Thursday, October 28, 2004

Silver Bells vs "ka-ching"

Hey, your friend Kokopelli here will freely admit that he is a sentimental sap especially when it comes to Christmas. I watch It's a Wonderful Life every year along with several different versions of A Christmas Carol and I have most of A Charlie Brown Christmas memorized. So, maybe I'm reading too much into this but for me, hearing those incessant Salvation Army bells ringing as I walk from the parking to the department store is part of the Christmas experience. It goes along with eggnog and the smell of cinnamon and pine in your house.

But heaven forbid we let anything impede our customers from coming into our store and spending their money, right? Last year the Salvation Army collected $94 million dollars just from the red kettle brigade. Ten percent of that came for those in front of Target stores (in Sacramento, the proportion was over 20%) and now Target is denying them permission to collect there anymore. You would think that a company with such a generous community outreach program would really care about their fellow man helped by the Salvation Army as well? Of course, they don't get a tax break from money donated near their stores, only that donated by their stores.

This is crass, money-chasing commercialism directly stomping on one of the traditions of Christmas, a tradition that truly embodied the Yuletide motto of "Goodwill to men". And so it goes under the rule of a "compassionate conservative".

Thursday, October 21, 2004

A Lesson from the Ladies

If you, dear readers (and I'm hoping the plural is not unfounded), will allow me to don my "suit of chivalry", I would like to say: leave it to the ladies to bring class and dignity to the mudpit of presidential politics. Teresa Heinz Kerry stepped in it courtesy of USAToday in an interview published on Wednesday. However, after a brief media tempest, she was quick to apologize and such a gracious apology, too, IMHO. So how does our First Lady respond? With courtesy and tact and understanding: "It didn't matter to me. It didn't hurt my feelings. It was perfectly all right that she apologized. She didn't have to apologize. I know how tough it is. And actually I know those trick questions."

Well done, ladies.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Stewart to Crossfire: "Stop, stop, stop hurting America"

(The link is the entire transcript of the episode so you'll have to scroll down or do a "Ctrl-F" on "Stewart")

It is a world gone mad. The best news and most insightful commentary in this the bastion of freedom and democracy comes from a comedy show and its charming and intelligent host. Jon Stewart kick some media butt on CrossFire and poor little bow-tied Tucker Carlson was battered about like a blow-up Bozo the Clown. I encourage you to read the whole exchange but here's some choice bits.
STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.
CARLSON: Yes.
STEWART: Stop.
[LAUGHTER]
STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.
BEGALA: OK. Now
[CROSSTALK]
STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...
CARLSON: How do you pay?
STEWART: The people -- not well.
[LAUGHTER]
BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.
STEWART: But you can sleep at night.
[LAUGHTER]
STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.
BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.
STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.
You folks are reading this with Stewart's voice in your head and his timing, right? I remember him on his short-lived talk show. God, the man is brilliant.
CARLSON: When politicians come on...
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.
[CROSSTALK]
CARLSON: ... up on the screen.
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.
[LAUGHTER]
CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point.
[CROSSTALK]
STEWART: If that's your goal.
CARLSON: It's not.
STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
Ouch. And that's the weakness of Carlson's whole argument. CNN is the news network, not Comedy Central. Just because The Daily Show is picking up some of the slack that CNN has dropped doesn't make them a competitor.
STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.
CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you [and Senator Kerry].
STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.
CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...
[CROSSTALK]
STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
And you know what? America's youth are also turning to Comedy Central for their news. Their news! That's not right. As Stewart said to them, "You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."

Back in the early 60s (I was born in 1962 so I may not remember the dates right), Mort Sahl used to take the stage at the Hungry I in San Francisco with the day's newspaper and just riff on it. Jon Stewart (and the Daily Show writers) is our Sahl.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Making Political Hay with the Gays

While I'm not prepared to say that Kerry mention Mary Cheney purely to score political points, I don't doubt that it was, at least a secondary or terciary reason. However, given the manner in which he said those words, it sounded like his intent was to speak of how gay men and women are all around us, we know them, they are our family, and when we abridge their rights we hurt people near and dear to us. That some knuckle-dragging, extreme right-wingers who've just came out of their "one world order" shelters might reconsider their vote because the Veep's daughter is a lesbian, is just gravy.

But come on now, out of the population of all people who WILL vote how many people do you really believe would actually alter their vote based on this "startling revelation"? Would the Kerry campaign actually think it wise to spend what little political capital they have on such a small turn-around? So what else could be going on here?

