools/geovisitors/


COMMENTING AND CHAT

Haloscan – Enable commenting on your blog if it lacks that feature
http://www.haloscan.com

Gabbly.com – online chat
http://www.gabbly.com


BLOGROLLS, LINKROLLS, AND MORE

Blogrolling – lets you organize and easily share other blogs you read (this attracts traffic to your blog)
http://www.blogrolling.com/

OR,

Bloglines.com – if you are a a Bloglines.com user, you can turn your list of subscribed blogs into your blogroll. This prevents have to use a separate service (like Blogrolling previously mentioned) to show a list of subscriptions. I’ve now switched to this from Blogrolling (check the right sidebar on the FRONT page of this blog.
http://bloglines.com/help/share?tip=4

Simpy – let’s you bookmark sites and then share the list with others. Alternatives include Del.icio.us and Blinklist. I like Simpy most of all, though.
http://www.simpy.com
http://del.icio.us
http://www.blinklist.com

Read this quick how-to to add buttons that let people add your blog/entries to their bookmarks. You can create linkroll in your blog by following these instructions.

WikiSpaces.com – get your own wiki for free. Tell them you’re an educator and they remove all advertising
http://www.wikispaces.com

Library Thing – Lets you create and share your virtual booklist/reading with book covers, etc.
http://www.librarything.com/


MAKING A PODCAST

You can easily use free, web-based tools to create a podcast, as opposed to the more traditional use of Audacity, Acid, or Garageband.

Slapcast.com – Allows you to publish 3 audio files as podcasts, whether by uploading an MP3 file or calling a 1-888 number to record your podcast. After 3 podcasts, you have to pay $4.95 a month or subscribe to their service. Still, not a bad way to get started.
http://slapcast.com/

Clickcaster.com – Allows you to record/publish your podcasts, then sell them. Requires an account.
http://clickcaster.com

Odeo Studio – Allows you to create MP3 audio via a Web interface. You can also upload sound files, as well as record via phone. Includes syndication, etc.
http://studio.odeo.com/create/home

OurMedia – If you insist on using Audacity and/or other tools, then you should consider OurMedia and Internet Archive. I use both for publishing my audio.
http://www.ourmedia.org/help/publish-audio

Internet Archive – Very easy to contribute audio if you’ve created it already (that is, you have an MP3 saved on your computer). Follow instructions to create an account and then use the CC Publisher tool, or go to the web site below to contribute.
http://www.archive.org/contribute.php


PUBLICIZING YOUR PODCASTS

Use any one of the 13 services mentioned to publicize your podcasts, or, search them for podcasts to listen to

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The great hobbit debate lives on, and it's coming to Philadelphia

Stories

Tom Avril
Philadelphia Inquirer

Is fossil a new little human or a deformed human?

The great hobbit debate lives on, and it’s coming to Philadelphia.

Do the fossils of a 3-foot-tall, small-brained creature represent a new humanoid species, or don’t they?

The scientists who first found those remains on an Indonesian island in 2003, including an 18,000-year-old skull, published their latest evidence last week in favor of a new species.

The other side, which includes Robert Eckhardt of Pennsylvania State University, remains skeptical.

Both Eckhardt and Florida State University’s Dean Falk, a leader of the pro-new-species team, plan to be in Philadelphia in March for the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Eckhardt maintains that the “hobbit” is merely a deformed human with some type of microcephaly, resulting in a brain one-third normal size. The fossils were found next to some advanced tools; Eckhardt says no creature with a brain that small could have made such tools, so they must have been made by the hobbit’s fellow humans.

In the latest paper, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Falk’s team used CAT scans to create a virtual model of what the new creature’s brain looked like. They compared that with the brains of both normal humans and microcephalics. Their conclusion: the hobbit – a nickname taken from the novels of J.R.R. Tolkien – is different from both.

Some participants in the debate have been less than civil; one has accused Falk’s team of being scientifically “naughty.” Eckhardt and Falk say they anticipate a collegial exchange in March, yet both hint that they may accuse the other side of errors.

“It will be a great, fun time,” says Eckhardt.

Adds Falk: “I can’t wait.”