From Aljazeera.Net:
"'In Palestine, we are not only facing the Jews but also the anti-Islam international alliance headed by the US crusaders.So, fighting Jews and leaving America without being attacked will not make the Americans or the crusaders lessen their aggression against us.'"
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The Botox Factor
President Bush's facial expressions have come under attack from the Democratic National Committee, which posted selected clips from the Bush-Kerry debate on their website. But the Texan's more mobile face might simply be a sign that he hasn't used quite as much Botox, while the impassive rigidity of Kerry's lower-jaw might give credence to the notion that the Boston Brahmin has indeed been cosmetically enhanced, his skin paralyzed by the Botulism toxin.
That's what reports on the AwfulPlasticSurgery.com website seem to indicate, at least...
That's what reports on the AwfulPlasticSurgery.com website seem to indicate, at least...
Don't Call Me a "Blogger"!
From Wizbang:
"I've always hated the word... Blogger. Even without referencing its auditory resemblance to gelatinous masses ejected from nasal cavities, I still don't like it. Blogger. Say it aloud. It sounds as if you are talking with a mouth full of food you are trying to prevent from escaping. Or perhaps it sounds like some did escape. Either way, what does it mean? One who has a weblog? Look that up in a hip glossary and it does not cover what I do. This is no 'on-line diary.' People outside the blogospehre don't like the word either. After all, bloggers (as we all know) don't have the systems of checks and balances like they have in a traditional newsroom. It was my adventure debunking Professor Hailey that lead me to an epiphany. I no longer what to be called a blogger and neither should you. We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
"It was the phone call to the head of Professor Hailey's department that made me see the light. He said something to the effect of, 'Certainly Dr. Hailey's work needs to stand up to peer review.' But who exactly is Dr. Hailey's peer? Apparently some guy sitting in his pajamas who has a blog. The simple act of 'getting things right' is important to society. Politicians must get things right so have have voters keep an eye on them. Lawyers must get things right so we have juries. So to must scholars get things right, so a system of 'peer review' was born. I can think of no other entity than the traditional media whose only review system is internal. Multiple people have tried to make the case that the blogosphere is more accurate than the mainstream media. Heck, search this blog and you'll find I've done it several times. What we have lacked is a way to explain our system of checks and balances to people outside the blogosphere. The phrase 'Peer Reviewed Journalism' does that."
"I've always hated the word... Blogger. Even without referencing its auditory resemblance to gelatinous masses ejected from nasal cavities, I still don't like it. Blogger. Say it aloud. It sounds as if you are talking with a mouth full of food you are trying to prevent from escaping. Or perhaps it sounds like some did escape. Either way, what does it mean? One who has a weblog? Look that up in a hip glossary and it does not cover what I do. This is no 'on-line diary.' People outside the blogospehre don't like the word either. After all, bloggers (as we all know) don't have the systems of checks and balances like they have in a traditional newsroom. It was my adventure debunking Professor Hailey that lead me to an epiphany. I no longer what to be called a blogger and neither should you. We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
"It was the phone call to the head of Professor Hailey's department that made me see the light. He said something to the effect of, 'Certainly Dr. Hailey's work needs to stand up to peer review.' But who exactly is Dr. Hailey's peer? Apparently some guy sitting in his pajamas who has a blog. The simple act of 'getting things right' is important to society. Politicians must get things right so have have voters keep an eye on them. Lawyers must get things right so we have juries. So to must scholars get things right, so a system of 'peer review' was born. I can think of no other entity than the traditional media whose only review system is internal. Multiple people have tried to make the case that the blogosphere is more accurate than the mainstream media. Heck, search this blog and you'll find I've done it several times. What we have lacked is a way to explain our system of checks and balances to people outside the blogosphere. The phrase 'Peer Reviewed Journalism' does that."
Charlie Cook on the Debate
From The Cook Report:
"While I personally thought that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's performance in last night's debate was awful and that he has been badly damaged by the flip-flop argument, I am clearly in the minority. Data (polling, focus groups and dial tests) from both parties and the media show that Kerry won debate, though it remains unclear as to whether the ballot test moved much. Personally, I thought that Kerry sounded like Thurston Howell III, the snooty and condescending millionaire from 'Gilligan's Island,' but more people were comfortable with that than they were with the President's stammering and halting delivery and repetition of same phrases and arguments... "
"While I personally thought that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's performance in last night's debate was awful and that he has been badly damaged by the flip-flop argument, I am clearly in the minority. Data (polling, focus groups and dial tests) from both parties and the media show that Kerry won debate, though it remains unclear as to whether the ballot test moved much. Personally, I thought that Kerry sounded like Thurston Howell III, the snooty and condescending millionaire from 'Gilligan's Island,' but more people were comfortable with that than they were with the President's stammering and halting delivery and repetition of same phrases and arguments... "
Why Kerry Will Lose
From Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers:
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Mark Steyn on Golda's Balcony
From The New Criterion:
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
John LeBoutillier on the Debate
From Boot's Blasts:
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
CNN: No Clear Victor in Debate
From CNN.com:
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
An Australian on the Debate
From The Command Post:
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
Jay Nordlinger on the Debate
From National Review :
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy --not Joe Political Junkie-- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate. And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less. Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything -- were a political naif, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time -- I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate."
"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy --not Joe Political Junkie-- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate. And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less. Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything -- were a political naif, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time -- I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate."
Guardian: TV Networks Broke Rules to Make Bush Look Bad
From The Guardian :
"Instant-response polls by three major television networks all showed that a large majority of their viewers thought the challenger had won the 90-minute verbal contest at the University of Miami - the first of three debates in the last month of the campaign. Perhaps even more seriously for President Bush, the networks ignored broadcasting guidelines agreed beforehand and showed both candidates at the same time. On several occasions, Mr Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr Kerry's remarks. Similar 'cut-away' shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr Bush into office. After last night's debate, senior Democrats made it clear that they would make maximum use of the pictures of a disgruntled President Bush."
"Instant-response polls by three major television networks all showed that a large majority of their viewers thought the challenger had won the 90-minute verbal contest at the University of Miami - the first of three debates in the last month of the campaign. Perhaps even more seriously for President Bush, the networks ignored broadcasting guidelines agreed beforehand and showed both candidates at the same time. On several occasions, Mr Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr Kerry's remarks. Similar 'cut-away' shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr Bush into office. After last night's debate, senior Democrats made it clear that they would make maximum use of the pictures of a disgruntled President Bush."
Hugh Hewitt on the Debate
From HughHewitt.com:
"From spooked Bush-supporters: 'Most of the MSM talking heads are saying Kerry won on points!' True, and some of them are even Bush supporters. Which is why I watch the debates alone, which leads to a very different conclusion than my days of debate watching in television studios with their pressure of the collective voice pushes you towards 'don't be wrong.' So you overanalyze and over-react. MSM talking points thought that Kerry might pull a Gore, which would have finished him off. He didn't. He executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September. Why?
"Because as group three notes: 'America will never elect a man who believes in (1)'global tests,' or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'' Kerry trotted out vintage nuclear freeze thinking tonight, arguing that the United States' development of a new generation of nukes is a bad thing. No, it is not, because we are a good and responsible country. End of debate, because Kerry's distrust of our weaponry is really a distrust of our national purpose. As the president kept saying, it is about the core of the candidates, and at Bush's core is a certainty about America's purpose in the world and its essential goodness. At Kerry's core, despite many protestations to the contrary, is a deep suspicion of America with its nukes, its weapons, its preemption and its resolve to go it alone if necessary."
