Email notification to Brandon Starr's blog has been shown to reduce bad cholesterol in two-toed sloths, and has been used as an effective exfoliant.
|
|
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Kerry attacks Bush fiscal policies
Kerry attacks Bush fiscal policies, especially the record deficit this year.
Personally, this isn't my favorite issue to attack Bush on. But hey, maybe some people don't respond to lies about life and death, massive crookedness with respect to being in bed with corporations who profit by their decisions and vice versa, and losing the war on terror by being dragged into a war with a country that didn't support terrorists. Maybe they're more worried about the deficit or Medicare or the loss of jobs. Sometimes all people see is what's in their wallet and what's in their paycheck.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Sunday, September 05, 2004
I saw "Outfoxed" the other day, the documentary on the Fox News channel.
To a lesser extent, it's an indictment of the oligopoly of news channels and how as an increasingly bottom-line-conscious business they have stopped reporting real news because it's expensive, favoring the cheaper sound bite, "expert" appearance or news wire feed.
But mostly it's about Fox News and how the name itself is a misnomer. We also have further examples, as I've written about recently, how when a Republican group names something it's always the opposite of what it's named. Fox News is actually Fox Opinion; "Fair and Balanced" is anything but; and "We Report, You Decide" is really "We Report (What We Want You to Hear), You Decide (Based on Biased Information)."
If you watch it, you'll hear from former Fox News reporters. You'll see the many, many memos that come from the upper management of Fox down to the editors, telling them how to tell the story of the day and what to emphasize and what to play down. You'll see the results of studies showing that Fox News viewers are less informed when it comes to recent historical facts than viewers of other news sources. (I've seen this study online, too.)
It's worth watching, and could potentially be an eye-opener to someone who doesn't watch news with much care. We passed our copy on to be watched by others; if you get a copy, do the same.
The DVD also has a "making of" documentary that's worth a viewing, too.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Republican delegates mock Purple Heart recipients Friday, September 03, 2004
....doesn't even know history when he lived through it: historians slam Schwarzenegger on his telling of history as he "lived it" in Austria.
Mainly, it deals with the facts that his part of Austria was not taken over by the Soviets at all, the Soviets left Austria altogether only a few months after the end of World War Two, and Austria did not have a Socialist-led government when he claimed it did. Schwarzenneger claimed in his speech the fleeing the Soviet threat and the Socialist government of Austria was part of what attracted him to the Republican Party in the U.S. But Austria was under a Conservative party government when he left.
Lies? Or is he just incredibly dumb? With a Republican politician, it's often hard to tell.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Wednesday: the day of the wild-eyed accusation
Wednesday, the poison daggers came out at the Republican National Convention, with Senator Zell Miller and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Zell Miller, trumpeted by the Republicans because Miller is nominally a Democrat, is exactly the sort of person the Bush team hopes the American public is comprised of: people who don't care what kind of ethics their President has, can't or won't connect the dots in Bush's tissue of lies and deceptions, and only wants someone who will stand strong against all real or perceived enemies of the U.S., consequences be damned.
Miller also claimed Kerry voted down a bunch of military equipment. This is one of those "lying by withholding an important part of the truth" lies. He refers to one vote on a big bill. The vast majority of the time Kerry votes for military spending. And why not? He's a veteran. He understands the importance of having the proper equipment when you're going into battle. This is something that Bush did not understand--he sent in far fewer soldiers into Iraq than had been requested by his generals, and they were low on ammunition and body armor. This is why they had to pass that $87 billion bill after the Iraq attack--the one I wrote about just the other day in regards to another Republican lie.
So, we know Kerry votes for military equipment regularly. But because of this one bill, Miller takes all the equipment on it and breaks it down in sentence after sentence, as though Kerry voted each of them down individually. This is another
LIE, The kind the Republicans and their lackeys are so fond of pushing. And shame on Senator Miller, who knows about voting records and how easy it is to skew them, and knows that what he said was all lies.
I only watched half of Vice President Dick Cheney. I'll watch the rest later. It was full of invective and poison. Unlike the Democrats, who rarely mentioned Bush at all and preferred to propose their viewpoints instead of mounting direct attacks, Cheney was all "Kerry sucks" all the time. When he says that Kerry proposes a "sensitive war on terror" and that terrorists aren't impressed by sensitivity--well, duh, dumbass! Kerry isn't talking about being sensitive to the terrorists--he's concerned with keeping some folks in other countries on our side by at least listening to their concerns--unlike your boss, who rides roughshod over any objections, and especially over any realities, that get in the way. And it hasn't worked, has it? We're now in a quagmire in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden got away because Bush was pulling troops toward the Iraq border even as the chasedown of al-Qaeda was getting underway. The majority of Afghanistan is in control of warlords now--few of whom are noticably better than the Taliban in issues of freedom. And the oil fields of Iraq are burned regularly by those who Bush somehow thought would greet us with rose petals and blown kisses.
