Itinerary Reviewed
I woke up with a massive headache from staying up too late.
I took two Advil, drank a Red Bull, got dressed and went to work.
I stood in front of a CNC mill, drilling and tapping holes in various pieces of metal.
I ate lunch.
I stood in front of the same mill for four more hours.
I went home and showered.
I went and voted to overthrow the most powerful man in the world.
I went home to feed my dog.
When anyone asks me what I love about this country, all I have to do is describe what has been a pretty mundane day.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
Bin Laden
Is a very smart man.
No matter who prevails on Tuesday, he just gave the losing side the perfect excuse to deny the legitimacy of the winner. Whichever side loses will be absolutely convinced that the election was skewed by Bin Laden's tape -- as many people are convinced happened in Spain earlier this year after the Madrid bombings -- and the bitter polarization which has marked the last several years in this country will continue unabated.
President Bush squandered whatever opportunity he had to unite this country long ago, and now it will be effectively impossible for a President Kerry to unite us either.
Bin Laden cannot conquer us, but it seems he is smart enough to realize that by dividing us as much as possible, he can keep us from conquering him. And undermining a Presidential election, the core of our system of government -- hell, of our very conception of ourselves as a people -- is a nice bonus. Two birds, and all that.
It may not seem like it at the moment, but Bin Laden just hit us where we live. Again.
I wish I hadn't checked the news this evening.
Is a very smart man.
No matter who prevails on Tuesday, he just gave the losing side the perfect excuse to deny the legitimacy of the winner. Whichever side loses will be absolutely convinced that the election was skewed by Bin Laden's tape -- as many people are convinced happened in Spain earlier this year after the Madrid bombings -- and the bitter polarization which has marked the last several years in this country will continue unabated.
President Bush squandered whatever opportunity he had to unite this country long ago, and now it will be effectively impossible for a President Kerry to unite us either.
Bin Laden cannot conquer us, but it seems he is smart enough to realize that by dividing us as much as possible, he can keep us from conquering him. And undermining a Presidential election, the core of our system of government -- hell, of our very conception of ourselves as a people -- is a nice bonus. Two birds, and all that.
It may not seem like it at the moment, but Bin Laden just hit us where we live. Again.
I wish I hadn't checked the news this evening.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Fuck Smiley Gladhands With Hidden Agendas
Tool's Opiate has, for some reason, been my song of the month - by which I mean, I find myself humming, singing, or outright headbanging to it, even when it's not actually playing anywhere outside of my head.
While listening to it at extremely high volume today at work, it occurred to me that the song could be a freakin' lullaby for a good chunk of Bush supporters - you know, the ones who still think Saddam had WMD, that Saddam played a direct role in 9/11, and the rest of the ugly litany we've all heard about by now:
(see this post at Balkinization for a more professional discussion of Bush and religion)
Tool's Opiate has, for some reason, been my song of the month - by which I mean, I find myself humming, singing, or outright headbanging to it, even when it's not actually playing anywhere outside of my head.
While listening to it at extremely high volume today at work, it occurred to me that the song could be a freakin' lullaby for a good chunk of Bush supporters - you know, the ones who still think Saddam had WMD, that Saddam played a direct role in 9/11, and the rest of the ugly litany we've all heard about by now:
"Choices always were a problem for you.Am I wrong?
What you need is someone strong to guide you.
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow,
what you need is someone strong to use you..
like me,
like me.
If you want to get your soul to heaven,
trust in me,
Don't you judge or question.
You are broken now,
but faith can heal you.
Just do everything I tell you to do.
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
Let me lay my holy hand upon you.
My Gods will
becomes me.
When he speaks out,
he speaks through me."
(see this post at Balkinization for a more professional discussion of Bush and religion)
Friday, October 15, 2004
References To Lesbians For Dummies
~ Free Of Dick Cheney Puns* ~
Big Dick is pissing** and moaning.
Lynne Cheney knows good men when she sees them, and Kerry ain't it.
Republicans are loudly shocked and outraged.
"So," you ask yourself, "Should I maybe be upset as well? There are many fine Americans who think Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney as a lesbian was wrong. Should I count myself among their number?"
Allow me to help you sort things out:
There exists in this country a percentage of Idiot Queer-Haters.
Earlier this year, the decision was made in the White House that re-election prospects were sufficiently dicey that an effort to mobilize IQHs in force was neccesary. Cue the Federal Marriage Amendment, accompanied by a tightrope walk of a PR strategy which amounted to using enough compassionate language to not be branded outright bigots in the media, while winking at the IHQs in the audience and stage whispering "We gotta play nice for the liberal media, but don't you worry none, we hate them fags too!"
This seems to have worked, for the most part. Members of God Fearing Americans Against The Homosexual have a reason to come out to the polls, even if they are pissed at Bush for other reasons, while enough vague compassion was sprayed around for pro-Bush flaks to be able to look their gay or gay-friendly colleagues somewhere in the vicinity of the eye.
Due to this successful, if cynical, play, George Bush almost certainly has gained at least a small bit of support he would not have otherwise had, particularly in states with significant evangelical populations.
Said additional support is what we in the business like to call ill gotten gains.
***
This election could quite possibly be very close, to the point where a fraction of a percentage point in certain states could decide the whole thing.
Therefore, in the Kerry camp, the decision was made to attempt to neutralize some of the support the FMA gained for Bush.
The way this was done was not only ingenius, but well within ethical bounds - a combination not seen nearly often enough in politics.
To understand what they did, one has to understand that, while the FMA was targeted at IQHs, there in fact exists a spectrum of support for it, or at least the idea of it. While only made up of a minority of citizens, this spectrum encompasses a massive portion of the non-libertarian GOP base, and it includes everyone from people who abhor persecution and inequality for gays -- but still find themselves uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual nuptials -- to hardcore IQHs who see homosexuality as a blight upon God's creation.
The danger in trying to shave off some of Bush's support here is that one runs the risk of gaybaiting your way into becoming what you oppose. Sure, that could very well help win the election, but acting ethically only counts when it is in your immediate interest to act unethically, otherwise everyone would act in an ethical manner all the time.
So the Kerry campaign adopted a two-pronged strategy - one aimed at bringing voters over to their side, the other aimed at cutting voters loose from Bush.
The former targeted those who basically support the idea of equality for all Americans, but are, for a number of reasons, opposed the gay marriage. To woo these voters, both Kerry and Edwards have stated their firm opposistion to gay marriage, while enthusiastically supporting for gays all the legal benefits afforded to married couples. In effect, they are stealing potential Bush votes by doing nothing more than conceding the word "marriage." The cost/benefit ratio for gay Americans on this is astoundingly good.
The second strategy is not an attempt to gain votes for Kerry, but to lose votes for Bush. This is aimed at the Idiot Queer-Haters, the ones so far lost to intolerance that the mere fact of someone's daughter being gay is enough to sour them on that person. These people exist; in what numbers, exactly, it is hard to say, but they are out there.
Those are the people Kerry was speaking to when he mentioned Cheney's gay daughter. Not because he wants them to vote for him - after all, if you hate gays so much that you would refuse to vote for Bush because his Veep is related to a lesbian, never in hell will you vote for Kerry, who followed the Mary Cheney reference by saying,
It was not a pander, but a wedge. Everytime Kerry speaks of how loving and supportive the Cheneys are toward their daughter, it drives them farther and farther away from those that are incensed that someone would support their own daughter's sin against God. The question, then, for anyone who professes to be outraged by Kerry's remark, is this: Why does the President deserve to benefit from pandering to such people?
It has been suggested that Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney is analogous to a Civil Rights-era politician trying to gain favor among racist constituents by pointing out an opponent's friendliness with a black person.
This is backwards.
The appropriate analogy would be for a politican supporting Civil Rights to point out that Strom Thurmond had a black daughter - thereby partially neutralizing Strom's own appeals to virulent racists.
If politics were a game where everyone was kind and fair and respectful to everyone else, Kerry never would have had to mention Mary Cheney. However, by supporting the FMA in the first place, Bush himself pandered to anti-gay sentiment in a grotesque manner; so again, why exactly should he be allowed to benefit from it? It seems to me that Kerry should be applauded for effectively countering gutter politics while very firmly remaining out of the gutter himself. It speaks quite well for how a President Kerry would conduct himself in office.
After all, isn't that exactly what we want in a Commander-in-Chief? Someone who will put the hammer to the wrongdoers without becoming a wrongdoer himself?
I know that's what I want, and the very real possibility that John Kerry is that kind of man is one of my primary reasons for supporting him.
So I say, let the Republicans whine. We're going to need to get used to that sound, because we'll be hearing it quite a bit over the next four years.
* Claim guaranteed by management to be equally as valid as Bush's "No Draft" promise.
** Y'all know where "Canada" is, right?
~ Free Of Dick Cheney Puns* ~
Big Dick is pissing** and moaning.
