People Talk
Monday, December 29, 2003
Talk on Nutrasweet
Rebel: NutraSweet & MSG are excitotoxins and CAUSE obesity!! Among other things. MSG is hidden in most processed foods under the names carageenen & hydrolyzed (wheat, soy, whey,& veg) protein. Look for sites that tell you The Truth about MSG. It is big business - it is killing us & Making us FAT. No one will expose it because their biggest advertisers are the ones using MSG in their products. Also see Dr. Blaylock's site for LOTS of info. People need to do something about this cover up!!!
Ann: Well Rebel that is interesting if it is true. I haven't heard that before. Scarlet have you heard anything about this? I was told by a nutritionist one time to stay away from foods that have NutraSweet in them, cause they cause insulin spikes, just like sugar does. I was told Splenda is better that it doesn't raise your insulin levels. People that are on the Atkins diet can't take NutraSweet, cause it has the same affect on your insulin that sugar does.
Scarlet Termite: I don't know a thing about that, Annibelle. I will have to research it. Wonder if Dr. Gupta has ever done a report about it?
JOY: I HEARD THAT NUTRASWEET MAKES YOU LOSE YOUR MEMMORY AND HAS TERRIBLE SIDE EFFECTS. LIKE HEADACES AND STUFF. IF I DRINK A LOT OF DIET SODA WITH NURTA SWEET IN IT, I GET HEADACES. IT COULD BE THE CAFFINE THOUGH. I HEARD CAFFINE DOES THAT TO YOU TOO.
Ann: I found this article from CNN that is entitled "A Link between aspartame, brain tumors dismissed by FDA, cancer group." You should read it if you are worried about the side effects of NutraSweet.
Rebel: NutraSweet & MSG are excitotoxins and CAUSE obesity!! Among other things. MSG is hidden in most processed foods under the names carageenen & hydrolyzed (wheat, soy, whey,& veg) protein. Look for sites that tell you The Truth about MSG. It is big business - it is killing us & Making us FAT. No one will expose it because their biggest advertisers are the ones using MSG in their products. Also see Dr. Blaylock's site for LOTS of info. People need to do something about this cover up!!!
Ann: Well Rebel that is interesting if it is true. I haven't heard that before. Scarlet have you heard anything about this? I was told by a nutritionist one time to stay away from foods that have NutraSweet in them, cause they cause insulin spikes, just like sugar does. I was told Splenda is better that it doesn't raise your insulin levels. People that are on the Atkins diet can't take NutraSweet, cause it has the same affect on your insulin that sugar does.
Scarlet Termite: I don't know a thing about that, Annibelle. I will have to research it. Wonder if Dr. Gupta has ever done a report about it?
JOY: I HEARD THAT NUTRASWEET MAKES YOU LOSE YOUR MEMMORY AND HAS TERRIBLE SIDE EFFECTS. LIKE HEADACES AND STUFF. IF I DRINK A LOT OF DIET SODA WITH NURTA SWEET IN IT, I GET HEADACES. IT COULD BE THE CAFFINE THOUGH. I HEARD CAFFINE DOES THAT TO YOU TOO.
Ann: I found this article from CNN that is entitled "A Link between aspartame, brain tumors dismissed by FDA, cancer group." You should read it if you are worried about the side effects of NutraSweet.
Monday, December 22, 2003
Talk on Terrorist Threat Codes
Scarlet Termite: What do you all think of the terror alert being heightened to Orange from yellow? According to Secretary Ridge, they are getting more intelligence activity than they saw before 9/11. Do you all think this is something to worry about or is it the government crying wolf again?
Jennifer: I don't know if those terror code are accurate. They really don't explain them to the public very well. I don't think they tell us much. What do you think about the Terror Code going to Orange?
Keith Brekhus: Personally, I think the terror code is virtually useless. I mean ok, the risk is elevated...what am I supposed to do about that?
Do I call in sick form work? Do I more closely scrutinize suspicious looking "brown-skinned" people? Do I stay out of tall buildings?
Personally, I go about business as usual. I don't know if their is any correlation between the terror alert and the risk...I assume their is some reason they elevate the risk, although I am cynical enough to think sometimes the reason is political as much as it is based on threat assessment intelligence. If the government makes us live in fear, its easier to get us to support their restrictive policies.
In any case, changing the colors doesn't tell me what I should do and frankly, it doesn't affect the way I live my life. I will not live in fear of terrorist bogeymen--real or imaginary.
Scarlet Termite: I am feeling the same way, Keith. Especially since I live in Columbus, Ohio, probably the least likeliest place to be attacked by terrorists. I am just keeping an eyeball on the news, which is something I do anyway. It does seem confusing. The government is telling us to be careful and watchful but not telling us what to be careful of or watchful of. I have read other forums that speculate that these alert level raisings are simply means to push through legislation aimed at taking more freedoms and liberties from us by scaring us to the point where it we say "ok! Whatever it takes!" It's so difficult for the average person to decide what to believe. I was raised to believe in the government and spent eight years serving this country in the Navy but I am having a serious challenge to my belief system with this administration. It makes me want to have a "Magic 8-Ball" to see down the road.
DC: The government can't win on the terror code! If they don't elevate it, and something happens, criticism abounds! If they do raise it, based on perceived threats, they are ridiculed by people if nothing happens. I see the elevation as really nothing more than Al-Qaida, re-releasing audio tapes, promising terror strikes. Bottom line is, damned if you do, damned if you don't! It's really kind of like a weather man's forecast. "50% chance of rain!" If raising the terror alert, makes one terrorist stay home because it's too hot to attempt anything, well then, I guess it was effective!
Keith Brekhus: Maybe the terror alert is used by the Port Authority to put on extra staff when the terror alerts goes up. It might also be something airports and law enforcement take a look at.
But in general, for the hog farmer in Iowa, the retail clerk in Louisville and the cocktail waitress in Topeka, the terror alert is meaningless and only serves to elevate anxiety.
I mean when you go on orange alert 100 days a year, what is the public to do?
They should go about business as usual, because there is no procedure for what else to do.
At least with weather warnings (like tornado warnings, flash flood warnings and hurricane warnings) you get instructions like head for a basement or evacuate low lying areas.
Ann Stewart: I think the terror code gives something for the media to talk about, when there isn't really anything special going on in the world they can talk about about the terror code. I think it is good for the security people who work in airports and the police and military, but it doesn't change my way of life when I hear the terror code is going up. But a lot of Bush supporter are saying Bush is doing a great job on security for this country and I guess this terror code is part of it.
Scarlet Termite: What do you all think of the terror alert being heightened to Orange from yellow? According to Secretary Ridge, they are getting more intelligence activity than they saw before 9/11. Do you all think this is something to worry about or is it the government crying wolf again?
Jennifer: I don't know if those terror code are accurate. They really don't explain them to the public very well. I don't think they tell us much. What do you think about the Terror Code going to Orange?
Keith Brekhus: Personally, I think the terror code is virtually useless. I mean ok, the risk is elevated...what am I supposed to do about that?
Do I call in sick form work? Do I more closely scrutinize suspicious looking "brown-skinned" people? Do I stay out of tall buildings?
Personally, I go about business as usual. I don't know if their is any correlation between the terror alert and the risk...I assume their is some reason they elevate the risk, although I am cynical enough to think sometimes the reason is political as much as it is based on threat assessment intelligence. If the government makes us live in fear, its easier to get us to support their restrictive policies.
In any case, changing the colors doesn't tell me what I should do and frankly, it doesn't affect the way I live my life. I will not live in fear of terrorist bogeymen--real or imaginary.
Scarlet Termite: I am feeling the same way, Keith. Especially since I live in Columbus, Ohio, probably the least likeliest place to be attacked by terrorists. I am just keeping an eyeball on the news, which is something I do anyway. It does seem confusing. The government is telling us to be careful and watchful but not telling us what to be careful of or watchful of. I have read other forums that speculate that these alert level raisings are simply means to push through legislation aimed at taking more freedoms and liberties from us by scaring us to the point where it we say "ok! Whatever it takes!" It's so difficult for the average person to decide what to believe. I was raised to believe in the government and spent eight years serving this country in the Navy but I am having a serious challenge to my belief system with this administration. It makes me want to have a "Magic 8-Ball" to see down the road.
DC: The government can't win on the terror code! If they don't elevate it, and something happens, criticism abounds! If they do raise it, based on perceived threats, they are ridiculed by people if nothing happens. I see the elevation as really nothing more than Al-Qaida, re-releasing audio tapes, promising terror strikes. Bottom line is, damned if you do, damned if you don't! It's really kind of like a weather man's forecast. "50% chance of rain!" If raising the terror alert, makes one terrorist stay home because it's too hot to attempt anything, well then, I guess it was effective!
Keith Brekhus: Maybe the terror alert is used by the Port Authority to put on extra staff when the terror alerts goes up. It might also be something airports and law enforcement take a look at.
But in general, for the hog farmer in Iowa, the retail clerk in Louisville and the cocktail waitress in Topeka, the terror alert is meaningless and only serves to elevate anxiety.
I mean when you go on orange alert 100 days a year, what is the public to do?
They should go about business as usual, because there is no procedure for what else to do.
At least with weather warnings (like tornado warnings, flash flood warnings and hurricane warnings) you get instructions like head for a basement or evacuate low lying areas.
