PunkMom

The WJN looks beyond the hype

2004-11-18T10:22:00.000-05:00

I was quite heartened to see this on the front page of today's News Jornal:

"Don't judge marine, area vets say"

The marine in question, of course, is the subject of an international controversy after he was videotaped shooting what appeared to be an injured, unarmed man in the head.

The News Journal did the right thing, interviewing local veterans who had seen combat themselves when covering this story. There may be hope for this paper yet.

Who Supports Racial Equality?

2004-11-17T18:29:00.000-05:00

Condeleeza Rice's selection for Secretary of State has got to be eating a lot of Democrats up. Sure, they can say she's an evil Hitler wannabe, an Uncle Tom, or whatever they like, but it has to bother them. The first Black female Secretary of State, and she was selected by Bush, replacing the black man who left the position. It's not a surprise, of course, but it's gotta sting. Bush doesn't even believe in Affirmative Action, yet he has the most diverse cabinet ever, just picked Alberto Gonzales, a Hispanic, for Attorney General, and Clarence Thomas looks like he has a good chance to be chosen for Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court.

If I were a Democrat, I'd be pissed. Democrats talk about diversity, but the Republicans - no, not the Republicans, Bush - actually does something about it, while managing to choose minorities who are highly qualified, and who, no small detail, support most of his positions. They are not, no matter how much some may wish it were true, sellouts. They are powerful people who happen to be minorities.

Oooh, I'd be so pissed.

As it is, I'm pissed - if Condi had been a Democrat, her selection would be a big deal. She's not, so it doesn't matter. She's a Bushbot, not a strong black woman.

This is why I'm a non-partisan. No, I don't think we should be acting like it's so amazing that a minority, a female, no less, holds the third-highest position in America. But, look, when Barak Obama, whom I like a lot, spoke at the Democtratic Convention, it was all about how great the Dems were for having such a strong, intelligent, BLACK man on their side. Obama, there's a black person. Powell and Rice, not so much.

Something struck me during the debates about Bush's anti-Affirmative Action stance:

If No Child Left Behind succeeds, low income (specifically black and hispanic) students will enter high school on an even level with white and Asian students. Which will allow them to compete on the same level as white and Asian students when entering college. Which will allow them to compete for jobs on the same level, without needing racial preferences (just as Asian students, as a rule, do not need racial preferences to get into college or get jobs).

It's a very idealistic idea - Bush is an idealistic President - but no one has come up with a better plan to help poor minorities pull themselves up and become successful, and Affirmative Action can only go so far. It's not really helping the poorest minorities, but gives more middle class minorities an edge - an edge they already have by being middle class.

NCLB isn't perfect. In fact, I have a lot of issues with it in theory, especially when it comes to the excessive testing. I don't like the idea that teachers have to teach to a test in order to get a desired ranking for their school. But I'll tell you what: here in Wilmington, with a large black population, public schools are showing improvements academically, sometimes exceeding the private schools. If minority public school kids are excelling in elementary school (and they are, by and large, not least of all in the predominantly black, achievement-oriented Charter Schools in the city) and continue of the same path through high school, they'll be competing against rich white kids on their own merits.

That will be the test - where will these kids be in high school? When I was in high school in the '80s, the vast majority of black students were separated into special (non college bound) classes and schools (I was not, but I come from a middle class family). I never quite understood that - we were all together in Middle School, taking the same classes. Most of my black and Hispanic friends, all intelligent, went to Tech high school instead of regular high school, because, they said, they could go directly into the workforce after high school. That's important, when college seems impossibly expensive. But I also, in retrospect, wondered if they worried that they'd be segregated in regular high school, left to flounder. At least at Tech, they had a chance.

(There is nothing wrong with technical high schools, by the way. I don't believe that every student should go to college - there are many good trades that don't require a college degree, and many people choose these trades because it's what they want to do. That's a good thing. But if a kid aspires to have a job that requires a degree but doesn't think they have a chance of being put into college prep courses in high school, that's a problem.)

If black and Hispanic kids, because of the strict standards they had to meet, no excuses, in Elementary and Middle School, are meeting or exceeding the achievements of their white peers, they will, theoretically, be put in the same college-bound classes in high school. If they achieve or exceed there, we are looking at the beginning of real equality.

Idealistic, yes, but it's a powerful idea. If it works, it will do more for equality that Affirmative Action ever could. Hoo- boy, if I were a Democrat and I figured that out, I'd be pissed.

The Big Day

2004-11-02T11:14:00.000-05:00

Voted this morning at 10 am. Very quick, very easy. I was only third or fourth in line; of course, 10 am is generally the "lull" time. There was one person standing outside the polling place wearing a t-shirt for a city council candidate. He did speak to me, but only because our kids go to the same school, not to verbally campaign. There were several campaign signs across the street, and although I didn't study them, it appeared that there was a single sign for each of the major candidates.

I didn't see any cops around, and there didn't seem to be an increase of poll workers from previous years. I didn't notice any partisan (or non-partisan) poll observers.

I forget what time I voted in 2000, but it was total chaos compared to this year. I remember a long wait, made more miserable because I had a cranky one-year old in a stroller. I also remember a lot of people campaigning outside as close as legally possible. In 2000, my polling place was in the lobby of a high rise apartment building. This year it was in a nearby Presbyterian Church, which I prefer. Things always move more smoothly and calmly there, although this is the first time I voted there for a Presidential election.

In any event, people were friendly, but voters are nervous. The woman ahead of me, holding her ballot so that I could grab a peek at the large "D" under "Party", mentioned to me that she expected lines, like she'd seen on TV. I nodded and said I'd heard about long lines too.

She sighed and said, "I just hope the right man wins it."

"Definitely," I said, holding my "I" ballot. I did agree with the sentiment, if not, I suspect, the "right man."

Explosives Explosion

2004-10-29T12:48:00.000-05:00

New twists to al Qaqaagate. Keep an eye on Power Line to keep up with the story.

