Media Bias II?
Mood:  chillin'
Now Playing: Dick Cheney
Topic: Politics
I believe there is bias in the media. Some don't, that's their opinion. I believe there are many in the media who are biased to the left. Recent polls confirm this. There are also those who are biased to the right. The Washington Times would be one. FOX News certainly has more conservatives than other networks (Incidentally, I take "Fair and Balanced" to refer to the fact that they are going to give us the other side).

The whole subject of media bias is something that is practically unique to America. Most countries of the world have their pro- and anti-government media, especially newspapers.

Now in reference to the Swifties. It is amazing to me that there is so much effort in defending Kerry from attacks from an organization who has spent less than $200,000 (like this chart adapted from this one in the New York Times--echoed on compared to organizations that have spent millions (MoveOn.org and other left-leaning 527s). This has some interesting details by the lawyer of the Swifties on the connections of Democrats to left-leaning 527s.

Why have the ads from the Swifties been so effective? I think one reason has been the effect of the ads themselves. The ads from leftist 527s have had virtually no effect on polls. The Swifties ads and Kerry's poor response has caused a slight shift toward Bush.

Media Bias?
Mood:  chillin'
Topic: Just for Fun
An interesting post on how D-Day might have been reported, if it happened today. :^)

Economic Policy
Mood:  spacey
Now Playing: John McCain's speech (re-run on C-Span)
Topic: Economy
Ben also seems to think that I am trying to evade responsibility (or helping Dubya evade responsibility for a poor economy).

Does any one really think that the problems of the 70's and early 80's were the result of the party who controlled the presidency and Congress? Both parties had the presidency at one time. The Democrats controlled Congress. Certainly some of the policies hindered economic growth, but usually it was outside events (gas price hikes a couple of times) that were the main impetus.

Does anyone really think that it mattered who was President or which party controlled Congress that accounted for the 90's boom? Clinton was President for most of it, but it started during Bush I, and the Republicans controlled at least one house of Congress during that time.

Does any one really think the events of 9/11 had nothing to do with the last recession? It started two months after Bush took office--is he responsible? Really? Again according to the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research, the latest recession started in March, 2001 and bottomed out in November, 2001. And according to the traditional definition of a recession (two consecutive quarters of falling GDP), there was no recession. The definitions aren't mine, so don't beat me up over it. Show me something more logical.

I think we are in the process of beginning another recession, the economy being impacted once again by a spike in gas prices. I think we are already seeing it by less than stellar job numbers among other indicators that are not as robust as they should be. Is this Bush's fault also?

Now are there things governments can do to cause recessions? I think so. Poor monetary policy among other things. Are there things governments can do to influence growth? Yes, Reagan's tax cuts are a good example.

But overall, I think the influence of a President or Congress doesn't do as much as events.

John Kerry and Vietnam
Mood:  spacey
Now Playing: GOP Convention
Topic: Politics
In one of yesterday's posts, evidently I didn't explain myself well. I'll try again.

As John McCain said tonight on MSNBC, "Why are we still fighting a war that ended thirty years ago?" The Vietnam War was lost. Conservatives and liberals will forever disagree as to the justness of the war and whether it could have been won (Ben, if you want to know when the division started, I feel it was during the Vietnam Era). The whole thing about SBVfT is that they feel Kerry betrayed the troops and America by what he did when he came home. They don't care about whether his medals were earned--that's just something they can needle him with.

John Kerry is a complex person, like all of us. Sometimes we can't explain why we do something except that we felt that it was the right thing to do. I'm not concerned if Kerry thought it would pad his future political resume--who of us hasn't done something because it will look good later?

I admit to being puzzled as to why suddenly the Democrats feel that a person's military service makes him a better candidate. They didn't feel that way in 1992 or 1996.

Perhaps one day, we can put Vietnam to rest, but probably not until the baby boomer generation passes on.

Will It Ever End?
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Politics
Vietnam continues to provide ample fodder for journalists and commentators. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had three (count 'em, three) editorials in Sunday's Crossroads section. You can read them here, here, and here.

Here are the facts as I see them:

1. Kerry was against the Vietnam War, but enlisted in the Navy, knowing it would look good on his political resume, but hoping to avoid combat.

