September 30, 2004

Presidential Debates

President Bush: "Steadfast in leadership, even when I drive the car off a cliff."

The President was on defense for the entire debate - he looked, tired. He was like a man, who wasn't up for the battle. The President has had four years to be fluent both grammatically and policy matter, he made the grade (barely). The choice is clear when it comes to Iraq, with Bush you have more of the same - beheadings, more soldiers dying, and an endless quagmire. It is beholden to the President to make his case on why his plan is working. It is not. Fact: Iraq had not harbored terrorists nor had ties to al Qaeda before we invaded, see the September 11th Commission. Now, because the mishandling of the invasion and the occupation, the borders are leaky like a shelve. NOW Iraq is a terrorist haven. Core values? Bush thinks everything is rosy and things are progressing. Kerry believes we can do better, and must do better, to win the war. It doesn't matter how we got here, we are here. Kerry will stay in Iraq, but win the peace, so that we can then pull our forces out. Kerry wants to stop a threat, Bush wants to stop John Kerry.

Tonight was a good substantive debate, but I am weary about Bush's continued insistence that things are all right, we can't send mixed messages (whatever that means), and that his core values haven't wavered. He sounded like a broken record.

If this was a draw, in debate terms, it really means that Bush lost. For Bush, foreign policy (terrorism, Iraq, etc.) is his strongest asset, everyone agrees with that. HIs whole campaign is about the strong leader who never changes course (even if that means going over a cliff). So if Bush actually was only so-so in his best area, he lost. He lost bad. Really bad.

» x « · comments (0)

30 Sept 2004 Presidential Debate

OK, so I am using a wiki tonight to post quotes, feedback and suck to counteract what will probably be a slew of soundbites. You can go to 30 Sept 2004 Presidential Debate and start editing as we go. Anyone can help edit - it is a wiki afterall. For those who don't know what a wiki is:

Note that the idea of 'Wiki' is very strange at first, but dive in and explore its links. Wiki is a composition system; it's a discussion medium; it's a repository; it's a mail system; it's a tool for collaboration. In fact we don't know quite what it is, but it's a fun way of communicating asynchronously across the network.

The word "wiki" is Hawaiian for "quick".

» x « · comments (0)

September 29, 2004

More on the Gallup Poll

Just to continue our discussion on why the Gallup Poll now officially a laughingstock From Pandagon, Jesse talks about the huge voter swing to R in the last few months:

Other than that, the average advantage for Republicans has been 4.3 points over the course of Gallup's 21 polls, with only three showing any advantage for Democrats whatsoever. But what's most interesting is that prior to the Democratic convention (early July), affiliation was even - 38/38. And then, all of a sudden, about a week before the convention, affiliation jumped six percent in favor of Republicans...and has never gone any lower than that. The shifts in voter sentiment ping-pong too wildly, and too consistently in favor of Republicans, for the results to actually make sense. If Gallup is measuring what it says it's measuring, I'm truly interested in hearing why they think that there's been a massive voter shift in the population since July 11th.

Our thoughts exactly.

» x « · comments (0)

Bush Would Use Power of Persuasion to Raise Oil Supply

Here is a historical flashback: The Texas Governor: Bush Would Use Power of Persuasion to Raise Oil Supply:

Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president, he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude.

Hey, how's that working out now that gas went over US$50 a barrel, Mr. President?

» x « · comments (0)

September 28, 2004

Gallup Poll now officially laughingstock

Gallup's most recent poll has finally proved that they cannot ever be taken seriously. Ever. After publishing a poll with a Republican bias of +7%, they now have a poll with R+12% bias which gives, of course, Bush Retains Lead, Up by Eight Points. Just to reiterate, the polls in question have internal respondents which profess Party Identification (Party ID) with a Republican bias of 7% and 12%. This means there are 7 and 12 percent more Republicans than Democrats in the survey. The problem with this is that these two polls' internals do not reflect real life.

Lets look at some internals of the R+7% (13-15 Sept) and the R+12% (24-26 Sept):

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15 (R7% bias)
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 24-26 (R12% bias)
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 758
GOP: 328 (43%)
Dem: 236 (31%)
Ind: 189 (25%)

I ask anyone to bring data forward that Republicans have had a 12% bias in the last three decades, much less the last four years. Look, hard, because you won't find it. Luckily, here is the Historical Party ID from 1987-2004 (pdf):

Rep.Dem.Ind/OthDem Adv. +/-
1987293437=100+5%
1989333334=100+0%
1990313336=100+2%
1991313237=100+1%
1992283339=100+5%
1993273439=100+7%
1994303238=100+2%
1995323038=100-2%
1996293338=100+4%
1997283339=100+5%
1998283339=100+5%
1999273340=100+6%
2000283339=100+5%
2001293437=100+6%
Pre 9/11283537=100+5%
Post 9/11313237=100+1%
2002303139=100+1%
2003303139=100+1%
2004*293338=100+4%
AVG27.7329.2637.89+3.53%

So you see, the average Democratic Voter Identification, the amount of voters who at an exit poll identify as a Democrat, has a 17 year average of 29.26% of the population. Or just above a 3.5% margin over Republicans. This is not disputed. Show me a pollster who disputes this, and I will show you real bias.

So why did Gallup commission a poll that didn't even come close to matching what actually exists in real life? That I don't know. I don't know if it is actual malicious bias, or if their internal algorithm is just wrong. Either way, we can never listen to Gallup polls as being authentic again.

Additionally, I will say it again, you cannot use Likely Voters (LV) until the week of the election. This is because Likely Voters fluctuate daily due to momentum of each campaign. Likely voters measures momentum, which is important to know on the eve of the election. A more reliable poll sample would be Registered Voters (RV), which fluctuate less with the winds of change.

Furthermore, what is interesting about this poll, is that Bush's lead over Kerry has narrowed between the R7% biased poll of two weeks ago and yesterday's R12% biased poll. That means that Kerry has effectively taken the lead is the polls were normalized for actual party identification.

» x « · comments (0) · trackBack (1)

Daily Show viewers smarter than O'Reilly Factor viewers

So who are the "stoned slackers" watching Jon Stewart?

Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research...

Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.

» x « · comments (1)

Collaborative Journalism

Oh dear LazyWeb, let us come together to enlighten people. In light of Kottke's Voters Information Guide for the 2004 US Election, I am calling for submissions for a Kerry v Bush on the Issues guide.