Lynne Cheney knows good men when she sees them, and Kerry ain't it.
Republicans are loudly shocked and outraged.
"So," you ask yourself, "Should I maybe be upset as well? There are many fine Americans who think Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney as a lesbian was wrong. Should I count myself among their number?"
Allow me to help you sort things out:
There exists in this country a percentage of Idiot Queer-Haters.
Earlier this year, the decision was made in the White House that re-election prospects were sufficiently dicey that an effort to mobilize IQHs in force was neccesary. Cue the Federal Marriage Amendment, accompanied by a tightrope walk of a PR strategy which amounted to using enough compassionate language to not be branded outright bigots in the media, while winking at the IHQs in the audience and stage whispering "We gotta play nice for the liberal media, but don't you worry none, we hate them fags too!"
This seems to have worked, for the most part. Members of God Fearing Americans Against The Homosexual have a reason to come out to the polls, even if they are pissed at Bush for other reasons, while enough vague compassion was sprayed around for pro-Bush flaks to be able to look their gay or gay-friendly colleagues somewhere in the vicinity of the eye.
Due to this successful, if cynical, play, George Bush almost certainly has gained at least a small bit of support he would not have otherwise had, particularly in states with significant evangelical populations.
Said additional support is what we in the business like to call ill gotten gains.
***
This election could quite possibly be very close, to the point where a fraction of a percentage point in certain states could decide the whole thing.
Therefore, in the Kerry camp, the decision was made to attempt to neutralize some of the support the FMA gained for Bush.
The way this was done was not only ingenius, but well within ethical bounds - a combination not seen nearly often enough in politics.
To understand what they did, one has to understand that, while the FMA was targeted at IQHs, there in fact exists a spectrum of support for it, or at least the idea of it. While only made up of a minority of citizens, this spectrum encompasses a massive portion of the non-libertarian GOP base, and it includes everyone from people who abhor persecution and inequality for gays -- but still find themselves uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual nuptials -- to hardcore IQHs who see homosexuality as a blight upon God's creation.
The danger in trying to shave off some of Bush's support here is that one runs the risk of gaybaiting your way into becoming what you oppose. Sure, that could very well help win the election, but acting ethically only counts when it is in your immediate interest to act unethically, otherwise everyone would act in an ethical manner all the time.
So the Kerry campaign adopted a two-pronged strategy - one aimed at bringing voters over to their side, the other aimed at cutting voters loose from Bush.
The former targeted those who basically support the idea of equality for all Americans, but are, for a number of reasons, opposed the gay marriage. To woo these voters, both Kerry and Edwards have stated their firm opposistion to gay marriage, while enthusiastically supporting for gays all the legal benefits afforded to married couples. In effect, they are stealing potential Bush votes by doing nothing more than conceding the word "marriage." The cost/benefit ratio for gay Americans on this is astoundingly good.
The second strategy is not an attempt to gain votes for Kerry, but to lose votes for Bush. This is aimed at the Idiot Queer-Haters, the ones so far lost to intolerance that the mere fact of someone's daughter being gay is enough to sour them on that person. These people exist; in what numbers, exactly, it is hard to say, but they are out there.
Those are the people Kerry was speaking to when he mentioned Cheney's gay daughter. Not because he wants them to vote for him - after all, if you hate gays so much that you would refuse to vote for Bush because his Veep is related to a lesbian, never in hell will you vote for Kerry, who followed the Mary Cheney reference by saying,
"I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.No, this was merely a way to alienate a couple thousand of the most hardcore bigots from Bush - a couple thousand bigots who could possibly provide the margin of victory for the President, if they happen to live in Ohio.
And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.
I think we have to respect that."
It was not a pander, but a wedge. Everytime Kerry speaks of how loving and supportive the Cheneys are toward their daughter, it drives them farther and farther away from those that are incensed that someone would support their own daughter's sin against God. The question, then, for anyone who professes to be outraged by Kerry's remark, is this: Why does the President deserve to benefit from pandering to such people?
It has been suggested that Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney is analogous to a Civil Rights-era politician trying to gain favor among racist constituents by pointing out an opponent's friendliness with a black person.
This is backwards.
The appropriate analogy would be for a politican supporting Civil Rights to point out that Strom Thurmond had a black daughter - thereby partially neutralizing Strom's own appeals to virulent racists.
If politics were a game where everyone was kind and fair and respectful to everyone else, Kerry never would have had to mention Mary Cheney. However, by supporting the FMA in the first place, Bush himself pandered to anti-gay sentiment in a grotesque manner; so again, why exactly should he be allowed to benefit from it? It seems to me that Kerry should be applauded for effectively countering gutter politics while very firmly remaining out of the gutter himself. It speaks quite well for how a President Kerry would conduct himself in office.
After all, isn't that exactly what we want in a Commander-in-Chief? Someone who will put the hammer to the wrongdoers without becoming a wrongdoer himself?
I know that's what I want, and the very real possibility that John Kerry is that kind of man is one of my primary reasons for supporting him.
So I say, let the Republicans whine. We're going to need to get used to that sound, because we'll be hearing it quite a bit over the next four years.
* Claim guaranteed by management to be equally as valid as Bush's "No Draft" promise.
** Y'all know where "Canada" is, right?
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Friday, October 08, 2004
Evening Plans
Because of the technical difficulties I experienced with Blogger during the VP debate, I haven't decided whether or not to liveblog the Presidential debate tonight. However, as this is the most important event* in the election to this point, I will be writing something about it one way or the another. So, you know, drop by if you're of a mind. Y'all.
* Tonight, after all, is where Kerry will either amplify the impression he gave in the last debate, solidifying his upward trajectory and all but assuring his victory, or negate the gains he made last week and make a race of this damn thing. It's kind of strange to think that the future of the United States -- hell, the future of the world -- may very well be decided tonight at 9:00 PM EST.
Because of the technical difficulties I experienced with Blogger during the VP debate, I haven't decided whether or not to liveblog the Presidential debate tonight. However, as this is the most important event* in the election to this point, I will be writing something about it one way or the another. So, you know, drop by if you're of a mind. Y'all.
* Tonight, after all, is where Kerry will either amplify the impression he gave in the last debate, solidifying his upward trajectory and all but assuring his victory, or negate the gains he made last week and make a race of this damn thing. It's kind of strange to think that the future of the United States -- hell, the future of the world -- may very well be decided tonight at 9:00 PM EST.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The Calculus of Bullshit
It takes five seconds to speak a lie. Let us be extremely optimistic and say that it takes thirty seconds to debunk a lie. Both candidates are alloted the same amount of time to speak and respond. Therefore, the advantage goes to whoever is willing to lie most freely. The poor bastard on the wrong end of this equation ends up being unable to address more than a handful of the lies, leaving most of them unchallenged (or inadequetely challenged) while he himself appears to be ducking questions because he spends all his time refuting a minority of the other guy's points, or speaking in vague generalities in an attempt to do the impossible by addressing them all.
Welcome to the Vice-Presidential debate, ladies and gentlemen; believe me, I am even more appalled than you.
In 90 minutes, Dick Cheney did more to undermine my faith in democracy than the fact that we're still allowing Florida to participate in national elections.
I have nothing much to say about the debate, other than I'm glad it's over. Frankly, there's no excuse for Edwards' lack of immediate responses to most of Cheney's lies - they were almost exclusively rehashes of the same basic untruths he's been peddling for two years. The only real way to counter the calculus of bullshit is to scare the other guy out of using it by coming down like a bomb on one or two lies early on.
When Cheney talked about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Edwards should have responded with something along the lines of "What you left out, Mr. Vice President, is that Zarqawi was operating prior to the war out of a camp in the Kurd-controlled portion of Iraq, an area inaccessible to Saddam Hussein. You know this, and yet you use Zarqawi as an example of Al Qaeda connections to Saddam Hussein. That is a deliberate ommission with the intent to deceive, and where I come from, that's called a lie, Mr. Vice President." If it didn't slow down Big Dick's Bullshit Express, it would have at least provided the press with a juicy quote to toss around all week - and maybe, you know, confirm the fact that Cheney lied.
But he didn't, and, until things got bogged down in domestic policy wonkery (and wankery - "Your record is undistinguished!" "No, your record is undistinguished!"), it gave the national security advantage to Cheney - which translates to an overall Cheney advantage, for I guarantee you that a large portion of the audience changed the channel when the debate turned to HeadStart and medical malpractice.
With all apologies to my Democratic brethren, I'm calling this one for Cheney - albeit not by much. I don't think that anyone really doubts that the major issue for the few remaining undecideds out there is terrorism and national security, and during that portion of the debate, Edwards did the "I'll get to your question in a second, but first I'd just like to say..." thing way too often. I like John Edwards, I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards, and even I rolled my eyes at wha seemed for all the world like standard politician-avoiding-the-question. Even when he did actually end up answering the question, that repeated initial response to questions will be seen in retrospect to be a disaster - at least for people's opinions of Edwards performance in the debate. As to what degree tonight's debate will actually affect the election, I really couldn't say. Not much, I would guess.
