Merrier-Go-Round!

Kosmatic! The Daily Kos debacle continues to shake and bake through the blogosphere! Instapundit offers some further comments on his motivations in criticizing Kos. Michael Friedman shows some of his own anxiety about the effects of the boycott he urged and offers a further defense of his own position. Meanwhile, Atrios announces changes in his own policies for fundraising and advertising; check out the moderation in language, baby! (Sorry about the snark.) Matt Stoller (HT: Atrios) attempts to frame the whole situation within a bigger (media) picture.
Cliff-hanging question: Will Andrew Sullivan offer his take? (Big Media) Matt Yglesias? Keep your eyes glued to your screens...
All that said, it's understandable to have some angst about the whole situation. While Kos did say something pretty bad/dumb/insensitive/impolitic, this may presage a trend (as many feared) of a closing down of some of the wonders of the blogosphere. Old days: links to anyone and everyone (trifle idyllic maybe, but not totally off-base), free association, and an abundance of commentary. New days: "I don't give away links for free, you know..." and other poverties. Already, and the comments section of blogs often give some demonstration of this, we see the variety of conversation reduced to

"But didn't you once say blah blah blah?"
"Yeah, but what about what you said on 7/14/02 at 9:14 PM...."

There's nothing wrong with trying to establish consistency, but is the blog world willing to let people change? Gotcha games only go so far, and let's not allow the snarkmeisters to forget that. And now, we start trying to make people responsible for those they link to? Now, that does open a can of worms--how far is too far? It's about keeping a healthy moderation (one of the classical failings of the online world). And about keeping an open mind (if that's still possible in Blogistan).
Of course, as others have said, this controversy may be a sign of the growing power and influence of blogs. Carping politicians couldn't be pulling their ads if they weren't posting them in the first place. Ah, the hyperhysteria of politics. I, of course, have the perfect solution; no one's advertising on me, and I have no pull at all! Who could I cave in to? Gulp Notice the dangerous assumptions and presumptions that question might pose...

Let's not take this story in the Washington Post about US/UN/Iraq relations too far. Being ready to "listen to" any suggestions by the UN does not necessarily imply that we need to follow them. The emphasis on the deadline may just be another way of saving face; we may very well have set the deadline too soon, but, in the game of foreign policy, nobody likes to admit that they were wrong and will try to avoid it if possible. Certainly, US policy for the restructuring of Iraq has hit a number of points of confusion and trouble, but so do (almost) every plans for a new government. Being open to new ideas hardly seems like a complete capitulation to/demonstration of political-cynical manipulation. I will say, of course, that even inviting someone to speak does make it more likely that you will follow what they say to some extent; it could create some political difficulties if the US ignores/contradicts what the UN has to say after turning to it for advice. While there may have been elements of political opportunism in making the war, I believe (at least, I fervently hope) that such considerations are the not only motivating factor for the administration at this point (insert other reasons, for praise or blame, here).
That said, I think we do need to be wary about letting our policy be dominated by foreign bodies, especially when these bodies have voices in them with interests profoundly opposed to those of the US and a liberalized Iraq. It's probably unwise to heighten the sense (whether grounded in reality or not) of growing chaos and panic through such vague and broad language; it smacks too much of desperation.
(Post inspired by taking a look at Calpundit on this issue.)

What a horse race! When you look at all this "Campaign 2004" talk, especially for the Democrats, isn't it fascinating (and, perhaps, troubling) how much the media (i.e. "old media"--bloggers are often more issue-based) emphasizes the sense of competition among candidates? All the "top stories" are about how well Kerry or Dean or Edwards or Clark or whoever is doing in the polls. Sure, we're right behind a vote, and strategy and campaigning are crucial at these times and, frankly, throughout campaign season, but sometimes it all becomes too much. What about what a candidate is actually saying? Dean (or, perhaps, as the media begins to beat its drums, Kerry) as the anti-Bush is all well and good, but what does that mean? For some matters (such as gay marriage/civil unions), it's hard enough to figure out what Bush means by them, let alone what the anti-Bush would represent. Unless, of course, the anti-Bush has the "clarity" that Bush lacks....but...er....I mean....well, never mind.
Sure, the media folks are trying to get ratings--that's their job--but do people really prefer the horse race to other reports, and, if so, why do they? Tracking polls certainly are exciting, but listening to (insert name of choice politician here) speak can offer its own opportunities for amusement and, in some cases, excitement.

Checking out the latest Billboard Chart, it seems as though OutKast still tops the charts with over seven million albums sold, and (shock, horror!) the album's been out for over seventeen weeks. Now whether you care for Big Boi and Andre 3000 or not, you can probably admit that this clearly shows that albums can still sell in the file-swapping age; if they feel sufficiently persuaded, people will still buy. On another note, I at least find it surprising how fast Britney's album has dropped down the charts compared to her previous albums. Who woulda thunk that Toby Keith would have sold more albums than everyone's favorite (well, almost...maybe?) pop idol? Of course, Britney also has ties to loads of other markets in a way that overpowers many of her contemporaries, and she can captivate the press like nobody's business at the moment. The music's just one aspect of the Britney Spears industry. And I, for one, find nothing wrong with being industrious.

How does Moby always get into these scrapes? I like Moby's attempt to score some political "points" with a line like this:

Moby told me: "The only good to come of this is that the extreme right has shown their true colors. ...Bush is masquerading as a 'compassionate conservative,' but they've now exposed their extremely right-wing, misogynistic, racist agenda."

Like a few emailers contaminate the whole Republican party. I don't smear the Democratic party with a few socialist revolution radicals, and the Republicans shouldn't be blamed for the words of a few outsiders on their "behalf." I'm all for a little excitement and all, but let's not get too carried away. Nice reporting by Lloyd Grove. (As if that needs mention!)

It's a new day, and new time! Let's start posting! I guess.....let the masses come! My words are honey-sweet and plentiful!