Thursday, September 30, 2004

Prezzy Debate #1

Okay, short answer: Kerry won, no question, but he missed opportunities to really kick some butt.

Bush had a few good moments which probably heartened his supporters but overall, even Bill Kristol was saying that Kerry supporters should be happy. All of the Fox folk sounded like they were giving it to Kerry and that's saying something.

I mainly watched it on CNN, flipping to Fox a few times, and I saw that the "reaction shot" rule was soon broken. However, in watching the rebroadcast on C-SPAN, it was a continuous split screen shot of both of them. I should've been watching it there. Bush looked annoyed throughout the whole thing.

But Kerry missed a few opportunities to really stick it to Bush or, at least, to better defend himself. The main one was when his vote on the $87 billion came up. Kerry opted to respond with a sound bite saying he was wrong with how he spoke about the vote but Bush was wrong about the war. "Which is worse?" he asked rhetorically. I would have rather he explain that his first vote FOR the $87 was threatened with a veto by Bush because it called to tax Bush's rich friends to pay for the war in Iraq. Only when that tax was removed (guaranteeing our indebtedness) and Kerry was sure that the funding would pass anyway so that he could cast a protest vote did he vote against it. But instead, he went for the sound bite and hardly deflected the "First he voted for it and then he voted against it" charge.

For those already siding with Bush, his repeated catch-phrases may have sounded reassuring. But it started to wear on me. "Wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place” supposedly shows a lack of support for our troops. And what was with the repeated, "grand diversion" accussation? It's like those were the only cards W could play. Kerry, on the other hand, pulled out fact after fact. But I was surprised when I flipped over to NBC and saw their "Truth Squad" camp down on Kerry for his $200 billion for Iraq remark. In fact, while $200 billion has not yet been spent, it has been budgeted. All NBC did was cite that only $120 billion has been spent, not the budgeted amount. And this is supposed to be the liberal media of the alphabet networks?

You can read the transcript on the Washington Post site but you won't see the reactions. Bush really came off poorly, I thought, whereas Kerry's reactions were more along the lines of knowing what he wanted to say in response and noting the facts in preparation to spring on Bush. Unfortunately Kerry did not spring anything majorly stellar and neither did Bush fumble egregiously. Oh, Bush did fumble a bit and Kerry did do generally well, but nothing too extreme either way. Unfortunately I missed a lot of the pre-game buzz so I'm not sure who's expectations got lowered the most so I didn't know "the spread" that either player had to beat. I'm just going on my own perceptions absent of any hype (though, perhaps, tainted by my pro-Kerry bias).

What's your call?

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Fear & Loathing in a Democracy

CNN.com - Parents worried about polls in schools - Sep 28, 2004

I do not deny that the horrible stand-off and massacre in Beslan, Russia, is second only to 9-11 as an example of terrorist tragedies. But even though we far from denigrating to the level of Afganistan or Iraq, these outrageous parent in Massachussetts are simply being ridiculous. It is this kind of submittal to unfounded and utterly ridiculous fears that may end up keeping the incompetant buffoon in office along with his dastardly henchmen (Ashcroft, Cheney, et al) and all their too eager minions willing to sacrifice the safety of our own CIA agents simply to exact a little petty revenge upon a truth-telling whistleblower.

I suppose we can hope that people too ignorant and fearful to host polling places in their schools will be too afraid to actually vote. Let's hope the haven't figured out how to fill out an absentee ballot.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

F-ing Crazies

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Colin Powell in four-letter neo-con 'crazies' row

Here's a question that will come up again and again...what is the likes of Colin Powell doing in the Republican party? If Kerry/Edwards is ultimately victorious in November, it could serve as the wake-up call the GOP needs: dump the ultra-cons and shift attention to the moderate Republicans who are the base of that party. A post-Bush world will see more air time for McCain, Schwarzenegger, and Powell. That will make it harder to tell the difference between the Dems and the GOP without really looking into their issues and platforms. Like it was in the old days. And we should see a melding of "red states" and "blue states". OR, the Dems may blow it and do a reverse-Republican: swing too far left in order to differentiate themselves from the future-moderate Republicans.

