Issue:Scotsman.com News - Latest News - Chavez threatens extradition bid: "Chavez threatens extradition bid "
Comment:There is no specific sentence or point in the article. The thought that cross my mind is the question of Terrorism - ideology or tactic. The question of Free Speech versus Terrorism. There is a charge of "Terroristic threat" in the penal code -I believe.
As a slight aside thought is the notion the phrase - the "ends justify the means". Specifically, the rhetoric I keep hearing - that I heard over the weekend again - - to paraphrase from one of the Sunday morning talking head - "would you rather have Saddam in power instead of having sacrificing 1900?"
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Issue:Iraqi Leaders Again Put Off Meeting on New Constitution - New York Times:
Specific:"It appears, however, that no agreement has been reached so far with the Sunnis on the question of federalism, which would essentially set up powerful local regions instead of a strong central government."
Comment:I would suggest that the all parties involved may be suffering a sort of Post-traumatic Stress disorder from their years under Saddam. I would further suggest that the heavy handedness of President Bush is causing the Iraqi's to not own the process. By "no owning" the process it is easier for those involve to dismiss. It seems to be a part of human nature to hestitate or balk at change when the idea of change is imposed. It seems to be a part of human nature to be resistant to the emotional commitment to an idea, when there is no reason - that you are being told.
I studied political science in college and history. I understand what is federalism. I probably wrote an essay justifying federalism in some way. The question I less sanquin about is the "need" for federalism. As a major in political science I could probably exlpain the value to an common Iraqi who was familiar with western tradition.
Is it reasonable to think that an ordinary Iraqi who only knows Arabic or Middle Asian tradition is going to easily emotionally commit to Federalism or other western forms of governance that did not originate in a form that is not of a tradition he/she is familiar? These are a percentage of the players deciding the Iraqi Constitution now.
I suspect that there is a sense of pressure coming from within Iraqi governance to Iraqi people that looks and feels like a Saddam lite - a Saddam without the murdering. That is coming from Uncle Sam looking over the shoulder of Iraqi governance.
As a student of political science I am intently watching, because I'm waiting to see some kind of move or speech or process in this Iraqi synthesis that has some kind of parallel to the American process. A "something" that says - if you build a nation with a constitution - you need to do xyz steps.
Specific:"It appears, however, that no agreement has been reached so far with the Sunnis on the question of federalism, which would essentially set up powerful local regions instead of a strong central government."
Comment:I would suggest that the all parties involved may be suffering a sort of Post-traumatic Stress disorder from their years under Saddam. I would further suggest that the heavy handedness of President Bush is causing the Iraqi's to not own the process. By "no owning" the process it is easier for those involve to dismiss. It seems to be a part of human nature to hestitate or balk at change when the idea of change is imposed. It seems to be a part of human nature to be resistant to the emotional commitment to an idea, when there is no reason - that you are being told.
I studied political science in college and history. I understand what is federalism. I probably wrote an essay justifying federalism in some way. The question I less sanquin about is the "need" for federalism. As a major in political science I could probably exlpain the value to an common Iraqi who was familiar with western tradition.
Is it reasonable to think that an ordinary Iraqi who only knows Arabic or Middle Asian tradition is going to easily emotionally commit to Federalism or other western forms of governance that did not originate in a form that is not of a tradition he/she is familiar? These are a percentage of the players deciding the Iraqi Constitution now.
I suspect that there is a sense of pressure coming from within Iraqi governance to Iraqi people that looks and feels like a Saddam lite - a Saddam without the murdering. That is coming from Uncle Sam looking over the shoulder of Iraqi governance.
As a student of political science I am intently watching, because I'm waiting to see some kind of move or speech or process in this Iraqi synthesis that has some kind of parallel to the American process. A "something" that says - if you build a nation with a constitution - you need to do xyz steps.
Issue:ABC News: Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks:
Specific: "On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show 'The 700 Club,' Robertson had said: 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.' "
Specific:On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."
Comment:This is a first person confirmation that Pat Robertson did indeed use the word "assassination" on Monday.
The reason this is siginificant for comment is because it goes to the nature and quality of "spin" used by the political right bent news outlets. It goes to the blind spot the right has to the "truth" in favor of "fair and balanced".
The Drudge report headlined the apology as a "misinterpretation" - they didn't bother to research it or check it out. Surfing the last could of days I crossed FOX news doing their thing on Chavez. It struck me as a parallel to treatment of Saddam. They called chavez a "neo-communist". I got the impression that Fox News was supporting Pat Robertsons proposition, even if it is wrong for him to suggest it.
This is yet another distinction between the Republican party of my father's generation and the Republican party of today. It supports the notion that there is an element in the body politic of the "right" that pursues power and control while dismissing truth when it becomes inconvenient. It suggests that the "ends justify the means" which I date back to Ronald Reagan and Oliver North.
Specific: "On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show 'The 700 Club,' Robertson had said: 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.' "
Specific:On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."
