 |
NEXTopia
Welcome to NEXTopia, a Web diary in which NEXT writers — and readers — share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily those representing The Seattle Times.
Respond to NEXTopia
Currently, NEXTopia cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, writers and editors will regularly post your name and comments unless you note otherwise. |
July 30, 2004
| Repeat after me... |
Here's a nice graph I found putting the liberal bias into a different light:
"In a study commissioned (by) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, "Still Failing the 'Fair & Balanced' Test," found that between June and December 2003, the conservative guests outnumbered liberal guests 5 to 1 on Brit Hume's Special Report, the channel's one-on-one flagship interview show.
But surely a bastion of liberal thought like NPR would even the scales, right?
Not so. FAIR also conducted a guest study of NPR, published in June of this
year, which found that the station used Republican sources over Democrats by
a ratio of more than 3 to 2.
(Repeat after me: "What liberal media?")
The rest of the story is pretty good, too.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:28 PM |
| Re: More balloons |
Drew’s right. The Democratic Convention hasn’t gone into detail about specific plans, but it has highlighted key issues such as national security/war, stem cell research, the economy, etc. From there, undecideds can focus their research efforts on issues of interest and importance.
In addition, the rah-rah-go-America speeches stress the importance of voting and being a good citizen -- though the extravagant costs could definitely be spent more reasonably. But extravagant spending is not limited to the convention alone; presidential campaigning (including ads) costs way, way more.
Drew’s statement brought up a good point: “$400,000 will be spent on balloons and confetti alone. If you are serious about easing the squeeze of the middle class, both parties could start by cutting their balloon budget.”
$400,000 could be spent on better things than inflated, colored plastic. In laymen’s terms, $400,000 could pay for four years of college tuition, plus the most expensive grad school in the country, and then some. But hey, elections are another world -- where money seems to be no object.
Keep in mind that “Preliminary expenditures for Bush and Kerry campaigns, through end of March 2004” are absolutely incredible. Bush spent approximately $100,000,000, and Kerry $55,000,000, according to CBS News.
As of last March, it was “the most expensive presidential election in U.S. history.”
Compared to that, $400,000 worth of balloons is pocket change. That relatively miniscule amount represents the sprinkles on the sundae, the icing on the cake, the maraschino cherries in a bowl of mixed fruit cocktail, the amount of chips you actually find in a jumbo-sized bag filled 75% with air...yeah, you get my point.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:23 PM |
| Whadya think? |
I read the transcript of the “debate” and was fairly disappointed in both. Neither answered the other’s questions, most of the questions were misleading and attacking, and eight minutes of time would have been better spent playing with string.
Why have a discussion between two individuals unwilling to listen to the other's viewpoint?
I could stick a monkey who calls himself a Democrat into a debate with O’Reilly and some die-hard liberals would still think the monkey won.
This, of course, begs the question I’ve asked myself a few times during this convention: Why do you ask a Republican what they think of a Democratic speech? Why do you ask a Democrat what they think of a Democratic speech?What do you think they’re going to say?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:02 PM |
| Re: The tardy New York Times whistleblower |
I guess as far as the Wall Street Journal faux conspiracy rant goes, if it isn't funny, it isn't a joke, no matter how clumsily you disguise your message. Ultimately I think it's just a wimpy way of stepping around what you really want to say. Under the pretense of "humor," you can fire as many irresponsible accusations as you want without having to take responsibility for your message. But The Wall Street Journal should know where it stands: it's not fun or funny -- in this case it's passive aggressive and that's always lame.
As for the bias argument, I guess I'll do a 180 and bite. Everybody knows Teresea Heinz Kerry told some "reporter" to "shove it". The media has had a field day with that, but what the media don't tell you is that the "shovee" works for a conservative billionaire who operates smear campaigns against liberals; the man actually has a vendetta against Mrs. Kerry. But that doesn't
make the news, even though that's more of a story.
Then there's the issue commonly illustrated that John Kerry is a big-shot Massachusettes billionaire married to another east-coast billionaire. The media paint a distorted picture of the "liberal elite" being some snooty country club estate reminiscent of a Twisted Sister video. At the same time, Bush is portayed as a cowboy, never mind the fact he's the son of a filthy rich oil baron. We don't hear much about that, because the media like to focus on personalities as opposed to issues.
When was the last time the mainstream media reported on Bush's environmental catastrophes? They don't cover it, but that doesn't mean terrible things aren't happening -- look at Weyerhauser's latest profit earnings and tell me they aren't grateful for productive lobbying.
You see bias works both ways -- the conservatives just whine more.
Krugman did a good piece on it this morning...
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:50 PM |
July 29, 2004
| Moore vs. O'Reilly |
I just read the transcript from Michael Moore versus Bill O'Reillly. It appears as if the O'Reilly "spin factor" isn't quite so keen when he's matched up against a qualified adversary on neutral terms. I think old Bill should stick to arguing with misinformed rappers and beating the Laci Peterson thing over the head.
In case you missed it...
Moore basically wipes the floor with O'Reilly's unwillingness to hold Bush accountable for sending American kids to die for vague reasons. At first it was WMD's, but it wasn't Bush's fault he decided to go to war with bogus info, then it was about freeing the world of bad dictators, uh huh.
That's a convenient shift of logic, forget the whole imminent threat argument and just do it because you want to see the Iraqi people happy. 900 dead Americans later, O'Reilly is left with swiss cheese for an argument and I assume a sense of regret for ever challenging Moore in the first place.
Read for yourselves...
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:10 PM |
| Convention reflections |
The Democratic National Convention has been okay so far. I'm yet to throw my hands in the air and scream "Hallelujah!" I haven't heard anything that's really going to stick. There's yet to be a real quote issued, other than what Al Sharpton said about riding the donkey, and that probably offended more fence-riding conservatives than anything.
It seems most speeches start off with ten minutes focusing on how great so-and-so's wife and kids are, then they go into a psuedo-psychic mode where they start rambling with the usual, "things are gonna change I can feel it..."
Why not tell it like it is? Think about Bush's only strength in the world: His ability to appear common. Why not harness this simple Bush formula and move from point to point -- in layman's terms -- about how you can do better than the incumbent?
Instead of some flowery, fruity stuff about "I dream of a better tomorrow in which America embraces yadda, yadda, yadda..." why not say it like a smarter Bush? Throw out a couple of well-placed semi-curses ("damn" and "hell" come to mind) and rally the troops like a football coach -- instead of a plastic corpse.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times said this in her editorial today, "Some Democrats fear that Mr. Kerry could be falling into a Republican trap, so worried about offending swing voters that he misses the knockout swing."
In a previous graph, she wrote, "(Dick Cheney, meanwhile, was as offensive as ever, mocking the unfortunate picture of Mr. Kerry in his embryonic spacesuit.)"
If the Dems want to go toe to toe, they've got the Republicans beat on Bush's lame record alone. Give Dick a taste of his own dirty medicine: whenever he says anything, scream, "Halliburton Enron!" If he talks about fighting terrorism, talk about $87 billion dollar aid packages for the next 10 years so that Iraq can go back to being the same non-threat it was before.
The arguments are easy, the passion is lacking. Forget the pundits, get angry and let the truth ring loud!
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:56 PM |
| Trash talk |
I thought the government was working on regulations to outlaw SPAM but apparently Dick Cheney isn't interested.
My girlfriend received some "personalized" letter from the VP himself, talking about how the Democrats will spend $500 million dollars on negative campaigning this year and a bunch of other garbage about Bush and himself rising to the terrorist challenge. Then he asked for $500.
Aside from the inherently trashy nature of broadcasting lies and panhandling for your political life, Dick Cheney is talking trash about talking trash, which in itself is ironic and disgusting.
Fortunately, we had our keen liberal sensors on high beam and were not the least bit taken by Slick Dick's clumsy attempt at mass-produced, intrusive begging, but it does make me wonder, how many suckers out there are biting on Dick Cheney's message of campaign E-Hate?
Dick Cheney's minions drafted this letter, knowing that somewhere out there, ignorant fish would be biting. With that in mind, I want to suggest that idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote. It sounds arrogant and who is to say who is an idiot and who isn't, but if somebody is persuaded by a blatantly negative letter whose primary argument is focused against negative letters, doesn't that mean the persuaded recipient is an idiot?
If only we could take the rights away from morons as opposed to bashing the gays and trashing the first amendment. If elected president, I will make stupidity hurt.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:28 PM |
| Abortion questions |
I haven't personally finalized my own belief on abortion, but does anyone else find it a bit troubling that Kerry believes life begins at conception but also in abortion rights? Doesn't that logically mean that Kerry believes that people have the right to choose to murder a live baby?
What's the other explanation? I haven't decided when I believe life begins, which is why I haven't decided on abortion rights (pro-con)...
Shoot... this is a blog on this page, so I probably should add in some line like "Bush is an arrogant liar deserter SOB!" or something equally inane.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 01:21 PM |
| Re: Consume 101 |
Anne Kim writes in her blog, “So, what’s the point of back-to-school shopping? It simply trains kids to be excessive consumers -- buying things they don’t really need simply because everyone else is doing it.”
Like Kim, I’m not for irresponsible shopping sprees and excessive materialism.
Having said that, moderate back-to-school shopping can be a fun, memorable, relatively harmless tradition. In elementary school, I was all excited about buying Lisa Frank gear with pictures of teddy bears, rainbows and smiling unicorns. In high school, I got slick new running shoes for cross-country. In college, shopping for dorm stuff (like cute decorations) was half the fun of moving.
Besides, let’s be honest here: Who is 100% excited for summer to end and school to start? Sure, we’re excited to see friends, participate in extracurriculars and take new classes with awesome teachers.
But some aspects of school are inevitably negative; even the most studious, determined and passionate will agree. School replaces sweet ZZZZs with screaming alarm clocks, leisurely breakfasts with early morning classes, sunbathing on cruise ships with rocky bus rides, pleasant boredom with long lists of to-dos. Ultimately, back-to-school shopping makes the bitterness of homework and tests a little sweeter.
So if spending a moderate amount on pencils, notebooks and sweaters cheers up a glum child and makes special memories, why not?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:03 PM |
| Can Kerry deliver? |
Well, I think I can officially say that John Edwards is the best political speaker I’ve seen since Bill Clinton. His thumbs-ups to the crowd aren’t even as awkward as most. He and his wife electrified the crowd and I’m sure swayed some votes. In fact, I know he reached swing voters, because my wife decided to vote for John Kerry because of his speech. The guy just knows how it’s done… in stark comparison to our current president or the Democratic candidate for President. Pressure’s on Kerry now…will he deliver?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 12:55 PM |
| A few thoughts |
A few thoughts on the convention so far:
Barack Obama is a rising star. His speech was amazing as a keynote address and a face for the democratic party. The Republicans don’t have a shot in Illinois at this point, even if Mike Ditka was to change his mind.
Ron Reagan’s speech was worthless, if only because it was the first policy speech made in the first two days and stem cell research has not been proven to be a swing issue. I was watching delegates staring at him during it with this, “why are we hearing this in primetime?” look on.
