Canada goes to pot
: "Prime Minister Paul Martin said that his government would re-introduce decriminalization legislation when Parliament resumes in October. 'The legislation on marijuana - the decriminalization of minor quantities of marijuana - that legislation will be introduced,' Mr. Martin told reporters after the first Liberal cabinet meeting was held."
The story reports that "3 million Canadians 15 and up admitted to using marijuana in 2001" though also noting that "nearly half (47 per cent) said they used it less than once a month".
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Blog, blog against the dying of the light"
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Kerry by a nose, so far
I don't get it. I keep reading news stories about how poorly Kerry/Edwards are doing in the polls. When I checked the July polls at the Polling Report WH2004: General for the Kerry/Edwards vs Bush/Cheney match ups, this is what I found:
Pew (1,568 surveyed July 8-18): Kerry 46% Bush 44%
Christian Science monitor (842 surveyed July 12-17) Kerry 44% Bush 41%
Marist College (938 surveyed July 12-15) Kerry 47% Bush 46%
CBS/NYT (823 surveyed July 11-15) Kerry 49% Bush 44%
Democracy Corps (1,010 surveyed July 10-13) Kerry 52% Bush 45%
WP (721 surveyed July 8-11) Kerry 46% Bush 46%
CNN/USA Today (705 surveyed July 8-11) Kerry 50% Bush 46%
Newsweek (1,001 surveyed July 8-9) Kerry 47% Bush 44%
Time (774 surveyed July 6-8) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
Zooby (1,008 surveyed July 6-7) Kerry 48% Bush 46%
AP Ipsos (804 surveyed July 5-7) Bush 50% Kerry 46%
NBC (504 surveyed July 6) Kerry 49% Bush 41%
American Research Group (773 surveyed July 1-3) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
So Kerry led every one except AP.
Now, I know that many of these are within the poll's own margin of error. But the tilt toward Kerry/Edwards has been unmistakable for the last two weeks, leading toward the Democratic convention. And Kerry is raising more money than Bush, which is another kind of poll I guess. So obviously lots and lots of people want Kerry/Edwards to win.
Two other poll results worth mentioning: Newsweek also reports that only 43% want to see Bush reelected, while 52% do not. Zooby also reports that 43% said Bush deserves reelection, while 53% think its time for someone new.
(Note that Nader wasn't a factor in any of these polls, really -- I didn't bother reporting these stats as well, but though the percentages were a little lower when Nader was included, the gap between Kerry and Bush remained virtually the same.)
Pew (1,568 surveyed July 8-18): Kerry 46% Bush 44%
Christian Science monitor (842 surveyed July 12-17) Kerry 44% Bush 41%
Marist College (938 surveyed July 12-15) Kerry 47% Bush 46%
CBS/NYT (823 surveyed July 11-15) Kerry 49% Bush 44%
Democracy Corps (1,010 surveyed July 10-13) Kerry 52% Bush 45%
WP (721 surveyed July 8-11) Kerry 46% Bush 46%
CNN/USA Today (705 surveyed July 8-11) Kerry 50% Bush 46%
Newsweek (1,001 surveyed July 8-9) Kerry 47% Bush 44%
Time (774 surveyed July 6-8) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
Zooby (1,008 surveyed July 6-7) Kerry 48% Bush 46%
AP Ipsos (804 surveyed July 5-7) Bush 50% Kerry 46%
NBC (504 surveyed July 6) Kerry 49% Bush 41%
American Research Group (773 surveyed July 1-3) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
So Kerry led every one except AP.
Now, I know that many of these are within the poll's own margin of error. But the tilt toward Kerry/Edwards has been unmistakable for the last two weeks, leading toward the Democratic convention. And Kerry is raising more money than Bush, which is another kind of poll I guess. So obviously lots and lots of people want Kerry/Edwards to win.
Two other poll results worth mentioning: Newsweek also reports that only 43% want to see Bush reelected, while 52% do not. Zooby also reports that 43% said Bush deserves reelection, while 53% think its time for someone new.
(Note that Nader wasn't a factor in any of these polls, really -- I didn't bother reporting these stats as well, but though the percentages were a little lower when Nader was included, the gap between Kerry and Bush remained virtually the same.)