"From spooked Bush-supporters: 'Most of the MSM talking heads are saying Kerry won on points!' True, and some of them are even Bush supporters. Which is why I watch the debates alone, which leads to a very different conclusion than my days of debate watching in television studios with their pressure of the collective voice pushes you towards 'don't be wrong.' So you overanalyze and over-react. MSM talking points thought that Kerry might pull a Gore, which would have finished him off. He didn't. He executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September. Why?
"Because as group three notes: 'America will never elect a man who believes in (1)'global tests,' or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'' Kerry trotted out vintage nuclear freeze thinking tonight, arguing that the United States' development of a new generation of nukes is a bad thing. No, it is not, because we are a good and responsible country. End of debate, because Kerry's distrust of our weaponry is really a distrust of our national purpose. As the president kept saying, it is about the core of the candidates, and at Bush's core is a certainty about America's purpose in the world and its essential goodness. At Kerry's core, despite many protestations to the contrary, is a deep suspicion of America with its nukes, its weapons, its preemption and its resolve to go it alone if necessary."
Diplomad on the Debate
From The Diplomad:
"As we see it from the Far Abroad, Kerry was better on his style than he has been, but not too much better on substance; Bush was the reverse, not good on style (e.g., humming, slouching, smirking) but much better on the substance than his opponent and showed a good mastery of both detail and overall policy. Kerry needed a knock-out; he didn't get it. Bush needed a tie, he certainly got that and probably even got a win on points.
UPDATE (3:30 PM; Oct. 01 2004): On reading the transcript of the debate, we picked up a Kerry line we missed while watching on our puny TV set with the crappy reception here. He is opposed to the US having 'bunker buster bombs' and would immediately cancel their development? That joined up with Kerry's remark about a 'global test' in order to defend America, should give the Bush campaign lots of ammo over the next few weeks. Once again, Kerry is opposed to America having modern weapon systems; once again, Kerry wants the rest of the world to have a veto on the US ability to defend itself. We must now revise our initial view of the debate; if the Bush campaign exploits these Kerryisms, then we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the debate could prove a disaster for Kerry."
"As we see it from the Far Abroad, Kerry was better on his style than he has been, but not too much better on substance; Bush was the reverse, not good on style (e.g., humming, slouching, smirking) but much better on the substance than his opponent and showed a good mastery of both detail and overall policy. Kerry needed a knock-out; he didn't get it. Bush needed a tie, he certainly got that and probably even got a win on points.
UPDATE (3:30 PM; Oct. 01 2004): On reading the transcript of the debate, we picked up a Kerry line we missed while watching on our puny TV set with the crappy reception here. He is opposed to the US having 'bunker buster bombs' and would immediately cancel their development? That joined up with Kerry's remark about a 'global test' in order to defend America, should give the Bush campaign lots of ammo over the next few weeks. Once again, Kerry is opposed to America having modern weapon systems; once again, Kerry wants the rest of the world to have a veto on the US ability to defend itself. We must now revise our initial view of the debate; if the Bush campaign exploits these Kerryisms, then we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the debate could prove a disaster for Kerry."
Tim Blair on the Debate
From Tim Blair:
"Are you watching the debate? If you eat enough psychotropic drugs -- at least a kilo or so -- you can almost pretend that John Kerry is winning!
'That's not a grand coalition.' -- Kerry's line on Australia, the US, and Great Britain (he managed to forget Poland, although Bush had reminded him of Poland's participation only seconds earlier). Not a grand coalition? Way to suck, Senator.
UPDATE. A martini-fuelled Stephen Green is covering this minutely. Why the hell does Kerry keep going on about global alliances and passing global tests? It just feeds directly into a Bush response about acting in America's best interests. Because, you know, he's the American president.
UPDATE II. Bush is beginning to pick apart some factual errors in Kerry's claims. Sometimes you get a hint of the temper Bush is noted for in private meetings, but which rarely surfaces publicly.
UPDATE III. We've just moved into the friendly phase of the debate: 'Your daughters are great', 'I respect the First Lady', 'that bridge Teresa lives under is really cool', etc.
UPDATE IV. When Bush refers to Putin as 'Vladimir', does it remind you of the scenes in Dr. Strangelove when Sellers, as the president, is talking to his pal Dmitri?
UPDATE V. Bush's closer was strong. Kerry recycled his convention speech.
UPDATE VI. 'Nice lipstick, Senator!'"
"Are you watching the debate? If you eat enough psychotropic drugs -- at least a kilo or so -- you can almost pretend that John Kerry is winning!
'That's not a grand coalition.' -- Kerry's line on Australia, the US, and Great Britain (he managed to forget Poland, although Bush had reminded him of Poland's participation only seconds earlier). Not a grand coalition? Way to suck, Senator.
UPDATE. A martini-fuelled Stephen Green is covering this minutely. Why the hell does Kerry keep going on about global alliances and passing global tests? It just feeds directly into a Bush response about acting in America's best interests. Because, you know, he's the American president.
UPDATE II. Bush is beginning to pick apart some factual errors in Kerry's claims. Sometimes you get a hint of the temper Bush is noted for in private meetings, but which rarely surfaces publicly.
UPDATE III. We've just moved into the friendly phase of the debate: 'Your daughters are great', 'I respect the First Lady', 'that bridge Teresa lives under is really cool', etc.
UPDATE IV. When Bush refers to Putin as 'Vladimir', does it remind you of the scenes in Dr. Strangelove when Sellers, as the president, is talking to his pal Dmitri?
UPDATE V. Bush's closer was strong. Kerry recycled his convention speech.
UPDATE VI. 'Nice lipstick, Senator!'"
Kerry Wins French Poll
From Reuters.com:
"PARIS (Reuters) - Nearly nine out of ten French people would back John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to an opinion poll on Friday which showed deep distrust of President Bush since the Iraq war. The poll, published after Kerry and Bush battled over Iraq in a television debate, came as no surprise in the country which led opposition to the U.S.-led war and whose people were dubbed 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' by American Republicans. "
"PARIS (Reuters) - Nearly nine out of ten French people would back John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to an opinion poll on Friday which showed deep distrust of President Bush since the Iraq war. The poll, published after Kerry and Bush battled over Iraq in a television debate, came as no surprise in the country which led opposition to the U.S.-led war and whose people were dubbed 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' by American Republicans. "
Jonathan Last on the Debate
From The Weekly Standard:
"I've got this fight scored dead-even: It's a draw, 9 rounds for Kerry to 9 rounds for Bush. Of course there are intangibles to consider. On the whole, Kerry was more relaxed and polished--and certainly calmer. He also managed to sneak in a fifth Vietnam reference during his closing remarks ('I defended this country as a young man in war.') Kerry was a grounded presence and his performance should give Democrats hope. Bush was, as someone once put it, more tart than sweet. At times the president faltered and you could see the wheels spinning as he flipped through his mental Rolodex, looking for the right card. Peevish is the word which kept coming to mind. He was, however, ruthlessly on-message. If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 party versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity."
"I've got this fight scored dead-even: It's a draw, 9 rounds for Kerry to 9 rounds for Bush. Of course there are intangibles to consider. On the whole, Kerry was more relaxed and polished--and certainly calmer. He also managed to sneak in a fifth Vietnam reference during his closing remarks ('I defended this country as a young man in war.') Kerry was a grounded presence and his performance should give Democrats hope. Bush was, as someone once put it, more tart than sweet. At times the president faltered and you could see the wheels spinning as he flipped through his mental Rolodex, looking for the right card. Peevish is the word which kept coming to mind. He was, however, ruthlessly on-message. If Kerry really is being damaged by the sense that he's a flip-flopper who doesn't know his own mind--and the higher-ups on Team Bush insist that this is the key to beating him--then the president did exactly what he wanted to do. But if the central issue of this election is the September 10 party versus the September 12 party, then Bush may have let slip a fair opportunity."