Blogs: Destroying Big Media's Plans to Control Voters

2004-10-28T12:52:00.000-05:00

Wow. Things have gone crazy. Let's recap what's happened over the last week:

Last weekend, blogs such as Power Line, LGF, RedState, and others broke the news of a potentially devatstaing news story coming in the Monday Washington Times about John Kerry. The blogosphere went nuts. In the Walking World, folks were none the wiser, but on the Net, it was a big time story, even before the story itself (Security Council members deny meeting Kerry) broke.

Monday came, and with it the anticipated WaTimes front page story. But what's this? Nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives missing from Baghdad under Bush's watch? The media, blogs, and John Kerry explode. No one pays any attention to the Kerry/UN lies story. Convenient? Shah right.

The Al Qaqaa story started falling apart as soon as it hit. Embedded reporters claimed the explosives weren't there when the troops first arrived. While everyone was going on about the timing on the disappearances, and John Kerry started blaming the Bush AND the troops for the missing munitions, two bombshells came to light: 1) the amount of missing explosives is 3 tons, not 377 tons, and 2) There is evidence that the Russians helped move weapons out of Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Holy backfire! Well, they definitely succeeded in one thing: few people are talking about John Kerry's pretend UN Securtiy Council meetings.

Oh, and another tidbit: CBS planned to break the story of the US failing to secure this 377 tons of explosives (which turnd out to be only three, which disappeared, possibly at the hands of the Russians, before coalition troops reached the site (and possibly before they even entered Iraq) - none of which, you can bet, CBS planned to tell you), the day before election day. Today is Thursday, and this story is becoming more and more bogus every day. Imagine if you changed your vote based on this story on a Tuesday, and found out you were being grossly misled on Thursday? That was the plan. But the NYT was forced to run a major story to hurt Bush on Monday because, obviously, they read blogs, and were tipped off that there was a big Kerry story coming. They claim it was because the story of the missing explosives was being leaked on the internet. I don't claim to read the whole internet, but I think most people will remember that the buzz immediately before the NYT published the story was about the upcoming Washington Times article on John Kerry, not what was essentially a year-old story on a weapons cache inflated by the press).

So, now, thanks to the blogs that scooped the Kerry/UN story, we have a whole week to look at the story of the missing explosives. Right on.

Nag the Vote

2004-10-21T12:37:00.000-05:00

Nickelodeon is getting into the act of kids-urging-adults-to-do-their-bidding with "Nag the Vote." At least the name is honest. I haven't seen any of the "Nag" spots - I like Nickelodeon, but my son isn't interested in watching it often. I did watch this "Nick News" segment on kids involved with both the Bush and Kerry campaigns. I know some people are assuming Nick is biased in favor of Kerry based on the results of their mock election, but it's actually quite balanced. Both show multi-ethnic groups of kids (in fact, the sole black teen in the piece is a Bush supporter) making their case. The Kerry segment is more negative, yes, but hey, it's easier (and, in fact, necessary) for supporters of the incumbent to be positive about how things are going. Nick may actually be doing a better job than their sister station MTV and their terribly biased Rock The Vote campaign.

Delaware's All Over It (but you wouldn't know it)

2004-10-19T09:17:00.000-05:00

I was interested to learn that the Vietnam Veteran who is suing the makers of "Stolen Honor," Kenneth J. Campbell, is a professor at the University of Delaware. The disputed footage, which can be seen on the "Stolen Honor" web site in the "Program Excerpts" section. It is 33-year old footage taken from the "Winter Soldier" documentary, which Campbell says is out of context.

You can read the News Journal's front page article on Campbell here.

I think it's appropriate that the News Journal interviewed Campbell, especially because of the fact that he is local. But I would point out that George Elliott (you can read the Dean's World interview with him here), a retired US Navy Captain under whom John Kerry seved in Vietnam, is also a Delawarean who resides in Lewes. He is also involved with Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth. Thomas S. Pyle, a former POW for over six years in Vietnam who appears in "Stolen Honor," is from Wilmington, DE. The News Journal saw fit to do a sympathetic cover story on Campbell in relation to the Kerry/Vietnam controversy, but not Elliott or Pyle.

In any event, I re-watched the clip of "Stolen Honor" that used the disputed clip. I have to say that, when I fist watched it, it was the most troubling clip out of all of them - it features a Michael Moore-like voiceover who does influence the footage. I was honestly confused watching it, and I did not get the impression that Campbell, based on the "Winter Soldier" footage, was a Vietnam Vet. He seemed like a guy who was leading actual Vets to give firsthand witness of events he's only heard about. This is pretty much Campbell's point, and he should absolutely be allowed to clear it up. One of the other Vets shown in the clip is Steve Pitkin, who admitted to lying about comitting atrocities during the Winter Solder's hearings, under pressure from John Kerry, among others. The narration in the clip is backed up by Pitkin's claims, which were not specifically cited. But Campbll isn't talking about how Pitkin was portrayed in the context of the voiceover, he was talking about how he was portrayed.

If Sinclair Broadcasting doesn't want to come off like they're promoting propoganda, perhaps they should ditch the cut-and-paste scenes with the theatrical voiceovers and stick to the interviews with the actual POWs, which, by themselves, are compelling.

UPDATE: I originally wrote this yesteday, but for some reason waited to post it. This morning, it seems that Sinclair Broadcasting has decided to air only portions of the film. The new special is titled "A POW Story: Politis, Pressure, and the Media."

Stolen Honor

2004-10-13T12:29:00.000-05:00

I just viewed all twelve interview clips (about an hour's worth) from Stolen Honor, the anti-Kerry documentary that has become the center of a controversy since Sinclair Broadcast Group announced that they will air the film as news on broadcast channels in about two dozen markets.

To be honest, I'm conflicted. The content of this film is devastating to Kerry -- even if you believe that things a presidential candidate did as a young man should not affect an election 30+ years later, this isn't the kind of stuff that can be easily brushed aside. Based on the clips on the web site, it is clearly an anti-Kerry documentary, not a documentary on how the anti-war protesters affected Vietnam in general. There were (again, in the clips, I have not seen the documentary itself) a couple of references to Jane Fonda, but the bottom line is that this is doubtlessly aimed squarely at John Kerry as a presidential candidate, with no defense of Kerry in evidence (although it has been reported that Sinclair Broadcasting invited John Kerry himself to rebut the film after it's airing, which he refused).

