Too Nice For Their Own -- and Our -- Good (washingtonpost.com)
Isn't it odd that the media who wouldn't say "boo" to the Bush administration for three years are now berating Kerry and the democrats for not holding a fire-and-brimstone convention? They really are pathetic, aren't they?
The democrats are quite right to hold their fire -- there's lots of time left in this campaign for critiques, but the voters will be sick of it if they have to listen to it for three solid months. The debates are the time to ask the hard questions of Bush, like what the hell were you thinking and why did you screw it up so badly.
Besides, unlike George Soros and Move.On, the dems are NOT just asking people to vote Bush out, they're asking people to vote Kerry in. People need to know they are voting for something positive -- the democrats are using this convention to frame their themes for the next three months, to focus their message for their troops, and I think that's a clever, honest and far-thinking move.
So just continue to ignore what the media says it wants you to do, boys - you're doing just fine as it is.
And so what if you are not dancing to the media's tune -- they blew it big time themselves, so why should you listen anymore to their advice?
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Blog, blog against the dying of the light"
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Blogger reactions
Atrios' item on Mainstream Bloggers makes some very good points about the media reaction to blogs and bloggers. As the media bloggers like Hardblogger are likely discovering, its harder than it looks.
This reminded me of some rumour I read of or heard of recently, something about how the RNC was going to start a bunch of left-wing blogs, and then just before the election they were going to start trashing Kerry, all with the idea that this would bring the pro-Kerry blogging universe crashing down.
Of course, anyone who actually reads bloggers knows how stupid this idea is. They just don't get it.
The thing about the great left-wing bloggers, and the right-wing bloggers too, is this -- its personal.
It takes an interesting, informed, somewhat unique personality to write a widely-read blog. It cannot be faked or spun or manipulated. The blogs I usually read -- Josh Marshall, Atrios, Kevin Drum, Bill Sher, Billmon, Buzzflash, Penguin, POGGE, Mike, and the others listed on the left -- they let it all hang out.
When my daughter was studying acting, I found out that one of acting's most important and difficult requirements was the demand that people who intend to perform first have to be able to reveal their own vulnerabilities to an audience -- their own stories, their hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, etc. etc. Now, I had always thought that actors concealed their own personalities in their roles, but actually great actors must know and accept their own personalities before they can adopt another personality. They must be able to expose themselves, psychologically speaking, to the audience - if they cannot do this, then their acting comes across as fake, shallow.
And I think its the same with great bloggers -- they do try to keep their blogs up-to-date and interesting, yes, but through their choice of items and their comments, they also reveal their own personalities and their unique "takes" on the world, and it is this revelation that makes their blogs interesting to read, that creates loyal readers. They could no more be right-wing moles than Kerry himself could be a secret Klu Klux Klansman.
And as I have found out myself doing this blog, its a challenge to remain true to yourself day after day in print, to make sure I have said what I meant to say, to continue to talk about things that I think are important, or even trivial things that matter to me.
This reminded me of some rumour I read of or heard of recently, something about how the RNC was going to start a bunch of left-wing blogs, and then just before the election they were going to start trashing Kerry, all with the idea that this would bring the pro-Kerry blogging universe crashing down.
Of course, anyone who actually reads bloggers knows how stupid this idea is. They just don't get it.
The thing about the great left-wing bloggers, and the right-wing bloggers too, is this -- its personal.
It takes an interesting, informed, somewhat unique personality to write a widely-read blog. It cannot be faked or spun or manipulated. The blogs I usually read -- Josh Marshall, Atrios, Kevin Drum, Bill Sher, Billmon, Buzzflash, Penguin, POGGE, Mike, and the others listed on the left -- they let it all hang out.
When my daughter was studying acting, I found out that one of acting's most important and difficult requirements was the demand that people who intend to perform first have to be able to reveal their own vulnerabilities to an audience -- their own stories, their hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, etc. etc. Now, I had always thought that actors concealed their own personalities in their roles, but actually great actors must know and accept their own personalities before they can adopt another personality. They must be able to expose themselves, psychologically speaking, to the audience - if they cannot do this, then their acting comes across as fake, shallow.
