Shots Across the Bow

Here's a quick reality check for you.

1. We pull out of Iraq immediately and completely as you demand.
   

   The new Iraqi government is immediately torn apart by sectarian fighting as Sunnis and Ba'athists, aided by an unfettered flow of "insurgents" from Syria, attempt to regain total power, and repress the Shia majority. Tens of thousands die in the struggle.
   
   Iran senses weakness in Iraq, and, nominally in support of their Shia brothers, invades. Tens of thousands die in the struggle.
   
   Iranian dissidents see an opportunity when their government is distracted by the Iraq campaign, and stage a popular revolution that is brutally crushed by the Mullahs, with help from their buddies in Syria. Tens of thousands die in the struggle.
   
   The UN is asked to intervene and the Security Council votes to condemn George Bush for starting this all in the first place. But they will take no action, as this is purely an "internal power struggle." Koffi and his son will make more millions in bribes and kickbacks from the Mullahs and will be shocked and dismayed at any implications of impropriety.

   
   
2. We pull out of Afghanistan immediately, as you demand.
   

   The central government in Afghanistan is in a bit better shape than is Iraq's so it will last longer, at least in the area around Khabul. However, the provinces will revert entirely to warlord control, and the resulting battles for control and territory will kill thousands.
   
   The Taliban will not stage a comeback, but a new organization nearly identical to it will. Al Qaida will again have a safe base from which to train, recruit, and plan.
   
   Civil unrest will eventually topple the Musharref government, resulting in a power vacuum that the warlords will be eager to fill. The resulting war and chaos will take the lives of tens of thousands.
   
   Again, the UN will consider this an "internal matter" and while they may send in a few observers to say "tsk, tsk," and maybe catch a quick piece of foreign tail on the side, they will do nothing of consequence. Remember, the only time the UN intervened in a genocide was when the US dragged them kicking and screaming into it in the Balkans. If we aren't willing to do it, nobody will be. And thousands will die because of this lack of will.

   
   
3. The US will suffer tremendous loss of credibility around the globe.
   

   If you think it's bad now, just wait until we cave. Liberals and peaceniks don't give a rat's butt right now because they figure they can blame everything on Bush, so it won't hurt them.
   
   Pretty damn short sighted of them since what it means is that every tinpot tyrant with dreams of glory will sleep comfortably in the knowledge that he (or she; we must be politically correct) will be able to do whatever the hell they want to and nobody on the planet will lift a finger to stop them. Want to slaughter a few thousand political dissidents? Have at it. America will shake its finger at you and still give you Most Favored trade status because we want to "remain engaged." There may be a few caustic speeches in the UN, but since Libya heads the human rights commission, nothing will come of it. Besides, just slide a couple million to the right diplomats, and you're bulletproof. Is your neighboring country irritating you by insisting that their border is non-negotiable? A couple of armored divisions will take care of it for you and nobody will do a thing about it.
   
   Except maybe for selling you new tanks to replace any that get damaged.

   
   
4. Iran, North Korea, and any other country that wants one will have a nuclear weapon inside of a decade.
   

   The collapse of the Soviet Union means there are literally thousands of weapons available to the black market, and once there is no serious threat of repercussions, the bidding will commence.
   
   And millions will die.

   
   
5. Once a nuclear weapon is used against the US, the pacifists might just realize that there comes a time when you have to fight back, but I really doubt it.
   

   They'll continue to blame Bush, and try to appease the terrorists. I wonder how Cindy Sheehan looks in a burka?

   
   
6. I could go on, but what's the point?

If these folks had a lick of sense, they'd realize that the time for peace ended on September 11, 2001. Our enemy has declared that left up to them, the only peace we'll know is that of the grave. They slaughtered almost 3,000 of our friends and neighbors to make sure we got the message.

Now, whether you agreed with the decision to go into Afghanistan or not; whether you agreed with the decision to go into Iraq or not, anybody not blinded by ideology or politics has to recognize that a unilateral and total withdrawal now would be the absolute worst thing to do. It would directly cause hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths. Even if you think this war was a mistake, a point I do not concede, you can't fix a mistake by making a worse one. Like it or not, the only sane course of action is to see this thing through, to win the fight by helping Iraq establish a secure, stable, representative government, one inimicable to terrorists.

