I just got finished migrating my Userland blog over to WordPress. Userland was a resource hog so I wasn’t running it very often. After I rebuilt my PC I never re-installed Userland. I thought the conversion process was going to be difficult but I found some good instructions on the WordPress wiki. It took me a couple of hours to migrate my old postings.

There has been a lot of talk recently about the established media being scooped by the bloggers on the ra^thergate fiasco. In several interviews the established media admitted that bloggers are good at fact checking but not much else. Still it seems that established media is unwilling to admit that their political bias is the source of their problem. CBS was duped because people believed that CBS could be duped. The sad part is that they were taken advantage of by people their "friends". While Walter Cronkite complained that bloggers are ruining journalism with their carelessness and willingness to smear the innocent via unfounded accusations, CBS cannot see the plank in its own eye. I respect PBS news for the way they try to portray both sides of the story. I believe their first priority is as journalists. I doubt they have this problem.

I have begun to believe that the media bias has undermined U.S. foreign policy and the fight in Iraq. In other parts of the world where the information options are more limited, the established media has more influence than in the United States. I cannot help but conclude that this bias has done more to encourage terrorism than to frame a national debate. In the United States the media bias has probably contributed to the polarization of the population rather than exploring the differences.

And if liberating Iraq was wrong, Mr. Annan must also believe it was wrong for NATO to have intervened in Kosovo, where Russia once again prevented Security Council unanimity. How about the recent French intervention in the Ivory Coast, which the Security Council got around to blessing only after it was a fait accompli? And notwithstanding the latest U.N. promises, what if Gallic and Chinese oil interests block international action in Sudan, allowing the continued attacks on Darfurians? It would appear, on this evidence, that Security Council unanimity isn't exactly the gold standard of legitimacy, much less of morality.

[Via WSJ.com: Opinion]

In this article Kofi Annan "stated flat out that the liberation of Iraq was "illegal" and a violation of the U.N. Charter". He did not mention the ugly little secret that the UN policies are so ineffective that their inaction is probably encouraging corruption and genocide. This belief is a direct result of my increased understanding of the "Oil for Palaces" scam. It was difficult for me to believe that the UN could be so blatantly corrupt. Yet the more I investigated the recent UN history the more I became convinced that the problem is systemic to the organization. The fact that the UN actions in Srbenica and Rwanda allowed genocide to proceed unchecked is just plain wrong. The UN could have chosen to exercise their role as the peace maker. Instead they chose not to execise their power to protect and to give a diplomatic solution a chance to work. Their actions leading up to the war against Iraq show a similar ambivalance to the threats posed by Iraq under Saddam. It appears that UN compliance with Saddam's political desires is a result of bribes rather than concern over injustice. The lack of polictical progress at resolving the threat posed by the combination of Iraq with worldwide terrorism left the US, UK, and others with no other course. As Clauswitz said several centuries ago,

War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means.

[Via WSJ.com: Opinion]

In this article Bernard Goldberg highlights probably the fundamental problem in ra^thgate, media bias has probably permanently damaged the reputation of journalism. This bias has led experienced journalists down a path to make decisions that novice journalists would not make. I have to admit that I did not consider media bias a problem until I started comparing the news I read from the internet with that from the major news media this year. Part of the problem was that I ignored the major news media because I preferred news presented by PBS for reasons I never investigated until this year. The reason I finally realized that media bias existed and was not a phony issue was because of my wife. Over the last couple of years she gradually became interested in discussing current events. Since we do not get a newspaper and she is an internet neophyte, her only source of information is the major media news. Guess what? She started getting mad. When I tried to guide her to PBS for a more balanced news, she got mad at me. When I look at these events in retrospect I feel sorry for Dan Rather and John Kerry. Dan is trying to blame others but it was his foolish mistake. I feel sorry for John since once again his campaign messages got drowned out by his "friends". As they say in the military, "Friendly fire isn’t friendly".

This article talks about the real casualty of the awol memos story, the credibility of “mainstream media”. Most people believe the memos are fake and that Bush got preferential treatment. They do not seem to care that Bush got preferential treatment but they are wondering why CBS did not notice the obvious signs of forgery. The “mainstream media” has been putting off comments about media bias as “right wing paranoia” for some time. They have been “dissing” bloggers for not having the high standards of professional journalism. Well, I guess CBS has revealed what the “true” standards of profession journalism really are and that media bias does exist. It is ironic that the media bias in the story selection and story content by CBS and others has driven viewers to cable news and the internet to seek a balanced story. Political bloggers have become important because the facts are out there and the whole story is not being told. Now the failures mainstream media to be the professional journalists they claim to be has encouraged bloggers and others to try and catch mainstream media making mistakes.

Judging from my email, there are many, many people (especially Texans) out there who endorse the Certsian Philosophy of the documents controversy: the memos are forgeries AND George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the Air National Guard. Reader…

[Via Dynamist Blog] This episode has been kind of funny to me. I am almost the same age as the presidential candidates and as a result I dealt with these questions at a personal level. My father graduated from West Point and my godfather was a general in the army at that time. Although my father and I did not discuss this subject at length, it was my understanding that he and his friends were willing and able to do their best to see that I got a good assignment if drafted. If I desired to enlist or enroll in the military academy they could do much more. Since the war was winding down at that time the appropiate strategy was to take your chances in the draft lottery. The odds were in my favor that I would not be drafted. Still when I look back at these events I know that I would not turn down my father's help. I might be a little embarrassed about it but I am a pragmatic guy. I would be a reluctant warrior. So it is not hard for me to believe Bush and Kerry were also reluctant warriors. They each tried to work the system to their advantage. I find no shame in their actions. Actually I would be more concerned if they were gung ho. The penalties for those who do not respect war are severe.

