TooMuchBlue

My collection of rants and raves about technology, my kids and family, social/cultural phenomena, and inconsistencies in the media and politics.

2004-09-30

Watching the debate

I got a late start - kids needed to go to bed - but here's my thoughts on the debate as it's happening. Kerry seems to be in his groove, but his words still don't cover the fact that he's still talking out of both sides of his mouth. Hearing him talk about how we need a president with credibility is a real mind-bender. If there's one thing Kerry lacks, it is credibility. The polls show this very strongly. At least we know he has a good poker face. President Bush sometimes seems to have trouble getting rolling, though I'm not sure it's a bad thing. I think it makes him seem accessible and friendly. Occupiers? Kerry has a lot of gall making a statement like that. The comparison to President GWH Bush seemed out of place, but it was a good illustration of his point. Kerry is clinging to the concept that he can get other countries to help, when those leaders have clearly stated they will not help. Great quote by President Bush: "They aren't going to follow someone whose core convictions change with the politics in America." Kerry is still perpetuating the falsehood that there were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission found only that there was no tie between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. The Commission's findings even suggest that Bagdad did have a history of supporting Al Qaeda. More myths: Kerry says that Saddam would not have gotten stronger given more time. I didn’t see any evidence that no-fly zones and sanctions were doing anything but allowing Saddam to build up his strength. Bush seems to be getting tired, fumbling his words more often. I kind of wish the camera had included Kerry when Bush said "Nu-kyu-lar". Yes, it's supposed to be "nu-klee-ur", but how do most people say it? Kerry would be foolish to criticize that pronunciation in this forum, as it would paint Kerry as a know-it-all, and not very endearing. During his rebuttal to the "character differences" question, Kerry's final statement was perhaps the most coherent summary of his position on Iraq I've heard yet. If he could convey that point that clearly more often, he could be more of a competitor. I think Bush has spent perhaps too much time talking about Kerry's flip-flops. By the end, I feel like telling him "we've heard this, move on, tell us something new". Kerry's last response, he says that the war in Iraq is not "what the American people voted for". Exactly when did we get a vote on going to war? Or did we somehow know when voting for W that we would be going to war? As an afterthought, how terrible it must be to be a candidate for president. The post analysis spends so much time analyzing every twitch of your face. Was that a sneer, a grin, a wry smile or a smirk?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

This debate should be good

(Never fails - after I blog, I find one more thing worth posting.) This embarrassing exchange took place between Kerry and a relatively friendly journalist. Note how he even ties himself in knots. Maybe someone can find a link back to the full transcript instead of Powerline. With a setup like this, I can't wait to see the debates tonight. I'll be blogging afterward, naturally.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Democrat desperation

It's hard to imagine how much worse it can get for the Kerry and the Democrats. Whatever the source of Senator Kerry's orangish hue, you have to admit it's kinda funny looking. The late night talk shows certainly haven't wasted any time making jokes. Lynne Cheney got in a quick reference to Kerry's tan which seemed pretty mild to me.
During a campaign stop with her husband, a group of volunteers moved into the crowd with microphones for the question-and-answer period. Vice President Dick Cheney told supporters to look for the people with dark orange shirts. When Cheney paused as if searching for the words to describe the shade of orange, Lynne Cheney said, "How about John Kerry's suntan?" The remark drew a big laugh from the crowd and the vice president.
So far, so good. Doesn't sound like any kind of partisanship or attack on his character - just an interesting coincidence that gave people a giggle. Now read the response from the Dems:
Responding to her comments, Kerry campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Is Mrs. Cheney jealous considering how hard it is to get sun in the undisclosed location with her husband Dick? Or is she distracted over how red-in-the-face George Bush should be considering his failed presidency?"
Hello! Where did that come from? Are we a little touchy here? Can't even laugh at yourselves? I'm not sure if bitterness is a campaign strategy, or just a continuing theme among liberals. I fail to see how their response improves their position. How much nicer to have seen a response like this:
Responding to her comments, Kerry campaign spokesman Bill Burton wryly replied, "We selected orange for the debates after extensive polling. Blue was preferred by focus groups, but caused problems with the cameras." He also noted, "The spray-on tan treatment should fade to a more natural tone in time for the debate."
Respond to a joke with a joke, right? The counterattack just makes Kerry (or his minions) appear to have the personality and sense of humor of a stick. We already have Al Gore - we don't need another National Tree. To say it another way (though he was talking about a different situation):
Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel said, "Humor is an effective way to be persuasive without being corrosive. Americans appreciate humor and leaders who don't take themselves so seriously."
"Persuasive without being corrosive" - what a concept. Liberals take note: you really do catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If the RNC is poking fun at Kerry, it's at least partly deserved. His platform hasn't exactly been one you would call "clear". Even when he tries to explain himself, he just ends up making it worse. Take, for example, his now-infamous quote of "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry's explanation:
"I had one of those inarticulate moments, late in the evening when I was dead-tired in the primaries, and I didn't say something very clearly," Kerry said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
The problem with this is that the fateful quote was made at a noontime rally. What really has me concerned is that the Kerry campaign seems to be in take-no-prisonors mode, striking out on any front they can think of. The insults last week of the Iraqi President don't inspire me to think of him as a Commander-In-Chief, coalition-builder type. In fairness, Kerry didn't make the comments himself, but this comment and others like it indicate that Kerry accepts this treatment. Why would we expect that he won't staff his presidential cabinet the same way he's staffed his campaign? Furthermore, Kerry has shown clearly and stated publicly that he'll say whatever he needs to say to get elected. When he was fighting against Howard Dean, he modeled himself as the anti-war candidate. Now that Dean is out of the picture, he's more willing to support the war. That's not called taking a position - it's called playing the field.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-09-24

