TooMuchBlue

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

2004-10-29

A call to arms for Islamic believers

My dad sent a link to an editorial from a month ago about Islam and terrorism.
The West, or at least those portions of the West with any backbone, are coming to the realization that Islam's goal is world domination at the point of the sword. Convert, submit, or die: this is the choice Islam offers to the world. Too harsh for you? Do I paint with too broad a brush, and in harsh black-and-white to boot? Show me. Show me the people of Islam rising up and rejecting the murderers in their midst. Let me hear the mullahs cry out from their mosques against barbarity of the Islamists. Go ahead, I'm listening.
I think this captures one of the biggest misunderstandings about Islam. Is it really a religion of peace? There has been no shortage of people quoting from the Koran "proving" that it sends whichever message you prefer. Not having read it myself, and knowing how easily the Bible can be misquoted to tailor your message, I'm hesitant to make any decision based simply on a quote. The people I listen to and trust seem to agree that Islam has elements of "living in peace", but favors violence in the face of disagreement. It's amazing how different Islam is from Christianity and Judaism, considering that Islam acknowledges the Torah and the existence of Jesus, then adds Mohammed as an extra prophet. Another factor which cannot be ignored is the differences between Islam as written in the Koran, Islam as taught by the mullahs, and Islam as understood by ordinary believers. Islam in the book may be interpreted as peaceful, but if you pick out the parts that support your radical intentions, welcome to terrorism. Getting back to the article, the author says: "If none of you will speak up, if none of your societies will take up arms and destroy the Islamists in your midst, then we will do it ourselves.". I think the author may assume too much of these societies. From my position on the outside, it doesn't appear that there has been much room for the good, honest, peaceful Muslims to have a voice. Within the U.S. the situation is very different. There is growing evidence that some Islamic mosques in this country continue to harbor and abett proto-terrorists, and that the instruction from the leadership tends toward pro-violence. I wish I had saved a link to an open letter posted by an organization of Islamists in the U.S. apologizing for sitting by while their religion is hijacked from the inside for purposes of violence. I really believe that many Muslims follow Islam as a religion of peace, have no desire for violence of any kind, and are simply following what they believe to be the way to heaven and the honorable way to live in peace. (I don't believe they will go to heaven, but I believe they believe this.) These people need to find their feet and take control back from those who advocate violence, before it really becomes necessary to target based simply on religion. Perhaps there is a place for religious profiling when there is a demonstrable link between that religion and acts of war?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-28

Do the math

Though it pains me to recommend anything from the New York Times after their deplorable behavior through this election, their website has an excellent electoral-college calculator. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/ Apart from all the statistics you might ever (or never) care about, if you click on The Presidential Race on the left, and then on Presidential Calculator, you can put each state in whatever column you wish and see how the Electoral College vote will pan out. I prefer the Electoral Votes view (click this button right above Minnesota), which scales each state according to the number of Electoral College votes. They even add "partial split" options for those states which can adjust their EC votes proportionally to voter response: Maine, Nebraska and Colorado (though the split-the-votes bill seems doomed to failure in Colorado). On election night, I expect to have this open so I can do my own forecasts on the country.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-27

Kerry as agent of North Vietnam

Just out today, new evidence that Vietnam Vets Against War (VVAW) was operating at the direction of the North Vietnam. John Kerry was the spokesperson for VVAW before Congress. The full text is at wintersoldier.com, with analysis and commentary at WorldNetDaily. If this evidence holds up, and assuming the MSM cover this as thoroughly as they have every misstep of GWB's, Kerry could find himself being elected Traitor instead of President.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

