One Last Thing About CNN's Nevada Debate

I seriously do not understand how the traditional media gets to spin their circus show debate any which way they please. Everyone with a mic and a camera are saying that Hillary won the debate, especially CNN. At least the chief MSNBC political hack Chris Matthews had a couple of progressive viewpoints told on his show that refute the unconventional wisdom.

From Crooks and Liars:

Download (125) | Play (140) Download (136) | Play (71) (h/t Heather)

Tweety had progressive radio giants Mark Green and Ed Schultz on to talk about Hillary’s big win at the debate in Las Vegas Thursday night and apparently Schultz didn’t get the memo.

Schultz: “I think all this postmortem of this debate about how wonderful Hillary is a bridge too far. I think it’s a sad day when a candidate has to start saying well its mud-slinging if you point out what my voting record is.” … “CNN, and especially Wolf, I think they were bending over for Hillary big-time last night.”

Ed also went on to make several other good points too that went against what’s become conventional wisdom regarding who “won” the debate. I’m not saying Hillary did poorly, because it surely was an improvement over her last debate in Philly and clearly she owned the audience all night who were quick to come to her defense to boo Edwards and Obama when each tried to attack her record, but she had a lot of help from CNN too. Not only was the network completely unfair in the amount of time they gave to most of the other candidates, they also were caught planting a softball question from the audience specifically for her to end the night that they had to admit to and then they followed that by having James Carville and David Gergen featured on their post-debate show, both of whom had previously held positions in her husband’s administration and Carville is currently listed as an “informal advisor” to her campaign. That’s quite a coup for any campaign to pull off and should be cause for anyone to re-evaluate the entire evening. Quite frankly, if Hillary won the debate, then any record of the win deserves an asterisk beside it.

So I’m wondering. Who do you think won the debate?

I personally think we all lost. No one really won the debate, because it wasn't a debate. Our democracy is being pulled asunder by the cable news networks so that they can create a narrative that sells their "product." Hillary may have won some points in the horse race, but that is exactly what it is, a horse race. This is not a public forum where voters can choose a candidate based on real issues.

Someone Wants A Cabinet Position

Yeah, Joe is right about a lot of things. He's a little off on others. Nevertheless, he doesn't have a shot in hell, so this must be a shout out to the front runners to pick him for something nice, like Secretary of Defense, State, etc. Maybe he even wants to be Vice President, though I don't even think that is very likely. Though his credit card company friends would love it.

If You Still Have Sympathy For The MTA, You'll Lose It Now

Thanks to local station CBS 2, it is now known that thousands (24,000 to be exact) of bureaucrats have been given lifetime passes to use the bridges and tunnels in New York. While the MTA claims they are strapped for cash and must raise the fares for hard-working New Yorkers, board members don't even bother to show up for public meetings. Now that this information is public, some are calling for heads to roll.

From WCBS-TV:

It's an appalling investigation that led David Moretti, the head of the MTA's Bridge and Tunnel division to avoid being questioned by CBS 2 HD. Moretti was so anxious to get away from CBS 2 HD cameras, in fact, that he hid in a classroom for 45 minutes before a scheduled MTA fare hike hearing.

What was he hiding from? He's running from questions about free rides.

At a time when the agency wants to raise fares, it's giving free orange EZ passes to nearly 24,000 people to get across the MTA's nine bridges and tunnels.

That's 3.3 million trips.

"It's outrageous. It makes me completely angry," says Jana Glowatz of East Meadow.

Councilman Michael McMahon, D-Staten Island, testified passionately against the fare hike. He was stunned to learn of the free pass scheme.

"That's the most outrageous thing I've ever heard, and if it's true, whoever's doing it should go to jail," he said.

Moretti better hide. Millions of New Yorkers would love to get the chance to talk face to face with him for a few minutes....each. Not only do some of these people have the free EZpasses, several have multiple boxes for their cars. Former board members Kalikow and Nasti have eight and four passes respectively. Not surprisingly, both claim that they are the sole users of those twelve passes.

Do you believe them? I didn't think so.

Maybe We Are The Problem In Iraq

My title may be a little misleading, everyone already knows that we caused the problems in Iraq. Yet there are still conservatives and moderates out there that believe we must stay to fix the mess we created. I often shake my head at these people and try to explain why that will not happen. People want to rule themselves, angry at the occupier for killing their relatives, easier PR for al-Qaeda, etc etc. Even though I try to exhibit common sense here, I have never stepped foot in Iraq and the closest I got was the Dead Sea (western side). However, writer Brandon Friedman knows what he's talking about, he's been there.

From DailyKos:

The thing you have to understand about an occupation like the one in Iraq, is that much of the violence results from the unrest that occurs when people have no sense of a permanent presence of authority. At the risk of going completely unscientific here, it’s like a class that won’t behave for a substitute teacher. The people have no need to please or respect the occupier, because they know that ultimately, that occupier will give way to a more long-term power.