Andrew Sullivan on the Debate
Andrew Sullivan says Kerry seemed "bigger"--a Presidential Height Index effect? The quote:
"KERRY'S MANNER: It was, as I hoped, an enlightening debate. No, it didn't include any real logical breakthrough and on the issues, I found myself agreeing more with Bush than Kerry. But from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center - and Kerry's long record in the Senate almost unmentioned - he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry - and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn't, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush's conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush's constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn't have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal. "
"KERRY'S MANNER: It was, as I hoped, an enlightening debate. No, it didn't include any real logical breakthrough and on the issues, I found myself agreeing more with Bush than Kerry. But from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center - and Kerry's long record in the Senate almost unmentioned - he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry - and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn't, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush's conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush's constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn't have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal. "
NY Post Cover Shows Height Gap
John Kerry stands 6'4", Bush officially 6' even (does that include his cowboy boots?). According to the Presidential Height Index, in American politics, the taller candidate in a TV debate usually wins the election. Two exceptions prove the rule: Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford, but Ford had not been elected in the first place. Nixon was shorter than McGovern, but there was no TV debate. There's more on the height effect in this Fox News story. Will this affect President Bush's chances?
Bush-Kerry Debate A Tie
And that's in Kerry's favor, since he went the distance with the President. Although he didn't score any knockouts, Kerry may end his own slide in public opinion polls...
Thursday, September 30, 2004
What Is Going On In Russia?
From Nezavisimaya Gazeta:
"I have already written, and I'll venture to say it again that the power struggle between Gusinsky's empire and the Kremlin is not a conflict between an authoritarian state and a media group opposed to that regime. Nor, so far, has any evidence of the Kremlin's intentions to curb the freedom of speech, or coral Russia's-already obsequious-mass media, been produced. Up to now, all the evidence has been that this is a conflict between two oligarchic clans-the Kremlin's, which includes many top officials, including elected ones-and thus has at least a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of Russians, and that of Gusinsky-which does not."
"I have already written, and I'll venture to say it again that the power struggle between Gusinsky's empire and the Kremlin is not a conflict between an authoritarian state and a media group opposed to that regime. Nor, so far, has any evidence of the Kremlin's intentions to curb the freedom of speech, or coral Russia's-already obsequious-mass media, been produced. Up to now, all the evidence has been that this is a conflict between two oligarchic clans-the Kremlin's, which includes many top officials, including elected ones-and thus has at least a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of Russians, and that of Gusinsky-which does not."
Have the Palestinians Lost their Intifada?
From Haaretz :
"If, in a political conflict, victory is perception, then in some quarters the war the Palestinians couldn't lose is already over. Some seasoned observers have begun speaking of a Palestinian defeat in the past tense. Remarked Laura King of the Los Angeles Times this week, 'many Palestinians fear that what has been, in effect, their military defeat at the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has left them without leverage to extract political and territorial concessions that would help lay the groundwork for their hoped-for state.' Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post observed in a column this week that it is 'now undeniable that the 'military solution' that so manybelieved could not work has brought Israelis an interlude of relative peace.'"
"If, in a political conflict, victory is perception, then in some quarters the war the Palestinians couldn't lose is already over. Some seasoned observers have begun speaking of a Palestinian defeat in the past tense. Remarked Laura King of the Los Angeles Times this week, 'many Palestinians fear that what has been, in effect, their military defeat at the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has left them without leverage to extract political and territorial concessions that would help lay the groundwork for their hoped-for state.' Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post observed in a column this week that it is 'now undeniable that the 'military solution' that so manybelieved could not work has brought Israelis an interlude of relative peace.'"
Absolutely Majnoon
From Athena's Terrorism Unveiled, a blog written by an American student living in Amman, Jordan [link from WindsofChange.net]:
"Out of the blue, my host mother asks, 'Who do you think was behind 9-11?' And of course I knew she was expecting me to say 'Osama bin Laden,' so instead I responded, 'Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had a lot to do with the operational planning.' She gave me a quizzical look so I gave her the, 'of course he was one of the top people in Al-Qaida under Bin Laden.' To this she told me that was all a lie and that 'the Israelis are behind this, it's all the Israeli Mossad who did this.' "
"Out of the blue, my host mother asks, 'Who do you think was behind 9-11?' And of course I knew she was expecting me to say 'Osama bin Laden,' so instead I responded, 'Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had a lot to do with the operational planning.' She gave me a quizzical look so I gave her the, 'of course he was one of the top people in Al-Qaida under Bin Laden.' To this she told me that was all a lie and that 'the Israelis are behind this, it's all the Israeli Mossad who did this.' "
After Hurricanes, Miami Braces for Presidential Debate
From The Miami Herald:
"The first of three debates, tonight's matchup at the University of Miami opens against the backdrop of hurricane-wracked Florida, where politics has been on hold since mid-August in the largest of the up-for-grabs states. Bush's campaign scrapped two post-debate campaign events in Florida on Friday in deference to hurricane recovery efforts. Karl Rove, his chief strategist, told Florida reporters Wednesday that the campaign is making adjustments to deal with the unknown factors of the hurricanes -- which have left Floridians without electricity, homes, and perhaps, voter registration cards.
'''We're flying sort of blind,' Rove told reporters at a briefing at Bush's Miami hotel. 'Since Aug. 13 we've not been able to get consistent polling.' 'Homes and condos are wrecked, we don't know how long it's going to take people to get home,' he added. For the president, however, the hurricanes have given him opportunity to appear as the comforter in chief, a role he relished Wednesday as he walked through a Lake Wales citrus grove hammered by three of the four hurricanes that tore across the state in six weeks.
"Kerry's campaign, which was all but forced to stop campaigning in the state, says it is undaunted by the storms, planning a two-day, post-debate campaign swing in Florida."
"The first of three debates, tonight's matchup at the University of Miami opens against the backdrop of hurricane-wracked Florida, where politics has been on hold since mid-August in the largest of the up-for-grabs states. Bush's campaign scrapped two post-debate campaign events in Florida on Friday in deference to hurricane recovery efforts. Karl Rove, his chief strategist, told Florida reporters Wednesday that the campaign is making adjustments to deal with the unknown factors of the hurricanes -- which have left Floridians without electricity, homes, and perhaps, voter registration cards.
'''We're flying sort of blind,' Rove told reporters at a briefing at Bush's Miami hotel. 'Since Aug. 13 we've not been able to get consistent polling.' 'Homes and condos are wrecked, we don't know how long it's going to take people to get home,' he added. For the president, however, the hurricanes have given him opportunity to appear as the comforter in chief, a role he relished Wednesday as he walked through a Lake Wales citrus grove hammered by three of the four hurricanes that tore across the state in six weeks.
"Kerry's campaign, which was all but forced to stop campaigning in the state, says it is undaunted by the storms, planning a two-day, post-debate campaign swing in Florida."
Glenn Reynolds on "Southern Strategy"
Instapundit is now writing for The Guardian about the American elections (congratulations Glenn!):
"In my lifetime, only one Democrat who was not from the American south has won the presidency. And the Democrat who did so, John F Kennedy, accomplished this feat when I was two months old. Since then, many have concluded that it's impossible for a Democrat to win the south unless - like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter - he has southern roots. (Al Gore, who hails from Carthage, Tennessee but who spent much of his childhood in a posh Washington hotel, apparently wasn't southern enough.) But why would that be? It can't be because southerners won't vote for people from outside the south. After all, they happily voted in droves for Ronald Reagan, a Californian transplanted from the midwest. Nor is it likely to be because of 'traditional values', since southerners also voted for Bill Clinton, a Democrat whose commitment to monogamy was famously shaky...
