"I'm looking through, and it all would be so crystal clear, if it wasn't for the foam." -- Mike Gordon
The foam of ignorance bubbles to the top of our society like the thick foamy head on a nice mug of root beer, only less tasty and more likely to cause bleak despair.
A bubble pops, and scores of other bubbles rush to take its place.
Debate once furthered the knowledge of man; now it is used as a tool to control and bewilder. The media convinces us that we are all experts in areas we haven't even begun to understand. Ask a librarian what the he consideres the most important application of carbon nanofibres and he'll shrug and point you to the reference section. Ask him what he thinks of energy regulation, and he'll give you a much less helpful answer, but it'll take a lot longer and involve a lot of sound bytes.
It is here that, in the hope of prompting intelligent and thoughtful debate, I shall offer my thoughts on politics, the media, mass morality, and the like. It's all become a frothing foam of ignorance, and it's up to us to pour it off, bit by bit.
If I say wrong things, prove me wrong: one more bubble of ignorance popped, even mine, helps us all.
Here's some reading on the whole torture thing.
Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans;
Bush Didn't Order Any Breach of Torture Laws, Ashcroft Says.
If you don't want to read it, here's the quick sum-up: Ashcroft has said, this week, that the President "'made no order that would require or direct the violation' of either the international treaties or domestic laws prohibiting torture." Good. Last year, Ashcroft's department published a memorandum that said the President has no obligation to follow such treaties or laws. So Ashcroft's not saying "the President didn't order the torture," he's saying "the President didn't order any torture that, in our opinion, he's not allowed to order." That's a big difference, especially since he's said the President can order any torture he wants to. Given the circumstances of a slipping Presidential approval rating and upcoming election, wouldn't you think that, if Bush hadn't ordered any torture at all, Ashcroft would've said "President Bush never ordered torture," instead of "President Bush never ordered torture that violates treaties or laws," ESPECIALLY in light of the recent discovery of this memorandum? Certainly...if that were the case.
The justification for allowing the President to order torture that would otherwise violate international treaties or domestic laws seems pretty tenuous. Actually, it seems barely justifiable, and if it weren't for having seen this administration try to justify an entire war on shaky evidence, I'd have trouble believing Ashcroft could actually get up in public and pretend to be serious in his legal assessment. We're at war, and the President is in charge of the conduct of the war, so he's not bound by treaties prohibiting torture. OK. Surely we can't hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his torture either, because Iraq was at war when he committed those atrocities. Surely we can't hold Hitler responsible for the Holocaust, because Germany was at war. Some may counter that those nations deliberately and wrongly went on the offensive to create those wars. So did we. Ah, but they were...evil! So are we. Seriously. So what's the difference? Why is ousting Saddam a good thing? Why isn't anyone invading our country to oust Bush? How can we justify the prosecution of other nations' leaders for war crimes? Is the President, by virtue of being in charge of a war he created, bound by NO law or treaty? It would seem the case.
Here's another thought: we're not at war. We haven't declared war in 50 years. Not in Nam, not in Iraq, not in Somalia, Kosovo, Iran, Nicaragua, anywhere. So you don't get to say "he's in charge of the war:" there's no war to be in charge of. There's undeclared military action without provocation or justification. Ah, the high moral ground we possess. Thank God Saddam Hussein's out of power: the world's much safer now!
Here's another thought: Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery, remember? He was impeached for lying, because the other side couldn't stand him. Why hasn't the other side decided to do the same to this guy? Have we the beginnings of a one-party state? Hyperbole? Perhaps. But why? Why don't we fight? Why did we learn the wrong lesson from the Republican surge? Who's running this goddam show?
Here's another thought: five days of mourning for Reagan? Constant news coverage? Why don't we just have the richest 1% mourn for five days and let it trickle down?
Here's another thought: I'm right, and you're either with me, or you're for the terrorists and all the sushi-eating Howard Dean-buttfucking Vermonters.
Here's another thought: If we're just going to sacrifice all the liberties we're supposed to be struggling to protect, we might as well just save the lives and money and surrender now, convert to Islam, buy stock in veil companies, and learn Arabic.
Here's another thought: Bush hasn't done anything to reduce the problem of terrorism. In fact, he's cut funding for first responders (police, EMTs, and firepeople of either or both sexes) across the nation. The Homeland Security Agency has failed to do anything at all except to point out that duct tape makes you immune to radiation, and red is a scarier color than orange. Invading a sovereign Arab nation is unlikely to endear many Arabs to our cause. Picture if Saddam had invaded Canada last year. Would you have converted to al Queda? So I'm curious: what exactly has he done that makes him so strong in the war on terror? Cut funding for anti-terrorism and invaded a state that posed no national or terrorist threat to us. Sweet! If the war on terror is nearly as important as Bush makes it out to be, voting for Bush is morally indefensible.
Here's another thought: fuck Diebold.
Here's another thought: during Reagan's funeral, George W. Bush will be sitting next to Bill Clinton. On Clinton's other side will be George H. W. Bush. Then Carter and Ford. Picture Clinton sitting between those two Bushes! That's a once-in-a-lifetime entertainment opportunity!
I'm out of thoughts. That's it.
So I'm reading Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies. If you haven't read it, and have ever wondered about the history of the Middle East from 1980-2000, it'll help. If not, you may not particularly enjoy it. But one thing from it really grabbed me as being hysterical, and may help to convince those who hate us that it's all just a big misunderstanding.
Picture this: you're a Saudi named Hani el-Sayegh. You hate America. You work for Saudi Hezbollah. And one day you're ordered to attack a United States Air Force base in a place called "Khobar." So you do it. And of course, as you expected, the Americans find out you did it. If there's one thing America likes more than big business, it's getting it's man! But they can't prove who ordered you to do it. So they fly you to...Canada!
The director of an investigative agency called the "FBI" sits down with you and the Canadian officials. He asks you to agree to a lighter sentence in exchange for betraying your superiors. And despite their expectations, you do agree, probably because you're terrified. So they bring you to the United States to stand trial. But once you get there, it occurs to you that maybe you should be more terrified of the people you'd be betraying, so you decide you don't want to do this deal anymore. And so you refuse to cooperate. The country that's apprehended you gives you a lawyer to help you defend yourself against it. So you stand trial against America (with your American lawyer), and you refuse to betray your superiors. And you're let off, because they don't have any evidence against you! This vindicates your American lawyer, who wanted you to win your case, but it aggravates the American FBI, who wanted you to lose your case, and give up evidence while you did it.
