the_whole_thing
byron kho
in technicolor
Bitter Politics and a Good Way to Let Off Steam
the_political_page
in_the_news
other_musings
linking_pages
Pertinent Issues
I was reading a particularly informative article by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post today about the positive spin ads that the Kerry campaign is putting out. Knowing that the Bush media campaign was mostly negative attacks on Kerry (up to 75%!!), it's surprising that the Kerry campaign can still sit tight on it's I'm-a-good-guy and don't-listen-to-him message. Bush's campaign says the negative spin is 1) effective in portraying him as a flip-flop and 2) Kerry can wax moralistic in this race because he has his little buddies MoveOn and the Media Fund to do the dirty work. Which is true, I guess. But here's the kicker: Bush has everything to lose, while Kerry has nothing to lose. And who's the one playing dirty?
A memorable quote from Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg Public Policy Center:
"They don't have to attack the credibility of George Bush," Jamieson said. "The news has effectively done that already."
It also doesn't help the Republican campaign that Kerry is raising his profile among black Americans (and other minorities) - who can swing the vote in his favor (and who blatantly supported Gore in those harrowing moments when Gore himself was presiding over the swearing-in of the president) - while Bush has downgraded or lost that ability completely by refusing to talk to the NAACP. He said he got made fun of once, he's not going through it again. What was that quote, Mr. President? Fool me once... What we have here is a coward - no matter if he is one or not - he just really looks like it, when he's preaching his "got backbone?" campaign rhetoric.
Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Crusade Against the Bush Administration
http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=1808569540&rvid=255-228877&i=0&spl=0&nn=1&ys=7VKVpHoqfKWippRgnD7ZsA--
A somewhat paranoid yet persuasive review of the movie slash opinion piece on the political situation by this guy. If it counts at all, he's from Pittsburgh.
"A conservative group asked [the FEC] to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore�s anti-Bush documentary �Fahrenheit 9/11� violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate...the group...contended that commercials for �Fahrenheit 9/11� fall under federal campaign finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party�s nominating convention...they contend that �Fahrenheit 9/11� is propaganda and doesn�t qualify for the media exemption."
- Associated Press; June 24, 2004
Byron: more misguided conservative attempts to keep f9/11 out of the theater? yes. you're just giving the left more firepower against you, and giving the film more buzz. time for some credible defense rather than pointless vengeful behavior.
Vik: Agreed. In my opinion, the best chance for conservatives to nullify the effect of this movie is to simply ignore it rather than condemn it. It is very difficult to attack the entertainment industry on moral grounds and succeed (in fact, criticism will probably only increase curiosity and viewership; look at The Passion of the Christ.) I, for one, plan to see Fahrenheit 911 on Saturday and support a message that will hopefully becoming a rallying cry for Democrats around the country. To the conservatives out there, all you can do is pray that the movie will suck.
Kneeland: Looks like my prayers have been answered. The movie is an utter embarassment to the Left. Did you know that Mr. Moore had to hire a giant team of lawyers to file libel suits against anyone who dares to question the accuracy of his movie?
Bruce: Whether or not you agree with Moore, you should acknowledge the blatant lying and viewer manipulation of his past films. For example, in "Bowling for Columbine" he spliced words from seven different places to form one sentence of a speech by Charlton Heston (he also spliced two rallies that were months apart, giving the impression that they were the same).
That is but a minor example of wave after wave of deceit in his Oscar-winning "documentary." He also used inconsistent data and simply lied, later admitting his deception.
His next film will undoubtedly be the same. Why would you want to support a message that is baseless propaganda? If you want to vote against Bush, I have no problem with that. If you want to engage in debate, or get every Democrat in Philly to vote this fall, I'm cool with that too. But why perpetuate our culture's na�ve dependency on the media by supporting one of its worst offenders?
Byron: I must say I do find wrong in some of Moore's tactics - some of which are in recent evidence. He displayed Disney as trying to destroy his film without advance warning, when he actually knew for an entire year and later admitted as much. I understand he twists and manipulates his viewers. But I am my own person. Though the guy in question be a lying bastard (both Moore and Bush could fall under that category, depending on who you talk to), I can hear what they say without naively believing that everything is true. Though some of the public are so-called "dumb", I don't believe most people will think it's totally unbiased. At least most of the educated masses shouldn't.