But the peace lovers want to bring all the troops home today, regardless of the consequences. Their pacifism is not about saving lives, or creating a lasting true peace; it's about selfishness, and not wanting to get involved.

Here's 2 questions for the pacifists:

1. Which is worse: that thousands of people die in battle over the next 5 years so that millions live 10 years from now, or saving a few thousand today with the direct result of millions of deaths in a decade?
   
2. When a man looks you dead in the eye and tells you he's going to ambush and kill your family, you have only one decision to make: Kill him now or watch them die. What choice do you make?

For the purposes of this discussion, assume that in question 1 the two groups of deaths are solidly linked. Save the debate about whether the analogy is apt for our current Middle East policy for another time; I'm more interested in the general attitude towards the application of violence, both on an impersonal level, with this question, and a personal level, with the second question. In question 2, realize that trying to go to a default position, ie, "I'd call the police" or some equivalent is a cop-out that will clearly illustrate my point above, that pacifism is essentially selfish bullshit.

You see, in the real world, the safety and welfare of my family is my responsibility, not the state's. It is incumbent on me to ensure their security. The state assists when and where it can, but ask any police officer if they can protect all citizens all the time. Hell, they can't even protect abused spouses with orders of protection and restraining orders. How can I expect them to protect my family against some nebulous threat? I can't. It falls to me.

Also realize that if you default to the police, or some other law enforcement substitute, you are embracing the use of violence, just as long as you don't have to do it yourself. This reveals the essential selfishness of pacificm that I mentioned earlier; most pacifists do not shrink from the use of violence in protection of themselves as long as they don't have to get their own hands dirty doing it. And they're usually very comfortable putting down the police and others who use violence while enjoying the security that they provide.

I was flipping out over the last few days as I watched prices at the pumps go nuts. A couple of days ago, one station was at $2.19. The next morning, they were up to $2.24. Later that afternoon, they were at $2.29. The next day, they bumped it up to $2.34.

15 cents per gallon in less than 30 hours!

That's pretty freakin' incredible, ain't it?

Now I know why they installed an electronic sign for their prices a few weeks ago; there's no way the clerks could keep up.

Anyway, a little trip down memory lane restored my equilibrium. When oil was trading in the high $20 to low $30s per barrel, gas was around $1.19 or so. Price per barrel has doubled, and price per gallon has doubled along with it.

It sucks, but it isn't profiteering like I thought at first. IN fact, it appears the oil companies have been eating some of the increase instead of passing it on directly to consumers.

All of this is based on memory, but I plan to do a little research next week and check the correlation between crude oil prices and gas prices, and we'll see just how good my memory is.

"Roll, Roll, Roll in the hay!"

She claims that all she wants is to talk to President Bush and ask him why her son had to die.

Every day, I listen as our media tells me how noble she is, this grieving mother, and how callus and cruel, and dare I say it, cowardly President Bush is for refusing to meet with her.

Except they never tell me the truth, that he already met with her.

Now why is that, do you think? Isn't that a pertinent fact? I mean, how often does your average citizen actually get face time with the President. And having done so, how often do they get a second chance? In the article linked, while she expresses reservations about the war and how it is being handled, she speaks of the President in a complimentary manner, praising his faith and sincerity.

So why is she camping out on his doorstep like some celebrity stalker? And why are we supposd to take her seriously? And why did it take Matt Drudge to tell us that she met with the President before?

After all, our media is fond of linking other items, items whose link can charitably described as tenuous. For example, every time you hear of US casualties, it is immediately followed by the statement "But President Bush still insists that there will be no early troop withdrawals.

What has one got to do with the other?

Nothing! Nothing at all! In a war, soldiers die. You don't quit because of it.

Now if we were losing hundreds of troops per day, and seeing no signs of any success, then that would be another story. Then, you're not talking casualties, you're talking losing battles.