In such a situation—where there is no sense of permanent authority—dozens and dozens of groups vie for power. They all want to end up being that more long-term power. And their agendas are varied—as are their methods for causing trouble. I described it this way when I returned from the middle of the Iraqi insurgency:

There are a few fighters who have a real political agenda for killing both the invaders and those who would build a new government; there are a few foreign zealots, a few religious zealots, a few more foreign religious zealots, and then there are the rest of them—the overwhelming majority of whom are young, impressionable, male, unemployed, bored, and pissed about, among other things, the fact that their uncle was killed in an air strike or their cousin was killed at a traffic control point for not stopping soon enough. Without this last group there would be no insurgency.
::
And with these types of insurgencies, the longer you stay there the worse it gets. On a long enough timeline, an occupying force will eventually piss off everyone. That’s just what happens, even when you come with the best of intentions.

When I wrote that, I failed to include the category of common criminal gangs and thugs—the other major problem in Iraq.

So what happens you don't stay around. America still has the "surge" in Iraq nearly a year later. Oh wait, Britain is pulling their forces out of the Basra area. Would the port city fall deeper into chaos and a bloody civil war? Would the "White Man's Burden" complex fall upon us and force our troops to rush in and protect them?

Or maybe something completely crazy would happen. Perhaps the violence there would fall by NINETY percent. Imagine that, oh wait, anyone could have seen it had they looked at the geopolitical reality on the ground there. As the International Herald Tribune pointed out in their article, it made complete sense to the British on the ground there, as it did for Friedman who spent time in Iraq as well. Thank god I didn't have to go there to get it too.

Diamonds, Pearls And CNN's Manipulations

This is one of the serious questions that CNN had Maria Luisa ask Senator Clinton. How embarrassing for the network when it turned out that they forced her to use that instead of the original pre-approved question that she had come up with by herself.

The Climate Is Changing Faster Than You Think

Last month in my piece about Rob Marciano ridiculing Al Gore, a couple of commenters spouted their mistrust of Al and their insistence on still thinking that climate change is debatable. Of course as I pointed out in that comment section, neither backs up their statements with any proof, just a ton of rhetoric. People like them, deniers such as Senator Inhofe continue to dismiss the reality facing the planet (and those that live on it). Though they are right about one thing, it isn't as bad as Al says, its worse.

From The Courier Mail:

The report, prepared by Dr Graeme Pearman, former head of the CSIRO's atmospheric research unit, found temperatures and greenhouse pollution were rising faster than forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report, prepared for the Climate Institute, noted that the IPCC's recent Fourth Assessment Report used material published up to mid-2006, but many important new observations had been published since.

"These suggest that the IPCC assessment is underestimating the risks of adverse impacts due to increased warming during this century and that impacts previously considered to be at the upper end of likelihood are now more probable," the report reads.

I wonder if that makes them happy? At least they can say with some sort of credibility that Al was wrong. Of course, it is just a shame for all of us that are going to have to live with the problems that climate change will present.

The Pigeons Strike/Poop Back

Another day and the pigeon story develops a new wing. Did you know that if you counted pigeons in the census New York would have over nine million residents (One could only imagine if you put rats and mice in there as well)? With such a strong presence in New York City, it was only a matter of time before pigeons would speak up against the City Council's attack on the rats with wings birds. Ok well maybe not the pigeons themselves, since they only make that incessant cooing noise. There are people however who are turning out and spreading their own wings in this new political debate.

From The New York Times:

About a dozen or so of the city’s leading pigeon advocates gathered for an emergency meeting Wednesday night on the second floor of a Starbucks on the Upper East Side to plan a counteroffensive.

The meeting was called by Anna Dove, founder and president of the New York Bird Club, which claims 60 members and is one of the two leading pigeon-rights groups in the city. Ms. Dove legally changed her last name from Kugelmas in honor of her dove Lucy. Also present was Al Streit, director of Pigeon People, a rescue and advocacy group that claims 200 members in its online discussion group. Representatives were also present from New York City Pigeon Rescue Center, Win Animal Rights and other organizations.

“Don’t people realize that this is an extraordinary bird?” asked Mary Beyerbach, a member of the New York Bird Club, who noted the heroics of a homing pigeon named Cher Ami — in French, meaning “dear friend.” Cher Ami was credited with saving 194 American lives in France during World War I, earning him the Croix de Guerre honor.

Now that is one piece of military history that I had forgotten about. Ms. Dove is right, the pigeon is no ordinary bird. That is 194 more American lives saved than George Bush could ever lay claim to (not including those he indirectly sent to their deaths in Iraq). However, the pigeon problem here is not one of whether these birds are patriots, its that they are taking over the city. Sometimes you need to deal with such issues, as you know Serendipity 3 will be when it comes to those cute furry mice.