As a final observation, I have decided that it is now the number one, no-shit, do-this-right-the-fuck-now priority for the Kerry/Edwards speechwriting crew to come up with a way to convey the fact that Kerry and Edwards have a plan to do a bunch of good stuff without actually saying that they have a plan. Again, there is nothing on this planet that could get me to vote for Bush/Cheney, but I'm going to be honest with you: it looks really freakin' bad when our boys keep repeating "I have a plan to..." in response to direct questions about details of how they intend to proceed. I know that the plans they do have are complicated and cannot be adequetely explained in soundbites, but I am absolutely positive that a good number of people's natural response to "I have a plan" is "Yeah? Like what?" - and then they decide that Kerry/Edwards is bullshitting them, and the task of winning them over becomes exponentially more difficult. This problem is exacerbated by constant repitition, which makes it seem more and more like a cop-out. After all, it's easy to say you have a plan, but actually having a good plan, and then executing it, is another animal entirely. Even the dumbest among us know that; only blind faith keeps you from acknowledging the difference, and the people with blind faith in one cadidate or another are not in the "persuadable" column.
It takes five seconds to speak a lie. Let us be extremely optimistic and say that it takes thirty seconds to debunk a lie. Both candidates are alloted the same amount of time to speak and respond. Therefore, the advantage goes to whoever is willing to lie most freely. The poor bastard on the wrong end of this equation ends up being unable to address more than a handful of the lies, leaving most of them unchallenged (or inadequetely challenged) while he himself appears to be ducking questions because he spends all his time refuting a minority of the other guy's points, or speaking in vague generalities in an attempt to do the impossible by addressing them all.
Welcome to the Vice-Presidential debate, ladies and gentlemen; believe me, I am even more appalled than you.
In 90 minutes, Dick Cheney did more to undermine my faith in democracy than the fact that we're still allowing Florida to participate in national elections.
I have nothing much to say about the debate, other than I'm glad it's over. Frankly, there's no excuse for Edwards' lack of immediate responses to most of Cheney's lies - they were almost exclusively rehashes of the same basic untruths he's been peddling for two years. The only real way to counter the calculus of bullshit is to scare the other guy out of using it by coming down like a bomb on one or two lies early on.
When Cheney talked about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Edwards should have responded with something along the lines of "What you left out, Mr. Vice President, is that Zarqawi was operating prior to the war out of a camp in the Kurd-controlled portion of Iraq, an area inaccessible to Saddam Hussein. You know this, and yet you use Zarqawi as an example of Al Qaeda connections to Saddam Hussein. That is a deliberate ommission with the intent to deceive, and where I come from, that's called a lie, Mr. Vice President." If it didn't slow down Big Dick's Bullshit Express, it would have at least provided the press with a juicy quote to toss around all week - and maybe, you know, confirm the fact that Cheney lied.
But he didn't, and, until things got bogged down in domestic policy wonkery (and wankery - "Your record is undistinguished!" "No, your record is undistinguished!"), it gave the national security advantage to Cheney - which translates to an overall Cheney advantage, for I guarantee you that a large portion of the audience changed the channel when the debate turned to HeadStart and medical malpractice.
With all apologies to my Democratic brethren, I'm calling this one for Cheney - albeit not by much. I don't think that anyone really doubts that the major issue for the few remaining undecideds out there is terrorism and national security, and during that portion of the debate, Edwards did the "I'll get to your question in a second, but first I'd just like to say..." thing way too often. I like John Edwards, I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards, and even I rolled my eyes at wha seemed for all the world like standard politician-avoiding-the-question. Even when he did actually end up answering the question, that repeated initial response to questions will be seen in retrospect to be a disaster - at least for people's opinions of Edwards performance in the debate. As to what degree tonight's debate will actually affect the election, I really couldn't say. Not much, I would guess.
As a final observation, I have decided that it is now the number one, no-shit, do-this-right-the-fuck-now priority for the Kerry/Edwards speechwriting crew to come up with a way to convey the fact that Kerry and Edwards have a plan to do a bunch of good stuff without actually saying that they have a plan. Again, there is nothing on this planet that could get me to vote for Bush/Cheney, but I'm going to be honest with you: it looks really freakin' bad when our boys keep repeating "I have a plan to..." in response to direct questions about details of how they intend to proceed. I know that the plans they do have are complicated and cannot be adequetely explained in soundbites, but I am absolutely positive that a good number of people's natural response to "I have a plan" is "Yeah? Like what?" - and then they decide that Kerry/Edwards is bullshitting them, and the task of winning them over becomes exponentially more difficult. This problem is exacerbated by constant repitition, which makes it seem more and more like a cop-out. After all, it's easy to say you have a plan, but actually having a good plan, and then executing it, is another animal entirely. Even the dumbest among us know that; only blind faith keeps you from acknowledging the difference, and the people with blind faith in one cadidate or another are not in the "persuadable" column.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
The Vice Presidential Debate (Rah! Yay!)
Damn, no warning or anything on C-SPAN, just, "Here they are!"
***
Um...are they debating via telepathy?
I know I didn't bother to check out the rules and format of this debate, but neither did 99.99% of the people watching. To us, this long stretch of silence is just freakin' weird.
***
Excellent camera findin' skills, Mr. Edwards. Yes, we're over here. Hi!
***
First question to Dick: Excellent use of current information by whoever wrote the first question.
Dick's Response: 9/11, need to go after state sponsors of terror, Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, etc. Damn. If I had a pair as big as Cheney I wouldn't be able to sit down.
***
Edwards is making a point of saying "John KErry and I...", which is what he needs to do, seeing as how him and Dick are just surrogates for Kerry and Bush.
Edwards: "I want the American people to listen very closely to what the Vice PResident is saying." A beautiful way of saying "He's fucking lying" without actually, you know, saying it. Good work, John.
Cheney: "I have not said there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." If the DNC doesn't release a blast fax to every media outlet within two minutes quoting all the times Cheny has done just that, the party is well and truly being run by idiots.
***
Cheney: Blah blah blah, Afghan elections. If Edwards doesn't rip Cheney's head off about massive voter fraud and the security situation in Afghanistan, I will hate him forever.
***
Edwards: "Here's what's actually happening in Afghanistan..." Good.
***
Blogger problems...this might not work tonight.
***
PS - Blogger sucks. It's taking 5 minutes to reload pages so I can post, and then eating my posts. Too many people posting at once, maybe. Or maybe, you know, they just suck. Either way, this exercise appears to be over. I'm sorry to everyone who expected me to liveblog. I guess I'll post a wrapup when the thing is done.
Damn, no warning or anything on C-SPAN, just, "Here they are!"
***
Um...are they debating via telepathy?
I know I didn't bother to check out the rules and format of this debate, but neither did 99.99% of the people watching. To us, this long stretch of silence is just freakin' weird.
***
Excellent camera findin' skills, Mr. Edwards. Yes, we're over here. Hi!
***
First question to Dick: Excellent use of current information by whoever wrote the first question.
Dick's Response: 9/11, need to go after state sponsors of terror, Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, etc. Damn. If I had a pair as big as Cheney I wouldn't be able to sit down.
***
Edwards is making a point of saying "John KErry and I...", which is what he needs to do, seeing as how him and Dick are just surrogates for Kerry and Bush.
Edwards: "I want the American people to listen very closely to what the Vice PResident is saying." A beautiful way of saying "He's fucking lying" without actually, you know, saying it. Good work, John.
Cheney: "I have not said there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." If the DNC doesn't release a blast fax to every media outlet within two minutes quoting all the times Cheny has done just that, the party is well and truly being run by idiots.
***
Cheney: Blah blah blah, Afghan elections. If Edwards doesn't rip Cheney's head off about massive voter fraud and the security situation in Afghanistan, I will hate him forever.
***
Edwards: "Here's what's actually happening in Afghanistan..." Good.
***
Blogger problems...this might not work tonight.
***
PS - Blogger sucks. It's taking 5 minutes to reload pages so I can post, and then eating my posts. Too many people posting at once, maybe. Or maybe, you know, they just suck. Either way, this exercise appears to be over. I'm sorry to everyone who expected me to liveblog. I guess I'll post a wrapup when the thing is done.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Liveblogging Once Again
In a move I will surely regret in the morning once I sober up, I have decided to liveblog the Vice Presidential debate tommorrow evening. Join me in what will no doubt be a mind-numbingly dumb spectacle of fresh-faced optimism, monotone lies of historic proportions, and a thousand media personalities falling all over themselves to tell us how a thousand media personalities feel about the pack mentality of a thousand media personalities. Festivities begin at 9:00 pm EST. I begin writing in my head a new canto of the Inferno describing an entire circle of hell dedicated to everyone involved with cable news at 9:05 .
