If you want to know what John F. Kerry stands for, listen to this.
In case you were wondering, Sen. Tom Harkin is certifiable...nutso.
I really don't have a whole lot else. I do find it funny what people are willing to have phone conversations about in public places. I'm sure everyone has had a eyebrow raising moment at a restaurant or store because of a unfortunate cell phone call. Many times I can't help but hear co-workers as they argue or become quite annoyed with family members. Today, as I was exiting my building for lunch, I hear the security guard talking on his phone in a very animated voice. The lobby of this particular office building has marble floors and lots of glass so it's acoustics are not what one would describe as library-esque. In the short 2-3 seconds that it took me to get from the elevator to the front door I hear this bouncing around the room,"You just go around and hate people and you don't have any reasons. Just give me one reason..." ...O...K...? Wow, the mind races. Hopefully the person on the end of the phone wasn't in the process of hating him. He seems nice enough. But the fact he was willing to cross the lines of polite, civil behavior to make such a query suggests otherwise. I wanted to stop and give him some advice. Sure he's almost twice my age, but as someone who is known widely as the most unlikeble man on the face of the earth, that question is never gonna work out for you. Also, people don't need a reason to hate. People are people. (..."so why should it be, that you and I would get along so awfully?..." Everybody!) Sorry.
Also, I feel compelled to say,"I hate Halloween." Not for any sort of religious reason. I actually think the whole "we'll call it Fallfest, or Harvest party, or some other obligatory church/school creation with a name that draws attention to the color of the leaves and make every attempt not to use the word Halloween in any form" to save the children from the "evil" effects of All Hallow's Eve is a little silly. Kids can understand make believe. I grew up calling it Halloween and still did not feel compelled to worship Satan. Or trees. Nor do I think any human can fly on a broom. Speaking of growing up. I hated Halloween as a kid, too. The same drama seemed to play out every year as I would decide I was not participating in the Trick...or Treating while my little sister grew more impatient as my mom attempted to remind me of all I would be missing. I would then capitulate, but only so the tension would end... and for the candy. I still hated it. I hated dressing up. Still do. Costumes hold no allure for me. Plus, I wasn't fond of having to beg for the candy either. Not much of a beggar. I really wanted to just look up at the patronizing adult and say,"If you want to give me the candy, you see the plastic pumpkin. If not, fine. I don't really need your candy." But I didn't. I played the part. Smiled and took my wages for looking like a fool. Sister happy, Mom happy. Halloween another 364 days away. Man, I hate Halloween.
On that note. Have a good weekend...and a happy Halloween.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
It was the best of times...the worst of times...
Well, last night's game brings such sweet sorrow. I have often said that the day after the last game of the World Series is one of the saddest days of the year. For that is essentially the first day in 7 months that there will not be a major league game. No game on cable to save me from a boring night. No crack of the bat in the background as I tend to various chores. I miss it already. But thank God the Sox have their championship. The whining should cease and desist immediately. Of course now we're gonna have to listen to the Cubs, but they always seemed to take it so much better.
I've always sort of had greater than average respect for Curt Schilling. His toughmindedness on the field, his willingness to take the ball in a big game, his ability to admit when he didn't live up to expectations, the fact that he will speak his mind about those he sees as prima donnas who aren't good for the sport. (See Deion Sanders, J.D. Drew, A-rod.) So after Game 6 of the ALCS when he pitched brilliantly with a case of bloody ankle, he told the world in the post-game interview, "I prayed for the strength to go out there and compete," and ..."that in Game 1 it was just me and you saw the result, I failed, but tonight was God..." (paraphrase). Well, my level of respect and admiration for him shot through the roof.
Some of you may be rolling your eyes. Another athlete invoking God. But this seemed more than the obligatory running back doing the half-second prayer in the end-zone. This seemed real; it seemed authentic. Do I believe God cares about a baseball game? No, not really. I think he does care when anyone does their best and makes sacrifices and gives all the glory to him. I'm sure on that very cold and damp night, his ankle was killing him. But he had a job to do, he had a team that needed him. He excelled in some trying circumstances and gave the glory to God. It would have been easy to just say thank you and go on, but he didn't. I think that's what God asks of all of us. Maybe a teammate recognizes his sacrifice, his willingness to accept great discomfort for their common cause and give a thought to looking into his faith. Maybe some fan saw the interview and had a thought creep into his head. But even if they didn't, Schilling felt an obligation to give credit to his God, and not keep it for himself, and that doesn't happen much these days.
Of course today on ABC's "Good Morning America," Schilling said, "Tell everybody to vote. And vote Bush next week." (HT : Powerline) Needless to say, I love Curt Schilling.
Unfortunately, now I have to wait 5 months for a chance to root for him.
I've always sort of had greater than average respect for Curt Schilling. His toughmindedness on the field, his willingness to take the ball in a big game, his ability to admit when he didn't live up to expectations, the fact that he will speak his mind about those he sees as prima donnas who aren't good for the sport. (See Deion Sanders, J.D. Drew, A-rod.) So after Game 6 of the ALCS when he pitched brilliantly with a case of bloody ankle, he told the world in the post-game interview, "I prayed for the strength to go out there and compete," and ..."that in Game 1 it was just me and you saw the result, I failed, but tonight was God..." (paraphrase). Well, my level of respect and admiration for him shot through the roof.
Some of you may be rolling your eyes. Another athlete invoking God. But this seemed more than the obligatory running back doing the half-second prayer in the end-zone. This seemed real; it seemed authentic. Do I believe God cares about a baseball game? No, not really. I think he does care when anyone does their best and makes sacrifices and gives all the glory to him. I'm sure on that very cold and damp night, his ankle was killing him. But he had a job to do, he had a team that needed him. He excelled in some trying circumstances and gave the glory to God. It would have been easy to just say thank you and go on, but he didn't. I think that's what God asks of all of us. Maybe a teammate recognizes his sacrifice, his willingness to accept great discomfort for their common cause and give a thought to looking into his faith. Maybe some fan saw the interview and had a thought creep into his head. But even if they didn't, Schilling felt an obligation to give credit to his God, and not keep it for himself, and that doesn't happen much these days.
Of course today on ABC's "Good Morning America," Schilling said, "Tell everybody to vote. And vote Bush next week." (HT : Powerline) Needless to say, I love Curt Schilling.
Unfortunately, now I have to wait 5 months for a chance to root for him.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
I don't want to, they make me
Amazingly, both Kerry and the NYTimes are sticking to their "Bush let weapons/explosives -- but not weapons/explosives that could be defined as WMDs, but that are nonetheless very dangerous in the hands of terrorists, but would not have been dangerous in the hands of Saddam -- get stolen" guns. Just go here and read this. Honestly, it makes me a little nauseous. It makes other people sick, too. Honestly, if it doesn't bother you, there's something wrong.
The Times and CBS are taking partisan hackery to a new level. As someone to whom such a monicker has been attached--ahem--they put me to shame. I guess I'm called such because I'm perceived to tow the "party line" on issues, even though there are several areas of disagreement with myself and the Republican party. On this little site I do not play it down the middle, I claim to support a side and let my opinions be known. I make claims, but I also attempt to always provide links to corresponding data or news articles. I hope any time I am factually in error, that someone would point it out.
On the other hand, you have the New York Times and CBS. Two "reputable" and award winning news organizations. They're so steeped in news lore that they have nicknames. So presented with a story the week before the election that could (even though weakly) hurt the President, they run with it. Do they fact check what the source is telling them? Do the do a Lexis/Nexis search? Do they even do a Google search? Did anyone think to just ask others in the news organization if they've ever done a story on this topic...at this location? Do they have editors? After realizing that there were some large inconsistencies in the story, do they begin to soften their stance? Do they try to balance the story with the contradictory information? Do they note that the main source for the story has a motive to politically harm the President? Do they issue a retraction? Or do they report the day after "breaking" the months old story, that it's now a election issue on the front page? (*Answers provided below.)
Yes, and I'm the partisan hack.
(* No,No,No,No,Apparently Not,No,No,No,No,Yes.)
The Times and CBS are taking partisan hackery to a new level. As someone to whom such a monicker has been attached--ahem--they put me to shame. I guess I'm called such because I'm perceived to tow the "party line" on issues, even though there are several areas of disagreement with myself and the Republican party. On this little site I do not play it down the middle, I claim to support a side and let my opinions be known. I make claims, but I also attempt to always provide links to corresponding data or news articles. I hope any time I am factually in error, that someone would point it out.