So - is it propaganda? I would have to say, because of the apparent one-sided-ness of the views and square aim on John Kerry - yes, it is. My initial reaction, even before I'd watched these interviews, was that airing a biased documentary about a presidential candidate on broadcast TV two weeks before the election is not right.

However, I remain conflicted, and here's why:

I believe the POWs. And I do not believe their story has been adequately told in the MSM.

My belief in these POWs doesn't stem just from the interviews, or on what I've read from the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth. It actually goes back quite a few years. Back, long before John Kerry's anti-war service was a campaign issue. It goes back to other Vietnam Vets in my life, and the things that they have said - not about Kerry specifically, but about the effect the anti-war movement had on them and on the Vietnam War. My glamorized perception of the 60s anti-war movement was shaken long ago.

During the first Gulf War in 1991, there was an awareness of how Vietnam Vets had been unfairly treated, a feeling of "Never Again." That seems to be slipping away, and by protecting John Kerry by waving away the accusations of of other Veterans, including men who were held captive in Vietnam for 5, 6, 7 years, the seeds are planted for another injustice, both to the Vietnam Vets and the Iraq War Vets (and future Vets), who could face the same mistreatment if we allow ourselves to forget what happened with Vietnam.

These veterans shouldn't need to depend on Republican support and money to be heard, but the fact is, the mainstream newsmedia is not letting them speak. They are being portrayed as nothing more than shills for Bush. But if, say, 60 Minutes had aired interview such as these - we know that they are not above investigating the actions of a candidate - there would be no need for them to be done independently (and therefore, with less "legitimacy" in the eyes of many). The MSM could have interviewed these men and balanced it out with interviews with Kerry defenders. They didn't - why? Is what they are saying so damaging that even giving equal time wouldn't diffuse it?

Frankly, yes, it is. Do we really want to prevent the voting public from hearing what these people have to say?

Even the staunchly anti-Bush (and staunchly anti-censorship) Howard Stern tried to defend Stolen Honor this morning on his show when it was brought up by Robin Quivers, who was all disjointed about the very idea that the public airwaves might be used as a political tool. This, out of the same mouth of a woman who not too long ago hollered on the air: "The only one who ever unified the Iraqi people was Saddam Hussein!" Shut up, Robin.

Howard gave in - and a lot of people will give in and "accept" that all these former POWs are liars - without ever listening to them - when people get hysterical about the idea that they could be allowed speak on broadcast TV.

I wish the film weren't apparently so completely one-sided, because it's much harder to defend that way. But the "objective" media had their chance.

Now, let these men speak.

Debate Fever III

2004-10-09T16:02:00.000-05:00

On foreign policy: Kerry always sounds good, but I always get the feeling that he's hoping against hope that the majority of Americans have no clue and will just believe him because, really, no one likes war, and saying the war is bad is easy - as long as people don't look further than his own rhetoric. Saying that the entire case for war with Iraq was the presence of WMDs is a lie. He is still talking about how he'll do a better job with alliances (France and Germany), even though it's known that the argument holds no water, and he continues to denigrate the alliances we do have (Kerry has been making a big joke out of the fact that Bush flew off the handle during the debate in defense of the coalition leaders - AS HE SHOULD HAVE - as if to say that he couldn't handle the "truth" that the coalition is a fraud. No, he flew off the handle because Kerry has continied this "he chose to go it alone" line even though he knows it's untrue, and his fans eat it up without a thought to just how disrespectful it is).

Kerry gets points for not continuing to quote Paul Bremer after Bremer clarified his statement in the NYT. He gets no other points for the foreign policy portions.

Kerry did earn a few points with me, discussing domestic issues. A lot of people, including Bush, have been mocking Kerry's stance on abortion, saying it's somehow unclear. I think it's extremely clear, and I agree with him completely. One does not have to think that abortions are a good thing to be pro-choice. Personally, while there are certain extreme scenarios that I have not experienced and therefore cannot say what I would do in that position (pregancy from rape, for example), if I had a surprise pregancy under normal circumstances, I would not have an abortion, no matter how inconvenient the pregnancy might be. I tend to think the whole "It's MY body, I can do whatever I want with it" is pretty crude - I've never really bought the line that abortion is somehow power. But the bottom line, and this is what Kerry was saying, is that it doesn't really matter what I personally think about abortion for myself, just because I don't want one doesn't mean that the procedure shouldn't be safe for women who, for whatever reason, choose to have it. Kerry can not be consistant with his appeal to lower income people and say that no tax money should ever fund abortions - using tax money for abortions isn't something that is desirable, but without it, safe abortions would be available only to those who can afford them - he's not going to support abortions for the rich only, and he shouldn't. I am also on Kerry's side when it comes to partial-birth abortion - a woman should not have the right to walk in and have a late-term abortion on demand, and he wasn't saying that that would be OK. Bush said the issue was simple - he's wrong. The morality of a situation where a doctor determines that a woman is facing death in taking her pregnancy to term is incredibly complex and horrific, and the decisions should belong to the families, not the government.

Whew. Moving on. My jaw dropped when Kerry said he supported tort reform (Does John Edwards knows this? He sure avoided the "T" word the other night). It's obvious, though, that with the malpractice insurance crisis facing doctors today, some kind of reform needs to done. There really needs to be a bipartisan effort on this - not just putting caps on malpractice awards, but in preventing frivolous lawsuits in the first place, as Edwards suggested. Whatever the outcome of the election, an agreement by both parties that major reform is needed is a good thing.

On taxes (I know, I'm jumping around here), again, I don't think anyone should be getting further tax cuts right now, at any level. Personally, I though the "question" that demaded that Kerry look into the camera and "pledge" that he would never raise taxes was dirty. I don't like Kerry very much, but that was just designed to make him look like a fool - it was lose/lose. If he were to be honest and say, "You know, I plan to fight for lower taxes for the middle class, but we're living in crazy times, and we don't know what the future holds. What I'm telling you about my tax plan in my intention, but if, two or three years down the road, this plan is no longer viable, I will do what needs to be done." - well, I'd have a lot of respect for him, but it would be stupid, and it would give Bush a load of ammunition. But then, taking the "pledge" gives him ammunition. It was the most unfair question of the night - even the "three mistakes" question for Bush didn't gaurantee that he would look like a fool.

