Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Compare and Contrast: An Exercise in Futility
The New England Republican scours the web and finds a transcript of a news conference demonstrating the feeding frenzy by the media over the "Bush Went AWOL" non-story.
Compare this to the media coverage (or lack thereof) of Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" and other questionable stories from Kerry's four months in Vietnam. Ask yourself why there's such a difference. Remind yourself that you already know the answer.
Compare this to the media coverage (or lack thereof) of Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" and other questionable stories from Kerry's four months in Vietnam. Ask yourself why there's such a difference. Remind yourself that you already know the answer.
The Psychology of the Lie
The blogosphere is moving too fast for me to keep up with John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia confabulations, his campaign's unconvincing (or outright bizarre) responses to the logical problems presented by the story (in all its permutations), and the blogosphere's dogged determination to get to the bottom of it all. I'll just point you to Power Line and Captain Ed, who have been doing the sort of work we should be seeing from Big Media.
What fascinates me about all this is the central figure himself--John Kerry--a man who built his campaign around his four months in Vietnam, and then can't seem to understand why people are calling his Vietnam stories into question. In short, Kerry was lying on every occasion he mentioned spending Christmas Eve, 1968, across the border in Cambodia, being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge, and listening to President Nixon declare that there are no American troops in Cambodia. This was the event that was "seared--seared" into his memory--the even that turned him from gung-ho soldier to embittered war veteran. Except it didn't happen.
What causes someone to invent a story that is quite obviously a lie, and stick to it with such determination for so many years? The story was most famously repeated on the floor of the Senate in 1986. Why didn't anyone then point out that Nixon wasn't president in December, 1968? Why didn't someone tell Mr. Kerry that in 1968, the Khmer Rouge wasn't yet a player in the region? How did we let him pass off this lie since, apparently, the late 70s until as recently as July of 2004?
Perhaps the better question is what psychology is at work in this man?
It is, perhaps, an odd thing to state that I am fascinated by the phenomenon of lying. Specifically, big lies. When you combine great big lies with an enthusiastic fervor to spread them and a stubborn determination to stick by them regardless of their transparent nature, the armchair psychoanalyst in me begins squirming with giddy anticipation. I want to know what makes these people tick.
Today I was reminded of an article I read way back in 1991. I'm convinced there's a connection between the kind of man John Kerry is--psychologically speaking--and the kind of people discussed in this article.
It's always the details that cause the problems. Had Kerry remained vague about Cambodia (to name only one problem area) he probably wouldn't be in this predicament. But by giving a specific time (Christmas Eve), and mentioning Nixon and the Khmer Rouge by name, he reveals the falsity of the story. His campaign's efforts to cover for him have only made it worse. For example, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan gave us this explanation:
I realize that geography is a weak spot for some people. Still, I would expect a refutation that doesn't require redrawing national borders. Get out your maps, folks, and look at where the Mekong Delta really is.
Another explanation is that Kerry was running a series of "black ops" missions into Cambodia in January or February of 1969, involving Navy SEALS and CIA operatives--stories which have also been refuted by people who know better. The point is that piling on the details to add veracity to a lie only make the lie more obvious.
But more importantly, what psychology is at work here? When you get right down to it, is it all about narcissism? Or is that too simplistic an explanation? Does the "Grade Five Syndrome" factor in somehow? I'm still trying to collect my thoughts.
What fascinates me about all this is the central figure himself--John Kerry--a man who built his campaign around his four months in Vietnam, and then can't seem to understand why people are calling his Vietnam stories into question. In short, Kerry was lying on every occasion he mentioned spending Christmas Eve, 1968, across the border in Cambodia, being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge, and listening to President Nixon declare that there are no American troops in Cambodia. This was the event that was "seared--seared" into his memory--the even that turned him from gung-ho soldier to embittered war veteran. Except it didn't happen.
What causes someone to invent a story that is quite obviously a lie, and stick to it with such determination for so many years? The story was most famously repeated on the floor of the Senate in 1986. Why didn't anyone then point out that Nixon wasn't president in December, 1968? Why didn't someone tell Mr. Kerry that in 1968, the Khmer Rouge wasn't yet a player in the region? How did we let him pass off this lie since, apparently, the late 70s until as recently as July of 2004?
Perhaps the better question is what psychology is at work in this man?
It is, perhaps, an odd thing to state that I am fascinated by the phenomenon of lying. Specifically, big lies. When you combine great big lies with an enthusiastic fervor to spread them and a stubborn determination to stick by them regardless of their transparent nature, the armchair psychoanalyst in me begins squirming with giddy anticipation. I want to know what makes these people tick.