Time will tell, but Koko hasn't been wrong yet. Of course, neither has he predicted anything either.

Is Kerry finding his stride?

In a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, John Kerry not only offers up his positive plans contrasted with Bush's failings, but now he takes a page from the GOP PR successes: he uses his opponent's words against him.
"Of course, the President would have us believe that his record is the result of bad luck, not bad decisions. That he's faced the wrong circumstances, not made the wrong choices. In fact, this President has created more excuses than jobs. His is the Excuse Presidency: Never wrong, Never Responsible, Never to Blame. President Bush's desk isn't where the buck stops - it's where the blame begins. He's blamed just about everyone but himself and his administration for America's economic problems. And if he's missed you, don't worry - he's still got 48 days left until the election."[emphasis added]
That last bit is just what George W says about Kerry's supposed flip-flops. Next up is for Kerry to take a cue from Al Franken (as reported on Daily Kos) who said...
"Mr. president, Colin Powell told you about this war that 'if you break it, you own it.' And now you're going around talking about an 'ownership society.' Well, Mr. President, let me tell you what you own. A million jobs lost. You own that. A thousand soldiers lost. You own that. 1.4 million new people living below the poverty line. You own that. 1.2 million less people covered by health insurance. You own that. A seventeen percent medicare increase. You own that. Health care costs skyrocketing. You own that. The tax burden increasing amongst the middle class. You own that. Mr. President, if you want to talk about an ownership society, let's talk about what you own."

Alert Level = Orange (vests)

This is an excerpt from Sacramento Bee columnist R.E. Graswich:
Don Giovanni and homeland security make strange bedfellows. "Don Giovanni" is the sexy Sacramento Opera opening Friday. The show requires flickering candelabra. Fires of any type are discouraged at the Community Center Theater. So the task fell to Luis DeAnda, an actor and prop master, to create a candelabra that didn't burn. Luis settled on plastic tubing, wires and batteries. But trouble flickered in the wind.
"My dad and I went to Home Depot on Truxel to get the supplies," Luis said. "One employee was helping me, then he wandered off. I looked for another employee. Then I saw a young lady employee looking at me, and another employee came up with a cell phone and talked to her." Luis and his father, Dave Benson, bought the material and left. Luis stopped at his mother's house. Dad lives nearby. Dad went home. Suddenly, Dad was surrounded by four Sacramento police cars. Someone at Home Depot had taken Dad's license number and called the cops. Said they were making pipe bombs. "My dad called and said the cops were there," Luis said. "He's a practical joker, so I didn't believe him." Finally, everything was straightened out. "The candelabras look good," Luis said. He's confident "Don Giovanni" won't bomb. ...

On the one hand I suppose we could commend the Home Depot employess for at least trying to do their civic duty. Okay, so maybe they didn't think that someone intending real damage with explosives would use metal piping and not plastic for a deadlier shrapnel effect. Who says all terrorists are smart? Or maybe they were terrorists on a tight budget. But on the other hand, I had better be careful when I go to the hardware store to get the supplies to re-do my sprinkler system: piping, timers, conduit...uh oh. Maybe we should start requiring ID whenever someone buys PVC...or fertilizer...or wiring...or anything flammable (paint, hair spray, turpentine, etc)...or...

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Dick Cheney, the Enforcer

CNN.com - Cheney:Kerry win risks terror attack - Sep 7, 2004:
"'If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,' Cheney said."


Maybe I spent too much time as a kid watching old movies, but surely I'm not the only one reminded by Cheney's comments of some of the old gangster films of the 30s & 40s.