On the other hand, you have the New York Times and CBS. Two "reputable" and award winning news organizations. They're so steeped in news lore that they have nicknames. So presented with a story the week before the election that could (even though weakly) hurt the President, they run with it. Do they fact check what the source is telling them? Do the do a Lexis/Nexis search? Do they even do a Google search? Did anyone think to just ask others in the news organization if they've ever done a story on this topic...at this location? Do they have editors? After realizing that there were some large inconsistencies in the story, do they begin to soften their stance? Do they try to balance the story with the contradictory information? Do they note that the main source for the story has a motive to politically harm the President? Do they issue a retraction? Or do they report the day after "breaking" the months old story, that it's now a election issue on the front page? (*Answers provided below.)
Yes, and I'm the partisan hack.
(* No,No,No,No,Apparently Not,No,No,No,No,Yes.)
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel
Well, here we are again. I know you probably think I'm feigning shock every time something like this happens. But each instance makes me more incredulous that an organization cannot learn from previous, well documented, mistakes. I speak of the newest media scandal. CBS, NYTimes, 60 minutes, missing explosives, blah, blah, blah. You can get good analysis if you go here, here, or here. The part that bothers me the most, check that, one aspect that I don't think will get the proper attention is the fact that the Kerry campaign already had a new ad ready to go corresponding to this "report"...just like last time with "Favorite Son." Another thing is that there seems to be a lot of chumminess between news organizations that I thought were competing with each other.....and then with the Democratic party...but like I said, just more of the same. Ho-hum.
Ok, so in response to a request not to write about what I just wrote about, a PSA for one dude who I just had an hour long conversation about the exact topic which I stumbled upon. ( HT - instapundit) Gay marriage. A new NYTimes article states that, "Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions" Even though I'm just now reading this, it seems very similar to my own position on the topic. My position in a nutshell. I believe marriage is a religious institution. Ergo, homosexuals cannot be "married". But the government recognizes marriage and, I believe, confers certain privileges to those that are married. If others who are not married want those same privileges, I guess there should be a way to get them. But it's not called marriage, because that is between a man and a woman.(Go here for a decent review)
Of course, none of this seems to tackle the real issue for me. That would be should government, especially at the federal level, be involved with marriage? I would say no. But I'm guessing that ship has already sailed.
Out.
Ok, so in response to a request not to write about what I just wrote about, a PSA for one dude who I just had an hour long conversation about the exact topic which I stumbled upon. ( HT - instapundit) Gay marriage. A new NYTimes article states that, "Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions" Even though I'm just now reading this, it seems very similar to my own position on the topic. My position in a nutshell. I believe marriage is a religious institution. Ergo, homosexuals cannot be "married". But the government recognizes marriage and, I believe, confers certain privileges to those that are married. If others who are not married want those same privileges, I guess there should be a way to get them. But it's not called marriage, because that is between a man and a woman.(Go here for a decent review)
Of course, none of this seems to tackle the real issue for me. That would be should government, especially at the federal level, be involved with marriage? I would say no. But I'm guessing that ship has already sailed.
Out.
Monday, October 25, 2004
The more things change....
Quick Hits!
In shocking, shocking news, Kerry lied. He lied in the 2nd debate about meeting with various members of the UN security council. Couple of problems...well mainly one, they weren't there,"Around the big table" as Kerry is want to claim.( HT - Little Green Footballs
In other shocking, shocking news, Kerry lied. He lied about being at a baseball game. Game 6 of the '86 World Series when he was actually still in Boston (the game was at Shea) at a fundraiser or somesuch. This one really offends me. I can understand (somewhat) a politico fibbing about something that they did that might prove a certain point or show them more qualified...blah, blah, blah. But about baseball? Good God man! Have you no shame?! Both of these cases do display one of Kerry's scarier abilities. To lie about something that is easily verifiable. Ain't Lexis/Nexis a Be-outch.
Moving along...following my post that some members of the media just don't get Christianity; one in which I wrote, "[s]incere religious belief is the first sign of mental weakness for them," we get this. (HT - Lileks) Bill Maher thinks anyone who believes in God is nuts and/or knuckle dragging dumb. Shocker.
He's not criticizing, though. He also thinks Canadians should be glad they're not Americans. So go figure.
Next on the hit parade. "The Guardian", of Brit fame, had some sort of pseudo-media column endorsing the assassination of President Bush. They took down the article, go read it here. And here to read the weak apology. Even if it is a joke, which I might concede, it still shouldn't be dispersed by a news organization. If it's a really unfunny joke, that is offensive and makes you wander if the teller of said joke is right in the head, it shouldn't be made anywhere. Much less defended. Which is what is happening. There are some things which no one should have a sense of humor, and this would seem to fall into that category. And even if you do, rest assured the Secret Service does not.
Not so quick hits...over.
In shocking, shocking news, Kerry lied. He lied in the 2nd debate about meeting with various members of the UN security council. Couple of problems...well mainly one, they weren't there,"Around the big table" as Kerry is want to claim.( HT - Little Green Footballs
In other shocking, shocking news, Kerry lied. He lied about being at a baseball game. Game 6 of the '86 World Series when he was actually still in Boston (the game was at Shea) at a fundraiser or somesuch. This one really offends me. I can understand (somewhat) a politico fibbing about something that they did that might prove a certain point or show them more qualified...blah, blah, blah. But about baseball? Good God man! Have you no shame?! Both of these cases do display one of Kerry's scarier abilities. To lie about something that is easily verifiable. Ain't Lexis/Nexis a Be-outch.
Moving along...following my post that some members of the media just don't get Christianity; one in which I wrote, "[s]incere religious belief is the first sign of mental weakness for them," we get this. (HT - Lileks) Bill Maher thinks anyone who believes in God is nuts and/or knuckle dragging dumb. Shocker.
"To me, to me it's a real dividing line between people of intelligence and -- not that there haven't been some intelligent people who are religious. I mean, T.S. Elliott was a great poet and he became a very devout Catholic... But I always call religion a neurological disorder. I really do believe that. I mean it's not criticizing. I'm just saying if you took religion out of it and somebody went to a psychiatrist and said you know I believe in you know this crazy, illogical thing, the shrink would say, well you have a neurological disorder. And you need to really get therapy or take a pill."
He's not criticizing, though. He also thinks Canadians should be glad they're not Americans. So go figure.
Next on the hit parade. "The Guardian", of Brit fame, had some sort of pseudo-media column endorsing the assassination of President Bush. They took down the article, go read it here. And here to read the weak apology. Even if it is a joke, which I might concede, it still shouldn't be dispersed by a news organization. If it's a really unfunny joke, that is offensive and makes you wander if the teller of said joke is right in the head, it shouldn't be made anywhere. Much less defended. Which is what is happening. There are some things which no one should have a sense of humor, and this would seem to fall into that category. And even if you do, rest assured the Secret Service does not.
Not so quick hits...over.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Take your poll and ...
Sox and Cards...I think I can deal with that...though, is anything not a let down after that Yankee's series?
Anywho...yesterday me and a buddy were checking out the MoveOn.org website while on the phone (Gay/Not Gay? I know...) and stumbled upon one of their nefarious claims (Yes, I know all their claims are nefarious, but we need to focus) that the long revered Gallup poll is actually being skewed. The reason? (Get ready to connect the dots.) The reason is the son of the guy (George Gallup, Sr. died in 1984) who founded the poll is a Christian who was quoted as saying that, "The most profound purpose of polls is to see how people are responding to God." Sound the bias alarms! Couple of problems, other than the strained logic of the claim, that can be summed up in this quote from the NYtimes, no less:
So the ad might have been misleading.
Then I decided to do a little of my own research. I looked at the Gallup poll results from around the first of September to the present. First just look at Bush's numbers from that time:
- 48 52 54 49 48 52.
Nothing from that line seems all that shocking. Now Kerry's:
- 46 45 40 49 49 44.
I think you would agree that the 5 point drop was not as staggering as the 9 point gain. But the 5 point Kerry drop with the very moderate 2 point Bush gain is what drew the ire of the "principled" MoveOn.org. But before we leave the horribly inaccurate attempts of Gallup, let's compare it to another poll. The ABCNews/Washington Post of the same period. They seem to have done one less poll in that time but still...first Bush's numbers:
- 48 52 51 48 51
Then Kerry:
- 48 43 45 48 45
Hmmmm. They seem somewhat similar to me. You see Bush's support rise, then fall, but the begin to rise. Kerry's seems to fall, spike, but then begin another down tick. Some people might call these trends, but I won't be so bold. My point would be, if Gallup is so flawed, isn't ABC/WashPost? So where's the outrage? Where's the full-page ads in USAToday? Nowhere. Why? Because they were specious and misleading (verging on slanderous) to begin with. It was an example of complainers looking for something to complain about, whether it had merit or not. And this one would seem to find itself safely in the "Not" category. (NOTE: All poll numbers can be found here. If you don't like my research, do your own.)
As a final word, I generally don't like polls. I don't tend to trust them no matter what they say. Plus, there is quite a bit of evidence that polls haven's got a complete grasp on how to represent the modern voter.
