Showing posts with label fearmongering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fearmongering. Show all posts

9/9/10

Won't anybody think about the children?



Via NPR,

Based on surveys Barnes collected, the top five worries of parents are, in order:
• Kidnapping
• School snipers
• Terrorists
• Dangerous strangers
• Drugs

Terrorists? Snipers? Really? What the hell is wrong with this country?

But how do children really get hurt or killed?
• Car accidents
• Homicide (usually committed by a person who knows the child, not a stranger)
• Abuse
• Suicide
• Drowning

Car accidents are definitely my biggest fear, so I guess I'm… realistic? That's depressing. 

9/22/08

And so it comes to this!


Was going to post something about Apple's treatment of the iPhone app store to take a break from politics, but when I went to John Gruber's site for some of the source material, he was actually posting about politics... perhaps to take a break from posting about Apple.
Newt Gingrich, on the Bush administration’s “hurry up and immediately approve a $700 billion bailout” push, and the Democratic congress’s apparent willingness to go along with it:
Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.

And so we’ve now reached the point where I’m in full agreement with Newt Gingrich on the most pressing political debate of the day.

and
Senator Bernie Sanders:
For years now, they’ve told us that we can’t afford — that the government providing healthcare to all people is just unimaginable; it can’t be done. We don’t have the money to rebuild our infrastructure. We don’t have the money to wipe out poverty. We can’t do it. But all of a sudden, yeah, we do have $700 billion for a bailout of Wall Street.

In just one week.

3/7/08

This began as a comment ... really!

This is in response to Tyson's comment to my comment under DR's post "Think of this as a comment..."

I'll provide the best sourcing that my at work net-surfing allows. But first, my point in general ...

I'm willing to write off any one of the issues I mentioned as some crazy staffer, except the "as far as I know" that came straight from the candidate's mouth (more on this one below). But if enough crazy staffers do enough offensive things close enough to a "do or die" primary date, then I think it becomes legitimate to question whether or not the campaign itself is creating an atmosphere that encourages questionable practices. For instance, I don't think any senior commanders at Abu Ghraib officially sanctioned any of the more egregious abuses that went on there. However, they created an atmosphere that allowed their subordinates to think that such action could be engaged in with impunity.

I'm not sure which photo circulation you are referring to as "hearsay" ("a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." (source) I'm not really sure how that applies to a photo being circulated, but I believe the classic lawyer response to that objection is that it is offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, rather to illustrate a pattern of behavior). The photo of Obama in Somali garb (not Kenyan as I mistakenly said in my previous comments) was definitely circulated to many sources, not just the Drudge Report. (Who knew that so many Kenyans read the Drudge Report?) That is not the question, the questions are: who did it, and was it "officially" sanctioned. We'll likely never know and probably not. But what's offensive about being in Kenya, dressed in Somali garb? Nothing, at least to 80% of those voting in the Ohio Democratic primary. But I bet if you asked the other 20%, they might have a different answer. (Or, maybe not. The guy in the 60 Minutes interview linked below was leaning towards Obama in spite of the fact that Obama doesn't know the national anthem and is a closet Muslim. Maybe there's hope that America is ready for a non-patriotic heathen in the White House after all!)

As for the darkening of skin tone in a TV ad (not a mailer as I previously stated), perhaps it was done as part of a normal “saturation-desaturation” process typical in commercial production as the Clinton spokesperson Jay Carson posited (It's plausible, it appears everything is darker, from eyebrows and hair down to suit jacket and tie). However, you'd think the Clinton campaign would not be ignorant of the O.J. Simpson/Willie Horton baggage that is associated with darkening skin tone for effect. Maybe they are. Anyway, judge for yourself. Here's the ad and here's the original debate footage.

"... as far as I know" -- I couldn't find the 60 Minutes interview as it aired, but I was watching it live and about spit my drink out when I heard her add it. Why add it? Why not just say, "There is no truth to it and I denounce and reject those that spread this rumor." Especially considering her debate moment where she insisted Obama not just denounce, but also reject Farrakhan's "endorsement."

Regarding, "I don't think it was Obama's campaign policy to station people at my caucus precinct to swipe the vote sheet from my hand before my rolls could be tallied, but it did happen." I've heard similar reports and "as far as I know" there is no reason to doubt them. :) If true, that's pretty crappy. I'm a little curious about what "vote sheet" you refer to. Were you one of the party volunteers running the convention? The only people with "vote sheets" at my convention location were the people running the the thing. And they only let me have the "vote sheet" long enough to sign my name, address, phone number, email address, candidate choice, and whether or not I wanted to be considered to be a delegate. Anyway, there was no such malfeasance at my polling station. In fact, I had a very pleasant conversation with a group of Hillary supporters for about a half hour while standing in line. We both wanted John Edwards somewhere on the ticket. Anyway, I'm pretty sure someone would've been punched in the face if my vote sheet was swiped from my hand before I was done with it.

Next we can talk about the 3am "Daisy-Lite" ad or Hillary's repeated statements that she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in Chief, but not Obama. Since when did praising your Republican rival at the expense of your fellow Democrat become a good idea for beating the Republicans in November?

1/7/08

Why I sometimes find Hillary distasteful

It's because she says things like this, channeling Dick Cheney:
“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

link
eXTReMe Tracker