Ann Stewart: I think the terror code gives something for the media to talk about, when there isn't really anything special going on in the world they can talk about about the terror code. I think it is good for the security people who work in airports and the police and military, but it doesn't change my way of life when I hear the terror code is going up. But a lot of Bush supporter are saying Bush is doing a great job on security for this country and I guess this terror code is part of it.
Friday, December 19, 2003
Talk on Lee Malvo
Scarlet: Anybody think the jury is going to recommend the death penalty for Lee Malvo?
Ann: I think they should. He killed a lot of people and scared the entire nation. Hey should give him death row. Just my opinion.
This came from CNN's Jeffery Toobin
Toobin: Verdict could come quickly
Jurors, pondering the argument made by his lawyers that Malvo was under the control of convicted co-defendant John Allen Muhammad, continued deliberations Thursday in the trial of Washington-area sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo. CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin says that a verdict could come quickly. "Virginia is famous for doing everything fast," Toobin says. "I think a verdict by the end of the week is quite likely, and I think … a conviction is quite likely."
Scarlet: Anybody think the jury is going to recommend the death penalty for Lee Malvo?
Ann: I think they should. He killed a lot of people and scared the entire nation. Hey should give him death row. Just my opinion.
This came from CNN's Jeffery Toobin
Toobin: Verdict could come quickly
Jurors, pondering the argument made by his lawyers that Malvo was under the control of convicted co-defendant John Allen Muhammad, continued deliberations Thursday in the trial of Washington-area sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo. CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin says that a verdict could come quickly. "Virginia is famous for doing everything fast," Toobin says. "I think a verdict by the end of the week is quite likely, and I think … a conviction is quite likely."
An Update On The 2004 Online Election Debate/ Bush Supporters Seem to be Ruling
Ann Stewart: I would say the Bush supporters have been awesome at the 2004 Online Election Debate. The Bush supporters at the debate have ruled the past few weeks. DC and Arty P. have chosen to politically fight Laura in LA and Doug in Indiana with all their political knowledge and I would say it’s a good match too, cause they are all highly educated about this race for the Whitehouse. That is a big change from when this debate first started and Dean supporters seemed to be ruling the Internet and don’t get me wrong cause the Dean Supporters are still fighting for Dean and the press seems to be stating that it looks like Dean will be the man to face Bush or Dean is as of now the front runner, but we are still a few months away from that vote being finial. Also it was reported in the news that Bush’s approval ratings are up and with the capture of Saddam Hussein it looks like his approval rating could go even higher. The Democrats are in a slump right now and I have heard the statement said “Dean needs to stop running his campaign on the fact that he was against the War in Iraq, instead he needs to show
that he has solutions to the problems that America is facing. Here you can read the debaters talk about each other.
Arty P.: Doug In Indiana Said:
"people that get voted in should do there ONE term and that’s it.
We got guys that have been inside D.C. for 40 years."
That is one way of looking at it Doug. However if every person in DC is only there for one term then they have zero incentive to look to the long term.
They don't even have to fulfill campaign promises, as they aren't going to be re elected anyway. They can use up precious resources to make themselves look good even while screwing people just a couple of years down the line.
It is tempting to think there is one easy theory to suddenly make the world a better place. But that isn't it.
(Is this "Doug in Indiana" the Tourette's suffering junior one who likes to scrawl profanity on websites he doesn't like, or am I talking to the older more polite one who publicly claims to disapprove of such activities?)
---
Arty P
http://redwhiteandright.blogspot.com
Doug in Indiana: They don't even have to fulfill campaign promises, as they aren't going to be re elected anyway. They can use up precious resources to make themselves look good even while screwing people just a couple of years down the line.
--and why wouldn't they preform their duty's?(like these guys do now or something)
--using up resource's, sounds like what’s going on now.
---except now lots of people get to share the money instead of one guy in congress for 40 years, who just sits there and drains us every year.
It is tempting to think there is one easy theory to suddenly make the world a better place. But that isn't it.
Laura in LA: Arty, have you ever debated competitively? Would that have been "team" or "Lincoln-Douglas?" Are you a lawyer?
Doug is correct that you do not cite facts (by linking supporting evidence). When one cites evidence and gives sufficient sourcing of same, the "evidence" (article) is not being "purloined," as you suggest. When one presents a brief (which is an "argument") to the court and cites cases "on point" to the matter before the court; excerpts of that case being written into the brief, that is "evidence." The Judge does not contend that the brief writer stole the evidence. The judge weighs the evidence presented on both sides of an argument. This holds true in debate as well. The best evidence, most current in date, closest in jurisdiction, most on point to the same facts being argued, pulls the point through.
You posted that "you believe" there is a liberal bias in the media, however, in the manner in which you argued that point was simply your own opinion.
Arty P: Well Laura,--I think I made more than clear why I didn't want to debate with you since your idea of debate seemed to largely involve throwing nasty ad hominem smears at people and then saying you were getting bored and running away when they try to defend themselves. Is that what "debating competitively" means? LOL!
DC: Laura, let's judge the record after 8 years! Already the Al-Qaeda backed Taliban has been rooted out of Afghanistan, and weather you want to admit it or not, terrorism cells around the world have been seriously disrupted! Continuance is what we need, imagine not just taking a shot at Osama, but actually keeping the hunt alive! I am pretty sure he won't be leading any Christmas parades!
You may not agree with Bush, but he will remain vigilant in his pursuit of Osama and any other threats to the United States and her citizens. Kim Jong-il has been pretty quiet as of late, so the pre-emptive possibilities must have him thinking!
Laura, you must realize, that this is the most important circumstance facing us right now, not Medicare, not education, not gay marriages, nothing but exterminating these terrorist threats! If these threats were not there, hell I would look to vote for someone other than Bush! But, these threats are there, and we need a president with the resolve to attack and destroy! I do not believe Howard Dean is that man!
You and I probably agree on more than you think, but I am unwavering in my assessment of this impending threat, if this is not handled, nothing else matters!
Laura in LA: DC, I agree with must deal with "terrorism" but we differ on the manner that it should be done. I do think we agree on many other issues. However, no one has yet to define this pre-emptive conventional war on terrorism. When does it end? How do we know when we've one? You want "attack and destroy," but there is no way to kill every terrorist, especially when more such terrorists fill the void every day. I believe that we have exacerbated the threat by conducting this war in Iraq. I have argued that this matter should be dealt with more like a international police action (that's why it a good idea to "play well with our allies" and not piss them off) and we need "intelligence." We need to figure out why we had such "faulty" intelligence with respect to Iraq WMD, etc. and fix it. I have argued that we need to put more resources in protecting our country, our airports, our ports, our nuclear facilities - we need more intelligence agents (pay them more). After all, Saddam was captured in that manner - intelligence found him and he was captured - not a shot was fired. If we had good intelligence, we could simply bomb the location of Osama as Clinton tried to do instead to invading countries that are not threats and then being stuck "nation building."
Doug in Indiana: Lets stick to the facts buddy. Did you hear that we knew about pearl harbor before it happened? That we had broken the Japs code, and knew it was coming, but let it happen in order to move the population towards war.(sounds almost like this war on terrorism huh)
anyway just the facts.
DC did you say we rooted out the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Strange that the Red Cross is pulling out of Afghanistan citing the recent upswing of Taliban attacks. Do you need me to hold you hand with what’s going on in the world brother? Do us a favor and keep up with the news, at least.
DC: Dougie in Indiana..... First of all, I am not your brother and if you need hand holding, please find a gay blog! Don't be an idiot! The Taliban is no longer the controlling governmental body in Afghanistan, period! I work about 70 hours a week and obviously don't have the time, nor the inclination to live in here as you obviously do! Settle down sport!
Ann Stewart: I would say the Bush supporters have been awesome at the 2004 Online Election Debate. The Bush supporters at the debate have ruled the past few weeks. DC and Arty P. have chosen to politically fight Laura in LA and Doug in Indiana with all their political knowledge and I would say it’s a good match too, cause they are all highly educated about this race for the Whitehouse. That is a big change from when this debate first started and Dean supporters seemed to be ruling the Internet and don’t get me wrong cause the Dean Supporters are still fighting for Dean and the press seems to be stating that it looks like Dean will be the man to face Bush or Dean is as of now the front runner, but we are still a few months away from that vote being finial. Also it was reported in the news that Bush’s approval ratings are up and with the capture of Saddam Hussein it looks like his approval rating could go even higher. The Democrats are in a slump right now and I have heard the statement said “Dean needs to stop running his campaign on the fact that he was against the War in Iraq, instead he needs to show
that he has solutions to the problems that America is facing. Here you can read the debaters talk about each other.Arty P.: Doug In Indiana Said:
"people that get voted in should do there ONE term and that’s it.
We got guys that have been inside D.C. for 40 years."
That is one way of looking at it Doug. However if every person in DC is only there for one term then they have zero incentive to look to the long term.
They don't even have to fulfill campaign promises, as they aren't going to be re elected anyway. They can use up precious resources to make themselves look good even while screwing people just a couple of years down the line.
It is tempting to think there is one easy theory to suddenly make the world a better place. But that isn't it.
(Is this "Doug in Indiana" the Tourette's suffering junior one who likes to scrawl profanity on websites he doesn't like, or am I talking to the older more polite one who publicly claims to disapprove of such activities?)
---
Arty P
http://redwhiteandright.blogspot.com
Doug in Indiana: They don't even have to fulfill campaign promises, as they aren't going to be re elected anyway. They can use up precious resources to make themselves look good even while screwing people just a couple of years down the line.
--and why wouldn't they preform their duty's?(like these guys do now or something)
--using up resource's, sounds like what’s going on now.
