|
 |
 |
|
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. |
September 30, 2004
| Re: Nethercutt's ad |
Chris seems to be buying into more of this Republican spinning and distortion.
If anyone changes his or her vote from Murray to Nethercutt because of the spinning of these comments, that person is not paying enough attention. I really can’t even believe we’re talking about this.
This is just a stupid lowball desperation attack by Nethercutt because he has no chance to win this race. He’s down 14 points in the latest poll, and Washington voters are a lot smarter than to fall to these tactics -- same reason why Kerry is creaming Bush in the polls for this state. We’re just a smarter state that reads into everything that is said, instead of just seeing what’s on the surface.
The comment by Murray about bin Laden was to inform young people why bin Laden has a draw in Afghanistan and why there are terrorists. She was informing these students of what we need to do to stop the breeding of evil men like bin Laden and those who follow his message. It’s that simple.
People who believe that Patty Murray thinks bin Laden is a great guy are foolish. Yes, some of her views might be ‘skewed’ into what attracts people to bin Laden in the Middle East because most of the attraction is just extreme fundamentalist religion -- but, there are some who are drawn to him by what he attempts to do for his country to overshadow the evil he does to others, and she understands that.
Nethercutt is in the wrong state if he thinks his tactics will help get him elected. Murray was not out of line, and she will continue to be a hard-working member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Sub-committee and great senator for our state.
Respond |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 03:51 PM |
| Re: Nethercutt's ad |
Yeah, Murray once said a pretty politically stupid thing way back when.
Still, Nethercutt has "blurted out" things, like his promise in 1994 to only serve for 6 years, being such a strong supporter of term limits. But hey, at least he gave a few different reasons for breaking his promise, and said he made a mistake.
Just like Murray should do. And thank goodness he did break his promise, because, you know, we need him so badly.
I'm not so worried about a stupid gaffe made years ago, but more about what the candidates stand for, and how they vote. Nethercutt has supported trying juveniles as adults, more prisons and the death penalty instead of reform as a solution to crime, opposed needle exchanges and medical marijuana, voted against incentives for alternative fuels, votes anti-abortion, voted to ban gay adoptions, voted against third world debt reduction, and of course supports school vouchers and social security savings plans, etc.
Also, as reported by On the Issues, he's:
- Rated 13% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
- Rated 13% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-labor voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 50% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)
- Rated 84% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
But yeah, Murray should apologize for some remark she made years ago. Silly Senator.
Here's the original Seattle Times report on it by the way. She clarified herself at the time. She was just trying to express the common, and legitimate, sentiment that we perhaps need to fight terrorism with more than just bombs -- we need to win the hearts of the people so they don't become terrorists to begin with.
She was just incredibly politically insensitive in how she put it, and stupidly "playing it off the cuff." And she ignored the large positive contributions the US already does make to the world. No, not the sanctions, bombs, and sweatshops. The good stuff.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:43 PM |
| Re: Polls |
Perhaps when Randy desires to call Bush and his campaign team a bunch of “liars” again he’ll read about the claims his candidate is currently making.
Nothing like scare tactics about reinstating the draft, lies about forcing out generals, ignoring general’s advice about Afghanistan, and Medicare premium hikes to definitely put Kerry in the “truth-telling” camp.
Hopefully “many” people don’t fall for such tactics.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 03:37 PM |
| Debate rules |
The strategizing over setting up the rules for the debates is interesting, if sad. Certainly, they show how much this is a show, not a debate about issues.
For example, in order for Bush to agree to a third debate where he'd have to actually answer audience questions, the Bush camp insisted the temperature for the debates not be below 70 (they noted in footage that Kerry sweats when it gets warm, and hope that will make him look dodgy); they insisted that the podiums be short and far away (so Bush wouldn't be easily compared against Kerry physically), etc. and so forth. The Kerry camp, going with the theory that the more debates the better, conceded.
Since traditionally viewer numbers fall sharply after the first debate, I think the Kerry campaign concessions may have been a mistake. But we'll see what comes out of the third debate.
I think the fact that the campaigns insisted on "friendly" audience members for each candidate is lame. Unless those audience members get to ask challenging questions of the opposing candidate, that is. Anyone know if that's the case?
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:32 PM |
| Dirty books |
Often, when I go into a public bathroom stall, such as one at work, someone has left a newspaper or magazine behind, presumably for others to read.
I have never understood the desire to read while sitting on a toilet. I prefer to get done and get on with more interesting, and better smelling, things. But regardless, it occurred to me that even if I did kick back and read, I wouldn't read something left behind by someone else! I mean, who knows where their hands were before touching the pages? Ugh!
This then led me to think about books in libraries. Who knows what people were doing while reading those? Maybe library books should be sanitized, like bowling shoes, after each use.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:29 PM |
| Nethercutt's ad |
Sen. Patty Murray's shoot-from-the-hip comments made in December 2002 are coming back to haunt her. When the two-term senator told a high school class that Osama bin Laden built hospitals, roads, schools and even day-care facilities, many quickly pointed out that Murray was simply making up facts.
Now that she is running against Rep. George Nethercutt for Senate, she must explain her unexplainable comments all over again.
In Nethercutt's latest ad, there's a shot of Murray speaking: "[bin Laden has] been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better. We have not done that."
There's not a single iota of evidence that bin Laden has built day-care facilities and the hospitals and roads were constructed to help facilitate the guerrilla war against the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. Most importantly, Murray's understanding of why radical Muslims have such allegiance to bin Laden is entirely skewed.
The only way for Murray to dig her way out of this one is to retract the comments, admit she was factually wrong, and reanalyze her understanding of the world.
Respond
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 01:23 PM |
| Polls |
Polls change. So yes, the Bush camp is nervous, even though this week they are slightly in the lead.
Why? Because their lead is based on lies, and avoiding the issues.
If Kerry can successfully counter Bush's lies and empty patriotic rhetoric during the debates--the first one starts tonight at 6 pm Pacific--then the election might be so close only Nader will give Bush the victory again.
The polls Gavin recently referenced show that more people disapprove of Bush on the economy and Iraq than approve. Kerry's personality gap is only due to the Bush campaign's successful, and inadequately challenged, propaganda. So yeah, they might be nervous that Kerry will successfully call them on their BS and connect with voters.
However, a lot of people won't watch the debates, but will wait for the filtered and neatly summarized opinions after the debates. And there, the Bush team will again spin the truth. So perhaps it won't matter much after all.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:19 PM |
| Re: Spin |
Gavin, I'm disappointed in your generalizations about my comments. But given you are defending the Bush campaign, I suppose using their favorite tactic of wildly bending the truth is sadly, appropriate.