FADE IN
(The scene opens on humble yet respectable Mom&Pop corner drugstore in a busy metropolis. POP is watching little BILLY as he counts out his change for piece of candy while BILLY's little brother JOEY looks on excitedly.)
BILLY: ...six, seven, eight. What can I get for eight cents?
POP: Well, the licorice goes for five cents each. (BILLY is crestfallen) But you're eligible for the "Big Brother Discount" so you can have two for eight cents.
(BILLY & JOEY are all smiles as the transaction is completed. Just as they are about to turn to leave, we hear the bell on the door ring and the two young boys stop dead in their tracks. A man's menacing set of shoulders comes into frame topped by the back of a bald head: CHENEY.)
CHENEY: You boys done here? (Terrified, they both nod in unison.) Then scram! (They do.)
POP: Can I help you...sir?
CHENEY: I think maybe I can help you, Pops. Do you know who I am?
POP: Yo--You're Di--Mr. Cheney. The one they call "The Enforcer".
CHENEY: Smart guy, Pops. Smart guy. Y'know, you've got a nice place here. Real nice. It'd be a damn shame should anything...bad...happen to it. You wouldn't want that, would you, Pops?
POP: No sir, I wouldn't want that.
CHENEY: Smart guy like you, you'd know how to make the right choice, right? It's a dangerous world out there. Things...happen. You wouldn't want to make the wrong choice, would you? I think that would be a terrible mistake. Don't you?
POP: Yes, sir.
CHENEY: I'm glad we had this talk. I'm glad we understand the consequences of our decisions. Now, y'got any aspirin? The ol' ticker is giving me grief. (POP holds out a tin of aspirin which CHENEY snatches out of his hand. CHENEY leaves.)
FADE OUT


We already know that while Cheney was CEO of Haliburton it did trade in Iran & Iraq even though the US had imposed sanctions against them. We know Cheney offered Haliburton a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq (and overcharge us in the process). And now we see Cheney potentially skirting RICO laws. I am looking forward to the criminal trials he will be faced with once Kerry takes office.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Kerry heckler claims assault
& the right wing's idea of discourse

Heckler at Kerry speech says he was assaulted [This link may only be viable for seven days as the newspaper archives their stuff after that.]

No charges filed so it's difficult to say whether or not the heckler in question was, indeed, physically abused or if he's just another right-wing whiner trying to stir up trouble by playing the victim. Thing is, you'll note that he was not arrested and that is a good thing. I agree with Kerry when he responded to the heckler by saying, "I have nothing but the greatest respect for people's right to have their opinions and to express them here in the United States of America." But then he added, "It's a terrific tactic of the Bush team, they love to disrupt, they love to interrupt. They don't want America to hear the truth, but we will talk the truth." I think that goes a bit too far because there's been plenty of folks on the left who have indeed tried to disrupt the GOP candidates. However, the right wingers do tend to clamp down--but hard!--on any dissent. Remember the couple in West Virgina who were arrested, not for vocal heckling but for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts? Hmm, a double standard for dissenters?

Which brings me to something else which bears watching. No deep analysis ready for you yet, just a casting of a wary eye to something under the radar. Beware of and on the lookout for the ProtestWarriors. Rather than legitimate protestors with a right-wing agenda, they seem more like agitators aiming to provoke the lefties into misbehavior and then using that against them. If true, that's not political discourse; it is a propagandist hit squad.

Rand-y agenda clouds analysis

Racy Content on TV May Encourage Teen Sex
(washingtonpost.com)
:
"'This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities,' said Rebecca Collins, a Rand Corp. psychologist who headed the study, published in the journal Pediatrics. "
This is from the Rand Corporation? And here I thought they were a well-respected think tank. Well, they lost a couple of points with ol' Kokopelli with that kind of poor analysis. Cruise around a college campus and you'll hear some geeky junior trying to bed a freshman by spouting "but that's a falacious post hoc ergo proctor hoc argument". Simply put, to assume that because one event happened after another does not necessarily mean there is a causal relationship.
I am not saying that excessive viewing of overly sexualized content on television is healthy for adolescents. I'm even quite willing to admit that there appears to be a correlation between the two. But that does not imply causality! It is just as likely, as I read this brief synopsis of the study, that those kids predisposed to early sexual experimentation are more likely to seek out sexually charged content on television.
This is simply poor science, apparently politically or personally motivated. We should expect better from one of our nation's top think tanks.

