Rudy Giuliani - Married Three Times, Pro Abortion, Cross Dresser BUT HE CAN KEEP YOU SAFE.
Ahem ... Like he kept New York City safe on September 11, 2001.
"They [Democrats] do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said. But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."
Giuliani didn't mention that it was a Republican who was mayor of NYC when the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, a Republican who should have anticipated terrorism because of the first WTC attack in 1993, a Republican who was him.
Giuliani also didn't mention that a Republican was in the White House when 9/11 happened, a Republican who had all but had a warning memo pinned to his shirt, that guy happened to be the President.
Giuliani also forgets to mention that Congress was also controlled by Republicans when America was attacked on 9/11.
So what was that again about Republicans anticipating terror and preventing it? I forgot.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Buying The War Or Selling The War?
Last night PBS aired what is perhaps the most important documentary about the Mainstream Media, it's interaction with the Bush Administration and how they helped push the American people into an unnecessary war with Iraq.
Buying The War takes an extensive look at the role journalist played in the run up to the war and their failure to even investigate the Bush Administrations claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or their claims of an Iraqi connection to 9/11.
Instead the media became lapdogs where traditionally they were watchdogs. Gone was the investigative efforts and cynicism that used to be present during the Nixon and Clinton years.
In the emotional aftermath of 9/11 journalist let their patriotism, instead of their logic lead them.
Instead of investigating any of the claims being made by the Bush Administration or taking seriously the evidence contrary to the Bush Administration claims, the feeling was that no one wanted to "question a popular 'wartime' President".
How could the Mainstream Media ignore the implications of scripted press conferences where only "friendly" journalist were allowed to ask questions like "How is your faith guiding you?" instead of "So where are those WMD's you have been telling us about?"
Any ruler knows one of the most important steps to becoming an absolute authority is to have control over the Press and the Press let themselves be put under the spell of George W. Bush and therefore became a failure to our Free Press.
Listen to this statement by former member of the allegedly Liberal media, Dan Rather:
"George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions and you know, as just one American wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."
I think it's fair to say that this is the way all the journalist were feeling after 9/11, raw emotion coupled with blind patriotism.
Truth, accountability and objectivity was no longer important to journalist, subservience to the President was, showing what a patriotic bootlicker was what was really important. It was a new order in which the Press was no longer independent from the government.
Journalist who stepped out of the official line were quickly attacked by what many have referred to as the "Patriotism Police".
The documentary illustrates a complete failure of our so called Free Press, who hold at least some culpability in persuading the American people to go to war by failing to be objective and failing to investigate claims being made - all out of fear of having their patriotism questioned.
What else can be noted is that all the neoconservative warhawk pundits who are calling themselves "experts" who claimed "We would be greeted as liberators" and "there are WMD's in Iraq" and that "there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq" are still being giving platforms on televisions, even after all of their fervent beliefs have been proven to be false.
Several journalist were skeptical of claims being made by the Bush Administration but they were not given the same spotlight as those who were beating the drum for war.
Furthermore it wasn't like the evidence contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming was very hard to find.
Time after time independent journalist and journalist outside the "beltway bubble" released reports contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming but the Mainstream Media failed to pick it up or research the claims themselves.
I can't possibly do this documentary any justice by blogging about it, you have to watch it to believe it. The amount of details and information provided by Bill Moyers is impossible to condense into a blog.
The failure of the Mainstream Media becomes painfully obvious in hindsight when watching the documentary, which is a "must see" for any critic of the Mainstream Media or the Iraq War.
For broadband users the video can be watched at this link.
For dial up users a transcript can be read at this link.
After watching the documentary one realizes how easy it is for the Media to be wrong on the facts but rally for war anyway.
One also realizes there are still several journalist who are under the control of the "Patriotism Police".
Last night PBS aired what is perhaps the most important documentary about the Mainstream Media, it's interaction with the Bush Administration and how they helped push the American people into an unnecessary war with Iraq.
Buying The War takes an extensive look at the role journalist played in the run up to the war and their failure to even investigate the Bush Administrations claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or their claims of an Iraqi connection to 9/11.
Instead the media became lapdogs where traditionally they were watchdogs. Gone was the investigative efforts and cynicism that used to be present during the Nixon and Clinton years.
In the emotional aftermath of 9/11 journalist let their patriotism, instead of their logic lead them.
Instead of investigating any of the claims being made by the Bush Administration or taking seriously the evidence contrary to the Bush Administration claims, the feeling was that no one wanted to "question a popular 'wartime' President".
How could the Mainstream Media ignore the implications of scripted press conferences where only "friendly" journalist were allowed to ask questions like "How is your faith guiding you?" instead of "So where are those WMD's you have been telling us about?"
Any ruler knows one of the most important steps to becoming an absolute authority is to have control over the Press and the Press let themselves be put under the spell of George W. Bush and therefore became a failure to our Free Press.
Listen to this statement by former member of the allegedly Liberal media, Dan Rather:
"George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions and you know, as just one American wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."
I think it's fair to say that this is the way all the journalist were feeling after 9/11, raw emotion coupled with blind patriotism.
Truth, accountability and objectivity was no longer important to journalist, subservience to the President was, showing what a patriotic bootlicker was what was really important. It was a new order in which the Press was no longer independent from the government.
Journalist who stepped out of the official line were quickly attacked by what many have referred to as the "Patriotism Police".
The documentary illustrates a complete failure of our so called Free Press, who hold at least some culpability in persuading the American people to go to war by failing to be objective and failing to investigate claims being made - all out of fear of having their patriotism questioned.
What else can be noted is that all the neoconservative warhawk pundits who are calling themselves "experts" who claimed "We would be greeted as liberators" and "there are WMD's in Iraq" and that "there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq" are still being giving platforms on televisions, even after all of their fervent beliefs have been proven to be false.
Several journalist were skeptical of claims being made by the Bush Administration but they were not given the same spotlight as those who were beating the drum for war.
Furthermore it wasn't like the evidence contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming was very hard to find.
Time after time independent journalist and journalist outside the "beltway bubble" released reports contrary to what the Bush Administration was claiming but the Mainstream Media failed to pick it up or research the claims themselves.
