I actually listened to about half the vice-presidential debate last night. The main advantage is that it did not include the infuriating voice of George W. Bush. At least Cheney knows what he's talking about, even if he's dead wrong. It was a good debate. An actual debate. I liked the occasional sarcasm between the two candidates. Opponents aren't supposed to like each other, but when they criticize each other, mild sarcasm is much more effective than losing your temper. Nearly every question's first 'response' began with: "Before I answer that I'd like to answer what [the other guy] just said." But in fairness, they both did a better job actually answering the moderator's questions than Bush did in the first debate. Staying "on message" is one thing but it loses its effectiveness if you sound like a robot.
Vice-President Cheney came across as a paternal figure (the real brains of the administration). GOP attempts to paint Sen. Edwards as a sleazy trial lawyer were undermined by the senator's demeanor. It's hard to portrary a guy as having devil horns when he says 'thank you' every time the moderator addresses him and stubbornly refers to his opponent as 'sir.' People forget that trial lawyers have to be good actors. That's why they make good politicians.
Cheney said that debate was the first time he'd met Edwards. Democrats put out a photo of the two shaking hands. There's also a transcript floating around of Cheney's comments to a prayer breakfast where he explicitly thanks Sen. Edwards. It's one thing to stretch the truth or distort, but if you're going to outright lie about something as ancilliary as this, how can you be trusted on bigger stuff?
Cheney's apparent bald faced lie aside, I think both candidates got what they wanted out of this debate. Cheney showed that yes, there is someone in the administration's highest levels who might possibly know what he's doing. Edwards hammered home the theme that vast experience does not necessarily translate into good judgement.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
More on the media's "liberal bias"
As I mentioned in my previous essay, Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld said he'd seen "no hard evidence" of any Saddam-al Qaeda link. He also noted that, "It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction." Those were the two main reasons cited by the administration for invading Iraq in the first place.
So to me, Rumsfeld's comments seemed like a pretty big deal to me. But some members of the "liberal" media didn't seem to think so.
The headlines for the main article on the front page of the following websites, news organizations labelled "liberal" by many, were:
The New York Times: Poll results show race for president is again a dead heat
The Washington Post: Bush has five point lead over Kerry in new poll
CBS News: CBS poll, Kerry bounces back
There was nothing, anywhere on these front pages, on Rumsfeld's admission.
Thank goodness for the BBC or I might never have heard about this.
[On a related note, I'm sick of hearing how President Bush makes "tough decisions." I'd rather start seeing some GOOD decisions on critical issues. Or at least non-catastrophic ones.]
So to me, Rumsfeld's comments seemed like a pretty big deal to me. But some members of the "liberal" media didn't seem to think so.
The headlines for the main article on the front page of the following websites, news organizations labelled "liberal" by many, were:
The New York Times: Poll results show race for president is again a dead heat
The Washington Post: Bush has five point lead over Kerry in new poll
CBS News: CBS poll, Kerry bounces back
There was nothing, anywhere on these front pages, on Rumsfeld's admission.
Thank goodness for the BBC or I might never have heard about this.
[On a related note, I'm sick of hearing how President Bush makes "tough decisions." I'd rather start seeing some GOOD decisions on critical issues. Or at least non-catastrophic ones.]
Monday, October 04, 2004
No 'hard evidence' of al-Qaeda/Saddam link
Who said today concerning Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda,
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
a) John Kerry
b) Kofi Annan
c) Michael Moore
d) Jacques Chirac
The correct answer is, of course, not any of those men who some conservatives dismiss as Bush-hating, terrorist loving, anti-American ideologues. It was Donald Rumsfeld, the flip flopper who serves as US secretary of war.
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," the secretary of war added.
Thus rubbishing the two main justifications for convincing Americans to support the Iraq war.
So why is it they deserve to have their employment renewed for another four years?
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
a) John Kerry
b) Kofi Annan
c) Michael Moore
d) Jacques Chirac
The correct answer is, of course, not any of those men who some conservatives dismiss as Bush-hating, terrorist loving, anti-American ideologues. It was Donald Rumsfeld, the flip flopper who serves as US secretary of war.
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," the secretary of war added.
Thus rubbishing the two main justifications for convincing Americans to support the Iraq war.
So why is it they deserve to have their employment renewed for another four years?
Genocide in Darfur: an invention of Washington?
The Observer is one of at least a few to report claims that downplay the extent of the crisis in Darfur, eastern Sudan. American warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic humanitarian catastrophe have been widely exaggerated by administration officials, it is alleged by international aid workers in Sudan. Washington's desire for a regime change in Khartoum has biased their reports, it is claimed, writes the British paper.
This is odd since most humanitarian aid organizations have been screaming at the top of their lungs to sensitize people to the disaster in Darfur.
