The Denver media migraine
I had to chuckle when I read about the newsroom-wide email New York Times executive editor Bill Keller sent out to his staff last week on the eve of his political team deploying to Denver, and then St. Paul, to cover the political conventions. In his electronic memo, Keller praised the newspaper's coverage of the just-completed Beijing Olympics ("dazzling"), and, like any good newsroom manager, challenged the rest of the newspaper to match that excellence. Specifically, he called on his political team to reach the same journalistic heights at the conventions that the Times' sports department had achieved in Beijing.
I laughed not because I thought the Times' coverage of the Olympics didn't deserve a pat on the back. Indeed, the Times crew seemed to cover the Olympics with uniform skill and grace. Its pages were filled with often brilliant deadline writing, insightful analysis, gripping human interest stories, and eye-popping photography. (And the Times' Internet-based coverage was just as impressive.)
My caustic chuckle sprang from the fact that Keller actually thought the Times' upcoming convention coverage was going to achieve some kind of greatness. That the Times team was going to gumshoe Denver like no other news team, drill down to the issues that were driving the campaign, break away from the news pack to uncover fresh angles, and set some kind of news standard for political reporting.
The sad truth was that the coverage, not just from the Times but from virtually every traditional outlet I sampled, was a fiasco. And it made my head hurt.
How 15,000 credentialed journalists could descend on Denver and produce such unvaryingly weak and shoddy coverage of a staged news event -- and do it with coverage that celebrated sameness and shallowness -- was a sad spectacle that newsrooms nationwide ought to ponder.
What we saw beamed out of Beijing, both in print and video form, was often memorable journalism. What we saw seep out of Denver was a farce.
Not content to simply cover what was, by every standard, an historic and fascinating political gathering, the press felt the need to embellish the storylines (when not completely inventing them), tell news consumers what to think and how to feel, and to hog the spotlight by turning themselves into the topic of news reports. The media hordes "got in the way of the story, because they made themselves the story," noted Brooke Gladstone at NPR. (Exhibit A.)
Note that approximately 20,000 journalists covered the sprawling Beijing Olympics, and think about the wonderful journalism they produced for news consumers all around the world relaying headlines and capturing the emotions of that two-week epic event. By contrast, in Denver, 15,000 pros camped out and pretty much embarrassed their profession for nearly four days straight.
First of all, why on earth would 15,000 journalists cover any convention? And why do major American outlets, as confirmed by Keller's email, view the staged political events to be as newsworthy as a global phenomenon such as the Olympics?
Note that for this year's conventions, USA Today sent 34 journalists, compared to the 41 staffers the paper assigned to cover the Olympics. (The Washington Post sent 38 journalists to the convention, plus an undisclosed number from its website, for a total of more than 50.) I'm guessing the Times sent roughly the same number as USA Today to both the convention and to Beijing. Yet look how badly the Denver team underperformed as compared to the Times' Olympics reporting and commentary.
Or did Times execs consider Maureen Dowd's Denver column to be an example of journalistic insight? That was the one where the first person she quoted to capture the "vibe" of the Democratic convention was a Republican consultant. (Naturally, the partisan pro claimed "submerged hate" permeated the event.)
And what about Patrick Healy's August 28, page one article about Hillary's address to the convention where Healy reported, in the second paragraph, that she "took steps on Tuesday -- deliberate steps, aides said -- to keep the door open to a future bid for the presidency." As the Daily Howler noted, there wasn't a single fact or quote in the entire article to back up Healy's fictitious claim that bolstered the "ill will" theme of the article's opening. Was that the kind of Denver gold Keller was hoping for?
Imagine if a Times reporter filed a front-page story from Beijing about Michael Phelps and inserted a completely unsupported claim up high in the article that made Phelps look petty and selfish. Think Times editors would have printed it?
And what about Times heavy hitter Jill Abramson, who wrote matter-of-factly on Friday that the Monday-through-Wednesday portion of the convention had a theme, and "its narrative was [the Clinton] soap opera." And specifically, the "narrative" was whether Bill and Hillary would "behave themselves" and "embrace Barack Obama."
She wrote that after the convention had concluded, after Bill and Hillary Clinton had enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama and after Democrats ended the convention on an historic and united front. Even then, the Times was still pushing the media's beloved narrative of a Clinton "soap opera" and how the two nearly ripped the party in two inside the Pepsi Center.
Question for Abramson: Who pre-selected that "soap opera" narrative? Answer: The press. What actual proof did the press have to support it? Almost none. (Hillary Clinton had already publicly, and formally, endorsed Obama months prior to the convention.) I suspect if a truth serum poll could have been conducted in Denver to find out how many professional pol watchers within the press corps actually thought that Bill or Hillary Clinton would refuse to "embrace" Obama at the convention, the answer would have been zero. But how many within the press pretended for days that that was a possibility? Almost all of them.
Indeed, there was lots of pretending going on in Denver, like when Politico suggested Hillary Clinton might be booed by Obama delegates during her address. And when, prior to Bill Clinton's taking the Denver stage, MSNBC's Chris Matthews raised the possibility that he might get a Bronx cheer. (Apparently because they're such divisive figures within the Democratic Party.) Viewers who saw the rapturous welcome both Clinton's received will recall that those predictions were inaccurate.
The Newark Star-Ledger was just one of many news outlets that pretended about Hillary Clinton's speech, claiming it "was the most anxiously awaited moment of the convention."
Really? Twelve million more viewers tuned in to Obama's speech than watched Clinton's address. Yet the press, confusing themselves for actual voters, told us all week that Americans were fixated on the runner-up. And all week long, that passed as insight.
What was behind that type of half-baked Times/Politico/Matthews convention analysis? The answer is that it was based on nothing. The concocted Clinton storylines simply reflected what some journalists wanted to see happen, which then made it slightly plausible, and therefore news. (Speculating now trumps reporting.) To suggest that approach demolishes decades' worth of American journalism standards would be an understatement.
It's impossible to escape the conclusion that journalists for much of the week in Denver weren't informing news consumers about the unfolding event, they were purposefully misinforming people. (Bill and Hill might snub Obama!) Think about where journalism is heading when an entire industry knowingly adopts a false narrative and pushes it for days simply because it likes it; because it gives journalists a good storyline.
Fifteen thousand journalists in Denver and they couldn't even report what actually happened there. Instead, they invented a storyline of their liking. And (surprise!) it was one that demeaned Democrats.
And that's where the real harm came, because Denver wasn't simply a case of too many journalists chasing too few stories and having to fill up too much air time (i.e., being boring). It was a case of too many journalists embracing manufactured stories in order to fill up airtime.