And yes - though it's going to be full of some propaganda, it's not "baseless propaganda", because there are facts, and there are facts, and I'm sure he's double and triple-checked all his words to make sure they're right or he'll be sued for libel, especially with the entire right-wing on his ass. This time around, I'm sure he's worried about it.
You also address our culture's "na�ve dependency on the media". Unfortunately, we have no other way of getting to the masses. I respect the fact that he is willing to put himself out on a limb despite all the criticism he has and undoubtedly will receive; it's a freedom he is allowed, to express himself. (and god help us: that such "scum" be able to express himself? He's not killing babies or advocating racial hatred for chrissake.) If you're not willing to allow him this freedom, that's not a good sign.
On the other hand, if one doesn't like the messages being broadcast by Moore, then one should utilize this "na�ve dependency on the media" against him and make a movie, or sound-bite, or best-selling book. Gather the right-wing opinionators together and use the media to right-wing advantage, not by attacking his person, catching him out on silly laws that will actually turn against the advocacy groups supporting the lawsuits, or denying the leftist schtick as a pack of lies. Undoubtedly there will be some lies said by the left (my side, pretty much), but one would be howling in the wind unless Republicans can gather an actual intellectual defense and a credible offense. Or they can play on Michael Moore's field: get Rush Limbaugh to make his own movie. He is articulate and intelligent enough, and does a good job of rousing the conservative masses with his own version of fire-brand propaganda.
Mark Littmann (in the Summer Pennsylvanian): "So Moore was a winner, right? Unfortunately, his victory was, in disguise, a mockery of not just the current administration but also America as a whole."
Byron: Now hold on there. I have to bring up another point brought up in the article - how he feels that Moore isn't a proper representative for America. But when is the filmmaker, documentary person, interviewer, journalist... when are these guys supposed to be the representative of their entire America? Does he really expect it to be an entirely neutral documentary? Of course he will attack Bush and the current administration in the movie, because those are his politics, and people make movies according to their beliefs and politics (this script is great, i feel for the characters... i feel for the american people, etc.) He quotes Moore as stating that he is in the majority opinion. This could possibly be true, in a sketchy propagandist kind of way. Opinion polls show Bush's approval to be nearly 50-50 between good and bad. Liberal, conservative. However, there are a significant amount of undecided and moderate conservatives that have seemed to back up from their support. Even among the old guard, there is a feeling of reversing course. It can't be good that disaster after disaster has hit this administration (S&L, Halliburton, Texas oil, possible trouble with their number one Arab ally Saudi Arabia, lying in front of America).
Jack (a forum posting on Littman's article): "Moore reminds me of his Republican counterpart: Rush Limbaugh. He does the same thing, saying things that are clearly biased. I guess the only difference would be the Rush actually knows what he's talking about."
Byron: Um, no.
Alum (a forum posting on Littman's article): "By actually going to see the movie, one would, in fact, be supporting Michael Moore and all that he stands for (and probably helping him increase donations to all anti-Bush campaigns). I support the author in not going to see this. It's truly a shame how uneducated the American public has become."
Byron: Is it me, or is seeing the movie just that? Seeing? As in "seeing what the other side has to say"? Uneducated doesn't mean ignoring the other side, even the propagandists. To fight and win, they say, you must know your enemy. Keeping yourself ignorant of the situation as understood by an influential liberal that can only spread his views to the Democratic-leaning populace (according to MSNBC and YahooNews and CNN, theaters are doing very well indeed off of this movie, even with the death threats and bribery and intense pressure put on by Republican organizations toward theater managers... why else would 3 national chains not show a movie that - by all standards - will be one of the highest-grossing movies ever?) is stupid indeed. Smart man, Sun Tzu. Know your enemy.
Sean Lee (a forum posting on Littman's article): "President Bush is winning World War 3. He has given millions of people freedom from oppression in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Byron: We are not fighting World War III, however much you'd like to think so. And as for millions of people? We created the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq to begin with. Yes, I would say it was our responsibility to fix the mess. However, we didn't do very well. We let up to 40,000 Afghans with their AK-47s return home when we pulled our Special Forces out of there to go fight in Iraq, before the cleanup job in Afghanistan was finished. We missed bin Laden, though we got many deputies, and the organization is still thriving. The Saudis, our close ally, supports some of these terrorist movements (follow the money). Iraq is no better now than it was under Saddam. Yes, he was bad to them, but at least there was an infrastructure, less hatred and peace. I must say that things ARE better for the Kurds, though. They are the only probable people to benefit. Now, we are hated for our occupation, infrastructure is going to hell, and we hire Iraqi to kill other Iraqis. Who shoot us because they hate.
