 |
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 naïve, 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 kids are getting cigarettes, and how to cure the ignorance of people who fall victim to marketing. And not just of cigarettes.
I know my argument of self-responsibility is old as well. But change starts with the self.
Respond |
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 04:06 PM |
| Re: Talent no-show |
Okay so I think I understand Christina's blog about the Miss America Pageant. It really isn't the pageant that is the problem. It is the media for one, and for the little girls and men for watching it.
I don’t know that I think it's less "degrading" than the numerous reality shows. And if it is so degrading, she must be pointing directly at the participating contestants. Is she saying that they are willingly degrading themselves?
I’m not sure if all of the contestants are as self-centered and focused strictly on beauty as this blog leads me to believe. As for a "camouflaged scholarship show" who really believes that? But I agree the media does portray women, minorities, and everyone else for that matter merely for entertainment purposes.
Where the real problem lies, is in those who believe the entertainment-focused media as a serious representation of reality. That is what makes me weary of those who put too much energy in complaining about media portrayals. When did TV become the standard on which culture is based?
Respond |
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 03:59 PM |
| Product image |
What’s in a name?
Apparently, an image.
Brooks sells special motion-control running shoes, with one version for men and one for women. For years, Brooks had named both the “Beast,” according to the Running Times.
Recently, while Brooks has kept the name “Beast” for the men’s shoe, it’s changed the women’s version to “Ariel.”
My physical therapist/shoe expert told me that the then-named “Beast” was more popular among men than women, so Brooks changed the women’s shoe name to “Ariel.” This makes sense; most women would rather be associated with a lithe, red-haired mermaid singing through the ocean than a monstrous, hairy, roaring beast.
This example illustrates that the presentation, not just the quality of the product, can affect sales. Furthermore, product associations can influence youth buying, especially when certain products are equated with beauty, success, popularity, glamour, exclusivity, superiority, wealth, etc.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:27 PM |
| Re: Talent no-show |
Of course Miss America is about attractive women in provocative clothing. And things have changed considerably since the early days of the pageant. Back then, a network show featuring women in bikinis was special. Today, guys can log on and look at a billion women stark naked, or get 24 hours of Playboy channel on cable.
So the question is, why does the Miss America pageant persist? Because, it is also about the entertainment, drama and "suspense" of a contest, like American Idol. For some, it is a tradition. For some, it may even be about competition and state pride. For some, there just may be nothing more interesting on, and picking up a book is not their thing.
As for the scholarship angle, hey, if these women are getting money to go to school, and not taking that money away from one of the other limited pools of federal, state or scholarship funds, why complain? These women are trying to charm a little fame, money (oh, and a scholarship of course) out of a beauty contest. Is anyone really fooled that it's all about the scholarship? No. And I'd focus more on the many women not given the opportunity for college at all rather than worrying over how the women who do go to college got there.
I empathize with the view that we must change the underlying cultural perceptions of women if women are to have true equality and respect. But I also know that there will always be women who work their beauty to their advantage. There will always be women who aspire to nothing more than being a good wife and mother -- and there is nothing wrong with that, if that is their free choice.
The important thing is that women have the freedom to choose, equal opportunity to pursue their choices, and equal compensation and recognition for their efforts. This is especially important for most women who don't really have a choice about working, where work means survival.
Such change is achieved through activism, through legislation, and yes, through raising public awareness. But there are probably more important targets than Miss America. I don't think anyone mistakes Miss America for a representative of all American women, any more than Clay Aiken is seen as a representative of all American singers.
And I think there are plenty of other influences on young girls that are more constant, and harmful, than this contest. And certainly, there are a lot of shows on television every day that are more vapid, shallow, image-focused, filled with horrible female role models or a waste of brain cells than this.
Ultimately, consider the real impact of the Miss America contest. I don't watch it. Nobody I know does. So really, what percentage of Americans actually watch it? And of those, what percentage is actually negatively influenced in their perception of women? I imagine it is pretty small, and probably not worth the level of effort it would take to end or transform the contest altogether, not when that effort could be applied to something with larger, or more dire impacts, to women.
And finally, Miss America is probably more a symptom of society's views than a cause.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:22 PM |
| More on: Kerry's meandering |
Randy does a great job of finding the two paragraphs in a long editorial that criticize Bush and neglecting to respond to the rest of the article. Yes, I said the editorial agreed with what I believe, and I believe that there could have been more that Bush did before entering Iraq. It was not done perfectly.
However, as I said in my first post, there are serious questions to be answered...
Does Kerry believe that the entire war with Iraq was a mistake? Does Kerry truly believe that it was the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"? If so, what does that mean?
Does Kerry agree with the Washington Post that Saddam represented a gathering threat with the loosening of trade restrictions... that as the Post quoted, as Mr. Kerry said on Oct. 9, 2002, in his speech explaining his vote to authorize military action, "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world."
This has nothing to do with WMDs. This has to do with a belief that Saddam represented a threat.
Do Randy and others agree with this statement from Kerry? "He has supported and harbored terrorist groups," he said. "There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. . . . Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater -- a nuclear weapon. . . . And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?" Would leaving that to chance be a good idea?
Does Kerry believe that weapons inspectors should have been given more time? If so, and if no WMDs were found, can they answer the question of whether or not Kerry's previous quote remained true?
A continued laughable argument has to be the "we'll have allies come and take the cost" argument. If NATO is not giving us what we would ask for in Afghanistan, why on earth do we think they would now? There have been numerous articles on this already from the LA Times and Washington Post about why this is a ridiculous claim. I also laugh heartily at the notion that if we'd asked really really nicely that France and Germany would've been all over themselves to support the effort with troops and money.
With the cost that we now know will still occur, who is pushing for immediate pull out, an idea called "irresponsible" by the Post?
Even in the campaign link Randy posted, there IS NO PLAN. It is a grave "miscalculuation" to judge one as such. Let's be clear... the Washington Post is not a right-leaning editorial board. It would be wrong to dismiss their questions as just more right-wing rhetoric.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 03:16 PM |
September 15, 2004
| More on: Kerry meandering |
As to the points made in the editorial Gavin mentioned, they themselves explain Kerry's position. For example, the editorial closes with this:
"In 2002, Mr. Kerry warned that 'if we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.'
"Those words now resonate as evidence of a wiser caution than the administration displayed. But Mr. Kerry also said that, if the United States did go to war, "we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. . . . That effort is going to be long term, costly and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence . . . we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.'
"We believe that position was and remains correct. The question is whether Mr. Kerry still agrees with it. "
I say both quotes are proof of why Kerry would be a better leader than Bush. But that aside, what the editorial writers note in the first quote explains the second quote and why the question of whether Kerry still agrees with it is an irrelevant question to ask.