I can't possibly do this documentary any justice by blogging about it, you have to watch it to believe it. The amount of details and information provided by Bill Moyers is impossible to condense into a blog.
The failure of the Mainstream Media becomes painfully obvious in hindsight when watching the documentary, which is a "must see" for any critic of the Mainstream Media or the Iraq War.
For broadband users the video can be watched at this link.
For dial up users a transcript can be read at this link.
After watching the documentary one realizes how easy it is for the Media to be wrong on the facts but rally for war anyway.
One also realizes there are still several journalist who are under the control of the "Patriotism Police".
Senate OK's War Bill With Timeline, Bush Job Ratings Lowest Ever - 28%
AP Reports : "A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war."
We also know by the recent elections and polls that the American people themselves want to start redeploying from Iraq sooner than later.
Now, we know that this bill will most likely be vetoed by President Bush, but what does this mean about the President?
Why does the President refuse to authorize money for the troops? The President is the man who is holding our troops hostage by refusing to cooperate with the will of the Congress and of the American people.
Is it because his pride is more important to him than the welfare of the troops? By signing the bill does the President feel as if he is acknowledging his mistakes in Iraq and his failure as a commander in chief?
President Bush has an approval rating of 28%, a full 11 points lower than Richard Nixon's 39% approval rating during the height of the Watergate scandal.
But you can't expect that to have an effect on the President. He will continue to be the same bullheaded and arrogant man who got us into this unnecessary mess in Iraq in the first place.
Now we will move into showdown mode with the 28% of loyal Bushies eager to take on the rest of the country to either force us into staying in the Iraq War or scare us into staying in the Iraq War.
This President was very interested in starting this war, but has little interest in ending this war.
AP Reports : "A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war."
We also know by the recent elections and polls that the American people themselves want to start redeploying from Iraq sooner than later.
Now, we know that this bill will most likely be vetoed by President Bush, but what does this mean about the President?
Why does the President refuse to authorize money for the troops? The President is the man who is holding our troops hostage by refusing to cooperate with the will of the Congress and of the American people.
Is it because his pride is more important to him than the welfare of the troops? By signing the bill does the President feel as if he is acknowledging his mistakes in Iraq and his failure as a commander in chief?
President Bush has an approval rating of 28%, a full 11 points lower than Richard Nixon's 39% approval rating during the height of the Watergate scandal.
But you can't expect that to have an effect on the President. He will continue to be the same bullheaded and arrogant man who got us into this unnecessary mess in Iraq in the first place.
Now we will move into showdown mode with the 28% of loyal Bushies eager to take on the rest of the country to either force us into staying in the Iraq War or scare us into staying in the Iraq War.
This President was very interested in starting this war, but has little interest in ending this war.
Quick Note : It's easy to claim sectarian violence has been reduced, when your no longer counting suicide and car bombings in the equation. Welcome to Oceania folks.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Subpoenas Issued For Condoleezza Rice And RNC Emails
Condoleezza Rice could have avoided avoided all of this.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman has written several letters to Condoleezza Rice requesting information regarding the Bush administration's pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein's goals of seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Rice has either refused or failed to respond to the letters, eleven in total.
So Waxman tried to write Rice again on March 12, 2007, after he had become committee chairman. Waxman requested that Rice at least respond to his letter by March 23. Rice refused or failed to respond and now it is over a month after the request for response deadline.
Condolezza Rice could have avoided this, bur failed or refused to.
Subpoenas were also issued for the Republican National Committee for emails and testimony regarding emails White House officials sent threw RNC email accounts that are now said to be missing.
The White House and the RNC could have avoided all of this.
One way this could have been avoided was if the White House would have refrained from trying to politicize the justice system and the RNC had not been complicit in trying to cover it up.
Furthermore, the White House should not have been using GOP-provided, nongovernmental email accounts to avoid complying with Federal law, which requires the preservation of all electronic communications sent or received by White House staff.
Related :
- Who Is Behind The 4 Years Of "Missing" Karl Rove Emails?
- Dems vote subpoenas in widening probes
- House panels vote subpoenas, immunity in probes on prosecutors, war, political activity
Condoleezza Rice could have avoided avoided all of this.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman has written several letters to Condoleezza Rice requesting information regarding the Bush administration's pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein's goals of seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Rice has either refused or failed to respond to the letters, eleven in total.
So Waxman tried to write Rice again on March 12, 2007, after he had become committee chairman. Waxman requested that Rice at least respond to his letter by March 23. Rice refused or failed to respond and now it is over a month after the request for response deadline.
Condolezza Rice could have avoided this, bur failed or refused to.
Subpoenas were also issued for the Republican National Committee for emails and testimony regarding emails White House officials sent threw RNC email accounts that are now said to be missing.
The White House and the RNC could have avoided all of this.
One way this could have been avoided was if the White House would have refrained from trying to politicize the justice system and the RNC had not been complicit in trying to cover it up.
Furthermore, the White House should not have been using GOP-provided, nongovernmental email accounts to avoid complying with Federal law, which requires the preservation of all electronic communications sent or received by White House staff.
Related :
- Who Is Behind The 4 Years Of "Missing" Karl Rove Emails?
- Dems vote subpoenas in widening probes
- House panels vote subpoenas, immunity in probes on prosecutors, war, political activity
If You Judge My Actions, You Let The Terrorist Win
"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings," President Bush said in an interview on PBS "we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory." and those who "judge the administration’s plan" have "just given Al Qaeda or any other extremist a significant victories."
If the standard of success is not based on the number of bombings carried out then what the hell else can success be based on?!? Should we base success in Iraq on the number of sunny days opposed to the numbers of civilians dieing in bombings?
Was Bush's brain even in the "on" position, or what?
The statement is such a black is white up is down statement that I think I need to read 1984 to better understand it.
Let me be the first to ask : How could success not be based on the number of bombings carried out? Success has to be measured in levels of violence because violence is the problem!
Wasn't the goal of the "surge" to reduce the violence in the first place? So tell me again how it's working and tell me again how more bombings means more success.
The whole "if you judge my plan you let the terrorist win" line is getting a little old, it's yet another attempt to deflect criticism for a plan that still has not proven itself to be viable.
Source of George W. Bush quote : Think Progress
"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings," President Bush said in an interview on PBS "we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory." and those who "judge the administration’s plan" have "just given Al Qaeda or any other extremist a significant victories."