We're winning everywhere except in the hearts and minds of the liberals who didn't want us to be there in the first place. Apparently, their best idea is for us to leave Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, let those two countries fall back into the terror and repression they came from, blame the whole mess on Bush, and whistle merrily as America gets obliterated.

You think I'm exaggerating?

I have a friend who sincerely and utterly believes that not only shouldn't we be in Iraq, we never should have gone after Osama in Afghanistan, and that we need to pull all of our troops out of both countries immediately.

They are convinced that neither country is worth the expenditure of a single American life.

And this from a well educated, reasonably intelligent, open minded person.

Just for a moment, picture what would happen in Afghanistan if US forces pulled out tomorrow. The remnants of the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies would be able to come out of hiding. Musharref's government would last a matter of weeks before being toppled. Afghanistan would fracture as warlords again took over large areas. The burkhas would return. It would soon be as if we had never gone in.

Iraq would be even worse. The nascant democracy would splinter under the twin forces of the Sunni insurgency combined with Syrian guerillas seeking to dismantle everything that has been accomplished. The streets would run red with blood as Baathists try to force their way back into power, fought tooth and nail by Sunnis and Shias alike. The best outcome would be a long and bloody civil war, followed by a few decades of recovery before Iraq would be strong enough to again threaten its neighbors. The more likely outcome would be a short bloody struggle as Iran and Syria fight over the country.

The Kurds would be decimated, and it wouldn't be surprising if Turkey joined in, attempting to add a little territory.

Of course liberals would find all the bloodshed horrifying, condemn President Bush to the darkest pits of hell, then go about their business, safe in the knowledge that no Americans were dying.

Until the next 9/11. And the one after that. And the one after that.

Until people start freezing to death in winters because the unrest in the Middle East has dried the flow of oil to a trickle.

Until the terrorists start setting off car bombs in school parking lots, and IEDs begin exploding in shopping malls, and hundreds of other nasty surprises the terrorists will bring with them.

Americans will be dying then, but they'll appeal to the UN for help, and the UN of course will come right to our rescue, just like they did in Rwanda, Darfur, the Balkans, etc.

It's not a pretty picture, but it's what will happen, not might happen, if we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately.

So why would Cindy Sheehan and folks like her demand that very thing?

Some are blinded by partisanship; some by grief or compassion for the families of soldiers who've died.
Some simply don't understand or refuse to accept that there are very real consequences to these actions.
Some feel that even if things do go very badly, it's not too bad because they can blame it all on President Bush and his cowboy diplomacy.
And some simply can't or won't take the time to examine the situation and ascertain what the consequences will be. Like a spoiled child, they want what they want and they want it now, and to hell with the price that somebody else will have to pay.

There is simply no way a sane and sober person can look at the facts and conclude that an immediate and complete withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is the best possible course at this time. Yet this is what Cindy Sheehan wants. This is what many in the media appear to want. This is what all the anti-war protesters want. This is what my friend wants.

As much as I hate the idea of American soldiers dying in the desert, I know that pulling out now will only guarantee one thing; thousands more Amricans will die here.

This entry is to inform all two of you that there will be no entry today as I am driving to Birmingham and back to pick up my daughter. So there will be no post today.

Except for this one, that doesn't count.

Oh, and yesterday's quote was from My Favorite Year.

One more time and if there are no guessers, I'm stopping.

"Husbands should be like Kleenex: soft strong and disposable. "

Peter Jennings has Died of Lung Cancer

You know, one of the few benefits of being a social outcast throughout grade school and part of high school is that peer pressure was not a part of my life. The first time I really felt any pressure at all was boot camp in the Navy, and by then, I was already firmly set in my ways; no smoking and no drinking.

My vices are much more enjoyable...

*****

Justice Stevens calls Death Penalty Flawed.

Yep. That's why I'm agin it. Every other argument pales beside this one. One innocent death is one too many. Life without parole, and not in some country club, makes perfect sense to me.

*****

The Knoxville Titty Council Wants you to Mind Your Own Business.