Anywho...yesterday me and a buddy were checking out the MoveOn.org website while on the phone (Gay/Not Gay? I know...) and stumbled upon one of their nefarious claims (Yes, I know all their claims are nefarious, but we need to focus) that the long revered Gallup poll is actually being skewed. The reason? (Get ready to connect the dots.) The reason is the son of the guy (George Gallup, Sr. died in 1984) who founded the poll is a Christian who was quoted as saying that, "The most profound purpose of polls is to see how people are responding to God." Sound the bias alarms! Couple of problems, other than the strained logic of the claim, that can be summed up in this quote from the NYtimes, no less:
What the advertisement did not say was that Mr. Gallup, who retired in May, is not involved in the company's political polling and made those comments in reference to his specialty and main interest - polling people on their religious beliefs.
So the ad might have been misleading.
Then I decided to do a little of my own research. I looked at the Gallup poll results from around the first of September to the present. First just look at Bush's numbers from that time:
- 48 52 54 49 48 52.
Nothing from that line seems all that shocking. Now Kerry's:
- 46 45 40 49 49 44.
I think you would agree that the 5 point drop was not as staggering as the 9 point gain. But the 5 point Kerry drop with the very moderate 2 point Bush gain is what drew the ire of the "principled" MoveOn.org. But before we leave the horribly inaccurate attempts of Gallup, let's compare it to another poll. The ABCNews/Washington Post of the same period. They seem to have done one less poll in that time but still...first Bush's numbers:
- 48 52 51 48 51
Then Kerry:
- 48 43 45 48 45
Hmmmm. They seem somewhat similar to me. You see Bush's support rise, then fall, but the begin to rise. Kerry's seems to fall, spike, but then begin another down tick. Some people might call these trends, but I won't be so bold. My point would be, if Gallup is so flawed, isn't ABC/WashPost? So where's the outrage? Where's the full-page ads in USAToday? Nowhere. Why? Because they were specious and misleading (verging on slanderous) to begin with. It was an example of complainers looking for something to complain about, whether it had merit or not. And this one would seem to find itself safely in the "Not" category. (NOTE: All poll numbers can be found here. If you don't like my research, do your own.)
As a final word, I generally don't like polls. I don't tend to trust them no matter what they say. Plus, there is quite a bit of evidence that polls haven's got a complete grasp on how to represent the modern voter.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Ding-Dong, the Witch is dead...
Before getting to baseball...you should read this by a guy who is an atheist and entitles his entry,"WHY I WON’T VOTE FOR BUSH." (HT: VodkaPundit)
Now to important things...the freaking Sawks did it. Unbelievable. I watched the last 2 1/2 to 3 innings with my buddy on the phone (Gay/Not Gay?...I know) and when the final out was recorded I said we've just seen the impossible. He replied with,"Or was it?"....Good point. But good gosh. With the win, they became the 3rd team in 239 attempts to come back after being down 3-0. The other two were in hockey. So basically, it's the first time it's ever happened in an American sport.A-rod's embarrassed. He-he. GOOD! He has a lot to be embarrassed for, and some of it even involves his play. That sissy slap in game 6 should be entered into the vaults. What a prima donna. A new curse? We get another game 7 tonight...delish. Now we can root for Houston to give us a Texas/Massachusetts World Series and listen to the pundits attempt to kill us with some very bad jokes.
Oh, and one more question. ARE YOU NOT SO UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLY BASEBALL? I AM, I AM. Uh-huh.
Now to important things...the freaking Sawks did it. Unbelievable. I watched the last 2 1/2 to 3 innings with my buddy on the phone (Gay/Not Gay?...I know) and when the final out was recorded I said we've just seen the impossible. He replied with,"Or was it?"....Good point. But good gosh. With the win, they became the 3rd team in 239 attempts to come back after being down 3-0. The other two were in hockey. So basically, it's the first time it's ever happened in an American sport.A-rod's embarrassed. He-he. GOOD! He has a lot to be embarrassed for, and some of it even involves his play. That sissy slap in game 6 should be entered into the vaults. What a prima donna. A new curse? We get another game 7 tonight...delish. Now we can root for Houston to give us a Texas/Massachusetts World Series and listen to the pundits attempt to kill us with some very bad jokes.
Oh, and one more question. ARE YOU NOT SO UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLY BASEBALL? I AM, I AM. Uh-huh.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
I'm So Baseball, are You So Baseball?
Everything is so baseball!!!!
Sorry for the lateness, stuff happens. Game 6 of the NLCS is about to begin, but I'm sure if anyone talks about "the game" they will be referring to game 7 of the ALCS. Game 7? Are you kidding me? Tell me baseball is not great...go ahead! What other sport could continue play with 40 cops in riot gear on the playing field? I dare you to hold a football game with paratroopers milling about the 20. The NBA couldn't even handle one extra meter maid...sissy sport. And now there is the possibility that Bawsten could send A-Rod home without his World Series. Sweet justice! At one point I stated I didn't really care who won this series because I wanted them both to lose equally. New York because, well, they're the Yankees. Boston because their fans have actually reached a level of annoying not seen since, well, the Yankees. But now...Go SOX! Witnessing the deflation of that many people who deserve a little less air is too much to pass up.
That's all I got today...don't like it? Well, I'm sorry but what can you do when the world is so freaking baseball?
Sorry for the lateness, stuff happens. Game 6 of the NLCS is about to begin, but I'm sure if anyone talks about "the game" they will be referring to game 7 of the ALCS. Game 7? Are you kidding me? Tell me baseball is not great...go ahead! What other sport could continue play with 40 cops in riot gear on the playing field? I dare you to hold a football game with paratroopers milling about the 20. The NBA couldn't even handle one extra meter maid...sissy sport. And now there is the possibility that Bawsten could send A-Rod home without his World Series. Sweet justice! At one point I stated I didn't really care who won this series because I wanted them both to lose equally. New York because, well, they're the Yankees. Boston because their fans have actually reached a level of annoying not seen since, well, the Yankees. But now...Go SOX! Witnessing the deflation of that many people who deserve a little less air is too much to pass up.
That's all I got today...don't like it? Well, I'm sorry but what can you do when the world is so freaking baseball?
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Um, um, good.
Today, I will leave the politics to you.
I just want to say, last night was baseballiscious. Every pitch from the 7th inning on of the Yankees/Sox clash was a story all it's own. And I stayed until that 471st, and last, pitch. Of course, commercials afforded me the ability to catch some of the Backe/Williams duel. Thank God I got to see the Beltran catch. Humans should not be able to do things like that, but it was a breathtaking site to behold. Last night I was reminded what makes baseball something to be cherished. I was also reminded that majors leaguers lack some fundamentals. "Lay down a bunt, already!" But baseball is baseball and that, by golly, was some freaking baseball.
Also, as I mentioned in yesterday's bonus photo blog, I was in a wedding on Saturday. I realized something about weddings. We all know that men hate weddings. The over/under of guys in attendance happy to be there is generally gonna be around 2 1/2. The groom (maybe), the father of the bride (also, maybe, depending on the perceived jerkiness/earning ratio of the groom), and the father of the groom (probably, but approaching indifference). The groomsmen are pretty much focused on not screwing up while daydreaming about what they could have done with the $80-100 they blew on a tux rental and longing for the moment the shiny, plastic shoes come off. Every other guy there is basically planning his exit strategy or implementing it. No guy wants to go to a wedding, he agrees to go...for various motives, both selfish and otherwise. I think, essentially, I don't like anything that is mainly ceremonial. According to Webster's: Ceremony - An act or series of acts, often of a symbolical character, prescribed by law, custom, or authority, in the conduct of important matters, as in the performance of religious duties, the transaction of affairs of state, and the celebration of notable events. Yes, I love doing anything that has no value except for the fact that it provides photo album fodder.
But that's not what I realized. I already knew that. My epiphany was on why girls love weddings so. I took stock. I saw that the bride was dressed in a very expensive gown. I realized that the groom was wearing clothes that the bride told him to wear. I realized I was wearing the clothes the bride told me to wear. I realized the bridesmaids were wearing the clothes that the bride told them to wear. Basically, the bride was having a party thrown in her honor that we were basically required to attend, where she got to tell her friends and her boyfriend's friends how to dress, got to pick out all the decorations and food, receive gifts, and then have the whole "event" chronicled by a professional photographer. And of course, no one can say nary a peep. What a dream.
A man's dream would be very different, and would never include a unity candle. But that's just one guy's opinion.
I just want to say, last night was baseballiscious. Every pitch from the 7th inning on of the Yankees/Sox clash was a story all it's own. And I stayed until that 471st, and last, pitch. Of course, commercials afforded me the ability to catch some of the Backe/Williams duel. Thank God I got to see the Beltran catch. Humans should not be able to do things like that, but it was a breathtaking site to behold. Last night I was reminded what makes baseball something to be cherished. I was also reminded that majors leaguers lack some fundamentals. "Lay down a bunt, already!" But baseball is baseball and that, by golly, was some freaking baseball.