Preemptive Strike - CORRECTION

Not only was Kerry for the war in Iraq, but he even argued in favor of a preemptive strike. The Washington Post has the full story, as we know it so far.
[WRONG_QUOTE] "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." [/WRONG_QUOTE]
In reference to a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access to Iraqi weapons sites, Mr. Kerry actually said: "I think that's our great concern — where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity — but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."
Later, referring to French and Russian reservations on the use of force, Mr. Kerry said: "There's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country."
Another story which hasn't recieved much press yet is Fox News' investigation into the Oil-for-Food program. There's a lot of evidence (not conclusive yet) suggesting that France and Russia (maybe Germany too) were profiting from this program, and that the program was being used to fund terrorism. Many of the records are confidential, and the UN is doing what they can to block the investigation. So now Kerry can say "I actually agreed with Bush before I disagreed with him." [Correction: the WashPost quotes were corrected later in the day. I updated the quotes above to reflect the new information.]

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-09-23

Kerry's responsible

I tried very hard not to post today, working on some deadlines at work, but this piece really caught my attention. Ralph Peters over at the New York Post submits this opinion piece about how Kerry's campaign for president is giving aid to the enemy in time of war. An excerpt:

In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility.

If Kerry were insisting, without caveats, that we're going to stay the course and win, while backing up his criticisms with convincing details of how he would improve our efforts, that would be fine. But his mad claims of disaster and his inability to maintain a firm position unquestionably give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The terrorists and their allies already intended to increase the level of violence in Iraq before November. But Kerry's pandering has encouraged them to pull out all the stops. I wish it were otherwise, that our election process had more integrity, but the truth is that every roadside blast and car bomb in Iraq is meant to support John Kerry.

Contrast this with what the Iraqi President is saying about our efforts and progress. I read some numbers yesterday (sorry, no link) saying that if Iraq were California (and they're about the same size), the cities in turmoil add up to about the equivalent of Los Angeles. There's an awful lot of California outside Los Angeles. Come to think of it, I think it's safe to predict the worst parts of Los Angeles are much worse than the best parts of Fallujah. I wonder how many people die from gunfire each day in LA, New York, Chicago or Boston? Why isn't the press reporting those body counts?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-09-22

The media myths about Bush's TANG service

Dan Rather seems to have been rather hung up on the idea that the substance of those memos were real, even if the documents themselves were fake. In a purely logical sense, the failure to prove something true does not automatically prove that the idea is false, so in this sense he is somewhat correct. However, CBS and much of the MSM (mainstream media) still seem to have blinders on about what facts are truly available. As a result, many falsehoods and half-truths are repeated as fact. One such area is about President Bush's enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. It is too easy to give in on the point that he received preferential treatment and get caught up in whether the treatment was requested. In fact, there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary - that in fact Bush requested a difficult assignment, joined a squadron already assigned in Vietnam, took one of many open slots, volunteered to go to Vietnam, and met all the obligations of attendance and service. Infidel Cowboy has a fairly comprehensive explanation of the real details of W's time in the national guard.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Is blogging affecting the election debate?