What's the Italian translation of "small fiery demon with sharp hot stick"?
In a move I will surely regret in the morning once I sober up, I have decided to liveblog the Vice Presidential debate tommorrow evening. Join me in what will no doubt be a mind-numbingly dumb spectacle of fresh-faced optimism, monotone lies of historic proportions, and a thousand media personalities falling all over themselves to tell us how a thousand media personalities feel about the pack mentality of a thousand media personalities. Festivities begin at 9:00 pm EST. I begin writing in my head a new canto of the Inferno describing an entire circle of hell dedicated to everyone involved with cable news at 9:05 .
What's the Italian translation of "small fiery demon with sharp hot stick"?
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Liberal Media
Damn*. Is Wolf Blitzer really asking Tommy Franks on CNN right now to evaluate the merit of Kerry's charge that Bush let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora?
The same Tommy Franks who has not only been a loyal Bush man from the beginning, but also commanded the campaign in Afghanistan? You know, as in, the guy who shares responsibility if the charge is true?
*Edited, because the words "God" and "fucking" should only be placed adjacent to one another in a sentence when circumstances or hyperbole truly deserve it. This minor observation doesn't qualify. Sorry for offense/inconvenience/disappointment.
Damn*. Is Wolf Blitzer really asking Tommy Franks on CNN right now to evaluate the merit of Kerry's charge that Bush let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora?
The same Tommy Franks who has not only been a loyal Bush man from the beginning, but also commanded the campaign in Afghanistan? You know, as in, the guy who shares responsibility if the charge is true?
*Edited, because the words "God" and "fucking" should only be placed adjacent to one another in a sentence when circumstances or hyperbole truly deserve it. This minor observation doesn't qualify. Sorry for offense/inconvenience/disappointment.
The First Presidential Debate (cue appropriately reverential noises)
Because newstickers and various other overlays during major events annoy me, I'm wtching this on C-SPAN. Besides, CNN won't show you amusing footage of Jim Lehrer immitating the warnings in movie theaters to shut off cellphones, pagers, and to kick out crying babies.
1 minute to air. Fantastic.
***
By the way, I've decided that at the end of this thing, I will rate Kerry's advisors as either "smart" or "not smart" (or, possibly "complete and utter dipshits") based on Kerry's performance.
***
Bush: "I don't think [another terrorist attack] is going to happen, because the American people know I'm a great leader"
Does this mean that because I think he's a goddawful leader, I'm participating in a terrorist act?
***
Kerry: "Beofre I answer..." let me suck up to the audience.
NO! Goddamnit, John.
***
LEt us all note that Bush has spoken for thirty seconds and has already emitted two audible sighs. I remember Gore being taken to task for that...do they not count when they are sighs of "Oh shit, I'm blanking already!" rather than "I cannot believe I'm onstage with this idiot"?
***
Bush is already speaking like he's on the defensive. Is that giddiness I feel welling up inside me?
***
"What colossoal misjudgements do you think the President has made?" Kerry: "Well, where do you want me to begin?" Not funny enough to offset the snottiness. Bad John.
***
Bush: "My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at." Not unless a US Senator has all the security clearances that the President does. In fact, don't I remember the administration using a number of variations on "trust us, we KNOW things" before the war began?
***
Bush: "Allawi is a strong leader..." Somewhere, Augusto Pinochet is laughing.
***
Kerry: Body armor and Humvees without armor...excellent. Hit him where he hurts, the supporting the troops thing, and placing blame for it directly where it belongs- on the guy who sent them without what they needed.
***
Second time Bush has mentioned Kerry's vote for the authorization of force before his current opposition to the war.
Dear John,
Why the FUCK are you not quoting your own reasons for voting for the use of force resolution - you know, the ones you gave at the time? The whole damn issue can be laid to rest by a clear answer right now....what is wrong with you?
Love,
TMRM
***
"At the current pace, the current President will not secure Russia's nuclear material for 13 years." Excellent soundbite. Good John.
***
Bush: "Like a huge tax gap...but...anyway...that's another debate."
Translated for your convenience: "Dammit Wrong gear! Shift! Shift dammit!"
***
Kerry: "We didn't need that tax cut, America needed to be kept safe."
THAT is a nice kick to the nuts. Good John.
***
Kerry: quoting Daddy Bush to kick Junior's legs out from under him (a passage that sounds eerily prophetic, by the way). Good John. Good good John.
***
Bush: "What kind of message does this give to our troops..." This formulation is getting real, real old.
***
There's that explanation for the authorization of force vote. Plus a Shinseki reference. The young Senator might be able to pull this off after all.
***
Bush: "I know how these people think." Like Putin?
***
Am I the only one who things Bush actually sounds whiny?
Bush: "Well, actually, you forgot Poland." Jesus. I thought he was going to yell booyah after he said that.
***
I see the President is still under the impression that the resistance in Iraq is being carried out primarily by Saddam loyalists. That whole flap about Bush claiming to not read newspapers a few months ago is looming rather large in my head right now.
***
Holy hell...the camera needs to pan to Bush when Kerry is speaking...the shot I just saw showed Bush puffing his lips like a damn blowfish....what the fuck kind of nervous tick is that?
***
Bush: "He looked at the very same intelligence I did." This again.
***
Kerry: "I've had one consistent position thoughout...that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and there was a right way to take care of him, and a wrong way. The President chose the wrong way."
I want to have sex with whoever taught Kerry about good soundbites.
Bush: "The only thing my opponent has been consistent about is...inconsistency."
Ha! I also want to have sex with whichever idiot taught Bush about soundbites. I think I hear the 5th grader next door laughing at Bush for having lame comebacks.
***
Bush: "Kerry's campaign alleged that Prime Minister Allawi is a puppet! That's no way to treat someone who's noble and brave!" I have to admit, I laughed out loud at that one. I'll be using that myself.
"You're an asshole, Christian."
"That's no way to treat someone who's noble and brave!"
***
God be praised. Kerry is kicking Bush's ass with a quickness.
***
Ooh...bad Kerry. No mention Kyoto. Not worth rehashing that shit right now. More important things to do.
***
Bush: "I wouldn't want to join the International Criminal Court.." George, is it really a good idea for the President that brought us Abu Ghraib to poohpooh on a court that is supposed to be dedicated to prosecuting human rights violations? I mean, I don't know if the ICC is something we should be a part of, but I DO know that you're in no position to make that judgement.
***
Bush: "The breach, by the way, was not on plutonium, it was on highly enriched uranium!"
I'll say it for him: BOOYAH, bitch!
***
Bush: "It was not my administration that put sanctions on Iran. That happened...long ago."
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
***
Kerry: "I'm not going to talk about differences of character; that's not my job, that's not my business." Swing voters who honestly --honestly -- are undecided will love that one; it's a repudiation of the negative campaign bullshit we're all sick of. Excellent work, John.
***
Greatest threat to the United States -
Kerry: "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation." Very forceful there. I can't think of a better way to answer that question. And Bush is left making excuses.
***
Did Bush just say he busted the AQ Khan network? Which of our jails is Khan in?
Oh, that's right. He's still free in Pakistan.
***
Thank you, Jim Lehrer, for mentioning Putin, and Bush's previously stated judgement of him. Here's an interesting qeustion: If Bush misjudged Putin, might he be now misjudging Allawi? (we shall, for now, ignore the fact that Allawi is more likely than not, with all due respect, a fucking puppet).
***
Bush: "Oh, I'm a pretty calm guy." Damn. He's melting down. Rove must be praising Lucifer that the debate is almost over.
***
Closing:
Kerry: America is great, and with me in charge we will become greater.
Bush: Vote for me or you're fucked.
Fantastic.
***
Jenna and Barbera onstage post-debate:
Ah, so that's what a "My daddy just got his ass whupped bad" expression looks like.
***
Aaaaaaand, we're done.
Kerry's advisor rating: Smart! My God, smart!
Bush's advisor rating: Dumb! Thank God, dumb! And going to hell, for trying to get him re-elected, but that kind of judgement is outside the mandate of VeryVeryHappy (for now...).
End liveblogging. Go to bed.
Because newstickers and various other overlays during major events annoy me, I'm wtching this on C-SPAN. Besides, CNN won't show you amusing footage of Jim Lehrer immitating the warnings in movie theaters to shut off cellphones, pagers, and to kick out crying babies.
1 minute to air. Fantastic.
***
By the way, I've decided that at the end of this thing, I will rate Kerry's advisors as either "smart" or "not smart" (or, possibly "complete and utter dipshits") based on Kerry's performance.