Could it be that all this righteous indignation is a facade? Dare I say, a political ploy? Naw...the Cheney's have been very tight-lipped about their daughter as exemplified by the Vice President's remarks at an Iowa Town Hall meeting on August 24:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the question has come up obviously in the past with respect to the question of gay marriage. Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them. They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters.

Well...Okay, so it's okay for the family to mention it but woe to anyone else who even mentions Mary. But when Illinois Republican Senate Candidate Alan Keyes referred to homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" and called the Vice President's daughter a sinner, the Cheney's were strangely silent. OK, so maybe it's okay for other Republicans to mention it but not Democrats. I mean, come on, remember in the Vice Presidential debate how when John Edwards said that he respected the Cheney's and the way "they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter"? Remember how Cheney spun around and spat out, "Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much." Hmm, actually it was quite a civil and maybe even touching moment.

So...what's with all the uproar now? Which ones do you think are really trying to make political hay out of this?

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

"Kerry Eats Babies"? -- Prezzy Debate #3

Both Bush and Kerry supporters were behind Wolf Blitzer on CNN after the third debate. Almost all of them pre-printed and it appeared that the Kerry folks outnumberd the Bush people. However, at one point, one of the Bush supporters apparently got out their magic marker and created their own sign: “Kerry Eats Babies”. I love it when extremists go so far it’s funny.

So…the debate…eh. Kerry did a good Kerry impression and Bush played Bush quite well. I thought Kerry went too far when he equated W with Tony Soprano. Yeah, I get the “fox in charge of the henhouse” joke but I felt it was disrespectful of the office of the president. But, hey, I still tear up at Mr. Smith Goes to Washington when Jimmy Stewart waxes patriotic. But that was his only major misstep.

Bush was trying out a new voice tonight and it was very genuine and engaging but not necessarily presidential. So I think he solidified his base and may have won over a few folks as well. But that kind of undecided win would only be a soft supporter. Give the Kerry campaign some time and the momentum will probably put him over the top. Kerry, too, may have won some folks over but they, too, would be lukewarm supporters at best. This debate was a pointless draw.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Larry King announced the CNN post -debate poll with a 52-38 win for Kerry. Frankly, I don’t see how you can get a 14-point difference from tonight’s debate. Bush really connected well as a “nice guy” when speaking of his faith and his wife. But that wasn’t necessarily presidential. Kerry seemed genuine and presidential. Bush is the guy you’d invite over for a BBQ but Kerry is the guy you’d trust to lead you.

Friday, October 08, 2004

Prezzy Debate #2

First of all this is being blogged immediately following the debate, during the post-debate analysis. I may be a little disjointed...

Whoa. This is the Bush we expected earlier. He really does so much better talking to regular people. Thankfully, Kerry did not change his style. Bush, because he had a greater hurdle to overcome due to his poor performance in the first debate, did very, very well. Kerry, I believe probably won on content and substance, but Bush did so well connecting and countering Kerry that Bush may be the declared winner because his expectation were so low. But this is not to say that Kerry did not perform well. He kept naming the audience members who had the questions, he often referred to Missouri which probably connected to the studio audience but not necessarily with the TV audience.

George Will's analysis of "vertigo" was amusing and has merit. Essentially, there was no real winner of the debate but Bush will benefit the most because he effectively redeemed himself from last week. I wonder how the weekend spin will play out.

OK...now to the ABC fact checking. They started with the weirdness about Bush being in a "timber business". Turns out Kerry was right. Kerry's remarks regarding Gen. Shinseki were contradicted, too.

Hmm, viewer party affiliation seem to be representative of the nation. Of that group, ABC audience picked Kerry as the "winner" 44% to 41%. But as the Dems outnumbered the Republicans by about the same margin, I think we
[addenedum added 10/9/2004, 4:04pm PDT]
can safely call this debate a draw. However, even though it was a draw, Bush benefitted more. Odd that this format is what his handlers wanted to avoid; his strength is in being "an ordinary guy".

