I don't watch TV news much, usually I rely on print media and radio news. But today I felt like crap and was laying on the couch at about 6:30 so I turned on the network news.
The thing that struck me, is how little information from TV news, they spend all their time trying to get you excited about something. They never seem to get to the point, or give you any context to understand what they are talking about.
The entertainment factor of TV news is absurd. You can tell that the news is created by the entertainment industry, unlike radio news or print.
The only TV News worth anything is the Jim Lehrer news hour at 6:30 on PBS.
TV news is a disaster for democracy and civic discussion.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
09/07/2006 23:55 #21744
the thing about TV NewsCategory: news
08/30/2006 20:45 #21741
Elmwood Arts Festival RocksCategory: life
Just gotta say that I truly enjoy the Elmwood Art Festival. What a great showcase of the Buffalo art community, and a great celebration of our neighborhood. I'm so glad that 70% of the artists are local, and that there is a place for nonprofits, activists, environmentalists, and children. Oh and Music too, it's such a basic concept that I almost forgot to mention it.
Allentown Art Festival has none of those things. I'm not saying I don't like the Allentown Art Festival, but I'm not sad that I missed it this year. I'd like to go the the Music is Art festival next year that happens during the Allentown festival.
But anyway, I attended the Elmwood festival on Saturday and Sunday this year, it was great, Molly and I bought pottery on Saturday before I went to work, then Sunday we had lunch with mom, and she bought some pottery.
The artists were all very talented, I noticed 4 painters that had very creative stuff, I give them a lot of credit. The pottery was great too, 3-4 potters really stood out. Some really good photography too. Some great jewelry as well, sometimes makes me wish I could wear all that stuff.
Sorry I didn't take any pictures, we brought molly's camera but never took it out. Here are some photos from Tyler
And here is our fancy pottery, we were looking for a nice snack bowl to use next time we have a get-together at our apartment. And we also bought a sweet coffee cup, it was too good to pass up, especially for $10, we almost bought 2 cause there were so many good ones, and they were the perfect size. We bought both pieces from the same guy, his stuff was the best. He's just a retired artist, you can see that he put some heart into each piece. He had really interesting techniques for using glaze. Anyway here's a plain picture molly took of our fancy goods.
Allentown Art Festival has none of those things. I'm not saying I don't like the Allentown Art Festival, but I'm not sad that I missed it this year. I'd like to go the the Music is Art festival next year that happens during the Allentown festival.
But anyway, I attended the Elmwood festival on Saturday and Sunday this year, it was great, Molly and I bought pottery on Saturday before I went to work, then Sunday we had lunch with mom, and she bought some pottery.
The artists were all very talented, I noticed 4 painters that had very creative stuff, I give them a lot of credit. The pottery was great too, 3-4 potters really stood out. Some really good photography too. Some great jewelry as well, sometimes makes me wish I could wear all that stuff.
Sorry I didn't take any pictures, we brought molly's camera but never took it out. Here are some photos from Tyler
And here is our fancy pottery, we were looking for a nice snack bowl to use next time we have a get-together at our apartment. And we also bought a sweet coffee cup, it was too good to pass up, especially for $10, we almost bought 2 cause there were so many good ones, and they were the perfect size. We bought both pieces from the same guy, his stuff was the best. He's just a retired artist, you can see that he put some heart into each piece. He had really interesting techniques for using glaze. Anyway here's a plain picture molly took of our fancy goods.
joshua - 08/30/06 21:56
Actually that is a damn fine coffee mug. I bought a mounted EFA poster for $20, but I didn't wander around at all, except across the street to get some of those warm cinnamon pecans.
I've always felt that the stuff for sale at these fests are overpriced and knick-knacky. Seriously, a 4"x4" tile with paint on it for $55? You sir, however, did fine it looks like. Maybe next year I'll take a closer look.
Actually that is a damn fine coffee mug. I bought a mounted EFA poster for $20, but I didn't wander around at all, except across the street to get some of those warm cinnamon pecans.
I've always felt that the stuff for sale at these fests are overpriced and knick-knacky. Seriously, a 4"x4" tile with paint on it for $55? You sir, however, did fine it looks like. Maybe next year I'll take a closer look.
imk2 - 08/30/06 21:18
if you see her, could you tell her yvonne from library school said hi and tell her to join the site!
if you see her, could you tell her yvonne from library school said hi and tell her to join the site!
imk2 - 08/30/06 21:16
hey, how do you know tyler love?
hey, how do you know tyler love?