Friday, September 03, 2004

Liberty assault in the manner of Bill Gates

From the earliest days if its existence, Microsoft learned that when one cannot out perform a competitor, the best solution is to co-opt them. This is not to take away from Bill Gates' brilliance but the "if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" business model has proved just as rewarding for Microsoft as their own software innovations.

And this is precisely how we will see our rights eroded in the post-modern US. Citizens are freely giving up their liberties in exchange for "perceived security" or, in some cases, a few bucks saved. From grocery purchases to car insurance we are allowing the minions of Big Brother gather tons of tidbits of data about us. Innocent bits here and there that add up to an eerily accurate predictor of our behavior.

And behavior that can be predicted can be controlled.

Polls: Bump & Grind

Using Zogby as a source, the
Centre for Public Opinion & Democracy is reporting that Bush's post-convention bump in the polls is greater than Kerry's was. Well, I suppose they had to put some sort of headline on their article but their data reveals that, given the margin of error (3.2%), it was a dead heat before the conventions and it is a dead heat after them. The only time the polls showed a difference between Kerry and Bush that was greater than the error margin was when Kerry lead Bush by five percentage points after the Democratic convention.

Have I become an old, paranoid liberal or is there truly a right-wing bias creeping into every aspect of analysis and reporting in America today? And then I run onto this bit of Internet flotsam deriding Zogby's reliability. Not claiming this as a reliable source...yet...but there's some good stuff in there. We should bookmark this "Moderate Independant" for future reference.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

"Shove it" vs "winnable" flip-flop

Where is the "Liberal Media" when you need them?

Remember all the folderol over Tereza Heinz-Kerry’s “shove it” to a particularly aggressive reporter? Personally, I always felt that the excessive coverage was the media’s attempt to offset all the air time they devoted to Cheney’s expletive on the Senate floor just a couple of weeks prior. No matter, the point of mentioning either of these “news items” is to point out the kind of play a non-news event can get. Now, contrast that with the huge self-contradiction of the president regarding the question of eventual victory in the war on terror. On July 30 in a speech he made in Springfield, MO, he said, “We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world.” Then on August 30, in an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer we saw him flip-flop in this exchange:
Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?
President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.
Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?
President Bush: I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way.

And then the very next day he flop-flips back saying “we will win” the war on terror. This from the man whose campaign for the presidency rests upon two “issues”: first, the lie that John Kerry deserves none of his medals and was merely vacationing in Vietnam; and secondly, the gross misrepresentation that Kerry “flip flops” on his positions. This is the kind of hypocrisy that the press eats up, right?

Well, let’s take a look at this data which came to us via an e-mail dispatch from Media Matters for America. Looking at the number of LexisNexis hits covering these two news items we see…
  Heinz Kerry/ Bush/war on terror
"shove it" unwinnable
  Daily Total Cumulative Total Daily Total Cumulative Total
Day 1 97 97 75 75
Day 2 241 338 190 265
Day 3 227 565 113 378
Day 4 116 681 19 397
Day 5 66 747    
Day 6 43 790    
Day 7 59 849    
Day 8 41 890    
Day 9 37 927    
Day 10 36 963    
Day 11 20 983    
Day 12 15 998    

Methodology: Based on searches of the LexisNexis database of "All News" conducted September 2. Totals for "Heinz Kerry”/"shove it" include all hits that return for the search: Teresa Heinz Kerry and "shove it" for July 26-August 6 (Heinz Kerry made the comment on the night of July 25). Totals for "Bush/war on terror unwinnable" include all hits for the search: Bush and "I don't think we can win it" for August 30-September 2 (Bush made the comment on the morning of August 30).

*As of noon on September 2.


