Where are you living? If you're not in a city, you're probably still above the average when you factor in cost of living. Quick Googling for a salary comparison, $100k in my home town of Centreville, Va is equal to $150k in San Diego, Ca. Oddly enough, DC (which is essentially where I work) has a comparison of $100k to $83k in SD. Huh.
I think the billions of dollars for Iraq are already in the works, being dished out as we speak. Kerry harps on the war spending nearly every dat. I haven't heard a lot on the AIDS front, and I'm not sure we should...there's no organized method to distribute it, no plan of what to do with it either.
The memos you mention were a selection of 33 memos in all, about 10 of which they showed you, from FoxNews' nearly decade on the air. Some of those 33 didn't corroborate the "Outfoxed" hypothesis and weren't used. Read all the memos and you'll see what i mean.
The 1 to 4 ratio you speak of was a number generated by FAIR...actually, ALL the numbers in Outfoxed were generated by FAIR. FAIR is anything but, they're a left-wing organization.
The personal testimonies were all given by either
1) former FoxNews employees (without listing why they left or were "asked to leave" FoxNews) 2) former Fox employees that didn't even WORK for FoxNews (at least 2 worked for Fox affiliates) 3) anonymous sources, which any journalist can tell you is a no-no when you're trying to do a serious news story.
Did you notice they concentrated, primarily, on the editorialists on FoxNews? Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends. These people aren't delivering the news, they're editorializing it. That's what they were hired to do. They showed 2 second clips of the anchors delivering news briefs, and then it was only to prove points such as "FoxNews uses a lot of 'Some people say...' type news reporting".
Which leads me to my next beef with "Outfoxed". "Some people say" is not acceptable in written journalism because you're supposed to always acknowledge your sources. It's not preferred on the air, but you have a limited window of time so people are much more accepting of it. Do a Google search for transcripts using those words...Rather, Jennings, Couric, Brokaw, etc, etc...they all have used it in interviews and reports. FoxNews is not the only guilty party here.
The unknown special guests you refer to is a red herring...most of the right wing representatives aren't well known unless you read a lot of news. I can identify about every other guest that O'Reilly brings on his show.
Combined with taking clips out of context, anonymous sources, no comparison to other networks, and concentrating on the editorialists of FoxNews, "Outfoxed" wasn't even close to possessing journalistic integrity. Their message came across horribly biased and their conclusions merely supported a flawed hypothesis.
The WH didn't say *anything* about the documents; they didn't authenticate them, they didn't approve them, they just distributed them. That's what the WH press team does when they are handed something from a news source, they make sure everyone is on the same page. The press secretary has said all of this.
Frankly, I applaud the WH for not getting involved. This is all part of the 30 year old mud that Kerry has mired himself in.
You're missing something. One woman, an acknowledged Bush hater, says that what Killian "supposedly" wrote in what she even says aren't real documents is "how he felt". But his family and his other coworkers disagree, saying that he liked president Bush very much and thought he had a fine career. So there's one witness for your argument and a handful against.
There was an entire "documentary", albeit a bad one, about FoxNews..."Outfoxed". Horrible, horrible journalism, but many people believed it. If you've seen it, I would be happy to cite many discrepancies in their "research".
Okay, while I think "Outfoxed" was a piece of journalistic crap, I really hate NewsHounds. Nothing worse than taking a perfectly legitimate point and ruining it by consistently misquoting and misrepresenting people. They do this *constantly*, everyday. First off, they'll take something that Hannity or O'Reilly say and begin pummelling it. That would be fine, but misquoting them to make your point is just not acceptable.
I don't understand the whole hatred of Fox thing anyways, but the NewsHounds and "Outfoxed" just go way overboard.
Ben Barnes, then Lt. Governor of Texas, admitted he got Bush into the National Guard
A reply to your post got modded offtopic, so let me repost to correct you...Bush was accepted into the guard in 1968, Barnes served as Lt. Governor in 1969. Before 1969, he served in the Texas House of Representatives. His daughter now says that his coming out against Bush is sketchy at best. Given these two facts (the dates and his daughter), I'd say he's not credible, probably just a Bush hater like Burkett.
or example, in Bush's records, Bush flew only 22 months of the 53 he owed
Read the documents he signed. He was liable for the 5 years only if not released by a superior. When he went to Alabama, he was released from duty.