Also, as I mentioned in yesterday's bonus photo blog, I was in a wedding on Saturday. I realized something about weddings. We all know that men hate weddings. The over/under of guys in attendance happy to be there is generally gonna be around 2 1/2. The groom (maybe), the father of the bride (also, maybe, depending on the perceived jerkiness/earning ratio of the groom), and the father of the groom (probably, but approaching indifference). The groomsmen are pretty much focused on not screwing up while daydreaming about what they could have done with the $80-100 they blew on a tux rental and longing for the moment the shiny, plastic shoes come off. Every other guy there is basically planning his exit strategy or implementing it. No guy wants to go to a wedding, he agrees to go...for various motives, both selfish and otherwise. I think, essentially, I don't like anything that is mainly ceremonial. According to Webster's: Ceremony - An act or series of acts, often of a symbolical character, prescribed by law, custom, or authority, in the conduct of important matters, as in the performance of religious duties, the transaction of affairs of state, and the celebration of notable events. Yes, I love doing anything that has no value except for the fact that it provides photo album fodder.
But that's not what I realized. I already knew that. My epiphany was on why girls love weddings so. I took stock. I saw that the bride was dressed in a very expensive gown. I realized that the groom was wearing clothes that the bride told him to wear. I realized I was wearing the clothes the bride told me to wear. I realized the bridesmaids were wearing the clothes that the bride told them to wear. Basically, the bride was having a party thrown in her honor that we were basically required to attend, where she got to tell her friends and her boyfriend's friends how to dress, got to pick out all the decorations and food, receive gifts, and then have the whole "event" chronicled by a professional photographer. And of course, no one can say nary a peep. What a dream.
A man's dream would be very different, and would never include a unity candle. But that's just one guy's opinion.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Bonus Coverage...Photo Blogging
And you just thought I was done for today.
This weekend I was in a wedding at my own church. While there, I took some pictures...not of the wedding, but of the construction that is happening. My church is in the process of building an underground parking garage with a 3 story building on top. As you can see from the pictures, the hole is quite large...and deep(Deep and wide, deep and wide, there's a fountain flowing deep and wide...everybody!). Some of the garage structure is already underway.
Church and construction
This weekend I was in a wedding at my own church. While there, I took some pictures...not of the wedding, but of the construction that is happening. My church is in the process of building an underground parking garage with a 3 story building on top. As you can see from the pictures, the hole is quite large...and deep(Deep and wide, deep and wide, there's a fountain flowing deep and wide...everybody!). Some of the garage structure is already underway.
Church and construction
They Don't Get It...Or I Don't Get It...
I read Lileks first thing this morning, like I do every morning. He talked about a NYTimes piece (I know! I know! I shouldn't read the rag, but I can't help myself) that addresses Bush's faith and how it, essentially, made him short-sided on all decisions. Too certain, you see. Read it here. I dare you. It's a test of stamina.
Our author (Ron Suskind) paints a picture of a president who is...well...dumb. (Shocker) But not only that, he's blinded by his religious faith. He quotes Bruce Barlet,a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush ,"He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence." Yes, that is the 'whole thing' about faith. I have neither observed nor experienced any reason to believe in my God. Someone just mentioned it to me once, and I thought,"Hey, why waste time with rational thought when I can make my life come up roses by just professing belief in some higher power."
You can just see Mr. Suskind rolling his eyes when he writes about one Bush supporter who said, "I prayed, then I got to work." Or speaking about his trepidation of speaking at a large rally that he "...looked to God" and said what was in his heart. And after hearing that at the rally despite Bush's verbal miscues the Christian crowd "got him", we get to the rub...finally:
"And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community."
Again, he nailed it...the "you" is "reality-based" people. No, the "you" is snotty, liberal journalists who only think a church's use is for weddings and funerals. "You" is those who live in about five square mile in the middle a New York who think they're qualified to speak for all Americans. You is someone who whould choose to insult so-called "faith-based" people by making their opposite not "secular-based" but..."reality-based". But it is true, they don't get it. As annoying it is that East Coast elitists can't fathom any clear thinking individual's support of Bush; the sad, and more important, fact is that they really don't get Christians. Sincere religious belief is the first sign of mental weakness for them. Claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a concept they equate to a punchline. They just don't understand. I guess it's not really their fault...but it is. They lack the ability to give someone with a differing view respect. The minute you claim to be a Christian, especially of the evangelical variety, they have visions of the nut house. I actually consider what God thinks of my actions and my decisions before I make them. That means that I don't always act out of my best interests, or even those around me. I'm sure I'm not batting 1.000. Sometimes I get my will confused with God's, but I hope that all my decisions are the same ones God would make. On those occasions when I do err, I pray that God will jerk me back on course. The fact that someone who might think like that is in the White House scares them to no end.
Lileks said it like this: "The problem some people have with Bush isn't that he believes in God, it's that he really believes in God. To a certain stratum of our intelligentsia, you're supposed to believe in God like you believe in continental drift, or the tides, or the yearly reappearance of Shamrock Shakes at McDonald's. The idea that it's a two-way conversation strikes many as nonsense, proof that we're dealing with someone two steps removed from worshipping the moon...It varies, shall we say. For every believer who feels compelled to drop to his knees you have a Gene Hackman-style priest from "The Poseidon Adventure," yelling at God. Rational people can have many different manifestations of faith, and it's a failure of imagination to think there's but one way." And that's why I say it's not their fault but it is. You can't fully understand if you don't share this belief, but its a complete "failure of imagination" to think no one else should...or could.
Suskind ends his tome with a short dialogue with Jim Wallis that goes thusly:
JW - "Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want."
RS - And what is that?
JW - "Easy certainty."
To that I say,"I couldn't disagree more." If my faith offers me one thing, it is certainty. Assurance that this life is temporal; that my eternity is secure. That there is right and wrong, good and evil, and that you can tell the difference. That I have a purpose and a meaning that trumps any this world can offer. But certainty in today's parlance equals intolerance, and intolerance equals hate.
They just don't understand. They don't understand how you can recognize truth and act on it. Believe God is real and trust in it. Hear the word of Jesus and endeavor to live it.
Our author (Ron Suskind) paints a picture of a president who is...well...dumb. (Shocker) But not only that, he's blinded by his religious faith. He quotes Bruce Barlet,a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush ,"He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence." Yes, that is the 'whole thing' about faith. I have neither observed nor experienced any reason to believe in my God. Someone just mentioned it to me once, and I thought,"Hey, why waste time with rational thought when I can make my life come up roses by just professing belief in some higher power."
You can just see Mr. Suskind rolling his eyes when he writes about one Bush supporter who said, "I prayed, then I got to work." Or speaking about his trepidation of speaking at a large rally that he "...looked to God" and said what was in his heart. And after hearing that at the rally despite Bush's verbal miscues the Christian crowd "got him", we get to the rub...finally:
"And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community."
Again, he nailed it...the "you" is "reality-based" people. No, the "you" is snotty, liberal journalists who only think a church's use is for weddings and funerals. "You" is those who live in about five square mile in the middle a New York who think they're qualified to speak for all Americans. You is someone who whould choose to insult so-called "faith-based" people by making their opposite not "secular-based" but..."reality-based". But it is true, they don't get it. As annoying it is that East Coast elitists can't fathom any clear thinking individual's support of Bush; the sad, and more important, fact is that they really don't get Christians. Sincere religious belief is the first sign of mental weakness for them. Claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a concept they equate to a punchline. They just don't understand. I guess it's not really their fault...but it is. They lack the ability to give someone with a differing view respect. The minute you claim to be a Christian, especially of the evangelical variety, they have visions of the nut house. I actually consider what God thinks of my actions and my decisions before I make them. That means that I don't always act out of my best interests, or even those around me. I'm sure I'm not batting 1.000. Sometimes I get my will confused with God's, but I hope that all my decisions are the same ones God would make. On those occasions when I do err, I pray that God will jerk me back on course. The fact that someone who might think like that is in the White House scares them to no end.
Lileks said it like this: "The problem some people have with Bush isn't that he believes in God, it's that he really believes in God. To a certain stratum of our intelligentsia, you're supposed to believe in God like you believe in continental drift, or the tides, or the yearly reappearance of Shamrock Shakes at McDonald's. The idea that it's a two-way conversation strikes many as nonsense, proof that we're dealing with someone two steps removed from worshipping the moon...It varies, shall we say. For every believer who feels compelled to drop to his knees you have a Gene Hackman-style priest from "The Poseidon Adventure," yelling at God. Rational people can have many different manifestations of faith, and it's a failure of imagination to think there's but one way." And that's why I say it's not their fault but it is. You can't fully understand if you don't share this belief, but its a complete "failure of imagination" to think no one else should...or could.
