Thursday, March 25, 2004
Buried deep, very deep, inside the Wall Street Journal's coverage of the 9/11 hearings is the following statement:
In addition, officials of both administrations interviewed by the commission's staff pointed out that there would have been little support from Congress or the public for large-scale military action against Afghanistan prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Why isn't this more of the point? I am no military expert, so I have no idea what it would required to eliminate Al Qaeda pre-9/11, but anything that would have taken more than minimal resources would most likely have had very little public support. Can you imagine taking military action when the public does not perceive a threat? Well, you can. Just picture Iraq...except this would have been worse because even fewer people would have seen an actual threat there. Perhaps Clinton or Bush pre-9/11 could have explained the threat to the public and we would have supported the war, but somehow I doubt it.
In addition, officials of both administrations interviewed by the commission's staff pointed out that there would have been little support from Congress or the public for large-scale military action against Afghanistan prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Why isn't this more of the point? I am no military expert, so I have no idea what it would required to eliminate Al Qaeda pre-9/11, but anything that would have taken more than minimal resources would most likely have had very little public support. Can you imagine taking military action when the public does not perceive a threat? Well, you can. Just picture Iraq...except this would have been worse because even fewer people would have seen an actual threat there. Perhaps Clinton or Bush pre-9/11 could have explained the threat to the public and we would have supported the war, but somehow I doubt it.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
I simply adore the Washington Post Television Page. Most of the articles are either by TV Critic Tom Shales or TV columnist Lisa de Moraes. Both writers are funny and snarky, while taking TV seriously enough to make interesting and insightful remarks about programs.
In Saturday's Column Moraes discusses Janet Jackson's upcoming performance on Good Morning America. Giving us a little backstory, Moraes writes:
Jackson performed with Justin Timberlake on CBS's Super Bowl halftime show, during which, after bumping and grinding their way through his old hit "Rock Your Body," Timberlake ripped off part of her costume, exposing her breast.
Timberlake said afterward that it was Jackson's fault because she had made him do it. Timberlake is 23 years old.
Jackson has apologized repeatedly for the incident, saying it was an accident and she had expected Timberlake to rip off only the top layer of clothing, revealing another layer underneath.
Timberlake responded by saying his career has really taken off and he doesn't need this kind of grief right now, while assuring America that he, too, was shocked to discover there was a breast under Jackson's gear.
Wow, a teen-idol with no balls, and not really a soul either for that matter.
In Saturday's Column Moraes discusses Janet Jackson's upcoming performance on Good Morning America. Giving us a little backstory, Moraes writes:
Jackson performed with Justin Timberlake on CBS's Super Bowl halftime show, during which, after bumping and grinding their way through his old hit "Rock Your Body," Timberlake ripped off part of her costume, exposing her breast.
Timberlake said afterward that it was Jackson's fault because she had made him do it. Timberlake is 23 years old.
Jackson has apologized repeatedly for the incident, saying it was an accident and she had expected Timberlake to rip off only the top layer of clothing, revealing another layer underneath.
Timberlake responded by saying his career has really taken off and he doesn't need this kind of grief right now, while assuring America that he, too, was shocked to discover there was a breast under Jackson's gear.
Wow, a teen-idol with no balls, and not really a soul either for that matter.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
This is Adam Nagourney's take on Kerry's off the cuff remarks. Apparently there are many. Nagourney describes several of them, including:
In Columbia, S.C., between satellite television interviews in February, Mr. Kerry was overheard disparaging a Democratic rival, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, at the very time that he had made a point of not criticizing his rivals in public.
"Edwards says he's the only one who can win states in the South — he can't win his own state," Mr. Kerry said to Mr. Wade in the studio, an aside that Mr. Wade at the time insisted was not intended for public consumption.
Now that is a remark of the type worthy of hoopla status. It was said to aide and gives us otherwise unknown insight into Kerry's thoughts.
In Columbia, S.C., between satellite television interviews in February, Mr. Kerry was overheard disparaging a Democratic rival, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, at the very time that he had made a point of not criticizing his rivals in public.
"Edwards says he's the only one who can win states in the South — he can't win his own state," Mr. Kerry said to Mr. Wade in the studio, an aside that Mr. Wade at the time insisted was not intended for public consumption.
Now that is a remark of the type worthy of hoopla status. It was said to aide and gives us otherwise unknown insight into Kerry's thoughts.