Like the insipid, day-long media boomlet, propagated by the GOP, about whether or not the columns constructed for the stage Obama appeared on Thursday night at Invesco Field would somehow take away from his speech or distract viewers.
Or the incessant media mentions about the long-debunked myth that Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey Sr. was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights.
And guess what? All the bogus convention storylines poked Democrats. Do you think the same press trend will continue in St. Paul this week? Will journalists attach themselves to flimsy narratives that make Republicans look weak and divided? I have my doubts.
What's so curious about the effusive, often breathless, convention coverage we see today is that not that long ago there was growing media momentum to shun the events. Remember back in 1996 when ABC's Ted Koppel famously packed up his Nightline crew after two days at the GOP convention in San Diego and went home, complaining there was no news to report at the tightly scripted pageants? (Koppel still feels that way, making the inarguable point on NBC last week that the conventions could easily be covered by 1,000 journalists instead of 15,000.)
There was a growing feeling that took root in the late 1990s that the overscripted conventions were a joke in terms of news, that they insulted the intelligence of serious journalists, and that something needed to be done to change them (i.e., shorten them) because it was becoming increasingly difficult to justify lavishing so much time and attention on the quadrennial confabs.
Fast forward to 2008 and ask yourselves: Have the national conventions become any less scripted? No. If anything, the conventions have become more controlled. But boy, the media's attitude towards them has completely reversed.
Rather than pulling the cameras back as Koppel suggested, the amount of TV time devoted to conventions (well, the amount of TV time devoted to talking about the conventions on-site) has absolutely exploded. Thanks to cable television's nearly around-the-clock coverage, there were easily 150 hours set aside last week for the Democratic convention.
Television's eruption of convention interest mirrors the widespread enthusiasm throughout the press corps for the political events. No longer seen as insulting, artificial events that had to be covered for tradition's sake, the press now revels in the conventions -- celebrates them! -- and treats them as wildly important, entertaining, and newsworthy.
To me, that 180-degree shift from "Conventions are fake!" to "Conventions are awesome!" captures the disappearing standards within political journalism and how a new breed of shallowness has been embraced and become a hallmark trait.
Prior to Denver's opening gavel, Slate's Jack Shafer, bemoaning the obvious press excesses surrounding the non-news conventions, wrote, "If the political press corps were honest, they'd start every convention story with the finding that nothing important happened that day and that your attention is not needed."
His take was dead-on. And that was before we knew what kind of leaky journalism was going to ooze out of Denver.
(Speculating now trumps reporting.)
That little bon mot covers the entire problem with all of the dominant media. Great insight and article by Boehlert, as usual.
Time to face facts: Real life is mostly boring.
The sooner the press realizes that they can't expect to compete with the entertainment industry all the time, the sooner we can rely on them to provide accurate and useful information.
I sure don't have any reason to be optimistic that will ever happen.
Neon, fantastic insight. It was when the news channels went round-the-clock and got into ratings wars that we went from factual reporting to speculative/personality reporting. Hey tv press: report what's happening, not what might happen, not what your biased blowhard tv personality anchor thinks might could maybe happen.
PhD explaining to Cronkite what might happen if Apollo 13's heat shield was damaged: Good. Olbermann/Matthews/allofFoxNews picking "culture war" fights with each other and the general public: bad.
-- when an entire industry knowingly adopts a false narrative and pushes it for days simply because it likes it; because it gives journalists a good storyline...embracing manufactured stories in order to fill up airtime -- Boehlert
Very nice job, Boehlert.
A concise and clinical dissection of the news media's agenda...and it ain't pretty.
Wes,
While I agree with Boehlert on his criticism of the DNC, it looks to me of a case where the kettle calls the pot black. Where is Boehlert regarding these false story lines he pushes?
"Bush lied"
"The war in Iraq is lost"
"Obama is a centrist"These are but a few. Boehlert and MMFA push their agenda driven memes daily, accusing others of misinformation when they are the ones guilty of same.
Bush Lied : meh, we'll never know.
Iraq War is Lost: Says the Iraqis who just took control over Anbar?
Obama is a Centrist: And I've got this bridge for sale...
My favorite is: RECESSION! RECESSION! (if by recession you mean 3.3% growth..)
Dexterat wrote:
>>Bush Lied : meh, we'll never know.
Yes, we will know. See my link above. He lied frequently and blatantly, as we have been pointing out for years.
I agree, the following are all LIES:
1. Bush never lied!!! He simply told mis-truths and gave incomplete information to support a justified war to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator, and to make oil less expensive for Americans.
2. The war in Iraq is not lost!!! America-hating liberals repeat this over and over because they are godless heathens, and want to surrender to the Muslims.
3. Obama is not a centrist!!! He is a Marxo-fascist communist who idolizes Stalin and Hitler, and is best friends with a racist anti-semite (Wright) and an unapologetic terrorist (Bill Ayers) and someone else bad (Rezko)
4. We are NOT in a RECESSION! YOU ARE ALL WHINERS!! THIS IS A NATION OF WHINERS! STOP WHINING AND GET OFF YOUR LAZY A** AND GET A JOB. I hear they are offering $50 an hour for picking lettuce...
Thats the problem with MMFA. They claim to fight conservative miss-info....but they fight that as well as anything negative about the dems. Many of the headlines he attacks were legitimate news stories, but they were not kiss up to the dems stories. And forget about the examples provided above....any second......some one will again post the joke that is the MMFA mission statement. It should be re-written. I suggest the following. "MMFA is an internet forum designed to make sure an ill word is never spoken about the dems...opps...i mean progressives. Any time an ill word is spoken about the dems, or a nice word is said about conservatives, we will immediately point it out to you to make sure it is refuted." That would at least be an honest statement, and allow MMFA to become internet “community organizers”.
AA,
1) What were the reasons we went into Iraq? Did these reasons change over time? If so, why?
2) Maybe I missed it, but where did Boehlert say the war in Iraq was lost? Was it on this site? Who, in your mind, said this? Please provide context as well.
3) As far as Obama being a centrist, I showed you links where he is thought of, at least economically, as a centrist. The only ones who promote Obama's votes as radical are your study (in which you omit many votes) and the National Journal's which don't even reflect enough votes to rank McCain. I can certainly tell you that many liberals find Obama to be to their right. I know I do. In your mind, what makes someone "far left." It could be that our definitions are different.
-- As far as Obama being a centrist -- berg
The American Conservative Union finds very few senators with a more liberal view than Obama...rating him a 7.
"Since Obama supported the Bush administration on wiretaps"--Governor
That is really starting to bother me. Why would he do this? The fact that he is most likely the one to be sworn in on Jan 2009 doesn't ease my mind. Maybe he will use it responsibly like Morgan Freeman did in The Dark Knight--but that is still too much power for the Executive Branch.