If the standard of success is not based on the number of bombings carried out then what the hell else can success be based on?!? Should we base success in Iraq on the number of sunny days opposed to the numbers of civilians dieing in bombings?
Was Bush's brain even in the "on" position, or what?
The statement is such a black is white up is down statement that I think I need to read 1984 to better understand it.
Let me be the first to ask : How could success not be based on the number of bombings carried out? Success has to be measured in levels of violence because violence is the problem!
Wasn't the goal of the "surge" to reduce the violence in the first place? So tell me again how it's working and tell me again how more bombings means more success.
The whole "if you judge my plan you let the terrorist win" line is getting a little old, it's yet another attempt to deflect criticism for a plan that still has not proven itself to be viable.
Source of George W. Bush quote : Think Progress
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
ABC Gets It Wrong On Tillman
Is this ABC article poorly researched or deliberately misleading?
Tillman's Fictional Heroic Death: Did Bush Know?
Did Bush know? Did Bush know?!?
Back in March The Associated Press reported that :
"Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press."
So did Bush know? That's a ridiculous question.
The President had been informed that Pat Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire and decided to take advantage of the story of a real American hero in order to rally support around the war and perhaps to divert attention away from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.
Is this ABC article poorly researched or deliberately misleading?
Tillman's Fictional Heroic Death: Did Bush Know?
Did Bush know? Did Bush know?!?
Back in March The Associated Press reported that :
"Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press."
So did Bush know? That's a ridiculous question.
The President had been informed that Pat Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire and decided to take advantage of the story of a real American hero in order to rally support around the war and perhaps to divert attention away from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.
The Iraq War Veterans Bush Doesn't Want You To See
The Iraq War veterans Americans are accustomed to seeing are the ones who serve as a backdrop to the Presidents photo opportunities, not veterans who are in disagreement with the handling of the war and the recent troop build up.
VideoVets is a new project from MoveOn.Org which is using the power of the Internet to spread the message of several Iraq war veterans and their families to homes across the country.
Their stories are moving, inspirational and informative.
These are the Iraq War veterans that the President doesn't want you to see, the ones who disagree with him.
It takes a lot of courage for anyone to speak truth to power, and likewise it takes a tremendous amount of courage for Iraq war veterans to stand up and voice their opposition to the current situation in Iraq and the circumstances that brought us there.
There are those who have argued from the beginning that to question the President is to undermine the troops and that the President should not be criticized in a time of war. They have forgotten the words that were written by a member of their own political party.
Former President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican once wrote :
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
That is also the quote that came to mind when hearing the following words from Michael Breen, a Veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
[...]
"So I think the best way to support the troops is to exercise the very democratic process that they signed up to defend. And very frequently people say - to argue against the administration is to not support the troops are people who have never served in combat, never heard a shot fired in anger, and frankly that personally offends me."
In a separate video Iraq War veteran John Bruhns stated " I feel used and misled by the administration."
Garret Reppenhagen who was a sniper in Iraq had this to say :
[...]
"It was always hard to keep the moral up and stay encouraged to do the mission. It's just a ridiculous idea to say that calling for a withdrawal is not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is making responsible decisions for the troops safety and use them when it's only necessary, that's supporting the troops."
Shelly Burgoyne served two tours of duty in Iraq and her husband is currently serving in Iraq. She is opposed to the troop build up.
The Iraq War veterans Americans are accustomed to seeing are the ones who serve as a backdrop to the Presidents photo opportunities, not veterans who are in disagreement with the handling of the war and the recent troop build up.
VideoVets is a new project from MoveOn.Org which is using the power of the Internet to spread the message of several Iraq war veterans and their families to homes across the country.
Their stories are moving, inspirational and informative.
These are the Iraq War veterans that the President doesn't want you to see, the ones who disagree with him.
It takes a lot of courage for anyone to speak truth to power, and likewise it takes a tremendous amount of courage for Iraq war veterans to stand up and voice their opposition to the current situation in Iraq and the circumstances that brought us there.
There are those who have argued from the beginning that to question the President is to undermine the troops and that the President should not be criticized in a time of war. They have forgotten the words that were written by a member of their own political party.
Former President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican once wrote :
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
That is also the quote that came to mind when hearing the following words from Michael Breen, a Veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
[...]
"So I think the best way to support the troops is to exercise the very democratic process that they signed up to defend. And very frequently people say - to argue against the administration is to not support the troops are people who have never served in combat, never heard a shot fired in anger, and frankly that personally offends me."
In a separate video Iraq War veteran John Bruhns stated " I feel used and misled by the administration."
Garret Reppenhagen who was a sniper in Iraq had this to say :
VideoVets: Garret Reppenhagen
[...]
"It was always hard to keep the moral up and stay encouraged to do the mission. It's just a ridiculous idea to say that calling for a withdrawal is not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is making responsible decisions for the troops safety and use them when it's only necessary, that's supporting the troops."
Shelly Burgoyne served two tours of duty in Iraq and her husband is currently serving in Iraq. She is opposed to the troop build up.
"I love the Army and am proud to have served in it, but I can no longer ignore the truth."
[...]
"At this point we stand unable to respond to any military conflict or any domestic disaster. Escalation of the war in Iraq is not Republican it is not Democrat, it is simply tactically and morally irresponsible. That is why I a veteran stand with Move On and Vote Vets and oppose the escalation of the war in Iraq."
If you are a blogger and want to blog about VideoVets visit this link for promo graphics and coding. You can also visit this link for the codes to embed any of the videos on your blog.
You can visit the VideoVets site and watch all videos at this link and vote for which one you would like to see made into a commercial.
Iraq Blast Kills 9 GIs, Injures 20 At Outpost
Washington Post Reports :
A suicide bomber rammed an explosives-rigged truck into a U.S. military outpost near Baqubah on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 in one of the deadliest single ground attacks on U.S. forces since the start of the war in Iraq, military officials said early Tuesday.
Read Full Story
Washington Post Reports :
A suicide bomber rammed an explosives-rigged truck into a U.S. military outpost near Baqubah on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 in one of the deadliest single ground attacks on U.S. forces since the start of the war in Iraq, military officials said early Tuesday.