Now, one would think that a “liberal” press would be jumping all over this latest misstep by W, but the numbers clearly show that it is the Dems that get the brunt of the negative press no matter what Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest of the Republican noise machine would have us believe. But even if this does start to get traction and make the news, you just know that the right wing cabal will start screaming “Liberal bias!” even louder. That’s their typical strategy: when confronted with facts that disprove your thesis, simply yell louder.

Best Convention Coverage Network?
You'd be surprised.

Politics in America has become a spectator sport but all we get are the box scores. Whether by lack of desire or lack of opportunity, few of us get to really watch "the game".

I remember having to watch the Democrat and Republican conventions as a kid and seeing the crowded convention floors...the red, white, and blue skimmer hats....Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite up in their respective booths while the floor reporters were jostled by the enthusiastic throng...long-winded announcement from each delegation before they announced their vote...in a word: hoopla. I say "having to watch" because this was before cable in the Land of Just Three Networks and each one devoted their entire prime time schedule to these historic events. Sure, as a nine or thirteen year old kid I was bored with most of it but I knew these were important events. The sheer onslaught of constant, inescapable coverage hammered that point home. And because it was so obviously important, I tried to pay attention and discern some sort of sense out of it.

Now as our country faces an entirely new kind of enemy with which we are ill-equipped (militarily, emotionally, and sociologically) to fight, as our labor markets faces net job losses not seen since the Depression Era, as the physical health of our citizens slips further and further (in relation to other industrialized nations) while health care costs continue to climb to astronomical heights, in other words, when we stand on the brink of an extremely important election, what kind of coverage do we get? An hour a night of "highlights" on the networks.

So what network has the most extensive coverage of these conventions? Al Jazeera. According to the article cited:
For 40 million viewers in the Arab world, Al-Jazeera...provides a window into the intricate world of American politics. This week, its 16 reporters and staff will air 13 hours of broadcasts from the convention -- more time than the combined coverage of America's major television networks, ABC, CBS and NBC.[bold & italics added]
Now, I'm not saying there mightn't be some sort of bias in their reporting but what does it say about us, as the leader of the democratized world, that we don't even pay attention to our own democratic process.

Heard this morning on Armstrong & Getty, a syndicated talk radio show out of Sacramento...Fox News is the big time ratings winner for the GOP convention, beating even all the broadcast networks. Quite an achievement, I must say. Interesting to note, however, that the numbers (as reported by A&G) for the other channels are essentially unchanged from what they got for the Democratic convention. The hosts (well, Joe in particular) cited the tendency of people to view the coverage that most falls in line with their political views. Fair enough. It would seem that loads of right-wingers paid no attention to the DemCon but tuned into their favorite propaganda machine to cover "their side". However, he went on to say that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN appeals to the left, that would indicate those networks' bias. WRONG!
This is where critical thinking is required. While uptick in Fox's numbers would seem to support their right-leaning bias (because the GOP convention is an appealing event to the right), the absence of a downward shift in the other networks would indicated one of two things. Either the Left and Moderates are far, far more catholic in their information gathering that they watch both conventions equally on their preset station of choice...OR, those networks are truly lacking in any noticeably significant bias one way or the other and their viewers rely upon them to be so. The "fair and balanced" network I prefer to call Faux News, has to date aired three hours and seven minutes of the GOP convention after three days compared to just two hours and twenty-eight minutes of the same period of the DemoCon. The other networks are also devoting more time to the RNC than they did for the Dems but not quite to the same degree as Faux.
However, in the interest of fairness and intellectual honesty I will submit this for consideration: during the DemoCon, the nets got licked but good by PBS and C-SPAN, which had (and has this time, too) gavel-to-gavel coverage. Maybe the nets have learned a lesson and are trying to bump their convention coverage in general and it is simple scheduling that put the GOP in the cat bird seat. Yeah, maybe....and maybe monkeys will fly out of my ass and paint my house.

ref.s:
Al-Jazeera TV brings GOP to the Arab world / LIVE FROM N.Y.: Influential network covers convention