In their own words

Just in case there's any questions about the reason for increased violence in Iraq, the Washington Times clears it all up.
If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance. Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances. "American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."
Unfortunately for him, if word of this spreads, it may weaken the perception that we're losing control in Iraq, which will help Bush and hurt Kerry. Later in the article, there's a very interesting analysis of how the various groups view our choice of President and use it to their advantage.
The most pro-Kerry, he said, are the former Saddam Hussein loyalists — Ba'ath Party members and others who think Washington might scale back its ambitions for Iraq if Mr. Kerry wins, allowing them to re-enter civic life. The most pro-Bush, he said, are the foreign extremists. "They prefer Bush, because he's a provocative figure, and the more they can push people to the extreme, the better for their case."
So if I'm reading this right, the pro-Kerry groups think he'll pull out (at least partially), and the pro-Bush groups want him because it gives their potential followers a more visible focal point for their hatred.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-22

The consequences of ugliness

I wrote back in September about how Kerry's words were assisting the terrorists in their endeavors. If you look around, there's more evidence every day that this is true. A comment posted by National Review reader gives the perspective from China:
One of the things I find particularly distressing is how the careless and hateful rhetoric of Democrats and the media have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the Chinese, who receive it via (God help us!) the BBC. Bush evil. Bush stupid. That's what my students believe; the dismissive tone of their voices, when they mention President Bush's name, speaks more than any words can. Democrats and the media are so insular, that they do not begin to conceive of the impact of their propaganda and how that shapes the way the rest of the world views us. What has poisoned the perception of the U.S. abroad is not the actions of GWB, but that of the Democrats and the media who noised abroad their disdain and lack of support for Dubya, all for political gain. Had the Democrats and media done what was right, the U.S. would be in different odor around the globe.
What makes the Democrats and/or Liberals (hmm, maybe we should just call them the Liberal party?) Bush-bashing most despicable, in my mind, is that in time of war, it is giving encouragement to the enemy. No matter who occupies the White House for the next four years, we will not be "respected abroad" on account of how negatively we speak of ourselves. It's like sneaking into a house you're buying and peeing on the walls to bring the price down. I recently discovered The Mesopotamian, a blog by an Iraqi man who is making the most of freedoms he never had under Sadaam. I think he's going to become regular reading for me anytime I have questions about whether the press is telling me the truth. A recent post about the U.S. elections and how they will affect Iraq was very interesting to me. (Sorry for the long quote, but this is how he wrote it.)
So, I have been, personally very attentive to the debates and positions of both candidates, and I have some thoughts which I would like to share with you, my American friends. To start with, Senator Kerry may be a very good man and quite patriotic. Also we have to respect the almost 50% of the American people who lean towards the democrats. I don’t know much about domestic issues in the States so naturally, as might be expected, the position of any Iraqi would be mainly influenced by the issue that most concerns him. Thus, regardless of all the arguments of both candidates the main problem is that President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies’ commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything. On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the U.S. don’t quite appreciate how high the stakes are. The challenge is mortal, and you and we are locked in a War, a National Emergency; and in such circumstances partisan considerations must be of secondary importance.
Wow! The rest of the article (in fact, the rest of the blog, apparently) is just as to-the-point. Meanwhile, The Scotsman reports the evidence is in, and it shows that Saddam was using oil-for-food money to fund the PLO and other terrorist organizations.
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam. Using the United Nations’ own oil-for-food scheme - ironically intended as a sanction to control the behaviour of his dictatorship - Saddam gave Awad Ammora & Partners, a Syrian company, two million barrels of oil. Documents handed over to US authorities by a former Iraqi oil minister only four months ago show that this was a front for the PFLP - which was then embarked on a spate of car bombings aimed at Israeli officials.
The PFLP is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group which split from the PLO when the PLO agreed to peace talks, which should tell you something about what they stand for. When you look at the ever gathering evidence that France, Germany and Russia were each, in their own ways, on the take from Saddam, it's hard to see how Kerry can keep a straight face when accusing GWB of having a "coalition of the bribed". Finally, I've just purchased Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", and by halfway through the second chapter, I'm loving it. Her book doesn't try to be persuasive to liberals, more to give evidence for conservatives. As a constitutional lawyer, she speaks from experience and a deep understanding of the law, though how much of her writing can be counted on as fact, I leave to you to decide on your own.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-14