---except now lots of people get to share the money instead of one guy in congress for 40 years, who just sits there and drains us every year.
It is tempting to think there is one easy theory to suddenly make the world a better place. But that isn't it.
Laura in LA: Arty, have you ever debated competitively? Would that have been "team" or "Lincoln-Douglas?" Are you a lawyer?
Doug is correct that you do not cite facts (by linking supporting evidence). When one cites evidence and gives sufficient sourcing of same, the "evidence" (article) is not being "purloined," as you suggest. When one presents a brief (which is an "argument") to the court and cites cases "on point" to the matter before the court; excerpts of that case being written into the brief, that is "evidence." The Judge does not contend that the brief writer stole the evidence. The judge weighs the evidence presented on both sides of an argument. This holds true in debate as well. The best evidence, most current in date, closest in jurisdiction, most on point to the same facts being argued, pulls the point through.
You posted that "you believe" there is a liberal bias in the media, however, in the manner in which you argued that point was simply your own opinion.
Arty P: Well Laura,--I think I made more than clear why I didn't want to debate with you since your idea of debate seemed to largely involve throwing nasty ad hominem smears at people and then saying you were getting bored and running away when they try to defend themselves. Is that what "debating competitively" means? LOL!
DC: Laura, let's judge the record after 8 years! Already the Al-Qaeda backed Taliban has been rooted out of Afghanistan, and weather you want to admit it or not, terrorism cells around the world have been seriously disrupted! Continuance is what we need, imagine not just taking a shot at Osama, but actually keeping the hunt alive! I am pretty sure he won't be leading any Christmas parades!
You may not agree with Bush, but he will remain vigilant in his pursuit of Osama and any other threats to the United States and her citizens. Kim Jong-il has been pretty quiet as of late, so the pre-emptive possibilities must have him thinking!
Laura, you must realize, that this is the most important circumstance facing us right now, not Medicare, not education, not gay marriages, nothing but exterminating these terrorist threats! If these threats were not there, hell I would look to vote for someone other than Bush! But, these threats are there, and we need a president with the resolve to attack and destroy! I do not believe Howard Dean is that man!
You and I probably agree on more than you think, but I am unwavering in my assessment of this impending threat, if this is not handled, nothing else matters!
Laura in LA: DC, I agree with must deal with "terrorism" but we differ on the manner that it should be done. I do think we agree on many other issues. However, no one has yet to define this pre-emptive conventional war on terrorism. When does it end? How do we know when we've one? You want "attack and destroy," but there is no way to kill every terrorist, especially when more such terrorists fill the void every day. I believe that we have exacerbated the threat by conducting this war in Iraq. I have argued that this matter should be dealt with more like a international police action (that's why it a good idea to "play well with our allies" and not piss them off) and we need "intelligence." We need to figure out why we had such "faulty" intelligence with respect to Iraq WMD, etc. and fix it. I have argued that we need to put more resources in protecting our country, our airports, our ports, our nuclear facilities - we need more intelligence agents (pay them more). After all, Saddam was captured in that manner - intelligence found him and he was captured - not a shot was fired. If we had good intelligence, we could simply bomb the location of Osama as Clinton tried to do instead to invading countries that are not threats and then being stuck "nation building."
Doug in Indiana: Lets stick to the facts buddy. Did you hear that we knew about pearl harbor before it happened? That we had broken the Japs code, and knew it was coming, but let it happen in order to move the population towards war.(sounds almost like this war on terrorism huh)
anyway just the facts.
DC did you say we rooted out the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Strange that the Red Cross is pulling out of Afghanistan citing the recent upswing of Taliban attacks. Do you need me to hold you hand with what’s going on in the world brother? Do us a favor and keep up with the news, at least.
DC: Dougie in Indiana..... First of all, I am not your brother and if you need hand holding, please find a gay blog! Don't be an idiot! The Taliban is no longer the controlling governmental body in Afghanistan, period! I work about 70 hours a week and obviously don't have the time, nor the inclination to live in here as you obviously do! Settle down sport!
Top 10 Newspeople
10. Maria Menounos ET and ET on MTV/VH1
9. Lester Holt MSNBC
8. Bill Hemmer CNN
7. Chris Matthews CNN
6. Joe Scarborough MSNBC
5. Katie Couric NBC
4. Steven Cojocaru ET
3. Mary Hart ET
2. Sumi Das MSNBC
1. Keith Oblermann MSNBC
Some Honorable Mentions:
Dan Abrams MSNBC
Anderson Cooper CNN
Jann Carl ET
Mark Steines ET
Matt Lauer NBC
Ann Curry NBC
Hoda Kotbe NBC
Tom Brokaw NBC
Brian Willams NBC
Wolf Blitzer CNN
10. Maria Menounos ET and ET on MTV/VH1
9. Lester Holt MSNBC
8. Bill Hemmer CNN
7. Chris Matthews CNN
6. Joe Scarborough MSNBC
5. Katie Couric NBC
4. Steven Cojocaru ET
3. Mary Hart ET
2. Sumi Das MSNBC
1. Keith Oblermann MSNBC
Some Honorable Mentions:
Dan Abrams MSNBC
Anderson Cooper CNN
Jann Carl ET
Mark Steines ET
Matt Lauer NBC
Ann Curry NBC
Hoda Kotbe NBC
Tom Brokaw NBC
Brian Willams NBC
Wolf Blitzer CNN
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Talk on Colin Powell and Dick Cheney Possibly not in the Bush Administration for the Next Four Years if Bush is Re-elected
Laura in LA: I wonder if Powell's decision not to serve again is related to his having cancer. I hope he is okay. But, if Bush dumps Cheney does it not give credence to the critcism that Cheney's ties to Halliburton are nefarious? Ya know, like Cheney is the ablatross around Bush's neck. I'm sure Cheney will give a more mundane reason for "his decision" not seeking another term but, it would give people a lot to talk about.
Ann Stewart: Yeah Laura that looks kinda fishy to me too that Powell and Cheney may not serve another term. That just don't look good on Bush Administration if that does happen. Just my opinion.
Sindhu Kumar: Cheney is a heart patient. Although he has a pace maker installed, it can malfunction at anytime. Actually Cheney is the most influential, powerful, and, although corrupt, of any vice presidents that I have seen in this generation
Keith Brekhus: I think Powell stepping down and being replaced by Wolfowitz would be a bad thing. Powell may be the lone voice of moderation among the big players in the Defense and State Departments. His departure will pave the way for neo-conservative "group think" without anyone to apply the brakes on their zeal from time to time.
Sindhu Kumar: Secretary Powell: is the lone moderate in the Bush Administration, all the rest of the others are neo conservatives. Condoleeza Rice would make a good Secretary of State in the second term Bush Administration if he is re-elected.
Laura in LA: I wonder if Powell's decision not to serve again is related to his having cancer. I hope he is okay. But, if Bush dumps Cheney does it not give credence to the critcism that Cheney's ties to Halliburton are nefarious? Ya know, like Cheney is the ablatross around Bush's neck. I'm sure Cheney will give a more mundane reason for "his decision" not seeking another term but, it would give people a lot to talk about.
Ann Stewart: Yeah Laura that looks kinda fishy to me too that Powell and Cheney may not serve another term. That just don't look good on Bush Administration if that does happen. Just my opinion.
Sindhu Kumar: Cheney is a heart patient. Although he has a pace maker installed, it can malfunction at anytime. Actually Cheney is the most influential, powerful, and, although corrupt, of any vice presidents that I have seen in this generation
Keith Brekhus: I think Powell stepping down and being replaced by Wolfowitz would be a bad thing. Powell may be the lone voice of moderation among the big players in the Defense and State Departments. His departure will pave the way for neo-conservative "group think" without anyone to apply the brakes on their zeal from time to time.
Sindhu Kumar: Secretary Powell: is the lone moderate in the Bush Administration, all the rest of the others are neo conservatives. Condoleeza Rice would make a good Secretary of State in the second term Bush Administration if he is re-elected.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
TALK ON THE FUTURE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Ann Stewart: I have a few questions. I hear that Colin Powell is being treated for cancer. I have also heard that Colin Powell will not be serving under the Bush Administration if Bush wins the Election for the last 4 years of his term Anybody know any reasons why or is that just a rumor? And another rumor is Bush is going to run with a different vice President other than Dick Cheney. Is that true? If so does anybody know who?
DC: Rumors are always rampant regarding cabinet positions. Powell announced months ago, that he would not be involved in a second term if there was one. Many cabinet appointees are likely to change positions. A cabinet position lasts four years, the president can ask for a second set of four if he chooses, but it is his decision. Regarding V.P., I still thing Bush will dump Cheney, for someone like Guliani, or possibly Bill Frist, however Frist is less likely, because he is a Senator and they won't want to give up that seat, although in Tennessee, a republican would likely be voted into it!
Time will tell!
Ann Stewart: I have a few questions. I hear that Colin Powell is being treated for cancer. I have also heard that Colin Powell will not be serving under the Bush Administration if Bush wins the Election for the last 4 years of his term Anybody know any reasons why or is that just a rumor? And another rumor is Bush is going to run with a different vice President other than Dick Cheney. Is that true? If so does anybody know who?
