Air the Speech -- Hear the Case!
Don's partisanship is showing, just a little. He is way off on the responsibility of TV networks and is avoiding the manipulation of the Bush Administration of the issue.
Those complaining about Bush’s speech not being carried the big three TV networks should first look at the event. Bush’s speech was in front of homer crowd, and had a clear political undertone. It was a Republican crowd and Bush got a Republican, read partisan, welcome. The TV networks are not required and should not give free TV time to the GOP without giving the opportunity for a Democratic response. There was nothing substantially new in the speech, and Bush officials made that clear to the networks beforehand. If Bush wants to prepare the public for war, then do so like every other TV president has done, from a subdued speech from the White House. No crowds cheering, no standing ovations, and no need for a Presidential motorcade. There was plenty of coverage for Bush’s pep rally, and all of the complaints since are beyond petty. They are a juvenile attempt to add to the myth of a liberal political bias in the media.
Sunday, October 13, 2002
Unprecedented Opposition to War Still Ignored By Administration, Power-Elite
Matt at Machination seems to be playing the protest number games. Quote as many numbers as you can and you can confuse the issue. I can't find the NPR report he refers to claiming 7,000 demonstrators, nor can I find the Democracy Now report either. This is not even close to the 4,500 the organizers of the protest claimed. The 4,000+ number was reported in one local progressive media outlet, Xray Cincinnati, while the other major progressive news source, CityBeat, stuck with a number between 2,000 and 3,000.
I still like the police estimate of 1,000, but 2,000 is not out of the question. The protesters self determined number is clearly a biased figure that is so unlike the religious groups many of the organizers represent.
Matt at Machination seems to be playing the protest number games. Quote as many numbers as you can and you can confuse the issue. I can't find the NPR report he refers to claiming 7,000 demonstrators, nor can I find the Democracy Now report either. This is not even close to the 4,500 the organizers of the protest claimed. The 4,000+ number was reported in one local progressive media outlet, Xray Cincinnati, while the other major progressive news source, CityBeat, stuck with a number between 2,000 and 3,000.
I still like the police estimate of 1,000, but 2,000 is not out of the question. The protesters self determined number is clearly a biased figure that is so unlike the religious groups many of the organizers represent.
Coach eases back to court
There is nothing critical in this article at all against Huggins going back to work full speed. I hope his doctors are watching him like hawks. I think people will see a different Huggins during the season, if he even remains the coach.
There is nothing critical in this article at all against Huggins going back to work full speed. I hope his doctors are watching him like hawks. I think people will see a different Huggins during the season, if he even remains the coach.
KIESEWETTER: Television
Last light Tina Fey was wearing odd shoes. Weekend update was ok, but the rest of the show lacked "balls." Chris Parnell is the new George Bush. His rendition was fair, but will hopefully get better. Reports were made that Darrel Hammond tried a skit as Bush on the season opener's dress rehearsal, which failed miserably and was cut. Instead Parnell turns up opening the next episode of SNL as Bush. I hope Chris Parnell can grow into the role the way Hammond did with his imitation of Bill Clinton after taking over for Phil Hartman. The show is really going to miss Will Ferrell, who left the show at the end of last season. Will was the Phil Hartman of their group. They are now missing someone who can carry a show with a bad guest host. John McCain, hosting next week, would be just such a host, but if SNL had courage they could do some great skits. McCain and Bush debating again, or McCain back in the Hanoi Hilton, or even McCain on the Senate floor with renditions of the more colorful Senators. I have the feeling next week’s show will suck as much as this weeks did. The roller coaster ride that is SNL will go on.