A couple of final points: I was quite pleasantly surprised by the quality of questions coming from the audience. I think there was enough substance there to make both candidates squirm a bit. Also, while it wasn't well delivered, I really appreciate Bush's self-depricating reference to his first debate with "That almost made me want to scowl." That was funny.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Voter Demographics of YOUR Neighborhood

SacBee.com -- Voter Demographics

Not sure how well this will work outside of Northern California...the source for this is The Sacramento Bee but they seem to be pulling at least some data from the US Census...whatever, just check it out and see how you fit in with your neighbors. You know, part of the design of a census tract is the "birds of a feather" concept; when too great a number falls outside of one standard deviation of the group, a new tract should be formed. Still, I found the trends even more interesting. For instance, in my neck of the woods, it used to be predominantly Republican (48% vs 40% Dems) back in 1992. But now the Dems show a tiny edge in registered voters (42.3% vs 41.6%). An interesting shift but consistent with the suburbanization of this once mostly rural area.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Veep Debate

A draw. Hits taken on both sides. Cheney left his fangs on his nightstand but still managed to zing Edwards a few times, stretching the truth from time to time. Edwards was affable and engaging and landed some choice blows against Cheney (“Haliburton…Haliburton…Haliburton”) as well.

I thought the exchange about the “90% of coalition casualties” one of the more fiery highlights of the whole thing. Kerry made a tactical (and technically, grammatical) error last week when he repeated that the US is bearing “90% of the casualties and 90% of the cost” of the Iraq war. He did not clarify that he was speaking of the coalition forces, our allies. No doubt he opted for the simpler phrasing so that the message would stick in the viewers minds. But he left himself open for correction (which in today’s political parlance means “he lied”…sigh). So, John Edwards was careful to clarify his numbers. The first time he said it like this:
You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq.
And we see the result of there not being a coalition: The first Gulf war cost America $5 billion. We're at $200 billion and counting.
Then later we saw this exchange, one of the more “informal” moments of the whole debate:
EDWARDS: The vice president suggests that we have the same number of countries involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost the American people $5 billion.

And regardless of what the vice president says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President?

CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...

CHENEY: ... as beyond...

EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...

CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...

EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...

CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.


Actually the transcript I cribbed from above which I got from C-SPAN does not have Edwards leaning towards Cheney, talking over him saying “Coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President. Coalition…” as I recall him doing. Still, Cheney’s feigned (?) disgust with Edwards’ supposed lack of concern for the Iraqi’s was a well-placed punch even if it was below the belt.

One of Edwards better placed jabs was when he took on the Bush administration’s flip-flops:
Now, flip-flops: They should know something about flip-flops. They've seen a lot of it during their administration.
They were first against the 9/11 Commission; then they were for it. They were for a department of homeland security -- I mean, they were against the Department of Homeland Security; then they were for it.
They said they were going to put $2 trillion of the surplus when they came into office aside to protect Social Security; then they changed their minds. They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut.
They said that they were going to do something about health care in this country. And they've done something: They've made it worse.
They said that they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today.
Over and over, this administration has said one thing and done another.

I also liked his equating Cheney’s tenure as CEO of Halliburton with Ken Lay and Enron. Unfortunately, this was tossed off like a throw-away line and I don’t think it stuck.
In the end, both men acquitted themselves well but since Edwards, “the trial lawyer”, was expected to trounce Cheney, I think this may be considered a slight victory for the Bush folks. Edwards may have “won” the debate but he did not beat the spread.

"Global Test" Testing, post-Prezzy Debate #1

Is the Republican Noise Machine so effective or is the public so dim that Kerry's reference to a "global test" continues to be misrepresented? It was eminently clear at the time that Kerry in no way required “approval” from any other country prior to the US taking action. Rather it was that the US, indeed any state seeking to be trusted, should in effect prove its case prior to major unilateral actions. Kerry’s words:
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. [emphasis added]
Kerry followed that statement with an anecdote that showed how meaningful it is when the US has credibility among our allies as when Charles DeGaulle said, “The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.”

Bush, it seems, was only able to take in a few words before he became confused. “I'm not exactly sure what you mean, ‘passes the global test,’ you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.” Either through dimwittedness or shrewd message manipulation Bush made it seem that the “global test” was equivalent to “global approval” and was required before Kerry would take any action. Clever…or plain dumb…either way this has become the focal point of the Bushie’s post-debate spin and I fear that, like all their other false claims, this one will stick around long enough to seep into the consciousness of the voters. Many people, even those who are interested enough to have watched the debate are not beyond having their memories usurped by a oft-repeated message. I still remember how it was obvious to so many immediately following the first Bush/Gore debate in 2000 that Al Gore clearly beat W. But after a few days of GOP spin about how mean and condescending Gore was and so boring with all his facts, that Bush emerged as the winner. Even just a week or so ago people were still commenting on how good W is in debates, after all “he beat Al Gore every time.”