DC: Rumors are always rampant regarding cabinet positions. Powell announced months ago, that he would not be involved in a second term if there was one. Many cabinet appointees are likely to change positions. A cabinet position lasts four years, the president can ask for a second set of four if he chooses, but it is his decision. Regarding V.P., I still thing Bush will dump Cheney, for someone like Guliani, or possibly Bill Frist, however Frist is less likely, because he is a Senator and they won't want to give up that seat, although in Tennessee, a republican would likely be voted into it!
Time will tell!
Talk on Madonna Endorsing Wesley Clark
Arty P.: Madonna Endorsing Clark - one shameless whore embracing another.
Clark Blogger: Madonna might endorse Wesley Clark? SWEET!!!! Hopefully everyone will jump on the bandwagon which will be a good thing. Were can we find this info about Madonna endorsing Clark?
buzzextract: The Scoop is reporting that the U.K. resident had a private meeting with General Clark where "They met and talked issues." Apparently the material girl/childern's author was "very impressed with his vision for America." Hollywood seems to be embracing the General which should secure his position as the Vice Presidential candidate to Howard Dean, whom I know believe may have a slight, slight, slight, very, very, very, very small chance of being elected President.
Sunshine: I don’t know if an endorsement from Madonna would make any politician look good. That may just make him look like one of those politicians that try to get star appeal and I think that turns voters off.
Clark 04 blog: Yes- Judy Woodruff's CNN reported on Monday that Madonna had a 40 minute meeting with Clark and she is endorsing him as Presidential candidate.
Arty P.: Madonna Endorsing Clark - one shameless whore embracing another.
Clark Blogger: Madonna might endorse Wesley Clark? SWEET!!!! Hopefully everyone will jump on the bandwagon which will be a good thing. Were can we find this info about Madonna endorsing Clark?
buzzextract: The Scoop is reporting that the U.K. resident had a private meeting with General Clark where "They met and talked issues." Apparently the material girl/childern's author was "very impressed with his vision for America." Hollywood seems to be embracing the General which should secure his position as the Vice Presidential candidate to Howard Dean, whom I know believe may have a slight, slight, slight, very, very, very, very small chance of being elected President.
Sunshine: I don’t know if an endorsement from Madonna would make any politician look good. That may just make him look like one of those politicians that try to get star appeal and I think that turns voters off.
Clark 04 blog: Yes- Judy Woodruff's CNN reported on Monday that Madonna had a 40 minute meeting with Clark and she is endorsing him as Presidential candidate.
Monday, December 15, 2003
More Talk on How Saddam Being Captured Will Affect The Election in 2004
White House photo by Eric Draper
Laura in LA: Wayne and Keith, well said. A great example is when Baghdad fell - the pro-war folks were saying "ah, this proves the anti-war people were wrong," and so the spin machine went. Of course, in time, the sentiment changed with mounting attacks on our soldiers and folks realized that we are still at war. For those who think the capture of Saddam is tantamount to a "win," they will be sorely disappointed should the insurgent war continue and strengthen and more soldiers are killed and maimed.
I don't think Saddam had anything to do with the insurgents and I believe that nothing will change with his capture. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the capture will not help Bush win in Nov. 2004.
What I am most interested in at this point is what type of trial will be afforded to Saddam. Will it be open to the public? Will Bush CO demand it closed? Will Bush CO try to defer the trial should it be open until after our election? Will the Iraqis demand a trial ASAP? Will there be backlash to any of these possible outcomes? This could open a whole new can of worms for Bush CO. I, for one, would really like to know what Saddam and Rumsfeld spoke about in 1983. I would like to know what April Gillsepe told him before the Gulf War.
DC: The bottom line here is this, most Americans think Bush is a strong leader when it comes to terrorism and protecting our homeland. He has that grit in his craw to that sends a strong message to anyone thinking about harming the United States. This "War on Terror" is far from over! We will be fighting it for years, and the nations seeking WMD, such as Iran and N.Korea are both looking at things in a much different light now. They realize that a pre-emptive strike is now within the realm of possibility and it will surely keep them in line!
Sindhu Kumar: Yeah and not only that, if Osama bin laden is caught too, that would be another icing on the cake for bush to cruise to the white house in 04.
Ann Stewart: Yeah Bush is going to get some major pats on the back for this one.
Michael Bohannon: I think Bush's approval rating is going to skyrocket and remain pretty steady throughout the year, unless of course he does something really stupid. Bush, whether you like his policies or not, has achieved what Regean achieved in the 80's: he's made Americans feel proud to be who they are. With all the negativity around the world and animosity towards America, the people of this country are searching for something to make them proud to be American again- and today that happened. I myself thought the war was an assault on the rule of law, but even I can't help to feel good about toppling a brutal dictatorship. It's an accomplishment that humbles the rest of the world and highlights some of their own hypocrisies. The EU and the UN and more harsh on democratic institutions than they are on countries that commit the worst human rights atrocities in the world. We've had a checkered past ourselves, but whatever the original cause for going to war, the result is that an evil regime has been successfully defeated. People are going to overlook the cause of the war and focus on the result. Bush is going to win in 2004. I will say this though... I thought Dean handled it well and showed some class by congratulating Bush and not using it as an opportunity to belittle the achievement.
DC: Saddam's Capture Gives Bush Huge Boost
Arty P: It was a great day for America over the weekend. And for Iraq obviously. I was in Radioshack when GW came on the TV and the whole store just stopped and listened with deep respect as he spoke to us and the Iraqi people.
I am very glad to see we are unanimous here in our pleasure at the capture of the villain Hussein. However yesterday I was in rather mischievous mood while watching the TV and after I had digested the story from many angles on Fox, the Channel of Policitical Record, I decided to check out some other news stations to see how they were working to put a negative spin on the "Best Day for the US since Sept 11".
Well it was early days so I only spotted 3. They were
a) US breaches Geneva Convention
b) Capture will lead to "long term" (yes LONG term) increase on attacks on US forces.
c) Many Iraqis will be killed by falling bullets fired in celebration. (This one was my favourite! LOL!)
DC, have you spotted any others? I am hoping to keep a running list of "Reasons why Saddam's Capture was a 'Bad thing'" on my blog so let me know if you spot any others. I'm sure there will be plenty to come! :-)
Arty P
http://redwhiteandright.blogspot.comTALKING POINT: SADDAM'S CAPTURE - MINOR SETBACK FOR THE COALITION OR UNPRECEDENTEDLY BAD DAY FOR AMERICA?
Keith Brekhus: Here is one for you Arty. Juan Cole spins this as a bad thing...note paragraph four in particular. Hey I think his capture is a good thing...I won't make any gloomy forecasts, but I imagine inertia alone will mean the fighting in Iraq continues for now at least.
http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_juancol...#107147379347269079
Impact of Saddam Arrest on US Politics
The capture of Saddam is probably more important for US politics than for the Iraqis. The Baath Party and the Saddam cult of personality were spent forces by the end of the Gulf War, which was why Saddam was forced to rule by sheer terror. You don't have to put thousands of people in mass graves if you have a large popular mandate. So when Saddam fell, and when the Republican Guard tanks corps disintegrated last April, it was over with. Saddam could never have come back. His actual capture is just a footnote in Iraq. Of course, there are still Baathists, and some of the violence has come from them (as I have repeatedly suggested), but they are a small minority that knows how to rig bombs, not a mass movement.
Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post have more on the complex tasks that remain in Iraq. I am quoted there saying, '"Today represents the beginning of the final struggle for the shape of post-American Iraq. The Baathists were a spent force. But what does inspire Iraqis is the vision of Iraq as part of Arab nationalism or as part of the trend toward Islamic governance," said Juan R. Cole, a Middle East expert and professor of history at the University of Michigan. "With the removal of Saddam, the issue is the shape of Iraq's future, and these are the issues that will come to the fore." '
The commentators on cable news shows on Sunday seemed to think that Saddam's capture guarantees Bush's reelection in November of 2004. Well, incumbents have great advantages, and most often do get reelected. But Saddam won't do it for Bush. In a way, the capture came too early for those purposes. It will be a very dim memory in October, 2004.
The Sunni Arab insurgency will continue at least for a while (see below), and the possibility that the Shiites will make more and more trouble cannot be ruled out. The US military is stuck in the country for the foreseeable future at something approaching current troop levels. The move to give civil authority to a transitional Iraqi government may not go smoothly. The administration will have to ask Congress for another big appropriation for Iraq sometime before the '04 election, and that won't help Bush's popularity. The Iraqi economy is still a basket case, the oil pipelines are still being sabotaged or looted, and a whole host of everyday problems remain that having Saddam in custody will not resolve. If Iraq is still going this badly in October of 2004, it would be a real drag on the Bush campaign. Yes, I said "this badly." One arrest doesn't turn it around, except in the fantasy world of political theater in which pundits seem to live.
Howard Dean and Wesley Clark were far more gentlemanly about the news than one might have expected. I suppose their handlers told them that capturing Saddam is very popular with the US public, and they had to find a way to applaud it and to avoid seeming petty toward Bush on his day of victory.
But in the coming year the Democratic candidates just have to take off these kid gloves. I'd begin by asking some hard questions about Republican administrations' past relationship with Saddam. Put that photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983 in the commercials; ask hard questions about former Reaganites now serving in the Bush administration who supported Saddam to the hilt while he was gassing Iranian troops and Kurds; find out who authorized the US sale of chemical and biological precursors to Saddam; and be so rude as to bring up the horrible betrayal committed by Bush senior when he stood aside and let Saddam massacre all those Shiites in 1991, after they rose up in response to a Bush call for the popular overthrow of Saddam. The US military could have shot down those helicopter gunships that massacred Shiites in Najaf and Basra. Bush senior clearly told them to let Saddam enjoy his killing fields. And imagine, the Bush administration officials are actually getting photo ops at the mass graves their predecessors allowed to be filled with bodies!