Here is the transcript from Anderson Cooper 360's coverage of Kerry's remark calling the Republicans crooked.
Today, back here at home, controversy. Republicans going on the offensive of John Kerry accusing him after smear campaign, that's what he said, because of what Kerry said yesterday.
Today, the Senator says he's not sorry about crooked Republicans. Whether you agree with him or not, we think candidates talking off the cuff, it is a rare glimpse of real, raw politics.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER (voice-over): Political lesson No. 1, when you're wired for sound, even if you're not on, your microphone may be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep smiling.
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D-MA) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, don't worry, man. We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. Just beginning the fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen.
COOPER: He might not have chosen to have them recorded, today John Kerry says he stands by them and will not apologize. Republicans say they're outraged by the remarks, but it is certainly not the first time we have heard a candidate being candid. Four years ago, then Governor Bush didn't know his mic was on when he used a crude expletive to describe about a reporter. Bush later apologized.
And remember 1984 when Ronald Reagan made a joke while testing a microphone before a radio address?
RONALD REAGAN, FRM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: All right. My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that would outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
COOPER: Why does anyone care about the captured comments? Perhaps because in this age of prepackaged, prescripted politics, hearing something unexpected is, well, unexpected.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: That's raw politics for tonight.
Notice the part I marked in bold at the end. That would be a great statement, if only Kerry's remark was really an off the cuff captured moment. It was not. Kerry was speaking to a supporter, a man he had probably never met before. While he did not actually make the remark for the cameras, he was saying within the context of his campaign. So rather than being some sort of insight into Kerry's true nature, feeling, or beliefs, it was simply coverage of what the presumptive Democrat nominee tells supporters. Kerry's remarks to supporters are likely just as packaged and scripted as his remarks on TV. Even without the microphone on, reporters could have gotten basically the same story simply by talking to supporters after they have had the chance to shake the candidate's hand. This incident, then, is actually, quite different than the other two mentioned in the CNN segment. Both in the case of Bush making a remark to his close ally Cheney and in the case of Reagan joking before a speech a moment was captured that gave insight into how the man thought that could not quite have been gotten any other way. Kerry's remark, however, while generating similar hoopla did not offer quite the same unique insight as the other two examples.
Today, back here at home, controversy. Republicans going on the offensive of John Kerry accusing him after smear campaign, that's what he said, because of what Kerry said yesterday.
Today, the Senator says he's not sorry about crooked Republicans. Whether you agree with him or not, we think candidates talking off the cuff, it is a rare glimpse of real, raw politics.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER (voice-over): Political lesson No. 1, when you're wired for sound, even if you're not on, your microphone may be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep smiling.
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D-MA) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, don't worry, man. We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. Just beginning the fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen.
COOPER: He might not have chosen to have them recorded, today John Kerry says he stands by them and will not apologize. Republicans say they're outraged by the remarks, but it is certainly not the first time we have heard a candidate being candid. Four years ago, then Governor Bush didn't know his mic was on when he used a crude expletive to describe about a reporter. Bush later apologized.
And remember 1984 when Ronald Reagan made a joke while testing a microphone before a radio address?
RONALD REAGAN, FRM PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: All right. My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that would outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
COOPER: Why does anyone care about the captured comments? Perhaps because in this age of prepackaged, prescripted politics, hearing something unexpected is, well, unexpected.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: That's raw politics for tonight.
Notice the part I marked in bold at the end. That would be a great statement, if only Kerry's remark was really an off the cuff captured moment. It was not. Kerry was speaking to a supporter, a man he had probably never met before. While he did not actually make the remark for the cameras, he was saying within the context of his campaign. So rather than being some sort of insight into Kerry's true nature, feeling, or beliefs, it was simply coverage of what the presumptive Democrat nominee tells supporters. Kerry's remarks to supporters are likely just as packaged and scripted as his remarks on TV. Even without the microphone on, reporters could have gotten basically the same story simply by talking to supporters after they have had the chance to shake the candidate's hand. This incident, then, is actually, quite different than the other two mentioned in the CNN segment. Both in the case of Bush making a remark to his close ally Cheney and in the case of Reagan joking before a speech a moment was captured that gave insight into how the man thought that could not quite have been gotten any other way. Kerry's remark, however, while generating similar hoopla did not offer quite the same unique insight as the other two examples.