And I think its the same with great bloggers -- they do try to keep their blogs up-to-date and interesting, yes, but through their choice of items and their comments, they also reveal their own personalities and their unique "takes" on the world, and it is this revelation that makes their blogs interesting to read, that creates loyal readers. They could no more be right-wing moles than Kerry himself could be a secret Klu Klux Klansman.
And as I have found out myself doing this blog, its a challenge to remain true to yourself day after day in print, to make sure I have said what I meant to say, to continue to talk about things that I think are important, or even trivial things that matter to me.
It's not just Iraq anymore
MSNBC Haqrdblogger "Iraq becomes a four letter word" (Pat Buchanan)-
Let me get this straight -- the democrats are mad at Bush because of the Iraq war.
So they're supposed to be spending their time at this convention talking about Iraq, because that's the only thing about the Bush administration that the public is mad about?
So because the democrats are spending their time talking about unifying America, supporting regulations to protect the environment, taxing the rich to reduce the deficit, creating more jobs, supporting US businesses, appointing moderates to the courts, protecting civil liberties, and . . .oh yes, supporting stem cell research -- well, this is a fraud because they were supposed to spend the whole convention being mad about Iraq?
Sorry, Pat, but the democrats have moved way beyond being mad about Iraq -- they all know its a total mess over there and that America agrees its a mess. And they hope their guy can fix it. But they're not going to run their whole election on Iraq, because there's lots more that's wrong with the Bush administration than Iraq alone.
Buchanan's attitude, though, is so typically republican, isn't it -- single issue, narrow focus, black and white, pander to what the public wants rather than trying to re-frame the debate. It's all so familiar.
Let me get this straight -- the democrats are mad at Bush because of the Iraq war.
So they're supposed to be spending their time at this convention talking about Iraq, because that's the only thing about the Bush administration that the public is mad about?
So because the democrats are spending their time talking about unifying America, supporting regulations to protect the environment, taxing the rich to reduce the deficit, creating more jobs, supporting US businesses, appointing moderates to the courts, protecting civil liberties, and . . .oh yes, supporting stem cell research -- well, this is a fraud because they were supposed to spend the whole convention being mad about Iraq?
Sorry, Pat, but the democrats have moved way beyond being mad about Iraq -- they all know its a total mess over there and that America agrees its a mess. And they hope their guy can fix it. But they're not going to run their whole election on Iraq, because there's lots more that's wrong with the Bush administration than Iraq alone.
Buchanan's attitude, though, is so typically republican, isn't it -- single issue, narrow focus, black and white, pander to what the public wants rather than trying to re-frame the debate. It's all so familiar.
Well, at least he's getting some help
Here's a strange one -- Capitol Hill Blue: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior . It follows up on a recently published book, Bush on the Couch, where a psychiatrist did an analysis of Bush's public behaviour. Author Dr. Justin Frank did a Washington Post live chat last month.
Now, I have also done a couple of posts recently about Bush's apparently deteriorating mental state. And its not exactly news that being president is one of the world's most stressful jobs. So I guess if he actually is in as bad a mental situation as this article says, but if he is actually getting some help with this, then its all to the good, I think. Just don't let him make any big decisions until the drugs start working -- it takes about six weeks.
Now, I have also done a couple of posts recently about Bush's apparently deteriorating mental state. And its not exactly news that being president is one of the world's most stressful jobs. So I guess if he actually is in as bad a mental situation as this article says, but if he is actually getting some help with this, then its all to the good, I think. Just don't let him make any big decisions until the drugs start working -- it takes about six weeks.
Teresa
Buzz Democratic Convention Blog Buzzflash's take on Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech -- "Teresa became a star by beating the expectation's game too. Conventional wisdom had it that she would speak fast, digress and say something outrageous. But she was insightful, warm, sincere, and on message. Like Obama, she came off as the embodiment of the American dream, someone who values liberty and freedom even more, because she wasn't born into it."
Watching MSNBC and CNN discuss this speech I had to laugh -- on both panels, there was the token woman journalist, along with the right-wing male talk show host (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough). In both cases, the right-wing male said Teresa's speech wouldn't be supported by women - "wouldn't play in Peoria" as Joe Scarborough said it.