Here's the facts. Only 37% of voters think Kerry sticks to his positions, and this is based almost entirely on the Bush campaign propoganda. Heck, 70% of Americans though Saddam Hussein was connected to or even behind 9-11.
Does that make the majority of America "dumb?" Dumb assertion. Of course not. I mean, sure, some of them are bound to be idiots. That's just the way nature and nurture made 'em. And some of them are brilliant. And some are tall. And some are short. America, the great melting pot.
While sad, and unfortunate for informed democracy, it's not their fault their sources of information are a joke, or that the media doesn't do a good enough job of challenging such misperceptions, or that many voters don't have time to deeply research every issue, or that we are all wired to prefer "facts" that support our existing beliefs, or to take mental shortcuts whenever possible.
Further, how many Americans are actually going to vote? Of those, how many are actually for Bush, once you take out all the independents and such? This is a sliver of Americans, not a majority as you grandly suggested. And of those, even a smaller number will actually log onto the Bush website.
Such a pity this discourse had to be lowered to such a "dumb" level. Perhaps next we'll hear how Kerry somehow called all Americans morons by stating Bush lied to us on Iraq? Or how we may determine a woman is a witch if she weighs the same as a duck?
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:12 PM |
September 29, 2004
| Bush's mistakes |
The editor of National Review, a conservative magazine, has an article entitled Bush’s 10 Mistakes At Home and Abroad.
While I would add environmental policy to the list, I can agree with most of his observations.
Now, the easy retort is, why then would you consider voting for Bush when he’s made mistakes? The easy response is...name a politician who’s had a perfect term.
I always find it amusing when we have to defend to the death every nuance of our chosen politician’s every move. Simply say, “They were wrong. I still support them because of what they have done/will do that I support.”
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 06:02 PM |
| CBS at it again |
One would think that CBS has learned its lesson on having high profile reports on anti-Bush stories that are based on false accusations. However, that is not the case, as CBS highlighted the absurd re-institute the draft rumor first pitched by none other than John Kerry.
FactCheck.org has a must-read write-up on why this position is idiotic. The draft isn’t coming back. Write a story instead on the backdoor draft that Bush’s administration has instituted. That is wrong and more worth a story, not this meaningless tripe.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 05:59 PM |
| News vs. the truth |
On the topic of Fox News (and CBS for that matter), and why bad news and uneducated or biased audiences can be dangerous, I point to this article by Common Dreams. It is based on a 2003 report by Pipa, that looked at some common misperceptions held by people at the time we went to war in Iraq. As summarized by Common Dreams, they are:
- U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
- There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.
- People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.
None of these are true of course. Even the weakest of evidence to prove any of these misperceptions, such as the couple of warheads found, or "plans" for WMDs, were found after the study was done, so at the time of the study there was even less reason to remotely believe any of these things was true.
Here's the relevant bit, as presented by Common Dreams: "The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.
The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio."
I noted this report in an editorial a while back. Ultra-conservatives determined to dismiss the report pointed out that you can dig and find that way up the contributor tree there are some contributors to Pipa that also fund liberal organizations.
True. But that doesn't change the facts of the report. It only changes, maybe, the motivation for sharing the facts. If you read the report, the study was performed properly.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:53 PM |
| Re: O'Reilly |
In O'Reilly's defense (shudder -- I never thought I'd hear myself saying THAT), he was supposedly only kidding when he made that remark. But yes, Fox News viewers tend to be less educated than those who watch Daily Show (kind of a no brainer considering many Daily Show audience members ARE college students). However, there are a couple of things to consider here.
First, I know people without education who are smart, and people with education who are dumb. Still, education can give one a greater ability to understand the ways that news can be "spun," to recognize when O'Reilly is using false, circular logic, to understand the greater historical, economic, political ramifications of events, etc. It is arguably easier to BS an uneducated person on the "facts" then an educated one.
Another problem is of course bias, not only of the media source, but of the audience as well. Many Fox News viewers watch Fox News because it validates their world view. They might even argue that Fox News isn't biased to the right, that it is fair and balanced, because that would make them fair and balanced in the views they share with people like O'Reilly.
So the truth or the facts aren't as important as spinning events to support a general ideology or dogma. Or, say, support a war.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, all of this is moot. To paraphrase the movie Gladiator, "He panders to the mob, and the mob are the real power in Rome."
It would be nice to believe that people vote, or make decisions, based on educated facts and logic and reason. But then, if that were true, W. probably wouldn't be in office, and we might not have been bum-rushed into a war in Iraq ill prepared.
No, the masses are moved more by emotions than reason, by fear than logic, by deeply rooted beliefs than deeply researched facts. And politicians and pundits, preachers and product pushers on all sides rely on that to manipulate and control the mob.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:06 PM |
| Re: Spin |
Randy states, “The Bush team must be pretty nervous.”
That nervousness must be based on still having the same 6-8 point edge in almost every national poll and continuing to hold on to most important battleground polls as well, including Wisconsin, Iowa and a tie in New Jersey.
It must also be based on internals from polls like the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, where Bush beats Kerry in 8 out of 8 character and leadership questions, five by double digit margins.
Randy also states, “As a result, the Bush campaign sent out an e-mail. They have set up a rapid response website where they want everyone to go, so that when Kerry speaks, they can spin whatever he says, and no doubt continue to confuse facts and perpetuate fear. Sadly, this will probably work on many people, especially those already looking for some excuse to continue supporting Bush.”
Does this mean that people who are voting for Bush are simply confused individuals too dumb to think for themselves, unable to notice all the "confusing and perpetuating" going on? Such a pity that a majority of America right now is so "dumb."
Respond
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 03:59 PM |
| Graffiti controversey |
The newly completed mural on Northeast Campus Parkway near the University of Washington was “funded in part by the city” and “reportedly at risk of being painted over by the city because it resembled graffiti,” says The Seattle Times.
Forty artists painted the mural, led by former UW student Jill Rothenberger. Fortunately, the city later approved the mural, so it’ll stay.
I’m glad. From my dorm window, I can see patches of the mural through the trees. Bright blue, olive green, fire red, marigold yellow. It’s funky, contemporary, unique -- definitely not the boring gray wall it used to be. Something like this, vibrant and unusual, fits the college student vibe.
City of Seattle employee Liz Rankin put it best when she said, “One person's graffiti is another person's Monet.”
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:50 PM |
| The spin is starting to wobble |
The Bush team must be pretty nervous. Their response to every legitimate issue Kerry raises is some variation on, "Well that's probably the 5th position he's taken on that issue." Their campaign is largely relying on keeping people afraid of what terrible thing might happen if a wishy-washy indecisive Kerry is elected president and the terrorists attack us.
This is because, unfortunately for our nation these last 4 years, they don't have much of a real record to stand on.