2. He was placed in combat anyway and was awarded several medals. We may not think much of how he got them, but the fault may not be with Kerry, but rather his superior officers.

3. Upon returning to the US, he began demonstrating against the war he had been against all the time. He threw away medals (but were actually ribbons). This made those veterans who favored the war angry.

4. He either doesn't remember, or exaggerated his exploits in later years. He may have committed atrocities.

5. He is now running for president, saying that his service in Vietnam is an asset.

Did I get it right?

Many object to the exaggerations, calling them lies. Some object to his demostrations against the war and his testimony in Congress. This group includes Republicans and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Their main contention is that Kerry's wounds did not qualify him for his Purple Hearts and that he was not in Cambodia when he said he was.

Did I get that right?

Good. Can we now move on? Maybe we could talk about Kerry's record and his platform.

Recession?
Mood:  spacey
Now Playing: baseball
Topic: Economy
Ben on a comment to a recent post mentioned about four years of recession under Bush. I replied:

Four (?) years of "recession?" I don't think you're too young to remember the late 70's and early 80's. Double digit unemployment and inflation. Compared to that era this is a boom. Just as my parents thought that it did not compare to the Great Depression. We have been used to the boom of the 90's, and so this looks serious.

This goes into the whole question I'm trying to explore--how much does a President, or Congress for that matter, influence an economy. Certainly events do. If you recall the stock indices plummeted after 9/11. The airlines' ridership went into free fall, something I don't think they've completely recovered from.

Recessions are tracked by an organization called NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research).
This is what was reported by Money magazine:

"The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.

'The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession,' said a statement from the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization."

They have also concluded that the recession ended in Nov., 2001:

"In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and a recovery began in that month. A recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. The trough marks the end of the declining phase and the start of the rising phase of the business cycle. Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion."

If you take the traditional definition of recession as two successive quarters of declining GDP, we were never in a recession.

Plastic Surgeon Sucks Out Own Fat Cells
Mood:  mischievious
Now Playing: ESPN2 Behind the Scenes
Topic: Social Issues
I wonder why Ron Reagan didn't talk about this at the DNC.

"An overweight plastic surgeon performed liposuction on himself on camera to promote the potential use of stem cells that can be harvested in such operations."

From what I understand adult stem cells such as excess fat (where can I sign up?) is much more promising for finding cures than embryonic stem cells and using adult stem cells doesn't have the controversy embryonic stem cells do.

Sigh
Mood:  lucky
Now Playing: USC-Virginia Tech
Topic: Politics
Reportedly an Ohio man offered his vote for sale on EBay. "James Pengov, 36, of Elyria, said he was hoping to land enough money from selling his vote to pay medical bills."

Evidently anything is for sale anymore.

Social Security
Mood:  hug me
Topic: Economy
Paul Greenspan, once again has repeated warnings of "abrupt and painful" choices, if Congress doesn't act to make changes in Social Security.

"Greenspan, as he has done previously, suggested that possible changes would be raising the retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits, which currently is gradually increasing from 65 to 67."

Social Security is a touchy issue for many. I'm not convinced that President Bush's idea of taxpayers using part or all of their current FICA deductions to fund an independent retirement fund would work, but certainly raising the retirement age is feasible. People are living longer and are healthier. In many cases, they can work beyond 65 with no problem. Greenspan himself is 78.

Give Up the Gold
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: News
Topic: Sports
US gold medalist and Waukesha, WI resident Paul Hamm was asked to give up his gold medal:

"World gymnastics officials asked Paul Hamm to give up his gold medal as the ultimate show of sportsmanship, but the U.S. Olympic Committee told them to take responsibility for their own mistakes and refused even to deliver the request."

For those of you who have missed the news concerning this, a judging error resulted in Paul Hamm being awarded the gold medal in all-around gymnastics. The South Korean who received bronze should have received a higher score and should have been awarded the gold. The South Koreans have appealed and the latest is Paul Hamm being asked to give up his medal in a show of sportsmanship.