Read Full Story
What Would Fascism Look Like In America?
As Americans we are born with what we believe is an inherent right to freedom and we mistakenly believe that this freedom can never be restricted or taken away.
As Americans we tend to place an enormous amount of trust into our system of "checks and balances" not realizing how easy it is for that system to be upset and replaced by a doctrine of strict interpretation and a system of unlimited executive power.
When we do suspect a suppression of our freedom [i.e. The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act, aka the "Enabling Act"] we attempt to dismiss these power grabs as being "for our safety" or "best interest" but is this actually true?
Even if the current Administration does not outright abuse it's power (as many will argue they have) there is no guarantee that a future administration will not seize upon the executive powers the Bush Administration has created.
With that written I would like to bring readers attention to a recent article titled "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" in which the author opens with the words "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all."
The article is very insightful and I believe it is well researched. The author provides numerous examples for the reasoning used in the article and is a must read for any American who is concerned that this great experiment could fail as a result mishandling and abuses of power.
The author identifies 10 steps any regime must take in order to abolish freedoms and descend into a nondemocratic nation. Each step has a thorough explanation of how the Bush Administration has met the "required" guidelines necessary to introduce a fascist state.
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Read the full article "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" at this link to read the explanations behind how the Bush Administration has met the 10 steps above.
As Americans we are born with what we believe is an inherent right to freedom and we mistakenly believe that this freedom can never be restricted or taken away.
As Americans we tend to place an enormous amount of trust into our system of "checks and balances" not realizing how easy it is for that system to be upset and replaced by a doctrine of strict interpretation and a system of unlimited executive power.
When we do suspect a suppression of our freedom [i.e. The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act, aka the "Enabling Act"] we attempt to dismiss these power grabs as being "for our safety" or "best interest" but is this actually true?
Even if the current Administration does not outright abuse it's power (as many will argue they have) there is no guarantee that a future administration will not seize upon the executive powers the Bush Administration has created.
With that written I would like to bring readers attention to a recent article titled "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" in which the author opens with the words "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all."
The article is very insightful and I believe it is well researched. The author provides numerous examples for the reasoning used in the article and is a must read for any American who is concerned that this great experiment could fail as a result mishandling and abuses of power.
The author identifies 10 steps any regime must take in order to abolish freedoms and descend into a nondemocratic nation. Each step has a thorough explanation of how the Bush Administration has met the "required" guidelines necessary to introduce a fascist state.
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Read the full article "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" at this link to read the explanations behind how the Bush Administration has met the 10 steps above.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Virgina Tech Coverage Went WAY Overboard
Who knew how many US soldiers died last week? Who knew the Attorney General was a terrible liar that was perhaps guilty of participating in attempting to politicize the justice system? Who knew that an Iraq war veteran, suffering from PTSD took hostages and demanded treatment for his condition?
The mainstream media went way overboard in it's handling of the Virgina Tech massacre. Granted this was the worst shooting in American history, but the media didn't even allow students time to recuperate and heal before heading back to classes this morning.
Before the gunman's body was hauled off campus pundits in America were already getting their digs in and turning a nonpolitical event into a political and media circus. Maybe I should take that back, everything is politcal in America.
Some "kind hearted" pundits in the Right Wing blamed the victims for being victimized, others claimed the answer to gun violence was more guns.
The Mainstream Media went to outlandish and may I say stooping levels in trying to gain interviews with students, such as infiltrating the realm of Facebook and trying to recruit interviews by posting messages and sending repeated emails to students, some of which got fed up who then posted themselves that the MSM should stop trying to contact them.
If the 24/7 news reel of misery and exploitation last week did not prove the MSM has gone too far, then maybe the fact that Virginia Techs student government has asked that all journalists leave campus by 5 a.m. this morning should.
Let's give these students some time to recover and gather their thoughts, they have a life to go on with and it is doubtful they want their tragedy to be exploited so the mainstream media can get ratings.
Developing Politics Of Virgina Tech Shooting
The Republicans are desperate to discuss anything other than Iraq and Bush, and that is part of the reason why they are so eager to discuss something on grounds they are more comfortable with and have substantial support on, like lack of gun control.
If Republicans are able to keep the American people's attention focused on things like Virginia Tech and gun control then they are successful at keeping the American people's attention diverted away from the Iraq War and the embattled President Bush.
We cannot let the incident at Virgina Tech outweigh or outshine the ongoing events in Iraq and the Bush Administration. Nor can we allow the Republicans to use this incident as a red herring to distract us from issues that are forgivably more essential for the long term prosperity of America.
Who knew how many US soldiers died last week? Who knew the Attorney General was a terrible liar that was perhaps guilty of participating in attempting to politicize the justice system? Who knew that an Iraq war veteran, suffering from PTSD took hostages and demanded treatment for his condition?
The mainstream media went way overboard in it's handling of the Virgina Tech massacre. Granted this was the worst shooting in American history, but the media didn't even allow students time to recuperate and heal before heading back to classes this morning.
Before the gunman's body was hauled off campus pundits in America were already getting their digs in and turning a nonpolitical event into a political and media circus. Maybe I should take that back, everything is politcal in America.
Some "kind hearted" pundits in the Right Wing blamed the victims for being victimized, others claimed the answer to gun violence was more guns.
The Mainstream Media went to outlandish and may I say stooping levels in trying to gain interviews with students, such as infiltrating the realm of Facebook and trying to recruit interviews by posting messages and sending repeated emails to students, some of which got fed up who then posted themselves that the MSM should stop trying to contact them.
If the 24/7 news reel of misery and exploitation last week did not prove the MSM has gone too far, then maybe the fact that Virginia Techs student government has asked that all journalists leave campus by 5 a.m. this morning should.
Let's give these students some time to recover and gather their thoughts, they have a life to go on with and it is doubtful they want their tragedy to be exploited so the mainstream media can get ratings.
Developing Politics Of Virgina Tech Shooting
The Republicans are desperate to discuss anything other than Iraq and Bush, and that is part of the reason why they are so eager to discuss something on grounds they are more comfortable with and have substantial support on, like lack of gun control.
If Republicans are able to keep the American people's attention focused on things like Virginia Tech and gun control then they are successful at keeping the American people's attention diverted away from the Iraq War and the embattled President Bush.
