Public Nuisance |
|
|
Random commentary and senseless acts of blogging.
The first Republican president once said, "While the people retain their virtue and their vigilance, no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can seriously injure the government in the short space of four years." If Mr. Lincoln could see what's happened in these last three-and-a-half years, he might hedge a little on that statement. Blog critics Gryffindor House Slytherin House Ravenclaw House House Elves Beth Jacob Prisoners of Azkaban Muggles
Party Animals:
Jewish Bloggers Join >>  
|
Thursday, September 30, 2004
As several others have noted recently, the televised 'debates' are a lot like gymnastics: the outcome is determined not by the competitors but by the judges, who in this case are the media. That worked well for Bush in 2000. After a very poor performance in which he lost ground in overnight polls, Bush was propelled forward by negative commentary on Al Gore's dreadful misconduct during the debate (his main offense was breathing) and received by far the largest post-debate surge in history. With the media engaged in a crusade against Gore, almost the only way Bush could have failed in 2000 would have been to spend the debate drinking from a whiskey bottle and pass out onstage halfway through. It won't be so easy for Bush this time. The refs are likely to actually call him on any blatant foul. While still cringing in fear of the right's slime machine, they are belatedly noticing that wrecking the country actually does have consequences. I think the debate is likely to go well for Kerry because it will be something of a replay of 1980: most of the country continues to be dissatisfied with Bush, but he has been successful so far in reducing Kerry as an alternative. The debate, starting with the traditional handshake which will show Kerry's height advantage of about 5 inches, puts them on an equal footing. Kerry only has to come off as an acceptable choice to pull enough of the undecideds and Bush's weak support over. Sunday, September 26, 2004
I noted a few posts below that Air America still isn't on the air in the Bay Area, although there are multiple right wing talk stations here. It's now all but official that that will be changing within days. Air America will be coming on Tuesday to KABL 960, which will be renamed KQKE. There are continuing reports that it will also soon be on the air in Boston. Since that earlier post, AAR has also added new stations in Atlanta and Phoenix, as well as Rochester and one other small market. The Atlanta and Phoenix stations are both reportedly weak signals, but KABL has a solid signal that is easily heard through the core Bay Area. I still think that liberal talk is a perfect fit for this market and likely to be a smash hit. By January I expect KQKE will be no worse than 2nd among local AM stations. Knocking off #1 KGO will be tough; they've been the leading station here for decades and have advantages including a major advertising budget and a monster signal - it isn't unusual for their local shows to get call-ins from as far as Oregon. KABL is owned by Clear Channel and, as with almost every other CC station that has picked up Air America, they will reportedly drop 'Unfiltered' to carry the non-AAR Ed Schultz show. Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Politcal Animal recently posted: Now, I happen to agree with Tomasky that Republicans generally go for the jugular more effectively than Democrats, but it's a big mistake for us liberals to kid ourselves into thinking that Republicans win elections solely because they fool people into voting for them. It's not just that this is a debilitating mental attitude — although it is — but it's also not true. Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue — like it or not — the majority of Americans favor the Republican position. There are two basic problems with this. For starters, just what is the 'Republican position' on national defense that voters prefer to the Democratic one? Both parties want to build up the military and fight a war against terrorists. Such distinction as there is comes from Iraq, although even that is blurred: Bush hasn't offered much of a plan beyond 'stay the course' and Kerry hasn't offered much of anything. His plan to bring in other countries to share the burden was workable at one point; now the ugly reality is that there probably is no good option. The main difference, although Kerry has allowed Bush to obscure it, is that Bush still says, and may actually believe, that starting the Iraq war was a good idea. Why is there still significant support for the war? A recent report (pdf) on public opinion and Iraq makes it pretty clear: Such beliefs are highly correlated with support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Among those who believed that Iraq had WMD 81% thought going to war was the right decision, and among those who thought it had a major WMD program 49% believed it was the right decision. Among those who thought that Iraq only had some WMD-related activities only 21% thought war was the right decision, and for those who thought there was no such activity just 8% thought it was the right decision. Likewise, among those who thought Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, 73% thought going to war was the right decision, and among those who thought Iraq was giving al Qaeda substantial support 69% thought this was the right decision. But among those who thought there were only a few contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, 21% thought war was the right decision; and among those who thought there was no relationship at all, only 16% saw war as the right decision. In other words, making the rather plausible assumption that support for Bush's war correlates to support for Bush's candidacy, we have about as clear a demonstration as you could ask for: Republicans do in fact "fool people into voting for them". Those who believe inaccurately that there were Iraqi WMDs and an Iraqi connection to 9/11 support the war. Those who know these claims are false oppose it. Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Is it the Apocalypse? Atrios has now not posted for over 24 hours, in fact about 33.5 and counting. While there is no confirmation at this time that the world is ending, nothing short of a major global disaster such as giant comets striking the Earth or Bush stealing another election is known to cause such unprecedented behavior. Update: Apparently it was Blogger, not Atrios, that was behaving oddly. When I wrote the above, I had just visited the site and found no posts since yesterday morning; I just looked at the site again and counted 12 posts dated between what had previously shown as the most recent and when I wrote, then stopped counting with a few left. Sunday, September 12, 2004