Third debate analysis

I missed most of the third debate except a few minutes on the radio. Most of all, I wish I had heard the religion question, partly because of comments like from Vodkapundit's "Debate Drunkblogging Live":
8:18. "Everything is a gift from the Almighty," Kerry just said. Now, I know every politician panders. But when Bush talks religion, much as it usually annoys me, I buy it. When Kerry says something like he just did, it makes me wish a thunderbolt would hit him, emblazoned with the words, "Take THIS gift, sucker." Because he's treating me like a sucker - and I'm not even religious.
It's fine with me if Bush's religion annoys the non-religious. Another moment was the jab at CBS. I guess I'm going to have to dig up a video feed of the debate and watch it myself.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-13

We've got the Nobel Laureates vote.

According to one out of one Nobel prize winners (for Economics no less), the George W. Bush tax cuts were good but too small. See the story here. Update: I misspelled "Laureates" - guess I don't use that word enough.

4 Comments:

  • At 8:03 PM CDT , Anonymous said...

    Um, you spelled "laureats" wrong. Perhaps, if you're going you're going to imply that Republicans are smarter because they're endorsed by Nobel laureates, you should spell "laureates" correctly.

    Oh... one more thing. The open letter signed by 169 business-school professors (including two Nobel laureates) opposing Bush's economic policies was started by Harvard Business School professors.

    I forget... where did Bush get his MBA?

    See? I can appeal to authority too.

     
  • At 9:03 PM CDT , Bruce said...

    Fair enough on the spelling - fixed. As far as "implying Republicans are smarter", I didn't really think this was any kind of comprehensive proof, hence my "one out of one" comment.

     
  • At 10:42 PM CDT , Anonymous said...

    Okay, I hate to supply your arguments for you, but here:

    368 Economists Against KerrynomicsThere are six laureates on that one.

    Of course, I would counter that one with this piece:

    Kerry Wins Backing from Nobel Economics LaureatesThere are ten on that one.

     
  • At 10:19 AM CDT , Bruce said...

    Interesting quotes. I guess that shows that you can find someone on any side of an argument. (And I mean that both ways.)

    I confess I didn't research how many other Nobel Laureates had come down on one side or another of the issues. I thought I had made it plenty clear that it wasn't exactly a statistically significant sample (one out of one). The story caught my eye, I had my blog composing window already open, so I posted it.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

The politics of hate

It has been quite a week on the campaign trail, but not everything has made it to the evening news. The Bush/Cheney campaign headquarters in several states have been raided. The daylight raids have generally been AFL/CIO protests gone bad, resulting sometimes in injuries to the volunteers. After hours, several offices have been shot at or broken into. The national headquarters even had several key computers stolen. Attributing the breakins to the Democratic party is an easy assumption, but innocent-until-proven-guilty still applies. The Philadelphia Inquirer is running a series called "21 reasons to elect Kerry". One conservative author (so far) has been given the podium for a rebuttal - well worth the read. What amazes me is the disparity with which the candidates are treated - here and elsewhere. Bush has revealed all his records, yet he's still assumed to have enlisted to avoid going to Viet Nam, and blamed for not fulfilling his duty, despite all evidence to the contrary (and there is plenty).
  • George W. Bush applied to enlist in a unit which was currently stationed in Viet Nam when he could have chosen others. At the time he applied, it was not clear when the unit might return to the states, which might have taken him overseas as well.
  • When offered the opportunity to fly in Viet Nam, he applied to go. He was turned down because they were looking for more seasoned pilots.
  • The unit he belonged to was not full when he enlisted, and at times during his tour, as many as half the available slots remained empty. Therefore, he did not have to pull strings to get into the unit.
  • His chosen position, flying a plane known sometimes as "widow-maker", was a very unlikely position for someone trying to avoid the draft. By all reports, he not only fulfilled the position, but excelled.
On the other side, it is a matter of record that Kerry has not released over 100 pages of information about his enlistment. As reported today on Powerline, a bit of investigation has suggested that Kerry may not have received an honorable discharge after all. An update later today trims the sails a bit, but there still remain two important questions:
  • If Kerry has nothing to hide, why won't he release his full records and dispell the speculation?
  • Why aren't the mainstream media having a feeding frenzy over the intimations and possibilities suggested by the evidence we have?