A Noun, A Verb And September 11th

Not that important you say? It's the only thing Rudy runs on:

Markos Publishes...Not A Diary!

Literally hot off the presses and not in an orange format, Markos Moulitsas of the famed DailyKos has penned his first Newsweek article. This will be the first of many as he goes up against the infamous Karl Rove. "Kos" pulled no punches today (as he always does on the blog) and went after everyone on Iraq, Bush, the Democratic Senate and the House of Representatives. Markos knows that Americans aren't fools and he isn't buying the Congressional crap either.

From Newsweek:

For a party that won historic gains in 2006, the Democrats have proven surprisingly reluctant to deliver on their chief campaign promise: forcing George Bush and his Republican Party to change course on their disastrous war in Iraq.

Anti-war sentiment among the American people is now approaching 70 percent, but Congress has proved incapable of action. Twice now, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate have caved on Iraq funding bills, giving the unpopular Bush everything he has demanded. Now the Democrats are reportedly ready to tackle this Sisyphean task once again tomorrow, when they consider a fresh $50 billion for Bush's wars.

Nevada's Harry Reid claims the Senate bill will establish a December 2008 "goal" for the end of combat operations. If Bush vetoes, the Senate majority leader says, "then the president won't get his $50 billion." The words sound tough, but we've heard them before.

One thing I do miss are the links. These clickable words in the article are a traditional media tool that only show Newsweek's archives on the person or place mentioned. It is better than nothing I guess, but the links in the blogosphere are far superior.

Besides that, Markos hits hard in his introduction to Newsweek. He is holding Bush, Pelosi and Reid accountable for their actions. Especially so for Reid and Pelosi who vowed to change the tune of Congress. The only sound that has changed so far is one of Republican compliance to Democratic kowtowing. Our Democratic leaders have been pitiful thus far, and now they need to back up their tough talk with hard action.

Enough With These Damn Debates

I've complained before and I'll complain again about these faux debates that the networks host for candidates to come on to pomp and preen. Last time it was Tim Russert and MSNBC that got the blame for ridiculous questions, now its Wolf Blitzer and CNN. These people are all the same, its really revolting. To them it is about entertainment for entertainment's sake, not asking real questions to inform the voting public. It is people like Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert that help to undermine our democracy, slowly but surely.

Matthew Yglesias nails it:

As ever, it's really striking to observe the difference between the audience-generated questions and the journalist-generated questions. Wolf Blitzer's main interest is in asking questions designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver's licenses or "merit pay" for teachers that aren't really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice -- piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad.

The real people, by contrast, ask about problems in their lives. The mother of an individual ready reserve member wants to know about Iran policy. The mother of an active duty soldier wants to know about military pay versus pay for military contractors. An Arab-American wants to know about racial profiling. Then the candidates explain what they think about these issues.

The voters are curious and want to learn where the candidates stand. Blitzer doesn't care about informing the public about the issues -- he actually objects when candidates try to explain their views on broad immigration policy issues -- he's just interested in trying to embarrass the candidates.

Perhaps we can try a citizen's style debate. Let the candidates have at it on YouTube, maybe that kid who interviewed Mike Gravel in his dorm room wants a second shot at fame. Seriously anyone can do better than Wolf or Tim.

Sorta, Kinda, The Daily Show

Reporting live from the strike against the big studios....

The Prosecution Flees On Rev. Billy

This story isn't too surprising, but good news is always appreciated when it comes to the first amendment. Reverend Billy (a.k.a. Bill Talen) has been so outspoken in New York that the police here do not like to see such expressions of freedom. They provoked and arrested him for nothing, drawing up false charges and making criminals out of themselves (a crooked cop in New York? Never!). Instead of dropping it there, the city had the D.A. try to prosecute the Reverend, but apparently they could never get their act together.

From The Gothamist:

Hallelujah! Yesterday the judge presiding over the Reverend Billy case dropped the charges that claimed he harassed public officials. The Rev was arrested in June while reciting the First Amendment in Union Square during a Critical Mass ride which coincided with the protest of the proposed MOFTB rules.

Turns out the prosecutors didn't meet their deadline to file papers explaining the arrest and its justification. The Reverend's (whose real name is Bill Talen) lawyer, Earl Ward, said they likely let the deadline pass in order to end the case. The video from that day does a good job of showing that he was just reciting, you know, the amendment stating our rights to free speech and free assembly -- albeit in the vicinity of power-tripping police officers.

The NY Times reports that Civil Rights lawyer Norman Siegel "said the dismissal was not the end of the road for Reverend Billy. He said he would file a federal lawsuit against the city and the Police Department charging false arrest, malicious prosecution and violation of Mr. Talen’s free-speech rights." Did the NYPD really think they could send Reverend Billy to the Tombs and expect him to just roll over?

Time to teach the NYPD a lesson. If anyone can back up Reverend Billy, its Norman Siegel.