Teresa Heinz Kerry’s speech failed at what Democrats were hoping for… an in-depth look into her husband, similar to Elizabeth Dole’s amazing speech eight years ago. Instead, it was a half hour ramble.
Overall, it’s great to hear how wonderful America is over and over, but I’d like to hear a few more policy ideas (outside of stem cell research) that convince me as an undecided voter why the Democratic party is great. I also thought it was unfortunate that they moderated Dean’s tone… frankly if they let Teddy Kennedy go nuts, they should’ve let Dean be Dean. It is necessary to provide the differences between “us” and “them” as well, and Dean does it as well as anyone.
I’ve really enjoyed watching everything so far, and can’t wait to watch the next couple of days as well.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 12:51 PM |
| A new star is born |
While we expected a great speech by former President Clinton and he delivered, no one had expected what we got from a State Senator from Illinois, who undoubtedly will be the next U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois.
But you could also tell he studied Clinton, from using his hands like a salesman to sell himself and John Kerry. To make people understand both Republicans and Democrats want the same things and are the same people, but how one side was better to accomplish what we all want than the other.
The passion and strong belief behind his words, and most importantly, how the words of his speech itself spoke to the whole country – not just Democrats. He even used Republican language, which Clinton was a pro at doing every time he spoke. His words could unite and inspire a country, as he said, “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.”
He also said, “There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.”
This last line echoed Clinton’s greatest line of his speech, “strength and wisdom are not opposing values.” Yes, both views of the war display patriotism -- and both President Bush and John Kerry are patriots. But they want to lead the country in different directions.
Obama’s words were inspirational, and a figure who undoubtedly can resonate with young voters. Everyone should listen to this speech to understand what American politics should be: more united.
Clinton and Obama spoke to the whole country and gave them a choice, and that is why their speeches will be the most effective speeches at the Convention to the small amount of swing voters that remain, of course, not including John Kerry, who will speak Thursday night.
Tuesday night a star in the Democratic Party was introduced to the national scene. While some say 2004 did not have the greatest slew of Democratic candidates, 2012 will not be a problem for the Democrats – after Kerry serves his eight years as the President, the 2012 election for President will have three great candidates – Vice President John Edwards, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama.
What are the Republicans going to throw out against that – another Bush (Jeb)?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 12:26 PM |
| More balloons |
Thanks to Christina for reminding me that some people haven’t made up their minds yet. Seattle has warped my sense of political spectrum. But I wouldn’t say the Democratic Convention has done much to inform the undecided. The Republican Convention won’t either.
Conventions have become grand coronations of presidential hopefuls. Every moment is staged to show the American voters what they want and not what they’ll get. And conventions aren’t cheap. The Boston Globe reports that the cost will be over $50 million with a third of that coming from tax payers. $400,000 will be spent on balloons and confetti alone. If you are serious about easing the squeeze of the middle class both parties could start by cutting their balloon budget.
I have enjoyed watching this convention (Obama’s speech is the greatest political speech I have heard in person), but I haven’t heard anything about John Kerry’s ideas or plans.
There was a time when these conventions meant picking the nominee of the party. Now they seem nothing more than expensive public relation campaigns.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 12:05 PM |
July 28, 2004
| Inspired by the convention |
Regardless of your party affiliation, how can you not be inspired by this week's Democratic National Convention?
This is the first election I’ve really followed. And despite so much recent cynicism about politics and America, the Democratic National Convention makes me feel a stronger patriotism, a renewed and refreshed attitude that the youth vote really has a place within our democracy. It makes me optimistic, and glad that I’ve decided to become more informed and empowered.
Hackneyed and clichéd as it sounds, the Democratic National Convention makes me proud to be an American. It makes me want to learn more so I can be a responsible citizen, not one who lives under a rock.
Regardless of who I vote for, the convention encourages me to learn all I can and make an informed decision. A pessimist might say that I’m falling for emotionally charged political rhetoric that has nothing to do with concrete plans for solving problems. Well, I’m examining the platform -- but I’m also looking at a bigger picture from a distance.
Ironically, this is a partisan convention, but I took away an inspirational message, one of joint patriotism and national pride -- not one of Republican versus Democrat, rich versus poor, black versus white.
Good people often disagree on controversial issues. But underlying all the debate is a desire to continue serving the country and its citizens, to make America live up to its role as a world leader and role model.
Here are some inspirational quotes, recorded in The New York Times, from Barack Obama, who is on his way to victory in the Illinois Senate race and who spoke Tuesday night:
“There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.”
“We worship an awesome God in the blue [Democrat] states, and we don't
like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red [Republican] states. We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.”
“We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about.”
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:43 PM |
| Kerry wants to ease the middle class squeeze |
The Democratic National Convention on Monday night offered a simple message about the economy: "It was better under the Democrats,” reports the New York Times. “Again and again...[Bill Clinton] said voters faced a choice. If they liked the status quo, he said, stick with the Republicans. If not, he said, ‘take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats.’”
The Democrats are basically saying, “the economy will be peachy under the Democrats and horrible under those greedy Republicans.” If only it were that simple. The economy is such a clumsy, wild, flailing, confused beast; it can’t be easily and effortlessly tamed by either party.
It’s often unpredictable and difficult to make sense of. Republicans counter with the image of “Mr. Kerry as a pessimist, unwilling to acknowledge that the nation is in a strong recovery and employment is on the rise.” But like the Democratic message, the Republican message should be taken with a grain of salt; despite all the newly created jobs, unemployment remains the same.
I think the only feasible solution for voters is to closely examine the plans of both candidates, instead of relying too much on simple partisan dichotomies and contradictory statistics.
One positive part of Kerry’s plan: “rolling back the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year. Democrats assert that the shift is a simple matter of fairness, diverting government resources from those who do not need help to those who do.”
Makes sense, and would help ease the "middle-class squeeze.”
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:34 PM |
| Re: Who are you trying to impress? |
Drew Avery writes:
“We might as well save the millions of dollars it will cost to stage and secure these conventions. I can honestly say I don’t know any one who hasn’t already picked his or her president. If the election were held next month, I don’t see the results being different than November's.”
Well, Drew, now you know someone undecided -- me. And to be honest, I don’t think my situation is all that isolated. Although college campuses like the UW are rife with very visible, very opinionated, very partisan and highly informed youth, there are a whole lot more who are uninformed. They're just beginning to realize the importance of voting in a turbulent, crucial time. On my dorm floor of about 60 people, about six read the newspaper every day. What about the other 54?
Not everyone is already a lifelong, die-hard Republican or Democrat. Not everyone knows everything they need to know about the candidates and issues. Not everyone is completely sure. There are people in the middle, like me.
Then there are people who bash on Bush just because it’s fashionable in a liberal area. You know, the ones who always say “Bush is an idiot” or “Bush made lots of mistakes in Iraq,” without knowing much more than that.
Hopefully, the conventions and upcoming election will motivate them to find out more, instead of jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon with empty, unfounded judgments.
Throughout high school, I lived a fairly sheltered existence. I didn’t know any news beyond the gossip floating around the halls, who was dating who, who said THAT about her.
Then 9-11 changed the world, I grew up, I went to college, and now I’m just becoming more and more interested and informed about politics, national and international. I try hard to learn about the issues, watching the news, reading different sources and chatting with my undecided (yes, they DO exist), Republican and Democratic friends.
For young people like me, who are just starting to become more involved, the conventions -- and any future debates -- offer the perfect starting points toward understanding current political issues. To get rid of them would be untraditional and depriving youth, and others, of a great learning opportunity.
Drew writes that conventions should be cancelled because “only one in every five people is undecided;" well, doing the math, that’s 20 percent. Pretty significant in a close race -- and it matters a lot to those in the 20 percent trying to learn more.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:28 PM |
| Consume 101 |
A recent survey by the National Retail Federation says that families will spend an average of $483 this year on back-to-school items for their kids.
Are you kidding me? Almost $500 just on back-to-school items? Here is yet another example of how marketing targets kids, training them to be excessive consumers.
If you think about it, buying all of one’s clothes in a concentrated time period doesn’t make much sense. Kids grow throughout the year -- they don’t just suddenly grow out of their clothes the first month before school begins. Most of the clothing being sold is seasonally-specific, in this case, for fall.
Parents may be saving money with the ever-alluring back-to-school sales, but not if their kids can still fit into the clothes they wore last year.
So, what’s the point of back-to-school shopping? It simply trains kids to be excessive consumers -- buying things they don’t really need simply because everyone else is doing it.
I remember those first days of school during elementary, middle and high school. Almost everyone wore their new clothes. It was like making a first impression to your peers, yet it was repeated every year. It’s superficiality at its peak -- kids judging each other based on their clothes.
It’s a sad day when kids anticipate the first day of school not for the education they’ll receive, but for the clothes they get to show off.
Indeed, back-to-school clothing and back-to-school shopping have become a cultural tradition among young students. A strange and disturbing one if you ask me.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Anne Kim at 01:10 PM |
| The Boston Par-D |
I'm pretty sure John Kerry is still going to get the nod from delegates to be the Democratic candidate for president. But I had my doubts this evening when I watched U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama from Illinois pull off a speech that had so much rah-rah to it, I was ready to register as a Democrat and start volunteering for the Obama for Prez in 2008 campaign.
The crowd loved him. "Oh-bam-ah, oh-bam-ah," they chanted. I thought for a second that Kerry's presidency bid was in danger. If Obama has asked to be elected king of the Democrats, it would have hapenned. Even Brit Hume from Fox News caught on to the energy: "Well, if anyone was wondering why a senate candidate from Illinois was invited to speak at the convention, you now have your answer."
It was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments, really. Even through the audio and visual waves of the TV screen, I could sense the excitement.
This all brings me to my point: watch Obama in the future. He's obviously
on the fast-track to Democratic stardom.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:05 PM |
| Re: The tardy New York Times whistleblower |
Responding to Hieger's blog regarding my blog:
Let me stress this point: Toranto was joking. He doesn't really believe in a conspiracy theory that says the Times is printing this column on its own bias during the Democratic convention so that it'll get lost in all the hub-bub.
And for the record, I don't think think it was a conspiracy, either.
Also for the record, I don't think the Wall Street Journal openly claims it is in cahoots with the Bush administration or that the paper even favors Bush. Its editorial page is obviously conservative and usually favors Bush policies, but the rest of the paper doesn't openly claim to have an agenda.
The Journal isn't on the same list of conservative media that liberals are constantly critical of -- The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News. Those media are openly conservative (with the exception of Fox, which does a
bad job hiding its biases).
I also don't think the issue of bias in the media is pointless. I think it's extremely important. I honestly don't see how we can choose to not even discuss it.
Finally, the New York Times doesn't openly claim to be liberal. That's why the ombudsman column was kind of interesting -- not earthshattering, but interesting. If you read the column, you'll see that the Times' publisher refuses to call the paper liberal, but instead says it's just "urban."
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:01 PM |
| Convention summary |
Hey, did you hear Hannity? Apparently, John Kerry is the number one most liberal Senator, and Edwards is the 4th most liberal.