"...So what is it about the south? I think it's defence. Some time between the election of John F Kennedy, and the ignominious defeat of 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern, the Democrats lost credibility on national defence. From Kennedy's stirring "bear any burden, pay any price" language, to the "peace at any price" slogans of the anti-war left in 1972, the Democrats lost their traditional stature as the internationalist and interventionist war party. Instead, they became identified with the welfare-state liberalism of the north-east and west coast, and with the anti-military sentiments of the anti-Vietnam war movement."
"In my lifetime, only one Democrat who was not from the American south has won the presidency. And the Democrat who did so, John F Kennedy, accomplished this feat when I was two months old. Since then, many have concluded that it's impossible for a Democrat to win the south unless - like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter - he has southern roots. (Al Gore, who hails from Carthage, Tennessee but who spent much of his childhood in a posh Washington hotel, apparently wasn't southern enough.) But why would that be? It can't be because southerners won't vote for people from outside the south. After all, they happily voted in droves for Ronald Reagan, a Californian transplanted from the midwest. Nor is it likely to be because of 'traditional values', since southerners also voted for Bill Clinton, a Democrat whose commitment to monogamy was famously shaky...
"...So what is it about the south? I think it's defence. Some time between the election of John F Kennedy, and the ignominious defeat of 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern, the Democrats lost credibility on national defence. From Kennedy's stirring "bear any burden, pay any price" language, to the "peace at any price" slogans of the anti-war left in 1972, the Democrats lost their traditional stature as the internationalist and interventionist war party. Instead, they became identified with the welfare-state liberalism of the north-east and west coast, and with the anti-military sentiments of the anti-Vietnam war movement."
CBS News' Latest Fake Story
From INDC Journal:
"What is beyond question is that CBS failed to achieve common journalistic standards by failing to disclose Ms. Cocco's position and activism, failing to disclose the Selective Service's explicit statement denying the impending possibility of the draft and failing to disclose that the circulated e-mails in the story contained false and misleading information. These omissions - along with the story's questionable timing and dramatic tone - combine to create a blatantly misleading piece."
"What is beyond question is that CBS failed to achieve common journalistic standards by failing to disclose Ms. Cocco's position and activism, failing to disclose the Selective Service's explicit statement denying the impending possibility of the draft and failing to disclose that the circulated e-mails in the story contained false and misleading information. These omissions - along with the story's questionable timing and dramatic tone - combine to create a blatantly misleading piece."
Ann Coulter on Bush's Lead
From AnnCoulter.com:
"Amid a solid stream of bad news, the New York Times reported on its own poll -- showing Kerry 8 points behind Bush -- in an article titled: 'Bush Opens Lead Despite Unease Voiced in Survey.' The Times bases its 'unease' conclusion on some secret documents recently given to them by Bill Burkett. This would seem to go against the 80 percent likeability rating among Bush supporters I cited previously -- but hey, it's good to see Jayson Blair working again. In fact, the only 'unease' expressed by voters in the Times poll seems to center on the possibility that Kerry could be elected president. Sixty percent of respondents to the Times poll said they do not have confidence that Kerry could deal wisely with an international crisis. Only 26 percent of respondents said they had 'a lot' of confidence in Kerry's ability to stop another terrorist attack, compared to 51 percent who have a lot of confidence in Bush's ability to do so. How about that for the next Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker? 'Three-quarters of us don't trust him on terror, but only 60 percent of us think he'd be incompetent in any international crisis.' And yet Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder reasoned 'there are signs that the election remains competitive ...' Most of these 'signs' can be found posted on the Bushlied.com website.
"After reading the Times' peculiar interpretation of its poll, I thought it might be fun to see how the Times reported on the polls preceding the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history: Ronald Reagan's 1984 a**-whipping of Walter Mondale. For the moveon.org voters and other ignorant teenagers, in the end, Reagan would win that election 59 percent to 40 percent. But in August 1984, the Times wrote about Reagan's massive lead over Mondale after the Republican Convention in an article titled: 'Convention in Dallas: The Republicans, the Dangers Ahead."
"Among the "dangers" for Reagan astutely noted by the Times was "the very fact that he appears so far ahead of Mr. Mondale." (Of course, the principal "danger" as far as the Times was concerned was that Reagan might win the Cold War and dispatch the left's favorite country.)
"Amid a solid stream of bad news, the New York Times reported on its own poll -- showing Kerry 8 points behind Bush -- in an article titled: 'Bush Opens Lead Despite Unease Voiced in Survey.' The Times bases its 'unease' conclusion on some secret documents recently given to them by Bill Burkett. This would seem to go against the 80 percent likeability rating among Bush supporters I cited previously -- but hey, it's good to see Jayson Blair working again. In fact, the only 'unease' expressed by voters in the Times poll seems to center on the possibility that Kerry could be elected president. Sixty percent of respondents to the Times poll said they do not have confidence that Kerry could deal wisely with an international crisis. Only 26 percent of respondents said they had 'a lot' of confidence in Kerry's ability to stop another terrorist attack, compared to 51 percent who have a lot of confidence in Bush's ability to do so. How about that for the next Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker? 'Three-quarters of us don't trust him on terror, but only 60 percent of us think he'd be incompetent in any international crisis.' And yet Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder reasoned 'there are signs that the election remains competitive ...' Most of these 'signs' can be found posted on the Bushlied.com website.
"After reading the Times' peculiar interpretation of its poll, I thought it might be fun to see how the Times reported on the polls preceding the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history: Ronald Reagan's 1984 a**-whipping of Walter Mondale. For the moveon.org voters and other ignorant teenagers, in the end, Reagan would win that election 59 percent to 40 percent. But in August 1984, the Times wrote about Reagan's massive lead over Mondale after the Republican Convention in an article titled: 'Convention in Dallas: The Republicans, the Dangers Ahead."
"Among the "dangers" for Reagan astutely noted by the Times was "the very fact that he appears so far ahead of Mr. Mondale." (Of course, the principal "danger" as far as the Times was concerned was that Reagan might win the Cold War and dispatch the left's favorite country.)
Is Newsweek Championing Extremists?
FromAllahPundit:
"Whenever you see the mainstream media referring to someone as 'Sheikh', you're duty bound to do a search for that person on MEMRI and LGF. I'll show you why. Tonight in Loseweek [ed. note: Newsweek], Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball warn that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is radicalizing moderate Muslims. Moderate Muslims like 'Sheik' Yusuf al-Qaradawi. To be sure, say M&M, Qaradawi isn't a moderate on every issue. For instance, he doesn't have a big problem with blowing up Jews. He's also suspected of having ties to terrorist financing networks. And yes, sure, he happens to be the 'spiritual leader' of Egypt's most prominent fundamentalist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. But that doesn't mean he's not a moderate at heart..."
"Whenever you see the mainstream media referring to someone as 'Sheikh', you're duty bound to do a search for that person on MEMRI and LGF. I'll show you why. Tonight in Loseweek [ed. note: Newsweek], Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball warn that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is radicalizing moderate Muslims. Moderate Muslims like 'Sheik' Yusuf al-Qaradawi. To be sure, say M&M, Qaradawi isn't a moderate on every issue. For instance, he doesn't have a big problem with blowing up Jews. He's also suspected of having ties to terrorist financing networks. And yes, sure, he happens to be the 'spiritual leader' of Egypt's most prominent fundamentalist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. But that doesn't mean he's not a moderate at heart..."