And STOP lambasting France. It is NOT unpatriotic to support free choice, and it is NOT unsupportive of democracy, freedom, etc. to choose not to get involved with a war which has turned out to be all that the naysayers had hoped for. There were very good reasons for them to choose to do so, and to follow a suicidal course just because the United States said so is no reason to do anything. Remember, France gave us support for our experiment in democracy. Even as we think ourselves beacons of democracy, we should be aware that we don't always appear so. We have lied and threatened other countries; we have meddled and caused millions of deaths by activity and inactivity in other countries; and we have stood in the way of peace (not paying dues to the UN?).
"In a BBC interview, Mr Powell said those who carried out the attacks were trying to torpedo the handover. 'I think we underestimated the nature of the insurgency that we might face during this period,' he said. 'The insurgency that we're looking at now has become a serious problem for us, but it's a problem that we will deal with.' But he said he hoped violence would tail off after the handover - once Iraqis saw that they had their own people in charge. 'I'm absolutely sure that the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein and that regime gone,' he said. 'Now, does that mean that everything has become peaceful and nice? No. We have a difficult situation in Iraq. And we will deal with that difficult situation. We will get security under control.'"
- BBC; June 24, 2004
Here's the war as I see it. We invaded Iraq on the pretext that we were fighting terrorism. So far, there has been no link to bin Laden and Al Qaeda within Saddam Hussein's realm, and neither has there been any WMD's for us to find. Thus, we are occupying the second most holy site in all of Islam (within Iraq) for reasons that are entirely moot. Not only that, but we control the other two holiest sites in Islam, albeit indirectly - Saudi Arabia is seen as an American lapdog, and Israel is in eternal cahoots with the West. The Muslim world cannot be happy about this, and so now, where Al-Qaeda hadn't existed, they now do. From a country we were liberating, we now have a country that does not want to be liberated; peoples that kill our soldiers after they have been "saved"; and an enemy that grows more reckless every day. The executions only tell us that they are more resilient than we thought. So what are we to do? Are we to dally in a country where rule is breaking down and the enemy grows larger every day? I am a liberal, but I don't vote for peace in this case. I feel like the military should use its capacity as the best army in the world, and crush the insurgents with all the military might they can muster. It's a cruel world, but our position is gradually leaking away.
About the Presidential Race (1)
Follow your heart. It�s a common enough message, portrayed in enough movies and novels that it�s almost a given in today�s world � it�s a choice allowed us by our freedom and democracy, no matter the risk and price. But who�s to say that one�s heart can choose blindly and make the right decision?
In reality, almost no one does. You would want to make sure your dream guy or girl doesn�t rate violence and alcoholism high on their list of priorities; similarly, you wouldn�t want to marry someone who would not care a whit about the future � ostensibly, this would adversely affect you and your potential family, psychologically and financially. You would, in other words, educate yourself on all aspects of the person and not just on how they look.
So why shouldn�t this be so with your presidential election choice? Unfortunately, most people have taken it on themselves to be a media-educated population.
Television, radio and print news keep us up-to-date without any personal effort, and though we complain of the bias of the liberal media, there is not much drive to find things out for ourselves � what else would we be paying reporters and journalists for? So, we listen to what the media has to offer, and for better or worse, we let that rule the way we feel.
Advertising executives are well aware that the average consumer thinks with his heart and not with his head. In an April NPR round-table discussion on presidential campaign ads, Linda Kaplan of The Kaplan Thaler Group remarked that �the problem is that [candidates] think it is about what they think, when it�s really all about who they are.�
That�s probably why radical propaganda is so effective � right-wing Limbaugh paints Democrats as impractical and unpatriotic and still has the highest-rated talk radio show; ultra-liberal Michael Moore preaches the corruption and incompetence of the reigning Republicans and still came up with the highest-grossing documentary on its first week of release; and cult Democrat Lyndon LaRouche can weave Republican conspiracy theories and still come up on primary ballots for an eighth presidential campaign.