Liar, liar, pants on fire
Love it -- MSNBC - Ice cream mogul puts Bush in the hot seat What a cool idea for a hot summer season!
Imagine there's no countries . . .
Imagine if your neighbour built a 10 foot fence between your yard and his, cutting off half your driveway, and he also jogged it onto your property to enclose some trees he had planted without your permission -- how mad would you be? But then again, if the reason he built the wall was because you kept throwing rocks through his windows and killing his cats and hurting his children . . . well, how can this ever be resolved?
Isn't it too bad that countries can't just pack up and move -- wouldn't it be great if Israel could move to a friendlier neighbourhood -- somewhere between Italy and France, perhaps, or even between New York State and Quebec, though they might not like the winters.
And then maybe Quebec could move to somewhere south of France if they decided to leave Canada. And the Basque region of Spain could move to somewhere just north of Brazil. And the Chechnyans could move out of Russia, maybe somewhere south of Turkey? And Ireland could trade locations with Vancouver Island, settling the so-called Irish Question while also allowing the most "british" part of British Columbia to move closer to home, with the side benefit of letting the provincial capital move to Vancouver, where it should have been all along.
But what, oh what, do we do with Alberta? Would anyone else on the planet want to live next door to Ralph?
Isn't it too bad that countries can't just pack up and move -- wouldn't it be great if Israel could move to a friendlier neighbourhood -- somewhere between Italy and France, perhaps, or even between New York State and Quebec, though they might not like the winters.
And then maybe Quebec could move to somewhere south of France if they decided to leave Canada. And the Basque region of Spain could move to somewhere just north of Brazil. And the Chechnyans could move out of Russia, maybe somewhere south of Turkey? And Ireland could trade locations with Vancouver Island, settling the so-called Irish Question while also allowing the most "british" part of British Columbia to move closer to home, with the side benefit of letting the provincial capital move to Vancouver, where it should have been all along.
But what, oh what, do we do with Alberta? Would anyone else on the planet want to live next door to Ralph?
Comments on things I missed
Being away for a week (and then again yesterday), I missed a few goings-on -- now I think I have mostly caught up, so here are some random comments:
On the CRTC decisions: I found the media furor mystifying -- we set up the CRTC to regulate broadcasting, then they get criticized for regulating broadcasting! Personally, I agreed with all of the recent decisions -- and I was amazed when media kept saying things like that they "turned down" Fox, or the Italian channel, and they "approved" AlJazeera, when anyone who spent five minutes looking into it could have written these stories accurately.
Cellucci leaving: Don't let the door clip you in the ass on the way out.
Setting up a petition to charge Michael Moore under the Elections Act: Is there an award in Canada for dumbest stunt? If so, this would win it. When the Act says its illegal for a foreigner to "induce" a Canadian vote, it seemed quite clear to me that this section meant an actual bribe or monetary payoff of some kind. Not just a speech, for heaven's sake. I have since read that no one knows quite what this section refers to because it has never been used.
Iraq, Iran and all that: POGGE had an interesting piece last week on Chalabi and the intelligence issue. History will, I think, conclude that this was one of the most successful disinformation campaigns of all time, when the minor power Iran was able to trick the most militarily powerful but intellectually stupid nation in the world. The US not only destroyed Iran's long-time enemy, opening the opportunity for the first time in history to a Shiite theocracy in Iraq, but also weakened its own military and undermined its own diplomatic credibility. Now that the stuff about Iran's apparent connection to 911 is coming out, no doubt the US hawks would love to declare war on Iran. But they shot their bolt on Afganistan and Iraq -- they don't have enough soldiers or armament or money to mount another war now, and because the world no longer believes US intelligence, they would have no allies to fight with them.
On the CRTC decisions: I found the media furor mystifying -- we set up the CRTC to regulate broadcasting, then they get criticized for regulating broadcasting! Personally, I agreed with all of the recent decisions -- and I was amazed when media kept saying things like that they "turned down" Fox, or the Italian channel, and they "approved" AlJazeera, when anyone who spent five minutes looking into it could have written these stories accurately.
Cellucci leaving: Don't let the door clip you in the ass on the way out.