As for timbercompanygate - I'm sorry, but "Need some wood?" was a funny line, I don't care who you are. But he walked into Kerry bringing up the $84 income from the "timber company" by repeating the "900,000 small business owners" figure that has already been dissected by factcheck.org. Too bad Kerry didn't catch factcheck.org's correction, saying that the $84 actually came from a oil & gas company. Oil is much more sinister than timber. The $84 thing is a stupid thing to be going on about, of course - but again, the Bush campaign walked into it by using the technicality to inflate the numbers, so, hey, it's fair game.

Anyway, as a whole, they each had their strong moments - Bush's were mostly regarding foreign policy, Kerry's only strong points were domestic. I think Kerry did well enough in that area to say that it wasn't an all-out trouncing by Bush, but I wouldn't call it a draw - foreign policy is too important right now, so... Bush won.

Eyes... burning...

2004-10-08T12:37:00.000-05:00

I don't know how anyone can actually read the Duelfer Report (link via LGF) and come to the conclusion that it helps John Kerry in any way, unless you're going to start defending the UN sanctions, which, thanks to the exploitation of the Oil For Food program by the countries Kerry is so concerned about impressing, were on the verge of collapsing. It's pretty clear that Saddam, with the help of his partners on France, Russia, and Germany, was trying hard to trick the rest of the world into thinking that he really wasn't that bad, so he could get back to making his WMDs. Pretty frightening that a lot of people, including, of course, the always partisan AP, are responding by basically saying, "see? Saddam wasn't that bad!"

I see the media and Kerry himself trying to say that this report undermines the administration's whole reason for going to Iraq (Really?), focusing in a very limited way on the WMD findings. Most people aren't going to read the 1,000+ page report, or even the 19 page report on the Key Findings - they're trusting orgainizations like the AP to tell them what it really says. Here's a tip: read at least the Key Findings yourself; you can't trust the media to tell you what it says.

John Kerry is almost definitely going to say that the Bush administration is now going to focus on Oil For Food (as if the administration has never mentioned it before, like, say, in Bush's 2002 Address to the UN General Assembly) to distract from the fact that there are no WMDs - keep in mind when he says that that he has been complaining that Bush didn't listen enough to France and Germany - two of the countries that could have made it possible for Saddam to have started up his WMD program even with sanctions in place, if we had just given it time. His case is totally blown.

The What for What Whatwhat?

2004-10-07T15:39:00.000-05:00

I'm working on a post about the OB-GYN crisis that the VP mentioned during Tuesday's debate, but it's taking longer than I thought - plus I keep getting distracted reading about how the Oil-For-Food scandal is exploding (on the internet, anyway). This is BAD news for Kerry, but it would be nice to see the MSM hammer this story (it's a lot more important than, say, prayerbreakfastgate) and let the people see who the real "coalition of the coerced and bribed" are. Now, what was that plan for Iraq again, John Kerry?

(via Roger L Simon)

Belated Debate Fever II!

2004-10-06T09:33:00.000-05:00

Time for VP debate talk: Cheney won hands down on foreign policy, because, basically, he talked about foreign policy, while Edwards was like, "Saddam wasn't behind the attacks of 9/11! Halliburton!" Der - we all know that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11. But acting like, if we just captured or killed bin Laden, there would be no more threat of terrorism is stupid, and they know it's not true. Kerry/Edwards are pretending that the WOT is entirely about avenging 9/11 - Bush/Cheney are acting like it's about keeping this country safe by tearing down the strongholds terrorists have on an entire region. It's a lot more complicated than just going after Osama bin Laden. Cheney made it clear that he understands that. Edwards seemed more concerned with scoring "points," and thought he could score some by lobbing "zingers" like "you are still not being straight to the American people!" Nice sound byte, but when you yourself won't give a straight answer to questions (such as whether Saddam would still be in power if Kerry/Edwards had been in office for the past 4 years and how France and Germany's inisitance that they will not send troops to Iraq even if Kerry is elected), that's all it is - a sound byte.

I think Edwards' biggest blunder was his utter refusal to recognize the Iraqi security forces who are fighting for their own country alongside the US and other Coalition Soldiers. The Kerry camp really loves this "90%" line, and doesn't seem to care if it disrespects our Iraqi allies. Edwards looked like a fool saying "90 percent of the coalition casualties - the CO-A-LITION casualties," as if the Iraqi security forces aren't going into to towns like Samarra alongside (and in greater numbers than) American forces. They are our allies. Kerry and Edwards really need to stop pissing on them continually.

Despite the fact that my strong distaste for fascism and totalitarianism and belief in democracy puts me on the side of the International Lords of Evil when it comes to foreign policy, I still fit with the Democrats when it comes to domestic policy pretty much, so I figured Edwards would do really well when the topics turned to the homefront. I knew he'd have to deal with his ambulance-chasing past, but beating a Republican on domestic issues should have been a walk in the park. He did OK. Not great. He came off more focused on jobs, but he struggled on gay marriage, sounding quite like a right-winger, repeating "Marriage is between a man and a woman!" over and over, while Cheney mostly avoided getting into a topic where he has disagreements with his administration. He came of better to me, but of course that's pretty much moot, since Bush supports the stupid Defense of marriage act. The healthcare issue came off pretty much as a draw, unless you are a big supporter of trial lawyers. On taxes, Edwards had only a slight edge - no one should be talking about any kind of tax cuts. Cheney came up on top when talking about voting records.

Overall, though, Cheney took it because Edwards looked foolish on foreign policy, repeating the same lines Kerry tried at the first Presidential debate, even after they'd been shot down. It's not a good tactic. Looking desperate for "applause" (at least mental applause from the silent TV audience) is not a good tactic. This is serious business, and it was Cheney who looked like he was taking it seriously. He got laughs - he sure did. Too bad for Edwards the laughs were at his expense.

And the most important issue pertaining to world affairs for young people (according to what they're being told) is...

2004-10-05T15:43:00.000-05:00

The draft? Still?