Though it�s arguable that their messages only further persuade the converted, they rely mostly on well-developed and consistent character smears that actually does answer the all-important question: who are these people? Even if the answer is, in all cases, the Bad Guy.
On the same token, it also explains why mainstream political television ads are so ineffective in comparison to consumer ads and propaganda. While ad makers understand the consumer logic that underlies any media posturing, political media campaigns are stifled by the very nature of politics.
Caution is key, as is appeasing the greatest number of voters. To do so, they utilize polls. In an article by Joshua Green in the July 2004 Atlantic Monthly, Republican media consultant John Brabender notes that in most political ads, �every candidate is basically saying the same four poll-tested things.� This makes the candidates blend into one another, and makes it very hard to differentiate between them.
As polls also reveal weak issues for each candidate, many campaigns attempt to kill many birds with one stone and �try to cram as many issues into an ad as they can,� according to Brabender. This ends up confusing the voter and obscuring the issues that the ad refers to. All of this does not make it easy to provide an educational and above-board campaign.
Even the debates do little to change this. Though research shows that the debates are possibly the most influential part of a campaign, many people only view them through the slant of media coverage which, as mentioned, can be biased.
In any case, this ends up confusing the voter and obscuring the issues, which should really count for more than any character flaw the candidate might have. To make up for these lapses (which I believe raises voter apathy), candidates usually end up using personal attacks, particularly in the few weeks just prior to the election.
This campaign is a case in point. It�s started out by being the most expensive yet. In an advertising frenzy, the Bush campaign has paid out $85 million to broadcasters nationwide � Kerry and related Democratic groups trail behind with only $65 million.
To be completed...
About the Presidential Race (2)
a brief word on rich eisenberg's op-ed in this week's DP: eisenberg outlines the bush camp policy of referring to kerry as a negative-slanted "liberal" and "flip-flop". while it is marginally true that kerry did flip-flop - and miss out on 80% of voting sessions - there is less reason there to vote for bush than for kerry. after alll, what exactly is wrong with being liberal? does liberal signify wishy-washy and touchy-feely (all two-word hyphenated cute words that minimalize left-wing efforts to improve human welfare through governmental intervention)? but more importantly, does bush's method of sticking to his roots and sticking to his guns bode well for our country? bush is a man who has set beliefs - he keeps faith with himself, his religion and his country. this is admirable in a man (though we might call him stupid, etc.). but who is to say that america needs stubbornness to this degree? yes, we need to present a firm face to the world. but being stubborn along the wrong path is a likely path to failure. pretending nothing is wrong with the ship while it sinks doesn't do anything for the captain or crew; admitting a mistake but being firm about change is. kerry, while certainly irresponsible and in the best of times only a mediocre candidate, is a much better gauge of the american public today. he is more cautious - what we need to heal wounds after "winning" a war, though not what we need during said war - and more open to the various opinions making up his constituency, as evidenced by his large advisory team. so there we have it.
one more aspect of the presidential race issue: media campaigning. currently, scandals are much closer to the surface among bush's compadres, while kerry's campaign seems much more clean, and proabbly more bland. at the same time, the bush campaign has made this season the most expensive media campaigning season to date, with mostly out-of-pocket funds. both candidates have had no problem funding their campaigns this term, with no need to dig into the public coffers. the focus of the bush campaigns? negative spin on kerry's character. comparatively, bush media ads, from their camp and from outside organizations, have been extremely vilifying in their rhetoric; kerry has spent more money on the issues. of course, it's very hard to get proper issues explained in a 30-second soundbite, but at least the attempt is there. it's strange about politics. they have to rise to two standards: the media, by selling their "product", and the honor of the profession, by extolling their "purity." kerry might just be holding his own campaign down (and poll popularity) by going the honorable path, while bush scores big points on the i'm-better-than-him media path. very soon, however, i'm sure we'll see kerry jump back on the bandwagon, and pull out the big guns on bush.
ads this season: all about adolf. an entry into the liberal organization Move-On's campaign-for-Kerry contest compared bush to hitler. this ad was never recognized by MoveOn or the Dem campaing after that, but a subsequent Republican ad ran something like this -- Dems are playing dirty by comparing us to Hitler. So we'll show you the ad that they didn't actually support, by showing clips of it in our ad, and implicitly continue the vicious cycle.
yay for partisanship. continue the age-old tradition of rousing paranoid fears and anger and spreading that to the population, thereby creating polarization and increasingly interesting presidential races. news as it comes...