I would also love to hear a debate on executive power itself. I would like to know what Obama intends to do to restore the balance of power.
Wesley wrote:
>>The American Conservative Union finds very few senators with a more liberal view than Obama...rating him a 7.
And the reason we should allow a conservative organization to characterize a politician is what? As I said to AA above, such definition are not useful or helpful.
Frankly, being the most liberal in the Senate (which Obama is definitely not) still is usually several degrees short of "far left." Once you get to about the fourth most liberal Senator you're only a little left of center. The Senate simply isn't a very liberal body.
Visit some of the more leftist blogs. You'll see Obama described derisively as a corporatist, a war-monger, a tool of AIPAC, a bought-and-sold member of the government establishment and many other similar descriptives. The fact is that the actual "far left" does not consider Obama to be one of them in the least. Some grudgingly support him as a matter of pragmatism, but many outright oppose him, stating that they see little difference between Obama and McCain.
Visit some of the more leftist blogs.
Bill, I hope you're ready to take responsibility for whatever happens. You do realize that some of our conservative pals who post here consider this a raging far-left website, and most of the posters extremists?
As far to the right as many of them have slid the scale, a visit to a real lefty blog may call for the fainting couch.
The Iraq "war" has been a disaster. Just because they managed to slow down the bleeding with the "surge" doesn't make the initial invasion any more justified.
Is Obama a centrist? Depends on whom you ask. The left wing of the Democratic party certainly thinks so. The Troglodytes in the Republican party will call him a "librul" no matter what he does or says.
AA,
My compliments to Boehlert for this excellent piece does not exonerate him or mmfa.
The never ending debate of a liberal media vs. a conservative media is endless and without resolve...liberals see the media one way and conservatives another.
To me the real issue is what Boehlert described...the dishonesty, partisanship, and air headed reporting by a ratings crazy industry. It's not about right vs. left but about the horse turds in the media posing as journalists.
And yes, mmfa is just as guilty on many occasions of slanting the information to support their liberal agenda...and I don't need anyone to haul out the mission statement.
Just because you have a stated liberal belief system does not condone stretching the truth.
There never was a debate about the "liberal" vs. "conservative" labeling of the media. The media was never liberal; it was a lie concocted by Talk Radio, MRC, and Fox News to cow an investigative press.
From what I've read on this site, Media Matters has never talked of the "conservative media", only the unchallenged conservative misinformation that has infiltrated the media (I mostly agree with your synopsis of journalists).
Contrast this with The Media Research Center. They are predisposed to labeling anything and anyone "liberal" that does not fit their ultra-right wing (i.e. bat-sh*t crazy) ideology.
Personally, I (along with most of the liberals who post to this site) don't see the media as conservative--so for the most part, it is false to say that both sides see it according to their ideology.
-- I (along with most of the liberals who post to this site) don't see the media as conservative -- onion
Gadzooks boy...what kind of filter are you using on your computer?
I can't wait for the flood of posts backing you up on that one.
Alright: there are probably more than a few here that think there is a conservative media (dk for sure, I haven't conducted a survey or anything).
Has MMFA ever labeled the media as conservative (and no, labeling someone from The Heritage Foundation conservative doesn't count)?
AA wrote:
>>"Bush [didn't] lied"
Oh reallly? How many times do we have to document that he did lie? 935 lies of his have been documented:
link
The Iraq war is lost, and has been for years. The country is embroiled in violences and has a government that does not function.
As fas as Obama being a "centrist," that term is subjective. I'll point out to others that you think people who are pro-choice are terrorists, or at least you linked to a web site that pushed that point of view, so you presumably think anyone who is not right wing is very far left--not a very helpful and useful definition.
Funny,
Just because there are radical left websites that agree with you and chronicle GW's reasons for going to Iraq, does not make them lies. Was Bush wrong about WMDs in Iraq. Yes. No argument from me or him. That doesn't make him a liar.
Obama's record on abortion, cutting and running from the war, increasing taxes, more government healthcare handouts, etc. put him on the far left. It does not matter to me if he his voting record is more liberal than Biden, they are both extremely liberal Democrats and toe the Democratic and progressive line near 100% of the time.
But then, if you cannot see that starting your political career in the home of two unrepentant and still militant terrorists is extreme left wing, then nothing will convince you otherwise.
Obama's record on abortion, cutting and running from the war, increasing taxes, more government healthcare handouts, etc. put him on the far left.
These are mainstream positions. You and other conservatives are way out of the mainsatream.
AA wrote:
>>Just because there are radical left websites that agree with you and chronicle GW's reasons for going to Iraq, does not make them lies. Was Bush wrong about WMDs in Iraq. Yes. No argument from me or him. That doesn't make him a liar.
Yes, that is the type of response I expected from you, AA. confronted with documented evidence on Bush's lies, you resort to the generic fallacy, and throw in some name calling to boot. The lies have been documented. Simply calling the website (it was not a website, by the way), "radical left," doesn't make the lies disappear.
>>But then, if you cannot see that starting your political career in the home of two unrepentant and still militant terrorists is extreme left wing, then nothing will convince you otherwise.
Oh yes, AA. Why anyone should take you seriously when you make such stupid comments--well, I guess people have stopped taking you seriously here and now call you Barney.
You RW'ers are so... what's the word? Easy.
"Bush lied" - He did. Early and often. If honesty was a source of heat the man would be frozen solid. You know it as well as I do. Move on. (You are a gullible moron if you can't accept this and it really make you look stupid. Just accept facts as reality presents them and move on.)
"The war in Iraq is lost" - This is not a quote of the LEFT. This is something that the RIGHT keeps saying that the LEFT is saying. We're not. It exactly the kind of thing that MMFA disputes all the time. (It's called "putting words in people's mouths.") LIBERALS DO NOT SAY THE WAR IS LOST. THE POINT OF THE LEFT IS THAT IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THAT TOO MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST, AND TOO MUCH DEBT ACCUMULATED FOR OUR CHILDEREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO PAY OFF FOR THIS HOLLOW VICTORY TO BE WORTH IT!!!
"Obama is a centrist" - Again, no one has claimed that. We have demonstrated, repeatedly and objectively, that the title of "Most liberal senator" is Baloney Sausage. AND IT IS. Again, you look like an idiot when you fail to concede this point. What's more your lot look like idiots when they try to paint him as some kind of socialist or marxist. That's pure and utter nonsense. Compared to the image that YOU ALL want us to have of him, Obama IS a centrist. (Hell, comapred to your hyperbole, he's a moderate conservative!)
So, next time, try actually READING the material your cirtiquing.