It seems so obvious to me that the media is stumping for Kerry. I can't understand how this isn't visible to anyone who thinks about it - but maybe that's really the key. The Liberals (I won't say Democrats, because there remain conservatives in the party) succeed on the backs of the uninformed.

Just yesterday, I heard a radio program caller saying he wanted Bush out of office because he had taken us into an illegal war. That was the gentleman's entire argument, and he couldn't back the statement up with any kind of evidence, even when pressed by the hosts. Similarly, I have heard people who genuinely believe that Bush lied in order to go to war. Operating on the best information obtained by the intelligence agencies of at least four countries is not lying.

Lately, the actions of the radical Left seem to be more in concert with the terrorists than democracy. Apart from the campaign headquarters raids, some Bush/Cheney supporters have had their signs destroyed and swazticas burned into their lawns. These attacks are being investigated as hate-crimes, and rightfully so, but I wonder if the term hate-crime needs to be extended to those who use violence to disagree with your political perspective, not just those who use Nazi emblems in the commission of those attacks? Do we need another revolutionary war in order to make sure the conservatives are given equal rights?

Another example of MSM bias: a columnist for the London Telegraph had his column pulled because his article suggested that maybe, perhaps, Tony Blair had done the right thing by not sending in commandos to rescue Kenneth Bigley. Rather, it's likely that Bigley's last words will result in even more people being captured and used as leverage. Certainly, I can't begrudge a man who knows he's about to die from saying many desparate things, but I can hold a big grudge against the media who choose to amplify that message because it serves their political purpose.

On preparations for elections, the increased scrutiny has brought out evidence of fraud and inaccuracies on both sides. A Denver news station has uncovered major voter registration fraud which has resulted in some people registering multiple times. If done with the registrant's knowledge, each additional registration constitutes a felony, yet one person quoted in the story admits to having registered about 35 times this year! Other investigations (many from the same news source) have unearthed votor registration groups which ignore registrations for one party or the other. Some states are discovering that they have many convicted felons registered as well. And don't forget the thousands of people double-registered between New York and Florida.

Zell Miller, the Democrat senator who spoke at the Republican convention, has written an editorial on how the battle for Iwo Jima might have been covered if today's media had been around. A short excerpt:

Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think. Call the number on the bottom of the screen. Give us your opinions on these three questions: 1. Were the Marines properly trained? 2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives? 3. Has the president once again misled the American people? "After the break, we'll ask our own Democratic and Republican analysts, both shouting at the same time, of course, what they have to yell about all this. It should make for a very shrill, provocative morning.

What exactly has happened to this country that has brought us from Patrick Henry's "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." to the point where freedom of speech only includes those who espouse a particular political viewpoint? It makes me want to put up a Bush/Cheney sign on my lawn just to make sure the attacks have the opposite effect. It's certainly more of a gesture than activism, but it's the very least I can do to help the campaign.