Kerry and most of Congress supported the war, and in 2002 declared the need to stay the course for however long it took, under the information available and the assumption of that time that Bush would meet the conditions under which he was given authority to invade -- specifically, that he allow the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, that he work with the UN to exhaust all diplomatic solutions, and then, if war were inevitable, that he form a real coalition, and have a plan in place to win the peace and transition America out of Iraq afterward.
But what Kerry didn't know in 2002 was that Bush would ignore all those legitimate concerns Kerry and others raised, or the conditions for invasion. So Kerry didn't also address what America should do if Bush launched a pre-emptive war where America pays most of the costs, where we are only increasing the dangers of terrorism rather than reducing them, where Bush alienated our allies, and his "miscalculation" about the aftermath would lead to more American and Iraqi deaths after the war than during it, and would cost us tens of billions more dollars than expected.
Now that this has happened, Kerry and others see that America simply cannot afford, in money or lives, to continue in Iraq for countless years. He sees the need for America to do our job as quickly as possible and transition the continuing costs and work onto those we should have been sharing them with to begin with.
This isn't a contradiction, or a flip flop. This is a leader who, when situations change, can change and adjust with them in the best interests of our country, not just change his rhetoric to cover his mistakes like Bush.
Kerry does have a plan for Iraq.
And more important, he is a man who wouldn't have made the mess of Iraq that Bush did to begin with.
Does Kerry still agree with his 2002 statements? I'm sure he does agree with them as being true for 2002. But Kerry isn't going to stick with a plan that no longer makes sense, at the cost of American lives and tax dollars, just because he is incapable of admitting that the situation has changed.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:35 PM |
| Re: Talent no-show |
Leonceo writes that Miss America “is a beauty pageant in every respect...I don’t understand why people make it more than it really is.”
True, Miss America is a pageant and little more. But let’s ask ourselves, who watches it?
Little girls and men. These men are likely entertained by watching beautiful women in bathing suits, and debating whether Miss Texas or Miss Maine has better legs.
Leonceo says, "I wonder why...modern women scoff at the pageant."
Besides the obvious degradation of women being judged like livestock, I scoff because it's one of the most mainstream representations of outdated attitudes toward women. Miss America is broadcast on national TV to millions.
Of course, there are other female role models. But the Miss America pageant is showered with more media attention than, say, a female Pulitzer Prize winner. Ironically the pageant camouflages itself as a serious scholarship program -- when in reality, it’s entertainment for gawking men.
If men want this type of entertainment, let them find it in Playboy or a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. These magazines don’t pretend to promote female empowerment, don’t cloud their true intention with rhetoric about scholarships. They also don’t attract an audience of impressionable children, along with men.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:21 PM |
September 13, 2004
| Re: Pet-friendly dorms |
A reader responds to "Pet-friendly dorms:"
As a college student from Washington attending a school across the country, I completely agree with the idea of pet-friendly dorms. Inevitably college students with pets left behind at home will talk more about their left-behind Fido than how much they miss their parents. The only thing longed for more: home cooking.
Even seeing animals on a regular basis, let alone having the opportunity to keep one in a dorm, would improve morale significantly. And who’s to say that other aspects of life, including academics, wouldn’t improve with the soothing presence of a warm, loving pet around?
Written by a NEXTopia reader
Respond
|
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 06:26 PM |
| Pimp costumes |
What should little Susie and Johnny be for Halloween this year?
The online company Brandsonsale.com has an answer, reports The Washington Post. Susie, forget about being a princess, fairy or bumblebee. Johnny, you don’t really want to be a superhero, alien or monster.
Haven’t you heard? Ho and pimp costumes are in.
Gaudy pimp suits (pink or purple with zebra trim) and ho costumes (black, with feathers and stockings) are top sellers, with constantly growing demand.
"We also sell pimp and ho outfits to whole families: Mom, Dad, kids and the dog,” says Brandsonsale.com spokesman Johnathon Weeks Jr. Infant costumes will be available next year.
Admittedly, college students dressed as pimps and hoes might be hilarious, if worn as a joke. But something about the idea of a 3-year-old wearing a pimp suit and trick-or-treating with Mommy doesn’t seem quite right.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 06:21 PM |
| Kerry's meandering |
I've had some problems putting words to paper to eloquently state my view on what I see as Kerry's shifting stance on the Iraq war, especially recently. I have found an unlikely ally in the Washington Post's editorial board.
There are serious questions raised regarding Kerry's previous statements surrounding Saddam Hussein and Iraq and their congruity with "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." For me to write them all down would take a very long time...so just read the editorial.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 06:18 PM |
| Re: High expectations |
It's great that Karan and Gavin point out the Hawks, now that everyone else has. Where was the big prediction and true fan hype in July when Las Vegas had the Hawks at 20-1 to win the Super Bowl? Probably waiting for analysts to pick them as the NFC Super Bowl representative, as the Vegas odds dropped to 7-1.
With all this press, I'm more interested in hearing what you have to say if they don't make the Super Bowl or your expectations. Probably something like they suck, football is boring...echoing all of those fair-weather M’s fans. But Seattle sports fans are like that. Claiming they are true fans of someone, something, some team; but when they falter, they are quick to say they suck.
Honestly did you guys sport the Brian Bosworth busses shaved in the side of your head? It’s really easy to say you are a fan when the team is doing well. In all honesty, I hope all the hype is right, but as I blogged at the disappointing end to last season, I’ll always bleed blue and green.
Respond
|
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 06:16 PM |
| Talent no-show |
Christina Asavareungchai’s column on the NEXT page Sunday was well written. However, it is the same tired argument I’ve been hearing about the Miss America Pageant for years. As far as I know, this is a beauty pageant in every respect, and thus should be treated that way. I don’t understand why people make it more than it really is.
Christina said, “To win scholarships, modern women are more likely to enter an essay contest, not a beauty contest.” So I wonder why these modern women scoff at the pageant. It seems as though they are brilliant women, and I don’t doubt that. But then why demean the success of a woman who is able to “best flaunt her body with the perfect blend of confidence and feigned modesty?”
Why are "modern" women so offended by beauty pageants? Is there more to it? What do people think is the point of the Miss America Pageant anyway? Do people really think that the winner “defines the ideal American woman?” If women really think that beauty pageants are the only representations of female role models, then I think they are missing more than the contest itself.
Respond
|
| Posted by Leonceo Angsioco at 06:09 PM |
September 10, 2004
| Pet-friendly dorms |
Colleges are experimenting with pet-friendly dorms, says the Associated Press. Stephens College in Missouri recently offered one floor for dogs, cats, rabbits and their owners. The State University of New York at Canton has a “Pet Wing” in one dorm; if owners are present, pets can roam freely around.
Why? “The Delta Society, a nonprofit group that promotes welcoming pets to workplaces, says ample research backs up the notion that pets have a soothing presence.” This can reduce stress around finals. Furthermore, pets alleviate homesickness.
Last year, my fellow dormers and I sometimes brought our animals to visit. Everyone cooed and cuddled them. Having these pets permanently would be absolutely wonderful, if everyone followed a strict set of guidelines.