Fortunately, Indepundit's summary reduces its essentials to simple language. Indepundit's post has deeper links and background, but let's recap the key points:

1. We reject moral relativism, and we will fight for and actively promote freedom and liberty in the Islamic world.
2. The friends of our enemies are also our enemies. If your regime is supporting terrorists, you're making yourself our enemy.
3. We reserve the right to hit our enemies before they can strike us.
4. We will not support, and may not even deal with, those who continue to support terrorism.
   So far, so good. But we also need to add a 5th point…
5. Terror-supporting nations must not be allowed to acquire atomic weapons, or to pursue threatening biological or chemical weapons programs. "Proliferators" who enable their programs must also be stopped.

A new poll suggests people around the world prefer US Democratic challenger John Kerry to President Bush.

[Via BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition] I have been pondering the very strong feelings some people have against President Bush. A couple of months ago I saw a television interview with Senator Byrd during the Democratic convention. He was pissed off with the President but from my viewpoint was completely unable to explain the reasons for his animosity. The interviewer probed the Senator several times trying to get a more definitive answer but the Senator was unable to articulate a reason. I found this very curious since I did not think he was trying to avoid the question. Two nights ago I saw an interview with William Buckley who commented that the most curious aspect of this election is the fervent animosity felt towards the President by some people. Recently I have been fussing at my wife about watching ABC News. She watches ABC news, gets upset, and does not no why. That is not good for me! I find it curious that ABC and the other major news media have become even more biased this year. I prefer the journalism style of PBS. I also find that the internet allows you to easily develop a more thorough knowlege on certain issues. Although I do not watch the national news media on a regular basis, I have watched enough broadcasts to notice a few trends. I have begun to sense a little bitterness and frustration in their broadcasts. The more they try to make the case for Kerry the worse he does in the polls. Despite their best efforts to mold the political view of their viewers, the more they get rejected. In an unintentional way they have energized the electorate against Kerry. Considering the power of television over other media this has got to be embarrassing. President Bush gets a convention "bounce" where Kerry does not. The fact that the cable based Fox News Channel had higher ratings than ABC, NBC, and CBS has to bugging someone running the networks. Their bias appears to be hurting Kerry and the bottom line of the networks. Recently I have begun to think that biased reporting and story selection by the national networks and news wires are probably the cause for this fervent animosity. I find it curious that there is such a difference in opinion on what is news. This was most apparent when I felt the story about Abu Ghraib was way overdone by the national news media. I checked Yahoo News and the BBC and they had long since moved on to other stories. This brings up another point. It is not hard for me to check out the stories on the internet and hear both sides of the story. For the people who do not have the ability or the desire to check up on the stories, they end up dangling in the wind when they hear there is an opposing view. In fact they are probably surprised! I think this leaves these people feeling very frustrated and inarticulate since they know deep inside they have not tried to hear both sides of the story. They are mad but they just do not know why!

Xeni Jardin:

BoingBoing reader and super geek-sleuth Kevin says,

"Following up on the "Cellphone towers for Jesus" BoingBoing post (Link), I actually went to that church with the Sprint tower built in, did some asking of questions, some more photos, found a skatepark for jesus.

(…)Also, according to ZDnet, it also delivers Wi-Fi. 'Peninsula Covenant Church parishioners in Redwood City, Calif., bring their Bibles, and their Palms, to Sunday Mass. A Wi-Fi access point–on the church's rooftop cross–beams them the text of a Sunday sermon and an accompanying multimedia presentation.'"
Link

[Via Boing Boing]

The freedom to accumulate property and use it as you wish does more than merely protect economic interests. Economic liberty, of which the rights of private property are the foundation, is a necessary concomitant of personal liberty—the two have almost always marched hand in hand.

Today I am finishing up the paperwork to set up a HSA. The HSA rhetoric also talks about the ownership issue. When my son was born I got very frustrated with the medical and insurance professions. No one knew how much the birth was going to cost and after the birth I started getting miscellanous bills from medical providers. The bills told me almost nothing the service provided so I had to call around to figure who these people were. To top things off the insurance company said I overpaid for some services. Well, thanks alot! Why didn't you tell me how much I should be paying upfront and I would of straightened this out with the doctors before the service had been rendered. I was amazed how incompetent doctors were in running their business.

Now we are looking at the new age of the health care business. Since my son was born the ownership of the responsibility for health care has gradually been transferred from the insurance company to the individual. With this transfer has come an increased scrutiny of the medical providers only the individual can provide. Insurance compaines tried to control the rising costs but they failed. When they tried to pass on the higher costs, they priced themselves out of the business. The individual ended up owning the health care crisis by default. The combination of a HSA with a high deductable, major medical insurance plan provides a great degree of freedom and the opportunity to further encourage steamlining in the medical services business. To make this plan work a portion of the normal insurance premium is being diverted to a HSA. If the individual is willing to do a minor amount of financial planning and shopping around they will benefit from the lower costs for the equivalent medical coverage. As you can see the concepts of financial planning and shopping around were foreign concepts to the health care business as recently as 13 years ago. A side benefit is that by setting up a HSA the pyschology of many people is that they will probably be more inclined to perform the routine exams that can lead to lower overall health costs. I have felt for a long time that the power of the individual is more likely to change health care costs than any government plan. The use of a HSA is not the sole solution to our health care crisis but it is a sharper tool than the others in the shed.