***
Bush: "I don't think [another terrorist attack] is going to happen, because the American people know I'm a great leader"
Does this mean that because I think he's a goddawful leader, I'm participating in a terrorist act?
***
Kerry: "Beofre I answer..." let me suck up to the audience.
NO! Goddamnit, John.
***
LEt us all note that Bush has spoken for thirty seconds and has already emitted two audible sighs. I remember Gore being taken to task for that...do they not count when they are sighs of "Oh shit, I'm blanking already!" rather than "I cannot believe I'm onstage with this idiot"?
***
Bush is already speaking like he's on the defensive. Is that giddiness I feel welling up inside me?
***
"What colossoal misjudgements do you think the President has made?" Kerry: "Well, where do you want me to begin?" Not funny enough to offset the snottiness. Bad John.
***
Bush: "My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at." Not unless a US Senator has all the security clearances that the President does. In fact, don't I remember the administration using a number of variations on "trust us, we KNOW things" before the war began?
***
Bush: "Allawi is a strong leader..." Somewhere, Augusto Pinochet is laughing.
***
Kerry: Body armor and Humvees without armor...excellent. Hit him where he hurts, the supporting the troops thing, and placing blame for it directly where it belongs- on the guy who sent them without what they needed.
***
Second time Bush has mentioned Kerry's vote for the authorization of force before his current opposition to the war.
Dear John,
Why the FUCK are you not quoting your own reasons for voting for the use of force resolution - you know, the ones you gave at the time? The whole damn issue can be laid to rest by a clear answer right now....what is wrong with you?
Love,
TMRM
***
"At the current pace, the current President will not secure Russia's nuclear material for 13 years." Excellent soundbite. Good John.
***
Bush: "Like a huge tax gap...but...anyway...that's another debate."
Translated for your convenience: "Dammit Wrong gear! Shift! Shift dammit!"
***
Kerry: "We didn't need that tax cut, America needed to be kept safe."
THAT is a nice kick to the nuts. Good John.
***
Kerry: quoting Daddy Bush to kick Junior's legs out from under him (a passage that sounds eerily prophetic, by the way). Good John. Good good John.
***
Bush: "What kind of message does this give to our troops..." This formulation is getting real, real old.
***
There's that explanation for the authorization of force vote. Plus a Shinseki reference. The young Senator might be able to pull this off after all.
***
Bush: "I know how these people think." Like Putin?
***
Am I the only one who things Bush actually sounds whiny?
Bush: "Well, actually, you forgot Poland." Jesus. I thought he was going to yell booyah after he said that.
***
I see the President is still under the impression that the resistance in Iraq is being carried out primarily by Saddam loyalists. That whole flap about Bush claiming to not read newspapers a few months ago is looming rather large in my head right now.
***
Holy hell...the camera needs to pan to Bush when Kerry is speaking...the shot I just saw showed Bush puffing his lips like a damn blowfish....what the fuck kind of nervous tick is that?
***
Bush: "He looked at the very same intelligence I did." This again.
***
Kerry: "I've had one consistent position thoughout...that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and there was a right way to take care of him, and a wrong way. The President chose the wrong way."
I want to have sex with whoever taught Kerry about good soundbites.
Bush: "The only thing my opponent has been consistent about is...inconsistency."
Ha! I also want to have sex with whichever idiot taught Bush about soundbites. I think I hear the 5th grader next door laughing at Bush for having lame comebacks.
***
Bush: "Kerry's campaign alleged that Prime Minister Allawi is a puppet! That's no way to treat someone who's noble and brave!" I have to admit, I laughed out loud at that one. I'll be using that myself.
"You're an asshole, Christian."
"That's no way to treat someone who's noble and brave!"
***
God be praised. Kerry is kicking Bush's ass with a quickness.
***
Ooh...bad Kerry. No mention Kyoto. Not worth rehashing that shit right now. More important things to do.
***
Bush: "I wouldn't want to join the International Criminal Court.." George, is it really a good idea for the President that brought us Abu Ghraib to poohpooh on a court that is supposed to be dedicated to prosecuting human rights violations? I mean, I don't know if the ICC is something we should be a part of, but I DO know that you're in no position to make that judgement.
***
Bush: "The breach, by the way, was not on plutonium, it was on highly enriched uranium!"
I'll say it for him: BOOYAH, bitch!
***
Bush: "It was not my administration that put sanctions on Iran. That happened...long ago."
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
***
Kerry: "I'm not going to talk about differences of character; that's not my job, that's not my business." Swing voters who honestly --honestly -- are undecided will love that one; it's a repudiation of the negative campaign bullshit we're all sick of. Excellent work, John.
***
Greatest threat to the United States -
Kerry: "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation." Very forceful there. I can't think of a better way to answer that question. And Bush is left making excuses.
***
Did Bush just say he busted the AQ Khan network? Which of our jails is Khan in?
Oh, that's right. He's still free in Pakistan.
***
Thank you, Jim Lehrer, for mentioning Putin, and Bush's previously stated judgement of him. Here's an interesting qeustion: If Bush misjudged Putin, might he be now misjudging Allawi? (we shall, for now, ignore the fact that Allawi is more likely than not, with all due respect, a fucking puppet).
***
Bush: "Oh, I'm a pretty calm guy." Damn. He's melting down. Rove must be praising Lucifer that the debate is almost over.
***
Closing:
Kerry: America is great, and with me in charge we will become greater.
Bush: Vote for me or you're fucked.
Fantastic.
***
Jenna and Barbera onstage post-debate:
Ah, so that's what a "My daddy just got his ass whupped bad" expression looks like.
***
Aaaaaaand, we're done.
Kerry's advisor rating: Smart! My God, smart!
Bush's advisor rating: Dumb! Thank God, dumb! And going to hell, for trying to get him re-elected, but that kind of judgement is outside the mandate of VeryVeryHappy (for now...).
End liveblogging. Go to bed.
Hear Ye, Hear Ye
For the edification of the three or four people who still read this site regularly, I will be liveblogging the Presidential debate tonight, beginning at 9:00 pm EST.
Why? Because screw it, I want to get back into this blogging thing somehow, and a format that doesn't allow me to obsess over things like clarity and sentence structure seems to be the best way to prevent myself from declaring the post a lost cause and doing something else.
Sounds exciting, doesn't it?
For the edification of the three or four people who still read this site regularly, I will be liveblogging the Presidential debate tonight, beginning at 9:00 pm EST.
Why? Because screw it, I want to get back into this blogging thing somehow, and a format that doesn't allow me to obsess over things like clarity and sentence structure seems to be the best way to prevent myself from declaring the post a lost cause and doing something else.
Sounds exciting, doesn't it?
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Dear JDC,
Ha!
No, wait. That's not quite right.
HA! HA HA!
Better.
Love,
TMRM
P.S. Cheese sucks. More coming soon.
Ha!
No, wait. That's not quite right.
HA! HA HA!
Better.
Love,
TMRM
P.S. Cheese sucks. More coming soon.
Monday, August 16, 2004
So Happy Together...
Kevin Drum and I are practically brothers!
Me, last year:
Him, today:
It's nice when smart people agree with you.
Kevin Drum and I are practically brothers!
Me, last year:
"Until a Left-leaning Supreme Court Justice clears the way for a viciously partisan Democratic Special Prosecutor to take control of a high-profile, endlessly-funded investigation that has already cleared Bush of wrong-doing and extend said investigation into areas that aren't covered by its mandate (and are, indeed, being manufactured and promoted by Hard Left lawyers with funding from wealthy Leftist crackpots) in order to force Bush to perjure himself so that the inherently totalitarian House of Representatives -- controlled by insanely partisan Democrats -- can draft and pass embarrassingly weak Articles of Impeachment (but only after illegally presenting waffling moderates, outside of the House chamber in a Democratic headquarters, with "evidence" that wouldn't hold up in any court that Bush was a rapist) - all enabled by some of the most factually-impaired reporting since Hearst's heyday and a television pundit corps that skews heavily to the Left, I think we can safely say that the "Devious Shit" award goes to the reigning champion GOP."
Him, today:
"Tell you what, Jonah. As soon as the most popular liberal editorial page in the country accuses George Bush of murdering one of his aides, maybe I'll give your argument a hearing. And as soon as one of the most influential liberal interest groups in the country starts distributing hundreds of thousands of videos suggesting that George Bush ran a coke ring out of Austin, then I'll really perk up. And when Senate Democrats spend $70 million investigating the Valerie Plame affair — compared to the current $0 — and end up bringing impeachment charges against George Bush, then you'll have me. You'll really have me."
It's nice when smart people agree with you.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Repository of Factual Bitchslaps
While I appreciate the warm support my previous post has generated, there are a few minor misperceptions I'd like to address.