Rock the Vote is boasting over a million registered voters, and good for them - but could they drop the vote-or-get-drafted-and-die crap already? I mean, no one really expects RTV to be anything more than trendy politics-lite for "kids," but is it too much to expect that they present international issues to young people in a way that A) is based in some small way on actual issues pertaining to it rather than inflating an issue that neither candidate supports, and B) isn't totally, 100% about their own personal comfort? Jeez. A "non-partisan" web site about the election that names the draft as one of the biggest election issues for young voters while not actually mentioning terrorism once is such bunk.

Forget the Polls...

2004-10-04T12:52:00.000-05:00

The psychic canines are at least as accurate, according to past predictions: Jacqueline Stallone's Dogs predict Bush will win the election by up to 15%. They also predict that within the next four years there will be a Constitutional Amendment allowing naturalized American citizens to run for President, and you'll never guess who is predicted to take advantage of it.

Anyway. This is just in case you needed some backup to the Presidential Mask predictions.

Jacketgate! LetMeFinishgate!

2004-10-04T12:00:00.000-05:00

Yeah. It's not that exciting, really, but it's something to do, I guess. If you get tired of watching the entire debate frame by frame, check out the great IP photos over at Ferid the Great's Loser's Blog.

2004-10-04T09:30:00.000-05:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Debate Fever!

2004-10-01T06:20:00.000-05:00

Kerry is a good debater, there's no doubt about that, and if I knew nothing about the world, Kerry's Senate voting record, or the campaign - I'd pick Kerry in a minute after watching the first debate last night. I think it's likely that, in the debate's aftermath, Kerry will start to close the gap.

The problem is, though, that Kerry is basing his great-sounding plan for Iraq on alliance building - something he hasn't appeared too strong on lately. Of course, he is talking about getting additionl allies (mainly France and Germany, we have to assume, since they are the countries Bush is accused of snubbing) to send a significant amount of troops to help relieve our "90%" of the burden. The thing is, both France and Germany have already said that they will not go into Iraq if Kerry is elected. Even if they somehow did change their minds, I don't know how we could expect that they would send in a larger number of troops than our current Coalition allies have. He is essentially promising to send other countries' troops, which of course he has no real control over. So the picture he painted, that thousands of French and German troops are going to ride in and save the day, is beyond flawed. Also, there is a lot of outside-the-debate information that wouldn't have been appropriate (I guess) to bring up: the fact, for example, that there was a good amount of corruption involved with France's refusal to join the Iraq war, from the "Oil for Food" madness to, allegedly, the Niger Yellowcake forgeries. Chirac, by all appearances, was allied with (or, at the very least, protecting) Saddam, and there was probably nothing any President could have done to get him to join the coalition.

Without these new allies joining us in Iraq, Kerry's plan isn't especially different from Bush's except he seems to want to speed things up. I swear I heard "cutting corners" almost slip out as a plan to win Iraq. He wants to train Iraqi guards more quickly, which doesn't seem to jibe with the idea that our own troops need to be better prepared to fight terrorism. He wants Iraqis to fight for themselves (as does Bush), but he has a problem, it seems, with Afghan soldiers surrounding Bin Laden in Afghanistan. And his argument against the multilateral plan Bush has in place against North Korea is stunning - it's as if he just wants to do everything the opposite of Bush for the sake of being the opposite of Bush.

On the other hand, he did present himself better. The cutaway reaction shots were great for Kerry - he would listen, nod, jot down a few notes - no eye rolling, no exasperated sighs. That was good, especially since he has somewhat of a reputation as a whiner. Bush looked annoyed in his cutaway shots. Not as unprofessional looking as Al Gore in 2000, but not as assured looking as Kerry.

The lack of nasty attacks toward each other was great, they both get credit for not sinking into the mudslinging of the two partisan camps. The jabs were there, but they were subtle. Some may have been a little too subtle to have much impact - but they kept it very civil. In such an ugly election year as this, that was very important.

Bush lost on style, but he came across more human. Each candidate spoke about meetings with military/miliatary families, and the contrast was stark: Kerry came off more self-centered - he'd met two soldiers recently who said to him, "we need you." Bush met with an Iraq War soldier's widow, and he talked about how he felt and what he said to try and comfort her. Surely, many soldiers have approached Bush with positive words, but he didn't brag about it. That's one major turnoff for me regarding Kerry - he seems to brag about everyone who's ever told him he'd make a better president.

In the end, Kerry knew what he had to do, and I think he did it pretty well - he didn't pander to the Bushitler crowd (except maybe for a couple of subtle war-for-oil implications), who would vote for Kerry if he were a chihuahua. He focused on the Undecideds, those who worry that he will make the country less safe, as well as those who fundamentally do want to vote Democrat, but are having doubts. I think the key for him is to really convince people that new allies will join the US in the fight against terror with him as president. How he will actually come up with these fantastical, not-currently-in-the-coalition, European armies is another story, and that's the crux of it - and why, ultimately, Kerry did not win the debate content-wise in my opinion. Bush didn't promise anything far-fetched, unless you refuse to beileve that many Iraqis want peace and freedom. Kerry promised things that are almost gauranteed not to happen. I do think, however, that he will, if elected, follow through in Iraq, and probably won't deal with it significantly differently than Bush has. Just a hunch.

The Planned Parenthood Debacle

2004-09-29T10:01:00.000-05:00

In my first post, I mentioned that, while I an Pro-Choice, I am not pro-Planned Parenthood, and that I'd expand on that another time. Now seems like as good a time as any.

I have had only one firsthand experience with PP, and it was really awful. I don't know if this is representative of how every PP treats every non-abortion seeking patient, but I know one former PP employee who, when I told of of my experience with them, said that was pretty much how it was with them. Still, this is my experience only, and the reason why I, personally, would never return to Planned Parenthood for any reason, nor would I recommend any woman to go there.