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Victor Davis Hanson on Bush Hatred
From VDH's Private Papers:
"The 2002 winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award, Nicholson Baker, just published Checkpoint. It is an extended dialogue about killing (in a variety of strange ways) George Bush. Jay, the protagonist of the novel, characterizes the potential targeted President as a “drunken oilman. "Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are portrayed as 'bog creatures' with 'grubs scurrying out of their noses.' Such venom filters down. Sue Niederer, the mother of a soldier recently killed in Iraq, recently scoffed in an interview: 'I think if I had him in front of me I would shoot him in the groined area. Let him suffer. And just continue shooting him there.'"
"The 2002 winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award, Nicholson Baker, just published Checkpoint. It is an extended dialogue about killing (in a variety of strange ways) George Bush. Jay, the protagonist of the novel, characterizes the potential targeted President as a “drunken oilman. "Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are portrayed as 'bog creatures' with 'grubs scurrying out of their noses.' Such venom filters down. Sue Niederer, the mother of a soldier recently killed in Iraq, recently scoffed in an interview: 'I think if I had him in front of me I would shoot him in the groined area. Let him suffer. And just continue shooting him there.'"
A Hollywood Happy Ending
We saw Vanity Fair at the recently restored Avalon Theatre. When we left a couple of years ago, there were fears that it would be closed down after the Loew's lease expired. But the neighborhood rallied, we signed a petition, and amazingly, developer Douglas Jemal agreed to restore the theatre as an art house. Now it is much fancier than it ever was, at least in the 13 years we've been in the area. Beautiful wood carvings, murals, indirect lighting, an excellent projection and sound system. Better than a home entertainment center! If you are ever in Washington, you can see what a little neighborhood can do to preserve a landmark.
Vanity Fair
Last weekend, we finally saw Mira Nair's version of Vanity Fair. It wasn't bad. A little long, a little trouble telling the story in places, some problems with the actors, but overall, well worth seeing. Nair lays on the "India is England" subtext with a trowel. Lots of saris, peacocks, hot and spicy food. Not quite the Britain we remember from Stanley Kubrick's version of Thackeray's Barry Lyndon. But why not? The opening credit, "London 1812," the clip-clop of horses hooves on the soundtrack, the carriage riding down the cobblestone street, it's all right out of Masterpiece Theatre.
Unlike Bettye Davis' Becky Sharp in Rouben Mamoulian's 1935 version, Reese Witherspoon somehow avoids coming across as a conniving, calculating, immoral climber. Things seem to happen to her almost by accident, perhaps because she is blonde, while Davis was a brunette? Nair's storyline resonates with Gone with the Wind, Becky Sharp like Scarlett O'Hara; Amelia, Melanie. You can tell us who is Rhett Butler and who is Ashley Wilkes, after you've seen it. The battle of Waterloo parallels Sherman's burning of Atlanta.
In real life, according to our handy companion Who Was Really Who In Fiction Thackeray was Dobbin, and Amelia was Jane Brookfield, the wife of his best friend, for whom he burned an unrequited torch. Lord Steyne was Lord Hertford. And there was a real Becky Sharp, too, but her name escapes us, at the moment...She also came to a bad end.
Unlike Bettye Davis' Becky Sharp in Rouben Mamoulian's 1935 version, Reese Witherspoon somehow avoids coming across as a conniving, calculating, immoral climber. Things seem to happen to her almost by accident, perhaps because she is blonde, while Davis was a brunette? Nair's storyline resonates with Gone with the Wind, Becky Sharp like Scarlett O'Hara; Amelia, Melanie. You can tell us who is Rhett Butler and who is Ashley Wilkes, after you've seen it. The battle of Waterloo parallels Sherman's burning of Atlanta.
In real life, according to our handy companion Who Was Really Who In Fiction Thackeray was Dobbin, and Amelia was Jane Brookfield, the wife of his best friend, for whom he burned an unrequited torch. Lord Steyne was Lord Hertford. And there was a real Becky Sharp, too, but her name escapes us, at the moment...She also came to a bad end.
The CIA v. Bush
From The Wall Street Journal:
"Congratulations to Porter Goss for being confirmed last week as the new Director of Central Intelligence. We hope he appreciates that he now has two insurgencies to defeat: the one that the CIA is struggling to help put down in Iraq, and the other inside Langley against the Bush Administration. We wish we were exaggerating. It's become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated and anonymous leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush Administration look bad. Their latest improvised explosive political device blew up yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, in a story proclaiming that the agency had warned back in January 2003 of a possible insurgency in Iraq. This highly selective leak (more on that below) was conveniently timed for two days before the first Presidential debate."
"Congratulations to Porter Goss for being confirmed last week as the new Director of Central Intelligence. We hope he appreciates that he now has two insurgencies to defeat: the one that the CIA is struggling to help put down in Iraq, and the other inside Langley against the Bush Administration. We wish we were exaggerating. It's become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated and anonymous leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush Administration look bad. Their latest improvised explosive political device blew up yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, in a story proclaiming that the agency had warned back in January 2003 of a possible insurgency in Iraq. This highly selective leak (more on that below) was conveniently timed for two days before the first Presidential debate."
Bush Bounce Now Solid Lead
From Charlie Cook:
"The irony, of course, is that while the war in Iraq may either re-elect or defeat Bush, Kerry has not handled the topic well. Whoever coined the joke about Kerry's having 57 varieties of answers on Iraq should be earning substantial royalty payments, because it is continually repeated -- and all too true. My hunch is that Kerry cast his vote in support of giving Bush authority to go to war for reasons of political expedience, not principle, and that he has been having a devil of a time defending that position because it is not one he truly believed -- or believes -- in."
"The irony, of course, is that while the war in Iraq may either re-elect or defeat Bush, Kerry has not handled the topic well. Whoever coined the joke about Kerry's having 57 varieties of answers on Iraq should be earning substantial royalty payments, because it is continually repeated -- and all too true. My hunch is that Kerry cast his vote in support of giving Bush authority to go to war for reasons of political expedience, not principle, and that he has been having a devil of a time defending that position because it is not one he truly believed -- or believes -- in."
Artem Tarasov's Russian Expose
From Mosnews.com:
"Artem Tarasov, a Russian entrepreneur, oligarch, and participant of some of the most dubious chapters of Russian history, has done something that in the West would have been done ages ago -- he has aired the dirty laundry of some of Russia's most public figures, including those still in a position of power. His book, The Millionaire, has gone on sale in Russia. Tarasov isn't the first name that springs to mind when you think of Russian billionaires. Many of them gained permanent public attention after being jailed, exiled, or announced wanted, while Tarasov made his escape to England far in advance of the Kremlin's war on the oligarchs. In the late 80s, he was among the first people to take advantage of the door to opportunity, offered by Gorbachev's perestroika, which was just beginning to crack open. In 1989, Tarasov, a card-carrying Communist, handed over 90,000 rubles in party dues. Knowing that the party asked for 3% of member incomes, the math is simple: Tarasov had made at least 3 million rubles that year. Money took Tarasov places -- high and low. He was friends with government officials and bandits alike. A businessman, he specialized in transactions and negotiations and was partially responsible for the coming to power of first Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov. Now the stories of how swing voters were lured by free beer and how much less Margaret Thatcher charged per personal visit than Russian PM Victor Chernomyrdin are available in hard cover. MosNews is publishing some of the excerpts from The Millionaire."