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-08

Second debate: as it happens

All times are Comcast standard time, right off our cable box. I'm watching on Fox News. 8:04 Kerry: The flip-flop question. Kerry picks three particular items as straw men and says he hasn't flip flopped. He didn't pick Iraq as one of them. Bush's reply covers a lot of familiar ground, but seems a bit more articulate than usual. 8:08 to Bush: Iraq and WMD vs. North Korea. Tied back to 9/11, which usually plays in his favor. "We all thought there were WMD, including my opponent." Kerry's response attacks Bush by saying he's attacking Kerry. North Korea was not threatening to give their nuclear weapons to terrorists, where Saddam was. Rebuttal: Bush plays the global test card. Kerry misquotes the report on Iraq and WMD. 8:14 to Kerry: How would you establish leadership in Iraq? Kerry says "Absolutely not" like Bush wants to. Pulls in a few hot quotes from Republicans. Claims the U.S. ignored external offers for training. Bush talks about the good words from the Iraqi Finance minister. I love that he turned on the U.S. news and got pessemistic. Rebuttal: Kerry mentions Tora Bora. Bush talks about the war being everywhere, not just UBL. 8:18 to Bush: How do you plan to repair diplomacy with other countries. Answer about doing the right thing even when it's unpopular. Kerry repeats the more-of-the-same argument. That only works if people aren't happy with what they have now. Rebuttal: Bush: "Do you have what it takes". Kerry: "Winning the peace is about more than war." "Our kids killed with ammo from that dump" 8:24 to Kerry: Iran has missiles to hit Israel. Kerry says "you can't rely on just U.N. Sanctions" - finally! Bush and his scowl line - gets a laugh. Gets a hit in on Kerry about multilateral vs. unilateral talks. 8:28 to Bush: How will you maintain the army without a draft. He starts by insisting no draft. Transforming the military is kind of a weak answer, but does explain how we're repositioning people. Kerry's answer: Lists support from people on Bush's staff. Says he's going to increase the size of the military, and make people feel good so they'll enlist. Bush got a bit rude on his rebuttal. 8:33 to Kerry: Why haven't we had another 9/11? (What a question!) Kerry say intelligence is the most important weapon in preventing attacks. Mentions the areas where we aren't yet secure. Bush's answer: Kerry voted to shrink intelligence. Stay on the offense. Says Kerry wants to weaken it, camera shows Kerry smirking. Rebuttal (Charlie repeats the mistake of if/when that Kerry made). Kerry says Bush chose a tax cut over security. Bush says he's worried, but the way to overcome a spirit of hatred is through freedom. 8:38 to Bush: "Why did you block drugs from Canada?" Bush says "I haven't yet, I'm just trying to make them safe." Drugs that look like they're from Canada could be from a third world. Alternatives: speed up generics in the market; senior drug discount program. 2006 medicare drug coverage. Kerry: President said it was a good idea four years ago, vetoed the bill, made it illegal to bulk purchase drugs. Rebuttal: Bush says Clinton also rejected Canadian drugs. Kerry corrects Bush that he did fix Medicare (ouch, if true), and Bush raised deficit. 8:43 to Kerry: Edwards made millions suing healthcare. Kerry says Edwards wrote the patient's bill of rights, malpractice suits cost <1% of healthcare, has plans to reduce healthcare. Bush replies Kerry will tax 2 trillion, missed a vote to help with Senate. Says 1% increase is not accurate. Says Kerry's healthcare plan is socialized medicine, tax-and-spend. Rebut: Kerry says Bush is trying to scare us. Bush says Kerry should have voted for the cap on malpractice on the senate floor. 8:48 to Bush: "Republican majority, how do you expect to pay for it without taxes". Bush recalls the recession and market bubble pop. I haven't vetoed bills because we've worked together to spend money on the right things. I'm not going to raises taxes to hurt our recovery. Kerry refers to the tax cuts and says it's not possible. 