It seems that a not-insignificant portion of readers interpreted the letter addressed to the Kerry campaign as an exhortation to go absolutely balls out, rhetorically. This was not my intention. I actually believe that sticking to the relative high ground is a very smart strategy. Bush's approval ratings on almost every subject are plummetting - something that I believe was inevitable, given his policies, but that I also believe was expected by Bush's handlers to happen several months in the future, after the election. The best route to go seems to be to hold off massive fire on Bush, and build a strong following, person to person, in the swing states. This is exactly what Kerry appears to be doing.
My main concern is that since the President is in such trouble, his allies have begun a massive smear offensive against Kerry. As many people have pointed out, building Bush up seems pretty well beyond reach; what is left is to tear Kerry down.
It seems clear to me -- and from the response my last post received, many others -- that the Kerry campaign's response to this massive bit of mud slinging has been somewhat lukewarm. This is inexcusable, and, given the stakes involved and the margin for error, very dangerous.
My suggestion, stripped of the anger/annoyance I feel justified in displaying, is rather simple and, given the resources available to the campaign, quite workable:
1. Hire a group of people to immerse themselves in the media world of the Right. Listen to Limbaugh. Listen to Hannity. Read Rightwing publications. Read Rightwing blogs - particularly InstaPundit, The Corner, and RedState. Read Rightwing forums - particularly FreeRepublic. As a very poor shorthand, I will refer to these staffers as the immersion group.
2. Give these people some kind of access to the top level of the campaign - 15 minutes a day on the phone with Kerry himself would be nice, but is most likely unfeasible. A good chunk of time with top-level media staff would probably be a decent substitute, as long as they don't minimize the importance of the immersion group.
3. As the immersion group sees themes, quotes, and lines of attack move from the fringes into the semi-mainstream (for example, once something makes the jump from Free Republic to InstaPundit), have them coordinate with press staff (actually, I'd prefer it to be with Kerry himself - this is why I'd like them to have direct access, but again, I understand that it might not be workable) to get everyone on the same page and up to speed with what the truth is, and what documentation exists to prove it. This is no time to have multiple agents floating their own personal explanations which may conflict or need to be retracted later.
4. Set up a very user-friendly website where each individual smear is decontructed at length, with as much documentation and citation as possible. Put it on either johnkerry.com, or, if people who know better than I do think that isn't appropriate, put it on the DNC's website. This is so that it has an official quality, and cannot be dismissed as a "product of far Left fringe group." Such an accusation can still be used by Righties, of course, but the power of that charge is significantly lessoned when it is directed at an official party source.
5. Sum up each deconstruction/response in quick, snappy soundbite fashion, and forcefeed it to your spokespeople, every single day. Make sure they point to the website frequently.
This should go a long way in minimizing the impact of various smears, because it will:
1. Give your spokespeople grounds to speak with authority when refuting bogus charges, minimizing rhetorical gotchas and allowing your spokespeople to stand their ground and continue to push the message they are supposed to push that day.
2. Give allies in the media an authoritative source for refutation material, so that they aren't left floundering when someone on the other side gets backed into a corner and becomes dramatically anal about citations.
3. Give mainstream media sources an easy means of "balancing" their story if and when they decide to run wiuth a particular rumor. Spoonfeed them the definitive rebuttal, rather than hoping they quote the right part of a random spokesperson's response. If rebuttals are definitive enough, the campaign may even be able to prevent a rumor from being picked up at all. After all, the mainstream media prides itself on its important role in American public life, and even if you and I think they sometimes do a horrendous job of it, most of them won't knowingly run blatantly false information.
4. Allow anyone interested to access the rebuttal themselves. With the prevalence of blogs and other internet media, this becomes especially useful as an alternate means of rapidly distributing your information.
It is no longer useful to sit back and hope that the media is too responsible to pick up any given rumor. The Right has proved that it can inject damn near any rumor it wants into mainstream discourse by distributing it along its own media network and then having the respectable press -- pathologically adverse to being scooped -- scramble to catch up. The internet has accelerated this process to the point where something can go from faint whisper on the fringes to RNC talking point on CrossFire in a matter of days. However, because all of these sources are open to the public, they can be monitored and countered in real time, if the Kerry campaign is smart enough to use its resources to do so.
While I appreciate the warm support my previous post has generated, there are a few minor misperceptions I'd like to address.
It seems that a not-insignificant portion of readers interpreted the letter addressed to the Kerry campaign as an exhortation to go absolutely balls out, rhetorically. This was not my intention. I actually believe that sticking to the relative high ground is a very smart strategy. Bush's approval ratings on almost every subject are plummetting - something that I believe was inevitable, given his policies, but that I also believe was expected by Bush's handlers to happen several months in the future, after the election. The best route to go seems to be to hold off massive fire on Bush, and build a strong following, person to person, in the swing states. This is exactly what Kerry appears to be doing.
My main concern is that since the President is in such trouble, his allies have begun a massive smear offensive against Kerry. As many people have pointed out, building Bush up seems pretty well beyond reach; what is left is to tear Kerry down.
It seems clear to me -- and from the response my last post received, many others -- that the Kerry campaign's response to this massive bit of mud slinging has been somewhat lukewarm. This is inexcusable, and, given the stakes involved and the margin for error, very dangerous.
My suggestion, stripped of the anger/annoyance I feel justified in displaying, is rather simple and, given the resources available to the campaign, quite workable:
1. Hire a group of people to immerse themselves in the media world of the Right. Listen to Limbaugh. Listen to Hannity. Read Rightwing publications. Read Rightwing blogs - particularly InstaPundit, The Corner, and RedState. Read Rightwing forums - particularly FreeRepublic. As a very poor shorthand, I will refer to these staffers as the immersion group.
2. Give these people some kind of access to the top level of the campaign - 15 minutes a day on the phone with Kerry himself would be nice, but is most likely unfeasible. A good chunk of time with top-level media staff would probably be a decent substitute, as long as they don't minimize the importance of the immersion group.
3. As the immersion group sees themes, quotes, and lines of attack move from the fringes into the semi-mainstream (for example, once something makes the jump from Free Republic to InstaPundit), have them coordinate with press staff (actually, I'd prefer it to be with Kerry himself - this is why I'd like them to have direct access, but again, I understand that it might not be workable) to get everyone on the same page and up to speed with what the truth is, and what documentation exists to prove it. This is no time to have multiple agents floating their own personal explanations which may conflict or need to be retracted later.
4. Set up a very user-friendly website where each individual smear is decontructed at length, with as much documentation and citation as possible. Put it on either johnkerry.com, or, if people who know better than I do think that isn't appropriate, put it on the DNC's website. This is so that it has an official quality, and cannot be dismissed as a "product of far Left fringe group." Such an accusation can still be used by Righties, of course, but the power of that charge is significantly lessoned when it is directed at an official party source.
5. Sum up each deconstruction/response in quick, snappy soundbite fashion, and forcefeed it to your spokespeople, every single day. Make sure they point to the website frequently.
This should go a long way in minimizing the impact of various smears, because it will:
1. Give your spokespeople grounds to speak with authority when refuting bogus charges, minimizing rhetorical gotchas and allowing your spokespeople to stand their ground and continue to push the message they are supposed to push that day.
2. Give allies in the media an authoritative source for refutation material, so that they aren't left floundering when someone on the other side gets backed into a corner and becomes dramatically anal about citations.
3. Give mainstream media sources an easy means of "balancing" their story if and when they decide to run wiuth a particular rumor. Spoonfeed them the definitive rebuttal, rather than hoping they quote the right part of a random spokesperson's response. If rebuttals are definitive enough, the campaign may even be able to prevent a rumor from being picked up at all. After all, the mainstream media prides itself on its important role in American public life, and even if you and I think they sometimes do a horrendous job of it, most of them won't knowingly run blatantly false information.
4. Allow anyone interested to access the rebuttal themselves. With the prevalence of blogs and other internet media, this becomes especially useful as an alternate means of rapidly distributing your information.
It is no longer useful to sit back and hope that the media is too responsible to pick up any given rumor. The Right has proved that it can inject damn near any rumor it wants into mainstream discourse by distributing it along its own media network and then having the respectable press -- pathologically adverse to being scooped -- scramble to catch up. The internet has accelerated this process to the point where something can go from faint whisper on the fringes to RNC talking point on CrossFire in a matter of days. However, because all of these sources are open to the public, they can be monitored and countered in real time, if the Kerry campaign is smart enough to use its resources to do so.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Dear Kerry '04 Campaign Staff,
I don't know what's going on in your heads, but you guys need to seriously get your shit together.
You are trying to get a man elected to the most powerful office in the world. You are running against liars and thieves who have a coordinated smear apparatus with branches throughout the national media. You have the example of the 2000 campaign, and indeed the entire Clinton presidency, to learn how this apparatus operates.
You know this. So why in God's name am I seeing interview clips that involve your spokespeople beginning sentences by stuttering, looking nonplussed, and saying things like "I believe" and "That's not entirely correct"?