"Artem Tarasov, a Russian entrepreneur, oligarch, and participant of some of the most dubious chapters of Russian history, has done something that in the West would have been done ages ago -- he has aired the dirty laundry of some of Russia's most public figures, including those still in a position of power. His book, The Millionaire, has gone on sale in Russia. Tarasov isn't the first name that springs to mind when you think of Russian billionaires. Many of them gained permanent public attention after being jailed, exiled, or announced wanted, while Tarasov made his escape to England far in advance of the Kremlin's war on the oligarchs. In the late 80s, he was among the first people to take advantage of the door to opportunity, offered by Gorbachev's perestroika, which was just beginning to crack open. In 1989, Tarasov, a card-carrying Communist, handed over 90,000 rubles in party dues. Knowing that the party asked for 3% of member incomes, the math is simple: Tarasov had made at least 3 million rubles that year. Money took Tarasov places -- high and low. He was friends with government officials and bandits alike. A businessman, he specialized in transactions and negotiations and was partially responsible for the coming to power of first Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov. Now the stories of how swing voters were lured by free beer and how much less Margaret Thatcher charged per personal visit than Russian PM Victor Chernomyrdin are available in hard cover. MosNews is publishing some of the excerpts from The Millionaire."
Chechen Gunmen Killed Russian Forbes Editor
From Mosnews.com:
"Moscow policemen have solved the murder of the chief editor of the Russian edition of the Forbes magazine Paul Klebnikov, the head of the Russian Interior Ministry's Main Directorate for Moscow City, Lieutenant-General Vladimir Pronin told the Interfax news agency on Tuesday. The general said that on Monday night Moscow policemen detained two Chechens who were involved in Klebnikov's killing. Three pistols were seized from the detained suspects, Pronin said. He also added that the same two Chechens had been holding a man hostage some time earlier. The RIA-Novosti news agency quoted a police source close as saying that the detained Chechens had kidnapped two men for ransom. After the kidnappers were detained on Monday night, a pistol was seized from them and the initial ballistic expertise has shown that this is the gun with which Paul Klebnikov was shot, the source said. "
"Moscow policemen have solved the murder of the chief editor of the Russian edition of the Forbes magazine Paul Klebnikov, the head of the Russian Interior Ministry's Main Directorate for Moscow City, Lieutenant-General Vladimir Pronin told the Interfax news agency on Tuesday. The general said that on Monday night Moscow policemen detained two Chechens who were involved in Klebnikov's killing. Three pistols were seized from the detained suspects, Pronin said. He also added that the same two Chechens had been holding a man hostage some time earlier. The RIA-Novosti news agency quoted a police source close as saying that the detained Chechens had kidnapped two men for ransom. After the kidnappers were detained on Monday night, a pistol was seized from them and the initial ballistic expertise has shown that this is the gun with which Paul Klebnikov was shot, the source said. "
Palestinian Captors Free CNN Producer
From Haaretz:
"Palestinian gunmen freed an Israeli Druze producer for CNN television unharmed yesterday, a day after kidnapping him in the Gaza Strip. Riad Ali said his captors told him they were members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, which is linked to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. But the Brigades issued a statement saying they had no connection to the abduction and condemning it as an act of chaos that hurt the Palestinian cause."
"Palestinian gunmen freed an Israeli Druze producer for CNN television unharmed yesterday, a day after kidnapping him in the Gaza Strip. Riad Ali said his captors told him they were members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, which is linked to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. But the Brigades issued a statement saying they had no connection to the abduction and condemning it as an act of chaos that hurt the Palestinian cause."
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Cited in Holland!
Very excited to see my article on the Blogosphere has been cited in Weblog: een doe-het-zelf medium— Ordening in de informatiechaos? —Albert Benschop, in Dutch:
"Internet is een informatie- en communicatiemedium met een enorm bereik dat door honderden miljoenen mensen wordt gebruikt. Wie informatie op het internet wil plaatsen moest aanvankelijk eerst speciale hypertekstuele taal leren (de HyperText Markup Language: HTML) om vervolgens zijn producten met een programma voor bestandsoverdracht op een server te plaatsen (het File Transport Protocol: FTP). Later werd het publiceren op internet vergemakkelijkt door de opkomst van speciale webeditors. Sinds de opkomst van de weblog-technologie is publiceren op internet kinderwerk geworden. In weblogs kan iedereen die dat wil een chronologisch verslag doen van zijn persoonlijke besognes of interesses in bepaalde onderwerpen. Een weblog is een laagdrempelige publicatievorm met een maximaal bereik. En het is gratis. Geen wonder dat miljoenen mensen inmiddels via een weblog hun eigen plekje op het internet hebben ingericht.
"Wat is een weblog? Hoe gaan webloggers te werk? Wat voor soorten weblogs bestaan er? Welke functies kunnen weblogs vervullen? Waarom zijn weblogs zo populair geworden? En wat dragen weblogs bij aan de informatie- en communicatievoorziening via het internet?"
"Internet is een informatie- en communicatiemedium met een enorm bereik dat door honderden miljoenen mensen wordt gebruikt. Wie informatie op het internet wil plaatsen moest aanvankelijk eerst speciale hypertekstuele taal leren (de HyperText Markup Language: HTML) om vervolgens zijn producten met een programma voor bestandsoverdracht op een server te plaatsen (het File Transport Protocol: FTP). Later werd het publiceren op internet vergemakkelijkt door de opkomst van speciale webeditors. Sinds de opkomst van de weblog-technologie is publiceren op internet kinderwerk geworden. In weblogs kan iedereen die dat wil een chronologisch verslag doen van zijn persoonlijke besognes of interesses in bepaalde onderwerpen. Een weblog is een laagdrempelige publicatievorm met een maximaal bereik. En het is gratis. Geen wonder dat miljoenen mensen inmiddels via een weblog hun eigen plekje op het internet hebben ingericht.
"Wat is een weblog? Hoe gaan webloggers te werk? Wat voor soorten weblogs bestaan er? Welke functies kunnen weblogs vervullen? Waarom zijn weblogs zo populair geworden? En wat dragen weblogs bij aan de informatie- en communicatievoorziening via het internet?"
Uzbekistan's Persian Literary Heritage
The Teheran Times announces a new book on the impact of Persian writers Hafez and Sa'di on Alisher Navoi, the Pushkin of Uzbekistan:
"'The national poet of Uzbekistan, Ali Shir Nava'i, showed his great respect for Sa'di in his Persian language divan,' continues the introduction. The book 'Impression of Hafez on Uzbek Literature' consists of articles about Hafez and poems of Hafez translated into the Uzbek language. The book was written by Dr. Mahmud Azimov. In the introduction he wrote, 'The impression of Hafez's poetry on Uzbek literature is quite outstanding and there was a time in the past when the Divan of Hafez was taught at schools of Uzbekistan and the old poets used to compose poetry in the style of Hafez in olden times.'"
"'The national poet of Uzbekistan, Ali Shir Nava'i, showed his great respect for Sa'di in his Persian language divan,' continues the introduction. The book 'Impression of Hafez on Uzbek Literature' consists of articles about Hafez and poems of Hafez translated into the Uzbek language. The book was written by Dr. Mahmud Azimov. In the introduction he wrote, 'The impression of Hafez's poetry on Uzbek literature is quite outstanding and there was a time in the past when the Divan of Hafez was taught at schools of Uzbekistan and the old poets used to compose poetry in the style of Hafez in olden times.'"
Is CBS Tampering with Evidence of a Crime?
Scylla & Charybdis thinks so [link from littlegreenfootballs.com]:
"You want preponderance, Dan? OK.
"I’ll start here a checklist of CBS Legal Department Evidence Tampering, which I will update from time to time.