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid... April 18, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.” February, 2008.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “This War Is Lost And That The Surge Is Not Accomplishing Anything.” “Now, I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense -- and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything…” (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, 04/19/07)SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): “The Proposed Surge In Troops ‘Is A Sad, Ominous Echo Of Something We've Lived Through In This Country,’ Said Durbin.” (Dori Meinert, “Durbin, Obama Oppose Proposed Surge In Troops To Iraq,” Copley News Service, 01/05/07)
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): “I Don’t Believe That’s [A Surge] The Answer To Our Challenge In Iraq.” “The word surge has been carefully chosen. It has a temporary quality to it. I don't know what the president will propose in specific terms, but if it means sending 20,000, 30,000 more American troops, I don't believe that's the answer to our challenge in Iraq.” (Sen. Richard Durbin, Press Conference, 01/05/07)
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): “A ‘Surge’ Of American Troops Will Do Nothing.” “The proposal being considered by the administration to add between 15,000 and 30,000 soldiers in a ‘surge’ of American troops will do nothing to address this issue.” (Sen. Dodd, “Begin Withdrawing, Redeploying Troops Now,” The Des Moines Register, 12/24/06)
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): “Adding 20,000 More People … Is Asking For A Disaster, In My View.” “Adding 20,000 more people, 17,000 of whom would be in Baghdad, a city of six million people where 23 militias are operating today, I think, is, is asking for a disaster, in my view.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 01/15/07)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): “I Tell You What: I’m Confident It Will Not Work.” (Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 01/24/07)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): “…The President’s Strategy Will Not Work.” “What was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president's strategy will not work.” (Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 01/24/07)
MAY, 2007: Democrats: “The Surge Was Supposed To Bring Stability… It Has Not And It Will Not.”
SEN. TED KENNEDY (D-MA): “The Surge Was Supposed To Bring Stability, Essential To Political Reconciliation And Economic Reconstruction. It Has Not And It Will Not.” (Sen. Kennedy, Congressional Record, S.5367, 05/01/07)
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): “I Think The Evidence Is Clear,” The Surge Is Not Working. “It Is Not Happening, And It Will Not Happen.” “As much as I wish we were able to secure Iraq ourselves, that the surge would work, or that our military presence in Iraq would bring about the compromises necessary, I think the evidence is clear it is not happening, and it will not happen.” (Sen. Dodd, Congressional Record, S.6097, 05/15/07)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…This Senate Knows That The Administration's Policy In Iraq Has Failed.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6162, 05/16/07)
JUNE, 2007: Democrats: “The Increase In U.S. Forces Has Had Little Impact In Curbing The Violence.”
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Surge Has Not Worked And Will Not Work.” “The surge has not worked and will not work because its basic premise – to give time for a strong central government to take hold – is fatally flawed.” (Sen. Biden, Press Release, 06/01/07)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV) & REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): “As Many Had Foreseen, The Escalation Has Failed To Produce The Intended Results. The Increase In U.S. Forces Has Had Little Impact In Curbing The Violence Or Fostering Political Reconciliation.” (Sen. Harry Reid And Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Letter To President George W. Bush, 06/13/07)
http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Detail&Blog_ID=5825cd06-d647-4ba9-84ac-7b2b60070be6&Month=8&Year=2007
AA,
You earlier claimed that Boehlert was promoting the idea that the war in Iraq is lost. Where has he, or other members of the press, done that?
Fried,
I really don't know why you would ask questions with such obvious answers. I do not have to cite any particular thread. Everyone knows there have been countless apologetics here at MMFA regarding the Democrats "cut and run" strategy for years.
The underreporting of good things in Iraq, and the uncritical acceptance of the Democratic talking points by the NYT, NBC, CNN, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, MSNBC, etc. all points to media complicity in pushing that anti-war , cut and run agenda of the Democrats.
You're still missing the point. Most of your quotes are about the "surge not working." Trouble is, if it is working why is McCain still stumping around talking about keeping 100,000+ troops their indefinitelyly?
Really, ONLY ONE of your quotes, Reid's, the very first one says "The war is lost." The rest talk about the failure of policy. Well, my friend, it IS a failed policy no matter how you spin it.
And let me ask you something... how do you view victory exactly? If there was a terrorist attack tomorrow, and our intel said that it originated in Afganistan, would you still list Iraq among GOP successes?
So Iraq is stable now. We won. GREAT. Now why can't we start the leaving process? (Oh wait... it's not? So... what? We'll have to be there for 100+ years to keep it stable? Is THIS your idea of a victory?)
Two more things...
1) Looks like you cropped Reid's quote. COmments?
2) Are you conceding the other two points, then?
Nice,
I do believe the U.S. and Iraq are working on a withdrawal plan as we write. It looks like the time has come to transition back to a supporting role.
We've been in Germany and Japan for 60 years. I suspect our involvement in Iraq will be of similar nature.
Nice,
I do not agree that our policy in Iraq has been a 'failed' policy.
Reid was the only one who was dumb enough to say we lost when we hadn't. The rest are simply trying to use code words to say basically the same thing.
I do not agree that our policy in Iraq has been a 'failed' policy.
Bush's policy toward Iraq was unnecessary, reckless and above all illegal. If there is a god, Bush will be prosecuted in The Hague for his war crimes.
AA wrote:
>>I do not agree that our policy in Iraq has been a 'failed' policy.
Really? What goals have been reached in Iraq? We didn't achieve two of the goals, that of getting rid of the WMD (Iraq didn't have them), and that of stopping Saddam from aiding terrorists hostile to the US (he never was friendly with such terrorists). The third, after the fact goal, that of establishing democracy, has not been established, either, with Iraq's government unable to effectively govern, and with violence on a daily basis so bad that if America even say one such day, it would paralyze it for a day. Womens' rights are worse than under Saddam (now that's a feat!), and the Iraqi government charged by human rights groups of terrible human rights violations, as bad (I believe) as in Saddam's last years in power.
And no democracy flourished in the Middle East.
Not to mention the 100 thousand Iraqis who have lost their lives in the war.
Oh yes, the war was a real success.
I feel better now.
Speaking of conventions, I have two questions:
Snoopy,
Could be Ron Paul has not 'endorsed' McCain? The regulars here should swallow that one [no pun intended] hook line and sinker.
As for why so few blacks at the RNC? Do you read your own links?
Blacks are voting ethnicity while at the same time have constantly been told by the Dems that they are victims and can only succeed through more government programs. No doubt Democrats are well meaning but the Dems never acknowledge that so many of their "progressive" policies continue to have unintended consequences that effectively negate those good intentions.
One can go back to the Great Society and see how government handouts and progressive social ideas have negatively impacted poor families over the years. Some of those early programs that institutionalized the poor have been replaced with better programs but more is still to be undone. However the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail, as many here do, demonizing Republicans who offer a better long term vision in order to keep their constituency.