My thoughts. First of all, I value sportsmanship. My main dislike about sports today is the in-your-face, trash-talking athlete. I understand celebration. Celebration is fine. High fiving and pile-ups by team mates is celebration. No problem. But some antics go overboard.

But, to be asked to be a good sport, especially by the organization responsible for the judging puts undo pressure on the young athlete, and does not make him a good sport.

The Olympics have long since ceased being an event where sportsmen gathered. Pressure to "win the gold" puts added pressure on judges. Politics sometimes also plays a part. The rewards for athletes who win gold are great, far beyond the gold medal itself. Paul Hamm has already appeared on David Letterman. And being a human endeavor, mistakes will happen, as did in this situation.

Then, I wonder if the international body has sent a similar letter to the South Korean, asking him to be a model of sportsmanship and accept the bronze medal. A look at replays of his routine showed mistakes that should have resulted in his score being two tenths of a point less, which would have resulted in Hamm winning the gold anyway.

If Paul Hamm had decided to give up the gold on his own, it would have been great, in my opinion. If he decides to give it up after this, greater still. But today's benefits to the gold medal winning athlete make that unlikely.

Art Critic
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: News
Topic: Just for Fun
Cleaner thinks modern art is rubbish.

Evidently a janitor at "London's Tate Britain modern art gallery threw out a bag of rubbish which formed part of an artwork because it was thought to be trash...."

Sometimes I share his opinion of modern art. ;^)

This Is Wrong
Mood:  rushed
Now Playing: SportsCenter
Topic: Politics
Graphic Designer Fired After Heckling Bush. I don't care what the reason is. Free Speech is a right. Period.

Budget Balancing?
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Economy
The hypocrisy of politicians is shown in this article

CUDAHY - Gov. Jim Doyle toured some of the state's military bases Tuesday as he worked to keep all five Wisconsin installations off the Pentagon's list of recommended closures or realignments.

Doyle said the bases together employ 8,403 people and have an economic impact estimated at $845.8 million annually.

Governors and community leaders across the country are collecting information and hiring consultants to keep their local military bases off a list the U.S. Department of Defense is preparing for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

Under legislation passed in 2002, Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will submit a list of bases to be closed or realigned by next May. The commission then will submit its recommendations to the White House by September 2005.

If President Bush accepts the list, the closures become law in 45 days unless Congress blocks them. The Defense Department said there was no specific number of targeted closings.

The Wisconsin military bases are at Fort McCoy in Sparta, Volk Field in Juneau County, the 440th Airlift Wing and 128th Air Refueling Wing at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee County and 115th Fighter Wing at Truax Field in Madison

After touring the 440th and 128th units, the governor said Tuesday their location should help keep them open.

``Both of these units at Mitchell can serve most of the United States, and with their airplanes they can reach Europe and they can reach Asia. Geographically, the location is very helpful,'' Doyle said.

Doyle, commander-in-chief of the Wisconsin National Guard, said the federal military reserve forces in the state also are key.

``Fort McCoy and Volk Airfield are essential to the long-term training and deployment of the military in the United States,'' Doyle said.

More than 2,500 Wisconsin military personnel are on active duty, including members of the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and Navy Reserve.

Doyle has hired the consulting firm Mead & Hunt to help prepare a report to submit to the Defense Department. The state will pay the firm $79,000.

``The people in Wisconsin are very pro-military,'' said Mead & Hunt vice president R. Douglas Green.

That is evident in state military benefits and employers' support of National Guard troops and reservists in Wisconsin, Green said.

Mead & Hunt planned to have a preliminary report finished by October.

In 1995, the 440th Airlift Wing survived scrutiny by President Clinton's Base and Realignment Commission when it was removed from a list of military installations that could be closed.

This is simply a version of NIMBY (Not in My BackYard). Every one wants to balance the budget, as long as its not a program that is benefitting them.

Hmmmm
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Politics
Kerry Says Bush Uses Surrogates to Do "Dirty Work".

And, of course, Kerry doesn't. ;^)

OK, Now I'm Confused
Mood:  sharp
Topic: Iraq
Wow. I asked and John Kerry answered:

"responding to President George W. Bush's question ... said Monday he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq knowing what he does now, but added that he would have used the power more effectively than the current commander in chief."