And in both cases, the women on the panel sputtered to life -- they were angry, and even personally insulted, at how these men were brushing off Teresa's remarks. And then the other men on the panels chimed in to support the women.
These women were also impressed by Teresa's high style and class -- Andrea Mitchell, on MSNBC, even made the Jackie O comparison. And when you think about it, have you ever heard a woman say about another woman "I just admire her so much, she dresses so poorly and her clothes are so cheap" -- not one bit. Though women have this reputation for bitchiness and catty remarks, we're the ones who buy the fashion magazines -- we all admire stylish, well-put-together women; Teresa looks and dresses the way all we would, if we had the money.
Though men may be envious of her money and power, she got it the old fashioned way - she married it - and women don't resent her for that. Rather, we're saying "you go, girl!".
Watching MSNBC and CNN discuss this speech I had to laugh -- on both panels, there was the token woman journalist, along with the right-wing male talk show host (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough). In both cases, the right-wing male said Teresa's speech wouldn't be supported by women - "wouldn't play in Peoria" as Joe Scarborough said it.
And in both cases, the women on the panel sputtered to life -- they were angry, and even personally insulted, at how these men were brushing off Teresa's remarks. And then the other men on the panels chimed in to support the women.
These women were also impressed by Teresa's high style and class -- Andrea Mitchell, on MSNBC, even made the Jackie O comparison. And when you think about it, have you ever heard a woman say about another woman "I just admire her so much, she dresses so poorly and her clothes are so cheap" -- not one bit. Though women have this reputation for bitchiness and catty remarks, we're the ones who buy the fashion magazines -- we all admire stylish, well-put-together women; Teresa looks and dresses the way all we would, if we had the money.
Though men may be envious of her money and power, she got it the old fashioned way - she married it - and women don't resent her for that. Rather, we're saying "you go, girl!".
Another RNC talking point "Kerry the unpopular"
The Democratic Convention: Feed, but Do Not Annoy, the Swing Voters
Where is all this "buzz" coming from about how democrats themselves don't think much of John Kerry - don't like him, too cold, lacks charm, etc. etc?
I hear Jeff Greenfield at the convention talking about this on CNN all the time, usually backdropped by a sea of Kerry/Edwards posters, and just following a speech where the mention of Kerry's name evoked roars of approval. But the media line is that Kerry is hard to like, and the non-thinking media won't be deflected from their mantra regardless of the facts.
I smell another RNC talking point here, positioning Bush as "the guy everyone likes" (NOT) against Kerry "the guy even the democrats don't like" (also NOT).
Where is all this "buzz" coming from about how democrats themselves don't think much of John Kerry - don't like him, too cold, lacks charm, etc. etc?
I hear Jeff Greenfield at the convention talking about this on CNN all the time, usually backdropped by a sea of Kerry/Edwards posters, and just following a speech where the mention of Kerry's name evoked roars of approval. But the media line is that Kerry is hard to like, and the non-thinking media won't be deflected from their mantra regardless of the facts.
I smell another RNC talking point here, positioning Bush as "the guy everyone likes" (NOT) against Kerry "the guy even the democrats don't like" (also NOT).
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Bloggers start getting the good stuff
One of the potential benefits of bloggers at the convention is to cover the stuff that the mainstream media miss. Here, for example - Semi-Live Blogging: Take Back America Conference- Liberal Oasis blogs about two related meetings at the convention, both very interesting events. Buzzflash also covers the Take Back America conference.
And yesterday, some blogs (which I cannot now find) also covered the first veterans caucus meeting ever held at a democratic convention.
Now, if it hadn't been for the blogs, I would never have heard about any of these events.
So right on, guys, you're getting the good stuff.
And on Political Animal, Amy Sullivan has a good post about the religious code in Clinton's speech. Worth reading.
And yesterday, some blogs (which I cannot now find) also covered the first veterans caucus meeting ever held at a democratic convention.
Now, if it hadn't been for the blogs, I would never have heard about any of these events.
So right on, guys, you're getting the good stuff.
And on Political Animal, Amy Sullivan has a good post about the religious code in Clinton's speech. Worth reading.
