And genius like this should be preserved before Wikipedia’s NPOV killer T-Cells destroy it. Here’s the current entry for Time para-Editor Richard Stengel:

And why this foul-mouthed vituperation?  Read more 

Well, well well. I guess they really can admit it when they’re wrong. Kudos to Jay for being a grown up who keeps his word. Who knows, may be he’ll even seek to emulate those infamous blogger ethics and standards at his place.

Twelve days ago, after David Iglesias went public, I said that if there turned out to be a broad conspiracy behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, “I will take my hat off to Marshall and others in the blogosphere and congratulate them for having been right in their suspicions about this story from the beginning.”
My hat is off. Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo and everyone else out there whose instincts told them there was something deeply wrong and even sinister about the firings, and who dug around and kept writing about them while Iglesias decided whether to talk to the press or go quietly on to his next job, deserve tremendous credit.  Read more 

If you work for TIME, that is. Don't bother reading it. Chris explains why:

It never ceases to amaze me that while bloggers are often criticized by many journalists for not fact-checking their stories, stories about bloggers are regularly littered with glaring factual errors. They might take a lesson from our book, and back up their assertions with a standard citation method, such as hyperlinks. Take, for example, the new piece in Time magazine about Amanda Marcotte. While, unlike every other establishment piece on this story today, this article does at least mention that John McCain’s blogger, Patrick Hynes has been the center of controversy, check out how many things they got wrong:

 Read more 

I can’t believe I’m actually linking to them, but one of the Swamp Things actually put up a post that got my attention. But only for this one line:

Immigration dominated the questions Romney got in Waterloo, suggesting the issue—one on which McCain is at odds with the Republican base—still has a lot of resonance. And I didn’t hear a single question about Iraq, except from reporters. When I went around and talked to people—randomly, and an unscientific sampling, to be sure—I heard a lot of resentment toward the putative frontrunner from the kind of very conservative Republicans who tend to dominate their caucuses.

This is fascinating if true. I’m not surprised none of the Republican anti-democratic party members want to talk about the war, but I’m left wondering how this can be used to our advantage. No serious thoughts, just a point in the campaign to keep in mind, as well as expressing the belief that we should monitor future gatherings of primary voters, to see what else makes them uncomfortable.

Too bad there aren’t a lot of nuns in Iraq. I hear the rapin’ is much more fun when the victims have habits.

A reader writes:

Hey, Joe. How about addressing indications that the Bush Administration has employed the “Salvador” strategy to train death squads to take out militia leaders?

Joe answers:

I certainly hope so. If ever there was an appropriate circumstance for covert action—in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere—it is the effort to find and eliminate terrorists. They really are the enemy, you know.

I’m sure TIME will find someone to avocate for a return of slavery and the abolition of women’s sufferage soon.