Friday, March 12, 2004
In a fairly amusing piece, Maureen Down sets to find out if John Kerry has gotten Botox. The highlight of her column is here:
I figure that the skin on Senator Kerry's face will certainly rise at the mention of Dick Cheney's Gridiron speech, teasing that since Botox is related to botulism toxin, maybe David Kay should search for missing biowarfare agents in Senator Kerry's forehead. Is this a way to mock him for an effeminate vanity?
"No, I don't have it," he says coolly. "Vanity or Boxtox?" I ask, grimacing. "I don't have Botox, but whatever their game is, I don't care," he replies without a wisp of a wince. "That sort of thing is so childish. In the end, people will care about real choices that affect their lives."
God, I really hope we live in John Kerry's world and not Maureen Dowd's.
I figure that the skin on Senator Kerry's face will certainly rise at the mention of Dick Cheney's Gridiron speech, teasing that since Botox is related to botulism toxin, maybe David Kay should search for missing biowarfare agents in Senator Kerry's forehead. Is this a way to mock him for an effeminate vanity?
"No, I don't have it," he says coolly. "Vanity or Boxtox?" I ask, grimacing. "I don't have Botox, but whatever their game is, I don't care," he replies without a wisp of a wince. "That sort of thing is so childish. In the end, people will care about real choices that affect their lives."
God, I really hope we live in John Kerry's world and not Maureen Dowd's.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Sydney's name on Alias for the two years she was missing was Julia Thorne. John Kerry's first wife...also named Julia Thorne. Coincidence? probably. But interesting nonetheless.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Thank You David Brooks for finally inspiring me to start writing again. His latest column: Clash of Titans discusses what he believes is American hypocrisy.
"We pretend to be a middle-class, democratic nation, but in reality we love our blue bloods.....But we don't actually want to be governed by people like ourselves. We want the bloodlines."
His proof is that John Kerry and George Bush are running for president and they both are rich. Really, that is his proof. Granted, he also takes a sentence to mention such famous families as the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gores and Deans. But when it comes down this, the argument goes something like this: we have this famous wealthy family and this famous family and this one in politics, thus American voters do not remain true to their democratic ideals but vote for blue bloods. Surely, Brooks having spent his life composing arguments, knows that listing a few examples does prove a general principle, especially if their are obvious counter-examples. It seems disingenuous that having mentioned the Gore family, Brooks fails to bring up Bill Clinton. A man who clearly disproves his theory that we only want to be governed by blue bloods. Also, disproving his theory is Ronald Reagan, not to mention other prominent, current and recent political leaders such as Gephardt, Daschle, Lott, and Dole.
Brooks' argument sounds nice. And it even fits nicely with his larger vision of himself as social commentator capable of showing his readers their own biases. Unfortunately, in reaching his goal, Brooks has to make generalizations. And that is where he gets into trouble. In making larger points that may or may not have a kernel of truth in them, Brooks regularly ignores facts. Thus, we have columns like this one that are insulting to anyone who can get past his prose and clever idea and realize that his point is not actually valid.
"We pretend to be a middle-class, democratic nation, but in reality we love our blue bloods.....But we don't actually want to be governed by people like ourselves. We want the bloodlines."
His proof is that John Kerry and George Bush are running for president and they both are rich. Really, that is his proof. Granted, he also takes a sentence to mention such famous families as the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gores and Deans. But when it comes down this, the argument goes something like this: we have this famous wealthy family and this famous family and this one in politics, thus American voters do not remain true to their democratic ideals but vote for blue bloods. Surely, Brooks having spent his life composing arguments, knows that listing a few examples does prove a general principle, especially if their are obvious counter-examples. It seems disingenuous that having mentioned the Gore family, Brooks fails to bring up Bill Clinton. A man who clearly disproves his theory that we only want to be governed by blue bloods. Also, disproving his theory is Ronald Reagan, not to mention other prominent, current and recent political leaders such as Gephardt, Daschle, Lott, and Dole.
Brooks' argument sounds nice. And it even fits nicely with his larger vision of himself as social commentator capable of showing his readers their own biases. Unfortunately, in reaching his goal, Brooks has to make generalizations. And that is where he gets into trouble. In making larger points that may or may not have a kernel of truth in them, Brooks regularly ignores facts. Thus, we have columns like this one that are insulting to anyone who can get past his prose and clever idea and realize that his point is not actually valid.
Thanks Isa for getting me to actually start writing.