Today I was reminded of an article I read way back in 1991. I'm convinced there's a connection between the kind of man John Kerry is--psychologically speaking--and the kind of people discussed in this article.
The veteran's story was horrifying. As Edward re-counted his experience of watching a buddy's head explode during a firefight, the other vets in the therapeutic group for post-traumatic stress disorder nodded understandingly. Of them all, Ed's Vietnam tour had been the most harrowing. His vivid reliving of wartime events in therapy left both his therapist and himself exhausted emotionally. The therapist had recommended the vets' group as a way to help Ed cope.A close buddy from the vets' group decided to cheer Ed up by staging a surprise party for his birthday. A little amateur snooping around revealed that Ed's parents lived nearby, and the friend gave them a call. "What?!" said Ed's mother. "He's in a veterans' recovery group? But . . . but he was rated 4F. He never was allowed to go to Vietnam!"
Ed's friends were angry, believing he had lied to them. But he remained adamant he'd been to Vietnam even after being "exposed" as an obvious hoax. Was there another explanation? His therapist, in talking with a colleague, discovered there was.
The article explains that 1 out of 12 Americans is susceptible to creating a memory out of thin air--and then believing it himself. This is referred to as the "Grade Five Syndrome."
One of the early pioneers in researching so-called "brainwashing" techniques is psychiatrist Herbert Spiegel, an expert in hypnosis. Spiegel discovered from numerous studies that between 5 and 10 percent of the American population are not only more susceptible to suggestion, but also exhibit a number of other intriguing characteristics. He labeled such individuals as "Grade Five Personalities," based on scores they achieved in a measure of hypnotizability called the "Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP)."
"The HIP is based on a brief series of simple tests and measurements including eye roll and arm levitation," notes Dr. George Ganaway, director of the Atlanta-based Ridgeview Center for Dissociative Disorders. "A person graded two on the scale is considered mildly hypnotizable. Grade fives are what we call the 'hypnotic virtuosos.'"
Anthropologist Sherrill Mulhern, writing about Spiegel's study of "Grade Fives," remarks
These subjects exhibit a posture of trust, "an intense, beguiling innocent expectation of support from others". . . In the therapeutic context, this behavior is translated into a persistent demand that "all attention and concern be focused on them."The article continues:
Grade fives are particularly vulnerable to something Spiegel calls "the compulsive triad." The first point of the triad, compulsive compliance, is a fancy way of saying that in a trance state fives feel an all-but-overwhelming urge to comply with someone suggesting a new or variant viewpoint. The second leg of the triad, source amnesia, means basically that the five who comes up with certain information is unable to recall where the information actually came from. The third element, rationalization, occurs when the grade five encounters logical opposition to his or her adopted viewpoint.Mulhern:
Grade fives' highly empathetic abilities make them particularly vulnerable to introspective therapeutic techniques. For example, when they are asked to probe their memories for additional details concerning a particular remembered image or event, Grade fives compulsively respond to their therapists' requests by adding information from various sources into their memories to "fill in the blanks." Researchers found that although these subjects ignore the sources of confabulated details, when questioned about the fallacious information, they make enormous efforts to fit the imagined material logically into the ongoing narrative of their recovered and reexperienced memories.From there, the article continues discussing the implications of this study in the context of "recovered memories." But let's pause and consider how the description of these "Grade Fives" fits in with what we see in Candidate Kerry. He's come up with a doozy of a story which we must assume he believes himself given all the times he's retold it. Furthermore, he piles on the details to "fill in the blanks," even though it's those pesky details that are causing all the problems.
It's always the details that cause the problems. Had Kerry remained vague about Cambodia (to name only one problem area) he probably wouldn't be in this predicament. But by giving a specific time (Christmas Eve), and mentioning Nixon and the Khmer Rouge by name, he reveals the falsity of the story. His campaign's efforts to cover for him have only made it worse. For example, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan gave us this explanation:
''The Mekong Delta consists of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, so on Christmas Eve in 1968, he was in fact on patrol ... in the Mekong Delta between Cambodia and Vietnam.''
I realize that geography is a weak spot for some people. Still, I would expect a refutation that doesn't require redrawing national borders. Get out your maps, folks, and look at where the Mekong Delta really is.
Another explanation is that Kerry was running a series of "black ops" missions into Cambodia in January or February of 1969, involving Navy SEALS and CIA operatives--stories which have also been refuted by people who know better. The point is that piling on the details to add veracity to a lie only make the lie more obvious.