I am tired of people asking me what Kerry's platform is about issues, and having to go back and forth to find it and source it. I am also tired of going to the BC04 site and trying to read through the site. I want to make a simple chart outlining what Kerry v Bush's views are, with accompanying sources and additional depth to counteract the often shallow rhetoric.

I also want examples of what Bush and Kerry has done in specific areas and what his surrogates have said. Both man's histories are important, but Bush's last 4 years are a template of what will happen in the next 4 years, so they are open game. I have started a rough outline, and have put a small part of that online at whoarethey.org. It isn't pretty yet, and it needs to be reworked, but any ideas are appreciated. I am hoping that this will not be overly partisan, that is why I am asking those to the right to help out to flesh out the President's views.

What I need from everyone for both Kerry and Bush is the following:

Any help would be appreciated, but I would like to stay away from "Bush is dumb" or "Kerry looks like he is French" because that is dumb. I would like to believe that there is more than that in today's political discourse. Please email me at plemeljr AT gmail DOT com or comment on this thread to help out.

» x « · comments (0)

FBI intercepted al Qaeda transmission on 9/10

FBI Said to Lag on Translations of Terror Tapes:

Qaeda messages, saying "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin," were intercepted by the National Security Agency on Sept. 10, 2001, but not translated until days later, underscoring the urgency of the problem.

The inspector general's report on the F.B.I., the lead agency for combating domestic terrorism, said the bureau faced "significant management challenges" in providing quick and accurate translations.

In counterterrorism cases, more than 123,000 hours of audio recordings in languages commonly associated with terrorism have not been translated since the Sept. 11 attacks, amounting to 20 percent of the total material, the report found. For all languages, nearly half a million hours of audio tapes, or 30 percent of the material collected, was not reviewed, it said. The data reflected material gathered under foreign intelligence surveillance warrants in operations within the United States.

The fact that the FBI didn't decode the 9/10/02 transmission is not wholly President Bush's fault. However, the FBI still has a backlog, and they aren't doing anything about it. Additionally, everyone must also remember that the FBI before 11 September was concentrating on Porn, Drugs and Covering up Nude Statues - terrorism was not the highest priority. That is squarely the President's fault. I guess they shouldn't have fired all those translators who were gay.

» x « · comments (0)

Videos, and biological threads

Great post on Mefi about Sarah Mclaughlin's new video, World on Fire which cost US$150,000 to make. However, they spent only $15 on the video and spent the remaining $148,270 on charities.

The Mefi post: Worlds on Fire and Sarah Cares has some interesting reactions to Mclaughlin's philanthropy. Ranging from borderline misogyny to a discussion of the affects (primary and secondary) to a full blown discussion of choice in economic situations to trying to evaluate a celebrity's place in culture, this thread reminds me why I love reading MetaFilter. If the misogyny and trolling were gone, I don't know if this thread could have evolved the way it did.

I wonder if assigning a biological term or an attempt to view this thread through a biological lens, could help explain how the resulting thread was the result of factors, both positive and negative (to the thread's well being). Adaptation, some sort of evolution, game theory, among others, all could start to explain how a thread that (no offense) was somewhat shallow in content. I guess the right amount and types of comments could be looked as mutagens to the thread - if we thought of the thread as an organism.

The thread starts with a certain amount of content, and along comes comments which have a duality of context: the context of the person commenting (all her/his life history and knowledge) and the context of the thread itself, including all of the comments before. Included in this context is the shared cultural history of different sub-groups in MetaFilter, but also inside MetaFilter itself (think about all of the in-jokes). Game Theory comes into play when users decide to comment - they make their decisions based on the context previously outlined. This is how mediocre threads become good, and great threads die when people flame out and the thread becomes useless.

I don't know if I can adequately explain where I am coming from, or going to with this. Biological systems have always fascinated me, and can be used to try to explain things without using metaphor or simile. This construct is something different - it is process and systemization of ideas and regulations (written and unwritten).

» x « · comments (0)

September 27, 2004

Miss Liberty

20040927.jpg

» x « · comments (0) | older photos »

The Statue of Liberty seen from a boat last weekend.

Are Heterosexuals Worthy of Marriage?

>The point is, if millions of heterosexual divorces every year have not hopelessly denigrated the institution of marriage, why would some thousands of same-sex marriages do so? If straights like reactionary radio commentator and drug-head Rush Limbaugh can get married again and again without undermining the institution, what is so threatening about a gay union? Does Limbaugh feel that gay marriage makes a mockery of all three of his past marriages---and his pending fourth? If anything, happy gays wanting to get into the institution might help make up for all those unhappy straights wanting to get out.

Michael Parenti (via)

» x « · comments (0)

Dictator Musharraf thinks world is less safe

How great is this? President Dictator Musharraf thinks the world is less safe:

ZAHN: Is the world a safer place because of the war in Iraq?

MUSHARRAF: No. It's more dangerous. It's not safer, certainly not.

ZAHN: How so?

MUSHARRAF: Well, because it has aroused actions of the Muslims more. It's aroused certain sentiments of the Muslim world, and then the responses, the latest phenomena of explosives, more frequent for bombs and suicide bombings. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous.

Interview CNN: Paula Zahn, NOW 8:00PM, September 24, 2004

Man, when the strong-man dictator of a country that supports the sitting US President, while huge parts of its own government actively supports al Qaeda, thinks the world is less safe, we should sit up and take note.

» x « · comments (0)

Living in the Suburbs Can Make You Sick

An interesting study comparing residents of sedentary cities/suburbs with active cities has shown that Living in the Suburbs Can Make You Sick:

An adult living somewhere like Atlanta, with its spread-out suburbs and car-heavy culture, will have a health profile that looks like that of someone who lives in Seattle -- but who is four years older, the study found.

And the culprit seems to be exercise, or the lack of it, the researchers report in the October issue of the journal Public Health.

I am sure there is some sort of trade off, however, of living in the city; noise and air pollution in urban areas (such as New York) most definitely affect health. But, how much this is offset by constantly walking everywhere and eating a wide variety of foods? Just a gut reaction, is that the improved overall health via exercise and diet far outweigh the environmental contaminations.

» x « · comments (0)

A Seagull President

Is the military fed up with the President? Without Reservation:

Leadership is rarely seen in the senior officer who doesn't know his core skill area, whether that is flying airplanes, killing the enemy in ground combat, whether engineering or accounting. Incompetence can, of course, be remedied by the ability and willingness to learn. Incompetence without an observable ability to learn was bad news. Any sign that the suspect officer had simply no clue that he might be in severely bad kimshee and hence might possibly need to learn something was even worse news.