AA wrote:
>>One can go back to the Great Society and see how government handouts and progressive social ideas have negatively impacted poor families over the years.
Sure AA. It was the programs that hurt the poor people. What a stupid, empty, rhetorical statement.
Funny,
Why are trying to twist my statement to say something they do not?
You have a different opinion regarding these issues, (which is obvious,) that is fine with me but your attempt at condescension simply shows you are not up to discussing it in any meaningful way. Instead you are taking the same easy street as do so many others here; relying on old reliable ad hominum attacks.
I would have thought (and still do think) you can do better than that.
What has the yoyo society (you're on you're own) done for the middle class? Low wages, shrinking middle class, concentration of wealth at the top, cronyism, incompetence, price gouging, housing crisis.
It's crazy to continue believing that trickle down has any benefit for the working man.
Round,
The "Great Society" did not create jobs. American industry did. That is what is responsible for the burgeoning middle class.
The "New Deal" policies only exacerbated the depression and created a dependency that kept the Democrats in power.
The New Deal worked because we all shared the risks and rewards required to build a great society. In order for an economy to be healthy, in order to keep the American dream alive, entrepreneurs must be able take risk. Make it too risky for individuals to fail by starving, or killing, fall backs like good union jobs, healthcare, unemployment insurance, welfare etc. and people will timidly accept the insecurity of low wage jobs because the alternative is destitution.
I don't share you cynicism that Americans are weak and willing to shirk their responsibility to their family and become dependent on government. I've known too many people who work damn hard and only ask for the same hand up that we have been giving big business for decades.
AA wrote:
>>You have a different opinion regarding these issues, (which is obvious,) that is fine with me but your attempt at condescension simply shows you are not up to discussing it in any meaningful way. Instead you are taking the same easy street as do so many others here; relying on old reliable ad hominum attacks.
Oh, good grief! You plop down an opinion that would need 5 books to discuss. You made a meaningless statement that you did not back up, nor could you in any way. When I point this out, I am condescending? And where did I make an ad homenim attack?
Meanwhile, in your other post, you claimed Bush didn't lie. When I linked to a report that shows otherwise, you yourself reverted to name calling, simply dismissing the report as the work of left-wing extremist.
Please stop accusing me of what you are doing.
Nerzog,
That is laughable. Did you see the statistics that conservatives give more to the poor than liberals?
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I wonder if those proportions would be similar without federal/state tax deductions for charitable giving.
Being conservative means being dis-compassionate about a soldier's life.
: )
Kyle,
It's simple. Liberals and progressives would still have given less. Being liberal means being compassionate with someone else's money. :-)
Arthur Brooks' "research" has been thoroughly debunked. This is the guy who predicted years ago that within two decades conservatives were headed for long-term dominance because of higher birth rates. Those numbers were complete bunk.
Now this same "research genius" has gained a following by telling conservatives what they want to hear when the numbers again don't match up. First, most of his data was collected by means of surveys, which are notoriously unreliable. For example, a survey designed to determine church attendance indicates that about twice as many people attend church than actual attendance numbers support. Is it surprising that people would lie (or delude themselves) about charitable giving? It's an established fact that people in general claim to give more than they do.
Also, Brooks' numbers regarding conservative vs. liberal income doesn't match up to reality. Conservatives actually made slightly more than liberals based on General Social Survey data from 2000, 2002 and 2004. Brooks seems to have a lot of trouble getting his data correct.
Here's my main point: Even if we accept Brooks' data (we shouldn't, but let's go ahead) it DOESN'T SHOW THAT CONSERVATIVES GIVE MORE. This is demonstrated in a couple of ways. First, he creates a sharp liberal/conservative division. There is no intermediate category, even though the majority of people fall into that category. When a moderate category is created we find that that is where the lowest giving exists. Those on either end (libs & cons) give fairly equally.
Even if we disregard the moderates, it STILL isn't a lib/con split. It becomes a religious split. Religious liberals give about the same amount as religious conservatives. A funny little piece of Brooks' data finds that secular conservatives are actually worse givers than moderates. However, even this data is suspect because money given to churches is included in charitable giving even though there is no way to know that the money is going to charitable purposes. One wonders how much of the money in the collection plate wouldn't be there if not for the peer pressure of being surrounded by others who are contributing.
There is not a solid case in existence indicating that conservatives are more generous.
Thanks, Bill. I read some pretty good items on the flaws with Brooks "research" when his book came out, but was too busy to get into it here yesterday.
I could never find any concrete on where Brooks got his data, but it seemed to be from surveys.Asking people to tell you how generous they are is like asking people to tell you how smart or good looking they are.
Add to this that many middle-class conservatives seem convinced that they're paying 75% of their income in taxes, and it's eaasy to see how this study turned into a joke.
My own first-hand experience told me this book probably had problems when I first read about it-- Going out to dinner with a group of people and splitting the check, my comservative friends are always the ones not figuring in tax, tip, or half of their drinks, then complaining about how much they got burned for.
-- conservatives give more to the poor than liberals? -- AA
Very, very good post...your information was a very thorough spanking of the liberal bottom concerning charity.
Which leads right to your accurate assessment "Being liberal means being compassionate with someone else's money"...and that's where it always ends up with many liberals...all hat and no cattle.
OK Colonel...I'll wait patiently for your scholarly rebuttal of AA's points.
And here's a word of caution on your homework assignment...it will require more than a silly one liner or school yard taught of "Is Not".
AA presented some credible facts...I'll be glad to look at yours...if you choose to accept the mission...but I'm not in any danger of turning blue.
Dishonest punk.
demonizing Republicans who offer a better long term vision in order to keep their constituency
I've looked everywhere, but I don't see any "long term vision". Please help me out.
The Republican "vision" has blinders on, or simply just more of the same. More deficits, more war, more welfare for the corporation and the wealthy. If you're rich, an oil baron, or a war profiteer, than good for you, vote for Gramps. If not, you're voting against your best interest. And that's just plain stupid.
Still waiting for that long-term vision thingy.
And yes, when I respond to your posts, I freely admit to be condescending. Your lie-filled posts trigger that reaction.
As for why so few blacks at the RNC? Do you read your own links? Blacks are voting ethnicity ... - AA
No, African Americans are NOT voting ethnicity. That canard has been killed over and over but keeps being brought back from the dead by those who don't want to surrender a dishonest talking point. AAs have a history of voting for Democrats by similar margins to those Obama receives, sometimes even when a white Democrat runs against an AA Republican.
That is proof that they are voting on the basis of policy. They recognize that the Democratic Party has the policies that will best benefit the entire country and is most likely to challenge institutional racism.