Suskind ends his tome with a short dialogue with Jim Wallis that goes thusly:
JW - "Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want."
RS - And what is that?
JW - "Easy certainty."
To that I say,"I couldn't disagree more." If my faith offers me one thing, it is certainty. Assurance that this life is temporal; that my eternity is secure. That there is right and wrong, good and evil, and that you can tell the difference. That I have a purpose and a meaning that trumps any this world can offer. But certainty in today's parlance equals intolerance, and intolerance equals hate.
They just don't understand. They don't understand how you can recognize truth and act on it. Believe God is real and trust in it. Hear the word of Jesus and endeavor to live it.
Friday, October 15, 2004
More of the Same
I don't know that I have a whole lot...
First, the furor over Kerry making lesbian family members of political opponents acceptable campaign fodder continues. I read much on it. If you want go here, here, or here. I saw this comment to a story on a "subsidiary" website: and deemed it better than anything I could think up on:
"When speaking on the need for a better health care system, Kerry could have used Elizabeth Edwards as an example of an America that is becoming too fat.
When talking about his family he could have mentioned that he has his problems raising teenagers -- "Hey look, my daughter went to France wearing a see-through dress." He might have even got a laugh line out of it.
He could have mentioned Al Gore's son who was busted for pot while speeding down the highway.
When talking about education Kerry could have mentioned sex education and used Andrew Sullivan as an example of gays who still insist on having unprotected sex with anonymous partners.
When talking about his religious beliefs, there was nothing stopping Kerry from acknowledging the kind heartedness of the Catholic Church for annulling a marriage that had produced 2 children.
When mentioning Cheney's daughter, Kerry could have just as easily provided equal time to Richard Gehphardt's lesbian daughter, and talked about the travails of Barney Frank and Frank's bf. He could even have mentioned Ronald Reagan's dear friend, Rock Hudson.
The only reason the Liberals are not claiming foul is because their hatred of George W. Bush far outweighs any sense of common decency that sane people have. I think it's funny that the only way they have of responding to this is to accuse conservatives of hating gays. You guys are so nuanced." by Anonymous (see it
here)
Next. I wrote recently that I don't detest Democrats for their beliefs as much as I do for their tactics. It seems the latest vote fraud development has sent others over the edge. Read this post by Vodkapundit. Though our politics might coincide at times, something tells me that someone who describes themselves as a "political slut" wouldn't always be on the same side of a debate as myself. Either way, he's tired of the Demos "strategies".
Finally, apparently the NYTimes refuses even to give an Archbishop a fair shake. He states he was misquoted by the Times as they attempted to paint him as a Bush supporter. Which he denies...the also reminds that such a stance could cost the Catholic church a great deal (Tax-exempt status). I guess the Times checked with Mary Beth Cahill and found out that shaping quotes of religious leaders for political reasons is "fair game".
First, the furor over Kerry making lesbian family members of political opponents acceptable campaign fodder continues. I read much on it. If you want go here, here, or here. I saw this comment to a story on a "subsidiary" website: and deemed it better than anything I could think up on:
"When speaking on the need for a better health care system, Kerry could have used Elizabeth Edwards as an example of an America that is becoming too fat.
When talking about his family he could have mentioned that he has his problems raising teenagers -- "Hey look, my daughter went to France wearing a see-through dress." He might have even got a laugh line out of it.
He could have mentioned Al Gore's son who was busted for pot while speeding down the highway.
When talking about education Kerry could have mentioned sex education and used Andrew Sullivan as an example of gays who still insist on having unprotected sex with anonymous partners.
When talking about his religious beliefs, there was nothing stopping Kerry from acknowledging the kind heartedness of the Catholic Church for annulling a marriage that had produced 2 children.
When mentioning Cheney's daughter, Kerry could have just as easily provided equal time to Richard Gehphardt's lesbian daughter, and talked about the travails of Barney Frank and Frank's bf. He could even have mentioned Ronald Reagan's dear friend, Rock Hudson.
The only reason the Liberals are not claiming foul is because their hatred of George W. Bush far outweighs any sense of common decency that sane people have. I think it's funny that the only way they have of responding to this is to accuse conservatives of hating gays. You guys are so nuanced." by Anonymous (see it
here)
Next. I wrote recently that I don't detest Democrats for their beliefs as much as I do for their tactics. It seems the latest vote fraud development has sent others over the edge. Read this post by Vodkapundit. Though our politics might coincide at times, something tells me that someone who describes themselves as a "political slut" wouldn't always be on the same side of a debate as myself. Either way, he's tired of the Demos "strategies".
Finally, apparently the NYTimes refuses even to give an Archbishop a fair shake. He states he was misquoted by the Times as they attempted to paint him as a Bush supporter. Which he denies...the also reminds that such a stance could cost the Catholic church a great deal (Tax-exempt status). I guess the Times checked with Mary Beth Cahill and found out that shaping quotes of religious leaders for political reasons is "fair game".
Thursday, October 14, 2004
19 Days until relief...
I didn't see the whole debate last night, basically the last half-hour. I then saw CNN's post-debate and bit of NBC's. Yuck. I especially enjoy their "Fact-checking" feature... As if they know how.
Let's just say there is a disagreement about who won or lost the debate. Shockingly, mass-media and their polls have it one way and pretty much everyone else saw it differently. When will the surprises end?
In other post debate news, Lynne Cheney is not happy. And I can't imagine her mood improving after Elizabeth Edwards responded. (HT: KerrySpot)
I'm gonna expect more media/Democratic hypocrisy, just like with the cartoons from yesterday (scroll down). No cries of outrage, no demands of an apology, just, "What's the big deal?"
Oh, and speaking of other ways in which Demos apply their high-minded ethics, we have this. Basically, the "Cry Wolf Strategy". Genius, if you don't mind 3rd grade level pettiness. Voter fraud, race-baiting, gay-baiting, and trashing of opposition offices...the party of the people, indeed.
Let's just say there is a disagreement about who won or lost the debate. Shockingly, mass-media and their polls have it one way and pretty much everyone else saw it differently. When will the surprises end?
In other post debate news, Lynne Cheney is not happy. And I can't imagine her mood improving after Elizabeth Edwards responded. (HT: KerrySpot)
I'm gonna expect more media/Democratic hypocrisy, just like with the cartoons from yesterday (scroll down). No cries of outrage, no demands of an apology, just, "What's the big deal?"
Oh, and speaking of other ways in which Demos apply their high-minded ethics, we have this. Basically, the "Cry Wolf Strategy". Genius, if you don't mind 3rd grade level pettiness. Voter fraud, race-baiting, gay-baiting, and trashing of opposition offices...the party of the people, indeed.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Pass
There's some interesting stuff in the news. Most on which I care not to comment...instead close your eyes and comment to yourself. (If it seems good, re-close your eyes and imagine you read it here.)
I did see these, though. Look at this. (funny?) Then this. (Same question.)
Without commenting on the possible(probable) offensive nature. Once again, just ask yourself the question(Man, your having to do a lot a work today). If the subject depicted in those works were Democrats, would you have to come to some spare blog to find out about it? (I just walked to the window, and oddly enough, a flock of geese were flying by in a formation that read,"NO!" Talented, those geese. Very media savvy, too.)
Oh, and one last note. I may be switching my vote. After John Edward's remarks yesterday on how medical science could be transformed, my chances of playing Major League Baseball may not be over if John F. Kerry becomes President. He knows how to improve humans...what a maroon.
**Update**
The "artist" of the political cartoon linked above, Jeff Danziger, has removed it from his site. Also, shockingly, he's sydicated by the New York Times Syndicate. They have also removed it from their site and apparently replaced it with a photo of a black man...odd. Anyway, here's a link to a site that had the cartoon saved.
I did see these, though. Look at this. (funny?) Then this. (Same question.)
Without commenting on the possible(probable) offensive nature. Once again, just ask yourself the question(Man, your having to do a lot a work today). If the subject depicted in those works were Democrats, would you have to come to some spare blog to find out about it? (I just walked to the window, and oddly enough, a flock of geese were flying by in a formation that read,"NO!" Talented, those geese. Very media savvy, too.)
Oh, and one last note. I may be switching my vote. After John Edward's remarks yesterday on how medical science could be transformed, my chances of playing Major League Baseball may not be over if John F. Kerry becomes President. He knows how to improve humans...what a maroon.
**Update**
The "artist" of the political cartoon linked above, Jeff Danziger, has removed it from his site. Also, shockingly, he's sydicated by the New York Times Syndicate. They have also removed it from their site and apparently replaced it with a photo of a black man...odd. Anyway, here's a link to a site that had the cartoon saved.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Nuisance of the Media
Maybe I've just been looking at it all wrong. Maybe John F. Kerry is on to something here. I can't expect to change the media, just push it to the back burner. But before I reach that state of "nirvana", a simple question. Why wasn't John Howard's victory in Australia reported? I guess it's just not news. All the major media punditry foreboding of what his loss might mean for Bush, now has no thoughts on if Howard's win means anything for Bush. I no doubt can guess what their answer would be.