"I am defining evidence tampering in two ways: 1) the alteration of a thing with intent to change the thing in a manner material to a foreseeable investigation, or 2) tampering with the likely testimony of someone who is fairly identifiable as a material witness in a foreseeable criminal or official investigation..."
"You want preponderance, Dan? OK.
"I’ll start here a checklist of CBS Legal Department Evidence Tampering, which I will update from time to time.
"I am defining evidence tampering in two ways: 1) the alteration of a thing with intent to change the thing in a manner material to a foreseeable investigation, or 2) tampering with the likely testimony of someone who is fairly identifiable as a material witness in a foreseeable criminal or official investigation..."
The Texas crimes:
Texas Penal Code 32.21 – Forgery
Penal 36.05 – Tampering with Witness
Penal 37.09 – Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence
The Federal crimes:
18 USC Sec. 1341. - Frauds and swindles
18 USC Sec. 1342. -Fictitious name or address
18 USC Sec. 1349. - Attempt and conspiracy
18 USC Sec. 1343. - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
47 USC Sec. 508 – [Payola] Disclosure of payments connected with broadcasts
18 USC Sec. 1512. - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
Israel Working to Free Kidnapped CNN Reporter
From Haaretz:
"Palestinian Authority security officials Tuesday told the Israel Defense Forces officers in the Gaza Strip that they are holding talks with the group behind the abduction of an Israeli citizen working for CNN, and expressed hope that he will be released within a matter of hours.
"Riad Ali, an Israeli Druze employed by the American news network as a producer and translator, was taken at gunpoint from his car in Gaza City on Monday night.
"The Palestinian security officials also said that the Palestinian Authority has information on Ali's whereabouts. They added that Ali has not been hurt in any way and that the abduction did not a have nationalist motive. They said, however, that the abductors are in touch with Hamas activists. Israeli and Palestinian security officials believe that he is being held by either Hamas or Islamic Jihad. "
"Palestinian Authority security officials Tuesday told the Israel Defense Forces officers in the Gaza Strip that they are holding talks with the group behind the abduction of an Israeli citizen working for CNN, and expressed hope that he will be released within a matter of hours.
"Riad Ali, an Israeli Druze employed by the American news network as a producer and translator, was taken at gunpoint from his car in Gaza City on Monday night.
"The Palestinian security officials also said that the Palestinian Authority has information on Ali's whereabouts. They added that Ali has not been hurt in any way and that the abduction did not a have nationalist motive. They said, however, that the abductors are in touch with Hamas activists. Israeli and Palestinian security officials believe that he is being held by either Hamas or Islamic Jihad. "
Iraq Slide Shows
Just found this website featuring photographs from military combat photographers in Iraq,CombatCamera
World War II Weekend at the Eisenhower Farm
While in Gettysburg, we chanced upon this World War II Weekend at Eisenhower Farm.
The former President's pastures, located right by the scene of battle in the Gettysburg cyclorama, had been transformed into a WWII base camp for both Allies and Germans. There were middle-aged "re-enactors" playing everyone from medics to MPs. Lots of old jeeps, tents, medical equipment, too.
Mud was everywhere from a torrential downpour the night before (a remnant of the Florida hurricanes). The British had the only tent which didn't blow down--it was round. No tanks, but lots of guns, guts, and glory. The Germans seemed to have snazzier and scarier uniforms plus fancier weapons. There was even an old ex-Nazi giving a speech on behalf of world peace inside the barn. It made us very happy that the Allies had won, and just seeing the equipment revealed how close the outcome really was. The German "Panzer-Fast" was really scary, a huge anti-tank explosive carried on an infantryman's shoulder. Our American bazookas looked like BB-guns by contrast.
This event takes place every year, and judging from the reaction of the young man who accompanied us, it is great fun for children who like to play with toy soldiers--and videogames.
The former President's pastures, located right by the scene of battle in the Gettysburg cyclorama, had been transformed into a WWII base camp for both Allies and Germans. There were middle-aged "re-enactors" playing everyone from medics to MPs. Lots of old jeeps, tents, medical equipment, too.
Mud was everywhere from a torrential downpour the night before (a remnant of the Florida hurricanes). The British had the only tent which didn't blow down--it was round. No tanks, but lots of guns, guts, and glory. The Germans seemed to have snazzier and scarier uniforms plus fancier weapons. There was even an old ex-Nazi giving a speech on behalf of world peace inside the barn. It made us very happy that the Allies had won, and just seeing the equipment revealed how close the outcome really was. The German "Panzer-Fast" was really scary, a huge anti-tank explosive carried on an infantryman's shoulder. Our American bazookas looked like BB-guns by contrast.
This event takes place every year, and judging from the reaction of the young man who accompanied us, it is great fun for children who like to play with toy soldiers--and videogames.
The Gettysburg Cyclorama
A week or so ago, I went with my college roommate and his son to visit the site of the Gettysburg address. Among the impressive monuments and battlefields, we had a chance to see The Gettysburg Cyclorama in its 1963 building--a monument to the 1960s that looked like it landed from The Jetsons, which opened on the 100th anniversary of the battle. Unfortunately, this World's Fair-style pavillion is slated for demolition in the near future, which is a shame, because it had a real nostalgia-value for at least a couple of middle-aged visitors.
Although a portion of the painting had been removed "for conservation", the display was still impressive, with a 1960s-style sound and light show, the cyclorama illuminated in the darkness, almost like a 70-mm IMAX movie from the 19th Century.
The painting depicts "Pickett's charge" of July 3rd, 1863. It was painted by Paul Philippoteaux, who visited battlefield almost 20 years later. The cyclorama, in the best Beaux Arts style, features some very French-looking haystacks, and a small portrait of the artist by a tree observing the battle. It is definitely worth a detour, as the Guide Michelin might say.
Although a portion of the painting had been removed "for conservation", the display was still impressive, with a 1960s-style sound and light show, the cyclorama illuminated in the darkness, almost like a 70-mm IMAX movie from the 19th Century.
The painting depicts "Pickett's charge" of July 3rd, 1863. It was painted by Paul Philippoteaux, who visited battlefield almost 20 years later. The cyclorama, in the best Beaux Arts style, features some very French-looking haystacks, and a small portrait of the artist by a tree observing the battle. It is definitely worth a detour, as the Guide Michelin might say.
The Most Famous Writer You've Never Heard Of...
Also from The Washington Post, this profile of Paulo Coehlo:
"MONTPELLIER, France -- 'I'm a very famous author all over the world, totally unknown in America,' says Paulo Coelho. True. He's one of the most successful writers on the planet, yet virtually unrecognized in the United States. According to the industry newsletter Publishing Trends, Coelho's latest novel, Eleven Minutes, appeared at the top of more best-selling fiction lists around the world last year than any other novel, including the Harry Potter volumes and John Grisham's King of Torts.
"In the United States it's another story. Published in the spring by HarperCollins, 'Eleven Minutes' has not landed on the top-selling fiction lists of either The Washington Post or the New York Times."
Interestingly, when I lived in Uzbekistan, Coehlo's The Alchemist seemed to be everyone's favorite novel. It had been translated into Uzbek by a literary journal, and was taken very seriously.
"MONTPELLIER, France -- 'I'm a very famous author all over the world, totally unknown in America,' says Paulo Coelho. True. He's one of the most successful writers on the planet, yet virtually unrecognized in the United States. According to the industry newsletter Publishing Trends, Coelho's latest novel, Eleven Minutes, appeared at the top of more best-selling fiction lists around the world last year than any other novel, including the Harry Potter volumes and John Grisham's King of Torts.
"In the United States it's another story. Published in the spring by HarperCollins, 'Eleven Minutes' has not landed on the top-selling fiction lists of either The Washington Post or the New York Times."
