Category: Main

Four days since the last new episode! Withdrawal symptoms coming on. Can’t…breathe…

Here’s an appalling little exchange I heard on NPR this morning, where Senator Russ Feingold, everybody’s favorite defender of free speech, exercises his own to question the legitimacy of the elected Iraqi government.
Feingold was thrillled to point out that Iraqi leaders meeting in Egypt at an Arab League summit for a timetable for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. Steve Inskeep of NPR, to his credit, pointed out that the position of the elected government of Iraq differs from that expressed at the summit, but Feingold would have none of it (RealAudio):
Inskeep: “We heard earlier this hour from the national security advisor in Iraq, who said Iraqi politicians said [that they wanted a timetable for withdrawal] but the government of Iraq essentially agrees with the Bush administration.”
Feingold: That’s right: the government of Iraq that was produced basically as a result of an American occupation as opposed to a general consensus from the country is not the test. The test is what the major interests in the country said. The major interests in the country, the political parties, hey, these are the people that are going to decide the future of the country. If you got the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds all agreeing that we need a timetable, who do you listen do? Do you listen to them, or do you listen to these folks that have a very shaky government that frankly was a result — of course, of an election — but also of an American invasion of the country… that is a very bad way to ignore the wishes of the Iraqi people.”
Absolutely charming.
Another way of describing, as Feingold put it in disapproving tones, “a very shaky government that frankly was a result… of an American invasion of the country,” would be “One of the first democratic governments in the history of the Middle East which over two thousand American soldiers have given their lives to establish, and which many more stand in harm’s way every day to protect.”
I think my formulation is more appropriate, and I’d like to wager Senator Feingold that the vast majority of the American soldiers he protests so much to support with demands for a withdrawal timetable would agree with me.
I’d also appreciate if someone on Senator Feingold’s staff could explain to me the following:
a) If the good Senator truly means what he implies: that he does not accept the legitimacy of the elected Iraqi government.
b) Whether he believes that the foreign policy of the United States will be aided, or hindered, by casting such aspersions on the Iraqi government and de facto agreeing with the terrorists who, not incidentally, are also quite interested in undermining the credibility and legitimacy of the government in the eyes of Iraqis and the world
It is apparently not sufficient for Senator Feingold to focus exclusively on the failures which have undeniably occurred during the Iraq war. He now finds it necessary to also cast aspersions on the actual victories —- i.e., the conduct of elections and the establishment of a democratically, if imperfectly, elected government.
One has to wonder what, exactly, would constitute “success” for the Senator — other than, of course, the political humiliation of George W. Bush.

Folks:
I spent a large chunk of the Thanksgiving holiday revamping the Ecosystem’s algorithms and code as a part of my continuing effort to ensure that TTLB provides as useful a guide as possible to the best of the blogosphere.
Most of the changes are complete, but some are not, so bear with me for a few days as I complete the work. In particular, a significant change to Ecosystem ranking was implemented last night, so you may have seen significant shifts in particular blog’s rankings.
I’ll explain more once I’ve polished the changes; thanks for your patience…
NZ

Damn. secret is out:
That’s right folks, there has been a breach at NZ Bear’s top secret computer facility. While I did not perform the breach, I have in fact received the source code to the new link counting system yet to be released…
However, I must object in the strongest terms possible to the slanderous acusation that the Ecosystem runs on a TRS-80 . Everybody knows I’m an Atari 800 bear.
See also: [Ecosystem] Errors I’d like to see. My personal favorite: “”(8) Want the good news or the bad news? You’re just an Insignificant Microbe. That was the good news.”.
As the blogfather says: Heh.

I’ve been remiss in promoting 2005 Weblog awards. Nominations close this Saturday, November 26th, so get yours in while you can.