The Saudi officials will kill you if you return, because you're a murderer. So you do the only thing you can do: seek asylum in the country whose soldiers you killed. Another American agency is assigned to consider whether you should be protected for killing its citizens. And by now you're thinking, "this is some really fucked up bureaucracy!" This is subsequently confirmed by the fact that your asylum review is taking so long. While that review is pending, the director of the FBI, who apprehended you and brought you to America in the first place, orders you detained because...wait for it...you're in America illegally!
How can you hate a country like that? We're completely incompetent! We're not evil: we're stupid! So lighten up!
That's right, you heard it here first, or fiftieth: Bill Gates has been fined $800,000, for failing to disclose a purchase of stock that gives him a certain amount of control in the biotech company that manufactures boner drug Cialis. The amount of the fine would cause some financial concern for a lot of the population. But for Bill? $800,000?! It seems a laughably small sum, but how laughable is it? There's a lot of 0s happening here: we should put this in perspective.
According to this Forbes Article, Gates is worth $46.6 billion American dollars. $800,000 is roughly 0.00171674% of $46.6 billion. So what does that mean for someone likt me? Well, totalling my assets and debts (in my sleepy state), I calculate my net worth (as of this moment) at roughly -$10,000. So essentially, the fine on Gates is about like someone giving me...wait for it...$0.17. Yeowch. That'll teach him!
Jonathan A. Knee, director of the media program at Columbia Business School, has written an editorial at NYT. I think he starts from a good premise, one I would wholeheartedly agree with. Then he goes in the wrong direction, fast.
First, the premise: "The Federal Communications Commission's well-publicized post-Super Bowl campaign against broadcaster "indecency" is misplaced, if not downright comical.... It's time to consider a more radical approach to censoring pornography."
Good. I agree. Sex sells. The networks may claim not to want to display it (which I think is a bit of a say-one-thing-and-do-another situation), but financially, it's too tempting. They'll skirt the line as often as possible: if they get punished, they'll apologize and do it again in a month. If they get away with it, the line has moved, to be re-challenged another day. So yeah, the FCC's campaign seems silly and problematic. And therefore, we need a new plan. I'm with you up to here, John!
Mr. Knee cites the problems with the current law: butting up against the cherished first amendment, the long and doubtful process of case-by-case judicial review, and finally: " ...the problem isn't only what minors see. With 70 percent of men aged 18 to 34 visiting a pornographic Web site at least once a month, this material affects everyone." His conclusion: outlaw the practice of paying people for sex acts.
I have a better proposal, one that respects the views of everybody: let's eliminate indecency laws.
John's proposal works against capitalism, the only thing America values more than democracy and freedom. Mine aids capitalism! His proposal inhibits liberty: mine expands it. His proposal gets rid of the problem of case-by-case judicial review of what constitutes pornography: so does mine. However, his introduces a whole new, much much thornier case-by-case judicial problem: what's a "sex act?"
Holy shit! You've gotta be kidding...Clinton's out of office for three years and already we've forgotten how complex this issue is?! For the sake of argument, let's make the assumption that oral sex is a sex act. What about digital stimulation? What about mutual masturbation? What about touching without the intent to stimulate? Do breasts count? What about the posterior? If Donovan McNabb throws a touchdown pass, and a fellow player, being paid to play in the game, gives him a congratulatory ass-pat, does that player go to jail? Does McNabb? What about kissing on the lips? What about kissing on the cheek? What about a foot massage? Does it matter if you have a foot fetish? What if you're paid to appear in a movie scene where you ejaculate on a photograph of John Ashcroft? Stripping? Lapdance? Bending over and revealing cleavage? What if you whack off at work?
Yeah, Mr. Knee, your proposal really gets around that judicial review problem. Nicely done. Remind me to leave the country if you ever attain a federal judicial position.
But Chris, you say, the airwaves are federal property! The Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC may govern content transmitted over them. Sure, they may, according to that ruling, which (to my untrained legal mind) relies on a rather tenuous interpretation of law and precedent. But even granting that, the ruling doesn't say the FCC MUST do so. Nowhere does it say "obscenity MUST be prevented," it only says "obscenity CAN be prevented." And frankly, I see more benefit in allowing it than attempting to prohibit it. We save money and manpower. We have more liberty. We eliminate a precedent of state-controlled information. And there's another capitalist benefit.
What if we let the states take back legal control of transmitted content? Use that 10th amendment! "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." More regional control! Let Utah require women to wear long pants and face veils! Let Nevada air hardcore group sex all day long on the childrens' channel! Then there will be a market for TVs with real decency controls, the way there's a developing market for programs and even hardware that prevent children from accessing pornography. But don't force people to buy these products (you right-wing commies! :D): let the market forces prevail. Let advocacy groups attempt to change thought and behavior. Don't rely on laws to do it.
I've only thought about this for about as long as it took me to write this entry. I may be wrong. Feel free to tell me so.
Today, Al Gore pledged $6,000,000 toward this fall's Democratic Party election efforts. The money is left over from his election bid four years ago. Under FEC rules, such funds can be donated to national political parties.
One question, Al: how come you had six million fucking dollars left over?!?! You couldn't find anything to spend that on?! What the hell is the matter with you?! Thwap Thwap!!
All right, I guess that was three questions.
Buy our shoes! If the Wright brothers had worn our shoes, they would've built space shuttles!
If you give your family OUR orange juice, they'll love you! But if you give them that OTHER orange juice, they'll take crack and murder you in your sleep!
This car comes with power windows and this model's knockers! Buy it or you'll be a big loser with no hot model's knockers in your car!
Enzyte will expand your dong AND improve your golf game! And you'll get a raise!
Microsoft: Your potential inspires us to...ah, we don't give a shit about you.
Why not gay marriage? Why the fuck not?
Don't get me wrong: the state absolutely should not tell any religion what to do on this issue. Human sacrifice, yes. Marriage, no. If {religion X} doesn't want to allow same-sex couples to get married, that's their deal. Not a state matter. So don't get me wrong here.
But if the state chooses to provide marriage for opposite-sex couples, how can it not provide those rights to same-sex couples? Civil Unions are a big step forward. But it's Plessy v. Ferguson, not Brown v. Board. Yeah, I know, baby steps and all that. But we're all hung up on this word: "marriage." Oh, gee, "marriage!" That's a social hangup of our time, and I understand the hold it has on some people, I really do. But we need to move beyond that hangup, and hangups like it, and eventually we will. That's not a guess; it's not a prediction: it's a guarantee, from me to you. Let's just skip the 10, 25, 50 years of interim conservative wrangling and accept it now. These people who say "oh, let's give them the same rights, but call it something else" are the same people who used to say "let's give the blacks a school system of approximately equal quality, but don't let them into OUR schools."