With the proper restrictions, no nightmare scenarios would occur -- no snakes in the shower or dog poop on the floor.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 03:50 PM |
| Courage and conviction |
The president is a leader. A leader who has not agreed to any of the debates. A leader who is reportedly hoping to only have to answer scripted questions from a moderator twice, and not have to have a third debate where he'd answer unscripted questions from normal American citizens.
This goes in line with his "town hall" meetings, where "public" audience members are carefully screened and selected who will only ask "good" questions of the president that are basically thinly veiled praise for his administration.
Meanwhile, his advertisements, which are at best half-truths, tell the American people why he's so great and Kerry is so bad, following a Republican National Convention where he made promises to do the things he was supposedly going to do the last four years, and told more lies about his opponent.
And this is what many Americans will base their votes on? Ah, Democracy in action.
I guess it is too much to hope that some day, this pampered prince will come across the poverty and misery in his nation, and leave his shallow life to meditate under a tree until enlightenment comes. Dubya' Buddha, speaking with eloquence, leading with wisdom and true compassion, would be a thing to see.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:47 PM |
| Re: Nigel's five reasons |
Bush, pick impartial and objective judges? Oh, wait, let me stop laughing. Phew! OK, now, we are talking about Mr. Alter the Constitution to Discriminate against Gays, right? Mr. Anti-Abortion? Mr. Why Separate Church and State? Mr. I got my job because of a partisan Supreme Court decision?
Oh yeah, sure, he'll pick only strict constitutionalists, I'm sure.
Bush has a plan to fix Social Security? More like he has a plan to create an even bigger Social Security crisis. Sure, some people will successfully invest their money. But many more will not. Stocks are a gamble, and 401ks have proven to be dubious. Just ask the Enron employees. I worked at a CPA firm for a while, writing people's sob stories to the IRS. Many people did stupid things like buying $1,000 in scratch tickets hoping to win enough to pay their $10,000 accumulated tax debt.
So what happens when all those people lose their money to bad investments? We support them on the new Social Security Social Security? We just leave them to starve, or wander the streets, or turn to crime? Or we end up having to find some way to support them anyway, on top of the money they lost?
Hmm, yeah, great solution. Social Security is already in enough trouble. The only real solution at this point is to raise the retirement age, but no politician will touch that.
Bush believes in school choice? Yeah. Like the money you would get in vouchers would really get your kids into a decent private school. And even if it could, the ratio of private schools to Republicans eager to execute a new "white flight" out of the public schools is not good. You would likely still be stuck with investing in a public school anyway.
Let's save the financial accounting nightmare and further widening of the gap between rich and poor, whites and minorities, and just improve our public schools period.
Bush believes America should determine our own foreign and national policy? Well so does Kerry, the difference is between saying "up yours world, we'll invade who we want when we want for whatever reason we want," and saying "let us find a solution to this problem together, and share the costs."
And that's not counting of course the simple reality that things like oil dependence, global economics and trade, strategic alliances, global terrorism, and all the rest make taking a strictly isolationist stance both stupid, and pretty well impossible.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:44 PM |
September 09, 2004
| Re: Five reasons |
As for Gavin's other two reasons for supporting Bush, "His handling of 9-11" and "Getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein," are kind of related. Let's just say I hardly see these as strong reasons to vote for Bush, and in some ways reasons to vote against him.
The Taliban being gone is a good thing. But you're basically giving Bush credit for being in the right place at the right time. If Kerry had been in office -- heck, if a trained hamster had been in office -- when those planes hit the twin towers, I'm sure we still would have retaliated. Oh, sure, the bin Laden family might have gotten grilled a little harder. And Kerry might have missed the ending of a children's story. And maybe Kerry wouldn't have exploited 9/11 and New York after promising not to do so. But these are quibbles. Minor technicalities.
So let's ask a quick question. Who do we have in jail? Is it Osama bin Laden? Oh wait, no, that's right. We got a little sidetracked somewhere. Where was that?...ah yes. Iraq.
No doubt, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Oh, sure, the world is filled with brutal governments, human rights violations, and just plain badness, filled with countries who we know without doubt have WMDs or support terrorists.
But Iraq was, uh, special.
So why did we take a sudden 180 in the "war on terror" to invade Iraq? Oh, yeah, Bush had intelligence about WMDs and al Qaeda connections. It's not his fault they were wrong, that they all mysteriously fell victim to "group think" that told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear.
Nope. Not his fault his administration is filled with war hawks who had long wanted to invade Iraq.
Not his fault he promised a real coalition but left us paying 90% of the costs in money and lives (not counting the Iraqis, of course).
Not his fault he ignored the concerns over a post-war mess and got us into...a post-war mess.
When we massed our army on Saddam's border, and told him to produce the WMDs or else, well, he didn't, so what could we do? I mean, he might have, maybe, someday, done something bad for us. Maybe. We had no choice. Immediate invasion was our only option.
And so we are spending a couple hundred billion dollars in Iraq, while struggling to find any money for education, health care, or homeland security. But we stopped Saddam's prisoner abuses. And we ended the anonymous mass graves.
This morning, during a report on our latest bombing of Iraqi towns, I heard the words, "pulled the bodies of women and children from the rubble." I'm positive they will be buried correctly. And their spirits will understand. As will those of the 1,000-plus American dead. Because we had no choice. It had to be this way. Go Bush.
Respond
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:15 PM |
| Re: Five good reasons |
Here's my response to Gavin's three middle reasons for voting for Bush:
2. Reforming medical malpractice lawsuits -- I agree, lawsuits in this country are out of control, and are definitely a factor in the high cost of health care. This is one area I agree that Bush's promises are better than Kerry's.
But will Bush deliver? How much of this is just a carefully selected campaign issue to use against Edwards? And will Bush go too far? We must still protect the right to legitimate lawsuits, which can often be the only means for individuals to seek justice or compensation for wrongs done by negligent, or even criminal, persons or companies. Bush maybe 1, Kerry 0.
3. Bush's willingness to continue to dramatically reshape our intelligence services and our law enforcement in combating terror -- Wh-wh-what?! The guy who opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission? The guy who opposed creating the Department of Homeland Security, then took credit for its creation? The guy who waffled and dragged his feet on implementing the commission's recommendations?
And let's not forget that fact -- it is not Bush "dramatically reshaping" things; he is simply acting (or not) on the recommendations of others -- just as I'm sure Kerry would do. Oh, wait, you must mean the way he's diverted billions of dollars into a war in Iraq that could have been used to secure our country? Or maybe you are thinking of his administration's help in finding Valerie Plame a new job?
Or perhaps you refer to his cutting over a billion dollars from First Responder grants, the Firefighter Grant program, and state and local law enforcement, or his proposal to eliminate funding for the Metropolitan Medical Response System program, which "helps local first responders prepare for radiological and other terrorist attacks."