Some smart person ought to have mentioned this to George W. Bush when they approved the "Leadership Matters" theme.

An absence of leadership qualities in our military leaders gives rise to terms like "Seagull" Colonels and Generals, a species known to swoop in, make a lot of noise, crap all over everything, and then fly away. But our seagulls had an advantage over Bush and Cheney. Regardless of the mistakes made and not remedied, regardless of the illogic, stupidity and sheer idiocy of our present unit's existence under a seagull commander, at least we could be 100% sure they wouldn't be around for long...

Of course current military personnel cannot question a sitting Commander-in-Chief, but Lt. Col. USAF (ret.) Karen Kwiatkowski's, article is a scathing indictment on the President. All of this points to an administration that doesn't listen to anyone outside the small circle of partisans. It hardly matters what plan Senator Kerry can come up with now, in four months the situation in Iraq will have worsened, because the actions of the Bush Administration has painted America into a corner. We are not safer: Iraq is a no-go country, Afghanistan is safe up to 10 feet outside Kabul, and Osama bin Laden is free to direct and coordinate more attacks against the west. America can do better, we need a change before Iraq is completely beyond hope.

UPDATE 20040927
USAF Col. (ret.) Mike Turner writes in ‘Staying the Course’ Isn’t an Option:

If Bush is re-elected, there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq:

  • Four years from now, America will have 5,000 dead servicemen and women and an untold number of dead Iraqis at a cost of about $1 trillion, yet still be no closer to success than we are right now, or
  • The U.S. will be gone, and we will witness the birth of a violent breeding ground for Shiite terrorists posing a far greater threat to Americans than a contained Saddam.

So, either the United States Air Force is really pissed off at the siting CnC, or there is a huge problem in Iraq that is not being attended to. We Report, You decide.

» x « · comments (0)

President not Concerned about Osama

A bit old, but this quote from the 13 March 2002 press conference:

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
emphasis added

Now, the President is actually being fairly nuanced in his answering the question (big surprise). Killing bin Laden won't end militant Islamic terror. If the US kills him, he will become a martyr and al Qaeda will become even stronger. However, the President should be concerned about bin Laden, because he is a central Robin Hood figure for millions of muslim men. In the last two years, al Qaeda has morphed again. Osama bin Laden has gone from a "CEO" figure leading al Qaeda to a completly decentralized organization with "Osama bin Laden [now serves] more as an inspirational figure than a CEO..." Mr President you should be very concerned about bin Laden, but alas since you cannot even mention his name, you obviously are not.

» x « · comments (1)

Bush would say "Mission Accomplished" again if had to do it all over again

I can't even believe this! President Bush: Would Give 'Mission Accomplished' Speech Again:

President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from an television interview released on Sunday.

When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."
When Bush gave his May 1 speech fewer than 150 Americans had died in the war. Since then more than 900 have died.

The arrogance and pride of that statement alone is cause for not electing him as President. The "I Didn't Do It" presidency is coming to an end.

Mr. President, do you have no humility?

Mr. President, can you not even say that you were wrong?

Mr. President, where exactly does the buck stop?

» x « · comments (1)

September 26, 2004

Williamsburg Bridge

20040926.jpg

» x « · comments (0) | older photos »

Along the banks of the East River, you can take a tourist boat ride to see the sights. This is one of my favorite bridges in New York.

September 23, 2004

David Brooks Also Eats Cereal

David Brooks Also Eats Cereal

In today's breakfast-cereal age, there are two types of people in the world, those who like to look into their bowl at a sea of desiccated marshmallows, and those who prefer an unsweetened alternative made from whole-grain oats. I call them the Lucky Charmers and the Cheerioians.
...
That group is the Cheerioians, because the Lucky Charmers are six years old, and therefore cannot vote. More importantly, they can't read my columns, which unerringly describe the shape and fabric of the America that exists inside my own head.

OK, so I know that was satire, but it brings up a point I want to make. I about have had it with David Brooks and his Red Statte/Blue State schtick. It is way more divisive than analytical, and has been proven not to fact check his thesis.

People forget that Mr. Brooks is comes from the infamous "Neoconservative" cadre, who think (among other things) that invading Iraq would be a piece of cake, we would be greated as liberators, that Iraq would cause a "reverse domino effect" and bring democracy to a region that has never seen a democracy, and we could do it on the cheap. This is why it was almost unconscionable for PBS to have him on as an analyst for the Democratic and Republican conventions opposite Mark Shields. Mr. Brooks was almost tripping over himself in praise during the RNC, especially when Karl Rove came on as a guest.

Please Mr. Brooks, go away and play with your toy soldiers, so you don't help send more of our real soldiers off to die in Iraq.

UPDATE 20040922 14:45
See, the Red/Blue state paradigm gives us articles like this. While not exactly wrong, it creates an unnecessary divide, when America is already divided. Painting whole parts of America with a wide brush is dangerous. Yes, New York is overwhelmingly progressive, and yes, Texas is overwhelmingly conservative. But this discounts Wall Street and parts of the Upper East Side, not to mention Staten Island in New York as bastions of conservatives. And it forgets Austin, Texas, a Liberal island in a sea of red. But our differences are magnitudes smaller than what we hold in common; we want to be safe, our children to grow up to achieve and have a better life than us, we want to be happy. We want the same thing, only we want it in different ways. Not every method to happiness is the best, but our collective wants and needs, not to mention what makes us all Americans, is greater than our divisions. Only those who try to divide us for political purposes (Mr. Rove), or freighten us with impending doom (Mr. Cheney), are actually doing wrong. that is why I find so despicable Mr. Rove's plan to divide America for political purposes so wrong.

I leave you with a line out of Barak Obama's speech, which Mr. Brooks conveniently decided to forget parts of, when he was working for PBS (guess which parts):

It is that fundamental belief, it is that fundamental belief, I am my brother�s keeper, I am my sister�s keeper that makes this country work. It�s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America � there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America � there�s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I�ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don�t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we�ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

UPDATE 20040926 9:00
Not to continue the pile on of Mr. brooks, but here is a great example of what happens when your simplistic logic is applied to a complex situation: (via)

You�ve got to have a political strategy and you�ve got to have a military strategy. � You�ve got to use our Iraqis, the Iraqis who want a democratic Iraq to give them something concrete, win them over. But then you�ve got to have a military strategy too and those are the people who, like Zarqawi, who just want to spread death and destruction. So, what you do is you win over the people you can, town by town and then you kill the people you can.