Hey, did you see the latest Bush campaign e-mail from Bush's bro, Jeb? Apparently, John Kerry is the number one most liberal Senator, and Edwards is the 4th. Hey did you see the...
Oh never mind. Let me just save you hours and hours of watching in-depth analysis and brilliant thinking by Fox News commentators and guests -- Kerry is the number one most liberal Senator, and Edwards is the 4th. They are out of the mainstream. And they're getting a makeover. How do you know? The GOP talking points say so. And therefore, every conservative with a pulse says so. And so, you don't need to watch them.
It's kind of like in Office Space. Hey, did you get the memo on the TPS (talking point spinorama) cover-our-butt sheets? Yeah, Bush, we got the memo. I don't need all your conservative lackeys coming along and repeating it over, and over, and over.
But what does all that liberal makeover blah blah MEAN? And what does that mean compared to Bush? It is the Republican way of creating fear and bad feelings around words that really don't mean anything without some kind of context.
And I don't hear anyone giving context. Liberal? Okay, so, what? Are they going to socialize medicine, legalize pot, and introduce a strict, truly progressive tax scheme that completely evens the playing field for all Americans?
No. They are going to do many of the same things the Republicans would do -- if they weren't being led by an extremist idiot who couldn't run a company, let alone a country that is.
Only the Dems will actually try to do so responsibly (both fiscally, and with our troops lives), and try to look out for the little guy as well as the fat cats who pay their campaign bills. It is a sad day when you can say with absolute certainty that the "number one liberal" Dem candidate is going to be a thousand times more fiscally conservative than the Republican President.
And frankly, I don't see what the big concern about a makeover is. Kerry's hair is just way too big, and someone really needs to trim back those eyebrows that overshadow half his face.
Oh, wait, okay, I just checked George's campaign site. Apparently, this huge naughty makeover is things like (gasp) Kerry's team working with other speechmakers and Dems to tailor their speeches to appeal to voters and create a unified message.
Uh ... did I miss something? Isn't that what politicians DO? Pander to voters? Is this news? And I hardly think that the GOP has room to talk, what with their talking points being faithfully and mindlessly repeated everywhere, and their banning fellow Republicans from speaking who don't sign agreements to stay on message and not speak ill of other Republicans.
In the end, the Republicans can't go head to head with Kerry on the issues, or on comparing Kerry's past 20-year record to Bush or even Cheney's past 20 years. Where was Bush when Kerry was in Vietnam? Where was Bush while Kerry was trying to do his best in the Senate? What was Cheney doing while Kerry was making all these decisions the Reps criticize?
Put these men side by side, year by year, and it ain't pretty for the Republicans. Not pretty at all. But if the Reps can just keep talking, filling our heads with noise, maybe we won't have time to think of that.
Sure, Kerry has made a few mistakes, probably made the typical political compromises from time to time, and has grown or changed with the times. Newsflash: he's neither Jesus nor Nostradamus. Show me a politician who is truly perfect.
But Bush is by far worse in the promises he has made and broken, and just in the way he has spent his life and fumbled the power and influence he has been handed over the years. He's a self-proclaimed "war president" who dodged one war, and then started another on false pretenses.
To paraphrase the immortal words of Clubber Lang (Mr. T) in Rocky III, "You a paper tiger, Bush!"
And you're going down in Round 2, baby. Oh yeah!
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:51 PM |
| Reagan at DNC |
So Ron Reagan Jr. spoke at the Democratic National Convention. That's cool. I'm guessing at this point the Republicans are really wishing President Reagan had been a childless bachelor. I mean, Nancy keeps telling them to knock it off when they want to put Reagan on money or exploit him or deify him some other way, and criticizes Bush on his stem cell stances. And now Ronnie Jr.'s doin' the same. What a pain.
Still, politicians on both sides of the party line often have embarassing, contradicting or gay relatives that don't really represent their narrow ideological agendas well.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:41 PM |
July 27, 2004
| Re: The tardy New York Times whistleblower |
The issue of bias is a fruitless, dead end racket. So I'll focus on the latter of Chris Collins' points, namely the passive-aggressive notion that those knee-slappers at the Wall Street Journal are qualified to insinuate some sort of conspiracy theory regarding the publishing of a rival's editorial.
Beyond the pathetic nature of Toranto's argument is the obvious issue of hypocrisy. James Toranto is due for a good look in the mirror. Who exactly is he and his Journal ilk to insinuate anything negative regarding the practice of selective timing?
The Journal makes no secret about its favorship of the Bush camp, commonly
regarded among the literate, English-speaking world as one of the sleaziest, most untrustworthy administrations in recent memory (Nixon has officially been replaced as the poster boy for conservative shame). In supporting Bush, the Journal kind of waves its right to whine about the credibility of anybody's timing anywhere.
The propaganda wing of the Conservative Party, otherwise known as Tom Ridge, basically functions as nothing more than a selective paranoia meter to
offset untimely news and to strategically remind Americans that we need Bush.
The next chance you get to hear Tom Ridge speak, hone in on your inner James
Toranto and dig deeper for any questionable timing issues that might reveal the legitimate motivation behind a vague reminder of fear.
The difference between the Journal crying conspiracy and the Times saying what they always say, is that unlike the Bush Administration, at least the Times is forthcoming in its message and motivations. Shame on James Toranto for his inability to differentiate between the two and whining about selective timing when his administration of choice is soiled in a culture of just that.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 10:41 AM |
July 26, 2004
| Ain't November till it's November |
Since everybody knows polls are frivolous and it ain't November until it's November, here's another poll reinforcing the notion that blatantly biased media preach to the choir.
Check out President Bush's approval rating among Republicans surveyed by Fox News.
Translated, 90% of Republicans think we are witnessing the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln, even though the modern Republican would probably have been a Confederate. Anyway, shifting party ideals aside, polls generally state the obvious considering the context of the forum.
The only surveys/polls I follow religiously are the various local media outlets who publish their "Best of Seattle" crap list that always says Tony Romas has the best ribs?!!! Pagliaci has the best pizza?!! And Red Mill has the best burger--in short, polls aren't to be trusted nor do they reflect anything other than the fact that Seattle has bad taste and that Dick Cheney has bad hair, period.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 02:00 PM |
| The tardy New York Times whisleblower |
Strictly speaking, the latest column from The New York Times' ombudsman ("public editor") isn't news.
Bernard Goldberg, CBS News whistleblower and author of two books on media bias, made the rounds on conservative talk shows a few years ago when he claimed that national media lean left because they are all centered in urban, liberal environments where the progressive view is the norm.
Now Daniel Okrent asks the question: Is The New York Times Liberal? I quote his lede in its entirety: "Of course it is."
This isn't really news. My neighbor -- a friendly, self-prolcaimed liberal -- told me she reads The New York Times because it IS liberal. And as James Toranto from the Wall Street Journal jokingly points out, there's something funny about the timing of this column: "The Times sat on this story for decades, and finally reports it yesterday, when it's sure to be buried by the Democratic convention."
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:55 PM |
| Who are you trying to impress? |
We might as well save the millions of dollars it will cost to stage and secure these conventions. And there is no need to schedule television debates between the candidates. A new CBS/New York Times poll says that only one in every five people is undecided about how they will vote as opposed to one in three people being undecided at this stage in previous elections.
Swing voters who hold the key to a victory in a tight presidential race seem to be disappearing. I can honestly say I don’t know any one who hasn’t already picked his or her president. If the election were held next month, I don’t see the results being different than November's.
Sure, a number of things can happen in the coming three months, but as I sit here I cannot think of one event that will reverse this country's polarization. Soon this country will have its own magnetic field.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 01:50 PM |
| Sick of bookstore rip-offs |
“Is Amazon.com becoming the Napster of the book business?” asks The New York Times. In response, “the Web, particularly sites like Amazon and eBay, have given millions of consumers an easy way to find cheap books -- often for under $1 -- without paying royalty fees to publishers or authors.”
Research suggests that used-book sales are rising, while the new-book market hasn’t grown. This could be due to the slowed economy and proliferation of Internet/movie/other media channels offering instant entertainment, as opposed to traditional time-consuming books. Used-book sales may have an effect on stagnant new-book sales, but probably a minimal one.
Still, the main reason I support online used-book sales is simple. I’m sick of bookstores ripping me off. Each quarter, the UW Bookstore charges me hundreds of dollars for books. After finals, I sell my books and get 50 bucks back -- if I’m lucky. I’m insulted when they offer me one dollar for a book that I spent $15 on, new.
Not to mention, new editions that come out virtually every year so that students HAVE to buy the book new, not used; the only difference is that the new edition has a few extra sets of problems, or pretty pictures. Do I want to pay $30 extra dollars for pretty pictures? No. “Publishers, particularly textbook publishers, have long countered used-book sales by churning out new editions every couple of years.” I don’t need The New York Times to tell me that.
As a college student, I feel like bookstores are trying to take my money in unethical ways. I’m annoyed and pessimistic when anyone mentions the rising costs of textbooks. If Amazon and eBay offer alternatives to pricey university bookstores, then yes, I’ll search there for bargain buys. Instead of whining about online used-book sales, publishers should start buying and selling books at reasonable prices.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:47 PM |
July 23, 2004
| Drink a donut! |
Krispy Kreme has just created a liquid donut, according to CNN. The new beverage line features frozen drinks in four flavors: raspberry, latte, double chocolate and (surprise!) “frozen original kreme -- a drinkable version of the company's signature doughnut.”
The idea of a frozen, liquid donut is about as weird as those new fat-free yogurt flavors that I’ve seen in grocery store. Seriously, you can now buy yogurt in Apple Pie, Key Lime Pie, Boston Crème Pie, Orange Creamsicle and other weird flavors.
But hey, a liquid donut doesn’t sound half bad. Late night liquid donut run, anyone?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:16 PM |
| Fahrenheit poll results |
Well, the first round of polling is in on the effect of Fahrenheit 9/11 on the political landscape, done by the LA Times. It appears that 78% of individuals
who had seen it were Democrats and 92% who walked in were already planning
to vote for the Johns.
I'd say Moore did an excellent job of riling up the base. Even if the movie itself may not swing many voters, if it convinces those who were for Kerry to vote it will have made a significant impact.
The unfortunate stat in the polling is the 31% who called the movie "completely accurate." This in my mind shows that 31% of the 1,529 people (roughly 474 people) are either incredibly gullible, didn't read any of the analysis from either parties, or are so caught up in partisan hatred that anything anti-Bush must be true.
Frankly, from the amount of bile spewing from both sides, I tend to lean toward the third option.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 01:49 PM |
| Where's the accountability? |
So the 9-11 Commission has determined that everybody is to blame, but it isn't
anybody's fault?
It appears that our pre-9-11 priorities, like a big Reagan-era missile defense shield, reflected a fiscally inept administration stuck in the '80s -- hardly what taxpayers need considering these CIA, NSA, FBI guys are supposed to have a heads up on the rest of us.
So how can we turn a massive political and administrative fumble into something productive? I think we could start by holding our politicians accountable, considering it is, well, their jobs to do their jobs well.
