A YouTube Debate: Ridiculous
How deep have we become mired in artificial (computer technology once was referred to as "artificial intelligence") superficiality?
Last night's CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential debate was shallow, inspid, a stunt. Nevertheless, I am pretentious enough to comment on some of the questions and responses (my comments in parentheses).
Zach Kempf in Provo, Utah, before lapsing into his 128-word question: "What's up? I'm running out of tape. I have to hurry." (Are we really interested in Zach's schedule?)
Unidentified (third questioner): "All of you say you'll be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test..." (O.K,. I get it- you're the teacher, the one with the knowledge, and we're the uninformed students.)
Unidentified questioner: "Is (sic) African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery? I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and dodging, so let's see how far you all can get." (Wrong. Three candidates were queried- Edwards and Richardson against, Kucinich in favor.)
Mary and Jen: "If you were elected President of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?" Good question, and after the response of Dennis Kucinich and before those of Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, host Anderson Cooper helpfully rephrased the question: "Senator Dodd, you supported the Defense of Marriage Act. What's your position?" An even better question would have been: "Senators Dodd and Biden, you alone among the candidates were in the United States Senate at the time President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Were you right to support a bill which in part defined marriage as strictly between a man and a woman?"
Mitch from Philadelphia, before implying in his 116-word question that he's opposed to a pullout from Iraq: "Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation..." (Please, tell us more about your "blankin" anger.)
Unidentified questioner, mother of an American soldier: "How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government?..." (What exactly are these "political games?" And who is playing them? Are, say, George W. Bush, General Petraeus, and John Murtha "playing games?")
Unidentified questioner: "Dear Presidential candidates, see those flags over my shoulder? They covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son. Someday, mine will join them..." And how many family members do you have serving in uniform?" (John McCain served; so did Jim Webb. Note to Chris Matthews and others: service in the military does not bind someone to a pro- or anti- war position.)
Another "questioner": "Hey, there, my name's Jackie Broyles. And I'm Dunlap." (went on to ask numerous questions about Al Gore in a Southern accent- Aren't we so impressed with ourselves making fun of Southerners?)
Anderson Cooper: "Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in vain?" (Anderson, these folks are running for President of the United States. None of them is going to say American soldiers are dying in vain, so I regret that you are being denied participation in the sound bite of the century... True, Senator Gravel stated that the soldiers are dying in vain, but he can afford to be honest, given that he's not going to be nominated for President, Vice-President, or anything else. The former Alaska Senator could form his own political party- and be denied its nomination.)
Sheena Currell: "I'm from (inaudible), South Carolina. Who was your favorite teacher and why? (And what's your favorite color?)
Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan: "Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. (Brandishing a rife) this is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Tell me your views on gun control." Joe Biden, pithily: "I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help." A good moment, which obscures the likelihood that a meaningful answer could have been elicited if the debate sponsors hadn't gone for the cheap and dramatic visual with the outrageous characterization of a weapon (allegedly illegally obtained) as a baby. Rather, the candidates should have been asked their views on registration, straw purchases, and/or other specifics about gun control; or asked how an effective gun control measure, one which is not circumvented as the questioner bragged he had, can be enacted.
And Senator Biden had the best comment of them all, in response to the question from Jason Koop (is this guy related to C. Everett Koop?) of Colorado Springs: "... I would like for each of you to look to the candidate to your left and tell the audience one thing you like and one thing you dislike about that particular candidate. And remember, be honest." (Because as we all know, politicans always are honest when you tell them to be.) "Dennis (Kucinich) and I have been friends for twenty-five years. I think this is a ridiculous exercise." He didn't mean it in regard to the format of the debate itself, but could have.
This is not to say that the questioners are vacuous, thoughtless, or even especially self-indulgent. Other debates have included from the public questions which were on-point, eliciting somewhat revealing answers. The problem is with the YouTube format. Sure, it's possible that this silly superficiality is the wave of the future. But why now? You want a sound system for your car that not only is technologically advanced, but which works. And if your car tires are the latest in technology, but haven't been tested, I don't want to be your passenger.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Crime: The Next Wedge Issue?