OK, so there are only two sides: The pro "democracy" side and the terrorists lead by al Zarqawi. Those who don't want democracy, which is only a shorthand for the government we installed in Bagdad (ie not legitamate), and we should kill the other ones. Because anyone who has a different view shoud be killed because they aren't helping the "democratic" process. This is just insane! Perhaps some of those who are joining the insurgency aren't interested in some sort of Pan Arabic new-dynasty that the likes of al Qaeda dream of, but are just sick of their friends being killed?

Nevermind that there is no democracy in Iraq (we installed the Prime Minister) and that there will never be a democracy in Iraq. Never. Look at a map on the MIddle East - how many are democracies and are Muslim? None. Not that they can't handle, or want, or we are bigoted toward Muslims. For those who practice Islam, the only law is Allah's law recorded by the prophet and the teaching of the al Sunnah. Democracy is man's law, and therefore not perfect.

Mr. Brooks lives in some sort of simple, childlike fantasy land where things are really simple. Things are not simple, nor are they black and white. He needs to go so that the grown-ups can over.

UPDATE 20040926
Surprise, surprise: someone else thinks Mr. Brooks is a hack

» x « · comments (0) · trackBack (1)

September 22, 2004

September 21, 2004

September 20, 2004

US Fatalities in Iraq, by week

US Fatalities in Iraq, by week

» x « · comments (0) | older photos »

Continuing my interest in statistics, this is a simple graph of US Casualties. Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties and Wikipedia

US Fatalities in Iraq, by month

September 19, 2004

September 17, 2004

US Fatalities in Iraq

20040917-iraq_death_month.gif

» x « · comments (0) · trackBack (1) | older photos »

Continuing my interest in statistics, this is a simple graph of US Casualties. Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties and Wikipedia

UPDATE 20040920
I updated the chart to include the recent fatalities, and I cleaned the graphic up.

September 16, 2004

Iraq: It's Worse Than You Think...

Christopher Allbritton discusses the current Iraq situation:

I don’t know if I can really put into words just how bad it is here some days. Yesterday was horrible — just horrible. While most reports show Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra as "no-go" areas, practically the entire Western part of the country is controlled by insurgents, with pockets of U.S. power formed by the garrisons outside the towns. Insurgents move freely throughout the country and the violence continues to grow.

I wish I could point to a solution, but I don’t see one. People continue to email me, telling me to report the "truth" of all the good things that are going on in Iraq. I’m not seeing a one.

» x « · comments (0)

Request a library book...via Amazon

This is perhaps one of the coolest hacks I have seen in a while. Request a library book from NYPL via Amazon [drag this to your toolbar/bookmarks]. If you are surfing Amazon.com, click on this bookmarklet and you will be taken to the NYPL website where you can request this book. You can even check out other libraries at the LibraryLookup homepage. There are many books on my amazon.com wishlist that sit there as a reminder to read them, not necessarily buy them. Now I can read them for free!

» x « · comments (0)

September 15, 2004

Collaborative Journalism

Plaza Kuningan After the Blast}

Plaza Kuningan After the Blast· by ranwar

This is a photo of the Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta. It was taken and uploaded before any traditional news media was able to issue a similar photo. This is proof that amateur reporting can, and will, augment traditional journalism. Whether or not all of these tools will allow us to all roll our own newspaper is to be debated. I put together a series of feeds during the 2004 Republican National Convention, but I wouldn't call that assemblage a paradigm shifting event. But it is a single step toward opening up reporting, and this opening does have some caveats to it. The strengths of blogging and self-publishing is that you get to write what you want, and there are no editors. This is also the weakness.

I believe that there will be tiny advances of participatory reporting, that might approach true journalism, but traditional professional journalism is here to stay. There is just so much time in a day, and professional reporters with their long standing sources and resources, professional editors, and the institutional weight of traditional media carries the day.

The recent ruckus about the allegedly forged Kelly memos was handled completely in the traditional media. The right-wing bloggers, to their credit, started the avalanche with incessant questioning. But the true work of professional debunking was done by USA Today and Washington Post. The bloggers can pat themselves on the back if they want to, but their whole argument was based around kerning and "Hey, I pasted this into Word, and it looks the same as the memo." Not really a persuasive argument. The yeoman was done through investigative journalism, using sources, experts, and full time work.

I agree with Jesse, will there be a whole hearted re-examination of the lies the right bloggers spewed for the Swift Boats Liars? The only reason the Killian Memos reached so far into the media consciousness, is because the bloggers of the right have a direct pipeline to larger media outlets and channels. It starts on a Freeper thread, and then gets picked up by Glenn Reynolds or Drudge, and then Washington Times picks up the story. By this time, the other media outlets "just have" to report on the matter ("the Washington Times says...") and by then it squeezes stories that actually matter, like Iraq or Osama bin Laden or how horrible the economy is, right out of the news cycle.

Perhaps someone will design an algorithm that will rate each news source, be it blog or traditional media, and sort these into rational feeds for display. I sure this is feasible, but someone, somewhere will decry it as biased. Most likely the Right (who continue to claim their view is never present in the media) will decry the algorithm as too liberal, and will continue on their only journalism goal of overthrowing objective journalism with their own subjective journalism.

My point is this, we have the power to stitch together information and news already, do we really want to? Will our national debate and journalistic integrity continue downward into information ghettos, where only people of similar viewpoints exist (and allowed to exist)? If the Swift Boats can get a month of free publicity without being knocked down, but an allegedly forged memo, which really doesn't tell us anything we already know about Lieutenant Bush gets the pile on treatment, isn't journalism already broken?

» x « · comments (0)

September 14, 2004

Site Work Continues

OK, so I am moving things around the site, trying to combine my regular blog, linkblog, and my photoblog into one seamless stream. I also migrated to Movable Type 3.11 while no one was looking. And the DNS has been wacky, but those great people at Segment Publishing have been working like cracked-out helper monkeys to get it fixed. Pray for mojo, and things will turn out fine.

