Split View Informs

The split view really informs. You can see both sides of every story and understand the range of views on a very specific topic. Enjoy!

Technorati Profile Sphere: Related Content

Geek Update - Split View!

After much anticipation the much talked about SplitView feature is finally released.
A SplitView icon next to an article means there is one or more articles on the same subject but from different point of views! You can now read these articles side-by-side in SplitView mode.

Happy skewing :-) Sphere: Related Content

Geek Update - Face Lift

Skewz has now a fresh new look. No more rounded corners that were so 2006. Crisp sharp edges is the new Fall 2007 look.

Happy Skewing. Sphere: Related Content

Geek Update - Media Cloud

A new representation of the media chart is now available. It is known among the knights-who-say-ni as... 'Mook' but for us lesser mortals as 'The Media Cloud'.

To have a look, click on the media comparison chart on the main page and then the Cloud tab.

Happy Skewing. Sphere: Related Content

Bush and the Bloggers and What the Media Missed In-Between

Yesterday President Bush squarely took on what many conservatives would label as fringe or radical left wing groups which he suggested were overly influential within the Democratic Party. His comments with regard to Code Pink and MoveOn.org drew a standing ovation. The media reported these events faithfully and often colored the commentary by suggesting that President Bush was finally taking on these "fringe" and "radical" groups.

What the media did not seem to have the insight to highlight was WHERE President Bush was making these remarks. President Bush received his standing ovation at the well-known conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. Now whether Code Pink or MoveOn.org can be fairly called fringe or radical is a matter of perspective, but the true story appears to be that organizations such as The Heritage Foundation could enjoy the full support of the President and serve as a podium to attack his detractors on the opposite side of the aisle. The Heritage Foundation has been tremendously influential in setting policy and filling cabinet posts for Republican presidents. The rich irony of President Bush suggesting that Democrats not be influenced by their fringe elements while speaking at the Heritage Foundation seemed to be lost on the media.

So it seems that speaking at the Heritage Foundation is a completely appropriate thing for a President to do these days. Fair enough. Would it be equally acceptable for a Democratic president to speak at a Think Progress convention? I'm not sure, but I doubt it. The media would likely comment about the associated "pandering." The NAACP and Sierra Club are probably now viewed as radical left-wing organizations.

The skew may now be in the polity. See www.skewz.com

Sphere: Related Content

The Latest Narrative - The Existential Crisis That Is Hillary Clinton

The recent election debates have created a new narrative within the news cycle. That narrative is that a critical look at Hillary Clinton is required above anything else. This circumspection would naturally be suggested by the speaking points of her Democratic party challengers as she is the front runner to be displaced. But, the same story is evolving on within the Republican debates. Her ability to rally the Republican base is becoming evident.

The Republican debates have focused on her as if she represents the key threat to the United States. The 2008 election has shifted away from whether existing policies should be further prosecuted to whether Hillary Clinton represents an existential crisis to the Republic were she elected. That narrative temporarily serves the purpose of her Democratic party challengers and the longer-term interests of her Republican rivals.

However, does it serve the national interest? I would argue no.

The current election cycle represents a decision around whether to continue with existing policies or whether to change course. Most Republican candidates by and large represent an extension of Bush policies from both a domestic and foreign policy perspective. Is this in dispute? Most Republican candidates have not repudiated much of the Bush record which suggests they are in agreement with the policies and would extend these policies should they be elected. Now, it's fair for all parties involved to provide the public with a view of what a hypothetical Clinton presidency would entail. However, the same evaluation should be made of all viable contenders. When doing so, the debate would more clearly be about whether a continuation of policies is what is desired versus a "change of course" as represented by the Clinton candidacy or any other alternative vision for the country.

If a Clinton presidency would represent an existential crisis for the US, to what extent would a Guiliani candidacy or a Romney candidacy. That's only fair to ask.

The decision in 2008 is more accurately represented by a decision for extending current policies versus engaging in a significant change in policies. To the extent Hillary Clinton represents substantial changes that may be viewed as having a negative impact on national interests, it's fair to raise these concerns. But the same conerns should be raised with regard to the implications of extending the policies of the Bush presidency...why? because that's essentially the question being answered in the 2008 election based on how the candidates have portrayed themselves so far.

Sphere: Related Content