They've been able to get away with this largely because their advertisements can lie, and they can lie to partisan, carefully screened Republican crowds, and can go on Fox News and spin away, all without immediate calls of BS.
But in live debates -- and the first is Thursday -- when Bush gives one of the tired lies about Kerry flip flopping on Iraq, etc., Kerry will be able to respond. And point out Bush's many failures.
As a result, the Bush campaign sent out an e-mail. They have set up a rapid response website where they want everyone to go, so that when Kerry speaks, they can spin whatever he says, and no doubt continue to confuse facts and perpetuate fear. Sadly, this will probably work on many people, especially those already looking for some excuse to continue supporting Bush.
It must be said though, given the deficits, the disaster that is Iraq, the sluggish economy and job growth, etc., the Republicans are doing an impressive job of keeping Kerry on the defensive rather than having to defend themselves. If only they could apply half the effort and cleverness to doing their jobs that they are spending on keeping their jobs. Oh well.
I just hope Kerry isn't as big a disappointment come debate time as Gore was.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 11:48 AM |
| Eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, oh my! |
Lately, Mother Nature’s been flexing her muscles. From Florida to California to good old Washington, humans are reminded of their limits and nature’s ultimate power.
“Scientists believe there is a significant chance of a small eruption of Mount St. Helens in the days or weeks ahead,” says The Seattle Times.
Still, scientists can never be completely sure; it’s difficult to predict a future eruption, because they can’t see exactly what’s happening beneath the earth.
Another recent phenomenon: a 5.8 earthquake that hit Central California Tuesday, followed by a 5.0 aftershock, says ABC12/the Associated Press.
Combine this event with a report issued by University of Southern California researchers: “With a strong enough jolt — a 7.6 -magnitude earthquake — the seafloor under Catalina Island could be violently thrust upward, causing a tsunami along the Southern California coast.”
Potentially, this could result in shattered boats -- oil tankers and cargo ships crushed against piers, leading to spills and fire hazards -- as well as delayed business in ports holding materials worth billions of dollars.
All this shows us that humans really don’t dominate the earth. It’s the other way around.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 11:41 AM |
| O'Reilly? Oh really? |
Bill O'Reilly recently referred to Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" audience as "stoned slackers" who are scary because they can actually vote, arguing that it is somehow a danger to mix immature liberal politics with comedy because stoned people might actually be motivated to vote.
Hmmm.
It turns out Bill "I Know Everything" O'Reilly actually harbors the dumber of audiences. Imagine that, Fox News viewers are less educated and less likely to have graduated college than viewers of "The Daily Show." Okay, maybe they aren't "dumber" but less educated -- or just educated enough to appreciate Fox as quality news.
While it should come as no surprise to any walking primate that viewers of Fox are less educated, it does the heart good to know that O'Reilly's ego rants fall on arguably less engaged ears.
When the "top cable news program in America" has a less informed audience than a comedy show, you know two things: American "news" has reached an all-time low, and it's time for Bill O'Reilly and his tremendous ego to come back down to earth. There is only so much glory to be had as the king of mediocre ideas.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 11:33 AM |
September 27, 2004
| Hurricanes and global warming |
I'm sure that there are some who will question whether the current flurry of hurricanes and storms is linked to global warming. The answer is, no, not really. Any contributions that global warming currently makes to this issue are minimal.
As reported by the Guardian, this is a natural global weather trend that cycles over decades. In fact, up until recently, the number of hurricanes was going down. Now, they will go up for the next 20 years or so.
However, the storms should serve as a reminder of how powerful nature is, and why we don't want to mess with it. After 9/11, we declared a war on terrorism, and have had rapid, massive changes to our foreign and domestic policies, to our national priorities, to our institutions and even our rights. We have mobilized massive resources to battle this threat. But, as these storms should remind us, if the very weather turns against us, if we create an enemy out of nature, the costs to our economy and our lives will be just as high as in any war.
Just as everyone stresses how it is better to fight the enemy "over there" than at home, I would rather fight the war against global warming now, while most of its effects are relatively small and being felt far away, than wait until our coastlines are being flooded, our disease rates are out of control, increased numbers of the elderly and ill people are dying from extreme temperatures, and our food supplies are threatened.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:24 PM |
September 24, 2004
| Mean girls |
“Mean Girls” came out on DVD a few days ago. Generally, it’s another overblown representation of high school cliques, girly cattiness and backstabbing.
Granted, a few select aspects of the movie approached the reality of high school life. Friends talking about each other behind their backs (even on three-way calling!), friends stealing each other’s boyfriends and dating ex's, subtle backstabbing and noticeable (but not permanent, static, self-defining) cliques.
Aside from these few accurate representations, the movie shows highly-exaggerated incidents: a school hallway flooded with flyers, showing insults about every member of the student body; girls absolutely dying to be in the coveted, elite cliques (yeah, right); and the one dominant she-devil who everyone fears, respects and worships.
In reality, girl cruelty is subtle. At least in my high school, most girls were mature enough not to stoop to the super-obvious; furthermore, the girls who usually got nominated Homecoming queen were friendly, not frigidly superior. The truly mean girls were usually laughed at or openly hated, not admired.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:05 PM |
| Allawi's speech |
The transcript is available for Prime Minister Allawi’s speech to the joint session of Congress. I thought it was a great moment, an Iraqi leader before Congress, thanking them for their support.
Respond
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 11:59 AM |
September 23, 2004
| Rain vs. hurricanes |
Seattleites are notorious for complaining about their gray, wet weather. I’ve done it, too.
I get mad when the blue cover of my textbook starts running with blue dye and stains my shirtsleeves (who knew that could happen?). Or when, in the middle of my run, it starts pouring with big wind gusts...and I’m miles from home.
In comparison, Californians and Floridians seem to have it so easy. Sunshine. Blue skies. Even palm trees.
But the price Floridians pay for their tropical-ish weather makes me feel glad to live in the Pacific Northwest. They’ve been hit with hurricane after hurricane. Charley. Frances. Ivan. Now, maybe Jeanne. They’re just lucky that Karl and Lisa decided to remain at sea.
The hurricane season doesn’t end until November 30. Two more months to go. Three hurricanes have hit in the past five weeks. Doesn’t look too bright.
Obviously, there are places with more sunshine than Seattle and less hurricanes than Florida. But it puts complaints about rain in perspective.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:10 PM |
| Re: Rather doesn't matter |
Wow! I have to say, John's blog is so dead on, I feel embarrassed for taking up so much space with my rambling CBS blogs.
Of course the media aren't overly liberal. Many members of the media are, but what content gets the green light to go on the air generally isn't. I'd say ratings, then pandering to demographic groups of consumers who will buy what they are advertising during that hour, then doing all that as cheaply as possible, etc. take priority.