But more importantly, what psychology is at work here? When you get right down to it, is it all about narcissism? Or is that too simplistic an explanation? Does the "Grade Five Syndrome" factor in somehow? I'm still trying to collect my thoughts.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
The "What if" I don't want to think about.
The USA Today today had a review of Nicholson Baker's Checkpoint, a novel about a man who wants to assassinate George Bush. When I first heard of the book, I thought it was probably only tangentially about an assassination. Certainly no one would try to publish--just prior to an election--a novel where the assassination of one of the candidates is the main point of the book.
According to this review, I was wrong. Indeed, it appears that the whole book is a conversation about killing the president--one character convinced it must be done, the other--no Bush fan himself--trying to talk the first character out of it. And the conclusion: "open to interpretation."
According to this review, I was wrong. Indeed, it appears that the whole book is a conversation about killing the president--one character convinced it must be done, the other--no Bush fan himself--trying to talk the first character out of it. And the conclusion: "open to interpretation."
So it appears that we're not left with morality winning out over murderousness.
And here's the line from the review I found really chilling:
Baker makes you feel as if you are indeed inside the mind of a potential assassin. Whether you want to go there is your choice.Okay, imagine this scenario. An unbalanced individual--say Michael Moore--reads this book, and already convinced that George Bush is a bad guy is convinced by the narrative that Bush must be assassinated. So he does it.
Should Nicholson Baker be considered an accomplice? Should the publishing company be held liable as well?
But hey, those are just academic questions. The anti-Bush climate in this country is at a point where it's not such a stretch to imagine there will probably be an assassination attempt--not by al Qaeda, but by an American citizen gone round the bend. My biggest question is "WHAT THE HELL WAS KNOPF THINKING!"
I suspect that if the novel was set in 1865 and was a conversation between John Wilkes Booth and a friend, I might find it interesting. When an event like that lies so far in the past, it becomes a sort of academic study. But given the current political atmosphere, publishing this book is irresponsible.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Ten Challenges to Anti-War Politics
I read this article--Ten Challenges to Anti-War Politics--back in 2002 when the US bombed Afghanistan out of the stone age and back into modern times. I read it again as we went to war in Iraq. I recommend it again now because the questions it poses are timeless, and exactly the sort of thing to keep in mind when responding to anti-War critics.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Wait for the video
I did go see the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate," and I was a bit disappointed. Perhaps "quite a bit" is more accurate. "The Manchurian Candidate" (the original) posits that a person could be brainwashed into acting not only against his country, but against his own sense of morality. There's no magic technology causing it; just a compromised human mind. It's this personal violation of the mind that makes the story work and adds that extra level of dread. It's also the reason why this story has been retold many times. Even on Star Trek.
But in the new version, it's a chip in the brain. It's technology. And in a way it's a cheat. There's a revulsion in the idea that one's own mind could be reprogrammed--merely through the power of suggestion--to commit immoral acts. This is a violation of the self on the most intimate level. But when it's a piece of technology turning a person into an automaton, that same level of revulsion isn't there. If all I have to do is make sure no one sticks a chip in my head, well . . . that's easy. But if it's not a chip--if it's just the most subtle of suggestions that are reprogramming me at the most basic level, that's a very real and present fear. (Why did you really purchase that particular product? What subtle or not-so-subtle advertising messages played a part in your decision?)
In a way, the film contains both elements. Yes, it's a chip in the head that forces Raymond Shaw to act as he does. But the film itself uses the power of suggestion in another, more concerning way.
The film, of course, concerns a presidential campaign. Meryl Streep fills in for Angela Lansbury as a Hillary-esque Senator working for the not-so-shadowy Manchurian Global, a multinational corporation filling in for the Red Chinese of the original. Except for the fact that Streep does a better Hillary than Hillary does, and except for the fact that the film is set in the present day, one will likely assume that the Shaws and their campaign staff are Democrats. And yet when was the last time you heard a Democrat speaking so forcefully about combatting terrorism, as Streep does throughout the film? Furthermore, there are newsreports running in the background of nearly every scene. Pay attention to this background noise. Watch the headlines crawling on the bottom of the screens every time a television is shown. In this alternate version of 2004, the US is under a nearly constant terrorism threat. There have been many major attacks in cities across the country.
The message by the filmmakers, and I don't think I'm wrong in picking up on this, is that the administration is exaggerating the terrorism threat for political purposes. If they can keep people in a state of fear, they will be more likely to reelect the President who is determined to combat this threat. But the filmmakers want us to understand that real threat is not from terrorists, but from global multinational corporations--the puppet-masters behind everything that happens in the world. Or, to put it bluntly--Halliburton.
