J's Cafe Nette

Archive for September 17th, 2007

The New York Times has decided to abandon its TimesSelect paid service.

Now we can all read MoDo, Friedman and all the rest of the extreme left-wing media employed by the NYT of charge.

The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight tonight.

The move comes two years to the day after The Times began the subscription program, TimesSelect, which has charged $49.95 a year, or $7.95 a month, for online access to the work of its columnists and to the newspaper’s archives. TimesSelect has been free to print subscribers to The Times and to some students and educators.

In addition to opening the entire site to all readers, The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986, and some will be free.

The Times said the project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers — out of 787,000 over all — and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.

“But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,” said Vivian L. Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of the site, NYTimes.com.

I used to always get a sleazy feeling after reading MoDo and was happy to not see her in print. I think I’ve broken the MoDo habit for good.

While MoDo made me angry Friedman just made me sleepy.

If they paid me to read the newspaper on a regular basis I would say the price is still too high.

Tweet This Post

Maybe Ted Olson did not want the job.

Perhaps he removed himself from the short list of candidates considered for Attorney General, or better yet, maybe he was never really on the list. I never heard from the President or Mr. Olson that this assertion had any teeth.

Did Chuck Schumer get a heads up from one of those career Democrats in the Justice Department that Judge Michael Mukasey was the Presidents choice allowing him to come out along with Senator Reid and let all conservatives know they would support this man if nominated? And did the base buy this trick that the left has used effectively before?

We’ll see exactly how pleased the Democrats are with this choice at the Senate confirmation hearing. I would bet even money that it won’t be a love fest and I would lay the same odds that within the first few months of confirmation something will be done at Justice which will be on the front page of the papers for weeks to come and it won’t be positive.

I have read many blogs today on this issue and while almost everyone admits they know little about this gentleman,(I was enlightened as to his credentials after reading this,) many are simply disappointed because they preferred Ted Olson. If we don’t hold our powder on this and create another foot stomping firestorm it will serve no purpose but trouble for the Right. It will play, once again, right into the hands of some of the most devious politicians Washington has ever known. Maybe if we lose the White House and both houses of Congress remain in the hands of the Democrats some will learn their lesson.

Is Ted Olson a good man, certainly. Was he the only option President Bush had for this position, no. I’d make one last bet, this selection was not about Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid or bloggers opinions or anything in the major media.

There was one man in the end deciding what he felt would be best for the Department of Justice at this time. And I for one will at least allow the Judge the opportunity to succeed before I condemn him. If his nomination proves to have been a mistake it will lie with one man, the President, and I am certain there will not be enough bandwidth, paper or words to make it known.

Many were revved up for a bruising battle in the Senate. Why? It was not their name or reputation which would have been smeared by pompous politicians or the press. Another good man would have been drug through the mud in a dog and pony show. Ted Olson deserves better than that, and if he was in the running maybe the circus atmosphere in Washington convinced him and his family to respectfully decline. I don’t know the backstory and I doubt many others do either.

Conservatives had better be very careful in this last year leading up to a very important election. In January 2009 will it really make any difference who the Presidents chose as his Attorney General, I think not. But our political landscape could be changed for a number of years if we once again jump the shark on this issue.

UPDATE: We won’t even have to wait for the hearings, the Democrats have already begun their maneuvers.

Just hours after President Bush said he will nominate Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge from New York, as his next attorney general, Senate Democrats threatened today to hold up Mr. Mukasey’s confirmation unless the White House turns over some documents they are seeking.

One would hope this would be enough to convince many on the right that the Democrats have chosen to do nothing but obstruct. This type of behavior should anger and unite the Republican base and make them all the more determined to see the President’s nominee confirmed. We’ll see.

Tweet This Post

Some very interesting videos on the risk and prevention of breast cancer are in the New York Times.

Please check them out at:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Here’s the link to the entire story.

It seems radical, but when you know you are genetically predisposed to breast cancer it’s certainly an option.

Tweet This Post

After Alan Greenspan wrote in his memoir that

“I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”

he seems to be feeling a bit guilty about what he said and feels a need to explain what he meant.

Quoting now from the actual WaPo interview he gave after the story broke we see a bit of squirming:

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.” Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, “Well, unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.” Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, “I talked to everybody about that.” …

…His main support for Hussein’s ouster, though, was economically motivated. “If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands,” Greenspan said, “our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel — far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week — and the loss of anything more would mean “chaos” to the global economy.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”

It seems Mr. Greenspan was engaging in a bit of projection.

Tweet This Post

I had made up my mind I wasn’t going to write about OJ Simpson until and unless he got found guilty of some crime.

I even discussed it with Sue and we agreed we weren’t going to write about it.

Then I read this and began to think about it.

The man got away with double murder scot-free. Now he’s denied bail for a burglary charge and if he’s found guilty will probably spend the rest of his natural life in prison.