Like I say, I haven't gotten to all of Cheney. He's a lot to take if you like the truth.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Tuesday's Republican speakers...
...were just fluff, so I'm not going to do a big in-depth review of Schwarzenegger or Mrs. Bush.
Both were just feel-good speeches, without any depth. There were some like that at the Democratic convention, too. Not as obvious or as completely depthless, but similar.
I will say one thing: it was odd seeing Laura Bush lie about her husband having a hard time going to war. We know from reports of meetings held in the buildup to Iraq that the question was not, "Should we go to war?" but, "How do we sell this war to the public?"
Still, she may have seen his pacing and assumed that he was struggling with the decision, rather than figuring out ways to "move the merchandise." So it may not have been an actual lie, but a misunderstanding based on an overly rosy picture of her husband.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Watch for the end...where Dole comments under his breath about McCain's accusing Bush of using dirty tactics.
I had the most luck downloading the file first, then opening it.
This is the same Dole who just a few days ago said that he didn't think Kerry bled to get his Purple Hearts. Or, to quote, "(T)hree Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds."* I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want shrapnel removed from my body at all. Apparently Kerry just wasn't wounded enough for the Republicans. I'd say he'd have to go at least as far as Dole and his bad arm, but we know that's not enough, since the Republicans also attacked a triple amputee from the Vietnam war as unAmerican during the 2002 elections--successfully!
How many Republicans know that Bush and his team are using dirty tactics, yet won't come out against it? Or, as in Dole's case, add to the filth pile? Don't they care whether their party is seen as ethical and above-board? Don't they care about their own honor? Is winning all there is? Power? Beating the opposition? Strange ideals, indeed, for a party that claims to be religious and pious.
Found via Mark Adams's fine blog.
* I removed the first part of the sentence, "I respect (Kerry's) record, but..." because it smacked of kissing someone while you're raping them. How can you say you respect someone's record in the first half of the sentence, and slam that same record in the second half of the same sentence?
Disgruntled Sunday schooler accused of trying...
... to torch his church.
Another example of how being religious doesn't mean you're a good person.
By and large, it's coincidental, except where someone was a genuinely bad person and turned himself around using religion. There aren't as many programs for folks to use reality to turn themselves around.
Hey, if it takes a belief in God, Jesus, or invisible bunnies to keep you from going on a murderous rampage or beating your loved ones then please, by all means, do.
I'm sick today. No big blog.
I don't think it has anything to do with watching the Republican convention, but it's hard to say.
I don't have the energy for a lengthy examination, but here's a few things I noticed watching the full C-SPAN coverage (from McCain through Giuliani--haven't watched the little speeches at all yet):
1) My wife had to leave the room when the Republicans were exploiting 9/11. I can't blame her. I thought it was shameful. A mention, a poem, a bit of imagery, that would be expected. But to drag it on and on and on with widow after widow after widow... and then it was also heavily mentioned by both McCain and Giuliani. They were proud that Bush went around the 9/11 site and hugged people. Folks, that's what every President does at every disaster site. What about the fact that he had a briefing that bin Laden was determined to attack the United States, and that the hijacking of planes was to be involved? No mention of that. No mention of him sitting like a lump on a log in a classroom while people died--he walked into the room knowing one Trade Tower had been hit, and was informed of Trade Tower #2's being hit while in front of the kids. Did he excuse himself--"sorry, kids, national emergency"--no. He froze like the chickenhawk he is.
2) Now it's been used on a live national speech--the lie about "Kerry voted for the $87 billion, then against it." Folks, there were two bills. The number of dollars were the same, but how it would be paid for was different. Kerry voted for the version that removed part of the tax relief for the very rich to pay for it. He voted against the version that simply tacked it on to the national debt--you know, the tax-and-borrow Republican version. All the Senators, except maybe one or two, voted for their party's version and against the opposing party's version. In other words, EVERY Senator voted both FOR and AGAINST the $87 billion supplemental for Iraq. Saying "he voted for and against the exact same thing" as Giuliani did is a
LIE.
It's using only part of the facts, but withholding another, important part, to tell a falsehood. And it's very typical of the Republican attack machine.
Anyway, even this is more than I meant to type. Hope your day is good.
(added later)
Oh, and how weird is it that McCain and Giuliani, both promoted as very centrist-leaning Republicans, did dirty, lie-filled attacks on Kerry's record? And shame, shame, shame on McCain, who was attacked by Bush the exact same way as Kerry, and now is HELPING Bush along.
|
|
|