Ah, yes. It all comes back to Halliburton in the end, doesn't it?
Like the original, this film is built on the power of suggestion, though not as a fictional device, but as a real and determined method of unseating President Bush.
Except it's not very subtle.
The original still rules, mainly for that very cool and very surreal brainwashing demonstration scene cross-cut with the ladies' garden club meeting. If you're really interested in the new version, save yourself a few bucks and rent it when it's released on home video--hopefully sometimes after November 2nd.
But in the new version, it's a chip in the brain. It's technology. And in a way it's a cheat. There's a revulsion in the idea that one's own mind could be reprogrammed--merely through the power of suggestion--to commit immoral acts. This is a violation of the self on the most intimate level. But when it's a piece of technology turning a person into an automaton, that same level of revulsion isn't there. If all I have to do is make sure no one sticks a chip in my head, well . . . that's easy. But if it's not a chip--if it's just the most subtle of suggestions that are reprogramming me at the most basic level, that's a very real and present fear. (Why did you really purchase that particular product? What subtle or not-so-subtle advertising messages played a part in your decision?)
In a way, the film contains both elements. Yes, it's a chip in the head that forces Raymond Shaw to act as he does. But the film itself uses the power of suggestion in another, more concerning way.
The film, of course, concerns a presidential campaign. Meryl Streep fills in for Angela Lansbury as a Hillary-esque Senator working for the not-so-shadowy Manchurian Global, a multinational corporation filling in for the Red Chinese of the original. Except for the fact that Streep does a better Hillary than Hillary does, and except for the fact that the film is set in the present day, one will likely assume that the Shaws and their campaign staff are Democrats. And yet when was the last time you heard a Democrat speaking so forcefully about combatting terrorism, as Streep does throughout the film? Furthermore, there are newsreports running in the background of nearly every scene. Pay attention to this background noise. Watch the headlines crawling on the bottom of the screens every time a television is shown. In this alternate version of 2004, the US is under a nearly constant terrorism threat. There have been many major attacks in cities across the country.
The message by the filmmakers, and I don't think I'm wrong in picking up on this, is that the administration is exaggerating the terrorism threat for political purposes. If they can keep people in a state of fear, they will be more likely to reelect the President who is determined to combat this threat. But the filmmakers want us to understand that real threat is not from terrorists, but from global multinational corporations--the puppet-masters behind everything that happens in the world. Or, to put it bluntly--Halliburton.
Ah, yes. It all comes back to Halliburton in the end, doesn't it?
Like the original, this film is built on the power of suggestion, though not as a fictional device, but as a real and determined method of unseating President Bush.
Except it's not very subtle.
The original still rules, mainly for that very cool and very surreal brainwashing demonstration scene cross-cut with the ladies' garden club meeting. If you're really interested in the new version, save yourself a few bucks and rent it when it's released on home video--hopefully sometimes after November 2nd.
"This moment changed me from the inside."
Ahmed had been a major in Saddam Hussein's air defense unit for nine years. Then, on April 9, 2003, his life changed.
"I was on my way home to Baghdad after my brigadier boss had told me the war was over and to go home," Ahmed said, describing his last moments as a major in the old Iraqi Army air defense unit he had been with for nine years. "He said it was an order," he added."So I walked home from our station in Al Hillah, south of Baghdad, but I didn’t change my clothes," Ahmed said, "And I came to a Marine checkpoint on a bridge in Baghdad. And I still had my uniform on and the Marine sergeant stopped me ..."
"’Where are you going?’ he asked me," Ahmed said in his accented but surprisingly good English.
"And I tell him, ’I am a major in the Iraqi Army and I was ordered to go to my house’" Ahmed said, finishing the backdrop to a life-defining moment he had not seen coming; and on what was supposed to be just a long 50-plus mile walk home to his wife and five children.
The encounter would prove to be a pivotal one for the military veteran because for the next two anxious minutes, Ahmed went through what must be emotions impossible to describe to someone who has never known he was about to die. It was more the result of the 33-year-old’s lifetime of experience with the ways of Saddam Hussein.
Ahmed, though, was actually two minutes away from a rebirth of sorts. "He looked at me for a while and I thought he was going to kill me," Ahmed said. "But he didn’t kill me," he added. "Instead he came to the position of attention and saluted me as an officer," Ahmed said, "And said, ’Sir you can go.’"
"I took a few steps and began to cry," he said, "Because I think, ’Why do I fight these people for ten years?[’”]
"This moment changed me from the inside," Ahmed said. "What he did was kill me without pistol. He killed the old major in the Iraqi Army who fought America from 1993 to 2003.”