Poetic justice for the Brown and Goldman families and justice for his victims finally.

Tweet This Post

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday he will recommend a veto should a bill sponsored by Sen. Webb of Virginia pass the Senate.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. James H. Webb Jr., Virginia Democrat, that would require that troops be given equal time off to match tours of duty, was dismissed by Mr. Gates as “a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdown.”

“Trying to manage to this kind of legislation is extremely difficult,” Mr. Gates said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” adding that the military has a difficult enough time managing current policy, which gives troops 12 months off for 15 months of combat duty.

Asked in a separate interview by “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace whether he would recommend a veto of the bill, Mr. Gates said, “Yes, I would.” …

…Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, defended the administration’s strategy during a “Meet the Press” appearance, saying U.S. troop reductions should be tied to military and political progress on the ground.

Mr. McCain, a decorated Vietnam veteran who is seeking his party’s 2008 presidential nomination, said that along with military progress, Iraqis have made significant progress toward political reconciliation on the local level.

He warned, however, that an early withdrawal would force the country’s various political factions to form alliances with Iran and al Qaeda.

“I am convinced that the … government [of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki], if they are told we are leaving, they have to stay in the neighborhood, and they will adjust to conditions in the neighborhood. That’s dealing — making deals with al Qaeda and others,” he said.

Sen. Carl Levin has offered his own redeployment proposal. His bill would limit the mission of U.S. forces to training Iraqi forces and combating al Qaeda, something the administration says already is reflected in their long-term goals.

Mr. Gates rejected claims from Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, that the Bush war policy would leave more than 100,000 troops in the country for the next decade.

“I think that no one believes right now that that’s going to prove necessary,” he said.

They’ve been beaten on this issue so many times their brains must feel like mush, but onward they march, trying for a new result.

If the 57 votes projected turns into 60 votes I predict they will never be able to muster the extra votes to override a veto.

Let the generals run the war and inform the president and congress of the best way to do it.

Just when victory is within reach the Democrats keep trying to snatch defeat from its jaws. Of course they would because it’s a campaign issue for them.

Right now our current strategy could also backfire and they can still claim credit, but give our troops and commanders a chance to see through the surge and show us the positive results we are reading from the milbloggers and heard from Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker last week.

Sure there are political problems in Iraq. I imagine there were lots of political problems in our country when it was a baby too.

Tweet This Post

When calling any major company for technical assistance or customer support lately I’ve been so frustrated I want to scream.

I had to make a customer service call about something a couple of weeks ago and reached a girl in Mexico. Her accent wasn’t too thick and she was nice and resolved my problem.

Last week I had a problem with my computer and tried to call the manufacturer since they had installed Windows XP on the computer.

I got an American, but all he said he could do was reset the computer to the original settings, which meant I would have to re-install all my programs after backing them up. I declined.

I then went to Microsoft’s web site to get a help number. The quoted fee was $59 and I decided the aggravation of seeing my desktop with rectangles in color under every icon was worth the cost.

I got my call answered by a very prim and proper gentleman who sounded British and was very rude; almost condescending.

He insisted the price was $79 and I insisted the price on the website was $59. Finally, Mr. Personality relented.

I later found out he was just the guy who assigned a trouble ticket number and collected the money.

I was transferred to another Indian (did I tell you Mr. Prim and Proper was from India?)

This was a nice guy who said his name was Patrick. Sure it was. The first thing he wanted to do was take control of my computer, and like a fool, I allowed him to do so.

He never resolved the problem after making registry changes and who knows what else before he left and I went to bed.

The next day someone from India called me to see if I was satisfied with the service, and when I said I had the same problem she put me on with another technical assistant.

She immediately told me she had to take control of my computer, and I hadn’t learned my lesson yet, so I let her.

She managed to get a view on the computer I had never seen and couldn’t get it back to the correct desktop view. I asked her how she did that so she could un-do it, but she claimed something opened up by itself and gave her that view.

I asked her how a program could open itself and got no answer.

Finally, I told her I wanted her to put everything back the way it was and I’d live with it. I told her to close out the ticket as unresolved and I called to get a refund.

Sunday I came home from church with a voice mail message from some guy with Microsoft in India telling me he was calling about something and would send an email to me so I could call back.

I never got the email, and I never understood what he was calling about because his accent was so thick.

Each person I talked to had a progressively thicker Indian accent than the last one.

They all had American names, as if any American would actually believe they were their real names.

All I want is my desktop to look the way it used to (yes, I’ve done system restore several times) and be able to understand the instructions from the technician.

After the last girl messed up my computer completely I found I was unable to open any Microsoft Office products without the product trying to re-install and re-configure everytime.

I called India again, and this time told him I would not give him control of my computer. Somehow he got my problem fixed but when I tried to open Outlook the program was corrupted.