Moving on...I've been reading some stuff today on the nature of the enemy (terrorist) and how Briton and others decided to pander to that morally devoid enemy in attempts to save the life of Kenneth Bigley before he was beheaded. The British government, Irish government, prominent Muslims, Yasser Arafat, and even the profound words of Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam) were fruitless in their hopes of reasoning with the terror-mongers. The explaination that this peaceful wanderer's life presented no threat to there cause and did not deserve to die was not enough. What they failed to realize was, as The Belmont Club pegged, "...[n]ot only is it impossible to put a rational construction on these events, it is a waste of time to try. Bigley thought he was too old; the school children in Beslan thought they were too young; the French journalists thought they were too French to be the victims of terrorism. And they were wrong. Wrong because they assumed that enemy intent rather than capability was the limiting factor to their mayhem. It is an odd statistical fact that fewer Americans have died from terrorist attacks in Iraq than Iraqi children...and not because the terrorists are eager to "show the world the justice and mercy which Islam teaches us" but because they cannot kill more." (Read the whole article here.)
I think this is a truth that the esteemed John F. Kerry will always fail to grasp. He thinks talking will buttress our safety because sooner or later we can assuage the "root" of the problem. Terrorism is not "prostitution and illegal gambling", or even drug trafficking. The evil that is manifested because of those problems is because of greed. Their intent is to attain money. Terrorists only care about money because it can assist them to kill more. If they cared more about something other than making sure that Islamic fascism was the law of the land, they would have let Mr. Bigley go. For showing mercy would given their "supporters" something to use, evidence that they can be reasoned with. But they don't. They see an infidel, and they only wish for one result, the consequences be damned.
Hopefully the consequence will be that the world sees that those who live by the sword, only understand the sword.
Moving on...I've been reading some stuff today on the nature of the enemy (terrorist) and how Briton and others decided to pander to that morally devoid enemy in attempts to save the life of Kenneth Bigley before he was beheaded. The British government, Irish government, prominent Muslims, Yasser Arafat, and even the profound words of Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam) were fruitless in their hopes of reasoning with the terror-mongers. The explaination that this peaceful wanderer's life presented no threat to there cause and did not deserve to die was not enough. What they failed to realize was, as The Belmont Club pegged, "...[n]ot only is it impossible to put a rational construction on these events, it is a waste of time to try. Bigley thought he was too old; the school children in Beslan thought they were too young; the French journalists thought they were too French to be the victims of terrorism. And they were wrong. Wrong because they assumed that enemy intent rather than capability was the limiting factor to their mayhem. It is an odd statistical fact that fewer Americans have died from terrorist attacks in Iraq than Iraqi children...and not because the terrorists are eager to "show the world the justice and mercy which Islam teaches us" but because they cannot kill more." (Read the whole article here.)
I think this is a truth that the esteemed John F. Kerry will always fail to grasp. He thinks talking will buttress our safety because sooner or later we can assuage the "root" of the problem. Terrorism is not "prostitution and illegal gambling", or even drug trafficking. The evil that is manifested because of those problems is because of greed. Their intent is to attain money. Terrorists only care about money because it can assist them to kill more. If they cared more about something other than making sure that Islamic fascism was the law of the land, they would have let Mr. Bigley go. For showing mercy would given their "supporters" something to use, evidence that they can be reasoned with. But they don't. They see an infidel, and they only wish for one result, the consequences be damned.
Hopefully the consequence will be that the world sees that those who live by the sword, only understand the sword.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Bang the Drum Slowly
Good day. I working on very little sleep here, so I've already laid blame for the moment you get done reading this and say,"What was that?"
...Ok. I honestly can't believe I'm returning to this subject, I have truly believed each time I address it, that would be it. Like here. As you are aware, I find the mainstream media increasingly biased and partisan. It becomes more apparent that they have chosen a side, but more importantly, they can't keep their opinion out of their reporting. Actually, I wish that was the case. Now they have taken to shaping the news and changing their standard operating procedure based on which candidate is talking and rely on it...remember this? And now we have this masterpiece.
In a nutshell, "...ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable." So, I guess everyone else has been right, and I've been wrong. The media does treat ideological opposites equal in spirit, just not in a "reflexively and artificially" viewed reality. Are you serious? Once again, the fact that a high ranking member of a major news organization would have these sort of feelings is not the surprise. His willingness to write it down and boldness in distributing it is. It brings me back to the pervasive world view describe in
Bias by Bernard Goldberg. Basically, the point-of-view is so ingrained that most members of the media don't ever stop to realize that there is a differing opinion. It's not necessarily willful, although in this case it think the manifestation is "quite grave", but essentially a myopic ignorance. A belief that there's no need to represent or consider an opposing view because the thought of there existing a human who might hold that view is as foreign as espousing the health benefits of cream gravy. (And no, I don't know any either, but I'll never quit looking.)
Of course, I also believe that those who choose not the regard this as a problem, also have a problem. I believe that a pillar to keeping us free, to protecting democracy and ensuring that this country continues to employ a respectable government is the sharing of information, especially the practices of federal entities. But when these activities, or the motives for these activities are painted by the media in a certain light, without respect paid to other possibilities...when the press makes the decision what is right or wrong and then reports a story in an attempt to support it's belief or to gain backers; that degrades liberty...my ability to make the proper choice at the polls. If the information has been filtered to the point that the truth is as unbelievable as the lie is believably, we've got a problem. But really it doesn't even need to get to that point. If we can't trust the media to report the news, and not someone's version of the news, then we can't trust anything they report
Well, the seed is taking root. Isolated incidents don't happened once a week. These events are not the fruit of accident or misunderstanding. They are fundamentally wrong for they fly in the face of what the art of journalism should be. Political "journalists" are no longer viewed as purveyors of truth but something a half-rung above the movie critic...except the critic can't effect the outcome of the movie.
...Ok. I honestly can't believe I'm returning to this subject, I have truly believed each time I address it, that would be it. Like here. As you are aware, I find the mainstream media increasingly biased and partisan. It becomes more apparent that they have chosen a side, but more importantly, they can't keep their opinion out of their reporting. Actually, I wish that was the case. Now they have taken to shaping the news and changing their standard operating procedure based on which candidate is talking and rely on it...remember this? And now we have this masterpiece.
In a nutshell, "...ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable." So, I guess everyone else has been right, and I've been wrong. The media does treat ideological opposites equal in spirit, just not in a "reflexively and artificially" viewed reality. Are you serious? Once again, the fact that a high ranking member of a major news organization would have these sort of feelings is not the surprise. His willingness to write it down and boldness in distributing it is. It brings me back to the pervasive world view describe in
Bias by Bernard Goldberg. Basically, the point-of-view is so ingrained that most members of the media don't ever stop to realize that there is a differing opinion. It's not necessarily willful, although in this case it think the manifestation is "quite grave", but essentially a myopic ignorance. A belief that there's no need to represent or consider an opposing view because the thought of there existing a human who might hold that view is as foreign as espousing the health benefits of cream gravy. (And no, I don't know any either, but I'll never quit looking.)
Of course, I also believe that those who choose not the regard this as a problem, also have a problem. I believe that a pillar to keeping us free, to protecting democracy and ensuring that this country continues to employ a respectable government is the sharing of information, especially the practices of federal entities. But when these activities, or the motives for these activities are painted by the media in a certain light, without respect paid to other possibilities...when the press makes the decision what is right or wrong and then reports a story in an attempt to support it's belief or to gain backers; that degrades liberty...my ability to make the proper choice at the polls. If the information has been filtered to the point that the truth is as unbelievable as the lie is believably, we've got a problem. But really it doesn't even need to get to that point. If we can't trust the media to report the news, and not someone's version of the news, then we can't trust anything they report
Well, the seed is taking root. Isolated incidents don't happened once a week. These events are not the fruit of accident or misunderstanding. They are fundamentally wrong for they fly in the face of what the art of journalism should be. Political "journalists" are no longer viewed as purveyors of truth but something a half-rung above the movie critic...except the critic can't effect the outcome of the movie.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Back in the Prediction Business
First, sorry for the lateness of this post, if anyone even noticed...
Two predictions. One which only a few will care about. The Texas Longhorns will show up tomorrow. I expect a nail biter. And oh please, dear Lord, Texas will pull it out.
Number 2. Bush will win this debate tonight. He should be loaded for bear. Obviously, the media continues to paint this week's report as a bad thing for Bush. The problem is, in the end , it refutes everything that Kerry has been proposing as an option to the "Bush Doctrine." The U.N. is just as big a joke as CBSNews at this point. The curtain has been pulled back and the wizard has oil vouchers poking out of every pocket (I imagine something similar to the Monopoly guy, except instead of empty pockets, he's blushing as he cowers with his full pockets).