Ahmed's inspirational story doesn't end there. Read the whole thing.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Choosing the "Candidate"
My choices for evening viewing: Kerry's speech at the convention, or The Manchurian Candidate on DVD. I will probably settle on the DVD.
The Manchurian Candidate has, of course, been remade, and is out in theaters this weekend. I plan to see it, but there's one aspect I find curious. The original is set during the Cold War era, and the bad guys are the Red Chinese. The new version is set after the Gulf War and the bad guys are part of a multinational corporation.
To put it even more succinctly: the bad guys were commies in the original; the bad guys are capitalists in the remake.
How times change.
The Manchurian Candidate has, of course, been remade, and is out in theaters this weekend. I plan to see it, but there's one aspect I find curious. The original is set during the Cold War era, and the bad guys are the Red Chinese. The new version is set after the Gulf War and the bad guys are part of a multinational corporation.
To put it even more succinctly: the bad guys were commies in the original; the bad guys are capitalists in the remake.
How times change.
"God bless that fist, Samir!"
Blackfive asks, "Did you ever wonder who that guy was holding Saddam on the ground?" His name is Samir, an Iraqi who fled that country in 1991 and eventually settled in St. Louis. He worked for the military as an interpreter in Iraq, and just happened to be the guy who pulled Saddam from his spider hole. Here's an excerpt from KSDK-TV in St. Louis:
In Arabic Samir said he continued to pursuade Saddam to come out. He was about to come face to face with the tyrant who killed his loved ones. Saddam was the reason he fled Iraq in 1991 and eventually moved to St. Louis.
Samir says, "I was like, 'I got him.'" We all reached him and pulled him out. And we say Saddam Hussein he looks really old. He looks disgusting." There was also anger. "You want to beat the crap out of him. He destroyed millions in Iraq. I'm one. I left my family 13 years ago because of him."
Saddam couldn't fight back, but he did speak out. "He called me a spy. He called me a traitor. I had to punch him in face. They had to hold me back. I got so angry I almost lost my mind. I didn't know what to do. Choke him to death. That's really not good enough."
Omar at "Iraq the Model" probably speaks for most Iraqis when he says "God bless that fist Samir. That punch was from ALL Iraqis."
Convention Report--Wednesday from the Couch, II
I missed John Edwards' speech last night. But the Deacon at Power Line didn't. Great stuff. I still find myself wondering why the Democrats are daring to discuss the rising costs of health care given John Edwards' contribution to such things. John Stossel has an interesting piece on VP Candidate Edwards, trial lawyers, and their effect on the country.
Stossel also includes this interesting statistic.
UPDATE: I also missed Teresa Heinz-Kerry's speech on Tuesday. But Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker didn't. It's a skewed analysis, but gives us a bit of insight into Teresa's family history, if nothing else.
Trial lawyers comprise one of the most powerful professions in America, yet we rarely hear about the unintended consequences of what they do, and how the lawsuits they pursue impact our lives. . . .
John Edwards has said he loved being a trial lawyer because he was able to help the little guy, but lawyers hurt the little guys, too. Every product you buy has a built-in cost to cover what lawyers make through lawsuits. . . .
But paying higher prices is not the biggest effect of what the lawyers do. What may be worse is what the fear of lawsuits do to medical care and innovation.
In hospitals, the lawyers have bred so much fear that patients now suffer more pain, and may be less safe because doctors are concerned about being sued.
"That fear is always there," said obstetrics professor Dr. Edgar Mandeville. "Everybody walks in mortal fear of being sued."
The Department of Health and Human Services found doctors order painful tests they consider unnecessary, for fear of being sued. And the majority of doctors say they recommended invasive procedures more often than they believed were medically necessary in an effort to prevent potential litigation. . . .
Clearly, there are bad and careless doctors, but in certain specialties most doctors are being sued.
In fact, 76 percent of American obstetricians have been sued. Yet lawyers . . . often say there are only a 'few' physicians who are causing all the problems.
Then how is it fair that three-fourths of the obstetricians get sued?
Consumers pay for that insurance in increased costs, but the result doesn't necessarily make us safer. A government study found this fear of lawsuits has made many hospitals reluctant to report problems, with as many as 95 percent of adverse events believed to go unreported.
Are the fear and the secrecy making us less safe?
Stossel also includes this interesting statistic.
Lawyers were the biggest contributors to [Edwards'] presidential campaign, and now they've become the biggest givers to the Democratic Party — bigger than labor unions, corporations — bigger than anybody.