Yes and no. According to the responses to this blog entry at bitheads.blogspot.com, blogs are not changing public opinion (as the MSM seek to do), but more reflecting what public opinion is.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Subscribing to my blog

OK, the blog subscription is now set up. (If you're reading this in email, you're already subscribed.) To subscribe for on-the-spot updates, send mail to blog-subscribe@[this domain]. You can also subscribe to a daily digest, which will give you only one email per day no matter how chatty I get. That address is blog-digest-subscribe@[this domain]. Either way, you'll recieve a verification check within a few minutes asking you to confirm the subscription. This protects the list against people maliciously subscribing someone else. Just reply to the message (you don't have to type anything) and you're subscribed. The links above will start an email to the magic email addresses. To reduce spam, I've left off the domain part of each address. Just add toomuchblue.com on the end to complete the email addresses.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Now that gives me a lot of confidence.

I only have a moment to note an article in the Washington Post which says that a recent study shows over 25% of public school teachers in large U.S. cities put their children in private schools - almost twice the average of all parents. In Chicago, about 39% of teachers enroll their children in private schools. The authors of the study add,
"Teachers, it is reasonable to assume, care about education, are reasonably expert about it and possess quite a lot of information about the schools in which they teach. We can assume that no one knows the condition and quality of public schools better than teachers who work in them every day." "They know from personal experience that many of their colleagues make such a choice [for private vs. public schools], and do so for good and sufficient reasons."
Currently, we're planning to put Ethan in public school, but this adds an interesting spin to that decision.

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-09-17

Whoops...

When I emailed out to some friends and family about reading my blog, I was quite sure there was a button to subscribe. Turns out there is not. I will set up an email list for the purpose when I return. In the mean time, if you'd like to subscribe, just drop me an email.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Burkett vs. the facts

It now seems pretty clear that Bush-hater Bill Burkett is the source of the forged documents. He claims to have either reconstructed or saved from the trash certain records about the retirement records of 1LT George W Bush, depending on when you ask him. Unfortunately, the facts do not hold out his claims, and it appears that the President did fulfill his requirements to the Guard, if only by a small margin. While we'd all prefer the President be a grade-A student, the difference between a C and an F is still the difference between an honorable and dishonorable discharge. "Youthful exuberance" leads us all to do things which are unwise. As long as he wasn't being dishonest or pushing for special favors, settling for a C on attendance doesn't bother me that much. And really, what tells us more about how he'll do as a Commander-in-Chief; three years as a First Lieutenant 30 years ago, or three and a half years as Commander-in-Chief? Contrast this with Kerry's voting record over the last 20 years. Many of the campaign promises he's making today are things he would have voted against from his seat in the Senate. If Kerry could win on his record, he would be pushing his record. If he could win on his leadership, he'd be talking about it constantly. Instead, he's running on a platform of "I'm not Bush", and according to today's Gallup poll results, losing by a fairly wide margin.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-09-15