09/04/2006 00:02 #21743
Bad NewsCategory: politics
Just in case the Mainstream media doesn't report this story, I'm posting it here for the record. This is bad news. We already know that the millitary situation in Iraq is getting worse, now here is a distinctive sign that the political situation is in trouble as well.
From the Telegraph UK
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 9/3/2006)
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.
The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.
However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.
Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.
Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."
He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."
A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.
Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.
"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."
According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.
"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."
Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."
Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.
"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.
From the Telegraph UK
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 9/3/2006)
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.
The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.
However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.
Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.
Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."
He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."
A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.
Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.
"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."
According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.
"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."
Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."
Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.
"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.
libertad - 09/06/06 17:51
From what I can see you have never remotely suggested (e:joshua) that the war in Iraq was the wrong thing, or that it was failing. We have not bothered to ask your position on the war, because you have in the past clearly spelled out your position. Here is an example from your own words: :::link:::
"THE PROBLEM, Chrissy? Take a bow sir. You've now exposed yourself to the suggestion that you are willing to allow Iraq go down in flames as long as Democrats can gain politically from it in an election year. Any of you people who think that Democrats are going to somehow be smelling roses in November are kidding yourselves when the most prominent among you are begging, pleading and praying for our action in the Middle East to fail. That suuuure is going to be buying you votes, baby! P.S. I'm already deep in your squishy grey matter between your ears, lefties. Iraq is not a failure and won't be unless we do what you want, which is to give up. Of course, there is no meaningful public support for a pullout so you just might have to find a "sympathetic" judge to rule in your favor somehow suggesting that war is unconstitutional!"
Would this not be considered flip flopping? Are you pulling a John Kerry? Where have you ever said that you disagreed with the war in Iraq? The only thing you have done is tried to prove how those who are against war have only interferred with the peace process. Regardless of who is flip flopping here, many of us have held on to our beliefs over time rather than just toss them to the wind. I ask you again (e:joshua), where have you ever once said that the war in Iraq was the wrong choice?
From what I can see you have never remotely suggested (e:joshua) that the war in Iraq was the wrong thing, or that it was failing. We have not bothered to ask your position on the war, because you have in the past clearly spelled out your position. Here is an example from your own words: :::link:::
"THE PROBLEM, Chrissy? Take a bow sir. You've now exposed yourself to the suggestion that you are willing to allow Iraq go down in flames as long as Democrats can gain politically from it in an election year. Any of you people who think that Democrats are going to somehow be smelling roses in November are kidding yourselves when the most prominent among you are begging, pleading and praying for our action in the Middle East to fail. That suuuure is going to be buying you votes, baby! P.S. I'm already deep in your squishy grey matter between your ears, lefties. Iraq is not a failure and won't be unless we do what you want, which is to give up. Of course, there is no meaningful public support for a pullout so you just might have to find a "sympathetic" judge to rule in your favor somehow suggesting that war is unconstitutional!"
Would this not be considered flip flopping? Are you pulling a John Kerry? Where have you ever said that you disagreed with the war in Iraq? The only thing you have done is tried to prove how those who are against war have only interferred with the peace process. Regardless of who is flip flopping here, many of us have held on to our beliefs over time rather than just toss them to the wind. I ask you again (e:joshua), where have you ever once said that the war in Iraq was the wrong choice?
joshua - 09/04/06 11:06
I've always felt that the most important miscalulation the government made regarding this war was that there would be a viable political solution for the various tribes and different religious sects of Islam within Iraq. I have never believed that setting up a government as we have would work there, considering their seemingly insolvable sectarian differences. It would be like making the Catholics and Protestants get along in Ireland at the height of their differences - bad blood doesn't go away just because a coalition government was formed. Previous to Saddam going bye-bye, his Sunni minority and their oppression of the Shia over 30 years made it even worse. The whole time the Shia were saying, "Don't worry, trust us - we'll set up this government so that the Sunnis won't get unjust treatment." I called bullshit then and so should have the U.S. government. They should have know that there was going to be fighting - the Sunnis lost Saddam's benevolence and want it back, and the Shias are bitter about being mistreated and misrepresented despite being the majority. If they wanted to go into Iraq so badly, they should have thought about this and done their homework before dismantling their political structure.