UPDATE: I also missed Teresa Heinz-Kerry's speech on Tuesday. But Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker didn't. It's a skewed analysis, but gives us a bit of insight into Teresa's family history, if nothing else.
She is clearly a woman who enjoys telling others her opinion. She makes her pronouncements with a slightly grand air, as if giving a gift to lesser mortals. She went on to mainly talk about herself, her father, her marches against apartheid while a student in South Africa, and her right to speak her mind and be “opinionated” (hands making quotation marks in the air). It all seemed rather defensive, as if she needed to prove herself virtuous, and entitled to have a major voice in matters of public concern. Maybe growing up in a racist Portuguese colony as a member of the tiny white colonial elite has left her with a bit of guilt. Incidentally, she only referred to the land of her birth as a “dictatorship,” glossing over her family’s participation in a harsh colonial system oppressing black Africans. Because her father only was able to vote once, at the age of 73, she even posed as a family of victims of "dictatorship."
One more Convention Question . . .
Who selects the music? Obviously I haven't heard every single music break during the convention, but what I have heard is puzzling. It's Motown, Hip-Hop, or 60s-era folk music set to an R&B arrangement. (And please, enough with the folk music. You don't want to remind people of 1968. Trust me on this.) When it's not one of those three, it's some horribly plinky Kingergarten-style music. Granted, when the Clintons were on-stage, we were treated to the now-obvious "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow."
I don't know what kind of music John Kerry listens to. I suspect he doesn't listen to any, but I'm sure if you asked him he'd have an answer geared toward whichever group he was speaking to.
But would it hurt the convention planners to throw in a few different styles? Or perhaps something unabashedly patriotic? (James Brown's "Living in America" was used, but isn't quite what I had in mind.) Why is it that I fully expect to hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" (overused as it is, it still moves me) at the Republican convention, but couldn't imagine the Democrats using it at theirs? I can't imagine them using country music at all, actually. Certainly not Toby Keith, even though he is a registered Democrat, but you'd think the Dixie Chicks would have made an appearance.
UPDATE: Captain Ed discusses one of those songs I missed. Sheesh. Who was the brilliant DNC strategist who recommended a song that references presidential assassination?
I don't know what kind of music John Kerry listens to. I suspect he doesn't listen to any, but I'm sure if you asked him he'd have an answer geared toward whichever group he was speaking to.
But would it hurt the convention planners to throw in a few different styles? Or perhaps something unabashedly patriotic? (James Brown's "Living in America" was used, but isn't quite what I had in mind.) Why is it that I fully expect to hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" (overused as it is, it still moves me) at the Republican convention, but couldn't imagine the Democrats using it at theirs? I can't imagine them using country music at all, actually. Certainly not Toby Keith, even though he is a registered Democrat, but you'd think the Dixie Chicks would have made an appearance.
UPDATE: Captain Ed discusses one of those songs I missed. Sheesh. Who was the brilliant DNC strategist who recommended a song that references presidential assassination?
Flipper, faster than lightning . . .
Using a string of news clips and interviews with Kerry, this video quite clearly demonstrates Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq, strongly suggesting that Kerry is merely an opportunist, saying what he needed to say to get the anti-war vote. It's all here, from his enthusiastic support for the war to his vote against funding for our troops to his "nuanced" attempts to pretend he didn't say what he said. (All that's missing is "Shove it!")
Even I, no fan of Kerry, was surprised by the stuff collected here. At times Kerry sounds like more of a hawk than even Rummy. The result is that he doesn't come across as someone who changed his mind, which would be understandable, he comes across as someone who's trying to pretend he was never in favor of the war. Which is a demonstrable lie.
Even I, no fan of Kerry, was surprised by the stuff collected here. At times Kerry sounds like more of a hawk than even Rummy. The result is that he doesn't come across as someone who changed his mind, which would be understandable, he comes across as someone who's trying to pretend he was never in favor of the war. Which is a demonstrable lie.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Convention Report--Wednesday from the Couch
Well, Tuesday actually.
I'm watching a repeat of Michael Moore's speech at the convention yesterday. Ick First of all, it's now clear that the Democrats have given up control to the wacko fringe. I hope someone saves this once-proud party from the lefty-loony wing, or it will soon cease to exist. (Not such a bad idea, actually.) Second, you'd think that Moore, speaking at a convention, would try to look a little more respectable. Does he ever change that cap and sweatshirt? Or shave? I'm suddenly glad that smell-o-vision hasn't been invented.