8:54 to Kerry: "will you promise to the camera that you will not raise taxes on those with income under $200000". Kerry says "Yes", but doesn't actually make the promise. Says he's going to restore pay-as-you-go. Promises a rollback of those over $200000. Bush: he's not credible. Voted to break spending caps over 200 times. Way to grow is to keep taxes low. Rebut: Gibson again tries to ask how they'll reduce the deficit. Kerry: Didn't really answer the question, in my opinion. Bush tackles Kerry's reply and also misses the answer. 8:59 to Bush: "How do you call yourself an environmentalist". He lists a variety of programs, reducing this by 90%, fund that by 30 million, reduce something else by 70%, healthy forest bill. Kerry answers again with "labels don't mean anything", says the Clean Air Act would be better than what we have now. "Doesn't believe in science, I do." Rebuttal: Bush says the Kyoto Treaty doesn't help. Common sense approach. Kerry: Kyoto treaty was flawed, but Bush didn't try to fix it. Says walking away was part of the reason other countries don't like us. 9:04 to Kerry: How can the US be competitive and maintain our standard of living? True cost to businesses is healthcare and the President has no plan. Bush: Outlines his healthcare plan, points to Kerry's top 2% as bad for small business. Rebut: Small business claim is false, says Bush owns a lumber company. Bush gets a good laugh off that one, offers Gibson to buy some wood. 9:10 to Bush: Patriot Act why are my rights being watered down. Bush: not eroding your rights, must have every tool necessary. Cannot do their duty without Patriot Act. Kerry: Many key people want Patriot Act changed. Terrorists must never change our constitution. 9:13 to Kerry: Embryonic stem cell research. Kerry: I respect the feeling behind that question. (Huh?) I think we can do ethically guided stem cell research. Bush: Embryonic research requires the destruction of life. I'm the first president to approve stem cell research. Have to be careful to balance ethics and science. Rebut: Kerry says Bush is waffling, and current supply is not adequate. Bush: embryo had already been destroyed, I decided not to allow destroying more. 9:18 to Bush: Vacancy in the Supreme Court. Bush: "I'm not telling". Good one. Says it would be someone who supports constitution, won't let his opinion control his decisions. Kerry: the Justice Potter Stewart standard. 9:22 to Kerry: Tax dollars to support abortion. He replies "I can't take an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't agree." Says he can take that position and not be pro-abortion. Still ends up saying he would spend money on abortions. Bush: plain and simple answer. Culture of life is important for a country. Rebut: It's not that simple. Bush: it is. 9:27 to Bush: Three mistakes and what you did to correct it. He dodges the question. Kerry jumps in with some examples for him. Kerry's rewound to the first question. No great suprises in the closing statements. A winner? Bush had more quoteable moments than Kerry, I think. Bush came off more forceful, which I think will play well except where he cut off Gibson. No great gaffes on either side. There's plenty of material here for each side to claim victory. Don't miss a look at the new ABC memo, which shows an ABC exec encouraging the news organization to play things in Kerry's favor. The fact that the last question of the evening was almost an invitation to poke holes in Bush doesn't fare well. (Charlie Gibson works for ABC.) It's striking how Kerry tries so hard to be different from Bush in every way, shape and form. It's almost as if Kerry can't find anything nice to say about the President, no sense of teamwork or giving credit where credit is due.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-06