If the media are so liberal, where's the daily updates on poverty rates or the number of physical and mental health uninsured right after the daily stock report?
Company X went up half a point, so the CEO got another bonus, but they cut Christmas bonuses and laid off a thousand people to make it happen. And now, Jean asks, why hasn't this White House held weekly press meetings like the previous administration? Why do we feel privileged when Bush grants someone a rare interview? Is it because nothing is going on in America or the world that he needs to talk about? And then Paul reveals the many errors and deceptions in the latest Bush campaign ad. Jean...?
No, unless you are an organization like Fox News, with a definite slant, the media do not tend to be overly biased.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:05 PM |
September 22, 2004
| Re: Rather doesn't matter |
Oddly enough, I agree with Heiger's main point of his CBS blog. To use the CBS scandal as proof of the "great left-wing conspiracy" is fairly ludicrous, and he's correct that many conservative pundits are starting to throw terms like that around.
The whole notion of such a conspiracy is nuts to begin with... we all know what media organizations lean left (NY Times, LA Times), and what lean right (Fox News, Washington Times), and we can read their reporting through such a lens.
Frankly, I find it rather amusing that both sides, right and left, complain about severe unfair treatment from the media. It probably gets rather old for journalists, who get hate mail from either side depending on the latest editorial.
At the end of the day, for conservatives to start talking about liberal bias and for liberals to decry the same detracts from the true story at CBS...and that is unfortunate.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:56 PM |
| Advocating murder |
I've never heard any liberal group ever advocate for the murder of a conservative. But in a speech last week, Jimmy Swaggert endorsed George W. Bush's administration and said that he'd kill a gay man if needed.
Maybe it's just me, but the extreme right seems to be extremely evil. Not to mention the fact that this speech was given in front of a large Christian congregation that received these shameless comments with "laughter and
applause."
Swaggert later apologized, but to what affect? He isn't sorry and he still gets to spread his venom. Am I the only one who has an issue with promoting politicians in church, much less promoting death and hate? Why bother with the bible and messages of compassion when you can play Hitler?
Swaggert doesn't need religion to rally a crowd; he just needs to pander to the fears and insecurities of the far right. Aren't GOOD Republicans troubled that their party overwhelmingly appeals to these people?
I don't know what kind of Christianity they teach in those big, Southern churches, but last I checked, murder was one of the ten commandments.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:51 PM |
| Hate of present politics |
Working on a campaign, you really get to see the division/hate between Democratic supporters and Republican supporters. I'm seeing firsthand how ridiculous this is getting.
I often get flipped the bird and a head shake coming out of the Democratic headquarters. Republicans have come into our office telling us how much Democrats hate America and how they campaign very negatively. And signs are vandalized on a daily basis.
One lady came in today and said she had Kerry signs in her trees, and they were stolen! A few weeks ago, someone came in and said all his Democratic signs were burned! And when I went to maintain our campaign signs, I see two of our signs, Congressman Dicks, and Kerry signs all in the same pile with an American flag on top of it -- what is that supposed to symbolize?
All of this negativity and hate has got to stop. People are so frustrated and will stray further away from our political system.
It's fine to be emotional and support your cause by being civil, but when it's all a bunch of hate, vandalism and disrespect toward someone who disagrees with you -- it crosses the line.
Respond |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 04:46 PM |
| Unmarried women |
“I am living my worst old nightmare: alone, childless, 50-something, a little overweight, losing my looks,” writes Joie Davidow.
That sounds like a nightmare to me, too. I shiver at the thought of being without a husband and the family of tykes I’ve dreamed of, ever since I played house and SuperMom as a kid.
But then Davidow writes, “I'm almost perfectly happy...I am neither a spinster nor an old maid.” She goes on to list the pros and cons of an unmarried life.
Sometimes she’s lonely, but has what most spouses and parents don’t -- freedom. She can choose to buy a house in Rome, jog along the beach, and linger over the morning paper for as long as she wants.
Unmarried, childless women are becoming more common. They have freedom of choice, and don’t need to be a wife/mother to feel that they’ve contributed to society. The image of the 1950s-style mother slaving over a hot stove for Daddy and little Johnny in the suburbs, just doesn’t apply to all women anymore.
It’s great that women stand on their own, but ultimately it's a personal choice. Personally I want to be a Mother/Wife Extraordinaire and have a cool career. I want to live with Mr. Right, nurture the Asavareungchai Jrs. (even though it'll probably require some sacrifices), and work at a job I find fulfiling.
But I also respect those who choose to be single and childless -- whether they’re men or women.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 04:41 PM |
| CBS in context |
CBS was wrong about the documents, no doubt. And they didn't do a thorough enough investigation of the facts. But is this the only time this has happened in major television media news? Of course not.
Every news organization has had to make corrections or retractions as new evidence or facts are revealed. Or, equally as often, they just move on to the newest sensationalist news and people don't bother to worry over how accurately they reported the old news.
This is especially true with television because it is so ephemeral, most of the words melting like cotton candy after spoken, unlike print journalism which is a document of our times.
Given the pressure to get "the scoop," especially today with 24 hour news networks and online news, they frequently run with information that is, at best, dodgy. Too bad CBS didn't at least qualify its story with words like "alleged," "reportedly," "preliminary indications," etc.
Is this even the worse case of someone attempting to use media to affect the outcome of an election? No. Because, again, the memos wouldn't have actually done much, if anything, to affect the outcome of the election. I'm sure the accumulative spin doctoring and bias of Fox News will have more of an influence on people's votes than one story elaborating on info that people already know about, and most people don't care about.
This is not to say that what CBS did was right, or that there shouldn't be consequences. I'm just saying, let's keep it in context. This is just one example of a larger problem in news media, and only stands out because Dan Rather does it so infrequently, and because of the politically charged nature of the story, and because CBS was unusually stubborn about admitting its mistake.
But as long as legitimate news shows have to compete with the energetic spin and loose facts of shows like Hannity or O'Reilly, deal with pressures to gain audience to sell advertising to, and have to compete in a saturated, increasingly real-time global news shark pool, I doubt things will get much better.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:36 PM |
| CBS: Politics vs. Integrity |
Christina, my focus on the political importance of the documents does not invalidate your points about journalistic integrity. They are two separate aspects of the same story.
My point was that even if the documents were real, I don't think politically they are that important. Nor do I believe they were instigated by the Kerry campaign. You are concerned about the journalism involved in reporting about the memos.
One way in which our points may be related is the degree to which CBS' mistake could have been harmful. It is one thing to mistakenly say Joe's dead dad wrote a letter saying Joe would fail math when Joe did fail math, and another altogether to say Joe's dead dad had proof that Joe stole the math quiz answers and slept with the math teacher when he did neither. CBS' mistake falls more into the first category.