» x « · comments (0)

September 13, 2004

US Deaths

us_deaths_area.gif

» x « · comments (2) · trackBack (1) | older photos »

US Deaths

Reading an entry at svn about diagrams and military deaths, I whipped up this diagram. Note - I just wanted to construct what I felt was a fair examination of the statistics. Along the X-axis is time, and the Y-axis is average yearly deaths deaths. The area of the rectangle is formed by the total duration of the conflict and the total deaths. If I could have monthly counts, I could produce a trendline, which might me more helpful.

UPDATE: It looks like people in the comments had the same idea I had.

» x « · comments (0)

September 12, 2004

September 12th

I choose not to comment on the third anniversary of September 11th.

I was enjoying life, the company of my friends, and loved ones.

I went to the US Open for the first time; I was experiencing the joys of life.

I'm not callous or forgetful, it is in fact, quite the opposite. I have to live with the loss every time I look downtown, or though my little park on the way to work, or across the bridge, or walking in the Village, or on the BQE. There are thousands of little things that remind me of that day.

The loss New York feels happens everyday - it is continual. We are reminded of it when armed troops protect our trains. Or when quintessential "New York Moments" turn into wondering if the man with 30 binoculars looking at the United Nations building is a terrorist. It is seeing a bag on the subway platform, telling a police man, and him telling you it was his; it is Emergency Service officers walking around the grounds of a sporting event which jar you back to three years ago.

Without living here, the rest of the country cannot possibly understand this. September 11th is but a day for many people, but it ebbs and flows here every day. How can we heal if we are constantly reminded of the loss? But we do, and we don't forget, but we move on with our lives.

But this loss is nothing compared to the families who sustained real loss three years ago. This is why I didn't comment on that day, but listened to the bells toll out four times in the morning. And heard the recitation of names. And looked up at night to those two beautiful pillars of light, pointing heaven bound toward those who died that day.

It is a time to remember, but it is time to live.

Today is September 12th.

» x « · comments (0)

September 11, 2004

Never Forget

Never Forget

» x « · comments (0) | older photos »

September 10, 2004

Deficit Nation

What will sure to be a continual Friday event, I bring you the current economic outlook. Ask yourself if you truly want a nation that racks up this much in credit card bills.

White House OMB Budget, FY 2004 [xls]

20040910-deficit_in_dollars.gif


20040910-deficit_in_gdp.gif

» x « · comments (0)

Compassionate Conservatism?

20040908-compassionate_conservative_ap.jpg

A member of the audience pulls a demonstrator's hair as he forces her out of an auditorium where President Bush was addressing a crowd of supporters at Byers Choice in Colmar, Pa. Thursday Sept. 9, 2004. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma)

» x «

September 9, 2004

The Cockroach Solution

The problem with this critique of Senator Kerry by Vice President Cheney, is that the Bush Administration has the global war on terror wrong. Global Terrorism (like al Qaeda) operates outside the classical Nation-State paradigm where Nation-States are the only major entity. Their world view is that you only need to hobble states and dictators to combat terrorism, because terror cannot live without the support of Nation-States. This is wrong, because al Qaeda operates outside of the Nation-State arena. Al Qaeda is the first transnational terrorist organization.

Look at what President Bush has advocated in terms of military use of power: Afghanistan, Iraq, the so-called "Axis of Evil", the continued support for anti-ballistic missile system, the list goes on. All are vestiges of the reliance of nation-states as the primary adversaries to the US, and the world. Nation-state sponsored terrorism was (and still to some degree) exists around the world, but it has morphed, evolved. September 11th shows this evolution. What the Bush camp doesn’t (or can’t) realize is that terrorism, much like corporations, has gone transnational. Terrorist groups no longer need the primary backing of a state apparatus to operate. al Qaeda was started and is currently funded by Osama bin Laden without direct aid from any nation-state. This is why they could move from the Sudan to Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan and Afghanistan without diminishing its strength or ability to fight. All they needed was a network of banks, private backers, and back country roads to move in and out of territories both sympathetic and hostile to their cause. al Qaeda has not relied on any single state in order to survive.

What about Afghanistan, and the war to take out the Taliban? Well, al Qaeda controlled the Taliban, and the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Al Qaeda supported the nation-state (Afghanistan) which allowed al Qaeda to operate freely. Afghanistan was a terrorism sponsored state. Afghanistan was not a state sponsor of al Qaeda. The President invading Afghanistan, while I had doubts, was the right move because al Qaeda was the Taliban and the Taliban was Afghanistan.

Iraq, on the other hand, was not the same as Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad man, who at some point in the last 10 years had chemical and biological weapons, but had no advanced nuclear capabilities. Iraq had no long range missiles to deliver the non existent nuclear payload to America. Iraq was not a direct threat to American’s lives, had no substantial ties to terror groups, and was effectively contained.

However, President Bush (and his advisers) viewed (and continues to view) the world as nation-states, a series of Machiavellian groups to undercut and enhance. Instead, the world is much less perfect: autonomous groups of cells (in this case terror cells) and nation-states coexist as in a dialectic of power, independent of the other; not the simplistic view promulgated by the Bush Administration of nation-states. The world is not like your board game of Risk, but the Bush Administration continues to believe that it is.

If September 11th has really changed everything, why does the administration still cling to the failed notion of the nation-state as the basic unit of power in thw world?

In opposition to the Bush Administration's view, Senator Kerry realizes that global terrorism does not depend on the nation-state. The Senator believes in the Cockroach Solution as a way to rid the world of global terrorism. What is the cockroach solution? Well, have you ever had cockroaches in your house? You don't burn down your house once you found cockroaches. No, you take a multi-level, multi-disciplinary approach: You spray the house, you place perimeter anti-cockroach pods, you remove the infected areas - if possible - where the cockroaches live.

This is exactly what the Kerry-Edwards view of defeating global terrorism, in other words, The Cockroach Solution. From Our Plan for America [pdf]:

You have the "hard" power of the military and law enforcement plus the "soft" powers of the IRS to close down tax loops and shut down money laundering operations, economic incentives to upwardly moving countries, political power with allies by persuading not bullying countries and re-engaging the world to fight world terrorism. The Cockroach Solution works because if one method to fight the cockroach fails there are others to reinforce it. It also allows you to still have your house at the end, without destroying your house to save it.

The Bush Administration already has shown what kind of tactics it employs to fight global terrorism. By invading Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was over, and toppling a contained tyrant, the Bush Administration has shown that it will only use the "hard" power of the military. The administration only used the other tools at its' disposal in order to cajole and influence other countries into joining the Iraq war and for the vote at the United Nations. The most egregious example of this misuse of its' tools, was the negotiations before the Iraq war with Turkey to base troops in order to invade Iraq from the north. The administration called in political favors and used economic support in order to open Turkey up. But again, the Bush Administration failed, and the troops had to be shipped around to Kuwait.