Anything a politician mentions is fair game for lies?
It shouldn't be, but if I served 4 months in-country, got 3 purple hearts and used 1 sick day for all three, then came home and protested the war, I wouldn't use that time as the primary platform of my campaign. Do you realize Kerry has talked about Vietname for longer than he was *in* Vietnam? Get through a speech without talking about it. Get through a speech without haraunging President Bush. Talk about yourself!
I didn't want to vote Bush this time, I disagree with a number of his positions. The anti-gay marriage amendment really pushed my buttons. However, not knowing Kerry's platform because he's talked about three things...how Bush fucked up Iraq, Vietnam and now, finally, his economic plan (which sucks)...I have little choice. Sometimes it's better to vote for the devil you know rather than the devil you don't. At this time, I think GW will make a better president than Kerry. The onus is on Kerry to change my mind about that.
In defense of the people who exposed them, I heard about the memos wednesday and saw them first thing thursday morning...the first thing *I* thought was "These don't look real", and went off to find what other people were saying. I'm no forensic/typographic/handwriting expert, but there's been such a flurry of military documentation released in the past year due to the Kerry/Bush "Where Were You When..." drama, I've seen enough of them to think these looked strange.
Unfortunately, now that the monkey is off CBS' back, we may never find out who forged them...unless criminal charges are pressed on Burkett, he has no reason to talk. He's also a bit of a looney, this isn't the first time he's attacked Bush.
How, exactly, do you propose the president represent people? By voting on something/anything and letting the popular vote win? Okay, the problem with that system is that people typically vote for what's best FOR THEM. That means that state/federal funds would go to the majority population/areas, and the minorities would get NOTHING. Farm subsidies? Screw that. Minority rights? Screw that too. Unless you're a member of the majority, living where the majority typically lives, you're gonna get fucked.
Bias in the press isn't always about partisanship. Something can be left or right biased without mentioning a presidential candidate. Read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, he cites many examples of this while trying to make his case for how the media is biased.
In short, he states that a lot of the "bias" he's talking about is subtle, possibly unacknowledged even to the anchor, and you could better address it as political correctness...but being PC is typically slanting to the left.
Just some examples off the top of my head, since my book is at home...how often do you hear stories involving "liberal thinktanks"? When an organization is referred to in media, if it's a right wing organization it will often (usually) be prefaced with "conservative", but otherwise not prefaced. Why not label "liberal" organizations as such? When addressing NOW, for instance, shouldn't you call it a liberal organization? It certainly is.
Are Christian groups EVER portrayed in a positive light? They have to be doing some good out there, but most of the time they're referred to as nuts.
Are blacks ever depicted as causing a disproportionate amount of the crime in the US? Or do we hear and immediate follow up about how the police target people by race?
Read the book, it's interesting. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do agree there's a liberal slant, possibly a subconcious, PC one, to the mainstream media.
The Post has done an excellent job, with all due respect going to Howard Kurtz, on the CBS memos. While it certainly isn't the left-wing equivalent of the Times, it does lean. Not nearly as much as some other well respected, and well read papers, namely the LA Times, the NY Times and the Boston Globe.
I read the Post online for most of my news because it is a very, very well written paper as well as my local paper. I also read the Times but, like you said, I can't take it seriously...it's just too bloody biased.
I do think it's funny how many news outlets are thought to be left-wing (pretty much all the written, respected papers, and most of the networks) but FoxNews gets blasted for being conservative. It's like a beacon in the storm for some of us. Temper what you hear on that station with what you read from the LA Times, and I think you have a pretty good outlook.
"but I still prefer the news outlets that are accused of being liberal"
You can come out and say "anything but FoxNews", I'm pretty sure it's the only network consistently accused of being right-wing.
If you watched "Outfoxed", you might think that FoxNews revolved around nothing more than GOP reps heralding the reelection of Bush and thought anything of the contrary should be met with O'Reilly telling them to "Shut up!" In reality, FoxNews does have many editorial shows, like The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Cavuto on Business, etc. That's their format. They have straight news as well, but you never seem to hear about it (frankly, I think that's because it doesn't prove the left-wing point). Using Outfoxed as an example, the majority of their clips (that lasted longer than half a second) were from 4 shows...O'Reilly, Cavuto, Hannity (without showing much of Colmes) and Fox and Friends (Fox's version of the Morning Show). Well, give me $300,000 and a few months and I'll take clips from any major news network and make it seem like they have a horrible, horrible left-wing slant. It's very easy, if you don't show the other side.