Kerry obviously doesn't get it. Or maybe he does, but has no recourse. There is only one way to deal with people (I use that term loosely) who view a school on the first day of classes as a strategic target, and school children as combatants. And that way is not by sitting down at any table, and not by hoping some mainland European naysayer changes their mind. I'm sorry, but anyone...ANYONE who thinks differently is a moron. Not capable of cogent, rational thought. Fascist tyrants are fascist tyrants for a reason. And it's not for their reasonableness. Terrorists are just fascist tyrants without a flag and an army behind them. Anyone who hopes Europe will step in and save the day should remember they have proven themselves to be proficient at handwringing and appeasement and that's about it. This whole argument is really quite foolish.
This is no longer a world that affords us the ability to deal exclusively with nations that care about the potential political fall-out. Terrorists and rogue nations driven by the urge to deal the "Great Satan" (aka USA) a debilitating blow don't care about such matters. In fact, most are already operating under sanctions and strained political relations. THEY DON'T CARE! But...but a dead terrorist is one that has a serious obstacle to overcome.
Whew...well, sorry for the rant...no, I'm not sorry, that felt good.
Two predictions. One which only a few will care about. The Texas Longhorns will show up tomorrow. I expect a nail biter. And oh please, dear Lord, Texas will pull it out.
Number 2. Bush will win this debate tonight. He should be loaded for bear. Obviously, the media continues to paint this week's report as a bad thing for Bush. The problem is, in the end , it refutes everything that Kerry has been proposing as an option to the "Bush Doctrine." The U.N. is just as big a joke as CBSNews at this point. The curtain has been pulled back and the wizard has oil vouchers poking out of every pocket (I imagine something similar to the Monopoly guy, except instead of empty pockets, he's blushing as he cowers with his full pockets).
Kerry obviously doesn't get it. Or maybe he does, but has no recourse. There is only one way to deal with people (I use that term loosely) who view a school on the first day of classes as a strategic target, and school children as combatants. And that way is not by sitting down at any table, and not by hoping some mainland European naysayer changes their mind. I'm sorry, but anyone...ANYONE who thinks differently is a moron. Not capable of cogent, rational thought. Fascist tyrants are fascist tyrants for a reason. And it's not for their reasonableness. Terrorists are just fascist tyrants without a flag and an army behind them. Anyone who hopes Europe will step in and save the day should remember they have proven themselves to be proficient at handwringing and appeasement and that's about it. This whole argument is really quite foolish.
This is no longer a world that affords us the ability to deal exclusively with nations that care about the potential political fall-out. Terrorists and rogue nations driven by the urge to deal the "Great Satan" (aka USA) a debilitating blow don't care about such matters. In fact, most are already operating under sanctions and strained political relations. THEY DON'T CARE! But...but a dead terrorist is one that has a serious obstacle to overcome.
Whew...well, sorry for the rant...no, I'm not sorry, that felt good.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
I don't have any WMDs either
My informal survey of news sites finds that, shockingly, no one can find the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. What's next? France has decided not to be in the "Coalition of the Willing"? I know this is important and "breaking news" because most major news sites lead with the news:
CNN - Report: No WMDs in Iraq
CBSNews - Iraq WMD Hunt Comes Up Empty
FoxNews (Gasp!) - Report Finds No Iraq WMD After '91
NYTimes - U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
LATimes - Iraq's Illicit Weapons Gone Since Early '90s, CIA Says
MSN - Inspector says Iraq had no WMD
Yahoo! Report: Iraqi WMD gone since early '90s
At the time of my survey, these headlines could be found at the top of the page, 1st headline, no scrolling required. But did anyone, by this point, expect to find major stockpiles of anything? There were expectations that Saddam would use WMD's (biological weapons) during the initial invasion, but when that didn't occur, we new something was up. If we didn't find some nukes or something in the first month after the Iraqi army bolted, I don't think anyone was still holding their breath. What I'm saying here is, "This is not news." At least not to the level it has been constantly and loudly reported.
Especially....ESPECIALLY when in the same report we find evidence that Saddam Hussein was buying off various countries, including France, China and Russia....oh, and the U.N. This news is only mentioned in some degree on Google News, who at least offers differing views. Also, the Washington Post which offers the dueling headlines together: "Hussein Gave Vouchers To Help Dilute Sanctions" and "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons"; but in the end, editorializes,"Analysis: War Rationales Undermined."
My question is, why, in an election where we have one party running on a platform that no matter what weapons he currently held, Saddam still had the ability to aid and abet terrorists...and was doing so; with the other contending we should build a broader coalition of nations with the assistance of the U.N. do we not see headlines like this?
"Saddam and the French Connection" at the The Scotsman.
Or these "Saddam Bribed Politicians" and "Regime stole oil-for-food cash" at the Telegraph.
Isn't the bigger story one that shows Saddam had three members of the Security Council in his pocket? Not to mention the key officials of the U.N. Apparently not. Those media guys know better than me.
But just in case. With these findings now in evidence, what exactly is John F. Kerry's plan for Iraq? And how has that hole that once occupied his "4 point plan" not become a false-bottom? Please tell me.
Before I leave. Everyone should read this article on "Deterrence"(**Warning** It is quite long, but well worth it), and probably this one on the growing divide between the two parties. (Note - both were written by guys who would not identified as the classic conservative.)
CNN - Report: No WMDs in Iraq
CBSNews - Iraq WMD Hunt Comes Up Empty
FoxNews (Gasp!) - Report Finds No Iraq WMD After '91
NYTimes - U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
LATimes - Iraq's Illicit Weapons Gone Since Early '90s, CIA Says
MSN - Inspector says Iraq had no WMD
Yahoo! Report: Iraqi WMD gone since early '90s
At the time of my survey, these headlines could be found at the top of the page, 1st headline, no scrolling required. But did anyone, by this point, expect to find major stockpiles of anything? There were expectations that Saddam would use WMD's (biological weapons) during the initial invasion, but when that didn't occur, we new something was up. If we didn't find some nukes or something in the first month after the Iraqi army bolted, I don't think anyone was still holding their breath. What I'm saying here is, "This is not news." At least not to the level it has been constantly and loudly reported.
Especially....ESPECIALLY when in the same report we find evidence that Saddam Hussein was buying off various countries, including France, China and Russia....oh, and the U.N. This news is only mentioned in some degree on Google News, who at least offers differing views. Also, the Washington Post which offers the dueling headlines together: "Hussein Gave Vouchers To Help Dilute Sanctions" and "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons"; but in the end, editorializes,"Analysis: War Rationales Undermined."
My question is, why, in an election where we have one party running on a platform that no matter what weapons he currently held, Saddam still had the ability to aid and abet terrorists...and was doing so; with the other contending we should build a broader coalition of nations with the assistance of the U.N. do we not see headlines like this?
"Saddam and the French Connection" at the The Scotsman.
Or these "Saddam Bribed Politicians" and "Regime stole oil-for-food cash" at the Telegraph.
Isn't the bigger story one that shows Saddam had three members of the Security Council in his pocket? Not to mention the key officials of the U.N. Apparently not. Those media guys know better than me.
But just in case. With these findings now in evidence, what exactly is John F. Kerry's plan for Iraq? And how has that hole that once occupied his "4 point plan" not become a false-bottom? Please tell me.
Before I leave. Everyone should read this article on "Deterrence"(**Warning** It is quite long, but well worth it), and probably this one on the growing divide between the two parties. (Note - both were written by guys who would not identified as the classic conservative.)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Debate, and debate about debates
Well, that was something. Sitting on my couch, with the occasional quick check of the ballgame, I scored that one in the Cheney column. Some people think that Edwards won, even won big. But I didn't see that debate. Those that say such things (Andrew Sullivan), say it was because "Edwards came off as by far the more appealing, persuasive and eloquent figure." I might give him appealing just based on the fact that Edwards is young and somewhat attractive compared to Cheney's somber, dour ways. But persuasive? He said Kerry had been consistent for gosh sakes. And eloquent? Where?!
I feel that Cheney made several key points that were missing from the last debate. Mainly, Msr. Kerry and Edwards voting record or lack thereof. Basically, they have a problem showing up for work, and when they do, you wish they hadn't. A quick look as something so generic as the Yahoo! political pages tell you all you need to now about how often they show up and vote. First Edwards, then Kerry. "NV" would seem to indicate there was "No vote" from that particular person. Just as a contrast, I checked my own representatives, and neither of my Senators or my Congressman missed a single vote. If these guys win, will it just be a constant race to get to the sign-up sheet for Camp David?
