Friday, September 24, 2004
Moving On
There are five main groups of people in this election (with the exception of so-called “fringe groups” of course):
A) People who like George Bush, his policies, his politics, his ideology, and will vote for him (and therefore most likely despise John Kerry and everything he stands for).
B) People who may or may not care for George Bush, his policies, his politics, and his ideology BUT don’t like John Kerry, his policies, his politics or his ideology and will therefore vote for George Bush.
C) People who don’t know, don’t care or have yet to begin really deciding who they will vote for. These people will most likely make their decision during the first or last debate or within a day or two of election day.
D) People who may or may not care for John Kerry, his policies, his politics and his ideology BUT don’t like George Bush, his policies, his politics or his ideology and will therefore vote for John Kerry.
E) People who like John Kerry, his policies, his politics, his ideology and will vote for him (and therefore most likely despise George Bush and everything he stands for).
This is true of nearly all elections after a president’s first term. The election is by all accounts a referendum on the President’s first term. We know that in this election there are roughly equal numbers of people in groups A and E. There is a slightly higher number of people in group B than there is in group D and that approximately 32% (according to a poll by the Pew Research Center (as quoted from CNN.com)) of likely voters have yet to make up their mind (and thus fall mostly into group C, with some spill over into groups B and D). And on top of it all, any freshman Political Science major will tell you: 1) expect about 100 million people to vote in this election, 2) of those 100 million, a small percentage of them actually live in states that are considered “swing states” (states whose electoral votes could go to either candidate) and 3) of that small percentage, an even smaller percentage fall into group C or might switch their vote from groups B or D.
Confused yet? You should be! The truth is that those of us who are actually listening to the pundits and following the election closely have made up our minds and have altered our discourse to support ourselves. Those of us in groups A and E and even those of us who are solidly in groups B and D aren’t going to change our vote. Some rather sad members of these groups will try anything –- including forging documents for Kerry or telling the world that terrorists WILL attack if Kerry is elected for Bush –- to try to get that small percentage to swing their way. Don’t buy into it. Don’t use this election, this forum for real public debate, to carp and whine (or bother to listen to those who do) about who did what to whom in 1971. I know why I am in the E group. Which group are you in? Why are you there? Let’s talk about the issues. Let’s discuss what we believe and why. Let’s move on.
There are five main groups of people in this election (with the exception of so-called “fringe groups” of course):
A) People who like George Bush, his policies, his politics, his ideology, and will vote for him (and therefore most likely despise John Kerry and everything he stands for).
B) People who may or may not care for George Bush, his policies, his politics, and his ideology BUT don’t like John Kerry, his policies, his politics or his ideology and will therefore vote for George Bush.
C) People who don’t know, don’t care or have yet to begin really deciding who they will vote for. These people will most likely make their decision during the first or last debate or within a day or two of election day.
D) People who may or may not care for John Kerry, his policies, his politics and his ideology BUT don’t like George Bush, his policies, his politics or his ideology and will therefore vote for John Kerry.
E) People who like John Kerry, his policies, his politics, his ideology and will vote for him (and therefore most likely despise George Bush and everything he stands for).
This is true of nearly all elections after a president’s first term. The election is by all accounts a referendum on the President’s first term. We know that in this election there are roughly equal numbers of people in groups A and E. There is a slightly higher number of people in group B than there is in group D and that approximately 32% (according to a poll by the Pew Research Center (as quoted from CNN.com)) of likely voters have yet to make up their mind (and thus fall mostly into group C, with some spill over into groups B and D). And on top of it all, any freshman Political Science major will tell you: 1) expect about 100 million people to vote in this election, 2) of those 100 million, a small percentage of them actually live in states that are considered “swing states” (states whose electoral votes could go to either candidate) and 3) of that small percentage, an even smaller percentage fall into group C or might switch their vote from groups B or D.
Confused yet? You should be! The truth is that those of us who are actually listening to the pundits and following the election closely have made up our minds and have altered our discourse to support ourselves. Those of us in groups A and E and even those of us who are solidly in groups B and D aren’t going to change our vote. Some rather sad members of these groups will try anything –- including forging documents for Kerry or telling the world that terrorists WILL attack if Kerry is elected for Bush –- to try to get that small percentage to swing their way. Don’t buy into it. Don’t use this election, this forum for real public debate, to carp and whine (or bother to listen to those who do) about who did what to whom in 1971. I know why I am in the E group. Which group are you in? Why are you there? Let’s talk about the issues. Let’s discuss what we believe and why. Let’s move on.
Monday, September 20, 2004
In Case You Haven't Seen It
The New York Times headline this morning: "CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos."
Yes, as many networks and newspapers and document experts and anyone with a copy of Microsoft Word found out for themselves over a week ago, the documents were not created in 1972, and were, as we and other blogs pointed out days before the networks even acknowledged the problem, childish forgeries. I only hope that those who blindly followed the word of Big Media despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary will finally concede that, gee, maybe those complaining about an anti-Bush news slant might have a point after all.
Incidentally, it means my "Biasphere" article from only a few hours ago just gained more support!
The New York Times headline this morning: "CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos."
Yes, as many networks and newspapers and document experts and anyone with a copy of Microsoft Word found out for themselves over a week ago, the documents were not created in 1972, and were, as we and other blogs pointed out days before the networks even acknowledged the problem, childish forgeries. I only hope that those who blindly followed the word of Big Media despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary will finally concede that, gee, maybe those complaining about an anti-Bush news slant might have a point after all.