My point is, if you don't want to watch editorial news or talking points, don't watch the shows on FoxNews. They have a lot.
While I could critique Moore's movie, I don't think the substance was necessarily what the parent post was trying to bring into the limelight.
His point was that while his parents, and many other people out there, think that CNN is biased left, their reaction isn't a self-indulgent, egotistical "I'm right, They're wrong" film made to appeal to partisans. Similarly, "Outfoxed" was made this year to appeal to a group that already had preconceived notions about FoxNews. Have you watched this movie? OMFG, journalistic integrity wasn't even a factor while filming it.
While anyone can make a film, commercial, book, etc, the problem becomes that people start using these items in debates or conversations. "So many books/movies came out PROVING that the Republicans are scum, it must be true!" Well, no, the right-wing/conservative/Republican groups just aren't making movies about this stuff. I don't know why, since there's apparently a market they could capitalize on, but they aren't.
Of your 5 points at the end of your post, I have questions about #1, I disagree with #2, I wonder why you made #3, I disagree with #4 and #5 I seriously wonder why you included, since we have a volunteer military. My point being that before hand, you state "which pale in comparison to the major truths:"...these aren't truths, these are loosely formed opinions. I have my own "truths" that I can use to contradict yours.
Conversely, just because Hannity said it doesn't make it false or misleading. Lots of Democrats would like to say that instead. The truth probably lies somewhere between Fox and CNN, between Hannity and Matthews, and between Limbaugh and Kennedy. It's a matter of applying the proper filter whenever you listen to one of the above.
--trb
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Check out exactly what closing those loopholes will do. Kerry released his economic plan yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, citing the $12 billion in loopholes he would close. Seem a little low? Here's why. That $12 billion is a drop in the bucket of our multi-trillion dollar budget because less than 10% of all businesses actually pay the corporate tax. So Kerry is talking about closing a loophole for less than 10% of businesses, who are then expected to go out and use all this extra cash to hire workers. It's a longshot, at best, since I doubt all $12 billion will actually go back to the companies, and I doubt all 8% of those companies will use all that money to hire people.
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Um, no. First, I'm not going to go to either candidates side and let them list all the ways they are great. That's ridiculous.
Second, I have listened to many, many speeches by John Kerry and most of them (I'll give him credit in a few) follow the same format; Kerry is "for" something. He's for healthcare for everyone. He's for better education. He's for better foreign relations. He's for a tougher war on terror.
I'm "for" better tasting beer, however, I have no clue how I am going to go about that anymore than how Kerry is going to go about implementing his policies.
Being "for" stuff is great, but you need to follow that up with "...and this is how I'm going to do it". That hasn't happened with Kerry. Except for rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which won't NEARLY cover his healthcare plan, he hasn't laid out any specifics.
This no longer is a question of "Bush vs. Kerry", this has entered the realm of "Good Journalism vs. Shoddy Journalism". Questions as to the documents' authenticity have been raised after a single day in the news. Why wouldn't CBS provide the names of their fact checkers and analysts so that they can show their proof of authenticity? This doesn't require them to reveal their source, though, I don't know why the source of public military documents would be a problem.
I don't know how you could examine these documents and not question a few things...the superscripting on a typewriter, the kerning, the signature mismatch. Even though it's been stated that non-fixed width font typewriters were used in the early 1970's, that was the first thing I questioned. That alone lead me to scrutinize the rest of the documents.
CBS's integrity has been questioned. In order to restore it, they will have to explain how they obtained the documents and how they proved they were real. No journalist with any integrity would air documents whose authenticity they couldn't prove...you just don't go on the record with something like that.
While restoring a teensy bit of Bush's integrity is nice, this isn't a question of his military service any more. Most of us are questioning CBS, "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather.
With regards to your PS, I don't think these documents *should* effect who you vote for. Moreover, the question should one of journalistic integrity, and why in the hell did CBS publish (show) this story without checking it? I know, I know, they claim they did, but if a couple of bloggers can spot inconsistencies within a day, none of the "experts" CBS used could within 6 weeks? Very fishy...