We cannot let the incident at Virgina Tech outweigh or outshine the ongoing events in Iraq and the Bush Administration. Nor can we allow the Republicans to use this incident as a red herring to distract us from issues that are forgivably more essential for the long term prosperity of America.
Friday, April 20, 2007
U.S. walls off Baghdad neighborhood
AP reports :
U.S. soldiers are building a three-mile wall to protect a Sunni Arab enclave surrounded by Shiite neighborhoods in a Baghdad area "trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation," the military said.
Read Full Story
Related :
Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad
UPDATE :
The New York Times reports :
"The wall has already drawn intense criticism from residents of the neighborhood, who say that it will increase sectarian tensions"
[...]
"A doctor in Adhamiya, Abu Hassan, said the wall would transform the residents into caged animals.
“It’s unbelievable that they treat us in such an inhumane manner,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re trying to isolate us from other parts of Baghdad. The hatred will be much greater between the two sects.”
[...]
“The Americans and Iraqi government should be able to control it.” without building a wall, he said
"This is good if it is temporary, to help the area with security problems. But if this wall stays for the long term, it will be a catastrophe for the residents and will restrict our movements," said Ibrahim, an Azamiyah resident who works at the Interior Ministry."
UPDATE : Al-Maliki: No Wall in Baghdad Community
AP reports :
U.S. soldiers are building a three-mile wall to protect a Sunni Arab enclave surrounded by Shiite neighborhoods in a Baghdad area "trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation," the military said.
Read Full Story
Related :
Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad
UPDATE :
The New York Times reports :
"The wall has already drawn intense criticism from residents of the neighborhood, who say that it will increase sectarian tensions"
[...]
"A doctor in Adhamiya, Abu Hassan, said the wall would transform the residents into caged animals.
“It’s unbelievable that they treat us in such an inhumane manner,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re trying to isolate us from other parts of Baghdad. The hatred will be much greater between the two sects.”
[...]
“The Americans and Iraqi government should be able to control it.” without building a wall, he said
The AP reports that Sunni residents are complaining, calling the wall "collective punishment", saying the construction was begun without the neighborhood council approval.
"This will make the whole district a prison. This is collective punishment on the residents of Azamiyah," said Ahmed al-Dulaimi, a 41-year-old engineer who lives in the area.
[...]
"Khalid Ibrahim, 45, said the Americans were working hard to divide Baghdad's neighborhoods _ something he said he wasn't sure was a good thing."This is good if it is temporary, to help the area with security problems. But if this wall stays for the long term, it will be a catastrophe for the residents and will restrict our movements," said Ibrahim, an Azamiyah resident who works at the Interior Ministry."
UPDATE : Al-Maliki: No Wall in Baghdad Community
Alberto Gonzoles Fails To Convince His Critics
- The Attorney General's "Tremendous Credibility Problem"
- GOP Senator Calls for Gonzales to Resign
- Gonzales Lied To Senator About Plan To Install Rove Protege As U.S. Attorney
- Attorney general doesn't satisfy critics
- Alberto Gonzales is bloodied by his trip to the Senate
- The Attorney General's "Tremendous Credibility Problem"
- GOP Senator Calls for Gonzales to Resign
- Gonzales Lied To Senator About Plan To Install Rove Protege As U.S. Attorney
- Attorney general doesn't satisfy critics
- Alberto Gonzales is bloodied by his trip to the Senate
Thursday, April 19, 2007
1,001 Ways To Say "I Don't Remember"
No one wants to see an innocent man get hung, but no one wants to see a guilty man go unrestrained either.
I'm going to have to read the transcripts more than once after the hearing is finished before I can come to my own conclusion. Initial impressions of the first part of the hearing are below.
Republican Senator Arlen Spector told Gonzales near the beginning of his hearing that “I’d like you to win this debate, but you’re going to have to win it.”
Indeed, for someone who spent weeks preparing to testify Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seemed ill prepared for the hearing.
-"I have no recollection of how that occurred."
-"I don't recall."
-"I don't recollect."
-"I'm having trouble recalling."
-"I don't recall being aware"
and my personal favorite - "I don't recall remembering."
And any other combination of words that can express a person not remembering something.
Over 50 times before the lunch break Gonzales claimed that he had no memory of events that had transpired surrounding the forced resignations of US attorneys.
For someone who is in charge of the Justice Department Alberto Gonzales seemed to know and recollect remarkably little about what was happening in the Justice Department and what he did or didn't do or when he did or didn't do it.
Does Gonzales have that bad of a memory? Does he really have that little of involvement at the Justice Department? I find all that pretty hard to believe, and if his memory is that bad I can hardly see how he is fit to serve in such a high office.
Furthermore it was painful and confusing trying to listen to Gonzales explain himself. Many of his own statements seemed to contradict and eat themselves reminding me of "doublespeak".
To risk sounding presumptuous it does appear at times (specifically in his interaction with California Democrat Diane Feinstein) as if Gonzales is playing dumb and stalling for time. After all Gonzales is an attorney so he knows all the tactics. He also knows that each member only has a limited amount of time to question him.
We are getting nowhere slowly.
The hearing was expected to resume at 2 PM. You can watch it on this link at C-SPAN.
No one wants to see an innocent man get hung, but no one wants to see a guilty man go unrestrained either.
I'm going to have to read the transcripts more than once after the hearing is finished before I can come to my own conclusion. Initial impressions of the first part of the hearing are below.
Republican Senator Arlen Spector told Gonzales near the beginning of his hearing that “I’d like you to win this debate, but you’re going to have to win it.”
Indeed, for someone who spent weeks preparing to testify Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seemed ill prepared for the hearing.
-"I have no recollection of how that occurred."
-"I don't recall."
-"I don't recollect."
-"I'm having trouble recalling."
-"I don't recall being aware"
and my personal favorite - "I don't recall remembering."
And any other combination of words that can express a person not remembering something.
Over 50 times before the lunch break Gonzales claimed that he had no memory of events that had transpired surrounding the forced resignations of US attorneys.
For someone who is in charge of the Justice Department Alberto Gonzales seemed to know and recollect remarkably little about what was happening in the Justice Department and what he did or didn't do or when he did or didn't do it.