What's that smell? (2)
Again, a whiff of desperation -- CNN.com - Bush vs. 'Bubble Boy'
So rather than trying to reply to anything that anybody actually SAID at the convention, the RNC tried to make a big deal of Kerry wearing a bio suit, comparing it to Dukakis in the tank.
I don't know how many media outlets actually used the photos, but if this follows the usual pattern, the stunt will backfire on Bush, making the Bush campaign look desperate and cheap. CNN writes "As Camp Kerry noted last night, and we agree,[emphasis mine] NASA required Kerry, along with astronauts-turned-senators Bill Nelson and John Glenn, to wear the weird-looking but precautionary suits as they toured a sterile facility at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Dukakis made the fatal decision to climb into the tank in 1988 specifically to counter perceptions that he was weak on national defense."
And the Kerry campaign also let the RNC know in no uncertain terms that when it comes to dueling photos, they're got lots -- Kerry's aides released photos of "Bush wearing matching kimonos with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, picking his nose at a baseball game and leading a cheer at Yale." And, of course, there's the photo that the networks already have, of Bush in the flight suit.
So I guess we won't be seeing any more RNC photo releases anytime soon.
So rather than trying to reply to anything that anybody actually SAID at the convention, the RNC tried to make a big deal of Kerry wearing a bio suit, comparing it to Dukakis in the tank.
I don't know how many media outlets actually used the photos, but if this follows the usual pattern, the stunt will backfire on Bush, making the Bush campaign look desperate and cheap. CNN writes "As Camp Kerry noted last night, and we agree,[emphasis mine] NASA required Kerry, along with astronauts-turned-senators Bill Nelson and John Glenn, to wear the weird-looking but precautionary suits as they toured a sterile facility at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Dukakis made the fatal decision to climb into the tank in 1988 specifically to counter perceptions that he was weak on national defense."
And the Kerry campaign also let the RNC know in no uncertain terms that when it comes to dueling photos, they're got lots -- Kerry's aides released photos of "Bush wearing matching kimonos with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, picking his nose at a baseball game and leading a cheer at Yale." And, of course, there's the photo that the networks already have, of Bush in the flight suit.
So I guess we won't be seeing any more RNC photo releases anytime soon.
Media Calvins
Good post now on Liberal Oasis Giving Up On The Public about what kind of media coverage could be generated about the substantive points raised in the convention speeches.
Years ago, I read a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is supposed to do a school report on bats. He complains to Hobbes "Bats? But I don't know anything about bats. How can they expect me to do a report on something I know nothing about?" And Hobbes mutters "Well, I suppose research is out of the question?"
It strikes me that a number of the high-profile American media types today are Calvins -- they are not particularly knowledgeable about anything, and they feel that having to research anything. like ABM treaties and assault weapons, is really beneath them.
And the reporters have been able to get away with this by what I call "Gonzo Journalism" - stories and chit-chat about personalities and staged events and "he said, she said" pseudo-controversies and "breaking news" like fires and police chases -- like Jon Stewart's candidates' wives stories. The TV reporters fake it with fast skims of newspaper stories. But the newspaper reporters are using uncredited news agency stories as tje basis for their own output. Its positively incestous -- the high- profile reporters skim other reporters' stories for their own research, or get an intern to look up a few clippings.
The only place you now see American journalists doing actual research is for feature magazine stories -- places like Newsweek and Time and Atlantic, and Harpers, and the New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker - and for 60 Minutes. In an average week, the total output is maybe five or six real "stories".
At least in Canada, we have CBC and CTV programs like The Fifth Estate and Passionate Eye and a few other news programs where actual research is the basis of the stories they do. And the Globe does a consistently good job on its feature stories.
Isn't it funny -- when Turner first started CNN, it was supposed to be a financial disaster, but instead its success has spawned innumerable other all-news stations and TalkRadio and CSPAN and all that -- so we have more American news on today than ever before and yet so much of it is just Gonzo.
Years ago, I read a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is supposed to do a school report on bats. He complains to Hobbes "Bats? But I don't know anything about bats. How can they expect me to do a report on something I know nothing about?" And Hobbes mutters "Well, I suppose research is out of the question?"