What happened Sunday was that the Republicans captured a former ally, with whom they had later fallen out.
JOY: WITH SADDAM BEING CAUGHT I CAN ALMOST BET YOU MONEY THAT BUSH WILL BE RE-ELECTED AND SADDAM IS SAYING THEY NEVER HAD WMD.
White House photo by Eric DraperLaura in LA: Wayne and Keith, well said. A great example is when Baghdad fell - the pro-war folks were saying "ah, this proves the anti-war people were wrong," and so the spin machine went. Of course, in time, the sentiment changed with mounting attacks on our soldiers and folks realized that we are still at war. For those who think the capture of Saddam is tantamount to a "win," they will be sorely disappointed should the insurgent war continue and strengthen and more soldiers are killed and maimed.
I don't think Saddam had anything to do with the insurgents and I believe that nothing will change with his capture. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the capture will not help Bush win in Nov. 2004.
What I am most interested in at this point is what type of trial will be afforded to Saddam. Will it be open to the public? Will Bush CO demand it closed? Will Bush CO try to defer the trial should it be open until after our election? Will the Iraqis demand a trial ASAP? Will there be backlash to any of these possible outcomes? This could open a whole new can of worms for Bush CO. I, for one, would really like to know what Saddam and Rumsfeld spoke about in 1983. I would like to know what April Gillsepe told him before the Gulf War.
DC: The bottom line here is this, most Americans think Bush is a strong leader when it comes to terrorism and protecting our homeland. He has that grit in his craw to that sends a strong message to anyone thinking about harming the United States. This "War on Terror" is far from over! We will be fighting it for years, and the nations seeking WMD, such as Iran and N.Korea are both looking at things in a much different light now. They realize that a pre-emptive strike is now within the realm of possibility and it will surely keep them in line!
Sindhu Kumar: Yeah and not only that, if Osama bin laden is caught too, that would be another icing on the cake for bush to cruise to the white house in 04.
Ann Stewart: Yeah Bush is going to get some major pats on the back for this one.
Michael Bohannon: I think Bush's approval rating is going to skyrocket and remain pretty steady throughout the year, unless of course he does something really stupid. Bush, whether you like his policies or not, has achieved what Regean achieved in the 80's: he's made Americans feel proud to be who they are. With all the negativity around the world and animosity towards America, the people of this country are searching for something to make them proud to be American again- and today that happened. I myself thought the war was an assault on the rule of law, but even I can't help to feel good about toppling a brutal dictatorship. It's an accomplishment that humbles the rest of the world and highlights some of their own hypocrisies. The EU and the UN and more harsh on democratic institutions than they are on countries that commit the worst human rights atrocities in the world. We've had a checkered past ourselves, but whatever the original cause for going to war, the result is that an evil regime has been successfully defeated. People are going to overlook the cause of the war and focus on the result. Bush is going to win in 2004. I will say this though... I thought Dean handled it well and showed some class by congratulating Bush and not using it as an opportunity to belittle the achievement.
DC: Saddam's Capture Gives Bush Huge Boost
Arty P: It was a great day for America over the weekend. And for Iraq obviously. I was in Radioshack when GW came on the TV and the whole store just stopped and listened with deep respect as he spoke to us and the Iraqi people.
I am very glad to see we are unanimous here in our pleasure at the capture of the villain Hussein. However yesterday I was in rather mischievous mood while watching the TV and after I had digested the story from many angles on Fox, the Channel of Policitical Record, I decided to check out some other news stations to see how they were working to put a negative spin on the "Best Day for the US since Sept 11".
Well it was early days so I only spotted 3. They were
a) US breaches Geneva Convention
b) Capture will lead to "long term" (yes LONG term) increase on attacks on US forces.
c) Many Iraqis will be killed by falling bullets fired in celebration. (This one was my favourite! LOL!)
DC, have you spotted any others? I am hoping to keep a running list of "Reasons why Saddam's Capture was a 'Bad thing'" on my blog so let me know if you spot any others. I'm sure there will be plenty to come! :-)
Arty P
http://redwhiteandright.blogspot.comTALKING POINT: SADDAM'S CAPTURE - MINOR SETBACK FOR THE COALITION OR UNPRECEDENTEDLY BAD DAY FOR AMERICA?
Keith Brekhus: Here is one for you Arty. Juan Cole spins this as a bad thing...note paragraph four in particular. Hey I think his capture is a good thing...I won't make any gloomy forecasts, but I imagine inertia alone will mean the fighting in Iraq continues for now at least.
http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_juancol...#107147379347269079
Impact of Saddam Arrest on US Politics
The capture of Saddam is probably more important for US politics than for the Iraqis. The Baath Party and the Saddam cult of personality were spent forces by the end of the Gulf War, which was why Saddam was forced to rule by sheer terror. You don't have to put thousands of people in mass graves if you have a large popular mandate. So when Saddam fell, and when the Republican Guard tanks corps disintegrated last April, it was over with. Saddam could never have come back. His actual capture is just a footnote in Iraq. Of course, there are still Baathists, and some of the violence has come from them (as I have repeatedly suggested), but they are a small minority that knows how to rig bombs, not a mass movement.
Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post have more on the complex tasks that remain in Iraq. I am quoted there saying, '"Today represents the beginning of the final struggle for the shape of post-American Iraq. The Baathists were a spent force. But what does inspire Iraqis is the vision of Iraq as part of Arab nationalism or as part of the trend toward Islamic governance," said Juan R. Cole, a Middle East expert and professor of history at the University of Michigan. "With the removal of Saddam, the issue is the shape of Iraq's future, and these are the issues that will come to the fore." '
The commentators on cable news shows on Sunday seemed to think that Saddam's capture guarantees Bush's reelection in November of 2004. Well, incumbents have great advantages, and most often do get reelected. But Saddam won't do it for Bush. In a way, the capture came too early for those purposes. It will be a very dim memory in October, 2004.
The Sunni Arab insurgency will continue at least for a while (see below), and the possibility that the Shiites will make more and more trouble cannot be ruled out. The US military is stuck in the country for the foreseeable future at something approaching current troop levels. The move to give civil authority to a transitional Iraqi government may not go smoothly. The administration will have to ask Congress for another big appropriation for Iraq sometime before the '04 election, and that won't help Bush's popularity. The Iraqi economy is still a basket case, the oil pipelines are still being sabotaged or looted, and a whole host of everyday problems remain that having Saddam in custody will not resolve. If Iraq is still going this badly in October of 2004, it would be a real drag on the Bush campaign. Yes, I said "this badly." One arrest doesn't turn it around, except in the fantasy world of political theater in which pundits seem to live.
Howard Dean and Wesley Clark were far more gentlemanly about the news than one might have expected. I suppose their handlers told them that capturing Saddam is very popular with the US public, and they had to find a way to applaud it and to avoid seeming petty toward Bush on his day of victory.
But in the coming year the Democratic candidates just have to take off these kid gloves. I'd begin by asking some hard questions about Republican administrations' past relationship with Saddam. Put that photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983 in the commercials; ask hard questions about former Reaganites now serving in the Bush administration who supported Saddam to the hilt while he was gassing Iranian troops and Kurds; find out who authorized the US sale of chemical and biological precursors to Saddam; and be so rude as to bring up the horrible betrayal committed by Bush senior when he stood aside and let Saddam massacre all those Shiites in 1991, after they rose up in response to a Bush call for the popular overthrow of Saddam. The US military could have shot down those helicopter gunships that massacred Shiites in Najaf and Basra. Bush senior clearly told them to let Saddam enjoy his killing fields. And imagine, the Bush administration officials are actually getting photo ops at the mass graves their predecessors allowed to be filled with bodies!
What happened Sunday was that the Republicans captured a former ally, with whom they had later fallen out.
JOY: WITH SADDAM BEING CAUGHT I CAN ALMOST BET YOU MONEY THAT BUSH WILL BE RE-ELECTED AND SADDAM IS SAYING THEY NEVER HAD WMD.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
TALK ON SADDAM HUSSEIN BEING CAPTURED
Ann Stewart: I just found out about Saddam being captured. That is a big point for President Bush. Ok folks I'm going to do a post on the People's talk blog and on Talk of Men about Saddam's being captured. I want your opinions on how you think it will affect the coming election. I think it will be a big help in getting Bush possibly re-elected cause people see Bush as a President of awesome Security. Saddam getting captured only adds to that. That's my opinion. Read the article from CNN.
Laura in LA: Glad that they "captured" Saddam. I wish I could say it will improve matters on the ground in Iraq, but it will not. Where's Osama - the guy truly responsible for 9/11? Bad for Bush CO that he was captured "alive." You know darn well, Bush CO would have preferred him dead. Saddam certainly has some tales to tell - Reagan and Bush I conducted much business with the murderer. I want a public trial - I want to hear it all. Watch Bush CO try to figure out a way to have a closed trial. Could turn into a PR nightmare for Bush CO.
DC: There's Laura again with the negativity! It is a time to rejoice for one and all! Now you'll see a real push for the re-election of George W. Bush! America, be proud, we won this one! Osama is next......right before the republican convention! Carl Rove's master plan! Laura....what about Clinton? Do you think he did no business with Saddam? He stayed strong 8 long years under that administration! Get over the sour grapes girl! The French,Germans and Russians have more to fear! The truth will come out now! Now go off to a corner and cry! There will be four more years!