Incredible news

Funny thing - I was thinking about making an entry today specifically about how traditional news media are losing their credibility, their presumption of honesty, and their image of impartiality, when I saw this poll, which said the same thing. I picked up on that story from this one, specifically about the credibility of CBS and Dan Rather. I'm surprised that Dan's credibility is still as high as it is, since it appears that only Dan and the suits at CBS still think the documents are real. Most frustrating to me are the rebuttals they offer to objections. The ones I keep hearing are: "We can't reveal our sources, but trust us, they're authentic." -- I don't expect them to reveal their sources, but I do remember from journalism class that you can't expect an article to be as widely accepted if you don't reveal sources. The source of the information helps each person to determine for themselves if the story can be believed. I'm not willing to let CBS or any other organization tell me what to believe. "The Jammies Brigade doesn't have the checks and balances of a news organization like CBS." -- Specifically aimed at the bloggers who broke the story of the documents being fraud. What the suits haven't realized yet is that the most popular blogs have become so by being honest and showing integrity in admitting their mistakes. Also, blogs give individuals (the readers) a level of interaction with the news reporters you can't get from CBS. A large readership is a very strong check-and-balance mechanism. If people don't think you're being honest, or can't admit a mistake, they won't stay long. "Technology did exist in 1971 to produce proportional type and superscript." -- Yes, but that technology has already been shown to produce a document significantly different from what CBS has published, even with major effort, where MS Word has been shown to easily produce an almost identical document with no effort. Lest it be missed in my comments to the previous entry, have a look at a reproduction of the "authentic" TANG document you can do yourself. Apparently, Dan hasn't seen this yet. I wonder if he's even used Word? "Our sources have changed their stories" -- No, you manipulated the situation, or their original statements to make it appear they validated your claims. How scary that a large organization like CBS can bulldoze over the truth by manipulating someone's words, then accusing them of waffling. The fact is, none of their experts offered solid confirmation to begin with, and some of the experts they contacted (but didn't quote) told them outright the documents were forgeries. Yet it was still too important not to publish. "It doesn't matter whether the documents are forgeries - President Bush should still answer the questions." -- If the documents are complete forgeries, then there's no reason to believe any of the facts implied by those documents. Likewise, if the documents were provided by someone with a clear partisan interest, or with an axe to grind, or even by an insane person (or all of the above), asking President Bush to answer the questions is the cart before the horse. First show me that there is something to answer. If the facts hold up, then I expect an answer from the President as well.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-09-13

Power Line

In the course of the CBS/60 Minutes II/TANG/Forged Documents discussion, I've discovered an excellent blog, Power Line. Written by three attorneys, this is no half-baked rant, but, as the news networks are discovering, a force to be reckoned with. A recent entry expresses nicely what I've been sensing for some time: that the major news media are more interested in pushing their own agendas than in factual, disinterested-third-party journalism. CBS, and particularly Dan Rather, have pretty clearly demonstrated that they are willing to sacrifice their credibility for the sake of the Kerry election. I heard on WLS this morning (Don Wade & Roma) a very good comparison. Apparently, the Boston Globe (owned by the same company as the New York Times) found 100+ swift boat veterans sworn afidavits about John Kerry "didn't meet journalistic requirements" for investigation and reporting, yet two poorly forged documents slamming Bush were "too hot not to report". The forgery story itself has taken some turns. The initial red flags raised on the documents were:
  • Verified by unknown experts
  • Proportional text, uncommon in 1971.
  • One document has a raised "TH" (for 111TH), which seems impractical using 1971 technology.
  • A memo entitled "CYA" which seems to be more damning of the author than of Bush. Not much of a cover.
Several people have pointed out that a device did exist in 1971 which could do both superscript and proportional type (the IBM Selectric Composer). The weaknesses in this argument are that this device cost between $16,000 and $22,000 dollars (adjusted for 2004), and if it did exist, it was unlikely that the Texas Air National Guard would own one, or use it for writing memos to file. More recently, the following facts have also come to light, adding nails to the coffin:
  • The documents have centered text which is impractically perfect. We're talking centered at a pixel level, purportedly using a typewriter, on two documents produced four months apart. This kind of centering would be almost impossible, and certainly much more work than someone would make for a memo nobody would ever read.
  • Retyping the documents on the exact Selectric Composer CBS claims was used creates a document which does not match the document. Typing the content into MS Word produces an image so similar that the only variances are easily explained through the fuzzing of multiple photocopies.
  • One of the documents mentions a certain senior official pressuring people in certain ways. Unfortunately, the named person had resigned the military about a year earlier, and had no such influence.
  • The General (CBS's prime witness) now says the documents are fake, and says CBS misled him into thinking it was a handwritten note.
  • CBS's document expert was only a handwriting expert. He verified the signature was that of the purported author, but not whether the document was authentic, or even whether the signature originated on that page.
  • No verifiably authentic documents from TANG have yet been uncovered using a similar typeface, style, or superscript. (It's possible someone might, but not likely.)
  • Both the author's wife and son say the document is uncharacteristic and improbable.
Basically, all the evidence points to these documents being forgeries, and not very good ones at that. CBS seems to be counting on the fact that only those intensely into the news will research to find out the truth. Sadly, it seems that many Kerry supporters fall into this category.

1 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link