Comment:This is a first person confirmation that Pat Robertson did indeed use the word "assassination" on Monday.
The reason this is siginificant for comment is because it goes to the nature and quality of "spin" used by the political right bent news outlets. It goes to the blind spot the right has to the "truth" in favor of "fair and balanced".
The Drudge report headlined the apology as a "misinterpretation" - they didn't bother to research it or check it out. Surfing the last could of days I crossed FOX news doing their thing on Chavez. It struck me as a parallel to treatment of Saddam. They called chavez a "neo-communist". I got the impression that Fox News was supporting Pat Robertsons proposition, even if it is wrong for him to suggest it.
This is yet another distinction between the Republican party of my father's generation and the Republican party of today. It supports the notion that there is an element in the body politic of the "right" that pursues power and control while dismissing truth when it becomes inconvenient. It suggests that the "ends justify the means" which I date back to Ronald Reagan and Oliver North.
Issue:ABC News: Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks:
Specific: "On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show 'The 700 Club,' Robertson had said: 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.' "
Specific:On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."
Comment:This is a first person confirmation that Pat Robertson did indeed use the word "assassination" on Monday.
The reason this is siginificant for comment is because it goes to the nature and quality of "spin" used by the political right bent news outlets. It goes to the blind spot the right has to the "truth" in favor of "fair and balanced".
The Drudge report headlined the apology as a "misinterpretation" - they didn't bother to research it or check it out. Surfing the last could of days I crossed FOX news doing their thing on Chavez. It struck me as a parallel to treatment of Saddam. They called chavez a "neo-communist". I got the impression that Fox News was supporting Pat Robertsons proposition, even if it is wrong for him to suggest it.
This is yet another distinction between the Republican party of my father's generation and the Republican party of today. It supports the notion that there is an element in the body politic of the "right" that pursues power and control while dismissing truth when it becomes inconvenient. It suggests that the "ends justify the means" which I date back to Ronald Reagan and Oliver North.
Specific: "On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show 'The 700 Club,' Robertson had said: 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.' "
Specific:On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."
Comment:This is a first person confirmation that Pat Robertson did indeed use the word "assassination" on Monday.
The reason this is siginificant for comment is because it goes to the nature and quality of "spin" used by the political right bent news outlets. It goes to the blind spot the right has to the "truth" in favor of "fair and balanced".
The Drudge report headlined the apology as a "misinterpretation" - they didn't bother to research it or check it out. Surfing the last could of days I crossed FOX news doing their thing on Chavez. It struck me as a parallel to treatment of Saddam. They called chavez a "neo-communist". I got the impression that Fox News was supporting Pat Robertsons proposition, even if it is wrong for him to suggest it.
This is yet another distinction between the Republican party of my father's generation and the Republican party of today. It supports the notion that there is an element in the body politic of the "right" that pursues power and control while dismissing truth when it becomes inconvenient. It suggests that the "ends justify the means" which I date back to Ronald Reagan and Oliver North.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Issue:Bush Rebuts Calls for U.S. to Pull Out of Iraq - New York Times:
Specific: "''So long as I am president we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism,'' he declared."
Comment:This bring me back to the notion of a perpetual war. A conflict without solution. There is no way to objective determine the measure.
What is victory over terrorism? Is it state of mind? Is it a time with certain conditions? Is it simply a matter of finding Bin Laden?
Is this simply the Presidents subjective and personal definition?
Specific: "''So long as I am president we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism,'' he declared."
Comment:This bring me back to the notion of a perpetual war. A conflict without solution. There is no way to objective determine the measure.
What is victory over terrorism? Is it state of mind? Is it a time with certain conditions? Is it simply a matter of finding Bin Laden?
Is this simply the Presidents subjective and personal definition?
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Issue:Televangelist Calls for Assassination of Chavez - New York Times:
Sepcific:"''We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,'' Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's ''The 700 Club.''
''We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,'' he continued. ''It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.''"
Specific:Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
Comment:Perhaps this should be 2 items. This is just plain wrong for a leader of faith to advocate the death of another.
The other comment is the notion that President Bush is not far removed from Pat Robertson on an ideological level. So why should we think that if the President had the chance or opportunity that he would not do it? I would speculate that there are some in the administration that could find parrallels between Saddam and Chavez. Let's be particular - Saddam's crime is to have killed thousands - it is not because he had WMD. By this measure Saddam is no worse than a dozen Central America dictators.
Sepcific:"''We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,'' Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's ''The 700 Club.''
''We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,'' he continued. ''It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.''"
Specific:Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
Comment:Perhaps this should be 2 items. This is just plain wrong for a leader of faith to advocate the death of another.