It's all fine to tell people you are making them safer. But it would sure be nice if he actually backed it up with fact, and money. Bush 0. Kerry, who knows (he's made promises, but as with any politician I believe it when I see it).
4. Providing individual health saving accounts -- Yeah. Good idea. Transfer the burden of paying for basic health care further onto the workers. And as a bonus, this could discourage people from seeking preventative care, ultimately increasing serious health problems and costs in the future.
Still, Kerry's plan of tax incentives for small businesses to insure their employees isn't much better. Neither candidate has a full solution to this problem and both are only offering small, partial fixes.
Frankly, if Bush is elected and does implement this, it won't be a big deal compared to the many ways he'll really screw us, and future generations, over. Bush and Kerry, both a half-assed .03
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:46 PM |
| Re: Five good reasons |
Written by Nigel Stark, former NEXT writer
Apparently someone challenged NEXTopia to list 5 reasons why to vote for Bush and 5 reasons why not to vote for Kerry. So far, Bush supporters have done an excellent job in supporting him, but I couldn’t miss out on this opportunity, so here are my 5 reasons why to vote for Bush and 5 reasons why not to vote for Kerry. I’ll try not to repeat what others have already said.
Why for Bush:
1. Bush is willing to at least consider a restructuring of our federal tax code and the IRS to limit the power of special interests.
2. Bush will appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who don’t think that the US Constitution and the bench is a vehicle to implement their personal policy goals.
3. Bush has a plan to make social security more solvent by introducing choice into the system. For decades, the government has forced Americans into investing into a retirement system that only yields 1% a year. By introducing choice, I can actually invest my money into something worthwhile while still allowing those who believe in the current system to keep it.
4. Bush believes that a parent should have a choice in what schools to send their children to.
5. Bush believes that Americans should decide American foreign and domestic policy, not other countries.
Why against Kerry:
1) John Kerry believes that the threat of terrorism is “overstated” and “exaggerated.” Further, he believes a criminal justice approach to terrorism -- an approach that was tried in the past and failed miserably -- is the appropriate response to terrorism. Kerry believes that 9/11 was simply a crime, not an act of war.
2. He has, thus far, proposed $2 trillion in new spending.
3. His cabinet would look something like: Ted Kennedy as Secretary of State, Patrick Leahy as Attorney General, Robert Byrd as Secretary of Defense, and Tom Daschele as National Security Advisor. Such thoughts wake me up at night with a cold sweat.
4. Kerry wants to raise the national minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.00. If Washington were to follow suit, this would raise our minimum wage to $9.01. He also wants to raise taxes on small businesses, which provide the majority of the jobs in the US and the majority of our GDP. He wants to stall the engine of the US economy.
5. Kerry wants to socialize health care. There’s a reason Canadians flee their socialized health care and travel to the U.S. for any sort of surgery that is half-way serious. I’ll give you a hint: its not because they like to travel.
Written by Nigel Stark, former NEXT writer
Respond |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 04:27 PM |
| Re: High Expectations |
Stop the presses -- I agree with Karan.
Like Karan, I’ve been a Hawks fan my entire life. I remember vividly suffering through the Tom “run a draw up the middle on third and fifteen” Flores years, where I have never seen a coach look more lost. I remember suffering through the Dennis “I have absolutely no idea how to make my talented team anything more than mediocre” Erickson years. I remember suffering through Kelly Stouffer, Dan McGwire, and Rick Mirer.
Finally, now is the year. The stars are aligned. The offense has better skill players than 90 percent of teams in the league. The defense is young and hungry. Of course, they have to deal with a fairly tough road schedule, but the NFC West is a weak division this year. I’m predicting 11-5, home field advantage, and we’ll see from there!
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:19 PM |
September 08, 2004
| High expectations |
I have been a Seahawks fan all my life, and I have never seen the expectations of the Seattle Seahawks at this high of a level in franchise history. You can always tell when expectations are high when you have over three ESPN articles about you before the season even starts.
For those thinking, another choke Seattle team -- haters.
I think this is the year. The Seahawks have improved in every aspect of the game, except maybe at the linebacker position.
Hasselbeck is in top form. Alexander has lost some weight and is playing in a contract year. Our receivers are great playmakers, who supposedly worked on catching the ball in the off-season. We have two underrated Tight Ends, as Stevens finally came in uninjured and focused. Our DB’s have improved with experience, with Ken Lucas having an amazing camp and preseason. Our D-Line has improved with Winstrom, but still has holes. Our O-Line has been good for awhile, and good ol’ Walter Jones is back a week before the season starts for the third year in a row. He’s just lazy.
With the Seahawks looking in top form, the ESPN experts have high expectations. The 12 "experts" have the "Hawks winning the NFC West, 3 of them have them going to the Super Bowl."
This is got to be the year, where one of the most tortured sports cities will enjoy a long due championship.
Respond |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 02:40 PM |
| Reasons to vote |
There has been a challenge thrown out to swing voters or Bush supporters, to give five reasons why to vote for Bush and five why not to vote for Kerry. Just doing that doesn't seem to accomplish anything. Instead, to prove that it is still a possibility in this day and age to listen and respect both sides of an argument, I'll give five reasons why to vote for Bush and five reasons why to vote for Kerry...
Pro-Bush:
1. His handling of 9-11
2. Reforming medical malpractice lawsuits
3. His willingness to continue to dramatically reshape our intelligence services and our law enforcement in combating terror
4. Providing individual health saving accounts
5. Getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein
Pro-Kerry:
1. Willing to take a more multilateralist approach to foreign policy
2. Better environmental policy
3. Better support for social services
4. Still will be strong on terror
5. Provide a Democratic White House to balance out a Republican Congress
To be honest, I admit that my wife, a Kerry supporter, helped me out with the last five. We have enjoyed this political season, being able to disagree on issues and change and grow as events and data warrant.
I have not decided who to vote for, and won't until after the debates. However, it appears that the number of undecided voters was a much larger block than previously thought, considering that both Newsweek and Time now have Bush with 11 point leads.
Does this mean that Republicans have a better message and have delivered it more effectively? Does it mean that undecided voters just don't think the "vote for Kerry because Bush is a liar, deserter, ran a business into the ground, and read to schoolkids after 9-11 happened" argument is worth anything? Only a few months will tell.
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 02:34 PM |
| Five good reasons |
A reader responds to Karan Gill's "Spite" blog, which asked for five good reasons to re-elect Bush in November:
I have my five reasons to re-elect Bush.
1. More money in my pocket. Tax rebate checks of $400 and $600 on top of the amounts I receive every April 15.
2. Lowest interest rates in 50+ years. I have refinanced my home twice since purchase in 1998. The rate is 1 percent lower than in 1998 which saves me over $400 a month in payments (More money in my pocket).
3. Assault weapons ban sunset. This was a useless ban which did nothing to make the streets safer. To make the streets safer, put anyone away, no matter what their age, away for 25 years if they use a weapon to commit a felony. "I'm a minor" is no excuse.