Setting up a petition to charge Michael Moore under the Elections Act: Is there an award in Canada for dumbest stunt? If so, this would win it. When the Act says its illegal for a foreigner to "induce" a Canadian vote, it seemed quite clear to me that this section meant an actual bribe or monetary payoff of some kind. Not just a speech, for heaven's sake. I have since read that no one knows quite what this section refers to because it has never been used.
Iraq, Iran and all that: POGGE had an interesting piece last week on Chalabi and the intelligence issue. History will, I think, conclude that this was one of the most successful disinformation campaigns of all time, when the minor power Iran was able to trick the most militarily powerful but intellectually stupid nation in the world. The US not only destroyed Iran's long-time enemy, opening the opportunity for the first time in history to a Shiite theocracy in Iraq, but also weakened its own military and undermined its own diplomatic credibility. Now that the stuff about Iran's apparent connection to 911 is coming out, no doubt the US hawks would love to declare war on Iran. But they shot their bolt on Afganistan and Iraq -- they don't have enough soldiers or armament or money to mount another war now, and because the world no longer believes US intelligence, they would have no allies to fight with them.
Memories of troopergate
So the Sandy Berger story is all over the news -- even though it supposedly happened a year ago. Some unnamed archives staffer supposedly saw Berger stuffing documents in his socks, for crying out loud -- if anyone actually saw this, why didn't they stop him? So maybe this is the crime of the century ( but it seems odd that the FBI has never actually interviewed Berger even though they have been "investigating" this security breach for a year) but it reminds me of another "troopergate" -type of story, where some underling supposedly witnessed a high profile Democrat doing something illegal. His lawyer told CNN that Berger inadvertantly shuffled memos into his portfolio last July when he was reviewing documents for possibe release to the 911 commission (apparently, returned after he was told last October to look for them), and that he also knowingly jotted down some notes and took these with him for his 911 commission testimony. Walking out with the documents was illegal, though leaving with the notes was not.
There have been a lot of questions raised about why this story is everywhere all of a sudden.
One of the items likely coming in the 911 commission report on Thursday will be some sharp criticism of the Bush White House for withholding several thousands of documents from the commission until pushed to release them. Now the White House can imply that Berger stole documents showing he and Clinton were to blame for 911.
UPDATE -- And let's not forget that the Plame inditments may be coming down soon. With Bergen now also under investigation by a grand jury, the "moral equivalence" argument can be made, so that the Plame leaker becomes somehow equivalent to Bergen.
There have been a lot of questions raised about why this story is everywhere all of a sudden.
One of the items likely coming in the 911 commission report on Thursday will be some sharp criticism of the Bush White House for withholding several thousands of documents from the commission until pushed to release them. Now the White House can imply that Berger stole documents showing he and Clinton were to blame for 911.
UPDATE -- And let's not forget that the Plame inditments may be coming down soon. With Bergen now also under investigation by a grand jury, the "moral equivalence" argument can be made, so that the Plame leaker becomes somehow equivalent to Bergen.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
I vote for Malathion over Deet
CBC News: Winnipeg resumes fogging after clash with protesters Now, I haven't researched all the pros and cons of malathion, because I don't want to ruin my amateur standing, but I generally tend to go along with Health Canada recommendations because they are using my tax dollars to investigate these kinds of things.
Its too bad that the media quote the most rabid and therefore least credible members of the environmental movement. This story quoted a protester as saying that malathion is ". . killing everyone in Winnipeg". Please, stop with the hyperbole!
Yes, Malathion is a pesticide, and a powerful one, but cities have to evaluate this kind of trade-off all the time. Malathion isn't benign, but its impact on societal health is certainly less than the impact of mosquito-borne diseases, like West Nile and encephalitis (which Winnipeg also has every summer), and its individual impact is substantially less than having to spray every square inch of your skin several times a day with Deet, particularly for young children and for people like city workers, police and the like who must work outside in the summer. Its not pleasant either way, but there it is.
Its too bad that the media quote the most rabid and therefore least credible members of the environmental movement. This story quoted a protester as saying that malathion is ". . killing everyone in Winnipeg". Please, stop with the hyperbole!