Does Gonzales have that bad of a memory? Does he really have that little of involvement at the Justice Department? I find all that pretty hard to believe, and if his memory is that bad I can hardly see how he is fit to serve in such a high office.
Furthermore it was painful and confusing trying to listen to Gonzales explain himself. Many of his own statements seemed to contradict and eat themselves reminding me of "doublespeak".
To risk sounding presumptuous it does appear at times (specifically in his interaction with California Democrat Diane Feinstein) as if Gonzales is playing dumb and stalling for time. After all Gonzales is an attorney so he knows all the tactics. He also knows that each member only has a limited amount of time to question him.
We are getting nowhere slowly.
The hearing was expected to resume at 2 PM. You can watch it on this link at C-SPAN.
Gonzales Does The Double Talk Dance
Watch the Gonzales hearing at C-Span 3.
Gonzales has already contradicted himself several times.
Developing ...
Watch the Gonzales hearing at C-Span 3.
Gonzales has already contradicted himself several times.
Developing ...
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Blaming Victims For Their Victimhood Is Disgraceful And Tasteless
I don't know if a John Derbyshire is the name of tractor equipment or the name of a blogger ... I guess I am not as familiar with the garden variety right wing scumbags that make their natural habitat on the Planet Earth as I should be.
The guy with the tractor name, John Derbyshire wrote the following of the young men and woman who experienced the recent massacre at Virginia Tech :
"As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22."
Is this self admitted chickenhawk actually suggested these students (students, not trained Marines) were supposed to "rush the guy" who was shooting at them?
Is he f#cking kidding me? Human beings instinctively run away from and not strait towards the maniac who's shooting a gun.
Ahh, but tractor boys insane hyperbole is easily dissected with the single statement "Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals"
Oh, I get it. Wet-pants is afraid that gun laws might change in wake of this tragedy and he thinks students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. The man is clearly a genius if your comparing his intelligence to that of an earthworm.
"At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands." Dipshitshire writes.
Oh yeah, because we all know how many bullets are in a clip because were all just rootin' tootin' cowboys.
"I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat." - Derbyshire
That's probably because he's shortsighted.
"I doubt this guy was any better than I am." - Derbyshire
He was "good enough" to kill over 30 people.
"And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad." -Derbyshire
Yeah, because ... you know, bullets don't hurt, that's a Liberal lie!
PS: Dear Derbyshire, before calling yourself a chickenhawk you may want to know there are is more than one definition for the word chickenhawk, neither is good. One definition is one who "advocates military force to carry out a foreign policy but has never served in the military" and the other is "a man who seeks out boys or young men as his sexual partners." Take your pick, Rambo.
The young men and woman who were victims in the Virginia Tech shootings, their friends and their family deserve nothing less than our thoughts and prayers in this time of grief.
UPDATE:
Any number of right wingers are coming out and insulting the young adults who survived this tragedy. I don't care what kind of justification they use, it is tasteless and tactless to attack victims.
Some of the same far right wingers are claiming that if there was not a weapons ban on campus that other students would have had guns and would have been able to "fight back". In other words there could have been a "wild west shootout" instead.
Does anyone seriously think that allowing students to carry weapons on campus is a good idea? That has got to be one of the most insane things I have ever heard in my life.
What was once a fist fight or verbal confrontation would quickly turn deadly if students were allowed to carry guns at school.
Can you imagine the danger and climate of intimidation?
But here the right wing extremist are, advocating that students should be allowed to carry guns in schools, right after a mass school shooting. Crazy.
I don't know if a John Derbyshire is the name of tractor equipment or the name of a blogger ... I guess I am not as familiar with the garden variety right wing scumbags that make their natural habitat on the Planet Earth as I should be.
The guy with the tractor name, John Derbyshire wrote the following of the young men and woman who experienced the recent massacre at Virginia Tech :
"As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22."
Is this self admitted chickenhawk actually suggested these students (students, not trained Marines) were supposed to "rush the guy" who was shooting at them?
Is he f#cking kidding me? Human beings instinctively run away from and not strait towards the maniac who's shooting a gun.
Ahh, but tractor boys insane hyperbole is easily dissected with the single statement "Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals"
Oh, I get it. Wet-pants is afraid that gun laws might change in wake of this tragedy and he thinks students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. The man is clearly a genius if your comparing his intelligence to that of an earthworm.
"At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands." Dipshitshire writes.
Oh yeah, because we all know how many bullets are in a clip because were all just rootin' tootin' cowboys.
"I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat." - Derbyshire
That's probably because he's shortsighted.
"I doubt this guy was any better than I am." - Derbyshire
He was "good enough" to kill over 30 people.
"And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad." -Derbyshire
Yeah, because ... you know, bullets don't hurt, that's a Liberal lie!
PS: Dear Derbyshire, before calling yourself a chickenhawk you may want to know there are is more than one definition for the word chickenhawk, neither is good. One definition is one who "advocates military force to carry out a foreign policy but has never served in the military" and the other is "a man who seeks out boys or young men as his sexual partners." Take your pick, Rambo.
The young men and woman who were victims in the Virginia Tech shootings, their friends and their family deserve nothing less than our thoughts and prayers in this time of grief.
UPDATE:
Any number of right wingers are coming out and insulting the young adults who survived this tragedy. I don't care what kind of justification they use, it is tasteless and tactless to attack victims.
Some of the same far right wingers are claiming that if there was not a weapons ban on campus that other students would have had guns and would have been able to "fight back". In other words there could have been a "wild west shootout" instead.
Does anyone seriously think that allowing students to carry weapons on campus is a good idea? That has got to be one of the most insane things I have ever heard in my life.
What was once a fist fight or verbal confrontation would quickly turn deadly if students were allowed to carry guns at school.
Can you imagine the danger and climate of intimidation?
But here the right wing extremist are, advocating that students should be allowed to carry guns in schools, right after a mass school shooting. Crazy.
I Have Definitive Proof The Surge Is Working
I told you the surge is working ...
- 4 bombs kill 178 people in Baghdad
- 17 Decomposing Bodies Found in Ramadi
- Al-Sadr followers quit Iraq Cabinet posts
Oh, and don't forget the attack on the Iraqi Parliament inside the so called "Green Zone" or the explosions that destroyed a bridge in Baghdad, all of which has happened within the last seven days.