Okay, I spent last night reading this in the Washington Post and talking to a few friends about it and we all reached the same conclusion.
This doesn't hurt Bush, really.
However, this DOES hurt CBS and 60 minutes. I think the important thing here is not whether or not Bush missed a medical exam, but how and why these documents, if it's the case, were forged. This would be shoddy journalism to an extent that bulls past the NYTimes scandal by far.
...starting with a bi-weekly happy hour or poker night...
Essentially, anytime guys sit around, drink and talk about women, eventually a tradition will sprout. All the best traditions involve some combination of one or more of these three.
Do some research, something Al Franken is apparently weary of. Essentially, in his years of television and radio, all Al has on Bill is that he mislabeled a Peabody a Polk, in a side comment off of his show. He later apologized, on the show and his radio show, for the mistake. Franken's point about Bill not living in Levittown as a kid can be discredited by looking at the deed to his parents' house.
Franken's just trying to find crap to discredit O'Reilly with, and it's not working! Well, apparently it is because people like you believe him, but that doesn't make it true.
I don't understand it either. The problem, as I see it, came in the Democratic primaries. They spent the entire primary season throwing fluff at each other, not campaigning on any issues. I started having a serious dislike for Kerry when the primaries began and he could talk about nothing but his war record. Anyone who remembers the primary debates I assume would agree here...that's all he campaigned on.
I liked Edwards and Dean, but the electorate apparently didn't think either of them had the political clout to go up against Bush. In the end, Kerry's war record will probably lead to him losing to Bush. It's difficult, next to impossible really, to go up against an incumbent, war time president based on your war record if you're not named Eisenhower or MacArthur. In other words, you need to be a godammed hero.
Kerry ought to be talking social issues...healthcare, reduced senior med costs, education, social security...generally, issues that are more touchy feely. That's where the democrats power lies. I'm a friggin Republican, but I'd listen to someone talk intelligently about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are you living? If you're not in a city, you're probably still above the average when you factor in cost of living. Quick Googling for a salary comparison, $100k in my home town of Centreville, Va is equal to $150k in San Diego, Ca. Oddly enough, DC (which is essentially where I work) has a comparison of $100k to $83k in SD. Huh.
--trb
I think the billions of dollars for Iraq are already in the works, being dished out as we speak. Kerry harps on the war spending nearly every dat. I haven't heard a lot on the AIDS front, and I'm not sure we should...there's no organized method to distribute it, no plan of what to do with it either.
--trb
I second that, almost picked it up in Best Buy yesterday while my work buddies scrambled for the "batshit fucking loco" copy of Star Wars.
--trb
Put down the kool-aid.
The memos you mention were a selection of 33 memos in all, about 10 of which they showed you, from FoxNews' nearly decade on the air. Some of those 33 didn't corroborate the "Outfoxed" hypothesis and weren't used. Read all the memos and you'll see what i mean.
The 1 to 4 ratio you speak of was a number generated by FAIR...actually, ALL the numbers in Outfoxed were generated by FAIR. FAIR is anything but, they're a left-wing organization.
The personal testimonies were all given by either
1) former FoxNews employees (without listing why they left or were "asked to leave" FoxNews)
2) former Fox employees that didn't even WORK for FoxNews (at least 2 worked for Fox affiliates)
3) anonymous sources, which any journalist can tell you is a no-no when you're trying to do a serious news story.
Did you notice they concentrated, primarily, on the editorialists on FoxNews? Cavuto, O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends. These people aren't delivering the news, they're editorializing it. That's what they were hired to do. They showed 2 second clips of the anchors delivering news briefs, and then it was only to prove points such as "FoxNews uses a lot of 'Some people say...' type news reporting".
Which leads me to my next beef with "Outfoxed". "Some people say" is not acceptable in written journalism because you're supposed to always acknowledge your sources. It's not preferred on the air, but you have a limited window of time so people are much more accepting of it. Do a Google search for transcripts using those words...Rather, Jennings, Couric, Brokaw, etc, etc...they all have used it in interviews and reports. FoxNews is not the only guilty party here.
The unknown special guests you refer to is a red herring...most of the right wing representatives aren't well known unless you read a lot of news. I can identify about every other guest that O'Reilly brings on his show.