Working in secret, they've established a secret committee to select who will get to supply the cameras for their voyeuristic traffic scheme. Now that the company has been selected, now the contract goes before the Council for their vote.

*****

Bob Novak

Cussed and walked off the set on CNN while Carville blathered on about liberals having to show conservatives that they have a spine or some such nonsense. While Novak didn't say or do anything different than what I say in do in my living room whenever Carville appears, you never, EVER, walk off and leave the field to your opponent.

Bad form.

*****

Thunderhead at Dollywood

I rode the newest roller coaster at Dollywood, and they got this one right. Steep hills, tight banked turns, several areas where you float out of your seat, and a breathless finish. Outstanding ride.

*****

Invest in Real Estate; Now!

I know, I know, it seems like the wrong thing to do after the Kelo decision. After all, why buy an investment property when a government can take it away and give it to a developer as their investment property?

I felt the same way until I read Paul Krugman's column that says the housing bubble has burst and the end is near.

That guy has been so wrong, so often, and so consistently for so long that betting against him is as near a lock as betting for the home dog on Monday Night Football used to be.

*****

Semi Obscure Movie Quote

Nobody got it, or more likely nobody noticed it but the movie quote was from Grosse Pointe Blank, one of my favorite movies of all time.

Now for the next quote:
"I'm not an actor; I'm a movie star!"

*****

Tony Blair has put all terrorists, enablers, and sympathizers on notice that they will be expelled from the country if they justify or glorify terrorism anywhere.

I wonder where Ken Livingston and the Guardian editor who wrote

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

in response to the plan will go?

Unfortunately, the laws only apply to foreign nationals. Fifth columnists are exempt.

I'm not sure why he was targetted, but his site is down with a cryptic message left nehind. I called him on his top secret number and left him a message so he should know what's going on. If I get any information, I'll pas it on to y'all

I'm moving this up from the comments for two reasons. One, I think it deserves more exposure and two, after writing this, I'm not going to feel like writing another post.

I get lazy sometimes.

A couple of days ago, I wrote a short article explaining exactly why Michael Behe's defense of Intelligent Design using irreducible complexity is hog wash.

In the comments, Rob Huddleston disagreed, claiming that Behe had thoroughly discredited the idea of Neo-Darwinian evolution as applied to biochemical systems, and therefore had good reason to claim intelligent design was in action. I disagreed, and laid out th arguments in a response.

Rob then claimed that nobody has been able to refute Mr. Behe, and questioned the origin of the universe, a quite different subject.

OK, enough review.

Let's take this one step at a time.
1)Refutation of Michael Behe. First off, let me point out that my argument effectively refutes Behe. Rob chooses not to respond to my argument, instead linking to a quote from Chuck Colson, claiming that nobody had successfully refuted Behe. Unfortunately for Rob, Mr. Colson did not provide any evidence for his assertions, just a bald statement. I can do better than that.

A quick google search found several pages worth of valid challenges to Behe's irreducible complexity model. One of the best and most accessible to the layman is this one, which explores the concept of redundant complexity in far more detail than I did. This one delves deeper into the clotting mechanism, explaining potential pathways for its evolution. It's a bit more technical but the determined reader should be able to follow the gist of the argument. For a very long, thorough, and devastating critique of Behe by a fellow biochemist, go here. And finally for a list of links of challenges to Behe's hypothesis, go here.

So much for Mr. Colson's comment.

Now, regarding Darwinism vs ID, Rob wants to know where the earth came from.

It's irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about how life evolved on earth, not how the earth came to be. If you want to talk about the origin of the universe, that's cool, but don't ask an evolutionary biologist; he won't have the faintest clue because the two processes are unrelated. It's important in a debate to stay on track, and cosmology is certainly beyond the scope of a discussion of evolution.

Now then, let's get to the basic structure of the debate. Behe's argument can be reduced to the following set of statements:

1. There exist certain biochemical systems that exhibit irreducible complexity defined as follows:
   

   By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

   
   
2. An irreducibly complex system cannot have evolved by the gradual addition of new parts since by definition, lack of any one part would result in a non-functional system.
   