Incidentally, it means my "Biasphere" article from only a few hours ago just gained more support!
The Biasphere
Earlier in the week, Dan Rather brushed aside critics of the Killian memos as "partisan political operatives". Yesterday, CBS News gleefully reported that one of the first individuals to accuse the memos of being forgeries had "strong ties to Republican causes." Some newspapers syndicating a Sunday Chicago Tribune piece (which was actually pretty fair) retitled it "Critics of CBS turn out to have Republican ties", referring specifically to the blog rathergate.com.
The implication: because some of the critics of CBS are Republicans, obviously their arguments cannot be credible.
Never mind the fact that many, many people noticed the CBS documents were forgeries at around the same time. Never mind the fact that rathergate.com came many days after the first websites posted research on the disputed documents. Never mind that the source of the now-debunked CBS memos was Kerry activist Bill Burkett. Never mind the fact that some of the most persuasive evidence has come from anti-Bush individuals such as Joseph Newcomer. (In fact, in the interests of full disclosure, even I'm a registered independent who voted for more Democrats last election than Republicans.)
But even if all of us had been right-wing gun-toting Limbaugh-loving Keyes-backing uber-conservatives... so what? Would our findings have been any more or less accurate based on political persuasion alone?
This debate comes up a lot when discussing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The mainstream press can't even say their name without mentioning the fact that many of their biggest financial donors are Republicans. But, again, so what? The Swift Vets are a registered non-partisan 527 group made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, who had disagreements with Kerry's actions and positions on Vietnam. Naturally, they asked for funding, and naturally, opponents of Kerry were more likely to give. Well, duh. Conversely, moveon.org is funded by opponents of Bush, which are mostly liberal activists and Kerry fundraisers. What else would you expect? That doesn't mean what either group has to say must be false because of those who support them. Would all the people dismissive of the Swift Vets because of Republican contributions be equally as dismissive of anti-Bush groups because of Democratic ties?
And what of movies like Fahrenheit 9/11, which creator Michael Moore has repeatedly said was created with the express purpose of taking down the Bush presidency? (Oh, I forgot -- that's just a "documentary.")
I'm not saying we shouldn't take a source's political bent into account when determining the truth and believability of a story or accusation. But we must acknowledge that supporters of Kerry aren't going to be the ones digging around for information against their candidate, any more than Bush supporters are going to be the ones digging for dirt on theirs. That negative information on a candidate or position will come from the opposition, not the supporters, is simple logic; you can't dismiss complaints about the left that come from the right any more than you can dismiss complaints about the right that happen to come from the left.
This is all indicative of a larger trend in the mainstream media, which is so unwilling to acknowledge a country evenly divided that conscious efforts are made to marginalize the conservative half. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are regularly described as right-leaning, but CNN and Time Magazine are never accurately described as slanting left. Bill O'Reilly is always a "conservative commentator" whereas Aaron Brown is simply, a commentator. Leftist viewpoints are considered mainstream, while conservative viewpoints must be labeled as such.
Even on issues such as abortion, in which the country remains evenly divided according to Gallup, the pro-life position is always considered the extreme view. The term "moderate Republican", for example, almost exclusively refers to a Republican with a pro-choice position. But if a Democrat is pro-life, are they called a moderate Democrat? Of course not. They are called a conservative Democrat. Every time.
This may or may not be a conscious case of bias. If everyone you surround yourself with believes a certain view, then naturally those who don't share that view must logically be in the fringe. Yet Fox News outranks CNN 2 to 1 in the ratings, Rush Limbaugh remains the highest rated radio broadcaster in history, and all three branches of government are currently run by conservatives. How can you be "in the fringe" when you're in the majority?
When vacationing in London last year, I was in a large bookstore trying to find Ambling Into History, about President Bush. Unable to locate it on the shelves, I asked a manager, who seemed intrigued by the unfamiliar title. Upon looking it up in the computer, his face turned sour, and he eyed me with disgust. "Ah," he explained condescendingly, "we try not to carry any books from Harper Collins; that's part of Rupert Murdoch's right-wing empire." Contempt and impatience growing, he grudgingly said I could special order the book if I "really wanted it," though recommended I just get it online from someone else instead. Never mind that this particular book, by Frank Bruni of the New York Times, was hardly a glowing pro-Bush treatise by anyone's definition. It was published by Harper Collins, which is owned by a right-winger, and therefore must all be 100% unworthy and false and evil and wrong.
Bottom line: for the same people who used to claim that liberal activist Ted Turner's CNN network was completely neutral despite the positions of its founder, to now claim that any source biased against Kerry must be suspect to the point of knee-jerk doubt and disbelief, is an incalculable idiocy. Of course it's important to observe whether the source of a story has a political ax to grind. But if you happen to be a Democrat, and a Republican points out that 2+2=4, you're not on intellectual high ground by claming 2+2 must therefore equal 5 instead.
(also posted to defeatjohnjohn.com)
Earlier in the week, Dan Rather brushed aside critics of the Killian memos as "partisan political operatives". Yesterday, CBS News gleefully reported that one of the first individuals to accuse the memos of being forgeries had "strong ties to Republican causes." Some newspapers syndicating a Sunday Chicago Tribune piece (which was actually pretty fair) retitled it "Critics of CBS turn out to have Republican ties", referring specifically to the blog rathergate.com.
The implication: because some of the critics of CBS are Republicans, obviously their arguments cannot be credible.