... while at the same time have constantly been told by the Dems that they are victims and can only succeed through more government programs. - AA
You can find absolutely nothing to support this assertion. It's nothing more than another dishonest talking point with no relation to reality. Furthermore, it's belittling of AAs and an insult to their intelligence. You should be ashamed.
Here is a good example of what I am saying. Democrats "preying on our fears" so to speak and the actual results. When welfare reform was enacted you hear the following from our Democratic leaders trying desperately to fear monger.
So it seems a good time to remember the drama—make that melodrama—that the bill unleashed in 1996. Cries from Democrats of “anti-family,” “anti-child,” “mean-spirited,” echoed through the Capitol, as did warnings of impending Third World–style poverty: “children begging for money, children begging for food, eight- and nine-year-old prostitutes,” as New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg put it. “They are coming for the children,” Congressman John Lewis of Georgia wailed—“coming for the poor, coming for the sick, the elderly and disabled.” Congressman William Clay of Missouri demanded, “What’s next? Castration?” Senator Ted Kennedy called it “legislative child abuse,” Senator Chris Dodd, “unconscionable,” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan—in what may well be the lowest point of an otherwise miraculous career—“something approaching an Apocalypse.”
...The most striking outcome has been the staggering decline in the welfare rolls, so large it has left even reform enthusiasts agog. At their peak in 1994—the rolls began to shrink before 1996, because many states had already instituted experimental reform programs—there were 5.1 million families on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the old program. Almost immediately, the numbers went into freefall, and by 2004 they were down by 60 percent, to fewer than 2 million. A lot of reform opponents—the unreformed, so to speak—tried to chalk this up to the booming economy of the later 1990s. But according to former congressional staffer Ron Haskins, author of a history of the reform due out this fall, that doesn’t make sense: in the 41 years between 1953 and 1994, he points out, the welfare rolls had declined only five times, and only once (between 1977 and 1979) for two years in a row. Compare that with the present case, when the rolls continued their fall even after a recession began in 2001, and when 2004 marked the tenth continuous year of decline.
...So let’s consider concern number one: Did women who left the rolls actually go to work? The answer is: more than almost anyone had predicted. According to one Urban Institute study, 63 percent of leavers were working in the peak year of 1999. True, some studies showed numbers only in the high fifties, but even these findings were much better than expected.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_welfare_reform.html
There's more in that article that proves me right and my friends here wrong.
AA wrote:
>>There's more in that article that proves me right and my friends here wrong.
Not exactly, AA. First, from your own article:
"Ex–welfare mothers were still poorer than single mothers overall. Some who worked had less income than on welfare. Many were not working full-time, and an estimated 40 percent of those who left the welfare rolls returned later on. In 1999, close to 10 percent of leavers were “disconnected”—neither working nor on welfare nor supported by a working spouse. By the recession year of 2002, that number had risen to almost 14 percent."
Second, this analysis comes from a person who worked for an institute (The Manhattan Institute), which pushed for welfare reform in the 90s, and was party responsible for its passage. She is hardly a disinterested scholar. She dismisses other analysis that show that poverty increased as simply "jiggering the numbers." That's pretty dishonest. That is not a refutation of a counter argument at all, but a smug dismissal of it. One could say the same thing of her argument.
Last, the author is not a very good scholar, judging reviews of her other books:
link
Her answer to complicated problems seems to be a nostalgic return to the 50's, but such a position is not at all scholarly, as the Publisher's Weekly review of her book makes clear.
So I don't find her polemic particularly persuasive, and I don't think it proves you right.
Barney:
Paragraph 1: Sarah Palin has never endorsed McCain, and yet she's the VP pick. So I guess that couldn't be it, could it?
Paragraph 3: "Blacks are voting ethnicity while at the same time have constantly been told by the Dems that they are victims and can only succeed through more government programs." Why not just have limpaugh himself sit in for you and repeat that b.s.? It still wouldn't come any closer to being truth, but at least your alter-ego as a dittobot would only be speculation.
Paragraph 4: One COULD go back and see that, if one was out to come to your conclusion. One could go back to medieval times to see that medicine probably killed more people than it saved. Oh sure, SOME of the early medical practices that killed folks have been replaced by new safer techniques and chemistry, but there is still much to be undone. And liberals fight tooth and nail to continue studying, learning, and improving medicine. But only the Republicans offer a long-term strategy to keep their constituents: pray for health.
Not one of your better hypotheses, Barn. Better reload your catapult with some different propaganda from the feedlot.
Neon,
My sarcasm was lost on you. Go look at the repeated MMFA Clinton apologetic threads regarding Governor Casey. :-)
Could be Ron Paul has not 'endorsed' McCain? The regulars here should swallow that one [no pun intended] hook line and sinker.(AA)
??? should we have a nurse standing by?.
Maybe I'm a little slow from the 3 day weekend, Neon. Can you help me out with the pun?
(Don't worry, I won't ask you to explain any of the other gibberish)
No, I can't.
That's what I mean - it's just ol' Barney being Barney. Why get him a nurse?
Unless you meant...oh. Well, in my defense, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption. Who would be more likely to need medical supervision than Barn?
I meant he seems to be slipping even further away from reality. I don't think I've ever seen a poster tell so many others that they're missing things and comments are going over their heads, while adding that everybody else is being "condescending".
If I could just figure out what the pun was, I might be able to help him.
You're probably right, BB. As amusing as it is to think that somebody would pay for such constant failure, the GOP isn't known for their high standards or responsible vetting.
Any help on the pun yet? AA doesn't respond to me anymore, so I'm asking for anybody's help. What was the pun? Anybody? AA? Don't be scared, I'm a nice guy if you mind your manners.
Blacks are voting ethnicity while at the same time have constantly been told by the Dems that they are victims and can only succeed through more government programs. No doubt Democrats are well meaning but the Dems never acknowledge that so many of their "progressive" policies continue to have unintended consequences that effectively negate those good intentions.
That's right AA, us black folks are so dumb, we just follow what those Dems tell us. We're just too stupid to know how good life would be if we just voted Republican. <sarcasm>
One can go back to the Great Society and see how government handouts and progressive social ideas have negatively impacted poor families over the years. Some of those early programs that institutionalized the poor have been replaced with better programs but more is still to be undone. However the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail, as many here do, demonizing Republicans who offer a better long term vision in order to keep their constituency.
AA, tonight when you're watching the convention as the camera makes it's 25th trip around the same 10 African Americans it's been showing all night, you remember how many Republicans bothered to show up for the African Americans sponsored debates. You remember Tom Tancredo standing along on stage and keep blaming the Democrats for Republicans problems with African American voters.