Given the many shortcuts and last-minute decisions that news organizations often make, I'm sure that this comes into play on how much time and resources they put into investigation. Kind of like how car makers weigh the cost of a recall against the cost of paying for all the people killed by their faulty cars.
The more important and influential a story likely is, the more work they likely put into it.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:31 PM |
| Rather doesn't matter |
I see where this whole Dan Rather mess is going -- CBS, the station that refused to air "The Reagans" after conservative pressure is going to be painted as a beacon of the "great liberal conspiracy."
Before any dramatic leaps of logic are made, let's consider the collective failure of the entire news media since 9/11 to effectivley use ample scrutiny on both sides of the fence.
Conservatives may have a right to cry "foul" in this instance, but they shouldn't cry too loudly. The failure of the press in the last several years has overwhelmingly played out in the rights favor, as the NY Times suggests, "After 9/11 when the entire news media began relaying unchallenged administration propaganda."
Here's a couple points to consider that emphasize the malaise of the general media:
A Newsweek poll conducted just two weeks ago shows that 42% of Americans still believe Saddam was "directly involved" in 9/11. A responsible media would be able to hammer down fact over fiction. Half of America has been misled and conservative media isn't doing anything to rightfully inform their viewers. This is a more significant and glaring indicator than Dan Rather's memo. This is the background for our enitre foreign policy and subsequnet loss of international credibility.
What's more important? What issue has the "mainstream" media had more time to right?
Another thought: Teresa Heinz Kerry's now infamous "Shove It" comment got
major news play for several days, meanwhile Afghanistan is literally off the media newscreen even though all indicators show that nation is still a hotbed of terror and military struggle. When Pat Tillman died there many people, myself included, had almost forgotten we still had soldiers fighting there on a daily basis.
Why is it the media collectively knocked Iraq off the top of the news hour the day we handed "pseudo sovereignty" over to that nation? Nothing has changed except the fury of the insurgency.
Then there's the best-selling author of "Unfit for Command." It took the general media weeks to expose his dirty SBVFT underbelly, yet Kitty Kelly's sleaze tirades about Bush cocaine orgies was discredited before publication, rightfully so, but why the expediancy?
It seems to this liberal mind, that the biggest journalistic blunders have worked out in the Bush camp's favor. If you get the entire media to stop asking tough questions about a bogus war, then the media bias isn't working against you.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:15 PM |
| Re: CBS silliness |
Randy states, "This whole CBS memo thing is getting pretty ridiculous. First, it's no secret that Bush got into the guard by pulling strings, that he was AWOL, or that he missed a physical and was grounded from flying. These new documents were just elaborations on what is already known. So even if they were real documents, they aren't all that important in my mind."
It's hard to begin talking about how wrong this is. For starters, it's awfully easy to say that "it's no secret" that Bush was AWOL. If so, why hasn't it been concretely proven? It's awfully easy to say that "Bush got into the guard by pulling strings." If so, why hasn't it been concretely proven? By Ben Barnes' testimony at the same 60 Minutes interview, the same Democratic operative?
These issues have been beaten into the ground for Bush's last four campaigns... wouldn't you think some reporter would have been completely successful in proving all these allegations by now? Where's the "innocent before proven guilty" line? I guess it pales before being able to say that it "is already known." Does Bush's service even matter? He's not running on it.
Let's face facts...this story is critical because it shows how media organizations, in order to boost either ratings or political ideology, can step across the line of objectivity and careful analysis. There needs to be a concrete level of trust between the media and viewers for the media to have any type of credibility... the difference between CBS and National Enquirer.
If the journalistic integrity of Internet bloggers surpasses that of Dan Rather, then it is a story, worthy of careful analysis. It is most definitely not silly.
What role will the media play in the rest of this election? CBS failed in multiple ways to vet this story, and in its own way attempted to influence a national election. There is a forger out there who tried to influence a national election. Doesn't sound silly to me.
This isn't about Republican vs Democrat. Accusations of Kerry campaign influence are currently as ridiculous as accusations of Karl Rove being the forger (that's probably even more ridiculous). It's about blatant forgeries being used on the most trusted national news program of all time, on the house that Murrow built, passed off as fact, and then defended in the face of hard evidence. It might end up ending the career of a distinguished journalist and anchor.
Apologies are needed. An apology to George W. Bush for reporting forgeries about his service. An apology to Laura Bush for criticizing her questioning of the documents. An apology to the retired National Guard personnel and their families for impugning their memories.
This shouldn't influence a single person's vote. Hopefully it doesn't. However, it is a real story, the biggest journalistic story of a long time, and it should not be shuttled into second-rate status.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:03 PM |
September 21, 2004
| Re: CBS silliness |
Randy writes, “These new documents were just elaborations on what is already known. So even if they were real documents, they aren't all that important in my mind. Invalidating them doesn't suddenly make Bush a war hero...”
The underlying importance of the documents isn’t what they do or don’t imply about Bush, but about CBS and quality journalism. Dan Rather -- along with Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw -- represent familiarity, reliability and some of the most visible, respected broadcast journalists in the nation.
The fact that such an elite station, and such elite journalists, failed to respond to red flags is serious. To CBS, because it’s reputation is marred. To all journalists, because such carelessness adds to the public misconception that all journalists are story-hungry and untrustworthy.
I hate how a few bad journalists reinforce public cynicism toward the press. As an aspiring journalist, I already sense cynicism. It’s unfairly directed towards thousands of journalists who strive to be impartial and ethical, down to the use of ellipses.
Ultimately, it’s important to investigate the causes of CBS’ mistakes. I hope this will help prevent future mistakes that tarnish the news business’ reputation.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:19 PM |
| CBS documents |
“CBS News apologized Monday for a ‘mistake in judgment’ in its story questioning President Bush's National Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes,” reports The New York Times.
It’s about time. CBS has been slow to respond to questions surrounding the documents, making a messy situation even messier.
First, “Two document experts consulted by CBS later said they raised red flags that network officials apparently disregarded.”
Second, “Burkett [the source of the documents] was well known in National Guard circles for several years for trying to discredit Bush's military record,” which should have raised another red flag.
This source -- who presented questionable documents in a high-stakes, politically charged story -- has a history of anti-Bush sentiment. Thus, he should’ve been investigated thoroughly.
Because CBS strongly defended its story until yesterday, it is subject to even more scrutiny. Why were multiple red flags ignored? How did such a respected station err? Why did CBS take so long to apologize, when many signs indicated questionable documents?
Will CBS regain its image as a reputable news source? Once a media outlet loses its reputation, it’s got to work like mad to regain it -- and the public’s trust.
Specifically, the story’s producer Mary Mapes will be questioned. Mapes is “one of the network’s top investigators and broke the story of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal photos.” But in the future, many will connect her to this “mistake in judgment,” instead of stellar investigative reporting.