Never mind the fact that many, many people noticed the CBS documents were forgeries at around the same time. Never mind the fact that rathergate.com came many days after the first websites posted research on the disputed documents. Never mind that the source of the now-debunked CBS memos was Kerry activist Bill Burkett. Never mind the fact that some of the most persuasive evidence has come from anti-Bush individuals such as Joseph Newcomer. (In fact, in the interests of full disclosure, even I'm a registered independent who voted for more Democrats last election than Republicans.)
But even if all of us had been right-wing gun-toting Limbaugh-loving Keyes-backing uber-conservatives... so what? Would our findings have been any more or less accurate based on political persuasion alone?
This debate comes up a lot when discussing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The mainstream press can't even say their name without mentioning the fact that many of their biggest financial donors are Republicans. But, again, so what? The Swift Vets are a registered non-partisan 527 group made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, who had disagreements with Kerry's actions and positions on Vietnam. Naturally, they asked for funding, and naturally, opponents of Kerry were more likely to give. Well, duh. Conversely, moveon.org is funded by opponents of Bush, which are mostly liberal activists and Kerry fundraisers. What else would you expect? That doesn't mean what either group has to say must be false because of those who support them. Would all the people dismissive of the Swift Vets because of Republican contributions be equally as dismissive of anti-Bush groups because of Democratic ties?
And what of movies like Fahrenheit 9/11, which creator Michael Moore has repeatedly said was created with the express purpose of taking down the Bush presidency? (Oh, I forgot -- that's just a "documentary.")
I'm not saying we shouldn't take a source's political bent into account when determining the truth and believability of a story or accusation. But we must acknowledge that supporters of Kerry aren't going to be the ones digging around for information against their candidate, any more than Bush supporters are going to be the ones digging for dirt on theirs. That negative information on a candidate or position will come from the opposition, not the supporters, is simple logic; you can't dismiss complaints about the left that come from the right any more than you can dismiss complaints about the right that happen to come from the left.
This is all indicative of a larger trend in the mainstream media, which is so unwilling to acknowledge a country evenly divided that conscious efforts are made to marginalize the conservative half. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are regularly described as right-leaning, but CNN and Time Magazine are never accurately described as slanting left. Bill O'Reilly is always a "conservative commentator" whereas Aaron Brown is simply, a commentator. Leftist viewpoints are considered mainstream, while conservative viewpoints must be labeled as such.
Even on issues such as abortion, in which the country remains evenly divided according to Gallup, the pro-life position is always considered the extreme view. The term "moderate Republican", for example, almost exclusively refers to a Republican with a pro-choice position. But if a Democrat is pro-life, are they called a moderate Democrat? Of course not. They are called a conservative Democrat. Every time.
This may or may not be a conscious case of bias. If everyone you surround yourself with believes a certain view, then naturally those who don't share that view must logically be in the fringe. Yet Fox News outranks CNN 2 to 1 in the ratings, Rush Limbaugh remains the highest rated radio broadcaster in history, and all three branches of government are currently run by conservatives. How can you be "in the fringe" when you're in the majority?
When vacationing in London last year, I was in a large bookstore trying to find Ambling Into History, about President Bush. Unable to locate it on the shelves, I asked a manager, who seemed intrigued by the unfamiliar title. Upon looking it up in the computer, his face turned sour, and he eyed me with disgust. "Ah," he explained condescendingly, "we try not to carry any books from Harper Collins; that's part of Rupert Murdoch's right-wing empire." Contempt and impatience growing, he grudgingly said I could special order the book if I "really wanted it," though recommended I just get it online from someone else instead. Never mind that this particular book, by Frank Bruni of the New York Times, was hardly a glowing pro-Bush treatise by anyone's definition. It was published by Harper Collins, which is owned by a right-winger, and therefore must all be 100% unworthy and false and evil and wrong.
Bottom line: for the same people who used to claim that liberal activist Ted Turner's CNN network was completely neutral despite the positions of its founder, to now claim that any source biased against Kerry must be suspect to the point of knee-jerk doubt and disbelief, is an incalculable idiocy. Of course it's important to observe whether the source of a story has a political ax to grind. But if you happen to be a Democrat, and a Republican points out that 2+2=4, you're not on intellectual high ground by claming 2+2 must therefore equal 5 instead.
(also posted to defeatjohnjohn.com)
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Season of Storms
My mother used to send us to the basement every time the wind blew. I now think it was not for our safety. I now think it was for her private, intimate moments with nature sans chattering daughters.
Mother loved to watch the skies. She'd set a kitchen chair at the front door so she could watch the water tower at the end of Lee Street. She was sure one day she would see lightening strike it. If a tornado warning sounded, we'd be in the basement; she'd be out in the street to catch a better view.
She exposed us to magnificent sunrises, sunsets, and double and triple rainbows. I remember once being dragged out onto the driveway at bedtime to see northern lights that streaked from every compass point on each horizon to a celestial peak right up over our heads, creating a dome of lights that looked more like God's own fingers reaching up over our town. Finger tips lightly touching, gloriously creating a sanctuary, a respite. From the world man had created. An intermission. No eleven o'clock news that night. No Vietnam war, no presidential elections, no scandals, traffic reports, nor infanticides. A suspension. A relief.
Toward the end of her days, I think mother loved the weather channel best of all the cable stations. She kept it on 24/7 and sometimes shushed us to catch a favorite announcer.
So when I watched the news the other day, and poor young expendable reporters fought the hurricane winds and blinding rains just to tell us how it felt to be there, I was grateful. Guess it's in my DNA. It may have looked like a bit on Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Nevertheless, rain was really pelting the weather journalists and blowing them in and out of camera views. They risked life and limb to show us The Mighty Presence. With hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and mudslides just in our part of the world, there is indeed a Mighty Presence intent upon making itself known.