Yeah, things are going real well in Iraq...
I told you the surge is working ...
- 4 bombs kill 178 people in Baghdad
- 17 Decomposing Bodies Found in Ramadi
- Al-Sadr followers quit Iraq Cabinet posts
Oh, and don't forget the attack on the Iraqi Parliament inside the so called "Green Zone" or the explosions that destroyed a bridge in Baghdad, all of which has happened within the last seven days.
Yeah, things are going real well in Iraq...
Defending Imus Is Lame And A Shame
There is a fundamental difference between priviladge and right.
"Economic McCartyism" Ted Rall says of the deposition of the dreadful Don Imus. Well, I never liked Rall's cartoons anyway so it doesn't surprise me he is taking up a losing argument.
Just listen to these crybabies whine about how Don Imus should be allowed to broadcast bigotry that, well, most people just don't want to hear.
So if a rock radio station chooses to quit broadcasting a certain rocker because the listeners find it lame or offensive, is that "economic McCathyism" or is it a rejection of the product?
For one, there is no such thing as "economic McCathyism", it's a made up term for Americans who don't like boycotts on their products. They carry some kind of logic that suggests "Well, I don't care if you don't like my product, I'm going to shove it down your throat anyway."
Imus had the privilege, not the right to be on television and radio.
PRIVILIDGE, NOT RIGHT.
In America, privileges can be taken away, rights cannot be.
Imus may have been exercising his right to free speech by making such inflammatory remarks, but those who condemned his remarks and demanded his ouster were also exercising their right to free speech.
Just because speech is free in this country doesn't mean it is without it's consequences.
Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you have the privilege of being on the television or radio when you say it.
Let's not forget that Proctor & Gamble and Staples pulled advertising from the Imus show before Imus was fired. Once the advertisers start leaving the networks start losing, so let's not beat around the bush here, at the point Imus was more offensive than profitable he was out of a job.
That my friend, is not "economic McCarthyism". Companies have the right to not want their product associated with perceived bigotry and citizens have the right to voice complaints against open bigotry.
Only Don Imus is to blame in the firing of Don Imus. Imus' freedom of speech has not been infringed upon because Congress never made a law against Don Imus or what he said, READ THE CONSTITUTION PEOPLE!!
Imus' privilege of being broadcast by MSNBC and CBS may have been revoked, but his right to freedom of speech has not been revoked.
If Imus can find any advertisers willing to take him on (besides the KKK or Aryan Nation) then I am sure he will again have the privilege of using the airwaves to exercise his right to freedom of speech.
Otherwise Imus needs to get a blog where he can say any old thing he wants or fade into the background for a while and give everyone else some time to cool off.
With that said, people have the right to boycott anything they like, whether it is a product or a person. Products and people can be rejected for any number of reasons, and you can't force people to consume a product or person they don't like.
Don Imus was wrong to say what he said and he paid for his comments with his job. Imus has a long history of making inflammatory remarks about African Americans, Jews, and woman so let's cut it with the rhetoric and freedom of speech conspiracy theories.
There is a fundamental difference between priviladge and right.
"Economic McCartyism" Ted Rall says of the deposition of the dreadful Don Imus. Well, I never liked Rall's cartoons anyway so it doesn't surprise me he is taking up a losing argument.
Just listen to these crybabies whine about how Don Imus should be allowed to broadcast bigotry that, well, most people just don't want to hear.
So if a rock radio station chooses to quit broadcasting a certain rocker because the listeners find it lame or offensive, is that "economic McCathyism" or is it a rejection of the product?
For one, there is no such thing as "economic McCathyism", it's a made up term for Americans who don't like boycotts on their products. They carry some kind of logic that suggests "Well, I don't care if you don't like my product, I'm going to shove it down your throat anyway."
Imus had the privilege, not the right to be on television and radio.
PRIVILIDGE, NOT RIGHT.
In America, privileges can be taken away, rights cannot be.
Imus may have been exercising his right to free speech by making such inflammatory remarks, but those who condemned his remarks and demanded his ouster were also exercising their right to free speech.
Just because speech is free in this country doesn't mean it is without it's consequences.
Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you have the privilege of being on the television or radio when you say it.
Let's not forget that Proctor & Gamble and Staples pulled advertising from the Imus show before Imus was fired. Once the advertisers start leaving the networks start losing, so let's not beat around the bush here, at the point Imus was more offensive than profitable he was out of a job.
That my friend, is not "economic McCarthyism". Companies have the right to not want their product associated with perceived bigotry and citizens have the right to voice complaints against open bigotry.
Only Don Imus is to blame in the firing of Don Imus. Imus' freedom of speech has not been infringed upon because Congress never made a law against Don Imus or what he said, READ THE CONSTITUTION PEOPLE!!
Imus' privilege of being broadcast by MSNBC and CBS may have been revoked, but his right to freedom of speech has not been revoked.
If Imus can find any advertisers willing to take him on (besides the KKK or Aryan Nation) then I am sure he will again have the privilege of using the airwaves to exercise his right to freedom of speech.
Otherwise Imus needs to get a blog where he can say any old thing he wants or fade into the background for a while and give everyone else some time to cool off.
With that said, people have the right to boycott anything they like, whether it is a product or a person. Products and people can be rejected for any number of reasons, and you can't force people to consume a product or person they don't like.
Don Imus was wrong to say what he said and he paid for his comments with his job. Imus has a long history of making inflammatory remarks about African Americans, Jews, and woman so let's cut it with the rhetoric and freedom of speech conspiracy theories.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Tragedy At Virginia Tech - At Least 32 Students Dead After Rampage
Related :
Officials: Gunman dead after bloody campus rampage
Gunman kills 32 in Virginia Tech rampage
My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their friends and family in this time of grief.
UPDATE :
Turns out there were various warning signs that should have sounded alarm bells with the University. The shooter, now identified had raised concerns of a teacher over a year ago with disturbing writing. Furthermore there was an incident with a dorm room fire and increasingly erratic behavior, including stalking young woman and a brief stint in a mental hospital.
Still, he was able to get not one, but two handguns. Nice. Immigrants who have been in mental hospitals can get guns now. Wow, that's ... smart gun control laws for you.
