Saturday, January 29, 2005

War of the Blogs

Check out the latest missive over on LJ. I'm comparing the capabilities of the two. The "freebie" templates for Blogger are much nicer, as are the capabilities to configure the look and feel of your page. The LJ freebie pages are much plainer, but I think they ultimately have the better solution. The pages are much faster to load, there isn't the time delay, and I've never lost content during a "publish". Also, I like the stronger community features: better profiling, linking to friends, multiple user pictures, and the user comments have pictures and are threaded (you can reply to comments). The layout limitations of LJ could be fixed by paying the monthly fee... I might do that just so I can use PGP signed email posting! Bogger has some nice abilities to have multiple blogs and publish to "remote blogs" and allow multiple people to work on a blog, and some might consider the WYSIWYG editor a strength... but I would rather edit everything in my own text editor and do the layout the way I want.

Anyway... check out my latest there if you want...

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Paid Pundit Propaganda? Pfffft!

"Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." -- W



W was probably on to something by paying various columnists to back his agenda. Advertising is the oxygen that mixes with the money that is the gasoline that fuels the internal combustion engine of capitalism afterall, as Henry Ford probably never said.

Let's see, we've got the $21,500 contract to Maggie Gallagher to support Bush's $300 million "pro-marriage" initiative. And last month there was the $241,000 contract to Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind law.

Blah blah blah... the government shouldn't use propaganda... the government shouldn't spend tax dollars convincing the people that a particular partisan approach is the correct one... blah blah blah. This is all small potatoes. Small criminal potatoes, but still. I mean, this is the administration that paid off every taxpayer in America with a coffer emptying "tax refund" in hopes they would forget what a debacle the 2000 election was.

Here's what concerns me... isn't it dumb to pay off the CONSERVATIVE people to "toe the line"?? I mean, THEY ALREADY ARE SUPPORTING YOU! If you have a quarter million dollars to "advertise" the No Child Left Behind act, wouldn't it be better to get a few choice quotes from someone like Al Franken instead of a conservative mouthpiece like Williams?



FRANKEN: I've been thinking. I've been pretty mean to President Bush over the years, but I think he's really coming around with his terrific No Child Left Behind Act. For a limited time only, you can not leave TWO kids behind for the price of one! I'm serious, this is a great deal you just can't pass up. (Taxes, licence fees, and hidden costs may apply. Some children may be left behind anyway. Not available in all areas.)

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

They Will Eat Their Own

I'm all for political discussion and debates. We need to talk about issues that are important to us. It can be done civilly, I'm sure. Though I have been accused of maybe being over-zealous at times. I come down on the liberal side of the fence (for those who couldn't tell). Mostly that is because I'm trying to counter-balance the extreem right-wingedness of our times. Truth be told, I'm a capitalist, I'm a big fan of decentralized government, I believe in fiscal responsibility, I think the government should be as small as it can be and still reach it's goals, I think people should be able to own guns. I see things in shades of grey. Owning a gun for self-defense is one thing, cop-killing assault rifles are another thing, missiles are right out.


That said, I'm no fan of G.W. and I really enjoyed the Sorry World website. I got a number of quite angry responses from friends and relatives:

I don't need you to apologize to the world for me. I'm not going to let bully's like you push me into apologizing for my beliefs
If it makes you feel better to attack me again because of what I believe go ahead.
Anyone ever call you a radical? Just kidding.
So I'm putting that out there
first. Some people think I'm a "political bully" or something. I disagree with that assessment and I think I've very sensitive to other people's beliefs... hey, that's what being liberal is all about! I'm sensitive, OK SO JUST BACK OFF!!

Yeah, so I picked on Bush being a divider. As Baz points out, you can't
really blame that on the President, voting in a two-party system kinda produces these schisms. My point is that Bush isn't really playing to the middle. He's HARD over to the right.

I will illustrate this with an example.

Even people on the right, like Joe Scarborough admit:
There's just something about George W. Bush that divides America into camps of reds and blues, lovers and haters, friends and enemies.
But I think it really says something when he is dividing the Right Wing against itself! Pat Buchanan is no lefty! From Scarborough's blog:
The show started with a bang when our great friend and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan suggested that American aggression in the Middle East led to the attacks on 9/11. Andrew Sullivan immediately took Buchanan on and the two spent the next thirty minutes engaged in a heated, yet thoughtful, debate. Buchanan argued that Bush 43 was a dangerous internationalist, while Sullivan stopped just short of suggesting he was a visionary liberator of men.
The transcripts from that show make decent reading, here's an excerpt. Even if you don't take the time to read the full original transcripts or the excerpts below, you should at least skim down to my favorite quote "Listen, do not tie me down with facts and dates, Pat Buchanan." I love that. DO NOT TIE ME DOWN WITH FACTS AND DATES!

BUCHANAN '08!!

Peas,

James


######### T R A N S C R I P T G O O D N E S S ...............

BUCHANAN: Now, to Andrews point, the founding fathers always believed the great threat to human liberty and freedom was government, the power of government, giving power to the government right here in the United States of America. Now, comrade Bob Mugabe dreadful creature in Rhodesiaor in Zimbabwe, but hes not a threat to the freedom of the American people.

We have always looked on our government with skepticism. What Bush is saying in this speech again and again is that the American government is the great agent of mpowerment and freedom for American citizens.

SCARBOROUGH: But, Patrick...

BUCHANAN: It is an unbelievable philosophical contradiction.

..............

BUCHANAN: Well, listen, the reason the terrorists are over here is because we are over there.