It's part of the knee-jerk mentality of some people that whatever the US government advocates is automatically wrong. I'm as critical of the Bush administration as anyone but in this particular case, they happen to be right. Right to condemn genocide. Right to denounce ethnic cleansing. Right to try to help avert a famine. Right to deplore a man-made humanitarian catastrophe.
Some people hate President Bush so much that, in their minds, agreeing with him on anything is tantamount to endorsing his election bid. But I don't see how any self-described progressive could have a problem with condemning any of those things. Especially since it's usually progressives most voiceferously trying to bring attention to those things.
And even if you mistrust the intentions of the Bush administration, how do you explain the findings of the United Nations (with whom the Bush administration has had strained relations)? The UN called it "the world's worst humanitarian crisis" not long ago. How do you explain Amnesty International's findings? How do you explain Human Rights Watch's findings? What about The International Crisis Group? The BBC found an aid worker who came to different conclusions then the ones cited by The Observer.
Maybe they're all in collusion.
Or maybe the BBC news department wants Sudan's oil too!
Or maybe you should instead ask yourself how these diverse organizations, who rarely agree on anything, came to the same conclusions on Darfur.
The Observer continued: The nutritional survey of Sudan's Darfur region, by the UN World Food Programme, says that although there are still high levels of malnutrition among under-fives in some areas, the crisis is being brought under control. 'It's not disastrous,' said one of those involved in the WFP survey, 'although it certainly was a disaster earlier this year, and if humanitarian assistance declines, this will have very serious negative consequences.'
If the crisis is indeed being brought under control, then perhaps it's precisely BECAUSE of drum beating by Washington, the UN, HRW and many others. Should an entity be criticized because its screaming may have prevented an even greater catastrophe? I think not.
If you think the genocide in Darfur and resulting man-made humanitarian crisis might be an invention of Washington, click here.
This is odd since most humanitarian aid organizations have been screaming at the top of their lungs to sensitize people to the disaster in Darfur.
It's part of the knee-jerk mentality of some people that whatever the US government advocates is automatically wrong. I'm as critical of the Bush administration as anyone but in this particular case, they happen to be right. Right to condemn genocide. Right to denounce ethnic cleansing. Right to try to help avert a famine. Right to deplore a man-made humanitarian catastrophe.
Some people hate President Bush so much that, in their minds, agreeing with him on anything is tantamount to endorsing his election bid. But I don't see how any self-described progressive could have a problem with condemning any of those things. Especially since it's usually progressives most voiceferously trying to bring attention to those things.
And even if you mistrust the intentions of the Bush administration, how do you explain the findings of the United Nations (with whom the Bush administration has had strained relations)? The UN called it "the world's worst humanitarian crisis" not long ago. How do you explain Amnesty International's findings? How do you explain Human Rights Watch's findings? What about The International Crisis Group? The BBC found an aid worker who came to different conclusions then the ones cited by The Observer.
Maybe they're all in collusion.
Or maybe the BBC news department wants Sudan's oil too!
Or maybe you should instead ask yourself how these diverse organizations, who rarely agree on anything, came to the same conclusions on Darfur.
The Observer continued: The nutritional survey of Sudan's Darfur region, by the UN World Food Programme, says that although there are still high levels of malnutrition among under-fives in some areas, the crisis is being brought under control. 'It's not disastrous,' said one of those involved in the WFP survey, 'although it certainly was a disaster earlier this year, and if humanitarian assistance declines, this will have very serious negative consequences.'
If the crisis is indeed being brought under control, then perhaps it's precisely BECAUSE of drum beating by Washington, the UN, HRW and many others. Should an entity be criticized because its screaming may have prevented an even greater catastrophe? I think not.
If you think the genocide in Darfur and resulting man-made humanitarian crisis might be an invention of Washington, click here.
"Marriage made easy"
People often deplore the decline in "traditional values" in the United States or the West. But I was reading the Indian paper The Hindu today and one of the pop-up ads promoted "Marriage made easy" (TamilMatrimony.com). Not dating made easy. Marriage made easy.
Of course, allowing gays to marry each other is the number one threat to the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Of course, allowing gays to marry each other is the number one threat to the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Graham Greene centenary
This weekend was the 100th anniversary of the birth of one of the 20th century's great writers Graham Greene.
I've only read two of Greene's novels, The Power and the Glory and The Quiet American (as relevant now as it's ever been), but I'm certain I'll read more. I could barely put those two books down. Greene was a master of characterization. His characters were nuanced and flawed and often maddening; he rarely let them take the easy, pat way out for the sake of convenience or ideology.
Some of his other famous works include: Our Man in Havana, The End of the Affair and Journey Without Maps.
I can't recommend him highly enough.