3. Since biochemical systems are the basis for all life as we know it, they must be subject to the same evolutionary processes and restrictions in order for evolution to be valid.
   
4. Since by definition irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved through the gradual addition of components, Darwinian evolution cannot explain how biochemical systems arose.
   
5. Since evolution cannot explain biochemical systems, then they must have been designed.

Now then, for Behe's argument to be true, each of the above statments and the relationships between them must be true, or like one of Behe's irreducibly complex systems, the argument fails. So let's deal with each step one at a time.

1. By following the links I gave above the reader will discover that many systems Behe claims are irreducibly complex are in fact reducible, albeit with an attendent loss in efficiency. The system may function without the component, or a homologue may replace the missing component. As an example, one of Behe's examples is the blood clotting process. He claims that los of any one component will cause the entire process to fail completely. If this were a true statement, no hemophiliac would survive their first shot.
   
   So what does this mean for his argument? If irreducibly complex systems are actually reducible, then they might have possibly evolved, removing Behe's impediment to evolution, removing the need for ID. However, since we don't know every biochemical system on the planet, let's say for the sake of argument that there are irreducibly complex biochemical systems that fit Behe's definition.
   
   
2. At least three separate, observed, mechanisms are proposed for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems, those three being (A)redundant complexity, (B)improvements becoming necessities due to other changes, and (C)duplication and divergence.
   
   1. I've discussed redundant complexity before, where more chemicals are around than are absolutely necessary, but they support the process as more efficient systems gradually develop. Once the more efficient system is developed, the former system atrophies.
      
   2. H. Allen Orr describes this one, using the development of the lung as an example. In short, the first critters developed lungs not as necessities, but as an advantage. However later evolutionary adaptations: legs, arms, hands, etc. that made living on land easier made lungs a necessity. A similar process occurs in the cell.
      
   3. Gene duplication occurs regularly in the cell, resulting in an extra gene, one that can mutate without deleterious effect on the organism. Should that mutation prove advantageous, it will be selected and passed on, leading to divergence. That divergence, as noted in the previous example, could make the advantage necessary.
   
   In short, this statement is simply not true. It is very possible for systems that are defined as irreducibly complex could have developed gradually, through Darwinian evolution.
   
   But let's press on.
   
3. This statement in not necessarily true. In fact, it would be very surprising if it were true because throughout nature, when you change scale, the balance of operating forces change, meaning the rules also change. Newtonian physics works very well until your velocity achieves a significant fraction of c, at which point it breaks down completely. It is a reasonable approximation of the truth, but only within certain limits. Similarly, when you get into sub atomic physics, and quantum mechanics in particular, the physical "laws" that govern our mundane existence appear to go out for a bite of lunch, and all hell breaks loose.
   
   In short, the assumption that the same forces that control macro-evolution may not be the same forces that control micro or cellular evolution. This statmeent is not fact, but an as yet untested hypothesis.
   
4. This statment is a conditional, and since the first part of the statement is untrue, then so is the second. Since Darwinian evolution can explain irreducible complexity, then it can explain biochemical systems.
   
5. This final statement is a complete logical fallacy. Not only is it a conditional whose premise is false, even if the premise were true, the conclusion is invalid. Disproof of one theory does not constitute proof of another.

So, for those of you keping score at home, the final tally is one "maybe", and four "no"s.

Behe's argument does not stand up under scrutiny.

I read Michael Silence's blog daily. For some unknown reason (I'm lazy) I haven't put him on the list of daily reads. That has been corrected.

I don't have a hard time with this for one very simple reason. I'm willing to bet any amount of money you care to wager that he works harder during his "vacations" than most of the rest of us do during our regular work week.

Any takers?

Here's the point I was trying to make before, without much success.

Old media (TV, Newspapers, etc) functioned as gatekeepers because they were the sole source for news and information. You had to use what they put out because you had no other choices.

BLoggers, no matter how big they get, simply do not have the same ability to restrict the flow of information because we now have so many alternatives. The most they can do, as I wrote in a comment, is amplify those stories they find interesting, and that's a completely different thing than filtering.