4. Pulling troops out of South Korea and Germany. We do not need 70,000 troops in Germany (anywhere in Europe for that matter). They can take care of themselves. Same with South Korea. Let the worthless United Nations take care of that problem. The world doesn't want us to be the world's policemen, so let the U.N. take care of them.
5. Exposing Germany, France and Russia for what they are. The entire world said Saddam had WMD. We did something about it after years of waiting for the U.N. to take care of the problem, while we policed the area. Now that the problem is taken care of, we find out there were reasons the above mentioned didn't want us to stop the problem, and they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
These are whey I will vote for Bush in '04.
Written by a NEXTopia reader
Respond |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 01:58 PM |
September 03, 2004
| Hurricane Frances |
Humans can create advanced weather detection systems, satellites and state-of-the-art technology. We can build magnificent cities, beautiful island resorts and sparkling cruise ships.
But none of that stands a chance against Mother Nature. “Hurricane Frances lashed the outlying islands of the Bahamas with 145 mph winds and torrential rains yesterday,” reports the Orlando Sentinel.
Cruise ships have shortened or delayed their trips. I was supposed to be on board tomorrow, but no longer. A Club Med resort even had to send 375 guests and 110 employees to sister resorts in different locations. Vacationers, though, are the lucky ones; they’ve only suffered an inconvenient vacation -- not a destroyed home or worse, injuries.
Mother Nature reminds us that she’s in charge, “weather” we like it or not.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 02:36 PM |
| RNC Day 4, Franks |
One thing I did notice about Tommy Frank’s speech is that, unlike all the other big speakers, he didn’t outright attack Kerry. I hope he didn’t get in trouble afterward for breaking with the convention theme of “compassionate conservatives attack.”
Another thing I noticed is that, while Franks may have decided to vote for Bush, the reasons he gave to vote for Bush were not reasons to vote against Kerry.
For example, A big part of his speech was about how he’d rather fight the terrorists “there” then “here.” Well, yeah. Who wouldn’t? I don’t think Kerry has ever said “bring it on” to the terrorists, has he? He certainly hasn’t suggested ending the war on terror by retreating. So here we have Bush 1, Kerry 1.
Then Franks said that “some” people want to just huddle up in a defensive position, but Bush took the fight to the terrorists. He also made a comment about how terrorists have been attacking us for two decades, but it was W. who attacked back.
Okay. Well, as I recall there was this attack on American soil that kind of prompted Bush to take the fight to the terrorists. It’s not like Bush was launching bombers over Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan when he came into office.
In fact, when Bush came into office, I believe his administration brushed off the outgoing expert’s advice to focus on al Qaeda, and was all busy instead reviving an unproven and expensive Star Wars program, breaking nuclear treaties, and breaking off talks with North Korea.
If Kerry had been president on 9-11, I very much doubt he would have sat around in a school chair for a while wondering what he should do, and I’m sure he would have taken the fight to the terrorists as well. So again, Bush 1, Kerry 1.
Then Franks went on about how Bush has supported veterans, and been supportive of the military. Kerry co-founded Vietnam Veterans of America and has been a leading fighter for veterans' interests in Congress. So again, Bush 1, Kerry 1.
So while Franks may be voting for Bush for his own personal reasons, those reasons should not convince anyone else to vote against Kerry.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:32 PM |
| RNC, Bush |
Unfortunately nearly every single thing Bush said either begged for a correction of fact, or a reminder that he has promised this for years already, or that he was trying to steal the credit for something that either would have happened anyway (you're responsible for home ownership? Funny, I thought low interest rates were responsible), or even that happened in spite of him (education improvements even after he gutted funding).
It was a long speech. But here's the short response. No, really. You should have seen the original.
He did propose several things I liked. Building rural health care centers, supporting math and science education, preventative intervention programs in schools (Republicans talking prevention instead of punishment?! Wow!) and supporting comp-time and flex-time at work.
But will he deliver on these? If so, will he deliver in the same way he delivered on "No Child Left Behind" -- passing on an unfunded mandate onto already cash-strapped states?
I also noticed that many things, from "simplifying the tax code," to providing tax breaks for health care savings plans, to creating "America opportunity zones" where businesses receive tax breaks, all basically translate to more tax breaks for businesses.
And "reducing regulations" on businesses to promote job growth? Ah yes, pollution is our friend. And when he wasn't suggesting giving tax breaks and reducing regulations, he was talking privatization, of course. Tax breaks and privatization aren't automatically bad, but they aren't a cure-all either.
His deficit-creating, wealthy-favoring tax cuts have been well discussed, as has his military actions, so I can save space not going into detail here. Suffice to say, these are hardly reasons in my mind to vote for Bush, but largely reasons to vote against him.
And of course he slipped in anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage statements in as well.
The funniest line was when he said that to create jobs we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Yeah, I believe that coming from the oil administration. Perhaps, if we could see the notes from Cheney's secret energy commission meetings with special interests, we could help them see some of their past errors in this regard.
I also liked the line near the beginning: "When I [accepted this nomination] four years ago, none of us envisioned what these years would bring."
Well, actually, many people did. Not only was it obvious based on his record as governor (and lack of any other real qualifications), but even the Onion was uncannily prophetic (Yes, that was actually written in 2001).
But, even though Bush's team ignored the outgoing administration's warnings on al Qaeda, it is true we didn't expect 9-11. Nor did we expect Bush to betray our trust as he has since.
Finally, he again attacked Kerry's record. I will have to write an entirely separate blog, or possibly a book, just to cover the errors and deceptions there. But not right now. I've got a holiday weekend to enjoy. Cheers.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 02:26 PM |
| More on: Spite |
Gavin seems to have missed my point. Of course, Republicans will vote for Republicans, and Democrats for Democrats. However, some of the moderate Republicans will vote for Bush out of spite -- they admit themselves that the president and his policies are further right to theirs, however, they are sick of the protestors, sick of Michael Moore, and falling to the false ads of the Swift Boat people.
Nothing on Kerry's policies, they just say he's a liar, which is untrue. The Republicans have done a great job of defining Kerry before he has filtered himself to the mainstream. Of course, those who really want to know Kerry can see his positions on the Kerry website. Instead people just watch the ads that the Bush camp can afford to run daily and think Kerry is a flip-flopper, dishonorable, doesn't support troops, etc.
That is why I believe the support of the president out of spite is larger than "a small sliver." Of course, there are people who will vote for him for his policies, and I respect that.
But, every time I ask a Republican or an Independent why they support the president, I never get a clear answer. All I get is Kerry is a flip-flopper and Bush is a leader. Nothing to do with policies and the betterment of our country.
As a result, my impression can only be that it is only a vote out of spite.
Unfortunately, I did not hear more than one reason to vote for Bush at his own convention. But I heard a lot of anti-Kerry stuff -- nothing on Bush's last four years except for his aggression with the war on terror.