Lies, Damned Lies, and...

A concise little article about how to take good news and make it bad. Suitable for use in presidential campaigns, reports to your boss or client, or upon the occasion of a press release on short notice. http://ironmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/10/how-to-scare-people-with-statistics.html

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-05

Ramble stew

No great tirade today, but a lot of little things. On terminology: I'm starting to wonder about the validity of the term MSM, short for Mainstream Media. If (just supposing here) the majority of people in the U.S. disagree with what the media is saying, they should no longer be referred to mainstream, should they? On the role of media in politics: Historically, the press is thought of as the fourth column of government. The "journal"-ists, reporting and archiving the facts and actions; the guardians of fact; the great crap-o-meter watching our government for shoddy behavior. But who monitors the monitors? That darned first amendment protects the press against the government. I guess a free market of information, supply and demand are all we have on the news media. That should be enough, since economic theory work pretty well in other areas. Freedom of speech, while it gives the government no control of news media, is also the key that allows minor media, bloggers, and anyone else the ability to question not just the government but also the media. Since the big four networks can scream the loudest, it's odd they should be so nervous about the blogosphere. On the other hand, maybe they realize the regulation they haven't had for so long is knocking on their door. On composing a blog entry: (A great quote from The Bleat)
Obligatory weather remark; offhand comment that seems to say more than it really does, but is just a clever way of making an obvious parallel between seasonal patterns and the nature of life. Pathetic reference to the amount of work that must be done today, boo-fargin’-hoo; studious avoidance of bad international news of any sort, oblique reference to something mildly controversial said yesterday with an apology to people who long ago stopped reading, followed by an assertion that the brevity of today’s entry is, alas, unavoidable. Followed by a fey 900 word digression on the word “alas,” concluding with a ink to Star Trek music clip whose wry, gently mocking flavor makes you think of Dr. McCoy arching an eyebrow at the end of the show, right before the Enterprise flies off into the producer’s credits Man, these Bleats just write themselves!
...followed by...
I’m done – gotta work. Today is a dreaded two-column day, but at least it’s made easier by the cooler weather. No desire to sit outside in the twilight now; October pushes us indoors, and it’s just as well. There are things to do. But still, summer’s gone; winter growls beyond. Alas.
On last week's presidential debates (quoted from The Monger):
I know at least a half dozen debaters who could have kicked Kerry's behind into next week in that debate. Why does a President with Churchill's moral compass have to have Porky Pig's facility with the English language?
On tonight's VP debates (quoted from Talking Points Memo):
What Edwards should keep squarely in mind is that this debate isn't about John Edwards or Dick Cheney. Views of both of them are close to irrelevant. This is a proxy debate between John Kerry and George Bush. It's about defending Kerry and taking the fight to the president. Everything else is a distraction.
On the liberal media, and the differences in treatment between parties: (Background: NBCNews aired a shot of President Bush where next to his name appeared the ILIE of the word FAMILIES)
CyberAlerts sez:
Inadvertent, I'm sure. Just as was "RATS," for much less time, in the 2000 anti-Gore ad from the Bush campaign. But NBC took it quite seriously, covering it for two straight mornings on Today and devoting campaign stories to it at night. ...and... From the September 13, 2000 CyberAlert, about the Tuesday, September 12, 2000 NBC Nightly News: Claire Shipman showed the ad and allowed Gore to maintain: "I find it a very disappointing development. I've never seen anything quite like it." Shipman then took the Gore campaign complaint gimmick quite seriously, trying to nail down who knew what, when: "The Bush campaign says it's a meaningless flash, silly even.
Drudge sez:
NBCNEWS SPOKESWOMAN SAYS: To see a hidden message in this is just plain silly. The President was moving back and forth in front of a Bush-Cheney campaign backdrop that read "Tax Relief for Working Families." In the video that aired in the introduction to our report, his body obscures various letters at various times. In the "Nightly News" report that immediately followed, the full sign is seen.
Silly, indeed.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

2004-10-01

Don't hold back, tell me what you really think.

Waiting for some FreeBSD ISO's to download, I followed some links to find The Bleat, a rather irreverent blog with some good things to say. In today's post, he goes off on a rather well written rant about many of Kerry's claims from the debate. He's not afraid to use an expletive here and there for emphasis. By the end, you can just imagine him being red-faced and out of breath, but I have to say he has stated quite well many of my frustrations with Kerry. Some choice excerpts:
I can’t take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin’nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we piss off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean “France and Germany,” then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy. They want in? Fine. They don’t? Fine. At this point mooning over France is like being that sophomore loser dorm pal who spent his dateless weekends telling his loser roommate about a high school sweetheart who stood him up for the prom. Give it up. Move on.
...
And I’m not exactly thrilled with the idea of a big summit of non-allied allies after the election, either. Summits are convened not to solve a problem but solve the perception that there is a problem. Imagine if the government had been different in 2002 - we’d have had a summit with France and Germany. End result: the sanctions would be dropped by now, and Saddam would still be in power.
...
Here’s the thing. I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well. Who does Zarkowi fear the most - France, summiteers, or Marines? If the rightness of a cause is measured by the number of one’s allies, would Britain have been right if the US had stayed neutral in World War Two?
I'm not exactly sure what word he's looking for, starting with S and ending five letters later in T. SOVIET and SADDAT both fit, but not the context. Anybody got a guess? Side note: the advertising on his site happened to rotate through this gem. The perfect gift for your favorite Youth Pastor or college student.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link