I tried to uninstall it, but it was as if it were already uninstalled as I couldn’t get into the program and the icon showed up like an uninstalled program.

I used my disk and, after typing the 25 character product ID several times, was able to restore my email.

Now, if my desktop would just look right and if I had the same sounds on the system I’d be happy, but I won’t be calling India anytime soon.

I’d rather take a beating.

Tweet This Post

I can’t find anyone yet who is excited about the presidential prospects of either party.

I’m going to talk about the three frontrunners in each party in this post.

First, the Democratic frontrunners.

1. Hillary Clinton

She comes with a lot of baggage. Most people don’t really trust her to be honest with us should she achieve the office of President of the United States.

Her ties to Norman Hsu bring back bad memories of campaign finance scandals of her husband’s administration.

Her talk of medical insurance reform brings back scary thoughts of Hillarycare that went nowhere fast when she brought it up the first time.

She has in her campaign’s employ one Sandy Berger, who was caught stuffing papers from the National Archives and admits to destroying said papers.

What was Berger trying to hide from us at the behest of the Clintons?

I sometimes think of the Clintons as being their own little crime family.

2. Barack Obama

An empty suit. Need I say more?

No experience in national politics except two years in the Senate.

3. John Edwards

Another empty suit, only with nice hair.

He earned his money as a trial lawyer suing doctors and pharmaceutical companies, thereby helping to drive up the cost of medical insurance for everyone.

His only experience in politics has been one term in the Senate, in which he spent about 1/3 of that term running for president and then vice-president.

He was unable to carry his home state for John Kerry and would have lost his Senate seat had he run again.

Now the Republicans:

1. Rudolph Giuliani

Current frontrunner. Socially liberal but tough on terror. Experienced as a U.S. Attorney and the Mayor of New York City. Was mayor during 9/11 and conducted himself well under trying circumstances.

Has not been very successful in marriages and carries baggage there.

Is for abortion but is also a firm supporter of the War on Terror.

Probably would not object to same-sex marriages.

It depends on whether your social concerns out-weigh your national security concerns.

2. Fred Thompson

Was special counsel to Watergate Committee. Came up with the famous “What did the president know and when did he know it?” question and revealed the White House tapes while questioning Alexander Butterfield.

Served one and a partial term as Senator from Tennessee, then went into acting full-time.

Announced his candidacy on the Jay Leno show, which made a lot of Republicans angry at the gamesmanship.

Running as a conservative, but we don’t really know his positions yet. We’ll have to reserve judgment until we hear him in a debate and read up on his positions.

3. Mitt Romney

Former governor of Massachusetts, stepped in and fixed the Salt Lake City Olympics. Attractive, but almost too cute by half.

Has flip-flopped on the issues from his stances on abortion when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate to now.

What does he really stand for? Who knows but Mitt Romney?

Just another pretty face.

So here we have six candidates for the nation’s highest job, and so far I can’t get excited about any of them.

I want to be able to vote for someone who shares my values on abortion, the War on Terror, same-sex marriage etc. and not just against another candidate.

Feel free to discuss your choices in the comments section.

Tweet This Post

What an honor it must have been for several milbloggers to have an opportunity to meet President Bush and have him answer their questions. I am certain the President felt much gratitude towards these men and women, as they have tirelessly worked to deliver the true message on issues military.

It was difficult to select the blog to link to in this post, but I ultmately chose Mudville Gazette as Mrs. Greyhawk provides excellent photos and also links to the sites of others in attendance.

The anticipation of meeting the President was far more nerve wracking than actually meeting him. Matt joked before hand that he wasn’t sure if Mohammed would be able to go the whole meeting without a cigarette. I worried I’d have to excuse myself during the meeting to go to the ladies room after gulping down an extra large white chocolate mocha coffee from Starbucks. But after the President entered the room, worked his way around the table, shaking hands and sitting comfortably in his chair, we all immediately felt at ease. He thanked us for coming and acknowledged it was the “first time a president had met with bloggers at the White House”. It was history in the making. This alone was awe-inspiring and I did have to concentrate hard to keep from having an idiotic grin on my face thru out the meeting, especially since we were all discussing serious issues.

I cannot think of a group more deserving of some one on one time with President Bush and I hope they recognize how many of us also appreciate their (in many instances) first hand commentary.

Tweet This Post

The Academy may have to add a new category to their awards. Best Screenplay by a Blogger would be most fitting for this post from Jay Tea at Wizbang.

From “Your 15 Minutes Are Up” Studios, comes a love story for the ages.

She’s a grieving mother on a crazed quest.

He’s a disgraced former star athlete.

When Ms. Absolute Moral Authority meets Mr. Absolutely Innocent, the sparks fly.

Absolutely hilarious!

Tweet This Post