You remember your right wing talk radio hosts and the Tennessee/Texas GOP nuts spouting racist crap against Obama and his wife. Who's going to forget "baby's momma" on the bottom of FOX News. Now I'm sure your going to say I can't tie this to Republicans, but you ask yourself. WHO benefits from this sh*t? Democrats or Republicans? WHO is really to blame?
Pearlene,
I never said you were dumb. You'll have to admit that the "leaders" in both the black community and the Democrats have consistently argued and "community organized" blacks to vote Democratic.
You see day in and day out the personal vilification of blacks by other blacks when they have an opinion different from the accepted Democratic, liberal line. Take a look at the scorn heaped on Clarence Thomas, Condoleza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Juan Williams, and others for daring to have differing opinions from the Democrats and African American majority.
And what have the Democrats done. I have shown how their fearmongering tried to prevent welfare reform and how successful welfare reform actually worked.
Democrats are fully against school vouchers for poor families, dooming many in urban areas no choice but to send their children to failing schools.
Democrats keep supporting abortions, of which the primary provider was founded by an avowed racist who wanted to keep the African American population from having children.
Democratic welfare policies forced fathers from their families and replaced the role of fathers in supporting their families. 70% of African American babies are born out-of-wedlock. STDs are epidemic in the inner city teenage population. One third of all abortions are performed on African Americans.
Democrats take all the credit, they should also take the blame.
AA, before I even reply to the first part of your post, let me just start at your end.
Democrats take all the credit, they should also take the blame.
AA, you probably won't find one African American Democrat who won't find fault with Democrats, but the one thing you will NOT find in Democrats is racism. I'm a former Democrat, now an Independent, who was truly angry at the Clintons for their "playing the race card", BUT!!!!! The Clintons are not racist!!!!!!!!!. They may have "played the race card", BUT!!!!!, IMO, THEY ARE NOT RACIST!!!! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!
African American Democrats don't worry that Dems will use their talk radio shows to play the "magic negro" song or refer to a US Senator who's bir-racial as "halfafrican". Now I'm sure those Republicans were just "joking" but since the joke was about African Americans THEY should decide whether it's really a joke or not. You also WILL NOT find vendors at state Democratic functions feeling free to hand out "If Obama was President would the White House still be called the White House" buttons. Democrats don't do that! And though that particular vendors didn't speak for all Republicans, he felt VERY comfortable selling he crap at THE GOP convention!
While Democrats may not have done each and everything African Americans want, they don't throw RACE in their face. You can't say that about Republicans. If you're truly honest, you'll admit there's a REASON you don't see many African Americans faces at the GOP convention.
You see day in and day out the personal vilification of blacks by other blacks when they have an opinion different from the accepted Democratic, liberal line. Take a look at the scorn heaped on Clarence Thomas, Condoleza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Juan Williams, and others for daring to have differing opinions from the Democrats and African American majority.
The one thing you don't know AA, is I know Condi Rice. Not only have I feed Condi Rice at my home table, she and my middle daughter have been friends since they attended the University of Denver, my daughter attending for her Master Degree. I've done Condi's hair, and I consider her a true friend. I don't agree with her politics but I totally understand why she's a Republican. It's a personal family issue for Condi.
Now while I don't agree with her politics, we agree on Affirmative Action and choice. And while I truly hate the role Condi has played in this administration, I give a small amount of credit for what we DO agree on. That's just the nature of the beast and I won't explain that to you.
ANY African American Republican, IMO, and THAT includes Rice, who stands by while Republicans spout their racist crap is unacceptable to me. You can't stand on one side and cry about the lack of African American in the Republican party and STILL stand and do NOTHING while agents of the Republican party spout racism!. It's simply unacceptable. When you should speak and you don't, it simply means when I NEED you to speak you WON'T!
Democrats are fully against school vouchers for poor families, dooming many in urban areas no choice but to send their children to failing schools.
The reason many African Americans are against "school vouchers" is they're not fools! Republicans want school vouchers NOT because they give a damn about African Americans and their education. They want an inroads into public money. Public money for THEIR religious schools!. If Republicans were truly concerned about education they would fix the CURRENT problems with public schools, not add another. But then again, they'd have to deal with the teachers union, which lead us back to my original point. Republicans don't give a damn about African Americans and public education! UNION, that's another story!
Democrats keep supporting abortions, of which the primary provider was founded by an avowed racist who wanted to keep the African American population from having children.
Democrats, abortions and African Americans don't have a damn thing to do with each other. African Americans usually don't have abortions just like African Americans don't put their elderly in nursing homes. Why do you think Regan spoke about WELFARE to REPUBLICANS! When you try to appeal to African American using abortions, you lose! Especially with that fake concern about African American babies"
Democratic welfare policies forced fathers from their families and replaced the role of fathers in supporting their families. 70% of African American babies are born out-of-wedlock. STDs are epidemic in the inner city teenage population. One third of all abortions are performed on African Americans.
Welfare didn't make African Americans fathers leave, NO JOBS cause the loss of African American fathers amongst other things! It's a proven fact that if you make good paying jobs available for ANYONE, you WILL reduce single family homes, kids dropping out of school and a whole host of other problems. But as usual, Republicans haven't been concerned every day PEOPLE!
So we're back NOT to trade offs, but facts are, Republicans are MORE concerned with their Southern white male vote, than they are African Americans! Republicans are MORE concerned with their wealthy corporate donors vote, than they are African Americans. Republicans are MORE concerned with " white evangelical" vote, than they are African Americans.
So tonight when you see that camera fan across the same 15 African American faces, YOU KNOW WHY! And it's NOT the Democrats fault!
Jebuss Pearl.
Thanks.
From the article: "Not content to simply cover what was, by every standard, an historic and fascinating political gathering, the press felt the need to embellish the storylines (when not completely inventing them), tell news consumers what to think and how to feel, and to hog the spotlight by turning themselves into the topic of news reports. The media hordes "got in the way of the story, because they made themselves the story," noted Brooke Gladstone at NPR. (Exhibit A.)"
Boehlhert could very well be talking about the Olympic coverage, which again, was so terrible (from the glimpses) I caught, that it made me glad I didn't watch too much. A fake narrative was promoted in the Olympics as well. I remember walking in to the cottage I was staying at (I was at a family reunion), and seeing the some reporters interviewing the world's number 1 hurdler who had tripped on the last hurdle and lost. She had lost the race of her life. The reporter asked her "what happened?" What was she supposed to answer? I'm sure she wanted to cry for two hours, and here was this buffoon of a reporter in her face to create some fake drama.
If you want to just watch the convention and get your own take, you have to watch CSPAN. I flicked back and forth between the networks during the DNC. CNN and Fox had their "experts" talking during speeches. Fox didn't even air John Kerry's speech, opting instead for Brit Hume and commercials (many of which featured anti-Obama ads).