Yes, Malathion is a pesticide, and a powerful one, but cities have to evaluate this kind of trade-off all the time. Malathion isn't benign, but its impact on societal health is certainly less than the impact of mosquito-borne diseases, like West Nile and encephalitis (which Winnipeg also has every summer), and its individual impact is substantially less than having to spray every square inch of your skin several times a day with Deet, particularly for young children and for people like city workers, police and the like who must work outside in the summer. Its not pleasant either way, but there it is.
Poor Ontario, it's just not fair!
John Ibbitson's column on the cabinet Winners: The West, and the PM's pals illustrates why the west is alienated from the east. The most important thing about the cabinet, according to Ibbitson, is that there are not as many MPs from Ontario in it as he thinks there should be. He writes "As rumours hardened into likelihood last night, and likelihood into fact, it became clear that Paul Martin has decided two things: He will stick with those he trusts, and Ontario can be taken for granted. The second Martin ministry contains a disproportionate emphasis on western MPs."
Could it be possible that, because Martin made a particular effort before the election to recruit electable high profile candidates in the west, that the western liberals elected were a particularly competent bunch?
Could it be that too many of the Ontario MPs have been tainted with all of the Chretien scandals and problems of the past decade?
Naah, of course not.
Its just a mean Martin plot to insult Ontario. Now, I haven't searched the whole list but it appears to me like Ontario still has 15 of the 38 cabinet members listed in the Globe. So only having a little less than half of the cabinet isn't enough? Oh, piffle!
UPDATE: So according to the Globe today my figure of 15 was correct - exactly one (1) less Ontario minister than in the pre-election Cabinet.
Could it be possible that, because Martin made a particular effort before the election to recruit electable high profile candidates in the west, that the western liberals elected were a particularly competent bunch?
Could it be that too many of the Ontario MPs have been tainted with all of the Chretien scandals and problems of the past decade?
Naah, of course not.
Its just a mean Martin plot to insult Ontario. Now, I haven't searched the whole list but it appears to me like Ontario still has 15 of the 38 cabinet members listed in the Globe. So only having a little less than half of the cabinet isn't enough? Oh, piffle!
UPDATE: So according to the Globe today my figure of 15 was correct - exactly one (1) less Ontario minister than in the pre-election Cabinet.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Class war
Bill Moyers recent speech This is the Fight of Our Lives sums it all up.
There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war. And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society.
Haven't these people read any history? Don't they know that empires fall as well as rise? And the falls are always caused by greed combined with moral rot.
In little ole Canada, we have over the last decade moved beyond the rich-poor rhetoric, I think -- the last election showed that the Canadian people, basically, were more concerned about Conservative divisiveness than about Liberal scandals. It will be, I think, the last time that the Conservatives and NDP, in English Canada at least, will try to run just on a "throw the bastards out" platform -- Canadians do "demand better" than rhetoric. I think this demonstrates a certain level of political maturity. And our media, in spite of a few gonzo exceptions, responded to this and focused much of their coverage on actual issues rather than on hairstyles and mannerisms.
I am saddened that this level of maturity doesn't seem to exist in American politics. For all the talk about how America has such a great democracy, it seems to be so easy to hijack it, to get American media to parrot the RNC talking points -- reference the recent Daily Show take on how RNC talking points shape media language and coverage.
Are Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers the only popular journalists who can see what is happening here? Well, at least Lou Dobbs is actually covering the job outsouring issue in a sustained way, but I haven't seen any other coverage like this.
There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war. And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society.
Haven't these people read any history? Don't they know that empires fall as well as rise? And the falls are always caused by greed combined with moral rot.
In little ole Canada, we have over the last decade moved beyond the rich-poor rhetoric, I think -- the last election showed that the Canadian people, basically, were more concerned about Conservative divisiveness than about Liberal scandals. It will be, I think, the last time that the Conservatives and NDP, in English Canada at least, will try to run just on a "throw the bastards out" platform -- Canadians do "demand better" than rhetoric. I think this demonstrates a certain level of political maturity. And our media, in spite of a few gonzo exceptions, responded to this and focused much of their coverage on actual issues rather than on hairstyles and mannerisms.
I am saddened that this level of maturity doesn't seem to exist in American politics. For all the talk about how America has such a great democracy, it seems to be so easy to hijack it, to get American media to parrot the RNC talking points -- reference the recent Daily Show take on how RNC talking points shape media language and coverage.