Giving gays and lesbians "civil unions," is a step forward, and I support it. I realize that at the same time some states are taking that step forward, Ohio is about to take a step backward. So please don't take this to be a disparagement of what progress we've made. But eventually, gays and lesbians will say "how come we're only good enough for 'civil unions?'" just as other minority groups have said "how come we're only good enough for 'separate but equal?'" And when they say that, they'll be right: they'll deserve better than that. But they deserve better than that right now. Why not just skip all the bullshit?
There's a debate on TV right now, dealing with whether states should be obligated to recognize the marriage laws of other states. They shouldn't: no state should have individualized marriage laws, or individualized laws on any civil rights. It should be a national law, 100%, right now. Think of the debate 200 years ago over whether the northern states should be obligated to return slaves that ran away from their masters in the south. That was the law of the land, and it had some support even among those who opposed slavery, because some of them felt the states' rights on that matter were of superior value to the embattled black man's. It was wrong, but we got past it. Today, it would seem like lunacy to propose that each state be allowed to pass its own slavery laws, and then debate whether other states should or should not be obligated to recognize those states' sovereign rights to declare slavery legal. Gay marriage will eventually seem as obviously correct as the abolition of slavery. States don't get to say murder is legal, or arson is legal, and they shouldn't get to say who deserves to get married and who doesn't. That's just logic, regardless of your feelings on homosexuality. It's the constitution. So fuck all that.
Yes, I have a strong opinion on this, but I'm perfectly willing to listen to anyone who's willing to try to explain why 10% of America's population should not be allowed the full rights of the other 90%.
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Go check out BushRevealed.com!
Find out why all good Christians are refusing to vote for Bush! Discover his:
DON'T just sacrifice your Christian vote for the sake of conservative values! "God has not called us to a lesser of evil. He's called us to holiness!"
Check out the Forums! My recommendation? Are you people SERIOUS?? (It's not what you think: the guy's not amazed that they're so far to the right that they'd make a site like this. Oh no! He's aghast that they're willing to seriously suggest that they run the risk of voting against Bush and possibly going back to another President like the last guy, who only waved his bible when it served his purpose!)
Find out if YOU'RE... Good Enough to Enter Heaven!
Truly, a site worth exploring! And remember: "the neoconservatives in control of our administration now are actually disenchanted LIBERALS who are being called ultra-right-wing conservatists [sic]."
Streakers in restaurant* watch as their car, clothes stolen
*: Denny's. You're shocked, right?
A new study prompts Congress to pass legislation that outlaws a popular exercise: running!
Ah, C-SPAN. How do I love thee?
So Bush is announcing a "temporary" work plan for illegal immigrants (the "Tell Us Who You Are, Then Pack Up This Cabbage and Get the Fuck Out" Act). What this entails is illegal immigrants paying a registration fee to declare their presence, then working temporarily at their job and then going home. If they fail to register, they're subjected to a $1500 fine if caught (which money, presumably, they'd be raising from working in the US illegally, or from theft or what have you). This from Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary. I may have botched some of the details because it's hard to listen to Scott McClellan.
Well, as it turns out, some Americans like this plan and some don't. McClellan's session wrapped up at 2:15, and Bush is scheduled to speak at 2:45. What's an ad-free network to do? Why not get some people from the Cato Institute and the National Immigration Forum to answer calls from opinionated Americans! Perfect!
But there's a problem: the recent upswing in America's economy means even complete morons can afford phones, which effectively turns C-SPAN into a soapbox for Cletus to explain how this policy to allow immigrants in--just for a while, and then they have to leave, mind you--is actually a devious conspiracy arranged by Republicans, Democrats, and the Catholic Church. According to Cletus (name changed to protect the ignorant) the Republicans want to enact this plan so they can buy Mexican votes (this despite the fact that they're not citizens, won't have the right to vote, and must leave the country after their temporary job). The Democrats want this because Mexicans will all move into poor areas and suffer a lack of education, which will lead them to vote Democrat. And the Catholic Church wants this because they've become tired of crusading in the rest of the world, and have decided to just concentrate all their followers in one region: the US. This, says Cletus--on national TV, with no trace of irony or shame--is a deliberate conspiracy dreamed up by both major political parties and the Catholic Church to corrupt the White Race and disenfranchise the economy that the White Man has so taken so long to build up. Thanks for buying that phone, Cletus. I hope it was made by a White Guy.
But they're not all racist morons: some are just morons. A later dialogue with another caller included this exchange: "You guys all love this plan! You're just Bush butt-kissers!" "Do you have a specific question, sir?" "Yes! This is wrong! The majority of Americans don't want this!" It's ok, pal: statements are kind of like questions.
Ah, fun stuff. Thank you, C-SPAN! And I bet you thought Comedy Central had some funny shit! And now: the "President of the United States."
Yes, Bush's remarks included a mention of the terror attacks of 9-11. "Do you all remember 9-11? There were terror attacks on 9-11. Don't forget that. This immigration policy is anti-terror. If you don't like terror, you should support this immigration plan." That might not be a direct quote, but it's close. Does Johnny Cochran contract for the White House, or what? "Hey, mention terrorism again! People will forget if you don't mention it a FRIGGIN BILLION TIMES A DAY!!!"
And we've just been informed that the government will develop a quick and simple system for employers to search for American workers. That's just tossed in as an aside. Don't take notice of that! (It sounds pretty sketchy if you actually pay attention to it.)
All right, the blood pressure's going up, and involuntary violent twitches have made it hard to type. Time to stop the entry and change the channel.
Suit seeks to ban sales of popular video game.
Yes, it's Grand Theft Auto: Vice City! Haitian Civil Rights groups have filed suit against the game to ban its sale. The line "Kill All Haitians" has been deemed offensive, and offensive behavior has been outlawed since the Go Fuck Yourself, America Act of 1964.
I'm certainly not trying to offend them further (after all, if they'll sue a video game company for a whopping $15,000, they'd probably sue an individual for at least $20), but if you're REALLY afraid of people who are so obsessed with a video game that they would act on a line like "Kill All Haitians" in real life, wouldn't it be a bad idea to sue the makers of the game? Remember, the Internet facilitates fast communication. How long would a chatroom conversation like that take?
Online Vice City Support Group:"Hey, we can't play Vice City anymore! Oh, God...there's a gaping void where my soul once was! The anguish! The rage!! NOW what're we gonna do? Hey, whose fault is this anyway? And what would Tommy Vercetti do?"
Ah, but seriously, folks. Video games don't kill people, and nobody who wouldn't kill people anyway is suddenly going to decide to go on a killing spree because of a video game. Hey, Haitian Civil Rights Groups: doesn't Haiti itself have any problems that should be solved before we start worrying about the particular phrasing of Vercetti's missions?