The ultimate lesson: better to wait and be right, than rush and be wrong.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:25 PM |
| CBS silliness |
This whole CBS memo thing is getting pretty ridiculous. First, it's no secret that Bush got into the guard by pulling strings, that he was AWOL, or that he missed a physical and was grounded from flying. These new documents were just elaborations on what is already known. So even if they were real documents, they aren't all that important in my mind.
Invalidating them doesn't suddenly make Bush a war hero, or even someone who fulfilled his duty in the Guard. Bush has enough black marks on his record, both past and present, nobody needs to make anything up. But okay, they're forgeries, cooked up by some people who dislike Bush. Those people should be ashamed, and be punished appropriately.
As for the fact that Burkett, the guy who gave the story to CBS, talked to someone in the Kerry campaign, well he did so after he gave CBS the story, and only because he gave CBS the story. It's not like he talked to the Kerry campaign, then contacted CBS and gave them the documents.
Burkett used the documents as a bribe to CBS to get them to pull some strings and get him a few minutes with some Kerry campaign people, so he could give his two cents on how Kerry should be more aggressive with the Swift Boat Vets group.
The White House accusations are like saying if you talk to Dan Rather today, then you somehow are responsible for him airing the documents two weeks ago.
But the White House is having a heyday with it regardless. Who can blame them? It's a nice distraction from the underlying facts about Bush's record, and a perfect "I know you are but what am I" opening to attack Kerry back after the Bush campaign's many ties to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth group was criticized.
Anyway, I did enjoy the subtle differences in the way Fox News reported it compared to other news organizations, like CNN.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:20 PM |
| Compromise? |
Is pulling a Zell Miller too much of an admittance of error in conservative circles to be considered, even if following the current administration's policies jeopardize the core foundations of the Republican party?
John "I love to be loved" McCain and others are some of the first high-level Republicans starting to acknowledge what the rest of us have been saying for awhile.
"We made serious mistakes," said Sen. McCain, R-Ariz.
"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb..
Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blamed the glaring failures in Iraq on "the incompetence in the administration."
It's nice to hear that some of our national leaders aren't operating in complete denial, but what I want to know is if real Republicans feel that Bush is a good Republican. I know they'll vote for him 10 times out of 10, but on the scale of great conservative leaders, does Bush represent a compromise to the ideal?
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:15 PM |
| He's confused |
President Bush confusing himself and his fans at numerous campaign stops recently made an ironic case for the shifting saga that is our rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
Bush's logic: because he thinks he can prove that there was maybe at least one certified terrorist in Iraq at one point, that makes the case for an all-out war.
Here's Shakespeare himself, "Remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked August 28 in Lima, Ohio. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer because he was Jewish? He found safe haven in Iraq. In other words, terrorist groups were in this guy's country."
Since America has been home to terrorists on Bush's watch, notably the 9/11 hijackers and presumably more laying low now, doesn't that give our allies in the fight on terror the right to invade America? By Bush's own tortured logic, we should be ripe for an invasion, because a country that has at least one terrorist is fair game.
Sometimes it's a good thing that no one outside of this country takes our president seriously.
Respond |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:05 PM |
| Polling |
The most recent polling is starting to be a little on the wacky side. Can Bush really be up four points in New Jersey, only down by five in New York, and tied in Maryland?
If so, these are results that predict a laugher in the fall...these are supposed to be Democratic bastions, not swing states. This, along with the recent polling showing Bush pulling away in Ohio and Missouri and strengthening his position in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture for the Kerry campaign.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 02:59 PM |
| CBS |
Well, it's about time...CBS has finally admitted it was misled in the whole sordid memo scandal. Why on earth did it take them so long to admit what every news organization, both right and left, has reported this last week?
Even now, real questions still remain. Where did Bill Burkett get these memos? Why does he say that CBS pressured him to release his memos?
This story can't die. Someone tried to influence the outcome of a presidential campaign.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 02:55 PM |
| UN blood money |
I don't know if anyone watched Fox News Sunday night and it's "investigative report" on the oil-for-food program at the UN. While making the point that we can all already agree on that the program didn't do anything to hurt Saddam's regime, they made huge leaps of faith attempting to link the money with terrorists and UN insiders, not to mention the culpability of France and Russia.
Next time they try to do some journalism, they might want to try using facts, not conjecture and close ups of a hand rifling through $100 bills...one might mistake them for CBS.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 02:48 PM |
September 20, 2004
| Vote for Bush--Hurry! |
Al Qaeda wants Kerry to win? Oh my. Well, golly, I have to vote for Bush now! Because, you know, I'm just that easy to manipulate.
And why do they even bother asking the White House for a comment anymore? You could catch Bush in bed with three oil executives and bin Laden, and when asked for comment the White House would say, "I don't know how Kerry can criticize that when he's taken three different positions on everything."
Ooohh. Good one, White House. Take that Kerry! Except, well, it's not actually true. And you sound like a broken record. And oh yeah, it doesn't answer the question. But hey, keep saying it, because sadly some people actually believe it. And the press never seems to press you for a real answer.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:24 PM |
| Summary of Iraq, Kerry and Bush |
Kerry and Congress have consistently stated that Saddam was a bad man. If Saddam had WMDs, those WMDs might eventually fall into the wrong hands, either on purpose or by accident. Same as North Korea. Same as Iran. Same as...well, countless nations.
Based on faulty intelligence and a push from the Bushies, Kerry and Congress authorized Bush to wage war on Iraq IF Bush met certain conditions such as actually trying to find another solution first, allowing inspectors to do their job, forming a coalition to share the costs, and planning for the aftermath.
Bush violated Congress' conditions and quickly launched his war ill-prepared and without international troops or financial support.
Iraq is now a mess. Our resources are bogged down. The world is less safe, not more safe, as a result. Terrorism has increased, not decreased. Terrorists are now indeed in Iraq. Prisoner abuses have tarnished America's image. And as it turns out, no WMDs, so there was no need to rush into this mess like Bush did.
Bush's administration had a documented plan to invade Iraq from before taking office. Bush's actions and possibly deliberate deceptions have had a negative long-term impact on our economy, our safety, our international relations, and cost over a thousand American lives.
As such, Kerry has criticized and questioned HOW Bush dealt with Iraq, not the need to address the potential threat Saddam represented. This is not remotely flip flopping. This is holding Bush accountable for how he abused the power given to him, which is something we should all do.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:13 PM |
| Three strikes Bush is out |
The latest campaign e-mail from the Bushies encourages us to watch "Nine Innings from Ground Zero. The documentary tells the story of the 2001 Yankees and the hope and optimism their run in the World Series brought back to the people of America following September 11th."
Why? Because it has this bit about Bush in it.