The other comment is the notion that President Bush is not far removed from Pat Robertson on an ideological level. So why should we think that if the President had the chance or opportunity that he would not do it? I would speculate that there are some in the administration that could find parrallels between Saddam and Chavez. Let's be particular - Saddam's crime is to have killed thousands - it is not because he had WMD. By this measure Saddam is no worse than a dozen Central America dictators.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Issue:Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Least Favorite People On The Right - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views):
Specific:
18) Tom Tancredo (4)
18) Ralph Reed (4)
18) Newt Gingrich (4)
18) Lincoln Chafee (4)
18) James Dobson (4)
18) George Pataki (4)
18) Arnold Schwarzenegger (4)
14) Tom DeLay (5)
14) Rush Limbaugh (5)
14) George Voinovich (5)
14) Chuck Hagel (5)
13) Andrew Sullivan (6)
11) Tucker Carlson (7)
11) Bob Novak (7)
9) Sean Hannity (8)
9) Rick Santorum (8)
8) Arlen Specter (10)
7) Jerry Falwell (15.5)
6) Bill O'Reilly (16)
5) Michael Savage (17)
4) Pat Robertson (19.5)
3) Ann Coulter (20)
2) John McCain (21)
1) Pat Buchanan (28)
Comment:This will require some thought. What is wrong with the picture? Where on the political spectrum are these "right wingers" that dislike this crowd? Who are they?
Specific:
18) Tom Tancredo (4)
18) Ralph Reed (4)
18) Newt Gingrich (4)
18) Lincoln Chafee (4)
18) James Dobson (4)
18) George Pataki (4)
18) Arnold Schwarzenegger (4)
14) Tom DeLay (5)
14) Rush Limbaugh (5)
14) George Voinovich (5)
14) Chuck Hagel (5)
13) Andrew Sullivan (6)
11) Tucker Carlson (7)
11) Bob Novak (7)
9) Sean Hannity (8)
9) Rick Santorum (8)
8) Arlen Specter (10)
7) Jerry Falwell (15.5)
6) Bill O'Reilly (16)
5) Michael Savage (17)
4) Pat Robertson (19.5)
3) Ann Coulter (20)
2) John McCain (21)
1) Pat Buchanan (28)
Comment:This will require some thought. What is wrong with the picture? Where on the political spectrum are these "right wingers" that dislike this crowd? Who are they?
Issue:The All Spin Zone / Missing Pregnant 25 YO Mother Alert (Non-White Division):
Specific: "Lastly, I note that �Natalee Holloway� rates �about 5600� Google News hits, while �Latoyia Figueroa� rates two. Here's hoping your show and CNN's website can contribute another hit for Latoyia."
Comment:This observation reasonable and valid and I will assume accurate. When Fox News indicates that it is "fair and balanced" and spends months talking about the investigation in Aruba, something is wrong with the picture. Greta Van Sustern had another show dedicated to the Aruba story last night.
It should be noted that other main-stream media also have failed to pick up the story.
It is the unbalanced elements that is notable. It is this kind of unbalanced nature in society that drives my desire for a Voter Decision Support System.
Specific: "Lastly, I note that �Natalee Holloway� rates �about 5600� Google News hits, while �Latoyia Figueroa� rates two. Here's hoping your show and CNN's website can contribute another hit for Latoyia."
Comment:This observation reasonable and valid and I will assume accurate. When Fox News indicates that it is "fair and balanced" and spends months talking about the investigation in Aruba, something is wrong with the picture. Greta Van Sustern had another show dedicated to the Aruba story last night.
It should be noted that other main-stream media also have failed to pick up the story.
It is the unbalanced elements that is notable. It is this kind of unbalanced nature in society that drives my desire for a Voter Decision Support System.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Issue:U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War - New York Times:
Specific:"In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of 'a global struggle against violent extremism' rather than 'the global war on terror,' which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign. "
Comment:There is no event or activity that is new in this story. Only the name has changed. Young Men are dying in our Military, Civilians are dying and it is no longer a "War". It is a "struggle". How should I treat the next Solider I meet? Should I applaud him for serving in a struggle? In my opinion - Yes - but that is because I understand the history of war a bit.
The next generation will view a "struggle" as something different. Like Veterans of the Korean War, who are generally less honored than those of WWII.
This is propaganda at it's purest form. It is perhaps rhetorical, but it is not used in the context of a debate. It is the thing being debated, but not a point used to advance a point in the debate.
Specific:"In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of 'a global struggle against violent extremism' rather than 'the global war on terror,' which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign. "
Comment:There is no event or activity that is new in this story. Only the name has changed. Young Men are dying in our Military, Civilians are dying and it is no longer a "War". It is a "struggle". How should I treat the next Solider I meet? Should I applaud him for serving in a struggle? In my opinion - Yes - but that is because I understand the history of war a bit.
The next generation will view a "struggle" as something different. Like Veterans of the Korean War, who are generally less honored than those of WWII.
This is propaganda at it's purest form. It is perhaps rhetorical, but it is not used in the context of a debate. It is the thing being debated, but not a point used to advance a point in the debate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)