Combined with taking clips out of context, anonymous sources, no comparison to other networks, and concentrating on the editorialists of FoxNews, "Outfoxed" wasn't even close to possessing journalistic integrity. Their message came across horribly biased and their conclusions merely supported a flawed hypothesis.
--trb
The WH didn't say *anything* about the documents; they didn't authenticate them, they didn't approve them, they just distributed them. That's what the WH press team does when they are handed something from a news source, they make sure everyone is on the same page. The press secretary has said all of this.
Frankly, I applaud the WH for not getting involved. This is all part of the 30 year old mud that Kerry has mired himself in.
--trb
You're missing something. One woman, an acknowledged Bush hater, says that what Killian "supposedly" wrote in what she even says aren't real documents is "how he felt". But his family and his other coworkers disagree, saying that he liked president Bush very much and thought he had a fine career. So there's one witness for your argument and a handful against.
--trb
There was an entire "documentary", albeit a bad one, about FoxNews..."Outfoxed". Horrible, horrible journalism, but many people believed it. If you've seen it, I would be happy to cite many discrepancies in their "research".
--trb
Okay, while I think "Outfoxed" was a piece of journalistic crap, I really hate NewsHounds. Nothing worse than taking a perfectly legitimate point and ruining it by consistently misquoting and misrepresenting people. They do this *constantly*, everyday. First off, they'll take something that Hannity or O'Reilly say and begin pummelling it. That would be fine, but misquoting them to make your point is just not acceptable.
I don't understand the whole hatred of Fox thing anyways, but the NewsHounds and "Outfoxed" just go way overboard.
--trb
Ben Barnes, then Lt. Governor of Texas, admitted he got Bush into the National Guard
A reply to your post got modded offtopic, so let me repost to correct you...Bush was accepted into the guard in 1968, Barnes served as Lt. Governor in 1969. Before 1969, he served in the Texas House of Representatives. His daughter now says that his coming out against Bush is sketchy at best. Given these two facts (the dates and his daughter), I'd say he's not credible, probably just a Bush hater like Burkett.
or example, in Bush's records, Bush flew only 22 months of the 53 he owed
Read the documents he signed. He was liable for the 5 years only if not released by a superior. When he went to Alabama, he was released from duty.
Anything a politician mentions is fair game for lies?
It shouldn't be, but if I served 4 months in-country, got 3 purple hearts and used 1 sick day for all three, then came home and protested the war, I wouldn't use that time as the primary platform of my campaign. Do you realize Kerry has talked about Vietname for longer than he was *in* Vietnam? Get through a speech without talking about it. Get through a speech without haraunging President Bush. Talk about yourself!
I didn't want to vote Bush this time, I disagree with a number of his positions. The anti-gay marriage amendment really pushed my buttons. However, not knowing Kerry's platform because he's talked about three things...how Bush fucked up Iraq, Vietnam and now, finally, his economic plan (which sucks)...I have little choice. Sometimes it's better to vote for the devil you know rather than the devil you don't. At this time, I think GW will make a better president than Kerry. The onus is on Kerry to change my mind about that.
--trb
In defense of the people who exposed them, I heard about the memos wednesday and saw them first thing thursday morning...the first thing *I* thought was "These don't look real", and went off to find what other people were saying. I'm no forensic/typographic/handwriting expert, but there's been such a flurry of military documentation released in the past year due to the Kerry/Bush "Where Were You When..." drama, I've seen enough of them to think these looked strange.
Unfortunately, now that the monkey is off CBS' back, we may never find out who forged them...unless criminal charges are pressed on Burkett, he has no reason to talk. He's also a bit of a looney, this isn't the first time he's attacked Bush.
--trb
How, exactly, do you propose the president represent people? By voting on something/anything and letting the popular vote win? Okay, the problem with that system is that people typically vote for what's best FOR THEM. That means that state/federal funds would go to the majority population/areas, and the minorities would get NOTHING. Farm subsidies? Screw that. Minority rights? Screw that too. Unless you're a member of the majority, living where the majority typically lives, you're gonna get fucked.
--trb
Bias in the press isn't always about partisanship. Something can be left or right biased without mentioning a presidential candidate. Read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, he cites many examples of this while trying to make his case for how the media is biased.
In short, he states that a lot of the "bias" he's talking about is subtle, possibly unacknowledged even to the anchor, and you could better address it as political correctness...but being PC is typically slanting to the left.