It strikes me that a number of the high-profile American media types today are Calvins -- they are not particularly knowledgeable about anything, and they feel that having to research anything. like ABM treaties and assault weapons, is really beneath them.
And the reporters have been able to get away with this by what I call "Gonzo Journalism" - stories and chit-chat about personalities and staged events and "he said, she said" pseudo-controversies and "breaking news" like fires and police chases -- like Jon Stewart's candidates' wives stories. The TV reporters fake it with fast skims of newspaper stories. But the newspaper reporters are using uncredited news agency stories as tje basis for their own output. Its positively incestous -- the high- profile reporters skim other reporters' stories for their own research, or get an intern to look up a few clippings.
The only place you now see American journalists doing actual research is for feature magazine stories -- places like Newsweek and Time and Atlantic, and Harpers, and the New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker - and for 60 Minutes. In an average week, the total output is maybe five or six real "stories".
At least in Canada, we have CBC and CTV programs like The Fifth Estate and Passionate Eye and a few other news programs where actual research is the basis of the stories they do. And the Globe does a consistently good job on its feature stories.
Isn't it funny -- when Turner first started CNN, it was supposed to be a financial disaster, but instead its success has spawned innumerable other all-news stations and TalkRadio and CSPAN and all that -- so we have more American news on today than ever before and yet so much of it is just Gonzo.
Convention hoopla
Billmon's post - Star Spangled - expresses many of my feelings about the Convention coverage I watched tonight, though I was moved by the 9/11 tribute and the mother's speech more than he was -- I thought it hit the right note.
Clinton was terrific -- no doubt he could be elected again tomorrow (and, yes, no doubt Reagan could have been elected again too).
Anyway, MSNBC showed the impact his speech had -- even Joe Scarborough, Clinton hater from way back, had to admit what a powerful speech it was. Clinton was very straightforward, too, saying that he and Bush and Cheney avoided Vietnam, but Kerry went -- very effective repetition of the line "Kerry said, Send me". Also I was impressed by Clinton saying that the tax cuts benefited him (and, the unspoken implication, Bush and Cheney too) but that his benefit was being taken out of the pockets of the people at the convention. He demonstrated that the personal is political.
And finally, the media was spouting some DNC talking points -- after months and months of pounding the point home, it seemed that the media finally is saying that having combat experience and showing bravery in combat does make a difference in the quality of presidential leadership -- I think the speech (which I missed) and an interview with the reverend David Alston who served with Kerry also had a great impact here. He said he would go to war again if Kerry sent him. If only the media continues with this message . . .
And finally, I watched Brokaw and Russert interviewing Jon Stewart -- boy, was that pathetic. Stewart started by saying that, regardless of taxes and war and the economy and health care, the focus of media coverage should really be on the candidates' wives. And Brokaw JUST DID NOT GET IT -- sat there, nodded, looked serious and all that. Stewart tried twice, and finally gave up and moved to another topic, saying something about how long a day it must have been. To his credit, Russert was laughing - obviously, he did get it.
And about the Blogger coverage:
So far, at least, many of the Convention "bloggers" aren't as good as Billmon, who is watching on TV like me. Now, I haven't checked them all, but Kos has nothing, and TalkLeft provides a travelog with no analysis and Liberal Oasis couldn't get a wireless feed. The exceptions are pandagon.net, which has some insightful comments about being on the convention floor during the 9/11 tribute, and about Hillary's speech, and the Buzzflash convention blog -- these type of "informed personal opinion" posts show what bloggers can do that journalists cannot.
Clinton was terrific -- no doubt he could be elected again tomorrow (and, yes, no doubt Reagan could have been elected again too).
Anyway, MSNBC showed the impact his speech had -- even Joe Scarborough, Clinton hater from way back, had to admit what a powerful speech it was. Clinton was very straightforward, too, saying that he and Bush and Cheney avoided Vietnam, but Kerry went -- very effective repetition of the line "Kerry said, Send me". Also I was impressed by Clinton saying that the tax cuts benefited him (and, the unspoken implication, Bush and Cheney too) but that his benefit was being taken out of the pockets of the people at the convention. He demonstrated that the personal is political.