Wayne in Missouri: DC, You're probably right. Rove will wait until near the convention to catch Bin Laden. I'm surprised that you would applaud timing capturing mass murderers to coincide with maximum political benefit. This shouldn't be about what is best for Republicans or Democrats, it should be about what is best for the country. We should have got him a long time ago. But it is great to see Saddam captured. Also good to see how haggard he looked. A fitting end to a dictatorship.
Keith Brekhus: Congratulations on capturing Saddam Hussein!
Here is Howard Dean's statement....
"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.
Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them......................................
Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."
Laura in LA: No, DC, I could find no evidence of the Clinton Admin doing biz w/Iraq. If you have such evidence, please post a link. In a previous post, I illustrated the fact that the US outsells all other countries in arm sales. I have suggested that this should cease and is a cause for the problems we now face. Keith had made that argument as well. Your attempt to argue everything as "two wrongs, make a right" is pointless.
I am glad they got him. However, it does not change a thing. Saddam was not behind the insurgent war. I cannot ignore the hyporcrisy of our selling Saddam chemical weapons, etc. which he used against the Kurds and the Iranians. We supported Saddam in his war against Iran - I was against our gov't selling him weapons in the 80's (as were many Senators, congressmen and women)- while many on this board may not have been, I was. I don't argue two wrongs make a right. What is wrong is wrong, no matter how much time has passed.
No, Ann, I don't believe it will "help" Bush get relected. November 2004 is months away and Saddam being caputured will always be a "good thing," but we still have big problems on the ground. I don't see how democracy can be instilled under point of the gun and we will still be viewed as occupiers. The insurgent war will go on. Iraqis can be happy that Saddam is gone but that does mean they will accept our occupation or the form of gov't we try to shove down their throats - two separate issues. I think they insurgents are going to kick it up a notch to prove that Saddam has nothing to do with their war against US occupation.
Ann Stewart: Laura it is just my opinion, but it does make George Bush look good that Saddam was captured. People look at Bush like he's a awesome leader in Security and Saddam being captured only helps that image people have of our President, and his approval ratings will go up for this too. They were already going up as I have heard reported on Fox and CNN news lately. Saddam getting captured will be icing on Bush's cake.
Keith Brekhus: I think Bush's approval ratings will take a big spike upwards that will last into next spring as a result of capturing Saddam.
However, from the standpoint of political advantage, the election is still a year away--and if the occupation goes poorly in Iraq in the months to come, it will be difficult to spin the resistance as "Saddam loyalist holdouts" now.
We live in a short-attention span, instant gratification culture. The capture of Saddam will raise expectations that the fighting in Iraq will subside and the troops will come home soon. If that happens, Bush could win in a landslide. However, if the war continues and soldiers keep dying at the present rate, the voters next November won't give Bush a pass simply for capturing Saddam 11 months earlier.
Either way...today is a great day. Another tyrant will be brought to justice.
Wayne in Missouri: Ann, I think it will definitely help Bush's approval in the short run. I expect his approval will jump from the low 50's to the high 60s or perhaps even low 70s very quickly.
As for whether it helps him get re-elected, I think that is less clear. For one thing the Bush administration claim all along has been that the only resistance was Saddam loyalists and/or people who feared Saddam. If the war continues as it is going, then that argument will look like another deception. And I expect that Saddam in his spider hole really had little power over current events in Iraq before his capture. So if the war doesn't change (and I expect that it won't change much), I think people will slowly get disappointed by the raised expectations that his capture creates.
I think where it might help Bush is if he withdraws in 2004 he can plausibly portray it as a "win" because we got Saddam even if it might be too early to withdraw and leave a power vacuum from a practical standpoint.
But regardless of what it means for the 2004 election, the capture of a dictator is always cause for celebration. Our troops have done a fine job given the difficult situation they have been placed in.
Ann Stewart: I just found out about Saddam being captured. That is a big point for President Bush. Ok folks I'm going to do a post on the People's talk blog and on Talk of Men about Saddam's being captured. I want your opinions on how you think it will affect the coming election. I think it will be a big help in getting Bush possibly re-elected cause people see Bush as a President of awesome Security. Saddam getting captured only adds to that. That's my opinion. Read the article from CNN.
Laura in LA: Glad that they "captured" Saddam. I wish I could say it will improve matters on the ground in Iraq, but it will not. Where's Osama - the guy truly responsible for 9/11? Bad for Bush CO that he was captured "alive." You know darn well, Bush CO would have preferred him dead. Saddam certainly has some tales to tell - Reagan and Bush I conducted much business with the murderer. I want a public trial - I want to hear it all. Watch Bush CO try to figure out a way to have a closed trial. Could turn into a PR nightmare for Bush CO.
DC: There's Laura again with the negativity! It is a time to rejoice for one and all! Now you'll see a real push for the re-election of George W. Bush! America, be proud, we won this one! Osama is next......right before the republican convention! Carl Rove's master plan! Laura....what about Clinton? Do you think he did no business with Saddam? He stayed strong 8 long years under that administration! Get over the sour grapes girl! The French,Germans and Russians have more to fear! The truth will come out now! Now go off to a corner and cry! There will be four more years!
Wayne in Missouri: DC, You're probably right. Rove will wait until near the convention to catch Bin Laden. I'm surprised that you would applaud timing capturing mass murderers to coincide with maximum political benefit. This shouldn't be about what is best for Republicans or Democrats, it should be about what is best for the country. We should have got him a long time ago. But it is great to see Saddam captured. Also good to see how haggard he looked. A fitting end to a dictatorship.
Keith Brekhus: Congratulations on capturing Saddam Hussein!
Here is Howard Dean's statement....
"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.
Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them......................................
Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."
Laura in LA: No, DC, I could find no evidence of the Clinton Admin doing biz w/Iraq. If you have such evidence, please post a link. In a previous post, I illustrated the fact that the US outsells all other countries in arm sales. I have suggested that this should cease and is a cause for the problems we now face. Keith had made that argument as well. Your attempt to argue everything as "two wrongs, make a right" is pointless.
I am glad they got him. However, it does not change a thing. Saddam was not behind the insurgent war. I cannot ignore the hyporcrisy of our selling Saddam chemical weapons, etc. which he used against the Kurds and the Iranians. We supported Saddam in his war against Iran - I was against our gov't selling him weapons in the 80's (as were many Senators, congressmen and women)- while many on this board may not have been, I was. I don't argue two wrongs make a right. What is wrong is wrong, no matter how much time has passed.
No, Ann, I don't believe it will "help" Bush get relected. November 2004 is months away and Saddam being caputured will always be a "good thing," but we still have big problems on the ground. I don't see how democracy can be instilled under point of the gun and we will still be viewed as occupiers. The insurgent war will go on. Iraqis can be happy that Saddam is gone but that does mean they will accept our occupation or the form of gov't we try to shove down their throats - two separate issues. I think they insurgents are going to kick it up a notch to prove that Saddam has nothing to do with their war against US occupation.
Ann Stewart: Laura it is just my opinion, but it does make George Bush look good that Saddam was captured. People look at Bush like he's a awesome leader in Security and Saddam being captured only helps that image people have of our President, and his approval ratings will go up for this too. They were already going up as I have heard reported on Fox and CNN news lately. Saddam getting captured will be icing on Bush's cake.
Keith Brekhus: I think Bush's approval ratings will take a big spike upwards that will last into next spring as a result of capturing Saddam.
However, from the standpoint of political advantage, the election is still a year away--and if the occupation goes poorly in Iraq in the months to come, it will be difficult to spin the resistance as "Saddam loyalist holdouts" now.
We live in a short-attention span, instant gratification culture. The capture of Saddam will raise expectations that the fighting in Iraq will subside and the troops will come home soon. If that happens, Bush could win in a landslide. However, if the war continues and soldiers keep dying at the present rate, the voters next November won't give Bush a pass simply for capturing Saddam 11 months earlier.
Either way...today is a great day. Another tyrant will be brought to justice.
Wayne in Missouri: Ann, I think it will definitely help Bush's approval in the short run. I expect his approval will jump from the low 50's to the high 60s or perhaps even low 70s very quickly.
As for whether it helps him get re-elected, I think that is less clear. For one thing the Bush administration claim all along has been that the only resistance was Saddam loyalists and/or people who feared Saddam. If the war continues as it is going, then that argument will look like another deception. And I expect that Saddam in his spider hole really had little power over current events in Iraq before his capture. So if the war doesn't change (and I expect that it won't change much), I think people will slowly get disappointed by the raised expectations that his capture creates.
I think where it might help Bush is if he withdraws in 2004 he can plausibly portray it as a "win" because we got Saddam even if it might be too early to withdraw and leave a power vacuum from a practical standpoint.
But regardless of what it means for the 2004 election, the capture of a dictator is always cause for celebration. Our troops have done a fine job given the difficult situation they have been placed in.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Maria Menounos
There is a gal who is a correspondent on Entertainment Tonight. She is very fun to watch on the program. Her name is Maria Menounos. She also hosts the cross generational companion show ET on MTV/VH1. If you want know about her, here's the Stats: She is 25 years old. She co- founded Take Action Hollywood. She replaced Lisa Ling on Channel 1. She was in FHM magazine. Guys like her because of her beauty. Girls like her for her fashion sense. She was once was overweight. She was not allowed to cross the street on her own until she was 16. She was born on June 8th in 1978. Why do we want to know so much about her? She is supposed to be known by teenagers, men and women. Guys want to be with her. Girls want to be like her. There are a few picture sites that have pictures of her. So Ann if you can find any go to yahoo and type in the search box Maria Menounos you will find some sites that have pictures of her. You can go to ET's website on Yahoo, you can find her bio there.