Again, if you can give me five good reasons to support of the president, I will apologize for my comments. Until then, I will continue to hold to my belief that a lot of support for Bush is out of spite.
Again, I ask you as an Independant -- or anyone -- to give me five specific reasons to support the president, and five reasons to not vote for the Senator.
Respond
|
| Posted by Karan Gill at 01:46 PM |
| Swing voters step up |
At this point -- so soon before the election -- undecided voters need to come clean. If swing voters want to add to the debate, they should take a position and stand by it. Criticizing from the sidelines is an easy way to play the most convenient angle.
There are two choices and neither of them is great:
They can pick Bush who stands for a lot of things but is basically a blind idealouge who caters to an America that preaches Christianinty and worships friendly taxes. Or they can choose Kerry, paralyzed by polls and focus groups, but an atlernative who knows something other than fear politics.
The role of the undecided critic is getting old. Election season is upon us, and if that means anything, it means it's time to take a stand.
Respond
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 01:35 PM |
| Success, if you like that sort of thing |
Congratulations, George W. Bush. You managed to keep me awake a few minutes longer than John Kerry.
The Republican National Convention was successful -- successful because it reminded a quick-to-forget public when Bush was at his best, which was right post 9-11. But it wasn’t long before I was reminded of his post-post 9-11 flaws.
One line, repeated a few times during the convention, that brought it all back home for me was the "I’d rather fight them (the terrorists) there than here." That’s a nice idea, except that Iraq’s terrorist connection has gotten weaker and weaker. Personally, I’d rather fight them when we have to.
Respond |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 09:23 AM |
| Re: Spite |
Karan's and Randy’s responses to my blog is like many of the responses I see… completely missing my point. Of course some Republicans are voting Republican because…that’s what they are. Some Democrats are as well…what was that rallying cry? Anybody But Bush?
Both of you throw out agreement to that while trying to cram down the truth of a small sliver of either party. There’s nothing completely new about that this year comparatively to past years.
My objection was, and still is, to stereotype an entire voting bloc as voting out of spite is slightly ridiculous, does nothing to convince anyone of your point of view, does nothing to advance your argument, and is dismissive of other’s points of view (isn’t that something Democrats are supposed to be good at?).
Respond |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 09:20 AM |
| Bush-Cheney inspiring |
Bush-Cheney inspire and unite people. For example, they inspire record protests around the world and at home, and unite people in their anger over the war, over the economy, over the right-wing policies and the lies.
They inspired large-scale protests at the RNC, not only outside, but a few have gotten inside as well.
And that is another connection Bush has to Nixon that Schwarzenegger failed to mention -- Bush's was the most protested inauguration since Nixon's. In fact, he now holds the record as the most widely protested president in history.
And they seem to rule their own people by the philosophy "'tis better to be feared than to be loved."
Why would we want four more years of this?
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 09:12 AM |
September 02, 2004
| RNC, day 3, Cheney |
Closely following Zell Miller's complaint about the Democrats making national security a partisan issue, Cheney gave a speech largely centered on national security. First, he tried to claim that the Iraq war caused Libya to give up its arms (enananhh! Sorry Cheney, the answer is economic need. That's economic need that led to Libya's decision).
He then talked about how Bush created new institutions and policies to keep our nation safe and to help the Middle East to "move away from old hatred and resentments."
Wh-wh-what?! Bush has helped the Middle East move away from old hatreds and resentment? Yeah, I have to say, I think the war in Iraq has done amazing things to make the world love America, and the Middle East love itself. right.
And I'm sorry, but those policies that the president didn't first oppose, or that he didn't horribly under-fund, were ones that would have likely been instituted if a monkey had been president. They're just common sense, and/or were recommended by commissions or experts outside the administration. Or does Cheney mean policies like pre-emptive war?
He criticized Kerry's statement about going to war only with UN approval that was made, what, 30 years ago? Yeah, 'cause nobody's opinions or knowledge is different today than 30 years ago.
"George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people." Nope. Not even the permission of the American people themselves. Bush does what he thinks is right. Some people like him for that. The only problem is, sometimes, he is mistaken.
What then? And the situation in Iraq is a fine example of what happens when Bush does an end-run around international efforts and proper planning to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants.
Cheney again attacked Kerry's "more sensitive war" comment out of context.
And of course, Cheney stuck with the theme that Kerry is a flip flopper and therefore we can't trust him to keep us safe.
He said Kerry was for the No Child Left Behind act then against it. Yeah, Kerry supported the act when it was proposed. Then, after the Republicans gutted it, and Bush didn't fund it, Kerry did not support an unfunded mandate that put greater burdens on an already overburdened public education system.
Cheney said Kerry was for the Patriot Act, then against it. Yep, Kerry supported it in the wake of 9-11 like most Senators. The Patriot Act has "sunset clauses" in it that means that if no action is taken certain parts of it, those that many consider the most intrusive in our rights and freedoms, will expire naturally. And like many Senators, Republican and Democrat, Kerry is not voting to continue them.
Yes, Cheney, the choice is clear. A "we know better than you" administration that distorts facts and pretends to be open to moderate voices but is really an extreme right group of special interest representatives, or an administration that, though I won't pretend is perfect, will at least move the government a little closer back to being for the people.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:29 PM |
| Re: Organic foods |
Anne writes, “Saying that organic foods fall in the same category as the no-carb craze is a bit generalizing.” She’s right. I only mentioned organic and low-carb foods together, because both were sampled at PCC’s Healthy Living Fair (my blog inspiration).
Anne also writes, “I would say that most people who eat organic do so because of...the environment or because of concern for their health.” Like I said, I’d eat organic if I “morally disagreed with something” or if it tasted good. I have to follow my tongue.
However, I wouldn’t eat organic to improve my health. I usually eat well and run; I’d rather do that than invest in food that “might” help me only minimally.
Anne also asks, “So what if people don't eat organic all the time? I don't think they should be expected to as long as they're making some effort.” Since most people don’t eat organic all the time, the benefits are even more miniscule.
Ultimately, does it matter if someone eats organic Cheetos or regular ones? They’re both unhealthy, whether or not they’re made with wheat hand-grown in the Andes Mountains by sheep herders and fried in pure peanut oil mixed with filtered stream water.
And personally, I find white cheetos (the organic ones) a little creepy.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 01:23 PM |
| RNC, day 3, Zell |
Why did Zell Miller, longtime Republican in Democrat's clothing, speak at the RNC? It was the war. First, he said we need Bush because Bush has a backbone, and implied Kerry does not. Bush? The guy who dodged real service when he had the opportunity? The man who doesn't even have the courage to admit when he is wrong? Okay, if you say so.
Zell then chastised the Democrats for not supporting our president and the war, and blamed them for the partisan divide in our nation. Apparently, Miller missed that whole period of time where the Republicans rabidly sought every way to destroy Clinton that they could.
I guess he missed when the Democrats stood behind the president after 9-11, when they even overwhelmingly gave Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq.