Did I hear him right? WMDs wouldn't have caused him to vote against it? The problems in setting up the new Iraqi government wouldn't have caused him to vote against it? The lawlessness wouldn't have caused him to vote against it? George Bush lying wouldn't have caused him to vote against it? These are all things the Left has been using to bash Bush.

The question remains, how would he "have used the power more effectively?" No doubt as he was quoted elsewhere he would have used the international community. His exit strategy depends on "broader international assistance, better stability within Iraq and other related factors." The only problem is, the international community has not shown any desire to get involved and I don't think that this will magically change if Kerry gets elected. And if we had waited for international cooperation, I firmly believe Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

In a somewhat related story, Gen. Tommy Franks said that John Kerry was "absolutely" qualified to be commander in chief. This in spite of Kerry's criticism of Franks' war plans for the Iraqi war.

Say what?
Mood:  down
Now Playing: The Weather Channel (OK, it's late)
Topic: Just for Fun
This was just too good to pass up.

Evidently some anarchists have gotten together (?) and decided to vote against Bush in the coming election.

Just to review:

anarchism: "1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: 'He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity' (Bertrand Russell)."

Especailly worthy of note was this:

"Susan Heitker, 32, of Athens, believes that the U.S. government is neither legitimate nor democratic, but she still plans to vote."

Watergate
Mood:  chatty
Now Playing: Boston-Tampa Bay baseball
Topic: History
Watergate came to a head thirty years ago today with the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The link is quite an exhaustive site about it.

The year of Nixon's re-election, 1972, was the first year I voted in a presidential election. I didn't vote for Nixon that year, primarily because of the break-in.

Watergate altered American politics forever. Watergate gave us Jimmy Carter, who in turn gave us Ronald Reagan. If Watergate had not happened, nixon serves until 1976. What would have been the political outlook then? Who would have gotten the Republican nomination? Reagan? Would Carter still have won? What ifs--I love 'em.

The campaign finance laws we have today are a result of the scandal. The Committee to Re-elect the President was a separate entity, took in a lot of money that no one knew where it came from.

Every scandal after Watergate has had "gate" added to signify its a scandal.

I think even reporting styles changed because of Watergate. More "investigative" reporting is taking place as reporters seek to follow Woodward and Bernstein, the reporters who really brought Watergate into the open.

As far as foreign policy, Vietnam was lost in a large part because of Watergate. The attention Nixon and his staff gave to the scandal diverted their attention from Vietnam and also gave the Democratic majority the unity to vote against help for the country. Even as the country fell to the Communists in 1975, Congress would not extend the help they needed. The administration also made errors in the negotiations with North Vietnam, things like not insisting on the withdrawal of the Communist forces in South Vietnam.

The world perhaps would have looked far differently except for the machinations of the paranoid holder of the presidency, Richard Nixon.

UPDATE: In perusing the Watergate site, I found this article by Patrick Buchanan, who was a speech writer for Nixon.

Prozac anyone?
Mood:  cool
Now Playing: Brickyard 400
Topic: Just for Fun
Perhaps the Bush team can improve everyone's view on the economy with this:

"Traces of the anti-depressant Prozac have been found in the drinking water supply, setting off alarm bells with environmentalists concerned about potentially toxic effects."

Why Some People Shouldn't Own Guns
Mood:  caffeinated
Now Playing: Baseball
Topic: Just for Fun
The AP reports:

"Drew Patterson wanted to protect himself after hearing reports of an fugitive in this northeastern Oklahoma community. ...
Patterson's .22-caliber pistol, hooked into the waistband of his denim shorts with the hammer pulled back, apparently fired, hitting Patterson in the left buttock Wednesday afternoon." (emphasis mine)

Questions I Would Like Answered
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: Fox News
Topic: Politics
This may be a multi-part post. As I stated in a comment to a recent post, I would like to know what a President Kerry would do if further terrorists threats came to light. How far would he let an ally or the UN dictate his response? What if they were being obviously influenced by, let's say Muslims within their country. How strong would the evidence have to be? His website has a speech in which he says:

"Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake."

I've neither seen nor heard anything that illuminates this. What would he do differently from Bush?