Last light Tina Fey was wearing odd shoes. Weekend update was ok, but the rest of the show lacked "balls." Chris Parnell is the new George Bush. His rendition was fair, but will hopefully get better. Reports were made that Darrel Hammond tried a skit as Bush on the season opener's dress rehearsal, which failed miserably and was cut. Instead Parnell turns up opening the next episode of SNL as Bush. I hope Chris Parnell can grow into the role the way Hammond did with his imitation of Bill Clinton after taking over for Phil Hartman. The show is really going to miss Will Ferrell, who left the show at the end of last season. Will was the Phil Hartman of their group. They are now missing someone who can carry a show with a bad guest host. John McCain, hosting next week, would be just such a host, but if SNL had courage they could do some great skits. McCain and Bush debating again, or McCain back in the Hanoi Hilton, or even McCain on the Senate floor with renditions of the more colorful Senators. I have the feeling next week’s show will suck as much as this weeks did. The roller coaster ride that is SNL will go on.
Springboro Junior High cancels Washington trip
Yet another overreaction under pressure from the media and parents. The problem with the "Beltway" sniper is not in Washington; it is in the suburbs. Here is a side effect of the media coverage of this occurrence. The media has created a fear quotient in consciousness of the entire nation. Fear of what is perceived to be a problem to them takes over reality. Also, this is not a local story, but don't tell the local media who had to connect the story with the local angle - see the Enquirer or WKRC.
Yet another overreaction under pressure from the media and parents. The problem with the "Beltway" sniper is not in Washington; it is in the suburbs. Here is a side effect of the media coverage of this occurrence. The media has created a fear quotient in consciousness of the entire nation. Fear of what is perceived to be a problem to them takes over reality. Also, this is not a local story, but don't tell the local media who had to connect the story with the local angle - see the Enquirer or WKRC.
BRONSON: Antiwar dictionary
I can draw two major conclusions from this column.
1. Bronson was in favor of the Vietnam War, or has reversed his claimed former hippie opinions because of his religious and ideological conversion.
2. Bronson has never served in the military and surely never seen combat.
Bronson is a poster child for a chicken hawk. A chicken hawk is a person who is in strongly in favor of war, but has never served in the military or been in combat. I think Peter may be suffering from conservative guilt. That would be guilt for not having been a conservative all his life. His "youthful" transgressions into hippie-dom is what his chicken hawk behavior hopes to make up for.
I will agree that the extreme progressive populist anti-war views are nutty, but Bronson is lumping all anti-war people into a crowd of old hippies (who he hates more than "Satan" himself) and young faux-anarchists. Bronson’s bull in a china shop style of political discourse does nothing but create a wider "us vs. them" situation. Conservatives generally cannot function unless a situation is defined in good vs. evil terms. Like Bush, Bronson needs that shallow and simplistic distinction of Dubya’s geopolitical mantra: “you are either with us or with the terrorists.” That is the conservative PC version of saying you are either with us or against us, where being “with us” means you must agree to make Bush your unquestioned lord and master and submit to the will of the Christian “god”.
(For the record I have never served in the military nor seen combat. You will find very very few under 45 in this country who have seen combat.)
I can draw two major conclusions from this column.
1. Bronson was in favor of the Vietnam War, or has reversed his claimed former hippie opinions because of his religious and ideological conversion.
2. Bronson has never served in the military and surely never seen combat.
Bronson is a poster child for a chicken hawk. A chicken hawk is a person who is in strongly in favor of war, but has never served in the military or been in combat. I think Peter may be suffering from conservative guilt. That would be guilt for not having been a conservative all his life. His "youthful" transgressions into hippie-dom is what his chicken hawk behavior hopes to make up for.
I will agree that the extreme progressive populist anti-war views are nutty, but Bronson is lumping all anti-war people into a crowd of old hippies (who he hates more than "Satan" himself) and young faux-anarchists. Bronson’s bull in a china shop style of political discourse does nothing but create a wider "us vs. them" situation. Conservatives generally cannot function unless a situation is defined in good vs. evil terms. Like Bush, Bronson needs that shallow and simplistic distinction of Dubya’s geopolitical mantra: “you are either with us or with the terrorists.” That is the conservative PC version of saying you are either with us or against us, where being “with us” means you must agree to make Bush your unquestioned lord and master and submit to the will of the Christian “god”.
(For the record I have never served in the military nor seen combat. You will find very very few under 45 in this country who have seen combat.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)