It also looks like the authorities handled the situation in the worst possible way. The first shooting occurred at the Ambler Johnson Dorm where it appears only two people where killed. Authorities only locked down the single building opposed to the entire campus.
This allowed the shooter to go back to his own dorm, reload, write a note and resume his rampage a full two hours later. Over 30 lives could have been saved if authorities had been quicker on the ball.
Furthermore the failure to act proves the security for our nations universities is lax to a point of nonexistence.
What if the rampage had been organized by a group of terrorist opposed to a lone gunmen? The authorities did not even have control of the situation with only one loose gunmen, how would they have handled it if it had been a dozen extremist? Even worse.
LINKS :
- Gunman had stalked two female students
- World Reacts to Tech Shootings
- Quiet loner's writing dwelled on violence
Related :
Officials: Gunman dead after bloody campus rampage
Gunman kills 32 in Virginia Tech rampage
My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their friends and family in this time of grief.
UPDATE :
Turns out there were various warning signs that should have sounded alarm bells with the University. The shooter, now identified had raised concerns of a teacher over a year ago with disturbing writing. Furthermore there was an incident with a dorm room fire and increasingly erratic behavior, including stalking young woman and a brief stint in a mental hospital.
Still, he was able to get not one, but two handguns. Nice. Immigrants who have been in mental hospitals can get guns now. Wow, that's ... smart gun control laws for you.
It also looks like the authorities handled the situation in the worst possible way. The first shooting occurred at the Ambler Johnson Dorm where it appears only two people where killed. Authorities only locked down the single building opposed to the entire campus.
This allowed the shooter to go back to his own dorm, reload, write a note and resume his rampage a full two hours later. Over 30 lives could have been saved if authorities had been quicker on the ball.
Furthermore the failure to act proves the security for our nations universities is lax to a point of nonexistence.
What if the rampage had been organized by a group of terrorist opposed to a lone gunmen? The authorities did not even have control of the situation with only one loose gunmen, how would they have handled it if it had been a dozen extremist? Even worse.
LINKS :
- Gunman had stalked two female students
- World Reacts to Tech Shootings
- Quiet loner's writing dwelled on violence
Jon Stewart And Steven Colbert Viewers Better Informed Than FOX Viewers?
Editor & Publisher reports :
"Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot -- with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct.
[...]
Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. ."
[ ... ]
Men scored higher than women, and older Americans did better than younger, on average. Democrats and Republicans were about equally represented in the most knowledgeable group but there were more Republicans in the least aware group.
--------------------
You can take the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press News IQ Quiz At This Link. I am proud to announce I answered every question correctly and found the "quiz" to be quite easy and was very surprised to read the high percentage of adults who preformed poorly on the quiz.
------------------
I always knew FOX wasn't real news and the results only confirmed what I had already believed about the enterprise.
I was not surprised that "morning network news" scored the lowest in nearly all the provided categories. I have always been turned off by the perky pop culture "news" of morning talk shows that resembled entertainment and celebrity gossip than it resembled informative news, and now I know why.
So not only is FOX biased, but their viewers walk away with less information and knowledge regarding current events than those who get their news from comedians Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
Why do FOX News viewers generally walk away with less retained information than those who watch comedy shows? Is it because FOX pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity spend more time trying to distract from the facts and focus in on partisan red meat?
Why do more Republicans, who would generally watch FOX news, tend to be in the least aware group? Does the fact that they are least aware have anything to do with the fact that they continue to support President Bush and a thus far failed policy in Iraq? It's all food for thought.
Overall though, I am seriously disappointed with the results of the test.
Disappointed that both Democrats and Republicans, no matter what news source they watched, were ill informed or lacked the capacity to retain the information they had been presented with.
The results of the quiz indicate that barely half of Americans only vaguely know what is going on in their own country, even in a time of war.
These Americans know who Beyonce Knowles is, but don't have a clue who runs their country. That's pitiful, and it's useless information to know. Great, Beyonce Knowles is pretty and can sing, but that information has nothing to do with the big picture, in fact it only serves to distract people from the big picture and the seriousness of the time we live in.
The results also indicate that people who lived in 1989 were more knowledgeable about current events and politics than the people of 2007. This is despite all the 24 hour news networks and frequently updated Internet news sites. I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Editor & Publisher reports :
"Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot -- with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct.
[...]
Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. ."
[ ... ]
Men scored higher than women, and older Americans did better than younger, on average. Democrats and Republicans were about equally represented in the most knowledgeable group but there were more Republicans in the least aware group.
--------------------
You can take the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press News IQ Quiz At This Link. I am proud to announce I answered every question correctly and found the "quiz" to be quite easy and was very surprised to read the high percentage of adults who preformed poorly on the quiz.
------------------
I always knew FOX wasn't real news and the results only confirmed what I had already believed about the enterprise.
I was not surprised that "morning network news" scored the lowest in nearly all the provided categories. I have always been turned off by the perky pop culture "news" of morning talk shows that resembled entertainment and celebrity gossip than it resembled informative news, and now I know why.
So not only is FOX biased, but their viewers walk away with less information and knowledge regarding current events than those who get their news from comedians Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
Why do FOX News viewers generally walk away with less retained information than those who watch comedy shows? Is it because FOX pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity spend more time trying to distract from the facts and focus in on partisan red meat?
Why do more Republicans, who would generally watch FOX news, tend to be in the least aware group? Does the fact that they are least aware have anything to do with the fact that they continue to support President Bush and a thus far failed policy in Iraq? It's all food for thought.
Overall though, I am seriously disappointed with the results of the test.
Disappointed that both Democrats and Republicans, no matter what news source they watched, were ill informed or lacked the capacity to retain the information they had been presented with.
The results of the quiz indicate that barely half of Americans only vaguely know what is going on in their own country, even in a time of war.
These Americans know who Beyonce Knowles is, but don't have a clue who runs their country. That's pitiful, and it's useless information to know. Great, Beyonce Knowles is pretty and can sing, but that information has nothing to do with the big picture, in fact it only serves to distract people from the big picture and the seriousness of the time we live in.
The results also indicate that people who lived in 1989 were more knowledgeable about current events and politics than the people of 2007. This is despite all the 24 hour news networks and frequently updated Internet news sites. I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