And finally, the media was spouting some DNC talking points -- after months and months of pounding the point home, it seemed that the media finally is saying that having combat experience and showing bravery in combat does make a difference in the quality of presidential leadership -- I think the speech (which I missed) and an interview with the reverend David Alston who served with Kerry also had a great impact here. He said he would go to war again if Kerry sent him. If only the media continues with this message . . .
And finally, I watched Brokaw and Russert interviewing Jon Stewart -- boy, was that pathetic. Stewart started by saying that, regardless of taxes and war and the economy and health care, the focus of media coverage should really be on the candidates' wives. And Brokaw JUST DID NOT GET IT -- sat there, nodded, looked serious and all that. Stewart tried twice, and finally gave up and moved to another topic, saying something about how long a day it must have been. To his credit, Russert was laughing - obviously, he did get it.
And about the Blogger coverage:
So far, at least, many of the Convention "bloggers" aren't as good as Billmon, who is watching on TV like me. Now, I haven't checked them all, but Kos has nothing, and TalkLeft provides a travelog with no analysis and Liberal Oasis couldn't get a wireless feed. The exceptions are pandagon.net, which has some insightful comments about being on the convention floor during the 9/11 tribute, and about Hillary's speech, and the Buzzflash convention blog -- these type of "informed personal opinion" posts show what bloggers can do that journalists cannot.
Monday, July 26, 2004
'Shove it where the sun don't shine'
MSNBC - Kerry's wife tells editor to "shove it"
Much is being made about Heinz Kerry's remark to a journalist just after she spoke about increasing civility in politics. Well, as least she didn't tell a repulican politician to 'go fuck yourself'. Rather, she told a reporter to 'shove it' when he kept asking her about what "unamerican activities" she was talking about (in her speech, she had actually referred to "unamerican traits") -- she told him, quite rightly, that she didn't SAY "unamerican activities" and therefore could not answer his question.
The reporter in question was the editor of a local newspaper which has "investigated" Heinz Kerry's charitable foundation and was a rabid Clinton-hater. Well, I'll be interested to see how her coverage now compares to Cheney's Go Fuck Yourself coverage -- that, of course, WAS said to a fellow politician.
Much is being made about Heinz Kerry's remark to a journalist just after she spoke about increasing civility in politics. Well, as least she didn't tell a repulican politician to 'go fuck yourself'. Rather, she told a reporter to 'shove it' when he kept asking her about what "unamerican activities" she was talking about (in her speech, she had actually referred to "unamerican traits") -- she told him, quite rightly, that she didn't SAY "unamerican activities" and therefore could not answer his question.
The reporter in question was the editor of a local newspaper which has "investigated" Heinz Kerry's charitable foundation and was a rabid Clinton-hater. Well, I'll be interested to see how her coverage now compares to Cheney's Go Fuck Yourself coverage -- that, of course, WAS said to a fellow politician.
Coulter shut up?
Coulter's DNC Coverage for 'USA Today' Gets Delayed Start
Well, isn't this interesting? So has Ann Coulter finally run up against an editor who demands some modicum of truth to her bile? The quotes in the story are the typical "no news here, move along, move along" reactions that news organizations usually give to any stories covering their own internal workings, but Coulter has never struck me as someone who accepts editing gladly.
UPDATE - yes, she has been fired. Here is the drivel she called a "column" No wonder they rejected it -- incoherent, and no actual news anywhere, just a bunch of one-liners which don't make any sense. Maybe being around so many Democrats actually threw her off her game.
Well, isn't this interesting? So has Ann Coulter finally run up against an editor who demands some modicum of truth to her bile? The quotes in the story are the typical "no news here, move along, move along" reactions that news organizations usually give to any stories covering their own internal workings, but Coulter has never struck me as someone who accepts editing gladly.
UPDATE - yes, she has been fired. Here is the drivel she called a "column" No wonder they rejected it -- incoherent, and no actual news anywhere, just a bunch of one-liners which don't make any sense. Maybe being around so many Democrats actually threw her off her game.