This is not good for our side.
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a frequent guest on The Chris Matthews Show (Sundays, MSNBC) and generally liberal. John McLaughlin is generally (though decreasingly) conservative, once a member of the Nixon Administration and longtime host of The McLaughlin Group, sometimes referred to as a "political food fight" (at least as entertaining, more substantive), taped on Fridays but seen as late as Sunday in some markets.
What do they have in common? Both this past weekend predicted that crime will be a major issue in the next Presidential election. I'm old enough to remember when the 1968 Nixon campaign emphasized "crime in the streets" with its obvious racial overtones. If resurrected in some form now, the overtones would be more subtle. Nevertheless, it sounds like one of those cultural "wedge" issues Republicans frequently drag out to drown out the economic concerns of the American people.
This is not good for our side.
Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a frequent guest on The Chris Matthews Show (Sundays, MSNBC) and generally liberal. John McLaughlin is generally (though decreasingly) conservative, once a member of the Nixon Administration and longtime host of The McLaughlin Group, sometimes referred to as a "political food fight" (at least as entertaining, more substantive), taped on Fridays but seen as late as Sunday in some markets.
What do they have in common? Both this past weekend predicted that crime will be a major issue in the next Presidential election. I'm old enough to remember when the 1968 Nixon campaign emphasized "crime in the streets" with its obvious racial overtones. If resurrected in some form now, the overtones would be more subtle. Nevertheless, it sounds like one of those cultural "wedge" issues Republicans frequently drag out to drown out the economic concerns of the American people.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Republican Media- No. 3
On January 20, 2007 CNN analyst Bill Schneider said Republican primary voters "admire Rudy Giuliani's record on terrorism..."
So let's go over the record. On September 11, 2001 Mayor Giuliani rushed to the scene of the second World Trade Center bombing, the first having taken place in 1993. He would have gone to the city's Emergency Command Center, but that was in the World Trade Center, notwithstanding the 1993 attack and the recommendations of his security advisers to move it out of there. (His successor has moved it to Brooklyn, as Giuliani's top security man had advised Rudy.) So Giuliani, the Fire Department brass, and the Police Department brass met briefly at the FDNY command post near the World Trade Center, whereupon Giuliani and his entire 25-member inner circle headed uptown until, one hour after the attack, they finally found a command center. Of course, according to current requirements of the Department of Homeland Security and the mayor's own protocol, a unified command post was necessary. But if one had been quickly established, the Mayor wouldn't have had all that time to walk the streets of lower Manhattan, charming the press, reassuring the public, and making no significant decisions, while Police Commissioner (and former Giuliani bodyguard) Kerik was concerned with little other than keeping the Mayor safe.(Two-time NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly: "I don't know de facto who was in charge.") Admittedly, it would not have been so critical had the police and fire officials been able to communicate with each other, but they couldn't, a failing which apparently had never disturbed the mayor. Giuliani had replaced the Fire Department's radios, which had failed in the 1993 attack. Replaced them in early 2001 with other radios, which were promptly found not to work. So, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, some firefighters never heard the two orders on the morning of 9/11/01 to evacuate the North Tower- and 121 firefighters died as a result while all police officers safely made their way out. Then when the Mayor appeared before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States, he told Kean, Hamilton, et al. that the firefighters disobeyed the command to leave.
Leadership. That's Rudy.
On January 20, 2007 CNN analyst Bill Schneider said Republican primary voters "admire Rudy Giuliani's record on terrorism..."
So let's go over the record. On September 11, 2001 Mayor Giuliani rushed to the scene of the second World Trade Center bombing, the first having taken place in 1993. He would have gone to the city's Emergency Command Center, but that was in the World Trade Center, notwithstanding the 1993 attack and the recommendations of his security advisers to move it out of there. (His successor has moved it to Brooklyn, as Giuliani's top security man had advised Rudy.) So Giuliani, the Fire Department brass, and the Police Department brass met briefly at the FDNY command post near the World Trade Center, whereupon Giuliani and his entire 25-member inner circle headed uptown until, one hour after the attack, they finally found a command center. Of course, according to current requirements of the Department of Homeland Security and the mayor's own protocol, a unified command post was necessary. But if one had been quickly established, the Mayor wouldn't have had all that time to walk the streets of lower Manhattan, charming the press, reassuring the public, and making no significant decisions, while Police Commissioner (and former Giuliani bodyguard) Kerik was concerned with little other than keeping the Mayor safe.(Two-time NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly: "I don't know de facto who was in charge.") Admittedly, it would not have been so critical had the police and fire officials been able to communicate with each other, but they couldn't, a failing which apparently had never disturbed the mayor. Giuliani had replaced the Fire Department's radios, which had failed in the 1993 attack. Replaced them in early 2001 with other radios, which were promptly found not to work. So, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, some firefighters never heard the two orders on the morning of 9/11/01 to evacuate the North Tower- and 121 firefighters died as a result while all police officers safely made their way out. Then when the Mayor appeared before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States, he told Kean, Hamilton, et al. that the firefighters disobeyed the command to leave.
Leadership. That's Rudy.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Debating Terrorism In South Carolina
At the Democratic Presidential debate in April, 2007 in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the candidates "Do you believe there is such a thing as a 'global war on terror'?" Not surprisingly, Hillary Rodham Clinton, always anxious to prove that a woman can be as tough on the "bad guys" as a man, shot up her arm, and Senator Obama followed suit.
John Edwards did not. Later, he would explain "it's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans."
Of course he's right, and when an Administration spokesman told Mike Allen of Time "'war on terror' is what I think resonates most with the country," the cat was let out of the bag, the political origin of the phrase laid bare. Further, not all "terror" is "terrorism." Merriam-Webster defines "terror" as "a state of intense fear," not unlike my last encounter with a roller coaster, but accusing Six Flags of being a terrorist organization would be a little much.
But I'll dispense with semantics, so as not to be accused of fondness for "nuance," which was not helpful in 2004 to candidate Kerry, though perhaps the "nuances" helped him dominate the incumbent in three consecutive debates.
The real problem with Edwards' charge that Bush's "war on terror" is a "bumper sticker slogan," as he explained to the Council on Foreign Relations, is that it is merely a bumper sticker slogan. Think diversion of soldiers from Afghanistan to Iraq paving the way for a resurgent Al-Qaeda (the global Al-Qaeda, not AQI). Think an anti-satellite weapon successfully tested by the world's largest nation, by its Communist regime, as part of arguably the most rapid expansion of armed forces in the world. Think supporting an immigration policy bringing delight to GOP corporate paymasters while further endangering national security. Think 5% (5%!) of the cargo entering our ports being inspected- and trying to turn port security over to the United Arab Emirates. This Administration is as devoted to a war on terrorism as it is to the concept of open government. (O.K., a little more.) The GOP is vulnerable to a charge that its leadership, and its Stepfords in Congress, have done little to make Americans feel safe. This is a potent political argument, far more so than convincing Americans that this crew has endangered civil liberties- which to most people is an abstract concept. And in a time when the Secretary of Homeland Security can raise the "threat level" arbitrarily (we've been down that road before) to yellow, red, or whatever the political requirement of the time is, beware of the whispering campaign characterizing supporters of Constitutional rights as "effete," out-of-touch, or failing to "support the troops." Moreover, if this country is hit before the next Presidential election with another terrorist attack (and given how terrorist organizations have prospered under this Republican President, they may want another), Democrats cannot allow themselves to be portrayed as the party that embraced "rights" at the expense of "security."
Sure, this assumes that the GOP would present simplistic, narrow-minded, distorted arguments. Uh-oh.
At the Democratic Presidential debate in April, 2007 in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the candidates "Do you believe there is such a thing as a 'global war on terror'?" Not surprisingly, Hillary Rodham Clinton, always anxious to prove that a woman can be as tough on the "bad guys" as a man, shot up her arm, and Senator Obama followed suit.
John Edwards did not. Later, he would explain "it's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans."
Of course he's right, and when an Administration spokesman told Mike Allen of Time "'war on terror' is what I think resonates most with the country," the cat was let out of the bag, the political origin of the phrase laid bare. Further, not all "terror" is "terrorism." Merriam-Webster defines "terror" as "a state of intense fear," not unlike my last encounter with a roller coaster, but accusing Six Flags of being a terrorist organization would be a little much.
But I'll dispense with semantics, so as not to be accused of fondness for "nuance," which was not helpful in 2004 to candidate Kerry, though perhaps the "nuances" helped him dominate the incumbent in three consecutive debates.
The real problem with Edwards' charge that Bush's "war on terror" is a "bumper sticker slogan," as he explained to the Council on Foreign Relations, is that it is merely a bumper sticker slogan. Think diversion of soldiers from Afghanistan to Iraq paving the way for a resurgent Al-Qaeda (the global Al-Qaeda, not AQI). Think an anti-satellite weapon successfully tested by the world's largest nation, by its Communist regime, as part of arguably the most rapid expansion of armed forces in the world. Think supporting an immigration policy bringing delight to GOP corporate paymasters while further endangering national security. Think 5% (5%!) of the cargo entering our ports being inspected- and trying to turn port security over to the United Arab Emirates. This Administration is as devoted to a war on terrorism as it is to the concept of open government. (O.K., a little more.) The GOP is vulnerable to a charge that its leadership, and its Stepfords in Congress, have done little to make Americans feel safe. This is a potent political argument, far more so than convincing Americans that this crew has endangered civil liberties- which to most people is an abstract concept. And in a time when the Secretary of Homeland Security can raise the "threat level" arbitrarily (we've been down that road before) to yellow, red, or whatever the political requirement of the time is, beware of the whispering campaign characterizing supporters of Constitutional rights as "effete," out-of-touch, or failing to "support the troops." Moreover, if this country is hit before the next Presidential election with another terrorist attack (and given how terrorist organizations have prospered under this Republican President, they may want another), Democrats cannot allow themselves to be portrayed as the party that embraced "rights" at the expense of "security."
Sure, this assumes that the GOP would present simplistic, narrow-minded, distorted arguments. Uh-oh.
Monday, July 16, 2007
GOP Senators Not Supporting The Troops
On July 7, 2007 I posted a blog arguing that the recent statements by Republic Senators Lugar, Voinovich, and Domenici nearly challenging President Bush's policy in Iraq were vague and offered little indication of their vote on legislation which mught come up this autumn to curtail, or end, the fighting.
We did not have to wait until fall. On July 10, 2007 the U.S. Senate rejected cloture on an Amendment introduced by freshman Senator Jim Webb (D.-Va.) mandating that members of the Armed Forces who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan remain at home for at least as long (generally a year) as they had served before they are redeployed to the Gulf. Members of the National Guard and the Reserves would remain at home a minimum of three years.
Senators Lugar, Voinovich, and Domenici were among the 40 Republic Senators (and Joe Lieberman) who voted against cloture. (No Democrat voted to continue debate, and three Senators did not vote.)
So much for questioning Bush. So much for "supporting the troops."
On July 7, 2007 I posted a blog arguing that the recent statements by Republic Senators Lugar, Voinovich, and Domenici nearly challenging President Bush's policy in Iraq were vague and offered little indication of their vote on legislation which mught come up this autumn to curtail, or end, the fighting.
We did not have to wait until fall. On July 10, 2007 the U.S. Senate rejected cloture on an Amendment introduced by freshman Senator Jim Webb (D.-Va.) mandating that members of the Armed Forces who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan remain at home for at least as long (generally a year) as they had served before they are redeployed to the Gulf. Members of the National Guard and the Reserves would remain at home a minimum of three years.
Senators Lugar, Voinovich, and Domenici were among the 40 Republic Senators (and Joe Lieberman) who voted against cloture. (No Democrat voted to continue debate, and three Senators did not vote.)
So much for questioning Bush. So much for "supporting the troops."
Sunday, July 15, 2007
The Republican Media- no. 3
Tom Foreman of CNN's Washington bureau on July 14, 2007 delivered a report on the cost of the Iraq war. However, while estimating the monthly cost as ten billion dollars, Foreman unfortunately commented ".... if you add in Afghanistan and all the other (emphasis mine) international anti-terror efforts."