Yes folks, the reason to elect the man who will have influence over your education, your health care, your environment, your safety? He didn't bounce the ball. Never mind that he failed to deliver on promises about these things the first term, or that he actually made the situation worse in many cases. Never mind the disaster that is Iraq. Don't look at the man behind the curtain folks. Bush threw from the mound.
Of course, the greater purpose is to exploit the emotions the movie brings, and somehow associate those in your mind to Bush, since people tend to vote as much or more on feeling than fact. As if the patriotism or pride or energy of the NY fans wouldn't have occurred if Bush weren't president.
The irony of the piece is in the statement by one of the voice-overs that playing baseball showed the terrorists they hadn't changed our way of life. And yet, the beginning of the piece talks about all the increased security, about the presence of men with automatic weapons, etc. And apparently, this film overlooked little things like the Patriot Act, which took a bite out of our rights and freedoms.
No, the terrorists didn't win on September 11. But the sad truth is that the Republican right wing sure did, in part just because of the way America rallied around the administration following the attacks, but in part because they successfully and purposefully exploited the emotion of 9-11 and the fear of terror to gain power and push through their agendas. And boy, are they still trying to milk it for everything they can.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:49 PM |
| France and Niger |
One of the Bush administration's discredited reasons for going to war with Iraq, famously spoken by the president in the State of the Union address prior to the invasion, was the purchase of uranium from Niger.
The London Telegraph is reporting that the Italian spy who provided documents (now found to be forgeries) to the UK and US has confessed that he was commissioned by France to accomplish the deception.
Now, the US (and especially the intelligence agents who vetted the State of the Union speech) still went forward with these claims... but this is an interesting story nonetheless. Why would France purposefully try to fool us along with Britain? I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation, otherwise it appears that France wanted to help goad us into making a decision that they could later say was wrong.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 01:43 PM |
| Assault weapons ban |
It's a shame the ban was allowed to expire. But let's face it, it was largely a joke. It was so full of loopholes you could still get practically everything on the banned list, or a different brand of it anyway, and at best made large ammo clips more expensive and hard to find.
And I think too many people confuse assault weapons with machine gun-style rapid firing. I don't believe that the public version of these weapons spray bullets, they just remove the need to pull a bolt back or change ammo so often.
As with so many things, the weapons ban was an act of good intentions that, once processed through political compromise, was pretty much useless.
Still, every little bit helps. Even if it just reduces the number of military style weapons or large ammo clips that might be available to some nut who decides to commit a crime or go on a rampage, all the better. However, to truly be effective, you'd need to close those loopholes, include things like background checks at gun shows, and require safety devices on all weapons.
People should still have a right to own a gun. Just as people should have the right to own a car, drink alcohol or smoke pot. What should always be illegal is the irresponsible use of such rights to harm others. And what should be controlled, to the extent that it can, is the acquisition or use of such items by persons too young, or that have a criminal record of abusing them.
But the extremists on both sides tend to freak out and make such common sense laws hard to enact.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:40 PM |
| Confused |
Don't feel badly if the Bush administration's continuous attempts to blur the lines between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has you occasionally believing that Iraq is actually part of the war on terror. They've done such a good job, they can't even keep it straight themselves.
On one of his increasingly rare public press sessions recently, while speaking about Osama, Rumsfeld twice called him "Saddam Hussein."
Poor Rummy. They kept him off our radar screen for a while, hoping we'd be distracted by celebrity murder trials and the antics of the Olsen twins, and forget all about that silly little prison abuse thing. But maybe when you don't let a war hawk like Rummy speak for a while, all that pent up aggression drives you a little nutty.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:37 PM |
September 17, 2004
| More on: Talent no-show |
Randy brought up interesting issues surrounding the Miss America pageant.
First, he wrote that it persists because of entertainment, competition/state pride, and tradition. While these are valid reasons, the outdated nature of the pageant is likely to override them.
The pageant is still mainstream, but its audience dwindles each year. Last year, 10 million people watched -- still a lot, but an all-time low for the pageant. Compare this to the first few televised pageants in the 1950s, which broke viewership records.
The decreased relevance of the pageant to modern women likely results in a smaller audience proportionally, which (I hope) will lead to the show’s eventual extinction -- with relatively little effort, although criticism can speed the process along. I think it’s worth the small effort to criticize.
Second, Randy points out that “there are plenty of other influences on young girls that are more constant, and harmful, than this contest.” True, but these influences are widespread in popular culture and thus, difficult to target. Take the “thinner is better” message. It’s everywhere -- from the cover of US Weekly to ads for Neutrogena face wash.
Meanwhile, Miss America is glaringly blatant in its judgment solely on female beauty. Ten million viewers watch it; while decreased from previous years, this is significant.
Of course, Miss America isn’t the only harmful influence, nor the most important. But it’s singular, visible and relatively easy to change, compared to widespread messages from multiple sources bombarding young girls. We can tackle both easy targets like Miss America and the more difficult ones.
Third, Randy’s right: worse issues exist. In developing countries, rapes/violence go unpunished, women have to cover themselves up head to toe for “modesty,” dowries are expected, and the education gap is dismal. In comparison, Miss America is an atom-sized problem in a big universe.
But it’s still a problem. Even if I’m concerned that the rainforest is being cut down in South America doesn’t mean I won’t care for the 10 trees lining my street, too.
And personally, the idea of a woman receiving a numerical score for how she looks in a swimsuit is revolting. Yes, it’s her choice. Also, the idea of men having access to pictures of naked women 24 hours a day is repulsive to me. But it’s their choice, and the media’s.
And it’s my choice to turn off the TV.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:36 PM |
| You decide |
Given our recent discussions about Kerry and Iraq, here's a good opportunity for you to compare candidates.
Here's an article about Kerry's recent speech to the National Guard Association.
And here's an article about Bush's speech to the same group just days earlier.
Both candidates criticize the other. Both talk about Iraq, and the National Guard.
So which candidate outlines plans? Which candidate focuses more on the same old attacks against his opponent, and which attacks were more truth, or more playing with the truth? Which speech was more relevant, and which more rhetoric?
Which would you vote for?
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:44 PM |
| And Bush's plan is...? |
I'll admit, Kerry's plan for Iraq, which hinges largely on getting the international community on board in Iraq is a little optimistic. But there is the hope that foreign powers may respond more positively to an administration not being run by the Bush party.
Some find it funny, but I don't see much to laugh about in Iraq.
Best I can tell, Bush's plan is to try and turn lemons into lemonade: just stand on top of a smoldering pile of confusion while announcing that all is well, there is nothing to look at, go back to your sitcoms. Or better yet, to Fox News -- aka the Laci Peterson Network -- never mind all these kidnappings and riff raff.