All the bickering we do on this planet will abruptly be brought into perspective in the next few years if our weather patterns are really taking a dramatic turn. Remember the Ice Age? This may not be just the earth combing its hair and loofaing off its dry skin. This may be the start of earth's total make-over.
My mother used to send us to the basement every time the wind blew. I now think it was not for our safety. I now think it was for her private, intimate moments with nature sans chattering daughters.
Mother loved to watch the skies. She'd set a kitchen chair at the front door so she could watch the water tower at the end of Lee Street. She was sure one day she would see lightening strike it. If a tornado warning sounded, we'd be in the basement; she'd be out in the street to catch a better view.
She exposed us to magnificent sunrises, sunsets, and double and triple rainbows. I remember once being dragged out onto the driveway at bedtime to see northern lights that streaked from every compass point on each horizon to a celestial peak right up over our heads, creating a dome of lights that looked more like God's own fingers reaching up over our town. Finger tips lightly touching, gloriously creating a sanctuary, a respite. From the world man had created. An intermission. No eleven o'clock news that night. No Vietnam war, no presidential elections, no scandals, traffic reports, nor infanticides. A suspension. A relief.
Toward the end of her days, I think mother loved the weather channel best of all the cable stations. She kept it on 24/7 and sometimes shushed us to catch a favorite announcer.
So when I watched the news the other day, and poor young expendable reporters fought the hurricane winds and blinding rains just to tell us how it felt to be there, I was grateful. Guess it's in my DNA. It may have looked like a bit on Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Nevertheless, rain was really pelting the weather journalists and blowing them in and out of camera views. They risked life and limb to show us The Mighty Presence. With hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and mudslides just in our part of the world, there is indeed a Mighty Presence intent upon making itself known.
All the bickering we do on this planet will abruptly be brought into perspective in the next few years if our weather patterns are really taking a dramatic turn. Remember the Ice Age? This may not be just the earth combing its hair and loofaing off its dry skin. This may be the start of earth's total make-over.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Liquid Facts
Mitch Kehetian wrote in the Sunday Macomb Daily editorial that Goldwater lost the campaign because Johnson ran commercials of a little girl swinging as the atomic bomb mushroomed behind her, equating Goldwater with nuclear war and that it demonstrates how dangerous Cheney's statement was. The now infamous Daisy Spot was not a little girl on a swing. I guess he was thinking of the Gov. Schwarzenegger film The Terminator where Linda Hamilton dreamed about a devastating future.
There was once (literally) a Pro-Johnson commercial of a little girl in a field counting daisy petals. The commercial was shown once and only once on September 7, 1964, during NBC's Monday Night Movie. Not that many people saw it. But, certainly, a lot of people heard about it. The Tony Schwartz commercial showed a little girl mixed up with her petal counting, then the scene changed, and a voice counted down 10, 9, 8, 7... to the mushroom cloud, and then the voice of Lyndon B. Johnson was heard reading a poem about people learning to live together, then a message of "vote for Johnson -– the stakes are too high." You can view the film clip here.
This inaccuracy is just the type of thing that is making so many of us so mad. There is no news, just opinions. Reporters used advance copies of convention speeches, not as tools for writing the political stories, but as the basis for the stories themselves, before the speeches were even given. Pretending to write news. Any third grader can write a book report. Any fifth grader can re-hash other journalists’ stories and sound bites. Quoting unidentified White House sources (who -- the janitors)? Is there no respect or thought of the readers -- just assumptions that we are all too dumb or too lazy to look up the truth for ourselves? Then what do we pay you for? Why am I so mad?
Last Friday, the Macomb Daily published a front page story titled New Documents Shed Light, Add Mystery to Bush Service -- Records Show He Lost Pilot Status for Disobeying. What???? Did anyone in the newsroom think to verify a front page story? Or do we just reprint propaganda and garbage off the wire services as if anything anti-Bush must be true?
Just about every person with some familiarity with typewriters and word processors who has seen these so called memos can see the forgery. The world of internet users is going nuts with excitement over this one. The Blogosphere is buzzing with their scoop over the mainstream media. My own son has put up his entire savings ($10,000) in a challenge to anyone who can recreate these memos with an ordinary 1972 office typewriter as used by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. And he has been promised more than $20,000 additional by visitors to his site, defeatjohnjohn.com. That is the depth of his anger. He is willing to put his money where his beliefs are. And his beliefs are simple. He believes in Truth.
Many years ago, a young editor of the Richmond Review said "if a story is important enough to put in our paper, it's important enough for us to cover it." He was just a kid. The Richmond Review was just a free weekly. But I long for that standard of work ethic in today’s media.
The founding fathers of this nation gave us in the very first amendment to the Constitution, a freedom of the press. They had a trust in the American people to be able to make the right decisions by having the opportunity to make informed decisions. Having a press that manipulates and interprets opinions for their own political beliefs will destroy that freedom, and soon after the Constitution itself.
Mitch Kehetian wrote in the Sunday Macomb Daily editorial that Goldwater lost the campaign because Johnson ran commercials of a little girl swinging as the atomic bomb mushroomed behind her, equating Goldwater with nuclear war and that it demonstrates how dangerous Cheney's statement was. The now infamous Daisy Spot was not a little girl on a swing. I guess he was thinking of the Gov. Schwarzenegger film The Terminator where Linda Hamilton dreamed about a devastating future.