Just some examples off the top of my head, since my book is at home...how often do you hear stories involving "liberal thinktanks"? When an organization is referred to in media, if it's a right wing organization it will often (usually) be prefaced with "conservative", but otherwise not prefaced. Why not label "liberal" organizations as such? When addressing NOW, for instance, shouldn't you call it a liberal organization? It certainly is.
Are Christian groups EVER portrayed in a positive light? They have to be doing some good out there, but most of the time they're referred to as nuts.
Are blacks ever depicted as causing a disproportionate amount of the crime in the US? Or do we hear and immediate follow up about how the police target people by race?
Read the book, it's interesting. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do agree there's a liberal slant, possibly a subconcious, PC one, to the mainstream media.
--trb
The Post has done an excellent job, with all due respect going to Howard Kurtz, on the CBS memos. While it certainly isn't the left-wing equivalent of the Times, it does lean. Not nearly as much as some other well respected, and well read papers, namely the LA Times, the NY Times and the Boston Globe.
I read the Post online for most of my news because it is a very, very well written paper as well as my local paper. I also read the Times but, like you said, I can't take it seriously...it's just too bloody biased.
I do think it's funny how many news outlets are thought to be left-wing (pretty much all the written, respected papers, and most of the networks) but FoxNews gets blasted for being conservative. It's like a beacon in the storm for some of us. Temper what you hear on that station with what you read from the LA Times, and I think you have a pretty good outlook.
--trb
"but I still prefer the news outlets that are accused of being liberal"
You can come out and say "anything but FoxNews", I'm pretty sure it's the only network consistently accused of being right-wing.
If you watched "Outfoxed", you might think that FoxNews revolved around nothing more than GOP reps heralding the reelection of Bush and thought anything of the contrary should be met with O'Reilly telling them to "Shut up!" In reality, FoxNews does have many editorial shows, like The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Cavuto on Business, etc. That's their format. They have straight news as well, but you never seem to hear about it (frankly, I think that's because it doesn't prove the left-wing point). Using Outfoxed as an example, the majority of their clips (that lasted longer than half a second) were from 4 shows...O'Reilly, Cavuto, Hannity (without showing much of Colmes) and Fox and Friends (Fox's version of the Morning Show). Well, give me $300,000 and a few months and I'll take clips from any major news network and make it seem like they have a horrible, horrible left-wing slant. It's very easy, if you don't show the other side.
My point is, if you don't want to watch editorial news or talking points, don't watch the shows on FoxNews. They have a lot.
--trb
While I could critique Moore's movie, I don't think the substance was necessarily what the parent post was trying to bring into the limelight.
His point was that while his parents, and many other people out there, think that CNN is biased left, their reaction isn't a self-indulgent, egotistical "I'm right, They're wrong" film made to appeal to partisans. Similarly, "Outfoxed" was made this year to appeal to a group that already had preconceived notions about FoxNews. Have you watched this movie? OMFG, journalistic integrity wasn't even a factor while filming it.
While anyone can make a film, commercial, book, etc, the problem becomes that people start using these items in debates or conversations. "So many books/movies came out PROVING that the Republicans are scum, it must be true!" Well, no, the right-wing/conservative/Republican groups just aren't making movies about this stuff. I don't know why, since there's apparently a market they could capitalize on, but they aren't.
Of your 5 points at the end of your post, I have questions about #1, I disagree with #2, I wonder why you made #3, I disagree with #4 and #5 I seriously wonder why you included, since we have a volunteer military. My point being that before hand, you state "which pale in comparison to the major truths:"...these aren't truths, these are loosely formed opinions. I have my own "truths" that I can use to contradict yours.
--trb
Conversely, just because Hannity said it doesn't make it false or misleading. Lots of Democrats would like to say that instead. The truth probably lies somewhere between Fox and CNN, between Hannity and Matthews, and between Limbaugh and Kennedy. It's a matter of applying the proper filter whenever you listen to one of the above.
--trb
Check out exactly what closing those loopholes will do. Kerry released his economic plan yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, citing the $12 billion in loopholes he would close. Seem a little low? Here's why. That $12 billion is a drop in the bucket of our multi-trillion dollar budget because less than 10% of all businesses actually pay the corporate tax. So Kerry is talking about closing a loophole for less than 10% of businesses, who are then expected to go out and use all this extra cash to hire workers. It's a longshot, at best, since I doubt all $12 billion will actually go back to the companies, and I doubt all 8% of those companies will use all that money to hire people.