I don't know, maybe you're hiring your favorite nieces or the neighbor children to be your spokespeople, but whatever it is, it ain't gonna cut it my friends. Anyone who goes in front of a camera with the imprimatur of the campaign and is blindsided by quotes, allegations, or outright lies that I have already heard needs to be fired immediately. There's a lot of dirt gonna be thrown your way in the next few months, and the time to pattycake with this bullshit is over.
Your fundraising efforts have been extremely effective and have won you accolades from various sources. Congratulations. Now tell me why the fuck you aren't paying some college kid $300 a week to do fulltime what I do for an hour or two a day? You have the unique opportunity of seeing the other side's talking points at least a day or two before they go into effect nationwide. How? Read their freakin' blogs. Hell, you'd be infinitely more prepared for this crap if you just read the goddamn InstaPundit, whose mission in life appears to be to collect as much bullshit as possible from as many questionable sources as possible and spray it hither and yon into the media winds. I believe in a Just God, and as such I know that Reynolds and his family will be punished unto the fourth generation, but for now, you can use his sin to do good. It's what Jesus would do, and you love Jesus, right?
Sure, most people who hear the various false charges, distortions, and lies about your candidate are skeptical, and realize that they are bogus. But the other side doesn't need most people. They need a small handful of undecideds to break their way in a few critical states. That's why every little smear, no matter how ridiculous, is potentially devastating.
There's only one way to deal with this: every lie, distortion, and false charge needs to be crushed, immediately and irrefutably, to the point where journalists will be mocked for repeating them.
You not only need to say that their bullshit is ridiculous, but you need to explain in detail why it is ridiculous. Not on television - I understand the need for soundbite wisdom in the ADD nightmare that is cable news. No, what your crew needs to do is set up a resource, a central repository of factual bitchslaps across the jaw of all this character assasination. Bullet point it so that your representatives can quickly get the message across on TV, but make deeper detail available online for anyone who's interested, particularly journalists. Make it part of johnkerry.com, or have the DNC set it up and put it under their name, whichever you like. But make sure your people point to it in every interview in print, on television, and on radio.
You're good people, and despite what you say in public, God is on your side, but if you fuck this up, you will undoubtedly burn in hell forever. God is merciful, but He's getting sick of this shit. Don't let Him down.
Regards,
The Mighty Reason Man
PS - Also, I advise you to hire someone to beat the living hell out of Sean Hannity, on general principles. Contact me for further advice.
I don't know what's going on in your heads, but you guys need to seriously get your shit together.
You are trying to get a man elected to the most powerful office in the world. You are running against liars and thieves who have a coordinated smear apparatus with branches throughout the national media. You have the example of the 2000 campaign, and indeed the entire Clinton presidency, to learn how this apparatus operates.
You know this. So why in God's name am I seeing interview clips that involve your spokespeople beginning sentences by stuttering, looking nonplussed, and saying things like "I believe" and "That's not entirely correct"?
I don't know, maybe you're hiring your favorite nieces or the neighbor children to be your spokespeople, but whatever it is, it ain't gonna cut it my friends. Anyone who goes in front of a camera with the imprimatur of the campaign and is blindsided by quotes, allegations, or outright lies that I have already heard needs to be fired immediately. There's a lot of dirt gonna be thrown your way in the next few months, and the time to pattycake with this bullshit is over.
Your fundraising efforts have been extremely effective and have won you accolades from various sources. Congratulations. Now tell me why the fuck you aren't paying some college kid $300 a week to do fulltime what I do for an hour or two a day? You have the unique opportunity of seeing the other side's talking points at least a day or two before they go into effect nationwide. How? Read their freakin' blogs. Hell, you'd be infinitely more prepared for this crap if you just read the goddamn InstaPundit, whose mission in life appears to be to collect as much bullshit as possible from as many questionable sources as possible and spray it hither and yon into the media winds. I believe in a Just God, and as such I know that Reynolds and his family will be punished unto the fourth generation, but for now, you can use his sin to do good. It's what Jesus would do, and you love Jesus, right?
Sure, most people who hear the various false charges, distortions, and lies about your candidate are skeptical, and realize that they are bogus. But the other side doesn't need most people. They need a small handful of undecideds to break their way in a few critical states. That's why every little smear, no matter how ridiculous, is potentially devastating.
There's only one way to deal with this: every lie, distortion, and false charge needs to be crushed, immediately and irrefutably, to the point where journalists will be mocked for repeating them.
You not only need to say that their bullshit is ridiculous, but you need to explain in detail why it is ridiculous. Not on television - I understand the need for soundbite wisdom in the ADD nightmare that is cable news. No, what your crew needs to do is set up a resource, a central repository of factual bitchslaps across the jaw of all this character assasination. Bullet point it so that your representatives can quickly get the message across on TV, but make deeper detail available online for anyone who's interested, particularly journalists. Make it part of johnkerry.com, or have the DNC set it up and put it under their name, whichever you like. But make sure your people point to it in every interview in print, on television, and on radio.
You're good people, and despite what you say in public, God is on your side, but if you fuck this up, you will undoubtedly burn in hell forever. God is merciful, but He's getting sick of this shit. Don't let Him down.
Regards,
The Mighty Reason Man
PS - Also, I advise you to hire someone to beat the living hell out of Sean Hannity, on general principles. Contact me for further advice.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Ringu
An experience that I am beginning to truly hate, that has been occuring with increasing frequency of late: I run into a pretty girl somewhere, strike up a conversation, get her to laugh, get her name, get the whole eye-contact thing going, decide that, yeah, this chick's cool enough to try to get her to go out for coffee or something, and then glance at her left hand and see my Nemesis: that fucking diamond on the ringfinger.
Great. Five minutes down the drain.
It's come to the point where I'm in favor of ditching the customary wedding/engagement ring and requiring women to tattoo "MOVE ALONG" on their foreheads.
I guess it's time to become more vocal in my support for gay marriage, so that the institution crumbles to the ground and life can become more convenient for me.
Or, you know, remember to look at the left hand first, as opposed to...well, I'm a straight male in his early twenties; you already know what I look at first.
An experience that I am beginning to truly hate, that has been occuring with increasing frequency of late: I run into a pretty girl somewhere, strike up a conversation, get her to laugh, get her name, get the whole eye-contact thing going, decide that, yeah, this chick's cool enough to try to get her to go out for coffee or something, and then glance at her left hand and see my Nemesis: that fucking diamond on the ringfinger.
Great. Five minutes down the drain.
It's come to the point where I'm in favor of ditching the customary wedding/engagement ring and requiring women to tattoo "MOVE ALONG" on their foreheads.
I guess it's time to become more vocal in my support for gay marriage, so that the institution crumbles to the ground and life can become more convenient for me.
Or, you know, remember to look at the left hand first, as opposed to...well, I'm a straight male in his early twenties; you already know what I look at first.
I Wonder If The Authorities View With Suspicion The Disappearance Of Small Children In Glenn Reynolds' Neighborhood
As a casual observer of the art of dark insinuation in the absence of actual incriminating evidence, I direct you to this bit by the reigning expert:
Ha ha.
But seriously. The "you should be worried" formulation, and variations thereof, is an old Reynolds standard, directed at various people he dislikes - from the Europeans, to Chris Matthews, to the mainstream press.
It's yet another one of his little implied threats that really bug the shit out of me. I'm constantly tempted to call it the faintest glimmer of the fascist impulse which I suspect plays a larger part in the mentality of die-hard Bush supporters than they will ever admit, but that would make me a shrill, hysterical, shrieking Leftist, who wouldn't say that kind of thing if he knew what was good for him. After all, aren't I worried that real patriotic Americans would hurt me if they knew what I really thought?
Yeah...yeah.
Sidenote: On the subject of insinuations without evidence, in the same post Reynolds quotes a reader who reads dark happenings in the Kerry campaign's lack of angry response to the Sandy Berger story, the implication being that they have something to hide.
Right. Because the Kerry campaign is too stupid to realize that anything they say only prolongs what is, essentially, a non-story, and that the smartest response would be to shut the fuck up about the whole thing and let the 9/11 report knock it off the frontpage.
I know Glenn gets a lot of readers, but why do only the dumb ones bother to send him email?
As a casual observer of the art of dark insinuation in the absence of actual incriminating evidence, I direct you to this bit by the reigning expert:
"So Berger knew he was under investigation. As we've seen earlier, Bill Clinton says that he knew months ahead. And, I guess, so did Joe Lockhart, serving as Berger's "spokesman." (Hence the "we" and "our" -- and who else might be included in those terms? And why does a retired government official have a spokesman, anyway? Beats me.) Yet John Kerry says that he "didn't have a clue."You know, things like "the Niger uranium claim has very weak evidenciary basis," or "we have set up an internal intelligence operation made up of our own people because all of our intelligence agencies think we're full of shit."