I suspect, as Randy implies, that the commission's findings will just degenerate into a faceless blob of shame and nothing in Washington will change. We'll bash a couple of baggage handlers, issue a couple of woulda-coulda-shouldas and go back to partisan politics furthering their causes at the expense of the greater good.
Which I guess is what everybody wants because it's all about looking better than your adversary, even if that means we have to forget the trauma and toll that brought us to this cynical state of helplessness.
I have to wonder, what is the function of a government inherently structured to serve itself and its own kind? I'm not advocating for self rule, but these losers put their careers ahead of our safety. What can they actually, physically do to change the political culture and instill some accountability and faith in the system?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:20 PM |
July 22, 2004
| New intelligence director |
As reported in The Seattle Times, the 9-11 commission report recommends creating a new intelligence center, and to run that center "a new Senate-confirmed national intelligence director, reporting directly to the president at just below full Cabinet rank, with control over intelligence budgets and the ability to hire and fire deputies, including the CIA director and top intelligence officials at the FBI, Homeland Security Department and Defense Department."
Certainly, we have to do something. This sounds as good as anything, I suppose. But I already see trouble. First of all, you are placing a lot of power in the hands of one man, and I don't really see any checks or balances. What if this person is highly partisan, and that influences hiring/firing decisions, or what intelligence gets filtered up through this single bottleneck to the president and Congress? What if this person holds to a certain ideology, say for example neo-con, and therefore views and filters everything from a perspective of justifying pre-emptive attacks and a specific agenda?
And how will this change one of the key factors influencing information sharing in my mind -- money? If this one person controls the budgets, then instead of intelligence agencies jealously guarding intel or jurisdictions so that they can prove their value and avoid budget cuts by Congress or the president as much as possible, aren't they just going to do the same with the intelligence director? Won't they all be trying to prove their worth to this one person holding all the money?
I don't know. Obviously, this isn't even a reality yet, nor do we have all the details, but somehow, especially after these proposals go through the fun political process of budget limitations, compromises, pork barrel deals, lobbyist influence, military-industrial/ corporate protectionism, and all the rest, I'm not holding my breath for the commission's recommendations to be implemented in anything resembling a highly effective solution.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:49 PM |
| Re: Try a new way to get high! |
Under the heading of responsible use, if you use pot when you are younger than, say, 21-25 (around the time when the brain is physically and cognitively mature) you run an increased chance of physical addiction (as opposed to the psychological addiction some adults experience) and harming your developing brain.
Certainly it shouldn't be used chronically (no pun intended) by any age group -- heck, anything in excess is bad for you, even Flintstone vitamins.
Just to be clear (as in, disclaimer time), I'm not encouraging anyone to smoke pot, adult or otherwise. Legally, of course, you shouldn't use pot at all, but since that doesn't stop millions of users, I think it is important to encourage responsible use, not merely spout phrases like "just say no."
The government's tactic of pretending that making it illegal will stop its use, and then distorting facts to scare people out of using it, isn't really a solution, no matter how many billions of dollars we spend on it. As such, my stance is not to advocate drug use, but rather to argue for personal choice, responsible use, and fight the disinformation and stupid policies that the government and conservative groups like to use.
Anything I say about the relative effects (as compared to alcohol or other substances) and mental or medical benefits of pot are in the context of responsible, occasional adult use, or medical use, in a perfect world where it was legal but controlled the same as alcohol, or cars.
So, in short, lets keep in perspective its overall benefits versus real dangers, the amount you have to smoke to see any potential negative effects, and the source of any information on it (the White House and DEA are not exactly un-biased or objective in the information they seek, or provide, on the topic).
As in all things, be informed and make your own choices.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:44 PM |
| Re: Mind your body |
I couldn’t agree more with Anne’s message to “eat healthy and exercise,” especially in college. It always surprises me when I see my peers scarfing down junk food and more junk food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Sausages and chocolate cake for breakfast, burgers and fries for lunch, Pagliachi’s and giant Slurpees for dinner.
But, at the same time, balance is necessary. As people get older, their metabolism generally slows down and people get fatter. High school and college students, on the other hand, are often blessed with super-fast, rapidly-burning metabolisms, and should enjoy it in moderation.
My dorm experience wouldn’t quite be the same without the HUB’s jumbo nachos or Terry Café’s famous face-sized, pink-frosted cookies, or chocolate fondue on McMahon 8’s “Chocolate Day.” And with exercise and balance, everything has its place.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 10:09 AM |
| Re: Sudan as a reality check |
Nigel, as usual you completely ignored what I actually said, and ran off on the O'Reilly stock anti-liberal line without checking first to see if it really applies to my blog. Well, it doesn't.
Sure, a lot of people protest invading Iraq, but then turn around and say we should invade other countries in an apparently hypocritical stance. But I'm not one of them. I'm glad that the administration is willing to be part of a true international solution this time, rather than playing cowboy for ideological reasons as they did in Iraq.
And technically, if we were really taking the same road as we did in Iraq like you imply, we'd be supplying the Sudanese government with money, training and arms, THEN putting sanctions on them that kill a few hundred thousand of the poor and children in the nation, THEN ignoring the UN progress and assurances and invading anyway after all the killings have already stopped. Oh, and we'd encourage Sudan to go to war with Egypt, then secretly sell arms to Egypt to fight Sudan, then use the money to fund insurgents in South America.
But, you know, I was kind of skipping all that, and just making a satirical point that Bush's reasons for invading Iraq, or the manner in which he did so, don't really hold up when put to the test elsewhere.
I certainly was not actually saying the US should unilaterally invade and occupy Sudan. To do so would be to say I think Bush did the right thing in Iraq, and we should replicate his fine actions elsewhere. And, though I know this will come as a surprise to you, I don't think that.
Sadly, I guess you missed the part where I said the situation in Sudan requires international (i.e. not US unilateral) action, and that it also points out the fragility of Bush's reasons for the Iraq war. But I understand. It was only right up front. Opening lines.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:06 AM |
July 21, 2004
| Sympathy for Martha |
For Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., times are getting desperate. Ad pages in her magazine have fallen 51 percent. Her TV show is taking a break. Her company is expected to lose $37 million this year, according to Newsweek.
Advertisers and marketing execs just want her to apologize, serve five months in prison and come back -- contrite and resolved to rebuild. Perhaps, jealous consumers want Martha to sob, break down and prove that no one’s perfect. After they know she’s faulty like the rest of us, maybe they’d be content and start buying Martha Stewart kitchenware again.
Despite all this, Martha refuses to take the easy way out.
After her sentencing, she made a “withering condemnation of her prosecution.” She now continues to fight the verdict with an appeal, citing an unfair trial.
I admire Martha’s pride, her ability to withstand the press circus and the madness unleashed by her downfall. She’s tough. And even though she’d save millions by dropping the appeal and heading for prison (which, by the way, offers Pilates and quilt-making classes, and is set “amid rolling hills and streams”), she’s holding on and fighting her battle.
What she did wasn’t right. And perhaps, she can’t admit that she’s wrong because, hey, admitting that you’re wrong in front of millions of anxious people eager to see you say “I failed, I’m human, I’m on the same level as you” is just a little difficult.
But if Martha’s toughness continues, she’ll not only fight for what she believes she deserves, she’ll eventually be able to talk honestly about her faults while keeping the dignity she values.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:13 PM |
| Airbrush no more! |
Usually, photo-editing software aims to improve the technical clarity of photos. The user can crop, resize, up the color contrast, nix red-eye and erase glare.
But Microsoft Digital Image Suite includes “a blending brush to smoothly remove blemishes and other flaws from your photos, and a Smart Erase feature that removes unwanted objects (like ex-husbands) while filling in the selected area with the same color and pattern of whatever's in the background,” according to Newsweek.
I can see it now: pre-teen girls, suddenly becoming computer mavens so they can airbrush every inch of their skin, change their eye colors to shocking shades of violet and aqua and -- WOW! -- digitally erase any inch of extra fat, any stray hair, any tiny blemish.
Don’t like your smile? No problem, we’ll use the software to fix it! Your shade of lipstick too dark? Well, we’ll just lighten it to the perfect shade of medium rose...Hmmm, you’re posing with your ex-boyfriend in front of Lake Washington? Let’s cut him out, and put in your new boyfriend!
Geez, Mt. Rainier doesn’t look all that magnificent in this shot; let’s make it bluer and shinier. Honey, don’t you just hate the way Abby always wears those new teen-age punk styles? Before we send out this year’s Christmas cards, let’s change her clothes to more appropriate ones!
Don’t get me wrong. Digital enhancements, in some cases, are okay; minor changes to help improve photo quality, or save one from complete humiliation, are acceptable. If I had spinach in my teeth in my graduation photograph, then I’d want to erase it before my parents sent it to every known relative.
But big changes to favorite memories -- and drastic overhauls/makeovers when we don’t feel that we look good enough, young enough, toned enough or fashionable enough -- just implies that reality just isn’t good enough. So we turn to software to make everything perfect, but it just becomes further from reality.
My life would feel less real-strange-crazy-beautiful if I didn’t have photos of myself in elementary school, wearing pink and orange pants, and a terribly clashing purple jeweled shirt. I’d try to forget my first real “sort of boyfriend,” (who I later despised) if I didn’t see reminders of his face. I’d let memories slip, of the pain and gut-wrenching nervousness of cross country races, without visual reminders in the form of unattractive facial expressions while I’m running or a tight-lipped, tense photograph of my warm up.
These photos aren’t perfect, but they’re real.
I don’t want to erase any wacky memories with the click of a mouse.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:06 PM |
| Bush's pedigree |
Apparently, Georgie is not only the ex-druggie, low C-average, DWI dodging, AWOL, can't keep-a-job-that-his-family-doesn't-get-him black sheep of the Bush clan, but he's related to Kerry as well.
Which is a shock, because I've been hearing rumors about Bush for years that would have had me looking up a completely different family tree.
Certainly, if I had been judging based solely on who Bush has more in common with, I wouldn't have gone the Kerry route. Just goes to show you, can't judge a book by its DNA. Or something like that.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:59 PM |
| Berger blunder |
The whole thing with Berger is pretty dodgy. I mean, ultimately, we should defer to the 9-11 Commission. If they say Berger gave them all the documents they needed, then that pretty much is that. His claim that he made an honest mistake is probably true.
But still, without seeing the documents he threw away "by accident," we'll never know, will we?
Anyway, I'm glad he's not national security advisor anymore, tracking international terrorists, if he can't even keep track of what documents were in what stack.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:50 PM |
| Re: Pro-choice and pro-Catholic |
Unfortunately, Andrew is wrong when he says that "the laws of the United States are not going to reflect the laws of the Catholic Church or any other religion."
Our government, institutions, and our laws are heavily intertwined with religion.
Granted, where religious law, reason, and the most good for the most people intersect, there can acceptably be expected to exist coincidental overlaps of secular law and religious law. Thou shalt not kill is a fine example.
But we don't get Christmas off because Jesus was the first president, nor do we all celebrate Vesak (Buddha day). Children aren't being taught individuality, equality of religions, or separation of church and state when they are peer pressured into mumbling "One nation, under God" every morning. Bush isn't trying to push a gay marriage amendment to our very Constitution because he's concerned about the effects of gay marriage on our economy.