For the fence sitters out there, think about this: the Bush Administration has had three years to develop and implement a coherent plan to deal with global terrorism. It has not formed a coherent plan to combat global terrorism, and any talk from the administration that it has or will implement a coherent plan for battling global terrorism is false. They had three years - three - to deal with global terrorism and all they did was Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq when Osama bin Laden was (and is) still at large, North Korea was reconstituting its' nuclear program, and Iran was creating heavy water (a stepping stone to plutonium) and enriching uranium. Additionally, if the way to quash global terror was to invade Iraq (and by extension nation-states), then the Madrid Train Bombings and the recent Chechen hostage crisis should never have happened. Not to mention today's Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta. These events prove that the Bush Administration's solution for combating global terrorism is not working. It also underscores how much the administration has misread, and failed to come to terms with the problem of global terrorism.

It is time to bring in a new exterminator. Before there are too many cockroaches to remove.

» x « · comments (0) · trackBack (0)

Vice President Cheney scares us

Much has been made of Vice President Cheny's quote about Kerry being elected and then the US being attacked. Much also has been said about the parsing and grammar of his statement. So let's go over it. Here is the transcript provided by the Whitehouse.

Because 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, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

To me this reads as a huge if-then statement with a bunch of ands appended after the then statement. Let's parse this out:

if
we make the wrong choice (elect Kerry)
then
the danger is that we'll get hit again
and
we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating
and
we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set

Even the qualifications after the Elect Kerry-US Attacked Again chain, the whole thesis of the paragraph is stating that electing Kerry will put the US in danger. If the Vice President was just insinuating that Kerry's program will combat global terror as a purely criminal matter (which it won't), then why add eveything before the last and statement? Why not just say:

Senator Kerry's policies to combat terrorism fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set that these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. The danger is that if get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States because the war on terror is not merely a criminal matter

Even if the Vice President said something like this, I could at least understand what his thesis was. Kerry is soft on terror, and therefore terror will grow, and then therefore the US would be in more danger. This isn't true, but let's put that aside. The problem is, the Vice Presiden't doesn't say this. He delibaratley states that (again):

if
Kerry is Elected
then
We'll get hit again
and
We'll be hit in a devastating way
and
Because Kerry has fallen back into the pre-9/11 mind set

The problem with this critique of Senator Kerry, is that the Bush Administration has the global war on terror wrong.

» x « · comments (3)

September 8, 2004

September 7, 2004

September 3, 2004

Showing the goods on the subway

The Times has an article about women wearing miniskirts titled, The M Line and the Hemline: Miniskirt Protocols. Because mini's are all the rage (especially the short frilly ones) it is almost impossible to go through a day without a woman showing the goods when on the subway. The subway is a veritable obsticle course of not showing yourself off. It is almost unavoidable - think of the physics involed! Short amounts of fabric, bending at the waist and knees, not to mention going up stairs, all add to the degree of difficulty and the danger of wearing a mini. On an unrelated note, the article has a picture of a model named Heather Marks, but her face has been cropped out.

Heather Marks, 16, is a professional model. She did not want her face in the newspaper, but she did display her method for keeping subway decorum.

I found this odd, because there wasn't anything that riske about what she said, or what she was wearing. It was standard prosti-tot fashion (young girls dressing up like prostitutes) that many of the girls/women here wear. What is funny though, is that it took all of 1 second to google Heather Marks to find informtion about a Canadian model who also works in New York. The power of google.

My opinion? Women who put on a short miniskirt, take on the knowledge that sooner or later, you will flash someone. Again, it's unavoidable - you are the one who put on that tiny skirt, you have to live with the consequences. You might as well just pick a good pair of underwear, and hope for the best. Sorry ladies, fashion is a bitch.

» x « · comments (0)

Bloomberg calls protesters Terrorists

Mayor Bloomberg, displaying an acute level of hyperbole:

It is true that a handful of people have tried to destroy our city by going up and yelling at visitors here because they don't agree with their views," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Think about what that says. This is America, New York, cradle of liberty, the city for free speech if there ever was one and some people think that we shouldn't allow people to express themselves. That's exactly what the terrorists did, if you think about it, on 9/11. Now this is not the same kind of terrorism but there's no question that these anarchists are afraid to let people speak out.

Nice painting with a wide brush, Mr Mayor. why don't you talk about how your police department held detanees longer than the permissible 24 hours? Or that it took a state judge order their release three times before you did? It isn't like you weren't forewarned about the amount of protesters. Commissioner Kelly was talking about 1,000 arrests a day, so you knew there would need to be a whole police, logistical and judicial apparatus set up do deal with them. When it takes 36-48 hours to write a desk appearance ticket (a ticket) you can't tell me that there wasn't deliberate slowdowns to keep people off the streets until after the President spoke.

» x « · comments (0)

September 2, 2004

Final Day, is this Hatefest over yet?

OK, so I am live blogging the convention - these are my thoughts (rough as they are) during the speeches.

Tommy Franks

The Global War on Terrorism will be a long fight. But make no mistake – we are going to fight the terrorists.

You aren't fighting terrorism by invading Iraq.

In the battle for Afghanistan we removed a regime that provided the base of support for the al Qaeda terrorists that had been killing Americans for years.

In the battle for Iraq, we removed a brutal regime with an avowed hatred of America, a history of torturing its own people, and a history of using WMD against its neighbors and its own citizens.

We removed a regime with well documented ties to terrorists – like al Qaeda murderer Abu Zarqawi.

Abu Zarqawi was operating in the Northern Alliance area, which the US effectively controlled before the invasion of Iraq. Remember this - we controlled the area where a know terrorist operated, but we did nothing.

And we have not been in this fight alone. President Bush has built the largest coalition in the history of the world – nations united together against terrorism.

Did he forget World War II or perhaps World War I? To make the "Coalition of the Willing" out to be more that the combined Allied Forces that defeated true evil in World War II is besmirching the honor of those who dies.

This is a man who, before sending us into battle, personally asked each military commander if he had everything he needed. This is a man who made sure everything possible was done to protect our troops from the WMD we all expected.

But, oops we forgot to plan for the occupation. And now our troops are paying for it.