A few resources on Greene's centenary:
The BBC
NPR
San Francisco Chronicle
I've only read two of Greene's novels, The Power and the Glory and The Quiet American (as relevant now as it's ever been), but I'm certain I'll read more. I could barely put those two books down. Greene was a master of characterization. His characters were nuanced and flawed and often maddening; he rarely let them take the easy, pat way out for the sake of convenience or ideology.
Some of his other famous works include: Our Man in Havana, The End of the Affair and Journey Without Maps.
I can't recommend him highly enough.
A few resources on Greene's centenary:
The BBC
NPR
San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, October 02, 2004
On the Bush-Kerry joint press conference
All other political-minded wags are commenting about the Bush-Kerry joint press conference so I'm sure some are wondering why this political-minded wag hasn't.
The answer is simple: I didn't watch it.
I can hardly tolerate the sound of President Bush's voice in the 30 second soundbites that appear in the TV reports. Being forced to hear him for an hour and a half would be unbearable. After just 10 minutes of his press conference with Iraq's Iyad Allawi, I was trying to rip my ears off.
And it didn't include most of the candidates with a mathematical chance of winning. Basically, none of the candidates I'd consider voting for were present so I exercised my choice as a consumer to do something else.
I did stop by PBS for a minute or two every once in a while. Kerry looked fine when I saw him; not inspiring, not incompetent. Bush reminded me why he scares the crap out of me. I wasn't sure if he was desperately trying to prove to everyone ekse that he knew what he was talking about or if he was desperately trying to prove it to himself.
The post-press conference period was filled with the usual spin and instant "analysis." TV news and newspapers seem to think the most important thing is who "won" the debate according to insta-polling, rather than what either said. As soon as the press conference was done, the yapping heads were telling people what to think instead of letting them digest what they heard. (The same journalists who solemnly swear they don't make news, just report it)
It shows how little debates are about issues. The most famous incidents in TV debate history have to do with perceptions and one-liners. Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow. "There you go again." "You're no Jack Kennedy." Bush Sr. looking at his watch. Al Gore's sighs and eye rolling. Bush Jr's little pouty face. Only Ford's infamous gaffe insisting Eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet domination had anything to do with substance.
I hope anyone who subjected themselves to the press conference actually learned something about either or both men. Though I imagine most viewers will say it reinforced their adoration for their particular candidate.
The answer is simple: I didn't watch it.
I can hardly tolerate the sound of President Bush's voice in the 30 second soundbites that appear in the TV reports. Being forced to hear him for an hour and a half would be unbearable. After just 10 minutes of his press conference with Iraq's Iyad Allawi, I was trying to rip my ears off.
And it didn't include most of the candidates with a mathematical chance of winning. Basically, none of the candidates I'd consider voting for were present so I exercised my choice as a consumer to do something else.
I did stop by PBS for a minute or two every once in a while. Kerry looked fine when I saw him; not inspiring, not incompetent. Bush reminded me why he scares the crap out of me. I wasn't sure if he was desperately trying to prove to everyone ekse that he knew what he was talking about or if he was desperately trying to prove it to himself.
The post-press conference period was filled with the usual spin and instant "analysis." TV news and newspapers seem to think the most important thing is who "won" the debate according to insta-polling, rather than what either said. As soon as the press conference was done, the yapping heads were telling people what to think instead of letting them digest what they heard. (The same journalists who solemnly swear they don't make news, just report it)
It shows how little debates are about issues. The most famous incidents in TV debate history have to do with perceptions and one-liners. Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow. "There you go again." "You're no Jack Kennedy." Bush Sr. looking at his watch. Al Gore's sighs and eye rolling. Bush Jr's little pouty face. Only Ford's infamous gaffe insisting Eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet domination had anything to do with substance.
I hope anyone who subjected themselves to the press conference actually learned something about either or both men. Though I imagine most viewers will say it reinforced their adoration for their particular candidate.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Debate tonight... and press conference too
Tonight, there will be two events in the presidential campaign. A debate and a joint press conference.
The debate will be between Green candidate David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian nominee.
The joint press conference will involve Republican George W. Bush and the Democratic standard bearer John Kerry. For some reason, the joint press conference will receive far more coverage in the corporate media than the debate.
Despite the fact that the Bush-Kerry press conference will be available on nearly a dozen different networks, both CSPAN and CSPAN2 will be showing it as well, but apparently neither will air the actual debate.
The debate will be between Green candidate David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian nominee.
The joint press conference will involve Republican George W. Bush and the Democratic standard bearer John Kerry. For some reason, the joint press conference will receive far more coverage in the corporate media than the debate.
Despite the fact that the Bush-Kerry press conference will be available on nearly a dozen different networks, both CSPAN and CSPAN2 will be showing it as well, but apparently neither will air the actual debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)