SULLIVAN: No.

SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: It is silly to believe that the terrorists came over here because they can't stand the Bill of Rights.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: The Palestinians supported Nazis during World War II.

They have not been our friends. The Middle East has not been our friends.

BUCHANAN: No, I dont say they're our friends. Listen, when has America ever been attacked? Why do you think bin Laden attacked us? Because we are free?

(CROSSTALK)

SULLIVAN: No.

SCARBOROUGH: You sound like Susan Sontag. Its our fault. It is our fault.

BUCHANAN: No.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: By the way...

(CROSSTALK)

REED: You are. Theres no other way...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Patrick Buchanan's next column will be in The New Yorker. Get it on newsstands

.......................

SCARBOROUGH: Patrick, look at when this guy got into office, wasn't expected to be an internationalist, talked about a humble foreign policy.

BUCHANAN: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: But we had 9/11. You smirk as if you didn't believe it.

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: We had 9/11. Look at what he did with Afghanistan, went in there, the first democratically elected president, an inauguration, remarkable in a post-Taliban era, and I believe he is going to do the same thing in Iraq right now. What is wrong
with that?

BUCHANAN: Well, I think what we did in Afghanistan was correct in taking down the Taliban. We had to go after the people that attacked us.

But if you think Afghanistan is going to survive when they triple the number of acreage for poppy heroin in the last year, you start shutting down the heroin trade there, and that government wont survive. Joe, my point is this. Look, my argument is, did they attack us because of who we are, we are free and rich and prosperous and democratic? No, we have always been that.

We were attacked because of what we do. It is the United States policy in the Middle East and in that part of the world that has enraged and antagonized these evil people. They are coming over here because they want us...

SCARBOROUGH: Well, lets be specific.

BUCHANAN: ... out of that part of the world.

SCARBOROUGH: Be specific.

BUCHANAN: Osama bin Laden.

SCARBOROUGH: Osama bin Laden was upset because we had American troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991. What were we to do?

BUCHANAN: He has three reasons he gives in the fatwa for the war. I am not saying he is right.

SCARBOROUGH: It sounds like you are, Pat. Im a little concerned, buddy.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: You know, look, when the Japanese, if they attacked Pearl Harbor and someone got up and said we were attacked because we were free and good and we got a Bill of Rights, he would be laughed out of court, Joe.

Those people are over here. They hate us.

SCARBOROUGH: Germany didnt attack us.


BUCHANAN: Of course they didn't. Germany did not attack.

SCARBOROUGH: We declared war on Germany.

BUCHANAN: They declared war on us first, on December 11, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: Listen, do not tie me down with facts and dates, Pat Buchanan.

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: No, go ahead.

BUCHANAN: The whole thing I am getting at is, I disagree with Andrew here. I agree you have a terrible problem over there. But if your solution is to plunge into that world and Iraq, as we did in Iraq and other places, where we have lost 1,300 people,
10,000 dead, killed 20,000 people, created a terrorist haven where one did not exist, if you replicate that in Iran and Syria, you will solve nothing.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Satan got stoned in Saudi Arabia today

O'REILLY: Welcome back to The Factor. Maybe some of you are expecting me to go on about the Bush inauguration or about how the economy is booming, just like I said it would if Bush were re-elected. Or maybe my Liberal Detractors expect me to kick back and rest on my laurels now that we are on easy street. Uh uh. Now is the time to be more vigilant than ever.

[CLOSE-UP OF BILL'S FURLED BROW]

O'REILLY: Now I'm not talking about the ridiculous personal attacks against myself. I can take whatever cheap shots they want to thow at me. No... I'm talking about being vigilant about the Big Things. And that brings us to...



THE MOST RIDICULOUS ITEM OF THE DAY

O'REILLY: Today's most ridiculous item! The Hajj! You know, when all those people head to Saudi Arabia to visit Mecca or whatever. Do you think it's purely COINCIDENCE that they chose to try to overshadow Our President's Inauguration with their festival!? Of course it's not. Let me tell it to you straight, folks, it's just one more way they are attacking our way of life.

[CAMERA PANS BACK FOR SERIOUS SHOT]

O'REILLY: I'm not sure what kind of a religious festival it is when you celebrate Satan getting stoned while "pilgrims" slaughter a million animals! Is this for real? Yes, that's Islam for ya. I mean, c'mon. It's ridiculous! I'm tellin' it to ya straight folks, this is the NO SPIN zone, after all. But I encourage you to check out the gory details for yourself at CNN. Me, I think it's a load of Shiite. And that's why the Haaj is the Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.

[PULL BACK. CLOSING SHOT.]

O'REILLY: That's it for The Factor today. Stay tuned for more Real Journalism: Fair and Balanced, coming up next, on Fox News!

The Onion or CNN?

Ok, folks. Time to test your media knowledge.

Would this be a parody from The Onion or a real live CNN news story?

I'll give you the headline:

Poll: Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider
And a bit of text:
Forty-nine percent of 1,007 adult Americans said in phone interviews they believe Bush is a "uniter," according to the [SNIP] poll released Wednesday. Another 49 percent called him a "divider," and 2 percent had no opinion.
Mmmmm. Niiice. I guess if they said "Nation divided on Bush as divider" that would be just too obvious, huh?

Click here for the sad sad truth.

It seems to me that the headline says it all? I mean, you can't logically present the headline "Nation is united calling Bush a divider" either.

The editor should have just clarified it for everyone: "Statistical Proof: Bush is a Divider."