While Fox viewers could have heard from John Kerry or the American Soldier video that was played, or a speech from a double amputee, Iraq war veteran, they would have to turn the channel to see all this.
Networks don't have to insert their bogus story lines to have an impact on the viewer's interpretation of convention events. They have the biggest impact when they selectively show (and don't show) various videos and speakers live.
Yes, McCain knew all this a still named her as VP. Who cares that this inexperienced small town girl is a heart-beat from the presidency. Can we afford a president that makes such bad decisions in his campaign? What damage could he do in 4 years?
The simplest explanation is that it's a desperate attempt to get the Evangelical mouth-breathers on board. However, given all the weirdness being exposed about her now, it could just be a diversion, to keep the press talking about anything but the rampant corruption of the current administration, and the mess Republicans have made in the last 8 years.
Being a predator, a meat-eater, a man not far-removed from his neanderthal genetics, I have survived by recognizing the strategies employed by prey to avoid hostile ingestion.
One of these strategies is that of "swarming", where the horde of prey animals gather and perform identical evasive maneuvers thereby confusing the predator. From my observations, it appears that there is no single "Alpha" animal who leads this swarm - rather it is the consensus of a small group of them which are at the farthest distance from the predator who choreograph the swarm's movements. Food fish, birds, and herd animals all demonstrate this behavior. The fit and healthy animals stay with the swarm, and usually survive.
Then, there are the sick and weak.
The sick and weak fall out of formation, and the hunters confusion of the swarm is replaced by a focus on the individual. The hunter - me - then pounces on the straggler at first opportunity and pummels it about the head with this rock I tied onto this stick (a tool which has proven quite useful and the invention of which I am particularly proud) until my prey is quite dead and ready for consumption. (I am in the process of trying different ways of preparing my catch, one of which is over "fire", which I plan to test after the next thunderstorm makes fire available once again. More on that later...).
It was from this perspective that I realized that it is highly unlikely that McCain is choreographing the movements of the Republican party. Rather, a small group distant from the scene of the struggle and not easily visible behind the ranks of followers (we'll call them "neocons") are leading this swarm of ideological wildebeests in a mad panicked darting flight in the hopes that they will evade the danger pursuing them. Should the group stay together, the odds of all of them making it through this attack unscathed greatly improve. There is an older male, however, who finds himself weakening with the relentless march of time. Once a maverick, a loner who grazed and played outside the herd, he now finds that evading predators alone is no longer an option, and he has joined the swarm. He takes his place beside the shapely haunches of a relatively young female, where he now follows the twists and turns of the herd as they attempt to evade...
It is from this perspective that I begin to understand. I will inscribe these thoughts with charcoal on my cave wall tonight before mating again with one of my females...
Hahaha....
The reality is that you will pick up sushi on the way home, park your Prius in its designated spot, light some candles and incense, open up some white merlot, thumb through the New Yorker, practice your daily yoga, and tune into Olbermann before padding off to bed. :-)
Sheesh, no kidding. Probably eats helgremites head first at sacrifice parties too. HAHAHAAAAaaaa.... What a rube!
By the way, you left your bone necklace in my guts pile yesterday. I'm scheduled for a grooming tomorrow with Mook, but I should be home by the time the sun gets to the big tree. Stop by any time after that to pick it up.
Nerzog,
That is laughable. Did you see the statistics that conservatives give more to the poor than liberals?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
When something seems a little too perfect you might want to be suspicious. Critics of the book say it is interesting but doesn't actually show what he claims, and the statistics are highly suspect. This is the author that claimed "the entire country would be conservative in 14 years because conservatives were out-breeding liberals"
http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-really-cares-about-arthur-brooks.html
To learn more about the author and his critics go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks.
After publishing this book he became a visiting scholar at that paragon of objectivity, the American Enterprise Institute and it has been announced he will become it's president in January 2009.
Middle,
I noticed you offered nothing to refute those statistics.
Face it, Conservatives are far more compassionate than liberals. Conservatives want to teach people to fish, liberals want to feed them the fish.
You don't need to refute the statistic to notice that it doesn't prove that conservatives are more compassionate than liberals. It simply states that conservatives give more money to charity. But it does not qualify what types of charity. The author notes a high correlation between conservative givers and religious views, so it would make sense that a large portion of these donations are going to churches, which count as charitable donations. The problem is that many churches spend a relatively small amount of their church budget on social programs. For example, if a church devoted 25% of it's budget to social issues (which is actually well above the average that most churches spend, see this article: http://www.relationaltithe.com/pdffiles/EmbezzlementPaper.pdf) then my $100 dollar contribution to a church would look like twice as much as a $50 donation to the Red Cross, but would actually only yield half the impact.
Also, you noted that the welfare-to-work program has reduced dependence on state welfare without noting that it was Bill Clinton that advocated the plan or that Barack Obama has recognized that as a highly effective reform and plans to use that formula during his adminstration.
"creatining"?
Must have eaten some bad fish...
AA,
Nice generalization there, AA. Why don't you refigure your stats and exclude church donations. When I did Teach for America out of college which is a very compassionate, generous program, the program was well over 90% liberal. Check out the Peace Corps and those who vote for funding for the troops' care. If conservatives are so "compassionate" why do they call liberals the ones with the bleeding hearts?
Conservatives, at least during the last eight years, have been the warmongers, AA, including yourself.
Conservatives want to teach people to fish in their lakes, pay for the privilege, then take 1/3 of the caught fish.
Liberals want people to learn to fish and fish anywhere they want to.
"First of all, why on earth would 15,000 journalists cover any convention?"
Three words: Free Corporate Booze
It's easy "event" news -- prepackaged with nice, moving visuals and lots of colorful people where speakers get their people to write the feel-good stuff we see near the end of social aware movies. Lots of pundits spewing predictable opinion. What the opinion back home don't get to hear are the specifics of a candidates' platform -- exactly how does this candidate plan to tackle the problems facing the country -- and how will the country be run over the next four years?
If conventions were real events and not photo ops, then having a lot of coverage would be welcomed. But that's not the purpose of these choreographed non-news events -- so the coverage is overdone to say the least.
Some info from yesterday's Altercation.
Per the Cenus Bureau report released last week. For the peroid 2000-07, middle class incomes were unchanged. For working age families, headed by someone under 65. The real median income of these households went down by $2,010 between 2000 and 2007. This is the population that has contributed to stellar productivity rates over these same years. This index rose by 2.5 percent per year over this time frame. A half a percent better than the previous decade when real median income of these working age households rose by more than $5000.
Still anything but continuing the policies that have brought us here is just too radical for words in wingnut world.
Anybody placing bets about what the media narrative for the Repub convention will be?