I'll say this: Moore is an entertaining speaker. If you read a transcript of this speech, he would sound like the paranoid conspiracy theorist that he is. But if you actually watch this, he seems warm and friendly. No wonder people slurp up his lies like poisoned Kool-Aid.
Right now he's saying that Canadians are better than Americans. You know, I wish he'd become a Canadian. You guys can have him. He's certainly not an American. Right now Moore is saying his little piece of Propaganda has made more money than any Disney film this year. That can't possibly be true, can it? Oh, now he's claiming there was a Disney-Saudi conspiracy to keep his film from being distributed. Geez. Now comes the lies, and the lies about lies.
Here's the level of discourse you get from Moore: "[The Bush administration is] up at 6 in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they're gonna screw today."
You know, I'm reminded of the hate rallies in Orwell's "1984." This whole convention is like that.
I'm watching a repeat of Michael Moore's speech at the convention yesterday. Ick First of all, it's now clear that the Democrats have given up control to the wacko fringe. I hope someone saves this once-proud party from the lefty-loony wing, or it will soon cease to exist. (Not such a bad idea, actually.) Second, you'd think that Moore, speaking at a convention, would try to look a little more respectable. Does he ever change that cap and sweatshirt? Or shave? I'm suddenly glad that smell-o-vision hasn't been invented.
I'll say this: Moore is an entertaining speaker. If you read a transcript of this speech, he would sound like the paranoid conspiracy theorist that he is. But if you actually watch this, he seems warm and friendly. No wonder people slurp up his lies like poisoned Kool-Aid.
Right now he's saying that Canadians are better than Americans. You know, I wish he'd become a Canadian. You guys can have him. He's certainly not an American. Right now Moore is saying his little piece of Propaganda has made more money than any Disney film this year. That can't possibly be true, can it? Oh, now he's claiming there was a Disney-Saudi conspiracy to keep his film from being distributed. Geez. Now comes the lies, and the lies about lies.
Here's the level of discourse you get from Moore: "[The Bush administration is] up at 6 in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they're gonna screw today."
You know, I'm reminded of the hate rallies in Orwell's "1984." This whole convention is like that.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Convention Report--Tuesday from the Couch
Hmmm. A minister from a Chicago United Church of Christ just stepped up to the microphone and put his church fully behind John Kerry. "We wanna get that cowboy out of the White House" was one of his lines. Shouldn't that church lose its tax-exempt status?
LATER: Gephardt's on. Arrgh! This is driving me crazy! I swear if I hear one more delegate say that Bush acted "unilaterally" or decided to "go it alone," I'm gonna reach right through the TV screen and throttle the idiot. Not only is it a lie, it's an insult to the more than 30 nations who contributed to this war.
LATER: And I will also reach through the screen if I hear "we'll make sure every vote is counted!" one more time. They were counted, counted, counted, and recounted. Gore lost every single recount!!
LATER STILL: I watched Kennedy, a bit of Gephardt, and some of Dean before giving up completely. And I really wanted to see if Teresa Heinz-Kerry would go off-script, too, but watching those other three was painful enough. The brazen hypocrisy on display at this convention is absolutely stunning. I'll give 'em marks for chutzpah, though. But what'll they do if Kerry gets elected? Bush-hatred is the only thing holding the party together at the moment.
Anyway, I couldn't take it any longer and popped in the Season 1 set of "The Dead Zone" which I got from the library.
LATER: Gephardt's on. Arrgh! This is driving me crazy! I swear if I hear one more delegate say that Bush acted "unilaterally" or decided to "go it alone," I'm gonna reach right through the TV screen and throttle the idiot. Not only is it a lie, it's an insult to the more than 30 nations who contributed to this war.
LATER: And I will also reach through the screen if I hear "we'll make sure every vote is counted!" one more time. They were counted, counted, counted, and recounted. Gore lost every single recount!!
LATER STILL: I watched Kennedy, a bit of Gephardt, and some of Dean before giving up completely. And I really wanted to see if Teresa Heinz-Kerry would go off-script, too, but watching those other three was painful enough. The brazen hypocrisy on display at this convention is absolutely stunning. I'll give 'em marks for chutzpah, though. But what'll they do if Kerry gets elected? Bush-hatred is the only thing holding the party together at the moment.
Anyway, I couldn't take it any longer and popped in the Season 1 set of "The Dead Zone" which I got from the library.
Please tell me this is a joke
Captain Ed points us to the most appalling casual wear of the summer season. I would love to know if anyone has actually bought one. Or worn one in public. Although I suspect this woman would probably wear it with pride.