Pataki

You know the history. Osama bin Laden declared war on America — and then came the attacks — the first World Trade Center, the embassies, the USS Cole — hundreds dead, thousands injured. How I wish the administration at that time, in those years had done something.
How I wished they had moved to protect us — But - they - didn’t - do -it.

This is the most disingenuous attack I have ever heard.

He declared a new doctrine: The United States will find and remove terrorists, whoever they are and wherever they are, and if you harbor them, there will be hell to pay.

He mobilized our forces and went to Afghanistan, where the United States fought and won a war. Al Qaeda camps were pulverized, the Taliban deposed. George Bush protected our country. And - he - protects - it - still. With supreme guts – and rightness – President Bush went into Iraq. The US had asked for peace, went to the UN time and again, asked Saddam to step aside. But Saddam would not be moved.

But, as we have already discussed, there is no connection between terrorism and Iraq. Terrorism has gone transnational, nation-states are no longer needed. in fact, they are a detriment due to the immolate nature of states. It is far easier to capture a city or a section of territory and claim victory, then eliminate a amorphous, mobile entity such as Al Qaeda. The Republicans are trying to link terrorism September 11 with Iraq in the mind of the populace, using fear of terror in order to accomplish other, unlinked, goals. Terrorism will not be won by the might of our weapons, nor how many countries we invade.

President Bush

To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation, and making tax relief permanent. To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.

Man, making the tax cut permanent really got this crowd going. Tort reform is the biggest non-issue. Tort is the only defense the populace has against business and corporations. How are you going to level the playing field?

The American people deserve ? and our economic future demands ? a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

If a second term comes to happen, my prediction: Flat Tax. And the most regressive tax system in the world.

To stand with workers in poor communities - and those that have lost manufacturing, textile, and other jobs - we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.

Just like those extra-legal free trade zones in China and the Third world, which are so positive and rewarding.

offer comp-time and flex-time.

Isn't this already happening? I think we can leave that up to the free market.

Home ownership will always be on the rise. The type of homes that are being built are not good.

Privitation of Social Security. Let me repeat this to you: Social Security is fine - it is Medicare that is in trouble. This is just printing free money for the country's banks.

Testing is not the answer. Many tests are biased against minorities, but more important, all of the teacher's time is spent teaching to a rigid test.

he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes - and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

OK, lets look at all of the programs that President Bush discussed tonight. I have placed them in three categories: Expense, Neutral, and Revenue.

Expenses
Double worker job training
American Opportunity Zones
Health Savings Accounts Tax Breaks
Expand Pell Grants
More poor children on government health care
Increased Science Funding

Don't Forget the wars:
Afghanistan
Iraq

Revenue Neutral
Medical/Trial/Tort Liability repeal

Revenue
None

How are you going to pay for all of this? Plus making the regressive tax cuts permanent? How is it that Kerry is the tax and spend guy, when you are the cut taxes and run up huge debts? Your economic plan is worthless - if you were the head of a CEO and proposed something similar, you would be fired for gross incompetance.

Bla bla bla, anti-abortion, pro hate amendment, bla bla. Because defending marriage by denying marriage to people is actually defending marriage by letting less people marry. Did you follow that logic?

And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

Unlike the 5/9th of the Supreme Court interpreted law to elect you?

"Do not let me down."

Well, you let us down when you took a united America and split America by invading a country that had no connection with terrorism. Update, the letter is from right-wing propaganda outfit.

Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks.

Does no one remember that Clinton bombed training bases in Afghanistan? Clinton also used the powers of law enforcement, chasing where the funding originates, and using special forces.

more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed.

This is so disingenuous, because the real figure is three-quarters of known al-Qaida members.

We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.

But you are NOT THINKING differently! The Security Council is comprised of 5 members. You then bombed Iraq a day early, moving the country to war. You sir, are an Indian Giver.

When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Now, Mr. President, you should know better. There are always competing bills in each Committee and House.

President Bush does not know the basic parliamentarian process. And he is the head of the Executive.

I'm pretty sure that is not the Judeo-Christian God he was talking about, so I don't understand what all the clapping was about.

And another thing, Iraq is nothing like Europe. Germany was, and is, homogenous where Iraq has three very distict factions: the Sunnies, the Shia, and the Kurds. This doesn't even take into account the Baathists, who have had power for so long.

» x « · comments (0)

Comparative Media Analysis

20040902-unwinnable.jpg

(click for larger image)

So, not every gaffe is created equal, but this data by Media Matters for America shows two gaffes by two major players of each campaign, during their respective campaigns. One is Teresa Heinz Kerry's "Shove It" comment and the other is President Bush's "The War on Terror is unwinnable." You decide if the media is playing each event evenly.

» x « · comments (0)

Bush just doesn't get it

I am glad that the Republican Party is finally coming out as a group who's whole convention, and whole campaign, is a series of misleading, false statements, and ad hominem attacks about Senator Kerry.

It is funny how many Republicans talk about how September 11th “changed everything” when they don’t even take their own rhetoric as advice. Life and wars were supposed to be different: the Afghanistan war started to show this difference in terms of using Special Forces and asymmetrical nature of the conflict. Then the President made a grave mistake: he invaded Iraq. President Bush invaded Iraq under false (and ever changing) pretenses, and then once we were there, so screwed up the liberation, that we had to become occupiers. Let me say this again, the lack of planning on the part of the DoD and the President has turned what could have been a liberation of a country from a tyrant into an occupation with no end in sight. This is your fault alone - the last time I checked, Senator Kerry was not in charge of war planning and reconstruction.

Look at what President Bush has advocated in terms of military use of power: Afghanistan, Iraq, the so-called “Axis of Evil”, the continued support for anti-ballistic missile system, the list goes on. All are vestiges of the reliance of nation-states as the primary adversaries to the US, and the world. Nation-state sponsored terrorism was (and still to some degree) exists around the world, but it has morphed, evolved. September 11th shows this evolution. What the Bush camp doesn’t (or can’t) realize is that terrorism, much like corporations, has gone transnational. Terrorist groups no longer need the primary backing of a state apparatus to operate. al Qaeda was started, and is currently funded, by Osama bin Laden without direct aid from any nation-state. This is why they could move from the Sudan to Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan and Afghanistan without diminishing its strength or ability to fight. All they needed was a network of banks, private backers, and back country roads to move in and out of territories both sympathetic and hostile to their cause. No one state has had to help al Qaeda to survive. What about Afghanistan, and the war to take out the Taliban? Well, al Qaeda controlled the Taliban, and the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. al Qaeda supported the nation-state (Afghanistan) which allowed al Qaeda to operate freely - Afghanistan was a terrorism sponsored state. The President invading Afghanistan, while I had doubts, was the right move because al Qaeda was Taliban was Afghanistan.