There was once (literally) a Pro-Johnson commercial of a little girl in a field counting daisy petals. The commercial was shown once and only once on September 7, 1964, during NBC's Monday Night Movie. Not that many people saw it. But, certainly, a lot of people heard about it. The Tony Schwartz commercial showed a little girl mixed up with her petal counting, then the scene changed, and a voice counted down 10, 9, 8, 7... to the mushroom cloud, and then the voice of Lyndon B. Johnson was heard reading a poem about people learning to live together, then a message of "vote for Johnson -– the stakes are too high." You can view the film clip here.
This inaccuracy is just the type of thing that is making so many of us so mad. There is no news, just opinions. Reporters used advance copies of convention speeches, not as tools for writing the political stories, but as the basis for the stories themselves, before the speeches were even given. Pretending to write news. Any third grader can write a book report. Any fifth grader can re-hash other journalists’ stories and sound bites. Quoting unidentified White House sources (who -- the janitors)? Is there no respect or thought of the readers -- just assumptions that we are all too dumb or too lazy to look up the truth for ourselves? Then what do we pay you for? Why am I so mad?
Last Friday, the Macomb Daily published a front page story titled New Documents Shed Light, Add Mystery to Bush Service -- Records Show He Lost Pilot Status for Disobeying. What???? Did anyone in the newsroom think to verify a front page story? Or do we just reprint propaganda and garbage off the wire services as if anything anti-Bush must be true?
Just about every person with some familiarity with typewriters and word processors who has seen these so called memos can see the forgery. The world of internet users is going nuts with excitement over this one. The Blogosphere is buzzing with their scoop over the mainstream media. My own son has put up his entire savings ($10,000) in a challenge to anyone who can recreate these memos with an ordinary 1972 office typewriter as used by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. And he has been promised more than $20,000 additional by visitors to his site, defeatjohnjohn.com. That is the depth of his anger. He is willing to put his money where his beliefs are. And his beliefs are simple. He believes in Truth.
Many years ago, a young editor of the Richmond Review said "if a story is important enough to put in our paper, it's important enough for us to cover it." He was just a kid. The Richmond Review was just a free weekly. But I long for that standard of work ethic in today’s media.
The founding fathers of this nation gave us in the very first amendment to the Constitution, a freedom of the press. They had a trust in the American people to be able to make the right decisions by having the opportunity to make informed decisions. Having a press that manipulates and interprets opinions for their own political beliefs will destroy that freedom, and soon after the Constitution itself.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Quick Note
Since my offer of $10,000 on defeatjohnjohn.com, that site increased in viewership to over 10,000 unique visitors in the past couple of hours, and I've been flooded with some wonderful emails to which I'm flattered and grateful. The discussion over the CBS forgeries has gotten intense over there, so I think I'll be keeping discussions on that topic to that site, and keep ludicrosity on its original message, as a more general discussion of "this increasingly bizarre little world." Of course, I'd love it if you visited both! But if you're new to this site, I'd recommend you click an archive or two, read a bit, and see if you like us. We'd be honored to have your company either way.
Since my offer of $10,000 on defeatjohnjohn.com, that site increased in viewership to over 10,000 unique visitors in the past couple of hours, and I've been flooded with some wonderful emails to which I'm flattered and grateful. The discussion over the CBS forgeries has gotten intense over there, so I think I'll be keeping discussions on that topic to that site, and keep ludicrosity on its original message, as a more general discussion of "this increasingly bizarre little world." Of course, I'd love it if you visited both! But if you're new to this site, I'd recommend you click an archive or two, read a bit, and see if you like us. We'd be honored to have your company either way.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
The Blogger Bandwagon
Hate to come late to the blogger party on this one (Power Line has already done more intensely extensive coverage than I could hope to), but I can't believe CBS is still standing behind their fake 60 Minutes anti-Bush documents; CNN and the AP and every other network are still reporting these forgeries as fact!
This is what a typewritten document looked like in 1972 (part of the public record and mutually agreed upon):
As was the case with all manual typewriters, there is no "kerning" between letters -- indeed, the font is monospaced, meaning an "i" and an "m" and a capital "L" all take up the same amount of width. Quotes and apostrophes were straight up and down (because the typewriter, obviously, had no way of knowing which direction the quote was supposed to curve, without context), and there was certainly no way of doing superscripting (having an "st" or "th" in a smaller font up and to the right of the number preceding it.)
Now, here's an example of what CBS is claiming is an authentic 1972 document:
The reason this forgery is so easily disprovable is because anyone can open up Microsoft Word and, using the default settings and the default Times New Roman font in the default 12 point size, type the statement above, and get this:
That's what I got (and what you will get, too) just by typing the paragraph into Microsoft Word and pressing print. I didn't change a thing; in fact, there's even accidental "proof of authenticity" there because I made a transposition typo (OERT instead of OETR). Everything is identical -- spacing, kerning, margins, everything -- to the default Microsoft Word settings. Try it yourself -- you'll get the exact same thing. Run it through a fax machine and it'll come out identical to CBS's "1972" document, I guarantee it.
Incidentally, there's another oddity among these "1972" documents, when it comes to Colonel Killian's signature:
Obviously, this is another childish forgery, with the same impossible raised "th"s and computer-assisted kerned proportional Times New Roman font (which, by the way, was never available on a typewriter, even now.) But also check out the signature in this new example with the one in the document we began with (which we know is accurate.) Who, exactly, is the "documentation expert" that CBS claims to have verified these ridiculous papers?
