Hillary Ross Clinton

Hillary is seeking middle ground on abortion. In a speech in Albany, she restated her support for Roe v Wade, but pointedly noted that "faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons teenagers abstained from sexual relations" (fedora tip: Mr. Matt). The Insightful Bartender thinks moving to the center is a good idea. She got a gasp from the crowd when she revealed that '7% of the women who don't use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies' (NY Times, reg req'd)

I believe that her game is even larger than a presidential run.

She's trying to supercede the Democratic Party. If she continues on anything like this pace, she will have driven the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" (aka: the socialists) insane by, oh, about late 2005. Which leaves her in a perfect position to start a new party, with her at the top, espousing a "Third Way between Socialism and Fundamentalism".

Granted, she has problems, such as the Healthcare debacle of '94. But by then, it'll be ancient history, and frankly, it'll give her Lefty cred to keep the base roped in. She's a proven money-raiser, and by the end of 2007, most of the money people will have concluded that This Wacko isn't the answer, and be hungry for someone, anyone, who can lead them out of the wilderness.

There's a market for it, she's gutsy enough to go for it, and it's just crazy enough to work.

Big Media's Abuse of The First Amendment

I saw this post at BuzzMachine, and it got me to put in words something that has been bothering me for years. I've long felt that the First Amendment was being used as a Trojan Horse by Big Media.

Consider it from GM's point of view: How would you like to duck behind an Iwo Jima-esque defensive wall, obliterating all but the most cursory restrictions on your product, but still get to treat what you sell as product in every other way? I can think of at least two examples where speech goes over the line, and becomes merely a 'sold product', no different from pencils. If 'speech' has been focus - grouped, it's PRODUCT, not speech. If tie-in products are sold, it's PRODUCT, not speech. Particularly if tie-ins are sold BEFORE the release of the (movie, or whatever).

Focus matters, too. If your focus is news and/or opinion, you are much less likeley to simply be selling pencils than if you'e also selling "Jackass". Think Dow Jones versus Disney, for example. Size matters, too. The bigger you are, the more apt the 'speech' is really going to be 'product' rather than speech. Accessibility matters, too. It's a lot easier to stomach content you have to directly pay for than content that's ad-supported. And the standard can be lower for one than the other.

...But what of the novelist, you ask? The playwright, moviemaker, or sitcom "company"? Damn good questions, all. Raising the issue is still important, because curbing obvious abuses by multinationals can mitigate potential backlash, ironically keeping all of our rights a little safer...

Oh, so THAT explains it...

There is a subscription-based infopinion© site called To The Point that I don't read. Fortunately for me, WorldNetDaily does, because "Point's" Dr. Jack Wheeler has a provocative article. His thesis is brutally simple: the reason the U.S. hasn't been attacked since 9/11 is that Bush has warned Osama that another attack will provoke a nuclear retaliation against Mecca. And that part of the Afghani/Iraq campaigns' subtext is to demonstrate to Osama that Bush is serious.

As they say, click the title link above, and read the whole thing.