I guess that when Bush abused that trust, Democrats should have just been quiet and smiled and continued to give the president whatever he wanted. I guess when it became clear that Bush was destroying the international relationships and good will we had built, it was wrong to be disappointed.
I guess when it became clear that our troops were not receiving the support they needed, either in supplies, in true coalition backup, in true planning for securing Iraq and the safety of our troops after "victory," that it was unpatriotic to be angry.
I guess when the WMDs weren't found, when real al Qaeda ties weren't found, when prison abuses appeared, when Bush opposed the formation of a 9-11 commission, or Department of Homeland Security, those silly Democrats should have applauded. Uh huh, sure.
I guess he missed the slew of attack ads from Bush-Cheney, or the fact that the Democratic National Convention was largely about hope and ideas -- including bipartisanship -- and the RNC has been characterized by attack after attack on Kerry.
But if there is one thing I know defines Republicans and this administration in my mind, it is their incredible openness to all opinions, and unbelievable willingness to work with the Democrats on all issues.
Zell also blamed Democrats for making national security a partisan issue. Lord knows the Republicans and this administration have not exploited the issues of terrorism, war or national security for political purposes. Heavens no. Why, the topic wouldn't even come up if those darned Democrats didn't insist on making it an election issue.
The Republicans would love to be focused on their economic record and the deficits, on employment and health care, on their social and moral agenda, if only the Democrats would stop making national security a partisan issue, darn them.
Miller did a good job of confusing the issue of questioning the reasons for the war in Iraq, or whether the Commander in Chief did all he could to avoid placing our troops in danger or support them, with somehow questioning the honor or integrity of our troops.
Apparently, if Bush sent our troops into an erupting volcano to try and plug it up, anyone angry at Bush would be accused by Zell as being unpatriotic and unsupportive of our troops. I'm curious how he would explain all the troops who are angry at Bush? Those unpatriotic, troop hating...uh...troops?
Finally, sticking with the talking points, he attacked Kerry's voting record on weapons systems, listing off a series of weapons that Democrats have supposedly opposed, and asking whether we should be expected to fight enemies with spitballs.
You all remember that, don't you? The proposal from the Democrats to disband our armies and replace them with flower children bearing straws? No? Oh that's right, I made it up, kind of like the "facts" presented at the RNC.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:17 PM |
September 01, 2004
| Fundamental errors of the RNC |
Much of the RNC thus far has been based on three fundamental errors that, I assume, they hope if they repeat enough you'll just nod your head and accept as fact.
The first error is that the war in Iraq was launched as part of the war on terror.
The second error is that it has actually been an effective part of the war on terror.
The third error is that Kerry is indecisive, especially on the war, and would therefore be bad.
ON THE FIRST ERROR, we might be somewhat forgiving of Bush for feeling that Iraq was a legitimate target in the war on terror, since he was being supplied intelligence that Iraq had WMDs.
However, a responsible and reasonable person would still ask such questions as:
Why Bush says that, knowing what we know today, he would still have launched the war anyway (this goes for Kerry too);
Whether the Bush administration's longstanding and documented desire to invade Iraq in any way influenced the intelligence errors or made the administration more willing to accept the bogus intelligence at face value;
Why we didn't take more aggressive steps against other regimes that we KNOW have WMDs and support terrorists;
Why Bush launched the war without a true coalition and only after exhausting all options as he had promised Congress he would;
Why he launched the war without a real and effective plan for winning the peace after "major combat" was finished (to which Bush recently admitted underestimating the aftermath of the war).
ON THE SECOND ERROR, there is much less room for arguing in favor of Bush, not when you consider:
The intelligence on WMDs proved false. There was no immediate or pressing threat of a mushroom cloud appearing on American soil courtesy of Saddam Hussein.
The supposed connections to al Qaeda proved false. There is some room for understanding here, since Hussein had supported some terrorist organizations in the past, as have we, but not against America and he did not have real dealings with al Qaeda.
The area has become one of instability, bringing in terrorists and causing the rise of terrorist groups in Iraq.
The prison abuses have become a tool to recruit new terrorists.
The civilian deaths and continued occupation have become recruiting tools for terrorists.
We are heavily invested monetarily and militarily in Iraq - resources that are not and have not been fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan and elsewhere, or used to improve security here at home.
THE THIRD ERROR is simply political spin and outright fabrication, and the only people who would believe it are those who either don't or won't bother to look at the facts behind the votes Kerry made, or the real actions of the president and his administration.
These errors form the base of why the RNC says we should elect Bush. A house built on a foundation of sand. Unfortunately, it is a house with a very fancy facade, and many people are too distracted by the pretty colors to notice the whole thing is tilting more and more to the right.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 06:24 PM |
| Wimpy advice |
Oh, the wimps of the world. They’re too afraid to do what they love and dream big. So they pursue security-blanket jobs.
Career coach Marty Nemko advises against pursuing high status jobs. He cites long hours and job dissatisfaction as reasons against, say, attending law or medical school. “Unless you're a true superstar…give it up. Status is often the enemy of success. You're more likely to find career contentment in a lower-status career,” he writes.
While it’s true that high status jobs are often difficult and time-consuming, if that’s your dream, I say go for it -- don’t play it safe, don’t be mediocre, don’t sit on the sidelines instead of being in center court.
Nemko disagrees, and advises wannabe corporate climbers to start a business. Not just any business: an unoriginal one. “Just this one rule: Do not innovate. Copy a successful simple business. Innovations are risky,” he writes. Better yet, own a franchise.
If everyone is content to copy everyone else, society will never progress. We’d never have Microsoft, Ray Bradbury books, cell phones, bubble tea and a million of random things that enhance our lives.
What if Monet decided to “paint safe” and abandoned impressionism? If Henry Ford thought cars were too risky and instead invested in a horse carriage business? If women followed their predecessors, and left “tradition” alone?
If everyone is too scared to innovate, culture and society will crumble.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 06:16 PM |
| Re: Spite |
Gavin, I know it is sad that we are in this state where I have to admit, that yes, I do truly believe some Bush supporters and most independents are voting for Dubya out of ‘spite.’ I cannot come up with any better explanation. It is what it is.
Republicans will vote Republican because they believe they have to stand by their party, instead of their candidate. They will continue to believe that Bush is like McCain or Arnold, when he is not. They hate Democrats and liberals, as you saw the hate being spewed toward Michael Moore at the Republican Convention. The hate will cause them to waste their vote on a candidate further to the right than most of them. Bush is not a compassionate moderate conservative; I hope everyone knows that by now.
But, I will let you prove me wrong. Since you are "undecided," give us five good reasons to vote for President Bush and five reasons NOT to vote for John Kerry...
Respond |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 06:12 PM |
| Not swift enough |
John Kerry’s campaign staff has done a poor job on responding to the Swift Boat ads. And now Kerry’s campaign is feeling the affects, as his numbers are in a steady decline.