Troublespots
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/opinion/22BROO.html
Oh, Kerry. If we are to get you in the White House, you gotta listen to some advice. Brooks has a point here, with a comparison with Clinton, pre-Lewinsky. "[Clinton] understood that if Democrats are not seen as religious, they will be seen as secular Ivy League liberals, and they will lose. John Kerry doesn't seem to get this. Many of the people running the Democratic Party don't get it either. A recent Time magazine survey revealed that only 7 percent of Americans feel that Kerry is a man of strong religious faith. That's a catastrophic number." In these times of darkness, we need somebody with some faith to lead us out into the light. Not a savior, but someone who can pass off as one - yes, people are easily herded. But whatever it takes to win the vote? Please convert, Kerry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5109-2004Jun25.html
VP Cheney tells Sen. Leahy to fuck off on Senate floor. (Also, the Washington Post prints the word, flat out. Awesome.) This after they first argued on Halliburton accusations, then Republican accusations of Democrats being anti-Catholic by supporting abortion. Good thing Senate wasn't in session, otherwise wed have a VP held in contempt - or, we could also just not have heard about it, and it would have been hushed up. Executive privilege. Oh, and this too: "As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate passed legislation described as the "Defense of Decency Act" by 99 to 1."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/opinion/22KRUG.html
Paul Krugman calls Ashcroft the worst attorney general ever. He may be right, but time will tell. What I know is, I am outraged by many of his actions and comments. Krugman cites Ashcroft's praising of "Southern patriots" like Jefferson Davis, and his blanket silence about the rednecks caught with terrorist equipment - but these are domestic terrors, by Americans, and so shouldn't be announced so we don't get distracted from the real terrorists out there, the A-rabs? What's with this guy? He really does look like he's pushing white supremacy. Funny how he looks for terrorists everywhere but prohibits anyone from looking into background checks on gun purchasers. Furthermore, he put into law a directive that said that these records of background checks be destroyed after one business day. What's the purpose of having these records anyway? And who is he protecting with this unnecessary judicial crap? Why the official prohibition? Krugman also laughts at Ashcroft's concern for our privacy. He did OK the world's largest communications spying system, called Carnivore or whatever it was, I forget, and this too. "After all, a few months ago he took the unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have had late-term abortions." Why? So he can prosecute those women? Or send the lists to some nut, who will "prosecute" for him? Questions everywhere, and ne'er an answer in sight.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102722/
Vicious beer commericals mimic political ads. No way! Yes way. "King of Beers" from Budweiser, poked fun at by Miller's "President of Beers." What America needs is a President, not a King... so Bud responds with Miller as "Queen of Carbs." Ooh, just like Bush and Kerry.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/19032/
The administration shirks responsibility by releasing only selected documents from those requested, pertaining to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Many of these are already available on the Internet and in the public domain. Furthermore, the administration repudiates a memo written in 2002 by former assistant attorney general Bybee, who received a lifetime appointment on the federal appellate court for basically saying that acts that don't cause organ failure don't constitute torture.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=zunes
The Case Against War. This is an old document, but it's been proven correct on many points. It is still true that we have not found any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda (bin Laden, according to Humes, offered to raise a mujahedeen army to liberate Kuwait from Iraq). Containment has failed, no matter how much we try to make it appear so. Yes, Saddam is captured and everywhere broken, but how are American soldiers still getting attacked by bombs and missiles at every point, and the Green Zone isn't as safe as it's reputed to be? No WMD's. No real need for inspectors now. But we have earned the distrust of the Arab world, and ever-increasing virulence in their messages of hate. I must include this next cited paragraph, as it is important.
"If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade states that are similarly in violation; for example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey and Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco. The US insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the UN and, in doing so, would open the door to international anarchy. International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that a member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." If Iraq's neighbors were attacked, any of these countries could call on the United States to help, pending a Security Council decision authorizing the use of force. Based on evidence that the Bush Administration has made public, there doesn't appear to be anything close to sufficient legal grounds for the United States to convince the Security Council to approve the use of military force against Iraq in US self-defense."
|