This was back in the mid-90s, when I was just out of art school and living in Philadelphia. As a little backstory, I had lived in the Fairmount area of the city (a pretty impoverished neighborhood, though not the absolute worst). I had been dating my now-husband for a while, and I decided to take that big relationship step and go on the Pill. Conveniently, there was a small health center across the street, so I made an appointment and met with a gynocologist there (a very nice woman), who did the full pelvic exam, breast exam, the whole thing, and she also discussed birth control options with me. Since I was uninsured, she gave me sample packs of pills, to save me from having to pay full price for them at the pharmacy. The clinic charged me $6 a visit, based on my then-minimum-wage income working at a coffee shop. This kind of experience was what I pretty much expected from Planned Parenthood - professionals making you feel comfortable, taking care of your feminine health and family planning needs. That wasn't such an "out there" assumption, having grown up hearing from everyone from my Health Teacher in school to Ann Landers that PP was the place to turn to for birth control.

So. I moved to Center City Philadelphia, a subway ride (or long walk) from my Fairmount Clinic. There may have been other heath centers in my new neighborhood, but more prominent was a large Planned Parenthood office. Great, I thought: when my pills run out, I'll just go there. I was happy with the clinic, but PP would probably be even better - right?

There were actually two within easy walking distance. One must have been their main Philadelphia clinic - there were anti-abortion protesters outside it every day. That freaked me out, and I didn't want to have to get yelled at by anti-abortion protesters when I wasn't even trying to get one. The other was a few blocks away, much smaller, and I never saw protesters there, so that's where I went.

It was weird from the beginning. When I told them what I was there for (birth control), they seemed a little put off. I wrote it off - so the receptionist was a little rude. I was asked to fill out a bizarre form like none I've ever encountered, asking all kinds of questions about my sexual habits, with check boxes next to things like "oral sex," "anal sex," and so on. I didn't know why they needed all this explicit information, but I didn't question it, and filled it out.

Finally I was called in to meet with what I figured would be a nurse. She looked about 18 years old. She looked at my form, and asked what "BCP," which I'd jotted under medications I was taking, meant. I probably gave her a look like "are you serious?" In school, I had a work-study job as the school nurse's assistant. We often used "BCP" as shorthand for birth control pills, and many students who came in for care used it too. This was an all-purpose school nurse office that dealt mostly with colds, headaches, and the occasional Xacto-knife accident. While we sold condoms for $1 a dozen, was not a family planning center by any means. I can understand a person on the street not knowing what "BCP" stood for - but a Planned Parenthood employee? I was starting to get uncomfortable.

She didn't seem to know what to do, and she seriously seemed puzzled that I was even there. The "examination" consited of her taking my weight. That was it. I would have forgiven this girl's apparent incompetence had a real nurse or doctor come in and at the very least discussed with me what kind of pills they were prescribing. But no. She told me to go to the front desk to pay (for WHAT?), and they would issue me some pills.

The woman at the front desk told me that the pills would cost $26 for one pack, directly from them. I didn't expect them to be free. But I didn't expect them to charge more than what the pharmacy charged ($24 per month, full price). On TOP of that, the exam would cost something like $50. I don't remember the exact number, but it was fifty-something. I told her that I had not had an exam. She claimed I had. Uh, no I didn't. I'm not paying $50 to get weighed. Well, she said, you don't have to pay it until you've had the second half of the appointment (something crazy like that - I imagined waiting an hour to have a teenager take my temperature and shooing me away). I wound up leaving with nothing - no overpriced pills, nothing but the threat of a ridiculous bill if I ever set foot in there again.

I took the subway to the Fairmount Clinic the next day and waited two hours as a walk-in to see my old gynocologist, who took care of me like always.

Now, I have no idea how PP treats women who come to get an abortion. They may be wonderful as abortion providers (they are certainly not the ONLY abortion providers out there, however). As birth control providers, they suck. And yet girls and women looking for birth control help are continually pointed in their direction. That's wrong. Go to your doctor, go to your clinic, talk to a real professional who cares about your overall health and who doesn't rely on unwanted pregnancies for their business.

Grasping for Words

2004-09-28T09:35:00.000-05:00

I've been hearing a lot of... what to call them? Too sympathetic to Islamofacism to call liberals, too sterotypical to call the Left... don't seem to think about Kerry enough to be Kerry supporters... I'll just call them the Bushitler folks. I've been hearing some Bushitler folks talking about how, if Bushitler wins the election in November, they feel that they will personally be in danger. That, as soon as Bushitler usurps power (again), he will start rounding up "dissenters" and sending them to concentration camps. It seems there are people who honestly believe this.

It's not hard to come up with examples of why this has no basis in reality, not least of all the fact that open dissention has become a fashionable goldmine. People can and do dissent openly, and that's not likely to change if Bush is re-elected.

So why do people seem to earnestly believe that they'll be thrown into camps if Bush is re-elected? They want to. They have to. If they are going to say that Bush is as bad as Saddam Hussein or worse, they have to be fearful of Bush. Saddam imprisoned, tortured, and slaughtered dissenters - in order to buy the line that Bush is every bit as bad, they have to believe that he would do the same to them, or worse. Otherwise, they have to either deny that Saddam ever harmed anyone (a conclusion that seems, despicably, to be preferable), or they have to accept that he actually was far worse than Bush could ever be (a conclusion that would be unacceptable). And it doesn't hurt that believing that Bush is planning to round up dissenters scares the crap out of people who, on some level, want to believe it too.

It's sick, really. It's bad enough that these are people who seem to want to see the highest possible Coalition death toll in Iraq to help support their claims of a quagmire, but, on top of that, to essentially wish for death camps in America just to prove how right they are about Bushitler is....

I don't even have a word for it.

Ugh

2004-09-27T07:15:00.000-05:00

I've only been using Blogger for a few days, and it hasn't been good. I'm having a lot of problems with posting. A post from Saturday about the Republican mailouts aimed towards Christian voters that suggested that if they don't vote (Republican), the Bible will be banned while showing a "scary" image of a man proposing marriage to another man, which would be allowed (I didn't say anything especially clever or interesting about it, just said I thought it was despicable) was deleted because a really annoying typo had slipped by, and I could not edit it. After trying many many times to edit it, I finally deleted it, tried to repost, then finally let it go. Maybe it's something on my end. If not, I'll have to find another hosting service. It would be easier just to do it manually at this point.

The Objective AP Part 2 (already)

2004-09-25T17:00:00.000-05:00

What is so maddening about this is the fact that these stories are being shoved in my face every time I log onto Yahoo: Credibility Fears Bedevil Iraq Elections.