No typewriter exists today (and certainly not 32 years ago) that could produce a single one of these forgeries. I know the opponents of the President (and therefore the U.S. media) are feeling desperate these days. But to insult our intelligence so amateurishly, and then have the audacity to stand by and defend such an easily disproved story, is an enormous violation of the public trust that cannot be allowed to get swept under the rug.
Update: The defeatjohnjohn.com blog is now offering $10,000 (in the form of a cashier's check) to the first individual who can recreate the CBS documents on a typewriter available in 1972. Details can be found here.
Hate to come late to the blogger party on this one (Power Line has already done more intensely extensive coverage than I could hope to), but I can't believe CBS is still standing behind their fake 60 Minutes anti-Bush documents; CNN and the AP and every other network are still reporting these forgeries as fact!
This is what a typewritten document looked like in 1972 (part of the public record and mutually agreed upon):
As was the case with all manual typewriters, there is no "kerning" between letters -- indeed, the font is monospaced, meaning an "i" and an "m" and a capital "L" all take up the same amount of width. Quotes and apostrophes were straight up and down (because the typewriter, obviously, had no way of knowing which direction the quote was supposed to curve, without context), and there was certainly no way of doing superscripting (having an "st" or "th" in a smaller font up and to the right of the number preceding it.)
Now, here's an example of what CBS is claiming is an authentic 1972 document:
The reason this forgery is so easily disprovable is because anyone can open up Microsoft Word and, using the default settings and the default Times New Roman font in the default 12 point size, type the statement above, and get this:
That's what I got (and what you will get, too) just by typing the paragraph into Microsoft Word and pressing print. I didn't change a thing; in fact, there's even accidental "proof of authenticity" there because I made a transposition typo (OERT instead of OETR). Everything is identical -- spacing, kerning, margins, everything -- to the default Microsoft Word settings. Try it yourself -- you'll get the exact same thing. Run it through a fax machine and it'll come out identical to CBS's "1972" document, I guarantee it.
Incidentally, there's another oddity among these "1972" documents, when it comes to Colonel Killian's signature:
Obviously, this is another childish forgery, with the same impossible raised "th"s and computer-assisted kerned proportional Times New Roman font (which, by the way, was never available on a typewriter, even now.) But also check out the signature in this new example with the one in the document we began with (which we know is accurate.) Who, exactly, is the "documentation expert" that CBS claims to have verified these ridiculous papers?
No typewriter exists today (and certainly not 32 years ago) that could produce a single one of these forgeries. I know the opponents of the President (and therefore the U.S. media) are feeling desperate these days. But to insult our intelligence so amateurishly, and then have the audacity to stand by and defend such an easily disproved story, is an enormous violation of the public trust that cannot be allowed to get swept under the rug.
Update: The defeatjohnjohn.com blog is now offering $10,000 (in the form of a cashier's check) to the first individual who can recreate the CBS documents on a typewriter available in 1972. Details can be found here.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
I Walked the Line
Labor Day. Ahhhh.
Well, maybe you would have had to work a line in a Detroit (pronounced Dee-troit) auto plant to appreciate it. Maybe you would have to work in the sweltering heat of the plant in summer when a bucket of water poured over your head dried in seconds. Or you could have worked the frozen lines in winter, where walls of windows provided the only light and your constant hard work was your only heat -- don't take a break; you won't live ten minutes if you stop moving.
Of course, you have electric lights nowadays, and a third shift that you work a lot for the overtime, but the line is still moving. Your body aches so much you cannot feel it anymore. Year after year, decade after decade. You are the laborer. You put together every item, can every bite of food, stitch every piece of cloth that touches this nation.
The foreman starts each shift with a quick glance into your eyes -- checking your condition -- will you need extra help today? Are you alert? The shift before yours has hidden the best tools so you are stuck with crap (again) and they didn't leave any start-up parts so you will start your shift trying to catch up. The floors are black concrete from decades of ground in oil and grime.
The line is black from decades of ground in oil and grime. You can't tell what color the walls used to be, but they all just fade into black when the buzzer starts the line up.
Put yourself in automatic mode. Pay attention to each and every bolt you tighten or hole you punch or spot you weld. Be aware of each moment, and yet, not using the usual parts of your brain. Just work and try not to think, try not to feel. Just wait for the bell to sound again, so you can go to lunch.
There is a great rhythm to the line. There is a sense of team work. Each person down the line must perform their little part so that you can perform your little part so that each person up the line can perform his little part. All day long, you ask each other: "Doin' all right?" It's a greeting that workers give, constantly checking on each other, letting you know they can make it and you can make it, too. The roar of the line doesn't let you learn much else about people, what they think or like or hate. But you know the person next to you is a worker, drunk or sober, smiling or grimacing, every day, every shift, and the line rolls on.
Radios blast in intervals up and down the line. Workers bob and sway to the rhythm. Then, suddenly, the line hiccups and stops, as it does from time to time. Bob Seger is singing "just give me some of that old time rock and roll, the kind of music that soothes the soul," and you start tapping your foot and rocking your hip, the next person starts clapping in time and says "Go, Baby," the next starts dancing, and the next is yee-hawing. Everyone starts to dance and sing-along. The Foremen come running out of their offices to see what the ruckus is. Then they start tapping and clapping and smiling, too. We all smile and enjoy that little minute. The line starts back up; we all get back to our jobs. No one says anything; we can't hear each other anyway. But we had a free minute and we shared it. Workers of the world, united in respite.
That is what Labor Day is like. A hiccup in the line. Just for a minute. The line stops. We smile. Then it starts up again.