There is a gal who is a correspondent on Entertainment Tonight. She is very fun to watch on the program. Her name is Maria Menounos. She also hosts the cross generational companion show ET on MTV/VH1. If you want know about her, here's the Stats: She is 25 years old. She co- founded Take Action Hollywood. She replaced Lisa Ling on Channel 1. She was in FHM magazine. Guys like her because of her beauty. Girls like her for her fashion sense. She was once was overweight. She was not allowed to cross the street on her own until she was 16. She was born on June 8th in 1978. Why do we want to know so much about her? She is supposed to be known by teenagers, men and women. Guys want to be with her. Girls want to be like her. There are a few picture sites that have pictures of her. So Ann if you can find any go to yahoo and type in the search box Maria Menounos you will find some sites that have pictures of her. You can go to ET's website on Yahoo, you can find her bio there.
Friday, December 05, 2003
Talk on Al Gore Endorsing Howard Dean
_150.jpg)
Keith Brekhus: Its just a rumor right now but the Associated Press is spreading it...I don't think Ron Fournier would risk his career on a false rumor, so I gotta believe Gore is endorsing Dean tomorrow. Usually political endorsements don't carry that much weight, but this is huge for three reasons 1) Gore won the popular vote in 2000 2) Lieberman, who is running for president, was his running mate and 3) up until now, the Democratic "establishment" has been lukewarm about Dean's insurgent candidacy.
If true, this is a big victory for the Dean campaign!
Ann Stewart: Al Gore is for Howard Dean? Do you really think that is going to make Howard Dean look good in the state of Tennessee? Most of Tennessee thinks Al is a little off, but he’s got some pull, cause he won the popular vote in the last election and I guess you need all the help you can get in a run for office.
DC: When is an endorsement a kiss of death? When it is given by AlGore.....Maybe he can lose Tennessee once again for Dean!
66% of America agreed with Bush that Saddam must go, including a extremely lopsided congress, what was it? 98-2 ? Now....they can't run away from that record!
Surveys from Baghdad, claim that 6.6% of households had someone lost to Saddam's terror! That is somewhere around 61,000, just from Baghdad! Killed! Get it? Killed! That is not to mention some 300,000 more in other parts of Iraq. I will never be convinced that this war was unjust! The threat is ELIMINATED! GONE!!!!
Clinton would not have done it! Gore would no have done it! Dean, damn sure would NOT have done it! It took Bush, the only one with scruples enough to brave all of your negativity to get this done, and I am damn PROUD he did!
Laura in LA: Gore has been scoring points with me of late. I really thought his last 2 speeches he gave through Moveon.org were terrific. I wish he had campaigned in that manner. You know, that's why I knew Clark was not going to be so strong - because he has some of the same fools that mismanaged Gore's campaign working for him.
Keith Brekhus: I don't think Gore's endorsement will hurt Dean in Tennessee. I think it gives the Dean campaign the appearance of inevitability (that he will get the democratic nomination) and it hurts candidates like Kerry and especially Lieberman who are more tied to the Democratic establishment.
The conventional wisdom was that Gore would either endorse Lieberman or not endorse any single candidate until the Democratic nominee was decided. Democrats are expected to endorse other Democrats in the general election anyway, but for the primary I think this is the case of Gore trying to put support behind the frontrunner and he thinks it is Dean.
The main thrust of Gore's endorsement is that it will kill the donations to Lieberman and Kerry's (and maybe Clark's)campaigns becuase donors want to invest in a winner.
Ann Stewart: Oh yeah I think Tennessee has been to hard on Al Gore. I wish some of those folks who voted against him would lighten up. Oh that would be me too hun? Ok Ok I admit, I didn't vote for Al, but after we went though the war with Iraq I started thinking maybe I picked the wrong guy. Maybe I should've voted for Al, but who knows? Bush really hasn't done that bad of a job, except for Iraq. Even the economy is looking better now. Bush's approval ratings are going up too. Real Estate refinancing is going back up on their rates, and that is supposed to be a good thing? HUMMM well maybe for some folks, it does mean the economy is getting better.
Keith Brekhus: Its just a rumor right now but the Associated Press is spreading it...I don't think Ron Fournier would risk his career on a false rumor, so I gotta believe Gore is endorsing Dean tomorrow. Usually political endorsements don't carry that much weight, but this is huge for three reasons 1) Gore won the popular vote in 2000 2) Lieberman, who is running for president, was his running mate and 3) up until now, the Democratic "establishment" has been lukewarm about Dean's insurgent candidacy.
If true, this is a big victory for the Dean campaign!
Ann Stewart: Al Gore is for Howard Dean? Do you really think that is going to make Howard Dean look good in the state of Tennessee? Most of Tennessee thinks Al is a little off, but he’s got some pull, cause he won the popular vote in the last election and I guess you need all the help you can get in a run for office.
DC: When is an endorsement a kiss of death? When it is given by AlGore.....Maybe he can lose Tennessee once again for Dean!
66% of America agreed with Bush that Saddam must go, including a extremely lopsided congress, what was it? 98-2 ? Now....they can't run away from that record!
Surveys from Baghdad, claim that 6.6% of households had someone lost to Saddam's terror! That is somewhere around 61,000, just from Baghdad! Killed! Get it? Killed! That is not to mention some 300,000 more in other parts of Iraq. I will never be convinced that this war was unjust! The threat is ELIMINATED! GONE!!!!
Clinton would not have done it! Gore would no have done it! Dean, damn sure would NOT have done it! It took Bush, the only one with scruples enough to brave all of your negativity to get this done, and I am damn PROUD he did!
Laura in LA: Gore has been scoring points with me of late. I really thought his last 2 speeches he gave through Moveon.org were terrific. I wish he had campaigned in that manner. You know, that's why I knew Clark was not going to be so strong - because he has some of the same fools that mismanaged Gore's campaign working for him.
Keith Brekhus: I don't think Gore's endorsement will hurt Dean in Tennessee. I think it gives the Dean campaign the appearance of inevitability (that he will get the democratic nomination) and it hurts candidates like Kerry and especially Lieberman who are more tied to the Democratic establishment.
The conventional wisdom was that Gore would either endorse Lieberman or not endorse any single candidate until the Democratic nominee was decided. Democrats are expected to endorse other Democrats in the general election anyway, but for the primary I think this is the case of Gore trying to put support behind the frontrunner and he thinks it is Dean.
The main thrust of Gore's endorsement is that it will kill the donations to Lieberman and Kerry's (and maybe Clark's)campaigns becuase donors want to invest in a winner.
Ann Stewart: Oh yeah I think Tennessee has been to hard on Al Gore. I wish some of those folks who voted against him would lighten up. Oh that would be me too hun? Ok Ok I admit, I didn't vote for Al, but after we went though the war with Iraq I started thinking maybe I picked the wrong guy. Maybe I should've voted for Al, but who knows? Bush really hasn't done that bad of a job, except for Iraq. Even the economy is looking better now. Bush's approval ratings are going up too. Real Estate refinancing is going back up on their rates, and that is supposed to be a good thing? HUMMM well maybe for some folks, it does mean the economy is getting better.
Monday, December 01, 2003
Talk On The Media
Arty P.: Looks like the crazies are out in full force today. But I won't mention any names. LOL! For 6 months TV messages should have been run on Al-Qaezeera showing GW Bush saying he was personally going to turn up and "Kick some Hajii butt" under that big crossed swords monument in Baghdad on Thanksgiving noon. Then he should have flown in to Baghdad Airport on a solo engineless glider trailing a long banner saying "Islam Sucks!" and circled for at least an hour, no more than 30 feet off the ground, before landing. Finally he should have made his way alone and unarmed along the crowded streets of Baghdad with a red target painted on his back, banging together a couple of trash cans and shouting "Mohammed was a child molester!", before kneeling down under the big monument with his hands out stretched and shouting random profanities at armed passers-by. But then the liberal media would have still called him a chicken because he didn't just put the suicide belt on and detonate it himself!"
Doug in Indiana: Oh yes, I’m crazy, arty. crazy like a fox. Oh and sharing your views Arty, does not mean bashing liberals because of what the liberal media says about bush.
Ann Stewart: You know Arty P. I have heard the media pick on many time about being to liberal, but if we didn't have the media what would we know? NOTHING that is what we would know FLAT NOTHING. I am not the most liberal person in the world, but I don't agree with people who think the media is against Bush, because there are a lot of people who believe the media is controlled by the Bush administration. So everybody has an opinion and that is what this place is about put your opinions out on the web, but opinions are just opinions and they aren’t always correct.
Arty P.: Anyway I apologize to Doug for just assuming he was crazy and not giving him a chance to prove it.
Keith Brekhus: Its funny...conservatives think the mainstream media has a liberal bias. Liberals think the media has a conservative bias, and middle of the road folks tend to think the media is relatively unbiased. Its all a matter of perspective, but it seems to me like the media has a pro-corporate, pro-American, politically centrist bias with a slightly liberal tilt on social issues and a slightly conservative tilt on economic and foreign policy issues.