We don't hide away prostitution or drug use out of sight rather than regulating and controlling them safely and rationally because that is best, but rather because that is what our nation's Puritan moral roots demand. Our representatives don't constantly quote the Bible to justify their stances because Jefferson wrote it.
Ours is a nation founded by religious exiles, rooted in moral conservatism, and we've been paying the price in hampered social progress, justified racism, sexism and bigotry, holy crusades, and superiority complexes ever since. Politicians know it, and those that aren't guided heavily by religious beliefs themselves pander to the beliefs of the masses because they want to get re-elected.
God bless America, thank you, and good night.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:48 PM |
| Mind your body |
It's not news to anyone that students eat horribly during their college years. Away from home for the first time, we stuff our bellies with fats, processed foods, soda and coffee. For those living on our own, our meals often consist of pizza, ramen and microwave dishes.
After finally watching "Supersize Me", a documentary about a guy who eats McDonalds for three meals a day for one month and the damage it does to his body, I began to wonder why in our most formative intellectual years, we fill our bodies with such junk. We're stimulating our minds, but destroying our bodies.
If you're thinking long-term, it seems like common sense that students should eat healthy and exercise. But no one does it, even when the benefits are innumerable.
Studies show that people who live to be 100 years old and are still healthy have maintained healthy lifestyles (including exercise and eating well) throughout their lifetimes. Experts also say that older people who have healthy bodies also have healthy minds -- a connection there? Perhaps.
These people didn't just take care of themselves when they retired. They started living a health-conscious lifestyle when they were young.
Students who want to think long-term and get the most out of the dollars spent on their pricey education (maintaining that knowledge in their later years) had better start taking caring of their bodies also.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Anne Kim at 04:42 PM |
| Re: Sudan as a reality check |
In Randy Henderson's latest diatribe, he calls for the Bush administration to take a firm stance on Sudan and tell the UN to do something about it. Well, the administration apparently beat Randy to the punch.
Colin Powell recently told reporters that he, President Bush, "and the international community remain completely dissatisfied with the security situation." He added that "the situation remains very, very serious, and first and foremost the security has to be dealt with."
CNN reported that Powell's "blunt comments suggest Washington may be closer to pushing for a vote on a U.N. Security Council resolution that would place an immediate travel and arms ban on the militias," and possibly the government.
Randy's call for an immediate invasion because we went into Iraq is narrowsighted. Let's not forget the decades of diplomacy that preceeded U.S. military action in Iraq. In fact, this situation sounds similar to the approach we took against Iraq.
Start off with UN sanctions and travel and arms bans. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the UN will actually allow something to be done about it this time or will demand 12 years and dozens of further resolutions before finally standing in the way of our instance to uphold their very own resolutions.
Of course, Randy has conveniently already come up with an excuse just in case the Bush administration does what he wants. After all, God forbid that Bush might actually do something liberals agree with.
Written by Nigel Stark, formerly of NEXT
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:37 PM |
| Stick it to the man |
Some rapper named Jadakiss calls out the president in a new song, and apparently radio stations and MTV are editing it.
I've never heard of Jadakiss or his song, but I like the idea of rappers getting back into the Public Enemy swing of things. Imagine if the rest of the rap world was inclined to comment on political matters instead of beating the weed and bling thing over the head, impressionable young adults might actually start paying attention to the bigger picture and seeing the relevance of voting.
Hopefully more prominent rappers will jump on the political bandwagon in coming months. I'm amazed that nobody has written a good, politically angry
song in a long time that registered in the Top 40. Rage Against the Machine was good at this in the mid 90's but it seems like the rest of the music world is artistically sitting on their thumbs. If ever there was a time for a Bob Dylan revival, the time is now.
I know musicians like to bash Bush in interviews etc, but I think Bush would really feel the impact if some talented pop musician (are there any?) were to put it to him in a great song. Obviously it's easier said than done, but Radiohead or U2 or somebody needs to step up and stick it to the man. The time has come -- some no-name rapper shouldn't be the only one getting press for controversial anti-Bush lyrics.
It's times like this I think the music world really feels the loss of Kurt Cobain. He wouldn't have stood for a fraud like Bush.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:29 PM |
| Rummy laying low |
Shhhhh. Let's not remind people of what a screw up this administration has made of international affairs.
Oh, but how I miss Rummy's friendly energy and cheery optimism, his clear vision of right and wrong, of what it takes to secure a nation. Why, it seems just yesterday he was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, that rascally smile glinting in his Eastwood-esque squint. And now, he is hidden away like some, I don't know, obsolete extremist, some washed-up warhawk, some idiomatic ideologue. So sad. So, so sad.
Don't worry, Rummy. Tomorrow, some celebrity will go to court, or we'll finally capture Osama, and everyone will forget about that stupid Abba...er...Aboo...Gareff, um, situation. Heck, Bush forgot about it weeks ago. Then you and Cheney can again charge forward toward your beautiful neo-con dream, holding hands, skipping between the gravestones, whistling a merry, patriotic tune.
Unless, of course, Bush isn't re-elected. Shudder. Shudder, I say.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:24 PM |
July 20, 2004
| Sudan as a reality check |
The situation in Sudan does more than require international action. It also points out the fragility of this administration's revisionist excuses for Iraq.
After reasons one and two, WMDs and al Qaeda connections, proved to be as weak and full of holes as Bush's military record, the administration began to really play up the fact that we were saving Iraqis from a brutal regime. America, the great humanitarian freedom-bringers, gifting the Iraqis with a better life.
But if that were really a reason for invasion and war, for billions of dollars and thousands of lives spent, then Bush would be on television right now telling the UN that if it doesn't do something about Sudan, then by gawd we will. He'd be massing troops on the Sudanese borders, and giving ultimatums to the Sudanese government.
And he'd be telling us how the Arab government and the Janjaweed pose a serious threat to our safety -- an Arab government that has proven it is willing to terrorize its own people and defy international censure would surely have no qualms about housing and training international terrorists.
I'm not holding my breath for that speech. Unless, that is, Cheney and Rummy wrote some policy brief years ago about invading the Sudan and using it to spread democracy in Africa? Or the Republicans really think they can swing enough black votes their way to lock in the election?
Heck, we are already cutting deals with Sudan's neighbor, Libya, which was exporting ten times as much oil and goods as Sudan before the sanctions were even lifted. So what use is Sudan? Well, unless the Saudis get upset about having so much unrest and instability just across the Red Sea, I suppose. Or we have a sesame shortage.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:55 PM |
| Random John Edwards Facts |
Fifty-five percent of voters know “little/nothing” about John Edwards, according to a recent TIME poll. I was one of those 55 percent, but lately I’ve spent lots of time with my nose in magazines and my eyes glazed in front of the computer, trying to stimulate my brain in ways other than watching “The Amazing Race.”
Though I don’t want to offer a comprehensive summary of all I’ve found, I would like to share some random, fascinating, intriguing, surprising, tasty kernels of information about Edward’s life, according to TIME:
Edwards’ parents were mill workers. His mom sewed kids’ swimsuits, and his dad was a textile worker.
Edwards worked as a lawyer, specializing in medical malpractice cases, and tried to push a revised patients’ bill of rights through the Senate in 2002.
Most people view Edwards’ legal background in a favorable light. TIME says Edwards’ lifelong mission is to be an “Equalizer.”
“...despite his enormous success as a lawyer, there are reminders of those penny-pinching times [of his childhood]. Edwards combines fine suits with cheap digital watches, a champagne income with a taste for Wendys and Applebees.”
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:51 PM |
| The other I-R- country |
So it wasn't Iraq that we were supposed to attack; it was that other Arabic nation that begins with an "I-R." Ohhhh....
Honest mistake or intelligence lapse or communication breakdown or whatever -- our country looks like a joke. Now everybody (even our government) seems to be reporting that Iraq had little if nothing to do with Al Qaeda ever, as stated loudly by the left for the past year and a half.
Now Bush and co. are coming to terms with their failures and looking into...well... let George tell you himself: "As to direct connections with Sept. 11,
we're digging into the facts to determine if there was one," Bush said of Iran.
Not one, George, "any;" get your talkin' skills straight. Were there ever any elusive facts to support any of your aggressive talk? Sounds like a resounding "no," but he's still lookin' so I guess the jury is out on the whole fact thing.
Since the quote factory is working overtime, it's good to know they've decided to look into the facts, after the fact. Never mind that the man who led this country to war, in his own words, is now saying he doesn't know what the facts are, or if he ever did. Hmmm...
Is this what Republicans refer to when they talk about "steady leadership in times of change?"
It's more like blatant incompetence, deflected into a massive smokescreen of confusion and unaccountability, coming from the President of the United States, mind you.
Makes you wonder, just where exactly does the buck stop?
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:43 PM |
| Pro-choice and catholic |
As a pro-choice Catholic, I find it hard to understand Seattle Roman Catholic Archbishop Alexander Brunett’s position on Catholic politicians who believe in a women’s right to choose.
The laws of the United States are not going to reflect the laws of the Catholic Church or any other religion. To me this is as ridiculous as if Brunett wanted to deny Catholic politicians the Holy Communion if they didn’t make laws against using the Lord’s name in vain or not keeping the Sabbath.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 05:37 PM |
| Re: Try a healthier way to get high! |
Yeah man. But be careful. I mean, it starts out small. You know, maybe an occasional jog in your old shorts and keds. But then, next thing you know, you find yourself slowing down as you walk by shoe and sports stores. Your finger starts to hover over the remote control during bowflex commercials, but you don't click.
Then, suddenly, you are paying for scientifically designed $100 jogging shoes, for special Nike brand sports clothing, for sports drinks specially formulated to restore the balance of vital whatchamicallits. You're selling your CDs to pay for your gym membership, and start hanging out with other exercise addicts, spending less time with your old friends.
You're constantly checking yourself out in the mirror, obsessing over whether you've gained a millimeter of tone or fat since the day before. You find yourself exercising by yourself, in the morning, before work or school. You're drinking protein shakes for breakfast. You get all stinky. You pull muscles and wear out joints. You're really annoying to all those people who are already feeling lazy and out of shape and keep intending to do something, sometime. And you still die anyway.
It ain't pretty man, it ain't pretty. And that's without the steroids.
And, to be fair, I've never known anyone to buy pot from some dark street corner. It is usually from somebody's dad, or some guy trying to pay his way through college. It ain't crack, for goodness sakes. I've met plenty of muscle-heads who were more dangerous and aggressive than your average pot dealer.
And while cannabinoids do have some negative side effects if used heavily and continuously, they also have some positive medicinal effects. They are safer than alcohol and cigarettes, though that doesn't say much I guess.
I agree everyone should get out and exercise. Or at least breath some fresh air now and again. But I also think that telling people to do it instead of enjoying the occasional joint is like saying you can get your liquid refreshment from water instead of Bailey's Irish cream. It doesn't have to be an either-or. One is just better for you. I wouldn't necessarily recommend smoking marijuana if you don't need to for medical or mental health reasons, but neither would I classify exercise and pot as an either/or sitchiation.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:34 PM |
July 19, 2004
| Try a healthier way to get high! |
“The same family of chemicals that produces a buzz in marijuana smokers may be responsible for ‘runner's high,’ the euphoric feeling that some people get when they exercise,” according to U.S. researchers and CNN.