PS: John Ashcroft--I'm just kidding; go ahead and ban the game. Ban Kwanzaa, too, and jazz and protests and pens with red ink, if you want. I was in your corner the whole time.
I'm disturbed by the amount of advertising I see on Cartoon Network for the 2-CD set "Worship Together: I Could Sing of Your Love Forever." It's a lot. I used to see it a lot, months ago, and then I didn't watch Cartoon Network at all for about 10 months...and now I turn it on twice in the past two days, and I must've seen that same ad, that I saw 10 months ago, at least four times.
I'm just moderately disturbed, is all.... In the spirit of Christmas (the God stuff, not the "spendspendspend"), I'm not going to freak out, or speculate on ulterior motives, or get into tinfoil hat territory.
Go with God, child.
Howdy folks,
It's been quite a week, and I've been regrettably lax in posting. I think this is about as long as I've missed. What can I say? I've been stressed out and grumpy and I'm ready for a vacation...and one's coming up. Can't decide if I'll stick around or find a guest blogger--but either way, you can count on a better post rate than once a week.
But tonight the Bruins are on, and this time they're only losing by one point, so it's about as good a game as I've seen them play in a month. So I figured I'd talk about some embattled celebrities.
For Martha Stewart, it's the saddest holiday ever. Martha is, of course, facing public and legal accusations of insider trading and an upcoming trial for same. I assume she means it's the saddest holiday ever for her, and not the saddest holiday ever in the history of humanity. But it's tough to tell.
Cheer up Martha! The article says you also want to get married again...well, how about Michael Jackson? He is, and I quote, "fighting mad" about the allegations against him. That's a real quote. Seriously. New Fox reality show: "Who wants to fight Michael Jackson?" Look, I'm not, as I've previously admitted, well versed in the ways of the fist (and I mean fighting, not the Michael Jackson sense of "ways of the fist"), but if I had to fight someone accused of "seven counts of engaging in lewd or lascivious acts involving a child under 14," I'd pick Michael Jackson, with no hesitation, and the other options unseen.
Hey Martha: if you want a husband, how about this guy? He's got a lot of secluded property, and probably not a lot of other marriage prospects right now. And he may smack you around some, but you can beat the bejeezus out of him, and then you can press charges! And maybe you'll both get on the same chain gang. Just don't let him meet the grandkids....
I bet you never knew "Jam!" was a love song!
Raul Groom's article on Lieberman, Dean, and the Democratic Party starts off pretty well but goes in a questionable direction, making claims (lots, if you read between the lines) I'd certainly like to believe, but giving very little evidence for many of them. Some select quotes:
"...we've got to stop listening to Holy Joe and his merry band of wimps...""Joe Lieberman isn't in it to win it. He really is The Mole."
Worth a read, nonetheless. The article takes the position that Dean is no McGovern.
Not worth a read, but pointed out because I sat through it, is Mort Kondracke's op-ed on current Democrats and their past counterparts. It reveals more of Mort's opinion than any real fact...but that's ok, because that's what op-eds are for. Some choice quotes:
"All Dean's position-switching - on trade, Medicare, defense spending and business regulation - will be replayed endlessly by the Bush campaign.""Bush has plotted to be Ronald Reagan, stimulating the economy with defense spending and tax cuts, running up big deficits and causing the economy to boom. The latest growth numbers indicate that the plan is working."
I could go on and on about Bush's position switching, but I won't bother with that right now, because it's quite obvious to everyone who's willing to see it, and I will fail to convince anyone who's not willing to see it. I will say it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that Bush's economic strategy, all along, was to let it falter for three years and then recover just in time for reelection. If that's true, it's pretty scary...would you really want to elect a President who sacrifices three years of your well-being for his own political gain?
But that seems like real tinfoil hat territory, even to me...and I'm out there. I honestly believe that the removal of the anti-fraud measure from the $87.5 billion Iraq aid package (see my previous post...we've thought of some now!) was eliminated because Congress knew Halliburton--which today the Pentagon has found to have engaged in unfair pricing at the expense of the American taxpayer--and companies like it, were extremely likely to defraud the American taxpayer. I really believe that Wesley Clark is a Republican plant, their efforts at a one-party system. I really believe that electronic voting machines are a right-wing conspiracy (check out this internal Diebold memo that details plans to gouge Maryland should the state be so foolish as to request a voter-verified audit trail. Sure, you have the right to vote! You just don't have the right to know what we decided your vote was!
So I'm out there. I admit it. But honestly, even I think it's way-out wacko to think that Bush's fiscal plan involved deliberately throwing our economy into recession only to pull it out after a three-year slide. Come on, Kondracke!
I had a coworker recently chide me, saying I must be dismayed that the Dow has hit 10,000. "Why?" I asked, "Isn't bigger better?"
"Well, not if you're a liberal, hoping the economy tanks so you can get rid of Bush!"
I suppose it'd be much easier to get rid of Bush were the economy bad. But really, there's a boatload of reasons to get rid of Bush. I don't rely on the economy, and honestly it could've boomed for four years, I could be making triple what I am, and all my friends could find great jobs, and I'd still want to get rid of him, because it's not just the economy that matters. And furthermore, I find it tough to believe Republicans can say that the eight years of prosperity under Clinton had nothing to do with the White House and everything to do with the diligence of the American worker, but the economy under Bush is a creation totally of his own brilliance. Did every American suddenly become lackadaisical when Bush was elected? My best guess is that the American President, whoever he, she, or it might be at the time, exerts more influence over the economy than the citizenry (mostly by appointments to economic oversight positions). To assert that he's 100% responsible for any economic good news, but only if he's a member of the right party, seems a little crazy.
Jesus, are you still reading this? If you want some decent thoughts on the economy, check out this AlterNet article: Still Waiting for the Trickledown.
Well, we've gone way off topic. The point I originally meant to make was this: I've skimmed at least thirty articles that assert that Dean is the next McGovern, and I've skimmed around the same number that assert that he's not. Few seem to rely on any actual details of McGovern or his campaign, except the end result. Few seem to bother really examining Dean's policies. Or McGovern's, for that matter. So wouldn't the press corps' time be better spent researching, instead of spouting off baseless facts? Besides, who's the better alternative, really? Kucinich seems more McGovern to me. Gephardt? Edwards? Get real!
Dammit! Too much politics! Calm down. View penguins at the Antarctic Photo Library.
Yep, The Mayonnaise Rage woman got 10 years
And I'll confess, I haven't seen the Paris Hilton video. Here's a good piece about her and other beautiful people, and why we enjoy watching their public humiliation.
So instead of watching the video of the hot chick having sex, I read an ugly woman's article about why we love to hate beautiful people. I'm not particularly proud of that. Someone send me that video.