Michael Bohannon: I think you're misleading yourself if you think you can trust only one news source anyhow! Every sort of media has a bias that simply cannot be avoided- it's human nature. So to get a true picture of any issue I read and listen to a variety of sources, whether it be liberal, conservative, or whatever. Fox news might report on some things that CNN may not and vice versa. I just think its best to watch a variety of sources and not limit yourself to the programs that don't offend you.
Arty P.: What I mean to say is that you should not, or the media should not, give a choice which says "Take me as I am. Or not at all" I would never say that the media does not inform us of things or that we could get by without them. But where I would find fault in your question is that it seems to assume we must either have (a) the media AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS or (b) No media whatsoever. What I want is (c) a media that is not liberal biased. I know you also said you don't think it is liberal biased. But respectfully I think you are wrong. Most people in this country are to the right of those on the coasts. But most of the people in the media are based on the coasts.
Doug in Indiana: Keith, a simple search will inform you of who owns most media outlets. A further look will tell you who the owners of the media outlets vote for. Now wouldn't arty be surprised to know that media gave more to bush then the dems? Wouldn’t Arty be surprised to find out that clear channel(biggest radio station owner/operator) was the ones who did the pro-war rally's? Here is a list telling you who owns what.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/Now, are most of the owners liberal or conservative?
Here is your answer....
http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.aspNotice how the most owners of most news outlets, like radio stations (clear channel) and TV. News(fox news, or news corp) are republican?
Here is what news corp owns
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp
here is who they gave money too
http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp62% republican
for clear channel? 75% republican
what does clear channel own?
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.aspWhile more media companies give to the democrats, it is more then clear who controls the news.
Ann Stewart: Well no matter what your opinions of the media may be. I still think we would be blind without them. It's not like we as average citizens have the power or the funds to travel the world and find different stories. So really the only insight we do have is the media. I do think Michael is right about using a variety of sources.
Laura in LA: Arty, Your contention that there exists a liberal media is also a fantasy. In truth, our media is lacking in content on the whole. The media is corporate owned so clearly they know where their bread is buttered. There is virtually no discourse and debate in the media. One should read all media, including foreign press, and find the truth existing somewhere in the middle. To rely on one source, or only on US cable news, leaves the viewer with inadequate information in which to form an opinion. It is also a good idea to read books as well – perhaps a lesson on the history of Iraq might help you to understand why Iraqi’s are not willing to be occupied. There are many books I might suggest. Tariq Ali’s new book “Bush in Babylon” is very informative.
Keith Brekhus: An "unbiased" media and one that reflects the opinion of the mainstream in a culture may not be the same thing. Arty, your argument could be used to suggest that Al Jazeera should broadcast vehement anti-American sentiment since that would be the prevailing opinion of its Arab viewers. I would hope the media in the Arab world would not cater the prejudices of its viewers...likewise, I would also hope our media would not cater to the prejudice of its viewers either. I realize "pure objectivity" is an impossible ideal that will never be achieved, but I think media outlets have a responsibility to strive for something approximating objectivity. I don't think this country is a pack of Nazis, but if it were I would hope the media would not be complicit in spreading Nazi propoganda.
Arty P.: Maybe you Keith have a more depressing view of Arab viewers than I do. If I thought Al-Qaezeera was just accurately reflecting the views of Arab people I would have no problem with it. Because if that's all it did then where is the problem? I am afraid that AQ may be CREATING problems by presenting to Muslim viewers a picture of the US that is WORSE than they think and is thus inspiring people to fight us. If its not doing this then it is serving no purpose as propaganda so what is the big deal? I believe a media should seek to change viewers minds only by giving them true facts and letting them make up their own minds. It should not try to change viewers minds by presenting information in a way which is designed to alter their beliefs or core morality. That goes for the US media and it goes for AQ too. My point stands. Arty P, Telling it like it is and the [REDACTED] don't like it at http://redwhiteandright.blogspot.com
Arty P.: Looks like the crazies are out in full force today. But I won't mention any names. LOL! For 6 months TV messages should have been run on Al-Qaezeera showing GW Bush saying he was personally going to turn up and "Kick some Hajii butt" under that big crossed swords monument in Baghdad on Thanksgiving noon. Then he should have flown in to Baghdad Airport on a solo engineless glider trailing a long banner saying "Islam Sucks!" and circled for at least an hour, no more than 30 feet off the ground, before landing. Finally he should have made his way alone and unarmed along the crowded streets of Baghdad with a red target painted on his back, banging together a couple of trash cans and shouting "Mohammed was a child molester!", before kneeling down under the big monument with his hands out stretched and shouting random profanities at armed passers-by. But then the liberal media would have still called him a chicken because he didn't just put the suicide belt on and detonate it himself!"
Doug in Indiana: Oh yes, I’m crazy, arty. crazy like a fox. Oh and sharing your views Arty, does not mean bashing liberals because of what the liberal media says about bush.
Ann Stewart: You know Arty P. I have heard the media pick on many time about being to liberal, but if we didn't have the media what would we know? NOTHING that is what we would know FLAT NOTHING. I am not the most liberal person in the world, but I don't agree with people who think the media is against Bush, because there are a lot of people who believe the media is controlled by the Bush administration. So everybody has an opinion and that is what this place is about put your opinions out on the web, but opinions are just opinions and they aren’t always correct.
Arty P.: Anyway I apologize to Doug for just assuming he was crazy and not giving him a chance to prove it.
Keith Brekhus: Its funny...conservatives think the mainstream media has a liberal bias. Liberals think the media has a conservative bias, and middle of the road folks tend to think the media is relatively unbiased. Its all a matter of perspective, but it seems to me like the media has a pro-corporate, pro-American, politically centrist bias with a slightly liberal tilt on social issues and a slightly conservative tilt on economic and foreign policy issues.
Michael Bohannon: I think you're misleading yourself if you think you can trust only one news source anyhow! Every sort of media has a bias that simply cannot be avoided- it's human nature. So to get a true picture of any issue I read and listen to a variety of sources, whether it be liberal, conservative, or whatever. Fox news might report on some things that CNN may not and vice versa. I just think its best to watch a variety of sources and not limit yourself to the programs that don't offend you.
Arty P.: What I mean to say is that you should not, or the media should not, give a choice which says "Take me as I am. Or not at all" I would never say that the media does not inform us of things or that we could get by without them. But where I would find fault in your question is that it seems to assume we must either have (a) the media AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS or (b) No media whatsoever. What I want is (c) a media that is not liberal biased. I know you also said you don't think it is liberal biased. But respectfully I think you are wrong. Most people in this country are to the right of those on the coasts. But most of the people in the media are based on the coasts.
Doug in Indiana: Keith, a simple search will inform you of who owns most media outlets. A further look will tell you who the owners of the media outlets vote for. Now wouldn't arty be surprised to know that media gave more to bush then the dems? Wouldn’t Arty be surprised to find out that clear channel(biggest radio station owner/operator) was the ones who did the pro-war rally's? Here is a list telling you who owns what.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/Now, are most of the owners liberal or conservative?
Here is your answer....
http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.aspNotice how the most owners of most news outlets, like radio stations (clear channel) and TV. News(fox news, or news corp) are republican?
Here is what news corp owns
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp
here is who they gave money too
http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp62% republican
for clear channel? 75% republican
what does clear channel own?
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.aspWhile more media companies give to the democrats, it is more then clear who controls the news.
Ann Stewart: Well no matter what your opinions of the media may be. I still think we would be blind without them. It's not like we as average citizens have the power or the funds to travel the world and find different stories. So really the only insight we do have is the media. I do think Michael is right about using a variety of sources.
Laura in LA: Arty, Your contention that there exists a liberal media is also a fantasy. In truth, our media is lacking in content on the whole. The media is corporate owned so clearly they know where their bread is buttered. There is virtually no discourse and debate in the media. One should read all media, including foreign press, and find the truth existing somewhere in the middle. To rely on one source, or only on US cable news, leaves the viewer with inadequate information in which to form an opinion. It is also a good idea to read books as well – perhaps a lesson on the history of Iraq might help you to understand why Iraqi’s are not willing to be occupied. There are many books I might suggest. Tariq Ali’s new book “Bush in Babylon” is very informative.
Keith Brekhus: An "unbiased" media and one that reflects the opinion of the mainstream in a culture may not be the same thing. Arty, your argument could be used to suggest that Al Jazeera should broadcast vehement anti-American sentiment since that would be the prevailing opinion of its Arab viewers. I would hope the media in the Arab world would not cater the prejudices of its viewers...likewise, I would also hope our media would not cater to the prejudice of its viewers either. I realize "pure objectivity" is an impossible ideal that will never be achieved, but I think media outlets have a responsibility to strive for something approximating objectivity. I don't think this country is a pack of Nazis, but if it were I would hope the media would not be complicit in spreading Nazi propoganda.
Arty P.: Maybe you Keith have a more depressing view of Arab viewers than I do. If I thought Al-Qaezeera was just accurately reflecting the views of Arab people I would have no problem with it. Because if that's all it did then where is the problem? I am afraid that AQ may be CREATING problems by presenting to Muslim viewers a picture of the US that is WORSE than they think and is thus inspiring people to fight us. If its not doing this then it is serving no purpose as propaganda so what is the big deal? I believe a media should seek to change viewers minds only by giving them true facts and letting them make up their own minds. It should not try to change viewers minds by presenting information in a way which is designed to alter their beliefs or core morality. That goes for the US media and it goes for AQ too. My point stands. Arty P, Telling it like it is and the [REDACTED] don't like it at http://redwhiteandright.blogspot.com