A recent study suggests that “runner’s high” is not caused by endorphins as traditionally believed, but by cannabindoids. Cannabindoids “produce sensations that are similar to...the psychoactive property in marijuana.”
Researchers propose that the body releases cannabindoids to deal with the pain caused by long, intense periods of exercise. Unlike the cannabindoids in marijuana, exercise-released cannabindoids don’t harm the body.
Though I’ve never tried marijuana, I can accept the idea that “runner’s high” is comparable to marijuana high. Being a long-distance runner, I experience “runner’s high” often. If I run three miles, I smile more. If I run five miles, I giggle like a ditz at the smallest things and chatter breathlessly to anyone who’ll listen. If I run seven miles, I’m ecstatic and energized to the point of being truly hyper; I might never shut up, at this point.
Yesterday, I ran nine miles. I was sickeningly cheerful for hours afterwards. I patched up a quarrel, talked on the phone with friends, went shopping, ate incessantly and gabbled gibberish to my dog (because he could listen to me for hours).
Ultimately, the feeling of “runner’s high” is hard to describe to those who’ve never felt it. The most I can say is, it’s pure joy, supreme self-confidence, total relaxation and complete exhilaration. It’s sublime, and yes, I’d even venture to say that it’s sort of holy. I feel this inner reservoir of tranquility and energy. I let go of my inhibitions and become bold, daring, unafraid. After running, I often tackle tasks I've been dreading for ages: I clean my room, (attempt) to cook, start studying for finals, make decisions. In high school, during track and cross country seasons, my grades percentages were always higher.
This summer, I URGE YOU to try jogging, biking, hiking, walking, canoeing, mountain climbing or any other sport in the great outdoors! The experience, and the feeling you’ll get afterwards, is inspiring. It transcends.
Besides, wouldn’t you rather exercise -- than obtain illegal marijuana from some dark trashy street corner? Wouldn’t you rather improve your health while enjoying natural, exercise-induced euphoria -- than detract from it with artificial, drug-induced sensations? I know I would.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:36 PM |
| Kerry-Edwards and the middle class |
Am I the only one confused about the state of the American economy?
According to TIME, 1.3 million jobs have been created since January, but the unemployment rate stays the same. Wages were up 2.2% in May, but trumped by the 3.1% inflation rate. “Consumer confidence is up,” but “A drop in consumer spending...could slow the recovery.”
I’m not sure who to trust -- Republicans, who say that things are slowly but steadily improving? Or Democrats, who emphasize a “middle-class squeeze” that’s making it harder for many to maintain a typical middle-class lifestyle?
Being a middle-of-the-roader, I’m just glad that this election, Kerry-Edwards is addressing the economic station common to many Americans.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:27 PM |
July 15, 2004
| Saint Bush, Man of Action |
Bush, in expressing disappointment over his failed attempt to have the federal government tell churches what they can and cannot do, said, "It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment."
Huh? I'm sorry, I think I must have misunderstandified Bush. How is ramming a Constitutional imperative down the throats of the states and religious institutions "continuing the debate?" Doesn't debate imply discussion, and presentation of opposing facts? A Constitutional amendment sounds more like action than debate to me, and kind of makes "debate" irrelevant.
It sounds to me that, as usual, Bush isn't interested in "debate," but already thinks he knows what is best for everyone, and is going to make it happen. I'm sure that priests, pastors, rabbis, clerics and holy men everywhere are rejoicing that Bush has interpreted God's will for them, and is dictating what their beliefs and religious laws are for them.
After all, isn't that the role our forefathers dreamed of when they wrote the Constitution -- that the government dictate religious freedoms?
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 09:29 AM |
| Get real |
I can't believe that the best thing the Bush campaign has to do with its time is a full media blitz "demanding" that Kerry provide them a video tape of the recent celebrity fund raiser at the Radio City Music Hall.
Their big complaint is that people like Whoopi Goldberg insulted Bush. I mean, come on folks, what did you expect? Knock knock jokes? Discussions about the weather? It was a celebrity fundraiser opposing Bush. Heck, Cheney can't even be civil on the Senate floor, and you are concerned about the impropriety of rock stars and adult comics?
The Bushies are going on about how Kerry said, "Every performer tonight in their own way either verbally through their music through their lyrics have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."
Well, bad news, Bushies. Kerry was right. You see, Americans have this crazy idea that the heart and soul of America is freedom, and that includes the freedom to take a few cracks at one of the most widely despised and disappointing leaders America has ever had.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 09:25 AM |
July 14, 2004
| Be afraid. Be very afraid. |
Kerry announces his VP. The press is getting a little too focused on the new Democrat ticket and its message. Polls are shifting away from Bush.
But wait! Important news announcement. Stop the presses! Here it comes ...
(disclaimer -- this is satire. I'm going to be paraphrasing here. Liberally. No pun intended.)
Hi. I'm Tom Ridge. You may know me from such warnings as, "They're going to attack Christmas!" and "They're going to attack Independence Day!" and that warning last year about this same time of inevitable doom. Well, I just wanted to call this little press conference to say...Look Out! Behind You!
Okay, OK, just kidding. But, uh, seriously folks...there's danger! From, uh, something! We think. But, well, we need to do a little investigation. And, uh, well, OK, we don't really have any actual or useful facts to share. Oh, and we're not raising the alert level.
But beware! Beware I say! And incidentally, Bush is doing a great job supporting the fight against terrorism. Just thought I'd mention that. Don't forget it now folks. Terrorism, scary. Bush, fighting terrorism. Terrorism, evil. Bush, good. And now, back to your regularly scheduled crapola. (Here endeth the satire).
Sure, this has happened before. A lot. But the difference this time is, the Government Accounting Office is criticizing the terror warnings. It seems that people high up are starting to notice that these terror warnings seem conveniently timed when faith in Bush needs a little bolstering, or some wind needs to be taken out of the Democrats' sails, and often these "warnings" don't actually contain anything real or new.
Just "be afraid, be aware that there may be an attack somewhere, somehow, sometime. Maybe. Oh, and please don't let that hamper your spending."
Sure Tom. I'll go to sleep tonight in a corner of my basement, surrounded by water jugs, spaghetti-Os and duct tape, gripping my shotgun, and just wait until it is safe to come out and vote for Bush in November.
Not.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:00 PM |
July 12, 2004
| Spineless leadership |
In case you've never heard of him, DeForest Soaries Jr. is the chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Comission, a Baptist pastor hadpicked by President Bush to ensure the country has no voting irregularities occur this November.
He is doing the exact opposite. Mr. Soaries is asking Congress to give him the power to delay the election because he's worried about Tom Ridge's vague
threats. His entire function is to work out any quirks in the system and instead he's running from it, seemingly trying to buy time.
This is the epitome of underhanded politics. Terrorists threats, not actions, should not stifle the democratic process. This country has voted during bigger wars than anything Bush or Osama can throw at us. Why let Republican fear boil over into hysteria?
Something smells in Washington. This election is already suspicious. If the Republicans want the election delayed because they are so scared, then they don't have the fortitude to be "war-time leaders." Or they are just desperately grasping for sleazy leverage to pull the odds back into their favor.
Either way, this is an insult to the democratic process and the collective intelligence of Americans. Fear-mongering politics is unAmerican. What would FDR say to this spineless leadership in "times of struggle" ?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:55 PM |
| Damned if he did, damned if he didn't |
I think I'm missing something. The latest commission report is that the intelligence community vastly exaggerated Iraq's WMD capabilities and programs. And their motive was ...? They chose to just exaggerate the info, what, because they were bored? There was no other influence whatsoever?
And Bush is still telling people that "We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."
And I find this paragraph disturbing: "Conservatives on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections."
Yeah, people, let's not let the elections be based on something ridiculous like truth or facts.
I thought at first Bush might seize upon the report as the perfect scapegoat for all his lies about WMDs and al Qaeda connections. But as the CNN story notes, the administration pretty much was set on Iraq, regardless of what the actual intelligence was, so the CIA can't be fully blamed. I'm guessing that's why Bush is still refusing to admit that he's ever done anything wrong, ever.
Another thing I've never understood is this whole "Iraq was defying UN resolutions" thing. Yes, Saddam was uncooperative and did a lot of posturing. But Iraq did destroy its weapons, or allowed them to expire. Blix and the inspectors weren't finding any weapons, and were making progress when Bush told them to get out. And Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum: destroy the weapons or be destroyed.
But the thing is, if Saddam didn't have any WMDs left, how was he supposed to comply with orders to destroy WMDs, or turn them over to inspectors? He couldn't. Not because he was evil, but just because it wasn't physically possible.
Basically, it was a win win for Bush. Either Saddam had WMDs, which would justify invasion once the smoke cleared (possibly over the bodies of our soldiers). Or Saddam didn't have any WMDs, couldn't comply with orders to destroy them, and Bush could pretend Saddam was just being defiant and devious and justify the invasion.
And once we were already committed, well, you have to support the troops. And the Iraqi people. And freedom and democracy. To even question the war is, well, unAmerican by gawd.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:48 PM |
July 09, 2004
July 08, 2004
| Freedom to choke |
Try all you want to portray the bar as a family-oriented, healthy hang-out, but I’ll always cling to my vision of a lousy jukebox, cheap pints, peanut shell covered floor, and smoke. Yes, I know second-hand smoke is bad for my health, but name one thing about a bar that is intended to increase my lifespan.
Eli Sanders’ article in The Stranger defends the bar smoking ban by debunking the economic downfall myth. It’s true that smoking bans haven’t led to a drop in the nightlife of cities like San Francisco and New York City. Nothing short of a prohibition revival would affect a night on the town in America’s two must cultural cities.
The problem with the smoking ban is that it is being made by the government and not by the business owner. If these establishments in San Francisco and New York prove that, as Sanders suggests, they aren’t only maintaining business but increasing it, than Seattle bars will start jumping on that non-smoking bandwagon.
I love the idea of a non-smoking bar, I love the idea of a smoking bar and I really love being able to have both in a city.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 04:17 PM |
| Vague disruption |
Tom Ridge has more vague details about vague threats, apparently this time he means it. Last time he was armed with vague threats, well that didn't count, but this time round, boy are we really in for it. Head for the hills, the Homeland Security paranoia meter is up and running.
Ridge wants to remind us that the terrorists are "in an effort to disrupt the democratic process". Personally, I think vague threats about the unknown are more of a potential disruption to the democratic process than any lurking terrorist, not to mention psychologically irresponsible, but I think as long as the Republicans can keep this country scared they figure they have a purpose.
Without the imminent threat of large terrorist scandals, the Republicans have to fall back on killing the environment and dividing this country with religion.
So many strings to pull, so little time.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:07 PM |
| Re: Q&A |
A response to John Hieger's blog, Q&A
Heiger, you made my day.
That is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. I have to believe they ommitted a paragraph around the middle, that went something like ...
MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm talking about the issues here. You know, the issues. Because when I'm talking about the issues, I'm talking about ... well, the issues. And the record. Oh yeah, that too. The issues and the record. So, just to be clear, there's the issues, yeah, sure, but also, let's not forget, there is the record. And together they are the issues and the record. Any more questions for us disingenuous and unaccomplished, divisive and out of the mainstream idiots? And by idiots, I mean, I'm discussing the issues, and our records. Because, and I think the President has made this clear when he talked, you know, about talking, that the focus should clearly be on the issues and records, and I think, for the record, that we are idiots.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:57 PM |
July 07, 2004
| Fact or fiction? |
Man. It sucks when there's a commission looking into the actual facts. Makes it so hard to lie. Luckily, neither Bush nor Cheney were ever under oath when they were going on about WMDs, Iraq and al Qaeda conspiracies, how great their tax breaks would be for the economy or the average working stiff, the Valerie Plame scandal, the energy commission meetings, whether they really believe global warming requires more research before we bother to actually do anything, any of his State of the Union speeches, or how they didn't disenfranchise thousands of voters, or how Bush had barely even heard of Ken Lay, etc. and so on. But then, lies that exploit the deaths of Americans, or cause the deaths of Americans, or undermine our democratic system, aren't as bad as lies about consensual sex, right?
And it would seem stupid to waste valuable federal resources investigating and impeaching a president or veep over something so small. Besides, and more importantly, it's all pretty boring. I mean, sex scandals, you get a nice thick report that talks about oral sex and cigars that Congressmen can read again and again. Who wants to hear about boring old war or economics stuff?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:01 PM |
| Q&A |
Read the first exchange here from yesterday's White House Press Briefing
The dialogue is almost too good to be true. Scott McClellan doesn't actually answer a single question for like fifteen minutes. The White Houses' version of Q&A is awesome! If only the rest of the operating world allowed logic to denegrate to such an unaccountable flow of nothing, nobody would ever take blame for anything and we'd all live in an ignorant bliss. I wish I could be
held to a lower standard like the guys running this country.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:54 PM |
| VP comparison |
I remember when the Bush camp touted Dick Cheney as a strong VP candidate based on his foreign policy expertise. Those lost days of innocence, before anybody really understood what the Bush camp was about and before anybody
realized what a foul-mouthed, robot our VP really was.
With four years of hindsight to our credit, it appears as if Cheney is more of a foreign policy clown than expert, considering the U.S. rallied a lot more hate and contempt in the past couple of years than support.
The point is, pundits and analysts are mulling over John Edwards' qualifications and the early word is that he lacks the proper experience. To that I say "Nonsense".
Cheney was supposedly the imperial wizard of foreign policy and look where
that got us in the international community--we're going to compromise so much in the next year or so to get a legitimate showing of foreign troops into Iraq that Russia will probably be running NATO next summer.
Tragic speculation aside, it is important to focus on what is known, what is real and what values Cheney and Edwards have physically qualified in the past. Little is known about Cheney other than he has no human heart, he is associated with the epitome of sleazy corporate power (Halliburton) and that he cusses like a drunken sailor.
What's known about Edwards? The Republicans call him "disingenuous and
unaccomplished," which by their standards I guess he is, considering Bush is so honest and Cheney is so accomplished. Either way, he used to be a trial lawyer and he wasn't a trust fund baby. He's got Cheney beat right there. No news is better than a lot of documented sleaze, anger and failure.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:37 PM |
| Out of the mainstream |
No surprise that the Republican Party was packed with arsenal the minute John Edwards was named as the running mate for John Kerry. And no surprise, that Dubya and Cheney acted like they were cordial and kind to welcome him to the race. The truth is the Republican attack machine was negative, but all it showed was that the Republicans are shaking in their boots.
The role of a running mate will not change a lot of votes, but this ticket has become stronger because Edwards brings what Kerry does not have – charisma and excitement -- that is what worries the other side.
While I agree with Kerry policies, he cannot rally a crowd and cannot excite me. Edwards, on the other hand, is easy to listen to and always seems to be friendly while being confident and getting his point across. He has a refreshing authenticity that will resonate for some of the voters who are bored with Kerry, and fed up with the horrible policies of Bush.
It’s funny to me how the Republicans portray Edwards as inexperienced for the role of Vice President, when Bush had no federal government experience when he ran for President in 2000. And it’s funny that he still does not have the federal government experience that Edwards has; but that is what that the Republican attack machine is good at, making you believe things that are absolutely ridiculous.
Another Republican attack minutes after the announcement was that Edwards is “a disingenuous, unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers.” Unaccomplished? Huh? Folks, it looks to me, and hopefully is obvious to you, that the Republicans are scared, and they’re doing anything to bring down Edwards. But in my opinion, it will only backfire – and has thus far in the eyes of the media. Oh, but that media is so liberal.
Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee Chairman, and company have said that “the Kerry/Edwards ticket represents one of the most divisive and out of the mainstream tickets for president.”
Out of the mainstream of America? Well then, why did the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken yesterday find that 64 percent of REGISTERED VOTERS (not only Democrats) surveyed viewed the choice of Edwards as excellent or pretty good, while 28 percent termed it fair or poor? Poor Ed seems to constantly forget these types of things.
Hey Ed, I think over 60% can be considered the mainstream and the people seem a little unified that Edwards is uh, a pretty good choice...oh, you’re just distorting things again. No biggie buddy, we’re all used to it – no one ever listens to you anyway. Keep rambling.
Also, in the same poll, seventy percent said they were either enthusiastic or satisfied by the choice, while 19 percent described themselves as dissatisfied or angry. These 19 percent of the people are Republicans who understand that things are not looking to good, hence, the attack attempts by the Republican Party two minutes after the announcement of Edwards.
There is so much more to say about how everything has been negative against Edwards by the Republican attack machine, but hey, I don’t want to go too far out of the mainstream – I guess myself and the other 64% of the people are just different.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 03:26 PM |
| John Edwards |
Edward's weakness ain't that weak. Certainly not Dan Quayle weak. Sure, he is a common man and lawyer relatively inexperienced in government. Sorta' like Abraham Lincoln. But then, Bush wasn't exactly the poster-child for successful management or career politicians. Where our president has had a lot handed to him, Edwards has earned what he has. And while Cheney has more experience, that is not always a good thing. People can become set in their ways, inflexible, dogmatic and sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong. And experience does not guarantee good choices, just as inexperience doesn't guarantee bad ones.
For the same reasons people shouldn't take Kerry or Cheney's long experience for granted, they shouldn't take Bush or Edwards' short experience for granted. The important thing is what they stand for, and how they have proven themselves in the past in whatever they endeavored to do.
Personally, I don't see how Kerry-Edwards can lose. I mean, John Edwards can talk to the dead, can't he? So, like, he can get advice from Thomas Jefferson and stuff. Cool.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:57 PM |
July 06, 2004
| em-PHA-sis on the right syl-LAB-le |
By the way, has anyone seen that wonderful clip of Bush referring to the "Aboo .. Gerreff ... uh ... sitchiashun?" It's freely available on Comedy Central's the Daily Show website.
And here's a short article on how Bush mangled the name, mispronouncing it three entirely different ways, while giving his "serious" speech about tearing down the prison.
You'd think, what with it being such a huge scandal and blow to America's image, Bush's handlers would have at least made sure he remembered the name before letting him talk to people. Geez. Or maybe spelled it out phon ... uh phonet ... you know, fone-et-ik-lee for him on the teleprompter.
True, Bush ain't the most articlerated-type person in the world, and mangles words all the time. But given the importance of this particular word, that it was the focus of his entire speech, and that he had plenty of options for rehearsing and being prompted on it, you think he would at least pretend to care while he was, well, pretending to care.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:28 PM |
| That's the ticket |
Kerry picked Edwards! I'm relieved.
Gephardt may be more seasoned, but he's too old school Dem and career politician-ish for my tastes, probably not flexible enough to take us forward, and more important, looks like Skeletor to me. And who'd vote for Skeletor?
Edwards has the small, southern factory town credentials, a background of going from poverty to success by his own efforts (not from Daddy's friends buying him oil companies) to win over those rural voters and Southern voters, and the charisma to win the cult of personality war over mean ole grandpa Cheney.
Of course, the fact that Kerry and Edwards made critical comments about each other during the primaries is a nice present to the Reps. I fully expect one or more attack ads based on that alone. Lord knows they don't have much else to go on. Oh, except that Edwards was a lawyer. Like, what, 90 percent of politicians? But in the end, I think this is a team that has a strong chance to actually win the election.
What cracks me up is that the Bush-Cheney campaign has called the Kerry-Edwards ticket "'one of the most divisive and out of the mainstream tickets for president," according to CNN. This coming from the team that was pelted with eggs inauguration day, has sparked record world-wide protests and has to have intense security whenever Bush goes overseas to protect him from near-riots over his mere presence, who blatantly mixes personal religion beliefs and secular law, who has thankfully inspired a little actual backbone and vitality from the Democrats, whose deficit spending is dividing even his own party, etc. and so forth.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:27 PM |
| Ratings do not equal creativity |
Here’s the problem with "Fahrenheit 9/11": It’s not a representation of the
cream of the liberal crop, just like I believe Rush Limbaugh and Fox News do not represent the top brains and creativity of conservatives. I’m not exactly a huge fan of either of those media, by the way.
Just because Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh get media attention and ratings/ticket sales, doesn’t mean they’re really all that great. More people go to Britney Spears concerts than orchestras, but that doesn’t mean Spears is more creative.
Here are my extended thoughts on "Fahrenheit 9/11." This op-ed takes a look at the actual content of the movie.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 02:01 PM |
July 02, 2004
| Pardon moi |
Nigel, I think France has a right to be annoyed with anything related to Bush's attempt at foreign diplomacy.
I'm not too certain if France has a long track record of physically bullying the U.S. as Nigel and his "judicial experts" allege, but we can all agree that Bush ignored France when he decided to go to war without UN approval, so it's understandable that France and the rest of the European people (citizens) are reluctant to embrace our President's message of unity.
Considering Bush hasn't demonstrated an ability or willingness to work with others until his plans fall on their face, I think the French cold shoulder is predictable and deserved.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:40 PM |
| You might be a terrorist if... |
Just last week, my girlfriend and I were at the fishing dock in Edmonds taking pictures of the ferries at sunset. I believe I also made some notes in my phone's organizer about thoughts that came to me regarding my pending move to Kingston.
And I suppose in the fading, red-tinged lighting, I might appear to fit a, shall we say, ethnically questionable profile.
Oh my gosh! I might be a terrorist!
Note to feds - just kidding. Please don't waste any of your already stretched resources to infiltrate my home. On the other hand, we are going to be packing, and cleaning, and could really use an extra hand. And the penalty fee we are being charged to break our lease sure feels like terrorism, so maybe someone could look into that?
This is not to say the ferry "threat" is "benign," nor that we shouldn't take every reasonable precaution against attack, nor is it to imply that our law enforcement groups aren't kicking butt in stopping legitimate terrorist threats, especially given their resource constraints.