Interestingly, when I lived in Uzbekistan, Coehlo's The Alchemist seemed to be everyone's favorite novel. It had been translated into Uzbek by a literary journal, and was taken very seriously.
How Washington Works
A fascinating profile of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff in The Washington Post:
"The foundation's brief history -- now the subject of a federal investigation -- charts how Abramoff attached himself to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and, in so doing, became a magnet for large sums of money from business interests. It also demonstrates how easily large amounts of such cash flowed through a nonprofit advocacy group to support the interests of a director. "
"The foundation's brief history -- now the subject of a federal investigation -- charts how Abramoff attached himself to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and, in so doing, became a magnet for large sums of money from business interests. It also demonstrates how easily large amounts of such cash flowed through a nonprofit advocacy group to support the interests of a director. "
Monday, September 27, 2004
Dan Rather on Dan Rather
From the Media Research Center [link from Little Green Footballs]:
"A serious journalist can't run with a story without confirmation. Two sources at the absolute minimum....This is how your narrator made it through Watergate. If I'd gone off half-cocked, if I'd gotten my facts scrambled, if I'd run with unconfirmed leads, I'd be selling insurance right now.-- Dan Rather in his 1994 memoir, The Camera Never Blinks Twice, page 97."
"A serious journalist can't run with a story without confirmation. Two sources at the absolute minimum....This is how your narrator made it through Watergate. If I'd gone off half-cocked, if I'd gotten my facts scrambled, if I'd run with unconfirmed leads, I'd be selling insurance right now.-- Dan Rather in his 1994 memoir, The Camera Never Blinks Twice, page 97."
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Will White House Debates Fumble Help CBS?
From INDC Journal: A Very Brief Interview with Bob Schieffer:
"INDC: 'Has this scandal affected you personally, with your impending moderation of one of the (Presidential) debates?'
SCHIEFFER: 'Well, there's been some e-mail that says that I should excuse myself, uh, but both the White House and the Kerry campaign have said that they think that I can do a fair and honest job. [emphasisis added] So as long as it's ok with them, I think it's ok.'"
"INDC: 'Has this scandal affected you personally, with your impending moderation of one of the (Presidential) debates?'
SCHIEFFER: 'Well, there's been some e-mail that says that I should excuse myself, uh, but both the White House and the Kerry campaign have said that they think that I can do a fair and honest job. [emphasisis added] So as long as it's ok with them, I think it's ok.'"
The Diplomad v. Europe (continued)
From The Diplomad:
"We drew fire from those who took offense from our claim that educated Americans -- such as we humble Diplomads -- know more about Europe, than educated Europeans -- notably Euro diplomats -- know about the USA. We don't know why some got upset about that. It happens to be true. Various emailers challenged us to recite all the kings of Lower Saxony or some such thing to prove we know European history. That's a very European approach to history: dry recitation of relatively insignificant facts that can be looked up in a reference book (or now on the internet) without any context or analysis of why a particular fact is important to the way the world is today. You would think that the USA being the world's most important country, the richest and most powerful country that has ever existed, would be an object of serious study, at least by the European foreign policy elite. Not so. They seem to get what knowledge they have (and it's not much) from BBC, CNN, Hollywood, and the shoddy and demented news media organizations that dominate the EU. America, 'the land of McDonalds' as one email charmingly put it, has more bookstores, libraries, museums, theaters, orchestras, music and art schools, and high quality technical and educational institutions (private and public) than any other country in the world, including any European country. The New York City public school system probably has produced more Nobel prize-winners than any other educational institution in the world.
Let us also not forget that the USA is actually older as a nation than many European countries (Germany and Italy, to name just two.) We are also the world's oldest democracy. You would think that Europeans would be dying to read up on the American Revolution and the principles that founded such a successful Republic. But, no. They blather on about the French Revolution, a ludicrous and horrific event that produced empty slogans, mass murder, chaos, dictatorship, years of warfare, defeats galore for France, the installation of one of the world's most absurd monarchies, and decades upon decades of political instability."
"We drew fire from those who took offense from our claim that educated Americans -- such as we humble Diplomads -- know more about Europe, than educated Europeans -- notably Euro diplomats -- know about the USA. We don't know why some got upset about that. It happens to be true. Various emailers challenged us to recite all the kings of Lower Saxony or some such thing to prove we know European history. That's a very European approach to history: dry recitation of relatively insignificant facts that can be looked up in a reference book (or now on the internet) without any context or analysis of why a particular fact is important to the way the world is today. You would think that the USA being the world's most important country, the richest and most powerful country that has ever existed, would be an object of serious study, at least by the European foreign policy elite. Not so. They seem to get what knowledge they have (and it's not much) from BBC, CNN, Hollywood, and the shoddy and demented news media organizations that dominate the EU. America, 'the land of McDonalds' as one email charmingly put it, has more bookstores, libraries, museums, theaters, orchestras, music and art schools, and high quality technical and educational institutions (private and public) than any other country in the world, including any European country. The New York City public school system probably has produced more Nobel prize-winners than any other educational institution in the world.
Let us also not forget that the USA is actually older as a nation than many European countries (Germany and Italy, to name just two.) We are also the world's oldest democracy. You would think that Europeans would be dying to read up on the American Revolution and the principles that founded such a successful Republic. But, no. They blather on about the French Revolution, a ludicrous and horrific event that produced empty slogans, mass murder, chaos, dictatorship, years of warfare, defeats galore for France, the installation of one of the world's most absurd monarchies, and decades upon decades of political instability."
Chris Hitchens on Dan Rather
From INDC Journal:
"But for journalism and its standards do matter, not just to me. I don't think of myself now as in the same profession of Dan Rather. And Dan Rather showed himself, it seems to me, to be--not for the first time actually--a very poor specimen of a showbiz type. He's not in journalism at all anymore. It's an absolute scandal that this stuff ever got on the air.
And it's wrong for us to call it forgery, even. A forgery is an attempt to fake something that's worth having. If I could get my printer to give me a $100 bill and I handed it to you and you took it, the handshake between us would be of that kind. But if I printed a $99 bill and handed it to you, you would be a fool and I would be a crook twice. This is not a forgery. This is fabrication.
And we help Rather out, it seems to me, every time we say forgery. Forgery is the cover story now. That's what they're back to. They're saying, well, it's essentially true. All the documents are fake, but the story is true. This is unpardonable.
...
I don't think it could fall any lower than this, in other words. And whether there is collusion with the DNC or not, I don't know. But there really had better not be, because I can't think'having said it couldn't go any lower, that's as low as it could then go. "
"But for journalism and its standards do matter, not just to me. I don't think of myself now as in the same profession of Dan Rather. And Dan Rather showed himself, it seems to me, to be--not for the first time actually--a very poor specimen of a showbiz type. He's not in journalism at all anymore. It's an absolute scandal that this stuff ever got on the air.
And it's wrong for us to call it forgery, even. A forgery is an attempt to fake something that's worth having. If I could get my printer to give me a $100 bill and I handed it to you and you took it, the handshake between us would be of that kind. But if I printed a $99 bill and handed it to you, you would be a fool and I would be a crook twice. This is not a forgery. This is fabrication.
And we help Rather out, it seems to me, every time we say forgery. Forgery is the cover story now. That's what they're back to. They're saying, well, it's essentially true. All the documents are fake, but the story is true. This is unpardonable.
...
I don't think it could fall any lower than this, in other words. And whether there is collusion with the DNC or not, I don't know. But there really had better not be, because I can't think'having said it couldn't go any lower, that's as low as it could then go. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)