Labor Day. Ahhhh.
Well, maybe you would have had to work a line in a Detroit (pronounced Dee-troit) auto plant to appreciate it. Maybe you would have to work in the sweltering heat of the plant in summer when a bucket of water poured over your head dried in seconds. Or you could have worked the frozen lines in winter, where walls of windows provided the only light and your constant hard work was your only heat -- don't take a break; you won't live ten minutes if you stop moving.
Of course, you have electric lights nowadays, and a third shift that you work a lot for the overtime, but the line is still moving. Your body aches so much you cannot feel it anymore. Year after year, decade after decade. You are the laborer. You put together every item, can every bite of food, stitch every piece of cloth that touches this nation.
The foreman starts each shift with a quick glance into your eyes -- checking your condition -- will you need extra help today? Are you alert? The shift before yours has hidden the best tools so you are stuck with crap (again) and they didn't leave any start-up parts so you will start your shift trying to catch up. The floors are black concrete from decades of ground in oil and grime.
The line is black from decades of ground in oil and grime. You can't tell what color the walls used to be, but they all just fade into black when the buzzer starts the line up.
Put yourself in automatic mode. Pay attention to each and every bolt you tighten or hole you punch or spot you weld. Be aware of each moment, and yet, not using the usual parts of your brain. Just work and try not to think, try not to feel. Just wait for the bell to sound again, so you can go to lunch.
There is a great rhythm to the line. There is a sense of team work. Each person down the line must perform their little part so that you can perform your little part so that each person up the line can perform his little part. All day long, you ask each other: "Doin' all right?" It's a greeting that workers give, constantly checking on each other, letting you know they can make it and you can make it, too. The roar of the line doesn't let you learn much else about people, what they think or like or hate. But you know the person next to you is a worker, drunk or sober, smiling or grimacing, every day, every shift, and the line rolls on.
Radios blast in intervals up and down the line. Workers bob and sway to the rhythm. Then, suddenly, the line hiccups and stops, as it does from time to time. Bob Seger is singing "just give me some of that old time rock and roll, the kind of music that soothes the soul," and you start tapping your foot and rocking your hip, the next person starts clapping in time and says "Go, Baby," the next starts dancing, and the next is yee-hawing. Everyone starts to dance and sing-along. The Foremen come running out of their offices to see what the ruckus is. Then they start tapping and clapping and smiling, too. We all smile and enjoy that little minute. The line starts back up; we all get back to our jobs. No one says anything; we can't hear each other anyway. But we had a free minute and we shared it. Workers of the world, united in respite.
That is what Labor Day is like. A hiccup in the line. Just for a minute. The line stops. We smile. Then it starts up again.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Mildred's Good Life
Mildred called. In fact she has been calling me at work for a couple of weeks. I ask her how she is and she tells me. Mildred is not quite 70. Her husband had a debilitating heart attack exactly one year ago last week, at the Woodward Dream Cruise. The Cruise has become The annual celebration of Motown's best known and least known, ugliest and chromiest, big fins and hotrod flames, and just gorgeous, inspiring, metal boxes on rubber tires, that swell up a passion in the hearts of Detroiters.
But Mildred's husband didn't die a year ago last week. Not that she wanted him to die -- far from it -- but now and then... she allows herself a sigh. The skilled care nursing home costs $15,000 a month. That's $180,000 just for this last year.
You see, Mildred and her husband made two big mistakes in their lives. They worked hard. And they made some money. Not millions. Just some. She was a homemaker; he was a successful whatever. And he had the Detroiter's love of old cars and classic cars which he spent some of his money on.
Now Mildred is trying to sell off the old cars. Medicare doesn't help people with more then one car. Medicare doesn't help much with skilled nursing homes anyway, but it especially won't help people that still have some of what they worked so hard for. So Mildred has been trying to sell a lot of their stuff that was meant to bring pleasure in their golden years. Cars, a boat, all the toys. Unfortunately, classic cars that he put so much time and money into won't sell for even a portion of his investments. Mildred is confused. She thought they had done so well for themselves. How rich do you have to be to earn comfort in your old age? How rich do you have to be? Isn't that the question?
There have always been division markers between the privileged and the peons. Cavemen leaders got to eat first. Middle Age rich and powerful got the private bedrooms while the rest of the village slept in common areas. In the early twentieth century, it was dental care (although if you watch BBC programs you'll notice that is more an American perk). Our union benefits and welfare programs gave the majority of people an opportunity to keep their teeth healthy.
Now, here we are at the beginning of the twenty-first century and most of us (peons) have decent homes, private bedrooms, lots of food, although not as nutritious as it used to be, and we have the opportunity to either keep our teeth or at least look like we did.
Today, our division markers are manners and behavioral standards. Finishing Schools teach the children of privilege how to behave, how to use etiquette and eye contact, and most important, how to identify members of their own class.
But I fear by the end of the next decade, the new division marker will be aged parents. Only the truly rich and powerful will have access to quality skilled health care for their loved ones. Only the truly rich would even consider spending what it will cost in 20 years to keep a parent alive. It is already starting. Look at poor Mildred. With all their work and planning, selling everything to keep a husband, who will probably never recover, comfortable till the end of his (how many) numbered days.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Quit smoking, start exercising, watch what you eat, and take good care of yourself now, so your spouse and kids won't have to later.
