escalation

Yesterday news came out that the New York Times is ready to announce a new “pay for content” model for their website. There has been a lot of talk lately of news organizations moving to this system, and with one of the leading newspapers making taking the plunge it will only be a matter of time before we see more follow suit.

I have been very opposed to these moves for quiet some time. There are tons of other revenue generating models the organizations could use for their websites, but they have failed to even test them out. Just in terms of online advertising, there are new trends out there, such as site skins, that I haven’t seen any major news organization test out. These ads are by far the most profitable of them all so far, and would most likely generate a decent revenue boost for the faltering news companies.

This decision will spell trouble for blogs. First it will add to the overhead for bloggers, having to subscribe to news sites to find post worthy items. It doesn’t mean all blogs will have to do it. Sure some of the bigger ones will, but then the smaller blogs will have to rely on those bigger blogs for content. That’s the route I am taking.

And how that escalation is working:

BAGHDAD — Four large bombs exploded across Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 127 people and wounding scores as violence climbed toward levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.

In the deadliest of the attacks, a parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at the Sadriyah market in a mostly Shiite area of central Baghdad, killing at least 82 people and wounding 94, said Raad Muhsin, an official at Al-Kindi Hospital where the victims were taken.

A police official confirmed the toll, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

But Baghdad is like any American town. Should the news devote the next 3 days of coverage to just this bombing, instead of Virginia Tech? I mean Virginia Tech is like a daily incident in Baghdad and since our countries compare so much in security, common sense would only dictate such.

Following McCain's photo-op in Iraq this weekend, which required more than 100 soldiers in armored humvees, attack helicopters and the full attention of the top commander in Iraq, I was wondering what would happen if all the Presidential candidates wanted a tour. Military rules clearly state that the military is not to be used for partisan events. In a directive entitle "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty" (PDF File), section 4.1.2.3 states that members on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).

Sunday was a campaign event for McCain, and that campaign even will continue on April 11th:

At the same time, Mr. McCain will, upon his return from Iraq, deliver what his aides said would be a major speech at the Virginia Military Institute that will argue that the troop escalation was showing signs of success and urging Americans to back the war effort. The speech will take place on April 11, the day on which Mr. McCain had been scheduled to formally enter the race.

So McCain is going to continue using his possibly illegal event to announce his formal run for the White House. What if every other candidate demanded the same treatment as McCain? There are more than 20 people running for the White House. If they all did the same thing then we would need another surge just for campaign events like McCain's. This is the exact reason why the military don't allow such activities.

Oh this is a very nice move by Harry Reid:

"For nearly four years, the Republican-controlled Senate stood silent on the President's flawed Iraq policies and watched as the situation deteriorated into a civil war. The American people have chosen to change course. Democrats have chosen to change course. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have chosen obstruction. Almost every Republican who expressed concern about the escalation chose to block the Senate from debating the issue.

"Today, Democrats offered Republicans another chance for compromise, suggesting the Senate debate one resolution in favor of escalation and one resolution opposed to escalation. Once again, Senate Republicans refused.

"Democrats are determined to give our troops and the American people the debate they deserve, so the Senate will have another Iraq vote this Saturday. We will move for a clear up or down vote on the House resolution which simply calls on Congress to support the troops and opposes the escalation.

"Those Republicans who have expressed their concern over the Senate's failure to debate the war in Iraq will have another opportunity to let their actions speak louder than their words."

Here is the recommended talking point for Democrats as the Republican cry-fest starts over this Saturday vote - "Terri Schiavo". Every Republican that complains they have to come in and vote on Saturday needs to be countered with that. It was ok for all members of Congress to fly back in late on a Sunday night to vote on Schiavo. So will the Republicans put Schiavo above all our soldiers? We will see.

The AP just reported that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell is threatning to filibuster any attempts by the Democrats to block Bush's escalation plan. This is ironic, considering what McConnell was saying in his majority days of the filibuster:

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell said yesterday that Republicans have enough votes to invoke the "nuclear option" to limit Democrats' ability to stall by filibuster consideration of President Bush's nominees for federal appeals courts.

"I never announce my whip count. But I'm telling you, there's no doubt in my mind -- and I'm a pretty good counter of votes -- that we have the votes we need," the Kentucky Republican said. "And that step will be taken sometime in the near future at the determination of the majority leader."

Or this little bit via Newshounds:

Last night, it was Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell on After Hours with Cal Thomas. He said, "It's to (Democrats') advantage, too, to get the senate back to the way it operated for 214 years without any great problems with regard to judicial nominees.... It was never filibustered in the history of the senate until two years ago."

So what if the Democrats come up with their own "nuclear option". I believe the Iraq war deserves an up or down vote by the U.S. Senate more so than federal judges. We are talking about the lives of our soldiers, as well as the Iraqis.

TPM Brings us this gem:

"A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets."

That is a quote from none other than Oliver North. But it gets even better. Think Progress has a nice clip up, which includes this:

Yesterday on MSNBC, Trent Lott (R-MS), the second ranking Republican in the Senate, said that he may oppose troop escalation in Iraq. Watch it:

It is looking more and more like everyone is against Bush's escalation except him, Lieberman and McCain. Looks like George still don't give a shit about the lives of our troops - he just wants to play politics. I wonder if Anderson Cooper thinks this should be investigated, or if an investigation would be "payback"?

With Bush out on a new "PR" push, we are learning more about how bad things really are in Iraq:

A mob of gunmen went on a brazen daytime rampage through a predominantly Sunni Arab district of western Baghdad on Sunday, pulling people from their cars and homes and killing them in what officials and residents called a spasm of revenge by Shiite militias for the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Saturday. Hours later, two car bombs exploded beside a Shiite mosque in another Baghdad neighborhood in a deadly act of what appeared to be retaliation.

While Baghdad has been ravaged by Sunni-Shiite bloodletting in recent months, even by recent standards the violence here on Sunday was frightening, delivered with impunity by gun-wielding vigilantes on the street. In the culture of revenge that has seized Iraq, residents all over the city braced for an escalation in the cycle of retributive mayhem between the Shiites and Sunnis that has threatened to expand into civil war.

The violence coincided with an announcement by American military officials that they had formally accused four more American soldiers of rape and murder, and a fifth soldier of "dereliction of duty" for failing to report the crimes, in connection with the deaths of a teenage Iraqi girl and three members of her family.

And once more charges get announced in other deaths, the violence will continue to grow.

What is amazing is how the mainstream media continued to just call the victim a "young girl". No one seemed to ever mention just "how young" this poor girl was. I had heard about it on Air America, but the big three in network news seemed to overlook this small detail. Here is a picture of the passport of this young girl: