Archive for September, 2004

30
Sep

Tonight's debate

I’ll be at work tonight as the debate occurs, so there will be no live-blogging of it here. For those of you who are early risers on the East Coast or insomniacs on the West, I’ll have some comments in the wee hours of the morning.

Some thoughts on what to look for:

For President Bush, can he translate the foreign policy and defense themes from the GOP convention into solid arguments to combat John Kerry’s naysaying?

For John Kerry, it is simple. Can he outline a coherent foreign policy? If this is any indication, he’s in trouble.

On a related note: Kudos to the news organizations’ refusal to agree to the negotiated rules by the campaigns that “banned” candidate reaction shots, etc.

30
Sep

Iraq and the war on terrorism

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports today that an Iraqi arrested in Iraq had on him a computer disk containing a report on crisis planning for U.S. school districts — including San Diego Unified.

The man was described as an Iraqi national with connections to terrorism and the insurgency that is fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Officials in San Diego said the man’s intentions were unknown.

San Diego law enforcement officials said there was no indication of any terrorist plot against schools in San Diego or elsewhere in the country. They did not publicly release the information because there appeared to be no threat. The information was relayed to the San Diego FBI office last week and then to the school district Friday.

“The children are absolutely safe,” said San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne. “If there was a threat, we, the San Diego Police Department, would be first to notify (parents). This is not a threat.”

The disk contained a document entitled “Practical Information on Crisis Planning, A Guide for Schools and Communities.” The 50-plus page document, published in May 2003 by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, is available to the public on the U.S. Department of Education’s Web site, said San Diego District spokeswoman Peri Lynn Turnbull.

Is Iraq part of the war on terrorism? Yes.

30
Sep

Making (Democrat) votes count

The New York Times editorial board continues its series entitled “Making Votes Count” — it will surely be the Times entry for the Pulitzers next time around.

The Times sticks to the Democrat Party line that values more votes being cast over valid votes being cast — voter fraud is not a concern.

[O]ne of the lessons of the election mess in Florida in 2000 was that a secretary of state can deprive a large number of people of the right to vote by small manipulations of the rules.

I loved this one. That’s what the Times editorial board took away from Florida 2000? What were the Florida secretary of state’s “small manipulations”? Vote counts must be certified by such and such a date. Any protest must occur before such and such a date. What the Times calls “manipulations,” everyone else calls “the law.”

Wait, it gets better.

[Ohio Secretary of State] Mr. [Kenneth] Blackwell’s second directive tells local elections officials to follow a bad policy Ohio adopted on provisional ballots. This is the first presidential election in which every voter whose eligibility is in doubt has the right to cast a ballot and to have the vote’s validity verified later. But Ohio and some other states have tried to gut this guarantee by not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling places. There is no reason to do that.

Ah, but there is a reason to do that. Some Republican conspiracy theorists, shortly after the 2000 election claimed that President Bush would’ve garnered a higher popular vote total if states like California, that went for Al Gore by a large margin, had counted all of the votes. The claim was that once it became clear that Al Gore had won the state, they just stopped counting the ballots.

That claim was bogus for the very same reason that the Times is caught in a lie here: There are down-ballot races.

If someone casts a provisional ballot in the wrong polling place, they may be voting for a property tax levy or a school board race or even a congressional race in which they have no right to vote.

All the ballots in the 2000 race were counted, because the presidential race wasn’t the only thing being determined on election day.

The sad thing is, the Times admits to this lie two paragraphs later as it attempts to whack another Republican secretary of state.

In Colorado, Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, also a Republican, has issued a bizarre ruling of her own on this issue. She will allow provisional ballots cast at the wrong polling places to count for only the presidential race. The Senate race in Colorado, among the closest in the nation, could determine control of the Senate, and there is no reason all valid provisional ballots should not count in this race or for statewide ballot propositions. Colorado Common Cause is challenging Ms. Davidson’s rule, but she should not need a court to tell her to count the votes.

No internal consistency needed in the Times’ arguments. In Ohio, there’s no reason not to count provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place — but in Colorado there is, but we should still count votes in races/initiatives that are not polling-place dependent.

I actually agree with the Times’ position that provisional ballots, once verified, should be counted for presidential, senatorial and statewide initiatives.

However, the Times would do well to tackle the issue of voter fraud — a subject it hasn’t touched yet.

When I was a senior in high school, a friend had lamented that turning 18 years old wasn’t that big of a deal. I pointed out to him that it was, he could now cancel out our high school history teacher’s (a very liberal feminist) vote. He was thrilled by the idea.

That illustrates a point about “making votes count” that the Times hasn’t addressed: If someone fraudulently casts a ballot for Sen. John Kerry, then it effectively cancels out my vote for George W. Bush. The integrity of the voting system depends on preventing fraud. I eagerly await the Times’ editorial.

30
Sep

John Kerry's problem

John Kerry has mostly avoided talking to real journalists over the past month.

Sorry, as John Stewart himself acknowledges, his is a fake news show, thus making him a fake journalist.

Usually candidates can count on softball interviews from the likes of Stewart, Leno and Letterman, and even occasion the morning news shows on the Big Three networks.

But even Diane Sawyer, a journalist not known for particularly hard-hitting interviews, gave Kerry more than he could handle — and he can’t handle much.

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

I’m a pretty smart guy, but this is much too nuanced for me. This interview occurred the day before the big foreign policy debate. Can anyone give me a coherent version of John Kerry’s plan for Iraq? After you’ve outlined that for me, please send it to Kerry, he needs it now.

A relative of mine has likened Kerry’s obsfucation to Richard Nixon’s “secret plan” to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. (Because Nixon used it, it apparently makes it acceptable for Kerry to use it?) That line may have worked then, but I doubt it will sway swing voters in 2004. And frankly, if that’s the best defense you’ve got of Kerry’s foreign policy position(s), then Kerry’s in big trouble.

30
Sep

CBS's newest problem

If you’re an avid reader of the blogosphere you’ve already read about CBS News’ latest stupidity.

On Tuesday night’s broadcast, the network ran a story about Bush administration plans to bring back the draft and based their reporting on … nothing.

In a story that was a textbook example of shoddy and biased reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used:

1. Debunked internet hoax emails
2. Michael Moore-esque editing
3. An unlabeled interest group member to scare elderly “Evening” viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft.

It gets worse, as Charles Johnson notes, after CBS News’ dishonesty was uncovered, they attempted change history by adding a sentence to their “transcript” of the broadcast.

So far there is no sign that others in the mainstream media are willing to pick up their cudgels and start smacking CBS News around again, so soon after the forged memos fiasco. But if there was any doubt that CBS is selling out its journalistic ethics and credibility to bring down President Bush, then it is quicky disappearing.

If Fox News is right wing and not trying to hide it, then CBS is surely left wing and not trying to hide it. However, the difference between the two is that Fox News still draws the line at using forged documents and hoax e-mails.

Dan Rather must go.

On a related note: There’s an excellent point-by-point outline of CBS News’ possible legal problems here. Check it out.

30
Sep

A face for radio

Lt. Smash will be on KPBS’s “These Days” show this morning at 10 a.m. talking about blogs and politics. I know this because I spent about 35 minutes on the phone Wednesday afternoon talking to one of the show’s producers — and was then told they didn’t want me.

If I had feelings, they’d be hurt by things like this.

But seriously, it was an interesting conversation and the only disappointing part of it was that apparently the show’s host is very comfortable talking with Smash, and so doesn’t want to expand his horizons. It reminds me of the little kid who doesn’t want to try anything new — franks and beans are just fine, thank you. At least, that was part of the explanation I was given.

To be completely honest, the only reason they called me in the first place was that Smash had given them my name. (Thanks, Smash.)

Anyway, call in and talk to Smash.

29
Sep

Global warming lies

On the same day the New York Times editorial board decries global warming and the Bush administration’s decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol — again. For an editorial board that has decried the “meddling” of the Bush administration in “scientific” reports, it’s interesting that the Times is ignoring a little bit of politicking that the Wall Street Journal noted:

We’ve long been skeptics about the science behind the political campaign to regulate greenhouse gasses, so imagine our surprise to discover that some of the global warmists seem to agree.

How else to read a paragraph that was included in a recent Senate spending bill exempting climate programs from having to pass scientific scrutiny? The legislative language excuses any “research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” (the agency charged with monitoring climate change) from the Data Quality Act, a new law that requires sound science in policymaking. This is the sole exemption in the bill.

This amounts to a political end run around the Data Quality Act, which has proven to be an obstacle to those who want to impose costly new limits on greenhouse gas emissions. More than a year ago the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the Bush Administration for not applying the act to two shoddy climate-change reports issued in 2000 and 2002. The reports based their analyses of the impact of climate change on computer models that are incapable of providing reliable predictions. The White House ultimately settled the suit by posting a disclaimer on one of the reports.

Nobody is rushing to take credit for the proposed exemption. But our sources say it was included at the request of Democrats on the Senate subcommittee that wrote the spending bill in question, but that now the exemption is getting the attention of Chairman Judd Gregg, who says he intends to remove it. Let’s hope so. Surely those who claim to believe most in climate change aren’t afraid to subject their theories to even basic tests of scientific accuracy. Or are they?

Yes, they are. Global warming isn’t about the science — it’s about the research funding. The scarier they can make the future, the more money they’ll get to research it.

29
Sep

Sowell on Social Security

Economist Thomas Sowell has a couple of pieces on Social (In)Security here and here.

How did Social Security get into its present mess in the first place? Because politicians made it the “risky scheme” that they now claim privatization would be.

The same political expediency which caused Social Security to be called “insurance,” in order to get public support, guaranteed that it would be nothing of the sort. Unlike an insurance company, Social Security has never had enough money to pay for all the pensions it promised.

Instead, Social Security has been run like a pyramid scheme, where the first people to pay in get money back from the second wave of people who pay in, and the second wave get money back from the third wave, etc. This is so risky that pyramid schemes are illegal — except when the government does it.

That’s exactly what Social Security’s key problem is — one of demographics. This pyramid scheme is going to collapse — probably sooner. If you’re a Gen Xer or Gen Y and think Social Security will be there for you — don’t bet on it.

29
Sep

For the record

President Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam as part of a military operation called “Palace Alert.” Evidence here and here.

That is all.

28
Sep

Lying, partisan hack

I haven’t been beating up on New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lately because he hasn’t been doing much original work. Twice a week he trots out the same old, tired claims with the words put in a slightly different order and the Times pays him all over again.

As the inestimable Don Luskin points out, Krugman has again trotted out a baseless claim, but this time he tweaked it so it’s not accurate.

The election is getting nearer, and looking worse and worse for Kerry — and a desperate Paul Krugman is getting a bit bolder. Now in today’s Times column Krugman writes:

“Recently, when a reporter asked Mr. Bush about reports that North Korea has half a dozen bombs, he simply shrugged.”
Compare this to what Krugman wrote in his 9/14/04 column:

“When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea’s ongoing nuclear program, ‘he opened his palms and shrugged.’”

The line from two weeks ago was sleazy but technically true. As I wrote then in Bush’s August 27 Times interview, the reporter indeed wrote that “he opened his palms and shrugged.” What Krugman leaves out is that Bush went on to talk to the reporter about his strategy for Korea. But Krugman only suggested that Bush did nothing but shrug �- he never actually came out and said that’s all Bush did.

In today’s column, though, it’s different. This time Krugman states “he simply shrugged.” He is no longer quoting a Times reporter -� he is himself reporting the event. By inserting the word “simply,” he is affirmatively asserting that Bush did nothing but shrug. This is not true. According to the Times interview, after shrugging,

“He said he would continue diplomatic pressure — using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran — and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action. “‘I’m confident that over time this will work — I certainly hope it does,’ he said of the diplomatic approach.”

It is an “error” (polite word for “lie”) that Bush “simply shrugged.” Such an error should be corrected. It is especially egregious because it misrepresents news covered in the Times itself. Will it be corrected? Are you kidding me? Not while Gail Collins is in control of the editorial page and Dan Okrent is asleep on the job.

Luskin has gotten his answer — Okrent says there’s nothing to see here. Move along.

This is little more than bad journalism, from what was supposed to be one of America’s great newspapers. Krugman can make his point honestly by simply dismissing Bush’s answer. (e.g. “When asked about North Korea, the president offered meaningless platitudes and naive theories.”) The lie of omission is something that should be corrected — no matter what Okrent says.





Follow Hoystory on Twitter


September 2004
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Themes


  • Support the Cause




  • Hoystory's advertisers


Your Ad Here








Close
E-mail It