Both true, and courtesy of Ananova, which is too much fun.
Woman sues because it's too cold for sex
Isn't the act of sex itself capable of generating heat? I can understand it being too cold to swim...but...this would be free heat!
Jeep stolen while driver prayed for safe journey
Ah, God's sense of humor. Take that, greedy blessing-seeker!!
'Mayonnaise rage driver' runs over McDonald's employee.
::sigh:: I realize this headline is meant in jest. But think back to "Air Rage" and "Work Rage." There's a real lazy tendency to just toss "Rage" onto the subject of a story to make it eye-catching. Come on! This woman ran over a human being because of mayonnaise! Do we really need the lamo "Rage" tagline? It's enough to really piss you off! I'm gonna fucking run some reporter over because of it!
And don't get me started on -gate! Whitewatergate, Sausagegate... Ragegate!
This post blows. I apologize. Suppress the rage. It won't become bad post gate. You won't have to get bad post gate rage, and I won't have to have retaliatory bad post gate rage rage, which would really just escalate into bad post gate rage rage gate. That'd really suck. And it won't help the post anyway. I should stop. Or edit.
Gaterageragegateragegate. Blashiggildedoo! Whip wiggidy wow! Samoove!
Thank God I put in a complaints department.
Plain English has released its 2003 awards, and The Root Beer Blog's honored guest blogger, Donald Rumsfeld, has won the Foot in Mouth award for Baffling Quote by a Public Figure!
"'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns ? the ones we don't know we don't know.'"--Donald Rumsfeld
This quote only seems baffling. You have to look at the context in which it was uttered. That quote was an answer to this question:
"In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction? Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations."--Some reporter
So when you see the reporter basically accusing the administration of being less than honest, and Rumsfeld gives that response, that's him saying "You're right: fuck you!" But you can't say "fuck" on TV, and it's undesirable to have the SoD bleeped, so he had to rephrase. I hope I cleared that up for you.
Mug root beer is good. I know that. But I also know there are root beers I've never had. And I know there are root beers I don't know I haven't had. So when I say A&W root beer is the best, you can believe that it's the best of the known knowns and beats all plausible known unknowns, but may be usurped by unknown unknowns, as we all know. Y'know? So drink Barq's.
Today my Howard Dean Google Alert notified me about not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven, not eight, but nine sites that recycled the AP story about Joan Jett running in New York as a Howard Dean delegate. Nine sites?! Come on!! Why this story? Excellent question: we'll get to it. But a better question is, what effect does this type of regurgitation have on the press?
I believe it makes the press lazy, and a lazy press is problematic to itself. "The Washington Post reports..."; "The controversy surrounding the story about..."; "Two experts square off in our studios...." No sentence that reflects actual reporting starts like this. 24-hour news networks are products of the trend. They have to report everything first: otherwise, they lose their relevance. So untrue things are reported, and retracted as the facts come out. They have to be entertaining: otherwise, people won't watch (and if you think that's garbage, more people watch Fox News than CNN, and more people watch either of those than PBS). They have to flog stories that are long past their prime, and spend increasing amounts of time reporting on the new technological innovations (available at your local Radio Shack!) in consumer products.
Amazingly, despite all this wasted airtime, a lot of important, relevant, underreported stories are ignored. Why is so little attention being paid to the congressional investigation of the government's role in 9/11? Why is so much attention being paid to the Laci Petersen case? Better yet, why the coverage of the Michael Jackson case? That's not news! We already knew he was a child molester! Imagine the headlines tomorrow: "Ted Kennedy drinks a glass of bourbon!"
At work, I have over 30 American newspapers lined up. Some are specialty papers, like Roll Call, Muslim Journal, and New York Amsterdam News. But the rest all cover the same damn stuff, in the same damn way. Picking up one is just as good as picking up another.
Hey USA Today: why would I want to read your crappy paper when I could just go to the AP site? I'll spend my time reading blogs instead, thanks. Even the bloggers I disagree with are more interesting than you!
Everyone complains about bias in the media. Is there liberal bias? (Yes) Is there conservative bias? (Yes.) But the biggest problem might well be either the lazy bias, or the celebrity obsession. And if you want to combat the public discontent with the media (which abated during the coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks only to return to previous levels less than a year after), I'd say these two foibles are good places to start.
Well, I've been a little unmotivated lately. For those of you who listen to too much Rush Limbaugh, click here for a definition of "unmotivated."
But I found two quotes today, from just after the Presidential election of 1892, that seemed apropos of the 2000 election, so I thought I'd post them in the hopes of creating the illusion that I'm well-read and studious, which illusion I ruin--before any possibility of creation--by describing my intentions in an unnecessarily-long (and yet not technically run-on) sentence that displays sundry punctuation marks; should there be any question, I could have rewritten this sentence to eliminate the punctuation hoop-leaping it requires, and yet, had I done so, I could not have relayed this piece of information: the interrobang, an exclamation point (!) laid over a question mark (?) to form a single, new punctuation character, was invented by Martin Speckter in 1962, but never caught on to join its relatives in the respected "standard punctuation" canon. Sad.
Quote One:
"While we find in our triumph a result of popular intelligence which we have aroused, and a consequence of popular vigilance which we have stimulated, let us not for a moment forget that our accession to power will find neither this intelligence nor this vigilance dead or slumbering. We are thus brought face to face with the reflection that if we are not to be tormented by the spirits which we have ourselves called up, we must hear, above victorious shouts, the call of our fellow countrymen to public duty, and must put on a garb befitting public servants."--Election Winner Grover Cleveland (Democrat), 11/8/1892
Quote Two:
"Our party has not made its advent too soon. Its mission is to restore to our government its original and only legitimate function, which has been well nigh lost by non-use, that of assuring to all its citizens--the weak as well as the mighty--the unmolested enjoyment of their inalienable rights."--Third-Party Candidate James V. Weaver (Populist), 11/16/1892
Make of them what you will. If you make word salad, I like blue cheese dressing.
Subtext.
Yes, on the same day that Arnold Schwarzenegger was sworn into office as da governator of California, Rush Limbaugh returned to the airwaves to prove that words don't mean things after all.
Since details of his drug addiction have become public, he's been called hypocritical for harshly denouncing drug addicts and calling for tough punishments, while he himself was addicted to drugs. His response, per WaPo:
"there's no hypocrisy . . . just because I was doing something that appeared to be contradictory. . . . My behavior doesn't change right and wrong."
Click here for a definition of "hypocrisy."