Actually I have alot of problems with the Iraq war but nobody has ever asked me about it. It might come as a surprise to you that although I'm not one of these kooks who believe that this was a big conspiracy to overthrow Saddam for the hell of it, and that they *purposefully* misled the public about the WMDs, etc. - I've always thought that their logic and reasoning were wafer thin and faulty. I thought Dick Cheney was blowing smoke up our butt when he said that we'd be greeted as liberators - undoubtedly for some its true, but for others as we can see it certainly isn't true.
I've always felt that the most important miscalulation the government made regarding this war was that there would be a viable political solution for the various tribes and different religious sects of Islam within Iraq. I have never believed that setting up a government as we have would work there, considering their seemingly insolvable sectarian differences. It would be like making the Catholics and Protestants get along in Ireland at the height of their differences - bad blood doesn't go away just because a coalition government was formed. Previous to Saddam going bye-bye, his Sunni minority and their oppression of the Shia over 30 years made it even worse. The whole time the Shia were saying, "Don't worry, trust us - we'll set up this government so that the Sunnis won't get unjust treatment." I called bullshit then and so should have the U.S. government. They should have know that there was going to be fighting - the Sunnis lost Saddam's benevolence and want it back, and the Shias are bitter about being mistreated and misrepresented despite being the majority. If they wanted to go into Iraq so badly, they should have thought about this and done their homework before dismantling their political structure.
Actually I have alot of problems with the Iraq war but nobody has ever asked me about it. It might come as a surprise to you that although I'm not one of these kooks who believe that this was a big conspiracy to overthrow Saddam for the hell of it, and that they *purposefully* misled the public about the WMDs, etc. - I've always thought that their logic and reasoning were wafer thin and faulty. I thought Dick Cheney was blowing smoke up our butt when he said that we'd be greeted as liberators - undoubtedly for some its true, but for others as we can see it certainly isn't true.
libertad - 09/04/06 00:24
that was a very good article. thanks for posting it. Love the kitties below too!
that was a very good article. thanks for posting it. Love the kitties below too!
08/31/2006 22:12 #21742
The Cutest thing you've ever seenCategory: life
What do you think? Just might be the cutest thing ever.
My neighbor had kittens. 6 total. all different colors. they're about 2 weeks old, just opening their eyes.
Way too cute
you can see them larger at flickr, along with two other photos.
My neighbor had kittens. 6 total. all different colors. they're about 2 weeks old, just opening their eyes.
Way too cute
you can see them larger at flickr, along with two other photos.
jason - 09/01/06 00:29
Aww sweet! Look at those lil buggers!
Aww sweet! Look at those lil buggers!
08/18/2006 13:07 #21740
Lieberman, Lamont, and the primaryCategory: politics
Really, this Joe Lieberman stuff blows my mind. Read (e:joshua,177)
We need a vibrant primary system for our form of democracy to work. Finally we have a primary that energizes people and the looser walks away like a spoiled brat with too many campaign contributions. Lieberman has no cause, his platform is routine election rhetoric. He is simply running because too many special interests have invested money in him.
Why are so many republicans applauding Lieberman? Do they think we need two identical political parties, and a democracy that never disagrees about anything? 60% of Americans think that we need a speedy conclusion to the Iraq War, but somehow the right thing to do is to exclude their opinion from Washington. That is anti-democratic, un-American lunacy.
Primaries are key to the American democratic system. In this country, before TV, primaries were as important as the general election. The vast majority of voters participated in both the primary and the main election. That's the only thing that makes this country's winner take all, plurality election system actually work.
In the general election we can't have 3 candidates, because one of them could be a "spoiler". There is the possibility that an unpopular candidate will win the election with only 38% of the vote. Simply because in a 3 way race the more popular candidate, that would have beaten the others in a 1 on 1 race, can loose the election by having their votes "stolen" by the third candidate. Vibrant primary elections are essential to this type of voting system, because having just 2 candidates to choose from each year just isn't enough.
There are more than 2 types of people in this country. Our winner take all system has failed the people of America, which is why only half of us actually vote. Half of the people in this country stay home because we don't have a candidate that motivates them to get off the couch. Ned Lamont succeeded because he got people off the couch, and the Democratic Party could learn a lot from his strategy.
Instead of competing for a few Republican votes, Democrats need to get more voters off the couch by speaking to their interests. Many people in this country are ignored and disenchanted with the system, but they would vote if anyone actually spoke to their cause.