The problem with his staff is they have not allowed Kerry be Kerry. They have only hoped the anti-Bush sentiment would bring victory in November; the American people are not that stupid. Now, Kerry’s integrity is on the line, not his staffs, but his. He must respond strong, the same passion with which he spoke on against Vietnam.
He needs to respond to the b.s. of the Swift Boat ads by telling them he stands by what he believes about Vietnam, but some of his words were out of line because of his emotions when he was in his 20s. He needs to tell the people they were not on his boat, they were not in his vicinity, they did not see what he saw, and he holds war medals because he is a war hero -- these Swift Boat vets are just liars trying to be in the light.
He needs to remind the voters that after his Vietnam protest he has more than 20 years of service in the Senate. He needs to say, that all the Swift Boat stuff is based on 35 years ago, and it is time to talk about the optimism he has now and what he will do to save his country in the next four years as he saved brave Americans in Vietnam.
John Kerry needs to define himself now. He is known as a late campaigner, but now it is time. Kerry needs to be Kerry, and be on the attack because Bush and his team will continue to lie, distort facts, and hold back some of this anti-Bush sentiment by constantly being on the attack, and that is the only reason Bush can even be close in these polls.
At the end, I’m not too worried about Kerry pulling this off because Kerry will be who he truly is in the debates and will no longer be dormant. Dubya in the debates should be humorous, and he will try his best not to answer questions by throwing out his ad libs, but when there is a good moderator requiring a true answer, Bush will probably say ‘uh…well…um…that time…shoot.’
People can continue to watch these polls and think that this race will be close -- it won’t. The few independents left can go either way, it does not matter. If they still have not been swayed, they aren’t reading enough, they are digesting these b.s. ads, and falling to the distortion of Karl Rove.
Mr. Bush is one of the worst presidents in American history. He should be easily beaten -- especially by a great candidate and man committed to public service for our country like John Kerry.
Respond |
| Posted by Karan Gill at 06:08 PM |
| Bad career advice |
“Fact is, if you do what you love, you'll probably starve,” writes career coach Marty Nemko.
He notes that most of the cool jobs in fields like the arts and social work don’t pay well, and bosses tend to treat employees badly because they’re easily replaceable in highly competitive positions.
“So there are plenty of unhappy people in so-called cool careers,” he says, citing Kurt Cobain, John Belushi and Janis Joplin. Therefore, Nemko concludes that you shouldn’t follow your passion. Instead, play it safe.
Talk about bad career advice.
It’s true that several fields don’t pay well, nor guarantee fame and success. Not every actress can be a Cameron Diaz, not every writer can be a J.K. Rowling, not every athlete can turn into Michael Phelps.
But not following your passion because it’s risky is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. If you’re working 40 hours plus in a job each week, you’ve got to like it. Work takes up a substantial portion of your life, and if you do what others tell you because it’s “safe,” you’ll probably end up being middle-aged and bitter.
Usually, the people who advise you against doing what you love are either too practical for their own good, or in a career that they regret -- so they advise others poorly in hopes they’ll suffer the same unhappiness.
There’s a better solution than abandoning your passion: have workable backup plans. My friend who wants to be a children’s book illustrator is also minoring in exercise science; she plans to develop her art at night after a day of regular work.
Following your passion doesn’t always mean starvation.
Respond |
| Posted by Christina Asavareungchai at 05:56 PM |
| RNC, Day 2 summary |
Arnold Schwarzenegger was a great entertainer. His story about growing up in the shadow of Soviet control was very powerful and moving. However, he then spoke about how Richard Nixon was a "breath of fresh air," and how Nixon inspired him to be a Republican. Nixon? Arnie is trying to convince people to vote FOR the Republicans, right?
Although, I guess the nod is somewhat fitting -- I'm hard pressed to think of another president or administration whose love of secrecy, deception, and attacking opponents is so close to the Bush administration's.
Arnie says if you believe that your family knows better how to spend their money than the government, then you are Republican. Okay. Then he goes on about how great America is because of how we send people out into the world to help the poor and the sick, and give more aid to fight AIDs than any other country, we fight for human rights and democracy, and provide freedom and opportunity to immigrants. I'm sure that is all done with individual donations from families, right?
I certainly know if I was given $100 back by the government, I would sit down and divide it up between all the programs that are needed to support the elderly, the sick, the poor, the unemployed, scientific research, equal education, our parks, our roads and public transportation projects, police, fire fighters, first responders, international aid, immigrant processing, etc. and so forth. Uh huh.
I would take the time to examine all these needs, and prioritize them, and give my money accordingly, and then audit them and hold them accountable for how the money was spent. Oh yeah. And I'm sure every Republican family would do the same. Yep.
Don't get me wrong -- the government wastes money. But the solution isn't to just cut taxes and then be faced with huge deficits and/or slashing badly needed programs. Nor is it to privatize everything under the sun -- especially in areas where placing profits rather than public interest as the primary motivator will hurt the very people you are supposedly helping.
With the Bush tax scam, we still end up paying in the end, either through future tax increases, state tax increases, a shifting of taxes from capital gains (wealthy income) to paycheck taxes (average Joe income), loss of programs or facilities we use, and the ripple effects that increased instability and poverty in society bring such as crime, drug abuse, less educated labor force, etc.
What we need is a truly fair and progressive tax system, and to continue cutting waste and increasing efficiency in existing programs so the existing taxes go further.
Finally, Arnie said that you can't reason with terrorists because they are blinded by hate, they hate women's progress, religious freedoms for others, and the "liberating breeze of democracy." Hmm. Funny, he forgot to mention how those hate-filled terrorists hate all those same things being given equally to homosexuals as well.
And I wonder if, by freedom and progress for women, he meant a woman's right to choose her own beliefs about when life begins? Oh wait, that's right -- the moderate speakers at the RNC aren't voicing opinions that are truly diverse or moderate.
Though it doesn't matter, since whether the voters buy into the illusion of Republican diversity or not, Bush certainly won't.
Oh, and the Bush twins made a funny, but somehow I'm not any more moved to vote for their daddy. Though I suppose vote-by-feeling swing voters and hormonal young men may have been swayed.
Respond |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:50 PM |
| Re: Organic foods |
Saying that organic foods fall in the same category as the no-carb craze is a bit generalizing.
The organic food movement in the U.S. has been going on for decades to promote environmental preservation, better living and health whereas the no-carb frenzy is basically a fad diet.
I would say that most people who eat organic do so because of the damage that production of non-organic foods has on the environment or because of concern for their health.
Pointing to one hyprocritical person who says she shops at Whole Foods but downs sugary snacks doesn't erase the sincerity of a lot of people who choose to eat organic.
And so what if people don't eat organic all the time? I don't think they should be expected to as long as they're making some effort. As you said, it's expensive and oftentimes difficult to carry through, especially for college students.
Respond
|
| Posted by Anne Kim at 09:46 AM |
|
Back to top