Saturday, August 07, 2004
Selfish and deceptive politics
For anyone who still doubts that the Bush WH puts politics above all else, have a look a this MSNBC story about how the US blew the cover of it’s latest Al Qaeda informant, ruining intelligence operations that were in progress.
They could have waited a week, a month. But that would have meant taking more political heat about all the terrorism alerts they issue. Can’t have that. So they blow the intelligence ops instead.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Did Bush lie, or just have bad intelligence?
This article argues for the former.
In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
Kinda makes you wonder whether Tenet really told Bush it was a ‘slam-dunk’. If he did, apparently he didn’t read his own agency’s reports.
This is truly crazy.
So, I’ve been following stories about the Rev. Sun Myung Moon over the past few months.
Moon owns the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, and heavily favors the Republican party. Problem is, he’s nuts and a genuine threat to the security of the West.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
The Daily Show hits keep on comin’
Monday night’s Daily Show was great, with Stewart skewering one of the Republican’s rapid-response team members, Rep. Bonilla.
Partial transcript (courtesy Fact-esque)
The transcript doesn’t really do it justice, though. And I *think* it omits a few prime comments by Stewart - I thought he was clearer than the transcript says. Have a look when it (eventually) appears on the Daily Show site.
Bonilla out-and-out tries to trick Stewart by not answering the question, instead referring to amorphous ‘groups’. Stewart would have none of it, telling Bonilla that he was ‘making this up’.
For those not paying as close attention as I am, all the stuff Bonilla was saying, about how they ‘average it all out’ and such, was crap. The Republican attack was based on ONE YEAR of votes as evaluated by the National Journal, a conservative magazine. It twisted the record. And it provides no context for the particular votes, either. But that doesn’t matter, because the Republicans don’t care about accuracy. What they want to do is cement their message, repeated ad nauseum, that Kerry and Edwards are ‘out of the mainstream’. Their claim that K & E are the 1st and 4th most liberal senators is central to that claim. But it’s a lie.
Why don’t Woodruff and Blitzer do interviews like this?
UPDATE: Another paean to Jon Stewart can be found here.
UPDATE 2: Bonilla clip
Monday, August 02, 2004
The Village
So, I went and saw The Village this weekend, and tonight I surfed the user boards at IMDB.
--don’t read if you haven’t seen the movie--
Does no one have a problem with the ethics of the elders? To name a few:
- The blatant deception and denial of free choice to the villagers? Even the Amish have a ritual of letting their young explore the outside world.
- Letting people die of curable diseases? (People, children, are buried in that graveyard. At least some of them would have survived.)
- The problems that will be created for the generation that does discover the truth? It’s gonna mess them up something fierce.
- The general ethics of maintaining control through fear.
From my scans of IMDB, it appears not.
Monday, July 26, 2004
I don’t know what to title this post.
I don’t know who this ‘Mandos’ fellow is, but he’s pretty much right on the money. Of course a blog can choose not to allow comments. But that does run counter to the roots of the medium, particularly in low-volume community blogs, such as those on SM Smith’s definitive local blogroll. I respect POI’s choice, but I don’t particularly like it.
Divided we fall.
When Clinton talked about the right being divisive, I think he meant garbage like this from Ann Coulter.
Here’s some choice bits:
My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call “women” at the Democratic National Convention.
and
Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks—who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats’ primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the “American.”
But then, what do you expect from someone who calls thinks anyone who is not a conservative is, literally, a traitor?
I think Ann Coulter is the nastiest political pundit out there.
The master.
I’m watching Clinton speak at the Democratic convention, and so far, so great. Fantastic speech, ripping the Republican agenda to shreds without calling them liars or evil. Just making the case, compellingly.
He is the best politician of his generation, no question.
Related: The War Against Wonks.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
A ground for ethics.
I’m not going to go into a lot of detail here, despite how it may appear from the length of this post, because this topic has myriad minute but significant details. Rather, I’d just like to use this post to clarify some things I think Mustafa may misunderstand about my position. It’s not his fault, really, because I didn’t give a lot of detail - I only provided a sketch. And I don’t really want to make this a philosophy blog. But Mustafa makes a few leaps about what I think, and I will clarify a few points about what I said.
[UPDATE]
I’ve removed my post content. If someone really wants it, I’ll email it. I just decided I didn’t want to get into a big back and forth about this. Mustafa’s post bugged me, because it betrays a deep misunderstanding of both my post and my own beliefs, but I feel that getting into it - and I wrote a long, 1000 word response - is just going to fan the flames.
For example, Andy might spend a bunch of time criticizing my post, which I’d then have to respond to, then Mustafa might have another go,...etc. I don’t have the time or energy for it right now, particularly because, to do this topic justice, I expect that I’d need to spend an hour or two on each entry. I’ve got some big new projects on the go at work and Juliana’s starting to complain about how much I work, and those two things are more important to me right now than debating ethics and theology.
I will take this opportunity to say, however, that if POI allowed comments, I *would* have responded there. I don’t like having to make responding to someone else’s criticism of me into a top-line post on my blog.
I don’t really get it. If you’re gonna criticize other people, it would be nice to let them post their rebuttal in the same place. The way POI does it, it forces their agenda on other blogs, should those they choose to comment on want to reply. That doesn’t seem very fair to me.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Right wing squares and other political comedy.
The Daily Show, the best political show on TV, period. For those of you who aren’t converts yet:
- Conventional wisdom - freakin’ brilliant!
- The infamous box turtle rebus
- Stewart roasts a Wolf.
- This one starts slow, but ends strong.
- We need Euphonium players!
No one hoists people on their own petard like Stewart does.
(If you’re using a Mac, you might need to click the Change Preferences link and use Windows Media. I did. If you can get Real to work, there’s a pile more clips you can view at TheDailyShow.com)
Andy puts the boots to Ralph.
Here’s a post by Andy that I agree with.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
I’m a politician…
...or so says the 25˘ psych test Janet linked to.
You are an SECL--Sober Emotional Constructive Leader. This makes you a politician. You cut deals, you change minds, you make things happen. You would prefer to be liked than respected, but generally people react to you with both. You are very sensitive to criticism, since your entire business is making people happy.
At times your commitment to the happiness of other people can cut into the happiness of you and your loved ones. This is very demanding on those close to you, who may feel neglected. Slowly, you will learn to set your own agenda--including time to yourself.
You are gregarious, friendly, charming and charismatic. You like animals, sports, and beautiful cars. You wear understated gold jewelry and have secret bad habits, like chewing your fingers and fidgeting.
You are very difficult to dislike.
Well, I don’t wear jewelry.