Are Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers the only popular journalists who can see what is happening here? Well, at least Lou Dobbs is actually covering the job outsouring issue in a sustained way, but I haven't seen any other coverage like this.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Have I missed something?
Yahoo! News - Bush Extends Debate on Values to Children
The "values" debate? WHAT "values" debate? When did this start? I guess I missed it -- is this related to gay marriage or what? And is Yost's implication that republicans have values while democrats do not?
I always thought it was the other way around, actually.
The "values" debate? WHAT "values" debate? When did this start? I guess I missed it -- is this related to gay marriage or what? And is Yost's implication that republicans have values while democrats do not?
I always thought it was the other way around, actually.
We're back
Hi, everyone - we had a great holiday -- took the Prairie Grand Circle route (Saskatoon to Edmonton to Jasper to Banff to Calgary and home again) and saw some mountains and some prairie and some chipmunks and some squirrels and some mountain sheep and some elk and some moose and some deer -- but no bears!
And we went to F911 - what a movie. I could understand why some people are cheering it and others are upset.
The key point I took away from it reminded me of something WallyCoxLives said once in a comment -- Moore's most important assertion was that most of the boys and girls in the American armed forces are lower-class or lower-middle-class people, whose job options are few. So, as Moore says, these kids are doing America's fighting so that "we don't have to" (note how he doesn't duck the issue that he himself, as well as congress people, are in the wealthier classes who have options other than joining the services). Moore continues -- if we are going to ask these soldiers to fight and die for America, it have to make sure that the war it sends them to is a just war, a necessary war to protect America. And the Iraq war was NOT necessary. It echoed Wally's point, which was a response to a post I made about the draft -- Wally said he would tolerate a draft for his children as long as Kerry was in the White House, because he was confident that Kerry would not involve the US in an unnecessary war -- and the same assurance cannot be given about Bush or the Republicans.
And we went to F911 - what a movie. I could understand why some people are cheering it and others are upset.
The key point I took away from it reminded me of something WallyCoxLives said once in a comment -- Moore's most important assertion was that most of the boys and girls in the American armed forces are lower-class or lower-middle-class people, whose job options are few. So, as Moore says, these kids are doing America's fighting so that "we don't have to" (note how he doesn't duck the issue that he himself, as well as congress people, are in the wealthier classes who have options other than joining the services). Moore continues -- if we are going to ask these soldiers to fight and die for America, it have to make sure that the war it sends them to is a just war, a necessary war to protect America. And the Iraq war was NOT necessary. It echoed Wally's point, which was a response to a post I made about the draft -- Wally said he would tolerate a draft for his children as long as Kerry was in the White House, because he was confident that Kerry would not involve the US in an unnecessary war -- and the same assurance cannot be given about Bush or the Republicans.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Well, I'm off . . .
. . . for a week's holiday. See you next Sunday. In the meantime, here's a great cartoon: the Sunday, July 11 Doonesbury - Doonesbury@Slate - Daily Dose
Saturday, July 10, 2004
What, $15 million isn't enough for you?
Lotto winner says jilted lover didn't sign wedding deal Ah, it is to laugh -- why do people DO this to each other and to themselves? Why do people get so greedy? The simple truth is that he was married when he won the $30 million. Therefore his wife is legally entitled to a share of it, regardless of how they were getting along or who lied to who or whatever. Just accept it, fella, and move on.
The real issue
Bush Presses Case Against Gay Marriage This AP story shows that Americans, even Democrats, just don't get it.
Yost writes "The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights."
But this isn't the issue at all.
During the Canadian election campaign, Martin clearly laid out the real issue -- it is not whether someone does or doesn't support gay marriage, but whether people do or do not support the duty of the provincial and federal Supreme Courts to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was charter challenges which led to the legalization of gay marriage in BC, Ontario and Quebec -- the courts said that, under the charter, all people had the right to marry. Period.
Now, in the US, courts are dealing with the same issue, and, not surprisingly, they're concluding the same thing -- that their state and federal Bills of Rights say all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. Therefore no right given to one person can be denied another person.
And THAT'S the issue, folks.
So the question really is, does the US Congress support the Bill of Rights, or not?
Yost writes "The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights."
But this isn't the issue at all.