Local Radio personality Frank Murphy ("First Call Frank" at STAR 102.1) has started up a blog, quietly, without telling anyone. (Unless of course he mentioned it on the air sometime before I woke up, which is quite possible.) I think he wants to labor in relative isolation for a while ("...for a while")* before hitting the big time, so don't tell anybody else about it, OK? We'll keep it just between us.

* Semi-obscure movie reference. Anybody get it?

OK, look. I have as many problems with darwinian evolution as the next guy, probably more. I have almost as many problems with the neo-Darwinists as basically all they did was try to define the problems away. I mean, Darwin stated that in order for his theory to be correct, evolution would have to occur in small changes spread fairly uniformly over vast lengths of time. Now we know that evolution does not occur that way, that change comes rapidly, then slows, and for reasons we can't even begin to make a good guess at. Neo Darwinists have had to tinker so much with the theory of evolution that I am comfortable in saying that Darwin himself would reject the bastard progeny of his rather elegant theory were he alive today.

However, it's the best working theory we've got, and the holes in it just show areas where we need more knowledge.

ID on the other hand, is snake oil pure and simple. There is no science behind it because it makes an invalid logical leap. Put simply, IDers claim that since evolution is flawed and there are aspects of life that evolution as currently constructed cannot explain, then Intelligent Design is the only alternative.

Wrongo, me buckos. Disproof of one theory is not proof of another, no matter how much you might wish it to be so in your pointy little heads.

Here is a quick and dirty rundown of ID, including the fatal flaw, as gleaned from Michael Behe's Book, Darwin's Black Box

Behe claims that certain biochemical systems in cells are so complex and so sensitive to change that they couldn't possibly have evolved since even one small change would render the system non-functional. He calls this the principle of irreducible complexity, and uses a simple mousetrap as an example. If you remove one piece of a mousetrap, he says, it no longer functions as a mousetrap. Therefore the different pieces could not have been assembled through the series of small changes described by evolutionary theory, therefore a mousetrap could not evolve. And since it could not have evolved, it must have been designed and manufactured.

Holy Creationism, Batman! He's got a good point.

This is why Robin is destined to maintain his sidekick status and never make it to full fledged crimefighter even if he does change his name to Nightwing. Mr. Behe glosses over several other possibilities evident even to a casual science observer like myself.

Example the first. Current theories allow for a primordial soup of complex chemicals globbing together in self replicating bunches, then encapsulating and so on and so forth. The details are kind of sketchy since it's tough to recreate a million or so years of time under laboratory conditions unless you have a spare solar system and a few million years to play with and since we're not hyperdimensional mice with that kind of time on our hands, we'll have to muddle through.

So, assuming the soup theory is correct, how hard is it to conceive of an encapsulation of not only all the necessary parts for a mousetrap, or in the case of evolution, a complex biochemical system, but also about a hundred thousand extra chemicals hanging out in the globule as well? Apparently not that hard since I can conceive of it. Now all evolution has to do is get rid of the redundant parts, refining a process that already exists until the system reaches maximum efficiency, defined as no extraneous parts. We now have a complex biochemical system where each component is absolutely vital to the functioning of the system and we got there using the small successive changes required by Darwinian theory.

Thanks you, please hold all applause until the presentation is complete.

I call this redundant complexity and it blows irreducible complexity out of the water.

Example the second. Behe said that any change in the components of a mousetrap render it unusable as a mousetrap. He never mentions that perhaps the intermediate forms had a use other than as a mousetrap? A mouse trap with a broken spring can be used as a paperweight, no? Many biochemical systems share components; the same chemicals are used over and over in different applications. Isn't it possible that incompletely formed biochemical systems may have served other functions, even if not very efficiently?

Yes it is and thank you for asking.

And that about wraps it up for irreducible complexity, which is a mortal wound for ID, since we no longer require (and never actually did) a designer to create those irreducibly complex systems; they very well could have arisen from Darwinian changes.

PS: This attack on ID is much more robust than the conventional "ID is not science because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis" argument that most make because once you get past the near religious fervor which many evolution scientists profess, Neo-Darwinism is no more falsifiable than is ID.