My issue is that we're taking Kerry to task for not having a fail-safe plan when our CURRENT Commander in Chief, the guy who envisioned the invasion which has lead to the biggest foreign policy CATASTROPHE in 30 years doesn't have a plan himself.
Considering the Iraqi debacle IS Bush's project, I'm a little confused as to why some bloggers are directing the majority of their venom at Kerry -- the man whose fault this isn't.
I want to know what Bush's plan is -- does he have one?
Another thing: Is it acceptable to us young taxpayers that we will have to foot the reconstruction bill for decades, never mind the very real possibility that Iraq could spiral into a Civil War, in which case the world would be exponentially less safe than when we originally invaded?
Iraq appears to be a train running with no conductor. And yet the Republicans are perceived to be stronger on terror -- never mind they can't control a country that they estimated to be a cake walk.
The BIGGEST issue in this election is that the majority of Americans consider our fight on terror to be a success, when by any measure, it is anything but. America is content to lie to itself. We've chosen fiction over reality because it's convenient, but does this deep-seeded denial -- characteristic of a hopeless alcholic -- make for a brighter future? I think not.
The death toll continues to rise, costs mount, the insurgency grows and still most Americans measure this as a positive and Bush as their man -- you know America is compromising its standards when we define "success" as somewhere between unaccountable and incompetent.
Respond
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:42 PM |
| Mark your calendars |
Mark this on your calendars, folks. I'm going to defend Cheney.
Cheney has gotten a lot of flak for his supposed statement that if Kerry were elected, we'd be attacked. But I've listened to his speech, and read the full transcript, and when you don't cut him off during his pause it seems to me he has been misunderstandified. I think that, if you read his full comments, he was in fact making the point that IF and WHEN we are attacked, whoever is in office will have to deal with it, so make sure you pick the person you would want in office accordingly.
Of course, the implication is still that Kerry couldn't handle the job, which is a lie. If Bush could handle it, then Kerry certainly could. And was the pause placed there on purpose? Who can say.
Why point this out? Well, because I would like to believe that the truth will win in November. And the truth is on Kerry's side. Of course, I'm probably being naďve, given that most voters don't research the various accusations and promises as I do.
Cheney has made plenty of vicious attacks on Kerry, and he and Bush have bent and abused the truth left and right, not just in campaign time. Heck, maybe I'm even wrong about this. In a previous blog, I presented links to many of these lies. But with all of those to point to, I don't see the need to take advantage of the media's apparent "group think" mistake just to have one more Cheney quote to shake my head at.
I have to say, I am disappointed in the Democratic leadership for not taking the same stance. But I guess, when your opponents play as dirty as the Bush campaign does, it is hard to not take the occasional shot at the crotch when the opening comes.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:23 PM |
| More on: Kerry meandering |
Gavin has missed my point. Again. Yes, Kerry would stand by those statements as being absolutely correct given the information available. Even without the Bush-friendly faulty intelligence, there is no doubt that Saddam was a bad man. Even though the only times he used WMDs against Iran or the Kurds were with our tacit knowledge and even support.
But here's a question -- was Saddam any MORE likely to provide WMDs to terrorists or the black market than, say, Iran, or cash-strapped North Korea, which we KNOW have WMDs? Especially since Saddam didn't even have any TO give?
Kerry fully supported addressing the threat that Saddam represented. As he supports improved and increased tracking and control of all nuclear materials and WMDs, from all dangerous nations. Heck, Russia is pretty unstable, desperate for cash, full of rogue groups, Russian mafia, and WMDs. Its leader is consolidating Soviet control once more. Shall we invade?
So HOW do we address this threat? That is the question. If people can just get past the point of trying to prove Kerry is somehow a flip flopper for criticizing HOW the war was fought, as versus the need to do something about Saddam period, then maybe folks will be able to make some progress in their search for understanding. He and Congress outlined how to deal with the threat of Iraq, and Bush ignored them.
Yes, I think most of the world feels Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. He had no WMDs or real relationship with al Qaeda. And we were monitoring his borders. Regardless, he was no more an immediate threat than most of our other enemies, certainly less than many.
We had months, years, not days, to deal with Saddam. Bush rushed us into the war -- war was not a foregone conclusion. Might it have ultimately come to war? Possibly. Might the world actually be safer now, rather than even more dangerous, if we had intensified our war against al Qaeda around the globe instead of bogging ourselves down in Iraq? Who can say.
Can we answer these questions? A trained monkey could answer these questions...
Yes, Kerry would have given the inspectors more time -- that was what he and all of Congress insisted on before war, and Bush ignored them.
If no weapons were found, would he still feel the same? Yep. Saddam could have at some point posed a threat. At some point. But at least we would have been more certain it wasn't soon. Again, nobody thinks Saddam was a good guy. Did that mean we had to invade a sovereign nation without clear and present danger, rush in with inadequately supplied troops or a real plan, alienating allies, costing lives and billions of dollars, and actually increasing the danger of terrorism? Nope.
Who is calling for an immediate pullout? Idiots who don't care about our obligations to the Iraqis, or the dangers to our troops and ourselves that would cause.
Kerry, on the other hand, has called for a four-year intensified training of Iraqis to protect and govern themselves, then strategic withdrawal.
The Bush team has no such plan. Implying Kerry would call back all our troops the day he takes office is what the Randy post calls "irresponsible."
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:18 PM |
September 16, 2004
| The blame game |
I am so tired of our society pointing fingers at everyone and everything except themselves.
Observing political conversations, all I hear from Kerry followers is how much Bush sucks and... well how much Bush sucks. Hardly do I hear how Kerry is going to change things, all I hear is that Bush is to blame for everything. As the upcoming election is the main topic of conversation in this country, I believe it is a good representation of how we perceive every issue in this country.
On King 5 News last night, Jean Enersen voiced the same concern about the tobacco industry as Karan Gill did in his "Puff and Stuff" column.
Enersen was talking about the new fad of "candy packaged/flavored" cigarettes. She was saying how it attracts kids, and had a few anti-tobacco specialists say it is marketed directly to kids.
People argue is that younger kids don't know better and fall into peer pressure, and that guerrilla marketing is to blame for those who smoke cigarettes.
But why can't we take responsibility for ourselves? Why must we blame everyone else? Last time I recalled we have a choice to smoke. How are these kids getting the smokes? I think we have bigger problems with the people who actually sell the cigarettes or buy the cigarettes for younger people.
And if at 18 you don't know the effects of cigarette smoking, well I'd say you have a bigger problem then the advertisements. These anti-smoking people and companies are getting boring and annoying. They same the same thing over and over again. Blaming everyone -- when the real issue is in those who smoke.
Until you can completely get rid of cigarettes (highly doubtful), use your energy to figure out how these | | |