Since I’m already folks, I might as well keep up the trend.
My approach to filter out inline trackbacks is useful and appropriate, in my view, but it actually doesn’t fully address an underlying issue. Here’s the question: should a link from a blogger who has hundreds or even thousands of links to anyone and everyone on their page be worth exactly the same as a link from a more reserved blogger who only has a small number of outbound links?
In the Ecosystem right now, all links are equal. But I’m considering changing that. It doesn’t seem right to me that if Blogger A links to 3,000 other blogs, and Blogger B only links to 300, that those blogs receiving the links from B get exactly the same “credit” as those receiving one of A’s few thousand links.
A link is a recommendation; it says, “Go look over here, and you’ll find something interesting.” So should a recommendation from someone who says everything is interesting be considered as valuable as one from someone who seems to choose their recommendations with more care?
(As a historical footnote, way back in 2003 an early version of the Ecosystem actually had a separate ranking based on the # of outbound links a blog had. I called it the Hall of Link Sluttage).
Without getting into implementation details or an exact algorithm, suffice it to say that it would be simple enough for me to refine the Ecosystem’s rules so that truly profligate linkers’ links did not count for as much as more normal blogger’s links. But would that be a good and useful thing?
I’m debating; now you get to as well. Let me know what you think…

Ok folks, time for some serious “inside-baseball” of the blog variety. If you’ve never heard of an “open trackback” or “link party”, you should probably just skip right on by this post.
Recently, I’ve been noticing that the phenomenon of “open trackback” posts has been becoming more and more widespread across the blogosphere. Here’s a few examples of trackback posts.
It seems to me that the main motivation of such posts is simply to provide a quick and easy way for bloggers to generate links to each other, without any real regard for the substance of each other’s posts. The links, rather than symbolizing and codifying the relationship between two posts, or two blogs, have become an end in themselves.
I believe the Ecosystem has created at least part of the motivation to do open trackbacks, and this troubles me. My goal has always been to reflect, as accurately as possible, what is truly popular and interesting in the ‘sphere — not distort it by creating bogus incentives for blogs to create automatic links to each other with no real meaning. If you don’t believe me about creating the incentive, check out the Open Trackback Alliance:

1) What is the Open Trackback Alliance?
Are you tired of seeing?
I’m an
Insignificant Pond Scum Spore
in the
TTLB Ecosystem
.
.
.
The Open Trackback Alliance helps your blog ranking grow by increasing the links between each other’s blogs and showcasing articles on one another’s sites…

And guess what: it works. Over time, I’ve noticed that some bloggers are using Open Trackbacks to systematically work their way up in the Ecosystem rankings, and more recently, to ensure that their posts are flagged on my Top Posts pages.
So this weekend, I decided to do something about it. I implemented a simple solution: when the Ecosystem scans a blog’s front page for links, it now simply ignores any inline trackback sections that are found, while still counting the links within posts or on a blog’s blogroll.
I haven’t announced the change because a) I was still debugging it and b) I didn’t really think anybody would notice so quickly. But it turns out, Don Surber and some others are apparently watching my stuff so closely that they figured out what I was doing almost immediately (which, I think, says something in itself).
Don emailed me asking if it was true that I was filtering open trackbacks, and I responded that I was, but that I hadn’t yet announced anything as I was still working on the system. A few minutes later, Don posted my email on his blog (without asking my consent, although I would have granted it). I’m also told that certain other bloggers (not Don) are emailing around trying to fire folks up about the grand injustice of it all. (There’s even a petition).
Now let’s be clear. If bloggers find value in Open Trackback posts, they should by all means continue to do them. But at the moment, I think the best decision for TTLB, and for the blogosphere, is to not count them in my system, and thereby remove the incentive to create trackbacks for their own sake.
But I’m always open to feedback, and would appreciate further comments and debate. So please, weigh in, even if it’s just with a simple “You’re making a mistake” or “I think you’re right”. I’m listening…
Update: See also, Link Sluts