Also from the WaPo article:
"Despite his drug use, Limbaugh told his audience of 20 million, 'I was honest with you the whole time.'""He disputed critics who said he had been unduly harsh on drug abusers -- saying, for example, that they should be 'convicted' and sent 'up the river' -- insisting yesterday that such comments were taken out of context. 'I avoided the subject of drugs for the precise reason that I was keeping a secret,' he said. But Limbaugh admitted that when callers would talk about painkillers such as OxyContin, he would pretend not to know what it was."
"Had his staff known his secret, he said, 'they couldn't have stopped me. I would have found a way around it. I would have manipulated, lied, whatever it took -- I was an addict.' "
Thanks for clearing that up, Rush: you were honest the whole time, but you pretended you didn't know what OxyContin was, despite being addicted to it. And you didn't lie, but you would have if you had reason to. It all makes sense now! Thanks for being such a beacon of morality! And I'll send you a dictionary for Christmas so you don't accidentally say things like "there's no hypocrisy" anymore.
Rush Limbaugh can suck my nuts! And I'm not gonna wash 'em first!
[Those of you with good memories will recall I did a post on the evils of ellipses, and yet here I use a twice-ellipsed quote; isn't that hypocritical, you might ask? Well, no! I just said one thing and did another. What's hypocritical about that? My behavior doesn't change right and wrong.]
I don't have a lot of time today, because I'm heading up to see moe. in concert after work. But I thought I'd call to your attention a pretty funny WaPo article about the Republicans' anti-filibuster filibuster. One excerpt I particularly enjoyed:
12:45: Up in the press gallery, somebody has put a six-pack of beer on ice, creating a quandary for those reporters who are still awake: If they drink a beer, they could doze off and miss some of this scintillating debate. If they don't drink a beer, they have to watch the debate stone-cold sober.
WaPo requires registration, which I admit is both bogus and sad. But in this case, I think it's worth it. Party on.
The Good:
Aussies Do It Right: E-Voting
The Bad:
Drugs in the car, and no one owns up. Is everyone liable?
The Hysterical:
Confused Howard Dean Campaigns for Enola Gay Rights
I will hereby admit two things:
I am bad at math;
I don't know (or care to know) much about the science of economics, largely because I think it's still in the state that astronomy was when we thought the world was flat.
That admitted, in the interest of broadening my knowledge or thought on the topic, I'd like to open a discussion that I had with my good buddy Adam about the role of the President in economic matters.
One thing that seems self-evident is that Presidents and their parties like to take credit when the economy is good, and shun blame when it is bad. For example: by most measuring sticks, the economy was good under Clinton. In the 2000 campaign, W attributed the economic good times to the "ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship" of the American people. This was a pretty smart move: what was Gore to do? Take credit for his administration's economic stimulus, and snub the American people by saying all their ingenuity and hard work didn't matter? (Typically, Gore tried to do both, which made him sound weak on the administration's role, and condescending to the role of the people, but that's a side note.)
Does the Office of the President have enough control over the economy to justify campaigning on the issue? George W. Bush made his economic platform a heavy component of his campaign (and boldly, given Clinton's record): some good stuff on Issues 2000. One of my favorite quotes:
Q: Let's suppose that the projected surpluses in your tax plan fail to materialize in full or in part. What part of your tax package gets dropped first?A: I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses are going to decline if I'm the president. I think they're going to increase, because my plan will increase productivity by cutting marginal rates.
(In case you didn't know, the United States government is currently engaged in heavy deficit spending. Somehow, that surplus failed to materialize, despite increasing government spending while simultaneously cutting government income. Isn't that weird? This guy has a business degree. A Masters. From Harvard.)
Don't let my cynicism about Bush skew the question, though: Gore made his economic proposals a heavy component of his campaign platform as well. The question is this: does the President have enough control over the economy--via appointments, tax plans, budgetary decisions, other legislation, psychology, whatever you can come up with--that he should be held accountable and responsible for economic developments, be they good or bad? Can we reasonably credit the President when the economy is up? Can we reasonably blame him when it's down? And most important (remember, I'm largely ignorant on the topic): why?
Last week, the House of "Representatives" removed from the $87,500,000,000 Iraq aid package certain provisions--approved unanimously in the Senate--that would "penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers." This was two days after two Democratic "Representatives" accused Halliburton of vastly overcharging for gasoline imports into Iraq.
But don't worry! Doooon't worry! I'm not going to make any crazy connections here, like "maybe the House voted this down because they didn't want to pass a law that would work against Halliburton," or anything like that. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons the House would vote against a popular provision that protects the American taxpayers from fraud. I can think of...zero. How many can you think of?
Linda Tripp is getting $595,000 of YOUR tax dollars because the government apparently violated her privacy. Yes, you read that right.
Actually, Eric Alterman argues that the government didn't actually do anything wrong, and that the whole thing came out as a result of diligent, fair reporting. Ordinarily, I'd research it a little bit more. But I'm just so pissed about the whole thing.
Says Tripp: "The government should never be permitted to use Privacy Act-protected information to discredit political opponents." Honestly, is Linda Tripp really the person to be talking about the dangers of using private information to discredit others? The Smoking Gun points out that Maryland has some wiretap laws that apparently didn't seem of such a high social importance to Tripp at the time.
That's it: I'm subtracting ($595,000 / My percentage of all US taxation) next year! Screw you, Linda Tripp! You're only getting $594,999.9999997*!
*: (rounded up)
My Turn-Ons include:
Renewable energy,
RSS feeds for online comics,
and Fox threatening to sue itself
And My Turn-Offs:
Uncle Sam's Wacky War on Drugs,
Electronic voting,
and Identity cards
The funniest thing about the Fox story: according to the article, Fox News has prohibited The Simpsons from creating "fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news." That's actually a quote. It's funny whether it's true or not, but if it's true, it's absolutely hysterical. What kind of news network fears its audience will turn on The Simpsons and confuse it with the news? They're two-dimensional, animated, yellow people! Can you imagine turning on The Simpsons, and honestly confusing it with the news? There is no drug on earth that impairs your judgment that much: only innate, finely-honed stupidity can do that.
We're spending $33,000,000 to advertise the latest version of Cash®.
Haven't heard of Cash®? Cash® is a fast and convenient way to pay for things! Accepted at millions of locations, and on the black market, Cash® is a convenient upgrade from barter! Try Cash® today!
Hello America: I'm Don Rumsfeld.
Well, I'm sorry to say, this is my last day guest-blogging on this site. I've had fun this week, chatting about all the stuff near and dear to my cold, black heart. We laughed, we cried...well, I didn't cry. I didn't laugh either. I'm not a real "emotion" sort of guy. And that's a good thing. That's what's wrong with the world, really: too many humans, and too much humanity. All the emotion and togetherness! People helping other people! Making the world a better place for future generations! Leaving their mark on the world! Spreading joy! Wasting precious minutes gazing at the clouds! Bah humbug! I sneer as I type it!