There has been some controversy regarding the explosion of aggressively right wing media and the lack of similar liberal outlets. Was the reluctance of the media to air progressive voices a result of corporate control or a response to the market? Would the corporate media air a liberal voice that could make a profit? The early history of Air America can be read on either side of this debate. AAR hurt itself significantly with a shaky start where it was on the brink of bankruptcy and fired several key executives. That bad beginning might well have killed it off had not early ratings exceeded even most optimistic forecasts. In spite of strong ratings, AAR is not yet getting into most of the top markets. Currently the network claims 28 affiliates, but that number is a bit deceptive; quite a few of those stations only air one or two AAR programs; generally Al Franken and/or Randi Rhodes. Several stations which do broadcast significant AAR content are in tiny markets such as Key West, Chapel Hill, Plattsburgh, Anchorage, and Santa Cruz. Recently AAR did add Philadelphia to its stable, but whether that is actually good news is debatable. They're on a small station with a weak signal, and the station is only broadcasting Franken and Rhodes. Presumably AAR wouldn't have gone for that unattractive offer if anything better was in the offing. Yet Philadelphia is still the only top 15 market, other than the flagship station in NYC, where AAR is heard. At present, AAR is heard in 9 of the top 50 markets (including Philadelphia), but that number has been growing. In fact, it could easily grow tomorrow; AAR has added stations each of the last several weeks. That's solid market penetration for such a new entity, but it could be better. The large and extremely liberal San Francisco market is in the absurd position of having multiple talk stations going after the minority of hard core righties and not a single station catering to the liberal majority. The same is true of equally liberal Boston. Several major markets are rumored to be gaining AAR outlets in the near future; SF and Boston are among them. Oddly, Seattle doesn't seem to be, although AAR's ratings in the similar Portland market have been nothing short of sensational and are the main reason that so many other markets are opening up. Most of AAR's stations in key markets are owned by Clear Channel, a company known for its close ties to Republicans. Whether this is hedging bets against a Kerry victory or a purely economic decision is unclear. A pretty current list of AAR stations is here. A good source for info about new markets and AAR news is here. You can get streaming audio from AAR's own site, or the affiliates in Miami, Key West, San Diego, or Portland. Postscript: AAR did add a new station today, but not in a major market. It picked up WPEK, another station with a weak signal located in the #183 market, Asheville, NC. So did North Korea test a nuclear bomb? The official answer seems to be no, but the responses are odd. According to a diarist on Kos, Rice gave a non-committal answer, "We don't know if it was a Nuclear test." Powell sounded more direct on ABC. When asked if the explosion of a few days ago was a nuclear test, Powell said, "No.... No indication that that was a nuclear event of any kind." So why are we hearing different stories from Powell and Rice? It seems hard to believe that it wasn't easy very quickly to determine if a nuclear explosion had taken place. The monitoring equipment is already there, and North Korea is a small country, relatively easy to monitor. An explosion that created a visible mushroom cloud, reported by observers, would have created a vast amount of airborne radiation, easily detectable. (It also would almost certainly have dumped substantial radiation on China, and perhaps also Russia and/or South Korea, which those governments are unlikely to appreciate.) An act like that seems shockingly rash, even by Kim Jong Il's standards. We'll know soon, but an early guess is that the explosion probably wasn't nuclear and probably wasn't intentional. Rice either had less information or just shied away from actually answering the question. But the alternate explanation, that it was nuclear and we're being misled to avoid exposing another Bush failure before the elections, can never be dismissed with this crew. Note: Powell gave another amusing answer on Korea. Steph: "The President has said that the United States 'would not tolerate' a nuclear North Korea.... What does 'not tolerate' mean?" Powell: "'Not tolerate' means we don't think there should be nuclear weapons on the Korea peninsula." Instant Panic I know it's premature to write off a team that has not yer run an offensive play. But after watching Pittsburgh's opening offensive drive against Oakland, you have to suspect it's going to be a long season. It was really the defense more than the offense that brought in new talent over the off season, and it could well pay off, but it sure didn't in that first drive. Thursday, September 09, 2004