Um, no. First, I'm not going to go to either candidates side and let them list all the ways they are great. That's ridiculous.
Second, I have listened to many, many speeches by John Kerry and most of them (I'll give him credit in a few) follow the same format; Kerry is "for" something. He's for healthcare for everyone. He's for better education. He's for better foreign relations. He's for a tougher war on terror.
I'm "for" better tasting beer, however, I have no clue how I am going to go about that anymore than how Kerry is going to go about implementing his policies.
Being "for" stuff is great, but you need to follow that up with "...and this is how I'm going to do it". That hasn't happened with Kerry. Except for rolling back the Bush tax cuts, which won't NEARLY cover his healthcare plan, he hasn't laid out any specifics.
--trb
This no longer is a question of "Bush vs. Kerry", this has entered the realm of "Good Journalism vs. Shoddy Journalism". Questions as to the documents' authenticity have been raised after a single day in the news. Why wouldn't CBS provide the names of their fact checkers and analysts so that they can show their proof of authenticity? This doesn't require them to reveal their source, though, I don't know why the source of public military documents would be a problem.
I don't know how you could examine these documents and not question a few things...the superscripting on a typewriter, the kerning, the signature mismatch. Even though it's been stated that non-fixed width font typewriters were used in the early 1970's, that was the first thing I questioned. That alone lead me to scrutinize the rest of the documents.
CBS's integrity has been questioned. In order to restore it, they will have to explain how they obtained the documents and how they proved they were real. No journalist with any integrity would air documents whose authenticity they couldn't prove...you just don't go on the record with something like that.
While restoring a teensy bit of Bush's integrity is nice, this isn't a question of his military service any more. Most of us are questioning CBS, "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather.
--trb
With regards to your PS, I don't think these documents *should* effect who you vote for. Moreover, the question should one of journalistic integrity, and why in the hell did CBS publish (show) this story without checking it? I know, I know, they claim they did, but if a couple of bloggers can spot inconsistencies within a day, none of the "experts" CBS used could within 6 weeks? Very fishy...
--trb
Okay, I spent last night reading this in the Washington Post and talking to a few friends about it and we all reached the same conclusion.
This doesn't hurt Bush, really.
However, this DOES hurt CBS and 60 minutes. I think the important thing here is not whether or not Bush missed a medical exam, but how and why these documents, if it's the case, were forged. This would be shoddy journalism to an extent that bulls past the NYTimes scandal by far.
--trb
...starting with a bi-weekly happy hour or poker night...
Essentially, anytime guys sit around, drink and talk about women, eventually a tradition will sprout. All the best traditions involve some combination of one or more of these three.
--trb
Lying Liar
Do some research, something Al Franken is apparently weary of. Essentially, in his years of television and radio, all Al has on Bill is that he mislabeled a Peabody a Polk, in a side comment off of his show. He later apologized, on the show and his radio show, for the mistake. Franken's point about Bill not living in Levittown as a kid can be discredited by looking at the deed to his parents' house.
Franken's just trying to find crap to discredit O'Reilly with, and it's not working! Well, apparently it is because people like you believe him, but that doesn't make it true.
--trb
In his years on the air, he's done this once, in a pretaped session that he later airred and apologized for. Turn off "Outfoxed" and do some research.
--trb
I don't understand it either. The problem, as I see it, came in the Democratic primaries. They spent the entire primary season throwing fluff at each other, not campaigning on any issues. I started having a serious dislike for Kerry when the primaries began and he could talk about nothing but his war record. Anyone who remembers the primary debates I assume would agree here...that's all he campaigned on.
I liked Edwards and Dean, but the electorate apparently didn't think either of them had the political clout to go up against Bush. In the end, Kerry's war record will probably lead to him losing to Bush. It's difficult, next to impossible really, to go up against an incumbent, war time president based on your war record if you're not named Eisenhower or MacArthur. In other words, you need to be a godammed hero.
Kerry ought to be talking social issues...healthcare, reduced senior med costs, education, social security...generally, issues that are more touchy feely. That's where the democrats power lies. I'm a friggin Republican, but I'd listen to someone talk intelligently about that.
--trb