Am I glad I had the chance to guest blog here? Sure I am! Would I do it again? Sure I would! Are you going to miss me? Sure you are! Will you subconsciously wish for my return after I'm gone? Sure you will! Will Chris invite me back? Sure he...might!
But first, I'd like to address one last question from Lolly.
Q: Wouldn't you say that American Revolutionaries, by todays standards, would be considered terrorists? Furthermore- doesn't that point illustrate fairly clearly that words like "terrorist" are sort of stupid?
Oh yeah- and isn't declaring war on a concept stupid too? If we're going to do that...why not declare war on Bad Taste- or Uncertainty?
hmmm
A: The American Revolutionaries weren't terrorists, because they were American. The French Revolutionaries, though, were real terrorists, and it's just as well they had a taste of fascism in the 40s. A lot of people tell me that's terrible to say, but hey: we bailed them out, right? Sheez! And that's why you can't declare war on bad taste: if we did, there'd be no one left but me.
-Don Rumsfeld
Hello America: I'm Don Rumsfeld. You may remember me as the Secretary of Defense who initiated Operation: Piss Off the World, or from my cameo appearances on Full House, where I played Danny Tanner's estranged brother-in-law. How bout them Olsen twins, eh? Hey, I got closer than you ever will, SUCKA!
Speaking of which, I've recently had a lot of mixed press over my leaked memo, which USA Today originally portrayed as grim and doubtful! Ha! Amazingly, the New York Times and Washington Post came to my aid, pointing out that it's nice to have a strong leader who's still willing to ask introspective, difficult questions. Instapundit, as usual, was right in my corner the whole time. And Lileks actually argues that our reactions to world events have been sluggish, and we need to pick up the pace! I mean, he actually posits that I could and should move a lot faster and more urgently on things! Can you even believe it? I can't even believe I'm writing it!
Am I troubled by McPaper's spin? Hardly, but I understand why you might think so. Quite the contrary, I highly admire McPaper's ability to place their desired spin on any subject they choose. And that, combined with the bleating of Lileks, has convinced me that it's time to reveal my greatest idea ever:
"I shall call it: MiniLove!"
Yes, that's right, you heard right: I've suggested a "'21st-century information agency in the government' to help in the international battle of ideas and to limit the teaching of terrorism and extremism!" It'll be marvelous! Marvelous!!Imagine: no more people coming up to me and saying "Hey, Rummy, where are those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction?" They'll be too afraid to think those treasonous thoughts! And that's really beautiful. Thanks Lileks! Thanks McPaper!
The real benefit is that the thought agency, or as I prefer to think of it, "Ministry of Love," would be a subsidiary part of the DoD, so it'd be up to me--Donald Rumsfeld--to determine which thoughts are permissible and which are "extremist," without having to worry about any of that "beholden to the American people" garbage. I mean, the American people are a bunch of whiny rights-huggers, when it comes right down to it. And I'm so even-handed about acceptable thought. I'm glad I'm here, and not some other bozo. And here's a guy who's already got the ball rolling in Iraq! [r.r.] Great job, Paul. Megadittoes!
If we get re-elected, I'll get to make MiniLove AND MiniWar! George already says if we win in '04, I get to go after North Korea, Syria, Iran, and, time-permitting, three South American countries to be named later.
I probably shouldn't put all this out there, for anyone to read. I mean, McPaper might get a hold of it! But then again, that might not be such a bad thing...
Hello America: I'm Don Rumsfeld. I agreed to guest blog on this site because I've always loved Pepsi.
I was going to write about how well the war on terror is going, but Lolly posted some questions for me, and I'll answer them instead:
---
Q: Hello Donald...
A: Hi Lolly
Q: A few questions if you have time....
A: I don't, but I'll answer them anyway.
Q: How much should people think 2 and 2 are? (in case I'm asked)
A: Well, of course, that depends: 2 and 2 of what? Obviously, 2 + 2 Islamic terrorists could total in the hundreds of thousands. 2 + 2 false rationales for waging war against soverign nations adds up to zero. The rule is this: 2 + 2 equals 5; 2 + 2 always has equaled 3; and 2 + 2 always will equal 7. The idea that I've ever said 2 + 2 equals anything other than 9 is simply ridiculous; the traitorous press has obviously taken my simple, direct statement that 2 + 2 equals 13 and twisted it until it seems that I've said 2 + 2 equals 1. They do this to undermine our anti-terrorism efforts, because they, like the terrorists, hate America and our freedoms and they hate all lands where 2 + 2 equals 11.
Q: Does the alphabet really need c,k,q,x? Couldn't we get by with just one of those?
A: Look, look. The alphabet is like a...like a chicken. You can't just go cutting parts out of it and still expect it to squawk. But you can add parts, and I'm please to announce that a coalition of the willing is donating some exciting new Cyrillic and Mandarin characters.
Q: Sure you're doing your part to solve overpopulation issues abroad- but what about our domestic overpopulation?
A: Sorry, that's Ashcroft's department.
---
Thanks for your support, Lolly.
Do we have a long way to go? Yes, we do. Am I happy about the progress we've made? Certainly! Do I have more I want to say? I'd like to talk about the spin regarding my leaked memo. Will I do that tomorrow? Probably! Did I intend to do that today? I sure did! Why didn't I? Is it because I slept late and spent the whole day on my couch watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy with my dog, Shizzle? Absolutely not! This is how rumors get started and the facts get lost! The truth is, I woke up late and sat on my couch all day watching Queer Eye with my dog, Shizzle. Was I eating Bugles? Sure I was!
Am I glad Slate discovered my poetic genius? Somewhat. Those were all off-the-cuff, by the way.
I'll be back tomorrow! Are you glad? Of course you are!
From the Boston Globe:
"In Mid-September, Nathaniel Heatwole sent an e-mail to federal authorities in mid-September saying he had put the items [box cutters and other banned items] aboard two specific Southwest Airlines flights. But the objects were not found until last week -- five weeks later."
Deputy TSA Administrator Stephen McHale's reaction is my quote of the day:
''Amateur testing of our systems does not show us in any way our flaws,'' McHale said. ''We know where the vulnerabilities are, and we are testing them . . . This does not help.''
Oh really? So you knew about these flaws? The Transportation Security Administration is in the habit of letting banned items aboard planes? What, then, is the point of "banning" them? And why did the discovery of these items trigger "...stepped-up inspections of the entire US commercial air fleet." Why didn't they step up those inspections when they were told about those objects? Why weren't they discovered for five weeks?
The TSA seems like a pretty chill place to work, actually.
Ellipses are not good.