If I were Kerry, I'd worry about what else my staff wasn't telling me."
(emphasis mine)
Ha ha.
But seriously. The "you should be worried" formulation, and variations thereof, is an old Reynolds standard, directed at various people he dislikes - from the Europeans, to Chris Matthews, to the mainstream press.
It's yet another one of his little implied threats that really bug the shit out of me. I'm constantly tempted to call it the faintest glimmer of the fascist impulse which I suspect plays a larger part in the mentality of die-hard Bush supporters than they will ever admit, but that would make me a shrill, hysterical, shrieking Leftist, who wouldn't say that kind of thing if he knew what was good for him. After all, aren't I worried that real patriotic Americans would hurt me if they knew what I really thought?
Yeah...yeah.
Sidenote: On the subject of insinuations without evidence, in the same post Reynolds quotes a reader who reads dark happenings in the Kerry campaign's lack of angry response to the Sandy Berger story, the implication being that they have something to hide.
Right. Because the Kerry campaign is too stupid to realize that anything they say only prolongs what is, essentially, a non-story, and that the smartest response would be to shut the fuck up about the whole thing and let the 9/11 report knock it off the frontpage.
I know Glenn gets a lot of readers, but why do only the dumb ones bother to send him email?
Thursday, July 15, 2004
I Must Face The Evil Warlock Who Killed My Father! Give Me The Boots Of Oruku, So That My Cyber-Psionic Power Will Be Unmatched!
I have mixed feelings about Japanese anime; the storytelling potential of animation is enormous, and I give the infiltration of America by anime all kinds of credit for slowly breaking down the absolutely tragic perception of animation as primarily a children's medium. However, the writing in most anime that I have seen is pretty shoddy - and the dialogue is almost uniformly atrocious. Now, I'm willing to attribute most of that to problems inherant in translating between vastly dissimilar languages, but at least some of it is due to differences between Japanese and American culture. What I'd really like to see is an emergence of American (or British) written anime intended solely for an adult audience, stripped of most of the cutesiness that infects virtually all Japanese anime to one degree or another. The Animatrix, for example, is a very promising development which I hope will inspire similar efforts in the future. See also: Samurai Jack, which is somewhat kid-oriented, but combines some very good storytelling with simple but very dynamic animation.
Why does the potential of anime excite me so much? Several reasons.
- You can do anything. An animation screenwriter doesn't have to worry about whether something can be realistically depicted onscreen - if you can draw it (or computer-generate it), you can do it. This could be particularly useful in the science fiction, fantasy, and historical genres, which in live action cinema require huge amounts of money to look anyhting but cheesy.
- Which brings us to cost. Compared to live action cinema, animation is dirt cheap, especially if you're talking about effects-heavy productions.
- Which brings us to specialization and risk taking. Since animated movies are cheaper, they don't have to do nearly as well at the box office to recoup production costs, which in turn means studio executives would be much more willing to take a chance on something experimental, or something that would appeal to a specific audience. The reason that big-budget movies are so often cringe-worthy is because, due to that big budget, they need to make lots and lots of money, which means they have to try to be all things to all people, which leaves most people disappointed in one aspect or another. This is particularly evident in the sci-fi genre, where people like myself would be willing, in order to get a movie that doesn't need to sacrifice a tight, smartly-written story in order to pay for the special effects, to kill somebody - particularly the idiots who produce ludicrous, bloated characatures of science fiction like Armageddon. I also really like the idea of a historical drama set in some little-explored period, without having to make it a star vehicle or fill it with anachronistic and ahistoric elements in order to broaden its appeal.
- Animation eliminates the need for actors to be pretty. Voice roles can be cast based solely on talent, instead of on whether someone looks right for a role. An example off the top of my head is the dude who played Kraven in Underworld. Yeah, he sure does look like the leader of a vampire clan, but everytime the guy opened his mouth, I wanted to put tire iron in it. In his defense, it appears that he was born in Ireland, which means his verbal awkwardness may have been due to the director forcing him to use an American accent - which of course only reinforces my point. Had Underworld been animated, he never would have been cast in the role.
So, um, yeah. Support adult animation1 in the US! Or something. I don't really have an action plan on this one.
Note: This post inspired by a post by DenBeste, which I read only enough of to see this summary of a particular anime series:
Goddamn if that isn't a spectacular display of every crappy anime cliche in existence. Shit like that is the reason I don't like anime.
__________
1 Non-porn, that is. Animated porn is really fucking weird, and if you are into it you are a freak. No exceptions.
I have mixed feelings about Japanese anime; the storytelling potential of animation is enormous, and I give the infiltration of America by anime all kinds of credit for slowly breaking down the absolutely tragic perception of animation as primarily a children's medium. However, the writing in most anime that I have seen is pretty shoddy - and the dialogue is almost uniformly atrocious. Now, I'm willing to attribute most of that to problems inherant in translating between vastly dissimilar languages, but at least some of it is due to differences between Japanese and American culture. What I'd really like to see is an emergence of American (or British) written anime intended solely for an adult audience, stripped of most of the cutesiness that infects virtually all Japanese anime to one degree or another. The Animatrix, for example, is a very promising development which I hope will inspire similar efforts in the future. See also: Samurai Jack, which is somewhat kid-oriented, but combines some very good storytelling with simple but very dynamic animation.
Why does the potential of anime excite me so much? Several reasons.
- You can do anything. An animation screenwriter doesn't have to worry about whether something can be realistically depicted onscreen - if you can draw it (or computer-generate it), you can do it. This could be particularly useful in the science fiction, fantasy, and historical genres, which in live action cinema require huge amounts of money to look anyhting but cheesy.
- Which brings us to cost. Compared to live action cinema, animation is dirt cheap, especially if you're talking about effects-heavy productions.
- Which brings us to specialization and risk taking. Since animated movies are cheaper, they don't have to do nearly as well at the box office to recoup production costs, which in turn means studio executives would be much more willing to take a chance on something experimental, or something that would appeal to a specific audience. The reason that big-budget movies are so often cringe-worthy is because, due to that big budget, they need to make lots and lots of money, which means they have to try to be all things to all people, which leaves most people disappointed in one aspect or another. This is particularly evident in the sci-fi genre, where people like myself would be willing, in order to get a movie that doesn't need to sacrifice a tight, smartly-written story in order to pay for the special effects, to kill somebody - particularly the idiots who produce ludicrous, bloated characatures of science fiction like Armageddon. I also really like the idea of a historical drama set in some little-explored period, without having to make it a star vehicle or fill it with anachronistic and ahistoric elements in order to broaden its appeal.
- Animation eliminates the need for actors to be pretty. Voice roles can be cast based solely on talent, instead of on whether someone looks right for a role. An example off the top of my head is the dude who played Kraven in Underworld. Yeah, he sure does look like the leader of a vampire clan, but everytime the guy opened his mouth, I wanted to put tire iron in it. In his defense, it appears that he was born in Ireland, which means his verbal awkwardness may have been due to the director forcing him to use an American accent - which of course only reinforces my point. Had Underworld been animated, he never would have been cast in the role.
So, um, yeah. Support adult animation1 in the US! Or something. I don't really have an action plan on this one.
Note: This post inspired by a post by DenBeste, which I read only enough of to see this summary of a particular anime series:
"In an alternate reality, in 1920's Japan, the capital is under assault by mystical forces. The primary attackers are called Wakiji, and they are partly mechanical, partly biological, and partly magical. They are also virtually invulnerable to conventional weapons which the military tries to use against them, and can only be defeated by rare individuals who have very strong spirit power and who can learn to control it.
They can use their spirit power with weapons such as swords or even pistols, but with sufficient training, they can also use their spirit power to move armored suits called Koubu, which are far more powerful. But that is very difficult. And there are four special enemies, particularly powerful and particularly menacing, who show up now and again who are not so easily defeated. Nor do the defenders know why the city is being attacked, or what the attackers hope to accomplish.
A small number of young people identified as having the greatest potential spirit power are collected together, in the desperate hope that they will master their power and bond as a team in time to be able to fight and defeat the enemy before its plan is completed. As an aid to development of discipline and teamwork, they operate as a theater company. But the enemy plan continues to unfold, and the team doesn't seem to be pulling together. Time is running out.
Sakura Shinguji is the last girl to join the group, and she is potentially the strongest of them all, for she carries the blood of the destroyers of evil, as her father did before her. The series begins as Sakura arrives in Tokyo to join the company, and culminates with a climactic battle between the Imperial Flower Division and the mysterious enemy seeking to destroy the capital, which can only end in total victory or complete defeat." (emphasis added)
Goddamn if that isn't a spectacular display of every crappy anime cliche in existence. Shit like that is the reason I don't like anime.
__________
1 Non-porn, that is. Animated porn is really fucking weird, and if you are into it you are a freak. No exceptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