So when did our war involvement in Iraq become part of "international anti-terror efforts?" The reasons cited by supporters of this policy, pre- and post- invasion, include: toppling Sadam Hussein (accomplished); removing "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical and biological not found); a nuclear weapons program (reported in January 2003 by International Atomic Energy Agency as nonexistent); spreading democracy throughout the Persian Gulf (Nouri al-Maliki, friend of Hezbollah and the Iranian regime, enemy of democratic Israel). The war has only increased terrorism in the Gulf and throughout the world.
Distressingly, this came not from GOP TV (euphemistically referred to as Fox News) but from a legitimate member of the mainstream media who has joined President Bush in the pretense that this war has anything to do with preventing, or fighting, terrorism.
Tom Foreman of CNN's Washington bureau on July 14, 2007 delivered a report on the cost of the Iraq war. However, while estimating the monthly cost as ten billion dollars, Foreman unfortunately commented ".... if you add in Afghanistan and all the other (emphasis mine) international anti-terror efforts."
So when did our war involvement in Iraq become part of "international anti-terror efforts?" The reasons cited by supporters of this policy, pre- and post- invasion, include: toppling Sadam Hussein (accomplished); removing "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical and biological not found); a nuclear weapons program (reported in January 2003 by International Atomic Energy Agency as nonexistent); spreading democracy throughout the Persian Gulf (Nouri al-Maliki, friend of Hezbollah and the Iranian regime, enemy of democratic Israel). The war has only increased terrorism in the Gulf and throughout the world.
Distressingly, this came not from GOP TV (euphemistically referred to as Fox News) but from a legitimate member of the mainstream media who has joined President Bush in the pretense that this war has anything to do with preventing, or fighting, terrorism.
Bushfib- no. 1
Herewith the first installment of Bushfib, wherein note is made of a lie- not a distortion, exaggeration, or misrepresentation but a deliberate falsehood- by Bush 43, GWB.
from the President's speech before the Chamber of Commerce in Cleveland on July 10, 2007:
"The same people that attacked us on September 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women, and children, many of whom are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based on liberty."
from the Presidential press conference on July 12, 2007:
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th..."
Sure, he stated this unequivocally twice, but it counts as only one lie. Nevertheless, it should not be ignored by the mainstream media because Mr. Bush and his supporters continually conflate the Iraq war with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. But as Joe Klein of Time points out, the al Qaeda of 9/11/01 is based in Pakistan, whereas the bombings to which the President refer are being carried out by al Qaeda in Mespotamia, named by its now-deceased founder, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi. Although the latter group admires the philosophy of the al Qaeda of bin Laden and operational director Ayman al-Zawahiri, the two groups operate apart from each other with divergent strategies. And of course, 15 of the 19 hijackers/terrorists/murderers of the September, 2001 attacks were not Iraqis, but Saudis.
Herewith the first installment of Bushfib, wherein note is made of a lie- not a distortion, exaggeration, or misrepresentation but a deliberate falsehood- by Bush 43, GWB.
from the President's speech before the Chamber of Commerce in Cleveland on July 10, 2007:
"The same people that attacked us on September 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women, and children, many of whom are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based on liberty."
from the Presidential press conference on July 12, 2007:
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th..."
Sure, he stated this unequivocally twice, but it counts as only one lie. Nevertheless, it should not be ignored by the mainstream media because Mr. Bush and his supporters continually conflate the Iraq war with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. But as Joe Klein of Time points out, the al Qaeda of 9/11/01 is based in Pakistan, whereas the bombings to which the President refer are being carried out by al Qaeda in Mespotamia, named by its now-deceased founder, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi. Although the latter group admires the philosophy of the al Qaeda of bin Laden and operational director Ayman al-Zawahiri, the two groups operate apart from each other with divergent strategies. And of course, 15 of the 19 hijackers/terrorists/murderers of the September, 2001 attacks were not Iraqis, but Saudis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
This is not about the fraud that is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Nor is it about the fraud which is Florida Governor Rick Sc...