I'm not going to question that there are surely Iraqis who are raising questions, but this segment lept at me (emphasis added):

Mounting violence has already delayed the elections for months. Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed for nothing more than lining up to take jobs with the police or to sign on with the national guard.[...]

Nothing more than lining up to take jobs with the police or... national guard??! That is absolutely insulting to the many Iraqis who risk their lives to join the IP and the National Guard, especially in the face of the fact that these are the very people who have been attacked the hardest in the past few weeks. No, Associated Press, they weren't attacked for doing nothing, you partisan hacks, they were attacked because they were volunteering, in large numbers, to fight terrorism as allies with the Coalition. Not pointing that out is scummy.

I read the rest of the article, but it's not worth even commenting on it. Their position, and utter disrespect for our Iraqi allies, is clear.

The Objective AP

2004-09-25T12:25:00.000-05:00

When I logged on to Yahoo this morning to check some e-mails, a headline on its main page grabbed my attention: Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq. My first thought was, "Well, DUH!"... my second was, "why are they putting an editorial headline as a Top Story?"

It's not that Bush twisting Kerry's words on occasion is just opinion and not fact. But, just as the article admits in its second paragraph, Kerry is guilty of the same. So why not give the article and honest headline: "Candidates Twist Each Other's Words on Iraq"? Maybe because this AP News article is a blatantly partisan opinion piece - and one that is actually pretty ineffectual in living up to it's title.

[Bush] stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Kerry didn't say "I prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today," in those words, but to be honest, that's really more of a paraphrase of "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure" than an outright twisting of it. Seriously, if Kerry believes that America is less secure today than it was when Saddam was in power, it's a logical assumption that he preferred things as they were. Attaching the frankly empty line about Saddam deserving a special place in hell doesn't actually change the fact that he has stated on several occasions that there was no valid reason for the war in Iraq. Plenty of people agree with that. Doesn't mean that people, even Bushitler, who don't agree with it can't touch it, Associated Press.

Bush attacked Kerry for calling "our alliance 'the alliance of the coerced and the bribed.'"

"You can't build alliances if you criticize the efforts of those who are working side by side with you," the president said in Janesville, Wis.

Kerry did use the phrase to describe the U.S.-led coalition of nations in Iraq, in a March 2003 speech in California. He was referring to the administration's willingness to offer aid to other nations to gain support for its Iraq policies.

But Bush mischaracterized Kerry's criticism, which has not been aimed at the countries that have contributed a relatively small number of troops and resources, but at the administration for not gaining more participation from other nations.

OK, so John Kerry really did say that, word for word, but what he meant was that Bushitler didn't "coerce and bribe" enough other nations (which would be wrong)? That is some interesting spin, Associated Press, and so nice of you to throw your own little dig in towards the allies with troops on the ground in Iraq. If Kerry doesn't want people to think he has no respect for the Coalition, he might want to consider not throwing around words like "bribed" and "fraudulent" at all. I'm just saying.

Bush also suggested Kerry was undercutting an ally in a time of need, and thus unfit to be president, when he "questioned the credibility" of Iraqi interim leader Ayad Allawi.

"This great man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America," the president said in Janesville. "And Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility."

Bush repeated the attack later in the day and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) echoed the message in Lafayette, La. "I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage," Cheney said.

Kerry's point was that the optimistic assessments of postwar Iraq from both Bush and Allawi didn't match previous statements by the Iraqi leader, nor the reality on the ground, and were designed to put the "best face" on failed policies.

Now you're just whining, Associated Press. And by not putting "failed policies" in quotes, you are suggested that John Kerry's assesments are unmitigated facts. Now, I happen to believe (not that I've ever been to Iraq, either), that many if not all of Kerry's pointed out trouble spots, are, in fact, trouble spots, and neither Bush nor Allawi has said there are no trouble spots. But what he is doing by focusing on them could actually be an argument that tougher policies are needed for success - not, as he so panderingly supports, total withdrawl, which pretty much ensures failure.

If I may twist Kerry's words myself, John Kerry doesn't appear to care about Iraqis or the trouble spots. He seems far more pissed off that Allawi came and said the three words John Kerry and his followers do not want to hear: "Thank You, America." It obviously just kills him. It seems to annoy the media, as well: in my local paper yesterday, none of the thankful or morale-building parts of the speech were printed in the page 7 article about Allawi's visit.

But back to the article in question. It did give an example of "Kerry" twisting Bush's words:

Just Friday, the Kerry campaign sent an e-mail to supporters entitled "He said what?" citing Bush's remark that he had seen "a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."

The e-mail from campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill accused the president of having "no plan to get us out of Iraq" and thinking "the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America." Bush has a plan for Iraq — Kerry just disagrees that it is working. And the president wasn't comparing Iraq's future to that of the United
States, only accurately reflecting one recent survey in Iraq and the latest trends in America that asked participants for their assessment of the direction their countries are going.

Here is an example of actual twisting. The most clear-cut example in the entire article. So, now, why is the headline only directed at Bush? I'm sure in the mind of the writer, the accusations against Bush are far more damning. The Kerry example is just an e-mail, and the lie was told by Mary Beth Cahill, not Kerry himself, as if nothing inaccurate has ever passed across Kerry's own lips. Give me a break, Associated Press.

(UPDATE: Seems the name of the article has been changed to "Bush, Kerry Twisting Each Other's Words." Trust me, that's not what it said this morning.)

They're In Cahoots, I Tell You!

2004-09-24T11:03:00.000-05:00

You might want to sit down for this... it appears, according to his address to the US Congress yesterday, that Iraqi Prime Misister Ayad Allawi is some kind of ally with George Bush. It also appears that Allawi thinks his country is better off without Saddam Hussein. And he keeps using words like "succeeding," which is really confusing, because we all know that Iraq is a QUAGMIRE.