During the Canadian election campaign, Martin clearly laid out the real issue -- it is not whether someone does or doesn't support gay marriage, but whether people do or do not support the duty of the provincial and federal Supreme Courts to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was charter challenges which led to the legalization of gay marriage in BC, Ontario and Quebec -- the courts said that, under the charter, all people had the right to marry. Period.
Now, in the US, courts are dealing with the same issue, and, not surprisingly, they're concluding the same thing -- that their state and federal Bills of Rights say all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. Therefore no right given to one person can be denied another person.
And THAT'S the issue, folks.
So the question really is, does the US Congress support the Bill of Rights, or not?
No nuance, no detail - just cut to the chase
Billmon is back with a lengthy and complicated piece on the Enron scandal Play It As It Lays
One problem with this story is the complexity of the narrative -- people prefer simpler tales of good and evil. Just look at Billmon's last sentence: "Right now [the Republicans are] desperately trying to sell the proposition that because Kenny Boy ate dinner at Teresa Heinz Kerry's house two years ago (along with the other members of the board of the Heinz Center for Science, Economy and the Environment) the Democrats are just as tainted by the Enron embrace as the [Republican] party, and the [Bush] family, that accepted millions of dollars in soft and hard dollar contributions from Enron insiders, that placed Enron-recommended appointees in critical state and federal jobs, that pushed through legislative and regulatory changes worth billions to Enron, and that dutifully adopted the policies that allowed Lay and his crew to amass huge personal fortunes while systematically robbing Enron's customers, shareholders and employees."
How unlikely it is that most journalists will understand this complexity and be able to construct this into a narrative which can be covered on the evening news.
Its one of the biggest problems that the left-wing and the democrats have to deal with -- the complexity of the problems are hard to explain in a few words. But it is important that Kerry try to construct narratives about the Republican record and his own vision that are easier for the public to grasp.
My advice - discard nuance, reject detail, just cut to the chase. Let the RNC be on the defensive for a change. So what if they attack these constructions as simplistic, which they may be, as long as there is truth at their core?
Lay cheated the American public, and his Republican friends helped him do it.
Bush and Cheney used false evidence to start a war that killed a thousand Americans.
Republican tax cuts for the rich, if maintained, will mortgage America's future.
When faced with recession and job losses, the Republicans did nothing.
And Kerry has to develop a simple narrative for his own policies:
America must throw off the shackles of dependence on middle-east oil.
The American people deserve decent health care.
Terrorism must be fought strategically and decisively.
10 million new jobs for Americans.
You get the idea.
One problem with this story is the complexity of the narrative -- people prefer simpler tales of good and evil. Just look at Billmon's last sentence: "Right now [the Republicans are] desperately trying to sell the proposition that because Kenny Boy ate dinner at Teresa Heinz Kerry's house two years ago (along with the other members of the board of the Heinz Center for Science, Economy and the Environment) the Democrats are just as tainted by the Enron embrace as the [Republican] party, and the [Bush] family, that accepted millions of dollars in soft and hard dollar contributions from Enron insiders, that placed Enron-recommended appointees in critical state and federal jobs, that pushed through legislative and regulatory changes worth billions to Enron, and that dutifully adopted the policies that allowed Lay and his crew to amass huge personal fortunes while systematically robbing Enron's customers, shareholders and employees."
How unlikely it is that most journalists will understand this complexity and be able to construct this into a narrative which can be covered on the evening news.
Its one of the biggest problems that the left-wing and the democrats have to deal with -- the complexity of the problems are hard to explain in a few words. But it is important that Kerry try to construct narratives about the Republican record and his own vision that are easier for the public to grasp.
My advice - discard nuance, reject detail, just cut to the chase. Let the RNC be on the defensive for a change. So what if they attack these constructions as simplistic, which they may be, as long as there is truth at their core?
Lay cheated the American public, and his Republican friends helped him do it.
Bush and Cheney used false evidence to start a war that killed a thousand Americans.
Republican tax cuts for the rich, if maintained, will mortgage America's future.
When faced with recession and job losses, the Republicans did nothing.
And Kerry has to develop a simple narrative for his own policies:
America must throw off the shackles of dependence on middle-east oil.
The American people deserve decent health care.
Terrorism must be fought strategically and decisively.
10 million new jobs for Americans.
You get the idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)