Helicopters twisting in the wind
The Globe and Mail - Ottawa forced to buy Sikorsky, sources say
These helicopter stories in the Globe, including this latest "revelation", always seem to be based almost entirely on unnamed "sources". This one sounds like it came from Cormorant's lawyers because it talks mainly about all the possible lawsuits and court options -- I wonder if these will hold up the contract? I think its rather brazen for Cormorant to sue -- wasn't this the same company that was supposed to get the contract 10 years ago, then Chretien pulled it, and paid a half-billion penalty? So they already collected half a billion dollars for which the taxpayers got no value -- and now they want to milk us for more?
I guess Martin should just stand up and say "Look, cancelling the deal 10 years ago was stupid, but Chretien did it anyway. So now that I'm in charge, we're finally getting on with it."
These helicopter stories in the Globe, including this latest "revelation", always seem to be based almost entirely on unnamed "sources". This one sounds like it came from Cormorant's lawyers because it talks mainly about all the possible lawsuits and court options -- I wonder if these will hold up the contract? I think its rather brazen for Cormorant to sue -- wasn't this the same company that was supposed to get the contract 10 years ago, then Chretien pulled it, and paid a half-billion penalty? So they already collected half a billion dollars for which the taxpayers got no value -- and now they want to milk us for more?
I guess Martin should just stand up and say "Look, cancelling the deal 10 years ago was stupid, but Chretien did it anyway. So now that I'm in charge, we're finally getting on with it."
Gonzo bloggers
MSNBC's Hardblogger site - will be a useful one to keep up with DNC blog coverate (though some of their links are to outdated posts rather than to the main site - go to the title bar and click to see the most up-to-date posts).
But what I have read so far on some of the much-touted Convention blogs are travelogs and coverage of the press coverage which mentions the bloggers and gee whiz comments about how great it is to be blogging in Boston. There also seems to be a compulsion to publish photos of the media credentials.
I sincerely hope that the blog content improves or else the whole thing will be a gigantic waste of time.
The ones I am intending to check regularly are Liberal Oasis, Daily Kos, TalkLeft and Pandragon. Eschaton and TalkingPointsMemo are also at the convention though not on the official list.
UPDATE - Buzzflash is also blogging the convention.
But what I have read so far on some of the much-touted Convention blogs are travelogs and coverage of the press coverage which mentions the bloggers and gee whiz comments about how great it is to be blogging in Boston. There also seems to be a compulsion to publish photos of the media credentials.
I sincerely hope that the blog content improves or else the whole thing will be a gigantic waste of time.
The ones I am intending to check regularly are Liberal Oasis, Daily Kos, TalkLeft and Pandragon. Eschaton and TalkingPointsMemo are also at the convention though not on the official list.
UPDATE - Buzzflash is also blogging the convention.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . .
Great post at Liberal Oasis -- Great Moments In Convention Acceptance Speeches
I particularly liked Clinton's 1996 speech which included reference to terrorism, pleading with the Gingrich Congress to pass his proposed laws to fight terrorism: We need new laws to crack down on money laundering and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent acts against American citizens abroad; to add chemical markers or taggents to gunpowder used in bombs so we can crack the bomb makers; to extend the same power police now have against organized crime to save lives by tapping all the phones that terrorists use. Terrorists are as big a threat to our future, perhaps bigger, than organized crime. Why should we have two different standards for a common threat to the safety of America and our children? We need, in short, the laws that Congress refused to pass. And I ask them again, please, as an American, not a partisan matter, pass these laws now.
I guess Congress didn't do it.
But that was then and this is now.
I particularly liked Clinton's 1996 speech which included reference to terrorism, pleading with the Gingrich Congress to pass his proposed laws to fight terrorism: We need new laws to crack down on money laundering and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent acts against American citizens abroad; to add chemical markers or taggents to gunpowder used in bombs so we can crack the bomb makers; to extend the same power police now have against organized crime to save lives by tapping all the phones that terrorists use. Terrorists are as big a threat to our future, perhaps bigger, than organized crime. Why should we have two different standards for a common threat to the safety of America and our children? We need, in short, the laws that Congress refused to pass. And I ask them again, please, as an American, not a partisan matter, pass these laws now.
I guess Congress didn't do it.
But that was then and this is now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)