Mildred called. In fact she has been calling me at work for a couple of weeks. I ask her how she is and she tells me. Mildred is not quite 70. Her husband had a debilitating heart attack exactly one year ago last week, at the Woodward Dream Cruise. The Cruise has become The annual celebration of Motown's best known and least known, ugliest and chromiest, big fins and hotrod flames, and just gorgeous, inspiring, metal boxes on rubber tires, that swell up a passion in the hearts of Detroiters.
But Mildred's husband didn't die a year ago last week. Not that she wanted him to die -- far from it -- but now and then... she allows herself a sigh. The skilled care nursing home costs $15,000 a month. That's $180,000 just for this last year.
You see, Mildred and her husband made two big mistakes in their lives. They worked hard. And they made some money. Not millions. Just some. She was a homemaker; he was a successful whatever. And he had the Detroiter's love of old cars and classic cars which he spent some of his money on.
Now Mildred is trying to sell off the old cars. Medicare doesn't help people with more then one car. Medicare doesn't help much with skilled nursing homes anyway, but it especially won't help people that still have some of what they worked so hard for. So Mildred has been trying to sell a lot of their stuff that was meant to bring pleasure in their golden years. Cars, a boat, all the toys. Unfortunately, classic cars that he put so much time and money into won't sell for even a portion of his investments. Mildred is confused. She thought they had done so well for themselves. How rich do you have to be to earn comfort in your old age? How rich do you have to be? Isn't that the question?
There have always been division markers between the privileged and the peons. Cavemen leaders got to eat first. Middle Age rich and powerful got the private bedrooms while the rest of the village slept in common areas. In the early twentieth century, it was dental care (although if you watch BBC programs you'll notice that is more an American perk). Our union benefits and welfare programs gave the majority of people an opportunity to keep their teeth healthy.
Now, here we are at the beginning of the twenty-first century and most of us (peons) have decent homes, private bedrooms, lots of food, although not as nutritious as it used to be, and we have the opportunity to either keep our teeth or at least look like we did.
Today, our division markers are manners and behavioral standards. Finishing Schools teach the children of privilege how to behave, how to use etiquette and eye contact, and most important, how to identify members of their own class.
But I fear by the end of the next decade, the new division marker will be aged parents. Only the truly rich and powerful will have access to quality skilled health care for their loved ones. Only the truly rich would even consider spending what it will cost in 20 years to keep a parent alive. It is already starting. Look at poor Mildred. With all their work and planning, selling everything to keep a husband, who will probably never recover, comfortable till the end of his (how many) numbered days.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Quit smoking, start exercising, watch what you eat, and take good care of yourself now, so your spouse and kids won't have to later.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Place Title Here
President Bush had a commercial toting the fact that there are two new democracies in the Olympics. Lately, I have been thinking about all of the freedoms we have now, and how someone at our back door is wanting to take them away. There are many "biggies" on my list -- freedom to vote in a democratic society, freedoms accorded to womanhood (since I am a member), freedom of the press, freedom to be stupid (oops, that's part of freedom of the press), and last but not least, the freedom of religion that has some so angered. I am as awed as any foreign visitor at our nation's diverse people with so many different religions living together peacefully.
So why are we supporting governments that eliminate this essential freedom?
In my newspaper today, buried in the back, is a blurb on Israel's treatment of Christians. The Christian leaders in Jerusalem say that the Israeli government is causing an "unprecedented crisis in their ability to minister to the faithful, maintain holy sites and help the needy". By delaying to issue work permits and residence visas to Christian clergy and church volunteers from abroad and by taxing church properties (change to decades long practice), the Israeli government is trying to take over land occupied for centuries by Christian institutes.
Genocide by Arab militias was first practiced in the Sudan against Christians, but now has spread to all black villagers in Darfur. Where were we then or now in helping to end this violence? Is it so wrong of us to stand up not only against violence, but also against religious persecution? Has this become such a dirty word when the United States government makes this statement, but not when other countries make their statements in the name of state-sponsored religion?
Surely, with our powerful world influence, we could reduce or eliminate aid to a country that is eliminating one of these basic rights. It would restore some of my faith in our nation's fairness if freedom of religion was counted as a prerequisite to counting the numbers of democracies.
President Bush had a commercial toting the fact that there are two new democracies in the Olympics. Lately, I have been thinking about all of the freedoms we have now, and how someone at our back door is wanting to take them away. There are many "biggies" on my list -- freedom to vote in a democratic society, freedoms accorded to womanhood (since I am a member), freedom of the press, freedom to be stupid (oops, that's part of freedom of the press), and last but not least, the freedom of religion that has some so angered. I am as awed as any foreign visitor at our nation's diverse people with so many different religions living together peacefully.
So why are we supporting governments that eliminate this essential freedom?
In my newspaper today, buried in the back, is a blurb on Israel's treatment of Christians. The Christian leaders in Jerusalem say that the Israeli government is causing an "unprecedented crisis in their ability to minister to the faithful, maintain holy sites and help the needy". By delaying to issue work permits and residence visas to Christian clergy and church volunteers from abroad and by taxing church properties (change to decades long practice), the Israeli government is trying to take over land occupied for centuries by Christian institutes.
Genocide by Arab militias was first practiced in the Sudan against Christians, but now has spread to all black villagers in Darfur. Where were we then or now in helping to end this violence? Is it so wrong of us to stand up not only against violence, but also against religious persecution? Has this become such a dirty word when the United States government makes this statement, but not when other countries make their statements in the name of state-sponsored religion?
Surely, with our powerful world influence, we could reduce or eliminate aid to a country that is eliminating one of these basic rights. It would restore some of my faith in our nation's fairness if freedom of religion was counted as a prerequisite to counting the numbers of democracies.