Consider the following quote from Howard Dean in reaction to today's Senate passage of the Crush Abortion Rights Eventually (or "CARE") act:
"As a physician, I am outraged that the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine." -- Howard Dean
OK? Gives you a pretty clear idea of his stance. Now try it with ellipses:
"...the Senate...is qualified to practice medicine." -- Howard Dean.
See? That gives you an idea of his stance, too. But it's the wrong one.
This is a trick pundijournalists love to play. By allowing them to change fact to fiction, it saves them a lot of time that they might otherwise have to spend searching for evidence that actually supports the message they want to communicate, or (God forbid) reformulating that message to accord with the facts at hand.
Let's try again! Here's Bush's reaction to the same Senate passage of the "CARE" act:
"This is very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America." -- W
That's the whole quote. It is therefore (unfortunately) a better indicator of his stance than:
"This is...abhorrent...." -- W
Fun huh? Play along at home! Every time you see an ellipsis in the paper, call, fax, or e-mail them and ask what exactly was taken out, and why! Typically, the response will be "to save space," which is odd given how much garbage is in the typical newspaper. And remember: the real danger is when that quote is recycled as "complete" by another newspaper, who can say "The [insert name of newspaper here] reports that [insert name of public figure here] said [insert screwed-up quote that has all the appearance of being correct and truthful here]."
Dean, like everyone covered in the media, has to deal with this problem all the time. Check out Spinsanity's Safire tries to revive Dean....
Actually, the title is "Safire tries to revive Dean media myth," but with the ellipsis, it becomes a human interest story in which Billy Safire crosses political lines to save the life of someone with whom he disagrees! Its heartwarming appeal justifies the lie. Anyhow, it's fascinating, especially the comments section, which unfortunately degenerates into a contradictory bitchfest and loses sight of the entire concept of reducing spin.
"They're...they're bastards!" -- Kyle Broflovski
Note: The above ellipsis is indicative of a vocal pause, not removed content; the same could be said of this one...
Last week, Bill O'Reilly criticized the LA Times for publishing an article reporting allegations of Schwarzenegger's sexual indiscretions, saying the Times was motivated by a liberal bias and never would have reported on, say, Clinton's alleged sexual indiscretions. FAIR called him on it, pointing out that the Times did in fact report (and quite early) on those allegations. The following quote comes from O'Reilly's response to having the Clinton article called to his attention. It comes from O'Reilly "Responds" to FAIR.
The story was reported giving both sides of the controversy. It was not an attempt to dig up anything and did not level accusations or exonerate Mr. Clinton. It was simply a news piece. Stay off the websites with the left-wingers, all right? You're never going to get the truth. And the right-wingers, probably the same thing.
--Bill O'Reilly
This whole situation is funny to me, on many levels. For one thing, it's another clear example of O'Reilly backpedalling after making a statement he didn't bother to research:
Hey! They're going after Arnold! Those liberal bastards! They'd never go after Clinton. Oh, they went after Clinton? Hang on...lemme think...
...and what he comes up with, essentially, is "Oh, well sure, they covered it, but this story gave both sides of the issue! What's the point of that?" This from a guy who works for Fox News and constantly complains about liberal bias in the media. So he admits to being incensed by balanced coverage, but simultaneously denounces "left-winger and right-winger coverage". That's pretty funny, you gotta admit: he's a newsman who hates all coverage! So we'll call O'Reilly's "I hate it, it's fair and balanced!" reaction funny thing number two. Surely he didn't think that one through.
But it's not for lack of time to think: he responded on October 13, 2003, three days after FAIR's report came out. And yes, a weekend split the dates...but you can still think on the weekends, can't you? Three days, and that's what he came up with. Which brings me to a third thing that amuses me about the whole episode, and it has a lot to do with timing.
For one thing, there's the accusation--and O'Reilly is not the only person to make this argument--that the LA Times held the story to maximize its impact on the California recall election:
What if they held it back? What if they held it back? This is another thing. And we believe this to be true. They held a story back until Thursday because it would do maximum amount of damage? Is that legit?
--Bill O'Reilly, again
As far as whether or not the Times held the story longer than necessary, I think that's pretty obviously not the case. Would O'Reilly's reaction have been better if it came out a week earlier but lacked sufficient evidence and support? Picture O'Reilly opening the LA Times and reading the headline: "Schwarzenegger Sexually Harrassed 16 Women: Details in Seven Days." What would he say, really? "Hey, thanks for getting this out on the table in a timely manner, guys. I'll patiently hold my judgment for a week while you build up evidence." For the other considerations on the timing issue, I'll refer you to John S. Carroll's editorial.
I can't see that O'Reilly's argument has any real basis in truth or rationality. And even if it did, O'Reilly had three days and came up with this bizarre defense: "Oh, I was wrong, they reported on it, but they reported in a balanced way, so they're still reprehensible; and the liberal-biased media pointed it that I was wrong, so don't listen to them, either!" How can you spend three days coming up with that, and still fault others for taking the time to research and investigate before they publish it?
[Bonus funny thing about all this: note O'Reilly's "And we believe this to be true." The previous "we" that O'Reilly refers to is the Fox News Channel. While he's referring to the network, he's pointing out that they've taken a lot of flack for being "an arm of the right". (Fox News? NO!) But soon after claiming the network is not biased and no one tells him what to say or who to go after, he's saying "we believe" the LA Times held this story to do maximum damage to Schwarzenegger's recall effort. Fox News is not a coherent platform for a determined ideology, and yet they all believe this far-fetched allegation of the Times' supposed flagrant disregard for journalistic integrity? That's a weird coincidence, don't you think? Maybe he didn't mean "Fox News" at all, but some other "we," which could be any number of people he didn't mention, like the President, or his family, or Ohio, or Louis Armstrong. Or maybe it was the "royal we," as though O'Reilly gets to refer to himself in the plural because his opinions count more! Or maybe, just maybe he's using a common technique for adding undeserved credence to an argument. "I believe" sounds weak; "We believe" is the stuff of oaths. Tough to say what he meant. I bet it'd be even tougher for him to explain it, if it were ever pointed out to him.]
Anyhow, I think I had more to say, but I'm tired of talking about O'Reilly's hypocritical bullshit. In other news, Tony Blair did his impression of Dick Cheney today, but no one laughed. The Bruins won in overtime. And I had a WaNu Root Beer today...damn tasty stuff.
Quote of the day:
In fact, a lot of what Rush has said makes more sense now that we know he was stoned out of his mind for years.
--Tom Tomorrow
For some other great quotes, check out The Complete Bushisms! You'll have hours of fun, and and a little wispy nostalgia for Presidents past who could at least put a sentence together.