John Kerry (who didn't bother to attend Allawi's speech, despite the fact that he's a Congressman) doesn't like this one bit. I mean, how DARE Prime Minister Allawi come here, to the United States of America, and not bash America for invading his country? The nerve of this clearly cowardly man, who has a very cushy position in his ivory tower in peaceful Baghdad, coming here and talking like George Bush isn't Hitler. John Kerry says the world isn't better off without Saddam Hussein, and he if HE were President, the benvolent Hussein would still be in power. Iraq wasn't THAT bad, you know. Michael Moore says so. Michael Moore and John Kerry have SO much more firsthand experience in Iraq, unlike that wimpy Prime Minister.

How in the world does John Kerry think he is going to make for a good ally with Iraq? He pretty much called the Prime Minister a liar right there. He calls the Coalition (nations who have lost soldiers in Iraq, too) fraudulent. His sister went to Australia to tell people to get rid of Prime Minister John Howard, one of our biggest allies. And he talks about George Bush alientating allies abroad? It would be funny, except it's not. Kerry isn't rooting for the Coalition at all - he's rooting for failure.

Trivial Local News (or is it?)

2004-09-23T09:53:00.000-05:00

According to This article in today's Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal, The Brandywine School Disctrict screwed up, royally:

The Brandywine School District has told Mount Pleasant High School's marching band that, because Saturday is Yom Kippur, it cannot participate in a Pennsylvania competition that day.

That has angered several non-Jewish parents who say the district's decision violates the separation of church and state by forcing students to observe a holy day.

They also are angry because the band's participation in the Pennsville, Pa., competition was planned months ago. Parents said they found out only this week that the band could not go to the competition.

"This competition wasn't a secret," parent Angie Creppon said Wednesday. "This event was scheduled back last May. To suddenly tell kids that they can't take part is just wrong."

The district said Wednesday that Mount Pleasant's participation in the competition was scheduled in error.

The Brandywine school board does not have a policy on accommodating religious holidays but tries to do so when asked by community members, district spokeswoman Wendy Lapham said.

"We try to be sensitive to the community's wishes in these matters," she said.

Now, I am a firm believer of Separation of Church and State. But the district's unofficial policy to avoid planning events on religious holidays is not "forcing students to observe a holy day." It's trying to be fair to students by not planning events on days when some would not be able to participate. I don't have a problem with that really. It's not like the school band is required to play hymns in church on Sundays.

The problem is, cancelling an event after four months of planning because they just realized that Saturday is Yom Kippur sounds more like a policy on religious holidays than an encouragement to be fair, and, because they dropped the ball, it's not going to wind up being fair to anyone. Not just to the non-Jewish kids and their "angered" parents, either. By "accidentally" booking band competition on Yom Kippur and waiting until the last minute to cancel it, it puts the Jewish kids in the middle of a controversy, like it or not.

Creppon and other parents say they mean no disrespect to Jewish families and students who observe the holiday.

"What we're saying is that there are 44 students in the band and three of them are Jewish. If they choose to observe the holiday that's great," Creppon said. "We're glad they're strong in their faith. What we don't like is telling 41 other kids that they can't take part in something they've been practicing for and looking forward to for months."

So, no disrespect, but, there are more of "us" than there are of "them." Nice. To single out the Jewish kids (she even counted!), and even exclude them from being disappointed because they, assuming they are observant, couldn't go either way, is terrible. The school, in their attempts to be sensitive, messed up, in a big way.

"What did you learn today, honey?"

"Blame the Jews."

Niiiiiice.

ZOOMing out the vote?

2004-09-22T20:50:00.000-05:00

Most afternoons, after my son comes home from his morning Kindegarten session, after lunch and any homework papers, he'll settle in and watch some PBS Kids. One of his favorite shows is Zoom, in all of it's "try this at home" glory. It keeps him constantly thinking about how things work and new things to try, and that's good. I do like the show.

What's not so good, in fact what is downright obnoxious, in my eyes, are the current "Public Service Announcements" aired before and after the show, starring various young Zoom cast members, encouraging them to get their parents to register to vote.

Now, I have no problem with PSAs that urge adults, directly, to register to vote. People should register to vote when they're 18. It's absurd that so many people aren't registered, and if it takes a rock star or whatever to convince them to vote, well... OK. But the Zoom Out The Vote PSAs are just insulting to me, as a parent and as a voter.

In one, a preteen girl holds her breath and admits that holding your breath till you pass out isn't the best way to get your parents to register to vote, but you have to do SOMETHING!

What makes me mad is that it doesn't even explain that there's a fair chance that their parents are already registered. It doesn't say, "Talk to your parents about current events - ask them if they belong to a political party..." you know, talk. No, it skips right to temper tantrums. If you whine enough, you can drive your parents to vote. Come on. It's insulting, to kids and parents.

The new one doesn't urge kids to have tantrums, it draws a bizarre analogy. "You wouldn't throw away half a pizza, would you? But half of eligible voters didn't vote in the last election!" Now, that doesn't make sense. Who's throwing away half a pizza? Eligible voters each have one vote per office. Maybe if you only vote in half of the elections you're throwing away half a pizza. But that's not what they're talking about - they mean if half of the people don't vote, period. I suppose the suggestion is that children who need bad pizza analogies to understand the importance of voting have a responsibility to get adults to vote. That's flawed. I can understand why they avoid looking at actual issues, but children simply don't understand politics - I don't need them to tell me what my responsibilties are. I'm a grownup. I get it. We're the ones who are supposed to be educating our kids about the world so that when they're old enough, they'll exercize their civic duties - not the other way around.

Post #1

2004-09-22T16:04:00.000-05:00

This is my first entry. I am nobody, really, just another news-junkie, non-partisan (registered Independant), biracial, "punk rock," bass-playing, 30-something married urban mom of a 5-year-old. And a swing voter!

I have always voted for Democrats in the past, except once when I lived in Pennsylvania, I wouldn't vote for Bob Casey, Jr. I am pro-choice and very pro-birth control (I do not support Planned Parenthood, however, because of an experience I had with them once when I naeively thought that they would be a good place to go to get affordable birth control pills - I'll tell that story another time). I strongly support same sex marriage, do not have a large income, and am uninsured (my son is, though, through the state's Healthy Children Program, which is good). I'm on the PTA at my son's public school.

But enough about me. There's a war on, an election coming up, and mainstream media outlets that that have completely lost their minds in the quest to undermine both. There is much to talk about.