In other news, another Bush office was attacked. Apparently, momentarily sieged. Union members ransacking political opponents offices? Does anyone else think of the word "Nazi"? Probably just me. But if this is a trend, it's a disturbing one. And where's the hate police on this one? Busy trying to figure out how trashing an office in protected by the 1st Amendment, I'm sure.
I feel that Cheney made several key points that were missing from the last debate. Mainly, Msr. Kerry and Edwards voting record or lack thereof. Basically, they have a problem showing up for work, and when they do, you wish they hadn't. A quick look as something so generic as the Yahoo! political pages tell you all you need to now about how often they show up and vote. First Edwards, then Kerry. "NV" would seem to indicate there was "No vote" from that particular person. Just as a contrast, I checked my own representatives, and neither of my Senators or my Congressman missed a single vote. If these guys win, will it just be a constant race to get to the sign-up sheet for Camp David?
In other news, another Bush office was attacked. Apparently, momentarily sieged. Union members ransacking political opponents offices? Does anyone else think of the word "Nazi"? Probably just me. But if this is a trend, it's a disturbing one. And where's the hate police on this one? Busy trying to figure out how trashing an office in protected by the 1st Amendment, I'm sure.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Quick hits
Two quick notes in case you missed them. If you did, why aren't you reading Drudge?
Uno. A middle school in New Jersey basically fired a teacher for displaying a photo of the current president (Bush) and the first-lady along side pictures of other presidents and a copy of the Constitution. She rebuffed demands by parents at a "Back to School" night to also add a picture of John F. Kerry. By doing so, her principal accused her of spreading "inflammatory politics", told her to leave and took away her keys. Read, or better yet, watch the story here. Pay particular attention to the phrase painted above a walkway that the camera captures in a very dramatic pan.
Dos. John F. Kerry's running mate took time off from offering nuclear products to Iran to insult about half the country. He said: "I'd say if you live in the United States of America (Check!) and you vote for George Bush(Check![future tense]), you've lost your mind." (Oh...bummer) I guess it's possible that a Republican on a presidential ticket might have said something similar about a sitting President and/or opponent, but I can't think of it. And something tells me if it had happened the media would have told me, like a thousand-million times. I dare say if the roles were reversed, Edward's rhetoric would be described as "hate speech" that might have helped instigate this.
Oh well, 28 days until I lose my mind.
Uno. A middle school in New Jersey basically fired a teacher for displaying a photo of the current president (Bush) and the first-lady along side pictures of other presidents and a copy of the Constitution. She rebuffed demands by parents at a "Back to School" night to also add a picture of John F. Kerry. By doing so, her principal accused her of spreading "inflammatory politics", told her to leave and took away her keys. Read, or better yet, watch the story here. Pay particular attention to the phrase painted above a walkway that the camera captures in a very dramatic pan.
Dos. John F. Kerry's running mate took time off from offering nuclear products to Iran to insult about half the country. He said: "I'd say if you live in the United States of America (Check!) and you vote for George Bush(Check![future tense]), you've lost your mind." (Oh...bummer) I guess it's possible that a Republican on a presidential ticket might have said something similar about a sitting President and/or opponent, but I can't think of it. And something tells me if it had happened the media would have told me, like a thousand-million times. I dare say if the roles were reversed, Edward's rhetoric would be described as "hate speech" that might have helped instigate this.
Oh well, 28 days until I lose my mind.
Monday, October 04, 2004
The times in which we live...
Amazing.
My boss and I sat around one day talking how much we(humans) have advanced, technologically speaking, in such a short amount of time, relatively speaking. To think of the crude devices of life and vehicles of transportation that his parents and my grandparents used, compared to today.
As a contrast. My grandfather has told me that (**Warning** "Grandfather Stories" should always be viewed with some amount of skepticism, not because they lie, they just have a penchant for exaggeration and a willingness to sacrifice certain "details" for the sake of the their grandkids entertainment. Nonetheless, the veracity of these stories I do not question.) that he came to this great state, Texas, in a covered wagon as a small child. That's right, a wagon and a horse. Compare to today, where I can go purchase a car that will not only tell me how to get where I'm going, but require minimal braking in the process because of the lasers attached to the bumpers that sense when cars get to close. This vehicle can also get satellite t.v. which can be viewed on various screens throughout.
Also, as a teenager, my grandfather worked for Western Union, delivering telegrams. Telegrams. Today, I can sip a latte at Starbucks while sitting with my laptop--no wires attached--and see what's happening in China, send an e-mail...or even better an IM, buy said car which I can choose or not to drive, map out vacation plans, transfer large sums of money, dictate a memo(to the computer,not another human), write a document that automatically corrects my mistakes, order a pizza...yada, yada, yada, basically perform every function that a person could think up.
Then today, October 4, 2004, comes along. My grandfather comes from a time when a radio program caused millions to panic by suggesting that aliens were attacking. Apparently, I come from a time that will allow us to check it out for ourselves. Truly amazing. It just happens that I have been watching the HBO mini-series "From Earth to the Moon." NASA asked for $20 billion --in 1960 dollars-- to make that trip possible. Now it appears in the lapse of a mere fifty years from Alan Sheppard's May 5, 1961, trip, some dude could be making reservations on a much more comfortable flight, with a much easier landing. "Spares in Space", that's what I'll call it.
Either way, I will thank my God that I live in such a remarkable time.
My boss and I sat around one day talking how much we(humans) have advanced, technologically speaking, in such a short amount of time, relatively speaking. To think of the crude devices of life and vehicles of transportation that his parents and my grandparents used, compared to today.
As a contrast. My grandfather has told me that (**Warning** "Grandfather Stories" should always be viewed with some amount of skepticism, not because they lie, they just have a penchant for exaggeration and a willingness to sacrifice certain "details" for the sake of the their grandkids entertainment. Nonetheless, the veracity of these stories I do not question.) that he came to this great state, Texas, in a covered wagon as a small child. That's right, a wagon and a horse. Compare to today, where I can go purchase a car that will not only tell me how to get where I'm going, but require minimal braking in the process because of the lasers attached to the bumpers that sense when cars get to close. This vehicle can also get satellite t.v. which can be viewed on various screens throughout.
Also, as a teenager, my grandfather worked for Western Union, delivering telegrams. Telegrams. Today, I can sip a latte at Starbucks while sitting with my laptop--no wires attached--and see what's happening in China, send an e-mail...or even better an IM, buy said car which I can choose or not to drive, map out vacation plans, transfer large sums of money, dictate a memo(to the computer,not another human), write a document that automatically corrects my mistakes, order a pizza...yada, yada, yada, basically perform every function that a person could think up.
Then today, October 4, 2004, comes along. My grandfather comes from a time when a radio program caused millions to panic by suggesting that aliens were attacking. Apparently, I come from a time that will allow us to check it out for ourselves. Truly amazing. It just happens that I have been watching the HBO mini-series "From Earth to the Moon." NASA asked for $20 billion --in 1960 dollars-- to make that trip possible. Now it appears in the lapse of a mere fifty years from Alan Sheppard's May 5, 1961, trip, some dude could be making reservations on a much more comfortable flight, with a much easier landing. "Spares in Space", that's what I'll call it.
Either way, I will thank my God that I live in such a remarkable time.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Tired Head All Around
Well, that was not fun. The debate that is. I guess I'd give Kerry a slight edge. Though, his strategy seemed to be utter audaciousness. But before I get into that, let me say the format was dreadful. Does anyone think it's a good idea to for a candidate to have 3 and a half minutes at a time to talk? You know it's too much time, when even Kerry has trouble filling it. At one point about thirty minutes in I reached for the remote, not knowing if I could take anymore, but I reminded myself that this was important. Now I wonder.
That debate drained the life force right out of me. Basically, for two reasons. Kerry's willingness to lie on such a stage is amazing. And I think he did it so often and with such "conviction" that it was effective. How could anyone respond to all his misleading statements? Two, Bush didn't take the opportunity to pound him. Kerry's "strategies" are non-sensical at best, and many times I think Bush passed up a chance to point that out. Of course, I think part of the reason for that was because he was having to set straight all of Kerry's misinformation. It was just very frustrating.
Luckily, I think a nominal inspection of Kerry's ideas will reveal them as the jokes that they are. "Better, faster" is not a strategy, and definitely not a new idea.
That debate drained the life force right out of me. Basically, for two reasons. Kerry's willingness to lie on such a stage is amazing. And I think he did it so often and with such "conviction" that it was effective. How could anyone respond to all his misleading statements? Two, Bush didn't take the opportunity to pound him. Kerry's "strategies" are non-sensical at best, and many times I think Bush passed up a chance to point that out. Of course, I think part of the reason for that was because he was having to set straight all of Kerry's misinformation. It was just very frustrating.
Luckily, I think a nominal inspection of Kerry's ideas will reveal them as the jokes that they are. "Better, faster" is not a strategy, and definitely not a new idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)