So, they're going to fix the shuttle using a spacewalk to clip off the two strings dangling from underneath the shuttle. The've been planning this spacewalk for several days now, going over every aspect of the job, uitilizing countless man hours from some of the greatest brains on the planet to make sure the shuttle comed home safe.

And what do these experts come up with?

Duct tape.

They built a hacksaw out of a bent blade and duct taped it to a handle and they're ready to go.

Next time y'all want to laugh as NASCAR, just remembe rthat those good old boys are using NASA approved technology everytime they send a beat up race car back out onto the track.

SayUncle links to Vanderleun about fears that the blogosphere is becoming the mainstream media by being held hostage to "gatekeepers” like Instapundit and DailyKos.

From Uncle:

Do a select few of the blog elite (never thought I’d hear that phrase) control the dissemination of information? You betcha.

From Vanderleun:

It was once thought that one of the best things about this medium was that it routed around the gatekeepers in the mainstream media. And it did. It did it so well that it evolved gatekeepers of its own. Human, all too human. It would seem that we are not, in the final analysis, prisoners of our media, but prisoners of ourselves. And, as usual, we hand the keys over to someone else.

Where both of these fine folks go wrong is to neglect what makes the blogosphere so powerful and unique in the history of media.

Choice.

Unlike the MSM, Kos does not control the dissemination of information, nor does Professor Reynolds. If anything, they broaden the discussion by pointing out not only new information but new sources as well. Back in the bad old days, news was passive; we didn't have a choice what stories we read or watched on the TV. We ate whatever Brokaw, Rather, Cronkite, or the New York Times saw fit to serve us. Given the revelations of the past few years of bias, distortion, plagiarism and outright falsification, we have to wonder whether what they served us had even a vague resemblance to reality.

Today, we don't have to wonder. Thanks largely to blogs, we know when we're being fed a line of crap. We have a choice of news sources wider than ever before. When a major story breaks, not only do we get the MSM take on it, we also get local first hand information from bloggers on the scene. For example, during the tsunami, bloggers had first hand information from folks on the scene, faster, more complete, and many times more accurate than that given by the MSM. I can also point to the many Iraqi blogs that provided accounts of the events leading up to and during the war, accounts that were quite often at variance with those provided by the MSM.

Although Vanderleun dismisses cases like Rathergate as the exception rather than the rule, that's missing the point. The exception would not exist without the rule. Without the aggregate of the blogosphere, the Rathergate story would have sunken without a trace. Charles Johnson may have noted that the format of the memo was identical to an MS Word document. Donald Sensing would have known that the terminology used in the memo did not conform with standard military usage. Typographers and other experts would have known that the typeface used and the formatting of the document could not have been produced on any typewriter found in common use in the TANG at the time. All of these people would have known all of this, but their individual knowledge never would have been brought together without the blogosphere, not because the knowledge wasn't out there, but because those with the knowledge did not have a voice.

While the penetration of the blogosphere might not be anything like that of television or the rest of the mainstream media, by its nature it doesn't have to be. Bloggers cut across all former demographic lines, cutting six degrees of separation down to two or three. This means that information from blogs cuts those lines as well. In short, while penetration might not be deep, like multi-level marketing or your standard pyramid scheme, it doesn't have to be.

In a real way, every one of us now has a voice. We can provide our unique combination of knowledge, information, and expertise to a truly global forum, and if our information is relevant, it will be heard. As a small example, after the big blackout a while back, I wrote a post explaining how a power generating network worked, and why an overload in one place could cascade throughout a network. I later found out through my logs that that post had been linked by a radio station somewhere in the Pacific Northwest so their listeners could understand what had happened.

Without the blogosphere, that never would have happened.

The bottom line is this: Reynolds and Kos do not create a bottleneck of information, as does the MSM. Rather, they provide links to alternative sources of news and analysis, by definition expanding the flow of information. While some folks may choose to use them as a filter, I suspect that many others do as I do, and read them as one small part of my efforts to be fully informed.