The Saddam Rule (Much) shorter Dan Bartlett: It dosn't really matter if George Bush obeyed orders. What's important is that he engaged in order-obeying related programn activities. And that's just the same as actually obeying. Last night's story on 60 Minutes was mixed; the interview with Barnes was relatively pointless. It added nothing to what was already on the record, although not as widely known as it will be now. Rather's questions were useless: he didn't even bring up Barnes's meeting with Evans or ask about whether his silence on the question influenced his work as a Texas lobbyist when Bush was Governor. Instead he asked a string of questions to elicit how Barnes felt about what he did for Bush. Dan, I know you've bent over for Bush so many times that you may have forgotten by now, but you actually are a man, and a white man at that. You aren't Oprah. But Kevin Drum is surely right when he says that the new documents amount to a smoking gun. We now have clear evidence, from the time Bush was in the Guard, that he violated at least one valid direct order, that his immediate superior felt he wasn't meeting basic standards, and that political pressure was used to cover it up. By the way, am I the only one to notice a suspicious consistency of phrasing in these denials? Here's Bush in the Guardian: "I don't know if Ben Barnes did or not, but he was not asked by me or my dad," he said. "I can just tell you, from my perspective, I never asked for, I don't believe I received special treatment." A quote in last night's story, undated but not recent: Any allegations that my dad asked for special favors is simply not true. Here's another denial: "Gov. Bush did not need and did not ask anybody for help," said a Bush campaign spokesman, Scott McClellan. "President Bush has said he did not seek any help for his son in getting into the National Guard." It's always phrased as the father. But according to most folks who know them, it isn't George Sr who wears the steel-toed boots in that family. Has anybody even bothered asking whether Barbara made calls? I've seen flat denials that any Bush contacted Barnes directly, and flat denials that George asked for special favors. But never a flat denial that the family sought special favors. Tuesday, September 07, 2004
So is it really wrong for Cheney to say that if we vote Bush out we could get hit again? After all, you have to figure that if we screw the Saudis' best friend, they're likely to retaliate. Besides, in an era where we desperately need improved human intelligence, George Bush is uniquely suited. During his youth, he repeatedly infiltrated a military base, stayed for hours and even full days, and took part in drills and trainings, all without ever being observed by a single individual on duty at the base. Clearly this man is one of the great intelligence assets of our time. Sunday, September 05, 2004
Wonkette noted on Thursday that a google of the phrases "Zell Miller" and "Barking mad" turned up only 16 matches. As of early Sunday, it now generates 93 hits. That actually makes Zell 13% more barking mad than Alan Keyes and Lyndon Larouche combined, which doesn't seem right. This diagnostic method may require some further refinements before it's ready to be listed in the DSM. Thursday, September 02, 2004
A few first responses to tonight's speech. These are immediate reactions without having bothered to locate a transcript:
I've generally watched both conventions on PBS, since I don't get cable. During the Demo bash, I wanted to hear the speeches and was mostly just irritated at the blather of their talking heads. This time, I was less interested in the speeches, so probably paid more attention to the other stuff, which last night was really deeply lame. In a long discussion of Ronald Reagan, there was much discussion of his tax cut and, to be fair, of the resulting deficits. What went totally unmentioned was the tax increases that followed. Even though those were the largest tax increases in American history, by far the largest increases on the middle class, they have simply disappeared down the memory hole. Pundits, including so-called liberal pundits, have agreed to repeat the Republican spin line that only Democrats increase taxes. This was followed by a discussion of Zell Miller, preparatory to his speech, in which the pundits praised his independence. Nobody mentioned the obvious point that Miller isn't a maverick who at times embraces positions of either party, like McCain or Schwarzenegger, but a straight Republican hack who never varies from the party talking points on any subject. Tonight's chatter has been less egregious, but no more informative. Highway to Zell I didn't feel any trace of the disgust that Zell seems to have inspired in Andrew Sullivan. Probably for the simple reason that I wasn't remotely surprised. I just expect this sort of nastiness and dishonesty from these guys; it's about as shocking as finding a sexist remark in "Maxim". So much of the speech was rancid and/or preposterous that it's hard to pick out just a few lines to mock. But here are my favorites: But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. Gee, I knew that Zell left the Democratic Party years ago. But until now, I hadn't realized that he'd joined the Spartacist League. Our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home. For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag. And it's the cheerleader, not the soldier, who is fit to be Commander in Chief. Wednesday, September 01, 2004
What idiot was it who wrote the script for the Bush twins last night? From beginning to end, in spite of the weak attempts at humor, it put across the worst possible message - it showed what it means to them, and to their parents, to be a Bush. They started out with a reference to their underage drinking and drug use, which they simply shrugged off without even a gesture in the direction of regret. Instead, they used a quote from Daddy, reminding us of his own dubious early life. That was followed by some truly cringing humor in which they talked about deciding to involve themselves in the campaign and assuming they were entitled to start at the top. That is far too reminiscent of their own father, whose first job title was CEO, first elected office was Governor, first federal position was President. It speaks far too honestly to the twins' view, inherited from their father, of the world. Being a Bush means privilege. And there's no need to feel a tinge of guilt over your priveleges, or worry about any silly notion that some sort of responsibility should come with them. We're simply better than the peons, and we deserve everything we have. You couldn't get more off-message than that. The only part that was actually on-message was possibly the most transparent political theatre in recorded history, when Bush 41 and Barbara held up silly hand-painted signs saying they loved their granddaughters. Now what was the point of that? Is there one solitary human being alive who believes that George and Barb stayed up late on Monday hand-lettering those signs? Aliens from Neptune who landed Monday morning could have figured out by Tuesday night that it was fake. |