Convention Report--Monday from the Couch
We did manage to catch a bit of Monday night's DNC party. We tuned in just as Carter was in the middle of what appeared to be a cure for insomnia. He was hard to listen to, and not just for his hypocrisy. Had quite a laugh listening to Carter criticizing Bush's middle-east policy. I realize that for most people the 70s were a blur, but even in the middle of that blur, the 444-day hostage drama in Iran is probably one of the things people still remember well. I understand that this is the first convention the Democrats have allowed Carter to speak at since 1980, and now I understand why.
I have no idea what Carter meant when he blamed Bush for creating panic across the nation. I guess the only thing I've seen close to "panic" was the short-lived run on the gas pumps on the night of 9/11, and for that we have Osama to thank.
Though Hillary gave us much more than the simple introduction to her husband the party had planned for her, we thought Hillary was actually better than Bill. (Not that I care much for Hillary, and my wife dislikes her more than I do.) Both my wife and I thought it interesting that when Hillary brought up the subject of combating terrorism, her very first statement on the subject was that we need to train police and fire fighters better. Perhaps it did not occur to her that those people are responders. They cannot prevent terrorist attacks. They can only respond after the attack has happened. But maybe she thinks that our only relation to terrorists should be as victims.
She did eventually get around to talking about making sure our military are protected, but invoking John Kerry's name immediately after that was laughable considering how he voted against funding that would have supplied body armor and other equipment to our soldiers in Iraq.
Bill bored us, but what a gloryhound, eh? He could start a religion. His disciples were certainly pouring on the love, staring at him with rapt, teary-eyed adoration. And he was clearly lovin' the spotlight. But his rhetoric was as empty as Carter's was earlier. Carter just didn't have the same charisma, and charisma is a nice distraction when you haven't got anything new to say. I'm still waiting for these guys to talk about terrorism seriously. It was just buzzwords and "We'll do it differently," and "Bush lied" (which he didn't, but I guess these guys couldn't be bothered to read the recent reports). The speechifying steered well clear of any plans the Democrats might have for keeping us safe from terrorist threats. I'm interested in what they might have to say, because at this point it doesn't seem like the Democrats are worried about terrorism at all. The topic is notable by its absense (or where mentioned, by lack of serious discourse on the subject).
Anyway, Bill surprised me, though. The guy dragged his party kicking and screaming toward the center, and now he's acting like he was a far-lefty all along. But after 15 minutes we couldn't stand him any longer and switched over to C-SPAN2 which was running the 1960 Republican convention. Nixon! Nixon! Nixon!
I have no idea what Carter meant when he blamed Bush for creating panic across the nation. I guess the only thing I've seen close to "panic" was the short-lived run on the gas pumps on the night of 9/11, and for that we have Osama to thank.
Though Hillary gave us much more than the simple introduction to her husband the party had planned for her, we thought Hillary was actually better than Bill. (Not that I care much for Hillary, and my wife dislikes her more than I do.) Both my wife and I thought it interesting that when Hillary brought up the subject of combating terrorism, her very first statement on the subject was that we need to train police and fire fighters better. Perhaps it did not occur to her that those people are responders. They cannot prevent terrorist attacks. They can only respond after the attack has happened. But maybe she thinks that our only relation to terrorists should be as victims.
She did eventually get around to talking about making sure our military are protected, but invoking John Kerry's name immediately after that was laughable considering how he voted against funding that would have supplied body armor and other equipment to our soldiers in Iraq.
Bill bored us, but what a gloryhound, eh? He could start a religion. His disciples were certainly pouring on the love, staring at him with rapt, teary-eyed adoration. And he was clearly lovin' the spotlight. But his rhetoric was as empty as Carter's was earlier. Carter just didn't have the same charisma, and charisma is a nice distraction when you haven't got anything new to say. I'm still waiting for these guys to talk about terrorism seriously. It was just buzzwords and "We'll do it differently," and "Bush lied" (which he didn't, but I guess these guys couldn't be bothered to read the recent reports). The speechifying steered well clear of any plans the Democrats might have for keeping us safe from terrorist threats. I'm interested in what they might have to say, because at this point it doesn't seem like the Democrats are worried about terrorism at all. The topic is notable by its absense (or where mentioned, by lack of serious discourse on the subject).
Anyway, Bill surprised me, though. The guy dragged his party kicking and screaming toward the center, and now he's acting like he was a far-lefty all along. But after 15 minutes we couldn't stand him any longer and switched over to C-SPAN2 which was running the 1960 Republican convention. Nixon! Nixon! Nixon!