The dust continues to settle on last weeks kerfuffle over Representative Murtha’s demand for an immmediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But one of the most peculiar aspects is that many commentators on the anti-war side of the fence seem to be convinced that Murtha didn’t actually call for an immediate redeployment, and that any statement to that effect is simply a Republican smear tactic.
For example, here’s at TPMCafe:
Representative John Murtha, a decorated veteran of two wars and a very reasoned voice on foreign policy, had questioned the president’s wisdom in our Iraq policy. What happened next is shameful. The republicans introduced a bill by Duncan Hunter that cynically called for just an immediate withdrawl without discussing the what our exit strategy should entail. They tried to misrepresent what Murtha was requesting we do, which is to have serious bi-partisan debate of our Iraq policy.
And the Seattle P-I’s editorial board:
…more cynical was Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert’s maneuver to ram a bill to the floor calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops — not what Murtha had proposed at all.
Really?
Let Representative Murtha speak for himself. From the text of his speech on his web site:
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.
Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.
Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.
Emphasis mine — except the last phrase in all caps, which is as you see it on Murtha’s web site
Which part of “immediately redeploy” are we misunderstanding? And to Libertine: it’s nice that you think that Murtha’s goal was to have a “serious bi-partisan debate of our Iraq policy.” But if that was the case, why didn’t he, er, say that?
He seems pretty darned clear on the whole “immediately” and “bring them home” part — you will note his closing line does not read “IT IS TIME TO HAVE A SERIOUS BI-PARTISAN DEBATE ON BRINGING THEM HOME.”
Revisionism, indeed….
PS: Yes, I’ve seen the text of Murtha’s actual resolution. It doesn’t say anything about a debate either.
More at RedState…

Congratulations to Charles, Roger, and the rest of the bloggers associated with what is now Open Source Media (formerly Pajamas Media).
To track blogosphere reaction to their launch this morning, I’ve established a TTLB topic page.

Good lord, it’s
Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus hook up via some kind of ‘net link, set their matching blank-yet-knowing stares towards a pair of webcams, and blather on about whatever issues of the day strike their fancy. It’s Left, Right & Center, but with less interesting visuals.
It’s exquisite. I watched three episodes in a row, which was most likely unhealthy. Wright and Kaus are a disturbingly well-matched set: both exceedingly well-informed and sharp, and yet dorky enough to provide the viewer with a pleasantly smug sense of superiority.
Definitely must-see TV. Go watch it.

In case there was still any doubt that counteroffensive against the “Bush lied” meme wasn’t just a one-day event, see the exerpt below, taken from the prepared text of remarks President Bush will be delivering at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska:
THE PRESIDENT: Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war — but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my Administration and members of Congress from both parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq — and reached the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Let me give you quotes from three senior Democrats: First, quote, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.” End quote. Here’s another one, quote, “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as [Saddam Hussein] is in power.” End quote. And here’s the way another Democratic leader summed it up, quote, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President’s approaching this in the right fashion.”
The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, quote, “Iraq was in clear material violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.” Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, quote, “Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”
Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
Nicely done. You think he’s been reading Maguire?

I’ve created a topic page to roundup bloggers’ posts on Veteran’s Day.
As always, the men and women of our armed forces have my gratitude and admiration — on this day and every other.

I’ve been quietly working behind the scenes over the past few weeks to improve the immediacy of the post-related information presented across TTLB such as the top posts and hot topic pages. I’m pleased with the results: you will now notice that throughout the site, information is being updated continuously during the day, providing a much more “fresh” view of what’s happening in the blogosphere at any given moment.
In addition, I’m experimenting with providing “alerts” posted directly to the front page of TTLB: when a blog post is detected during the day that has achieved a certain level of popularity (i.e., links), it will be included in a “hot post” entry on the front page here.
Suggestions and feedback on this new functionality are appreciated. As always, I’m striving to make TTLB a key resource in your blog-surfing day, and I welcome input on how best to achieve that goal…

New topic page: in France

Question: I know Michael Brown has already resigned, but it possible to fire him anyway?

If isn’t a worthy cause, I don’t know what is:
Goal: The goal of the Project Valour-IT fundraiser is to raise enough money for 30 new laptops with voice activated software for our wounded soldiers with hand and/or arm injuries. Each laptop costs approximately $685 plus shipping, so the fundraiser