|
 Tuesday, June 10, 2003
'Whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction doesn't matter, because the rationale for the war changed,' suggested Republican pollster Frank Luntz. 'Americans like a good picture. And one photograph of an Iraqi child kissing a U.S. soldier is more powerful than two months of debate on the floor of Congress.'
Are they really so cynical as to believe that an Iraqi child kissing a soldier will overcome lying to the American people or sending US men over to be killed along with 1000s of civilians, purely for political gain? No, the American people would just need some really hard evidence that they were being lied to. The American people just do not want to believe that they could be led by crooks and charlatans. Nixon was only caught because there was hard evidence of his malfeasance. Even then I remember hearing people say he was railroaded out of office. The Bush group learned something very important during Iran-Contra. You can get away with anything if there is NEVER any hard evidence and you keep speaking the Big Lie. Make sure there is never a smoking gun. They almost got caught then but were saved by North. They will never make that mistake again. 4:42:21 PM 
|
|
|
Micah Sifry writes some very important things but he hits the nail on the head here. How can we believe, or make others believe, that we are poised to create a Golden Age of Democracy in the Middle East when our own leaders lie and twist the truth? The truth does matter. The ends do not justify the means. Might does not make right. 4:29:48 PM
|
|
|
There is certainly some disagreement about this supposed 'smoking gun'. The purpose of a smoking gun is to provide NO DOUBT. These trailers certainly do not satisfy that requirement and only provide proof to those who are desperate to find something. 4:25:43 PM
|
|
|
We are spending $14 million to investigate the events leading up to 9/11 while we spent over $50 million trying to indict Clinton. Which is money well spent? I'll bet that this investigation will be so non-partisan as to be unusable for making any relevant changes. Most government investigations are set up to prevent anything of real value to turn up. 4:17:16 PM
|
|
The Online Beat: Bill Moyers' Presidential Address. He's not a candidate, but Bill Moyers has set the standard for 2004 campaign speeches. [The Nation Weblogs]
William Jennings Bryan does not have the best reputation today, nor do progressives, but he could sure give a hell of a speech. Well, so can Bill Moyers. He gave a very rabble rousing speech at the Take Back America conference. I have been waiting to read the speech and it now available. Read it at Alternet. Will it be equivalent to the "Cross of Gold" speech by Bryan? Who knows about any speech that starts with a George Burns joke, moves into the 1950 Housewives Rebellion in Marshall, TX before segueing into politics. He is respectful of those that disagree with him and a realist with regard to politics. Here is one of my favorite paragraphs. Let me make it clear that I don't harbor any idealized notion of politics and democracy; I worked for Lyndon Johnson, remember? Nor do I romanticize 'the people.' You should read my mail ? or listen to the vitriol virtually spat at my answering machine. I understand what the politician meant who said of the Texas House of Representatives, 'If you think these guys are bad, you should see their constituents.' Moyers knows how to write and how to speak. He has a sense of history and gravity lacking in so many politicians today. He realizes that the big ideas do not get promulgated in a single election but percolate for years. If he wanted to, he could really shake up American politics. What he talks about cuts across political boundaries. I want him to do so much more but it will have to be his decision. One final quote, while discussing the views of early leaders such as Jefferson or Jackson:All these leaders were on record in favor of small government--but their opposition wasn't simply to government as such. It was to government's power to confer privilege on insiders; on the rich who were democracy's equivalent of the royal favorites of monarchist days. (It's what the FCC does today.) 1:00:43 PM
|
|
Thoughts from Day 1. People talk about reasons to have a weblog, how will you measure its success. I wanted to say You'll know when it works, you won't need numbers. You'll get an idea you wouldn't have otherwise gotten. A business contact. A bug report. An old friend finds you. You get a job. You hire someone. You get an answer to a question. These are the benefits of running a weblog. There are others, more surprising. I quit smoking -- I get support from people who read my weblog. Even better, I inspire a few others to stop smoking. It can be so gratifying (that is, inspiring gratitude).
People talk about elusive What Is A Weblog? question, and I clearly didn't do my job very well. I was supposed to answer that question. I wrote a paper (still have to finish and publish it) that tries to answer the question. [Scripting News]
He is absolutely right. Measuring the success of a blog is like measuring grains of sand. Each is unique, with a different shape and color. You'll know it when it works. Exactly right. 11:37:27 AM
|
|
Joi Ito points to a parody of A-List bloggers posted by Scoble, not written by Scoble. Joi is right, it's fun until you get to the parody of yourself.  [Scripting News]
I know my mom will like this. Talking to the converted can result in some insular thiking that parodies such as this help break. 11:07:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