But the simple fact is that the terrorists could strike anywhere, in any way. So while we scramble to prepare for the inevitable dire warning that terrorists may attack on the 4th, and yet that we should go out and spend ... er, I mean act ... like we would any other 4th, it will do us no good to be afraid.
It kind of reminds me of the Coyote and Road Runner, in that the Coyote was always trying all these different, whacked out schemes. He never actually thought to try the same trick over again until he worked out the bugs. While the terrorists are generally smarter and more dangerous than Wile E. Coyote, they too seem to use a variety of attacks in a variety of strategies.
So while being especially concerned about public transportation systems seems logical after the train bombing in Italy, at the same time we are reacting to what they have already done, not what they might possibly do. Because the entire world combined doesn't have the resources to stop every single possibility every single minute.
They might try a plane hijacking, or a bus bomb, or a car bomb, or a suitcase bomb, or release some biological weapon into our water supply, or simply open up with an automatic weapon in a crowded mall. Or they might try putting on roller skates, tying a giant rocket to their back, strapping on some c-4, and laying down a big pile of cash as bait for their target. Then, we'd be having to register all roller-skate sales.
I don't have television (or, to be more specific, I have a television, but no cable or antennas). But last night, as I was sitting in the vet hospital getting a checkup on our new pup, I got to see the evening network news. Ah, how I have missed it.
Terrorists may be targeting our ferries! Terrorists may be targeting our facilities! School water contaminated! Drive by shooting! On, and on. Heck, I didn't want to leave the vet's office for fear that my car may have been wired to explode whilst I waited. Or wait, maybe the terrorists would attack the vet's office! After all, that would help destroy the support infrastructure for bomb sniffing dogs!
On the other hand, Americans are plenty busy killing each other off at a much more consistent rate than terrorists are killing Americans. You should probably be much more worried about that neighbor who just got laid off and is about to crack than some extremist from the other side of the world. Major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil tend to be years apart. And that was before our war on terror, or increased precautions. Americans killing Americans happens every hour of every day.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:30 PM |
| Turkey in the EU |
I agree with Nigel’s latest blog replying to my blog “Ambushed” to a certain extent. I agree that “Turkey being a member of the EU goes a long way to securing world security.”
It is great that Turkey is doing well with democracy, but to be honest, I doubt they will have the influence to push it towards other Middle Eastern countries. For instance, India has the second largest Muslim population and they are a safe and functioning democracy, but that message has not been sent to other Muslim countries.
Now, Iraq is a different matter. A successful democracy in the heart of the Middle East would have influence, but again we need our allies to help us out, and Bush needs to get this through his head.
While, it’s fine that Bush recommends that Turkey be admitted to the EU because they do need to be a part of the EU to show that a Muslim democracy can be a part of it; it is not the time to alienate more allies because they are looking for it, and the people in Europe are looking for reasons to hate us, especially as long as Dubya is president. Some of Europe is anti-American, but the majority is more anti-Bush.
But this ‘Turkey into the EU’ matter should be left to only Europe to decide in our present times. Already countries such as Germany, Italy and Britain are supporting Turkey’s admission so we should let them handle France and we should continue to focus on mending relations with the anti-war allies to help the reconstruction effort and democratization in Iraq.
That is the primary goal, and that is what will in the end keep our country safer (not from Iraq because they were never really a threat, but democratization in Middle Eastern countries will have an impact on ‘growing-up to be terrorist’ minds) -- even though it will take many years to achieve these goals in Iraq.
This is the game of international politics. You have to kiss up even when you don’t want to – unfortunately, it’s just how the game is played. Bush is playing the game wrong because I think he thinks playing the game shows weakness. It does not, it shows you are willing to work with things collaboratively. The last time I checked, this world is pretty big with many different nations -- and of course, we cannot run the world on our own.
Right now, let us allow France to help us out during this period of "nation-building." Let’s not stir emotions with Chirac, as we all know our President loves to do.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 01:33 PM |
July 01, 2004
| Re: Negative Balance |
Response to Nigel Stark's blog Negative balance
While Nigel's arguments have some merit, and I admit I didn't fully consider the balance of non-official advertising, I see several flaws in Nigel's assumptions.
First, there is nothing stopping Bush's supporters from giving their money to Conservative groups. Nothing keeping them from putting out plenty of ads that don't have Bush's name on them.
Further, given Bush's huge war chest, and by not holding his convention for another month, he has that much more time to spend freely however much he wants to (the candidates' spending limits become restricted after they officially accept their party's nomination). No one is forcing Bush to put out almost exclusively negative ads. His campaign could also put out an equal number of positive ones. But they don't. They don't put out many ads that focus solely on Bush's plans for America. They still put out extremely negative attack ads against Kerry.
Second, I would still disagree that the two campaigns are equal in their level of negativity.
Third, I can't believe Nigel is trying to imply that Kerry has more big money contributors than Bush and that Bush's money is all coming from small donations. I mean, really.
Fourth, I disagree that attack ads are an unqualified good thing. Of course it is legitimate to point out areas where your opponent's record or interests may conflict with the needs and interests of the American people. But there has to be some point other than fear mongering involved. There has to be some legitimacy to your attack claims.
Which brings us to the final point - that most of Bush's advertising claims are false. Wacky was false. The implications that Kerry doesn't support our troops were false. The implication that the Dems used Hitler ads was false. And on, and on. They are good at creating illusions, using half-truths or manipulating facts, but in the end it comes down simply to lying.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:34 PM |
| Fears, freedoms and firearms |
Response to John Hieger's blog DOJ on the AWB
The genie's out of the bottle. It would take a huge national consensus against all firearms to even make a dent in the amount of weapons on our streets or in our homes, and that ain't gonna happen.
Movies like Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (which is much less partisan than his current film and worth seeing) look at the deeper issues of why we even feel the need to have firearms when so many other nations do just fine without them, or why we have so many gun deaths when countries like Canada, which has more firearms per adult than we do, have vastly fewer firearm deaths.
For some, firearms are for hunting, or "fun," or give a sense of power or cool. For many, firearms are just something they were raised with, or acclimated to in the military. And frequently, the answer comes down to fear.
Whether it is a right-wing nut job arming themselves against the day we're invaded or our government turns against us, or a mom who sees nothing but crime crime crime and violence on the nightly news and fears for her children's safety, or a young woman who was raped and is determined to never be raped again, or some fine Southern gentlemen who doesn't feel that non-whites know their proper place, many people have firearms because they are afraid of something, even if they can't put a name or image to what that something is.
Often, conservatives complain that firearm ownership is part of personal freedom. These are the same people who will gladly vote against people having the freedom to smoke pot, or marry who they want, or make other choices about their own body or life. Further, our society recognizes that freedom must be balanced with public safety, which is why we're not allowed to drive drunk, or fly a plane without a license, or have a nuclear suitcase bomb in the closet.
Some people try to extend that same reasoning to argue firearms should be banned. But not only is such an argument flawed, guns won't be banned because firearms are too deeply embedded in the American way.
So the best we can do is have reasonable safety laws for the ownership and use of firearms, the same as we do for cars. Require a license and test before someone can own a firearm, and different levels of licensing for different classes and power of weapons, as with vehicles.
Have laws against using firearms while intoxicated. Have laws that firearms must meet safety standards such as not being modified to be fully automatic (same as cars must meet environmental and safety standards). Restrict the types of weapons private citizens are allowed to own, as in the assault weapons ban. Perhaps even hold persons responsible if their firearms are used by somebody else in a crime or accidental death and it is found the owner did not have acceptable safety measures in place to secure the firearm.
At the same time, we can continue to try and educate people not only on firearm safety, but on the truths behind their fears. Get fewer sensationalist or exploitive fear stories on the news. Highlight ways people can make themselves safer. Debunk myths and illusions about how safe or dangerous our neighborhoods really are.
Get out and talk to your neighbors, create a sense of community. Abolish the ignorance or misperceptions that lead some people to feel that a firearm is even needed. Increase funding of family counseling, abuse shelters, substance abuse treatments, reduce the levels of unemployment and poverty, and increase general education funding to reduce the situations that lead to firearm assaults.
And just make sure you wear bright colors while walking in the woods.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:25 PM |
| Calling all creative conservatives |
Response to the exchange regarding Republican blame game
If the Conservative movement had the creative means to create an entertaining film to further their cause and paint our liberal leaders as sleaze bags, they would. But they don't have an interesting liberal-bashing film yet, because the creative resources have not been rallied or simply aren't available, I'm sure somewhere the conservative wheels are turning but we'll have to wait and see....
As it exists now, the creative wing of conservative interests dominates talk radio and well, Fox. So it is considerably more low brow, in my general definition of low brow. But as Chris Collins rightly points out, "Some generalizations can be just common sense." As is this one. Ultimately the cream of the conservative creative crop will rise to the top, and at this time, in this country, Fox and Limbaugh are the loudest voices of conservative outrage and unfortunate creativity. I can't think of any others. "The Passion of Christ" wasn't an attack on liberals, it was a reaffirmation for the faithful, the criticism about it had to do with anti-Semitism if I remember correctly.
Michael Moore is probably a pompous jerk, and just like his conservative adversaries he isn't in the business of playing politics fair and that should be noted. But the reason the right fears him as much as they do is because everybody agrees that he is good at what he does. This can't be said for the high-pitched, whining drone cascading down from the prominent media wing of the right.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 11:59 AM |
| Negative balance |
Response to Randy Henderson's blog Campaign rage
In the past, Randy has harshly criticized the Bush campaign for attacking Kerry while Kerry has apparently kept his campaign positive. His recent statement concerning the Hitler ads coming from other sources such as MoveOn.org is correct (whether MoveOn.org and other groups are cooperating behind the scenes with the DNC or the Kerry campaign is a question that is currently up in the air).
However, this point Randy hits on needs to be taken a step further to counter his past argument that the Bush campaign uses negative ads while Kerry doesn’t.
An honest look at the campaigns shows that both campaigns are using negative ads (a good thing, in my opinion). However, because of the recent Campaign Finance Reform Act, the financing of these campaigns has resulted in the apparent confusion over who is attacking whom.
Bush’s finances come largely from hard donors – millions (literally) of donors donating $20 here or $10 there. An analysis of Kerry’s finances shows that much more of his money comes from a smaller group of people maxing out their contribution limits (several thousand dollars each). These rich supporters of Kerry are then forced (unconstitutionally, I believe) to funnel the rest of their money to groups like MoveOn.org and the Media Fund.
These liberal interest groups become well-financed because of the nature of campaign finance law while conservative interest groups remain relatively un-financed because conservative donors do not need an alternative group to donate their relatively small sum to, they can donate directly to Bush.
The end result is that Bush, when spending his hard money on ads, is forced to attach his name to those attack ads (to comply with law) because they come from his own campaign. However, because Kerry has the support of well-financed liberal interest groups, he has the luxury of allowing the interest groups to get their hands dirty, put out the attack ads, and put their name on it instead of Kerry’s.
Both sides have a roughly equal share of negative ads, but this way, Kerry can plead innocence and look like the good boy while Bush is forced to take responsibility for his.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nigel Stark at 11:35 AM |
|
Back to top