From Dan Carpenter's column today, defending Hillary Clinton's conduct re: Benghazi:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013305130067

As the resident liberal, Democrat voice for the Indianapolis Star, it's one thing for Carp to go to the mat for the former Secretary of State regarding her role in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans and up to 100 terrorists.

The attack took place Sept. 11, and the spin has not stopped. That's politics. But thanks to testimony from Gregory Hicks, the Libyan embassy's deputy chief of mission, we now know that it was clear to Hicks and others that the attack was by terrorists, not angry protesters, as the Obama spin cycle suggested.

Be that as it may. What I found amusing and totally disingenuous about Dan's defense was this paragraph regarding the Clinton family legacy:

"What started as a highly dubious probe of a land deal (Whitewater) involving her (Hillary) and her husband metastasized into a $50 million crusade that resulted in the impeachment of a president over an alleged lie about an alleged act of fellatio."

An "alleged lie" over "an alleged act of fellatio"? Please. I won't dignify this nonsense with numerous citings of the facts....although I will put forth Wiki:

"Clinton admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky. That evening he gave a nationally televised statement admitting his relationship with Lewinsky which was "not appropriate"."

This is all old news. What is amazing, even astonishing, is that Carpenter is so bent on backing Hillary's sorry ass he stoops to denying what everyone knows what happened, happened.

This is like referring to "the alleged Watergate break-in."

But don't expect a correction. Carpenter writes opinion pieces, so he's no doubt golden. However, it's exactly this sort of bullshit column/perspective that turns people off from MSM. Talk about silly season.

Call it what it was: a blow job. And Clinton lied about it. Until he fessed up. In that, his credibility is greater than Dan Carpenter's.

Music and theater critic Jay Harvey is leaving the Indianapolis Star, retiring. Now I have to worry about who Dan Carpenter will have lunch with. Well, and as Star reporter Dan McFeely suggested, whether or not anyone will replace Jay a the paper?  The smart money is on no.

Harvey is not really retiring, though; he is writing and publishing a cool blog with insights about the arts community that should have made the cut at the newspaper, but probably are too prosaic and thoughtful.

Here's the link:

http://jayharveyupstage.blogspot.com/2013/05/leaving-star.html

As I told Jay on Facebook -- where I get a lot of superficial but sometimes pertinent information -- he was always too nuanced for straight journalism. Successful, yes, but I'm not sure his unique talents were well-tapped there.

Can someone be too smart for daily reporting? Or maybe too deep a thinker? Who knows? But his skills are well-suited to the sound of his own voice.

Going to bookmark.

Former News and Star features reporter Abe Aamidor continues to build his career as an author.

Here's an update from him April 19:

"I'm pleased to announce that 'Media Smackdown: Deconstructing the News and the Future of Journalism,' with Abe Aamidor as lead author, has been published by Peter Lang Publishing.

"The book deals with the history of journalism in the US, some legal issues, and charges of bias in the media. Both the initial proposal and final version of the book were peer reviewed, and the book has been endorsed by Jim Brown of Indiana University; Hal Fulmer of Troy University; Robert E. Denton of Virginia Tech; Stephen Cooper of Marshall University; and Ward Bushee of The San Francisco Chronicle.

It's hard for some of us to believe that investors/developers see value in the old Star/News building, but having read the news in today's Star, it must be so.

Many of us, when we heard that the building was on the market, thought who would want it? -- too much ink stink, possible environmental hazard issues (asbestos and ink so thick it was a brownfields, as former Star copy editor Judy Wolf said). Besides all that, the layout was a maze.

However, gutting the insides and building 500 (!) apartments, putting in a parking garage where the presses used to be, etc., makes sense. The Whitsett Group seems well-poised as developers, since they are already refurbishing the equally funky American Building.

As for where the 650 or so lost souls -- employees -- will re-locate, I'm hearing Market and East Street. Also in the running at various times were the former Nordstrom Building and the Emmis HQ.

But now for fun: if anybody still reads this blog -- sorry, I've had a protuding disc, pinched nerve and pain but am now fit -- and you have memories of the old Star building, fire away.

Here's what I recall: walking into the Star's offices for a first time was like entering a lair. Hallways were well-carpeted and well-lit, but there was an air of going deeper into the bowels, like the Mines of Moria, then stepping down into a "sunken" newsroom (stairs at one point beyond the library and outside the exec editor's office led down the hall).

I remember being weirded out by the Pulliams' super conservative politics/John Birch Society vibe. Thus I suspected that that "units" up in the corners (everywhere) were cameras to spy on all of us. Actually, they were emergency lights, tied to a generator, in case of a power failure...but if they had been cameras, they would only have seen a lot of smoking and joking, and some imbibing and fighting, amidst occasional journalism being committed.

It was an unhealthy building. The air quality sucked, and by the 1980s or so, you couldn't open the windows. All the expensive, flashy, decorating renovations never eliminated the mice and cockrocaches.

Still, it produced journalists who produced Pulitzers and a lot of other good, even excellent, work.

Somehow. 

What do you recall?