Iraq, on the other hand, was not the same as Afghanistan. Saddam was a bad man, who at some point in the last 10 years had chemical and biological weapons, but had no advanced nuclear capabilities. Iraq had no long range missiles to deliver the non existent nuclear payload to America. Vice President Cheney loves to talk about Iraq’s nuclear arsenal, but his speech he talked about Syria (which is another issue). Iraq was not a direct threat to American’s lives, had no substantial ties to terror groups, and was effectively contained. But President Bush (and his advisers) viewed (and continues to view) the world as nation-states, a series of Machiavellian groups to undercut and enhance. Instead, the world is much less perfect: autonomous groups of cells (in this case terror cells) and nation-states coexist as in a dialectic of power, independent of the other; not the simplistic view promuglated by the Bush Administration of nation-states - the world is not like your board game of Risk.

Your “adults” are but narrow minded ideologues who cannot even admit that they are wrong. Last time I checked, being an adult meant owning up to both your successes and your mistakes. To admit that invading Iraq, screwing the pooch on North Korea and Iran, and continued support for a ballistic missile shield that will protect all of those incoming missiles al Qaeda has (in other words it wouldn’t be useful), will invalidate the whole “Everything has changed since September 11th” mantra of the Republican party. You can’t have it one way or the other. The world is full of nuance - yet the President’s policies are one-size-fits all solutions to problems which no two are alike and are constantly changing. Frankly, I want my country back - is that to nuanced for you?

» x « · comments (0) · trackBack (0)

September 1, 2004

In the safety of one's own company

OK, so this post will be somewhat introspective, but I am here at The Tank, an artist colony which has opened it's gates to the Counter Convention (not to mention their WiFi). I think Joe Trippi was outside smoking (I don't have the face recognizing skills that Herself has). There are famous-for-blogging "celebrities" here, but I don't really feel like coming up to them and striking up a conversation.

The Gipperporn Video
Ugg. Pictures of kids, workers, and the Gipper walking down the hall, hugging George H.W. Bush. They really scrapped the bottom of the stock footage barrel to get the necessary montage of corn fields, ranch workers, and Lee Greenwood.

"Tear down this wall!" And they did! That must make Reagan a God, or perhaps demi-god. It is as of Reagan was made on the 8th day, and then later on that day, he made the Berlin Wall fall down. This is too ludacris for me to putv into words.

Mitt Romney:
"Kerry raised taxes 98 Times"
"If you trial-kawyers, John Edwards is your man."
"This nation can't have a policy of 57 varieties."
"President Bush is right, blame america first crowd is wrong."

I forgot he ran the Salt Lake City Olympics, the one that was mired in scandel.

No one here really likes Zell, I don't know why.

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.
And there is no better example of someone repealing their �private plans� than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the
time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

So Shut The Fuck Up dissenters, we don't want to hear from you. This is exactly the same atmosphere that the Republicans fostered around the run up to the Iraq War and the 2002 elections. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we don't love our country.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday�s war. George Bush believes we have to fight today�s war and be ready for tomorrow�s challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

This makes no sense at all. It is George Bush is fighting the last war - the war of Nation-State sponsored terrorism. Just like corporations, terrorism has gone transnational. al Qaeda is beholden to no state, in Afghanistan al Qaeda (though the Taliban) sponsored the state, not the other way around. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Axis of Evil rhetoric against Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and the continued support of an anti-ballistic missile shield are the result of this thinking. The Bush Administration's actions, as a whole, are predicated on this paradigm that states are the primary sponsors of terrorism. They claim that September 11 changed everything, in some ways they are right: terrorism can, and is, a low cost, low infrastructure event that can (and does) exist outside the realm and power of nation-states. Unfortunately for all Americans, the Bush Administration does not adhere to their own rhetoric; they are still playing by the old rules.

Vice President Cheney

If the inemnity that the the local crowd showed to Miller, the level was ratcheted up when Cheney entered in. When the convention crowd started chanting "Four more years," our room started chanting "Four More Months."

Home ownership is about the best indicator of the health of the economy as how many times I drink water a day.

When the PBS camera accidently cut to a protester, the screen went blank. Luckily the crack security system of New York and the Secret Service prevailed.

Cheney delivered the same flat, vitriol filled speech that he has been making for the last few weeks, complete with misstatements and distortions (can we say lie yet?) about Senator Kerry.

Final Thoughts
Cheney's speech tries to reclassify the "War on Terror" as a battle of wills, a matter of not backing down. Much like a judo move, the Democratic charge that the Bush Administration is too stubborn is being recast instead as resolve and moral seriousness. The first wave of criticism, the "flip-flop" has laid the ground for moving the debate from being about whether or not the policies of the Administration itself is valid, but that the President has made a decision and is willing to see it to the end. It is brilliant - instead of talking about actual policy, they are talking about heuristics - signs that take the place of actual ideas.

Great Quotes of the Night
VP CHeney: "I now have an opponent of my own."
Local Partisan: "Yeah, Death!"

» x « · comments (0)

The Unemployment Line

pinkslip-ap.jpg

Thousands took to the street to form an uninterrupted line from Broadway and Wall Street to 31st street and then to the Garden. More information from the People For the American Way.

» x « · comments (0)

Bush Background Slogans, A List

  1. Turn the Corner
  2. Bring It On
  3. Mission Accomplished
  4. War on Terror
  5. Steady Leadership in Times of Change
  6. Uniter, not a divider
  7. Compassionate Conservatism
  8. Axis of Evil
  9. No Child Left Behind
  10. Job Growth Opportunity
  11. Access, Affordability, Quality
  12. Made In The U.S.A.
  13. Bringing integrity back to the White House

» x « · comments (0)

Image Management

Wow, last night when President Bush introduced the First Lady at a softball game, did anyone notice the players behind him? Well, every player's number who came up to bat was number 43. Talk about micro-managing everything. If the Bush Administration spent 1/10th the amount of time on developing policy that it spent on giant backdrops (Turning the Corner, Turning the Corner, Turning the Corner...) and managing the campaign, think how much better that America would be.

» x « · comments (0)

What Arnold Did