How can Ned Lamont be a "far left, wacko fringe candidate" when 60% of the country agrees that we should withdraw from Iraq? That is a huge group of voters that agree with him, and we need their perspective to be heard in Washington. What if Ned Lamont wins, do you think we're going to suddenly leave Iraq? No of course not, it just means that we will have a new and essential perspective in Washington.
When we talk about the war, and approving $87 billion for Iraq we will have to reconcile our differences as a nation. We need ALL the varying perspectives in America to participate in this debate, that's democracy. It's the reasonable discussion and reconciliation of different opinions. These discussions need to happen in Washington, if someone is wrong they will be proven wrong during a debate on policy. People agree with Ned Lamont, and their perspective must be heard. All perspectives should be heard, and through the virtue of intelligent discussion the correct answer to our problems will be found.
What's the alternative, having 2 parties that agree about most things before the debate even begins? And what about 30%-60%-80% of people that don't have their voices heard? Twisted logic states that by leaving them out we are doing the right thing for our democracy. Oh maybe in a post 9-11 world we don't want democracy. That's it, we'll be safer and better off without democracy.
This is the first time in many years that the primary system has worked. Usually only 10%-20% of eligible voters even bother with the primaries, this time there was a 40% turnout, double the usual. Primaries tend to be uneventful because the incumbent has so much money and name recognition that they are very difficult to beat. Not this time, the incumbent was so unpopular that the voters kicked him out. That's democratic justice, it's the foundation of our country.
A true patriot does not sacrifice the democratic bedrock of this country, just to promote their own opinion. Joe Lieberman looks like a spoiled brat.
We need a vibrant primary system for our form of democracy to work. Finally we have a primary that energizes people and the looser walks away like a spoiled brat with too many campaign contributions. Lieberman has no cause, his platform is routine election rhetoric.
He is simply running because too many special interests have invested money in him. Why are so many republicans applauding Lieberman? Do they think we need two identical political parties, and a democracy that never disagrees about anything? 60% of Americans think that we need a speedy conclusion to the Iraq War, but somehow the right thing to do is to exclude their opinion from Washington. That is anti-democratic, un-American lunacy.
Primaries are key to the American democratic system. In this country, before TV, primaries were as important as the general election. The vast majority of voters participated in both the primary and the main election. That's the only thing that makes this country's winner take all, plurality election system actually work.
In the general election we can't have 3 candidates, because one of them could be a "spoiler". There is the possibility that an unpopular candidate will win the election with only 38% of the vote. Simply because in a 3 way race the more popular candidate, that would have beaten the others in a 1 on 1 race, can loose the election by having their votes "stolen" by the third candidate. Vibrant primary elections are essential to this type of voting system, because having just 2 candidates to choose from each year just isn't enough.
There are more than 2 types of people in this country. Our winner take all system has failed the people of America, which is why only half of us actually vote. Half of the people in this country stay home because we don't have a candidate that motivates them to get off the couch. Ned Lamont succeeded because he got people off the couch, and the Democratic Party could learn a lot from his strategy.
Instead of competing for a few Republican votes, Democrats need to get more voters off the couch by speaking to their interests. Many people in this country are ignored and disenchanted with the system, but they would vote if anyone actually spoke to their cause.
How can Ned Lamont be a "far left, wacko fringe candidate" when 60% of the country agrees that we should withdraw from Iraq? That is a huge group of voters that agree with him, and we need their perspective to be heard in Washington. What if Ned Lamont wins, do you think we're going to suddenly leave Iraq? No of course not, it just means that we will have a new and essential perspective in Washington.
When we talk about the war, and approving $87 billion for Iraq we will have to reconcile our differences as a nation. We need ALL the varying perspectives in America to participate in this debate, that's democracy. It's the reasonable discussion and reconciliation of different opinions. These discussions need to happen in Washington, if someone is wrong they will be proven wrong during a debate on policy. People agree with Ned Lamont, and their perspective must be heard. All perspectives should be heard, and through the virtue of intelligent discussion the correct answer to our problems will be found.
What's the alternative, having 2 parties that agree about most things before the debate even begins? And what about 30%-60%-80% of people that don't have their voices heard? Twisted logic states that by leaving them out we are doing the right thing for our democracy. Oh maybe in a post 9-11 world we don't want democracy. That's it, we'll be safer and better off without democracy.
This is the first time in many years that the primary system has worked. Usually only 10%-20% of eligible voters even bother with the primaries, this time there was a 40% turnout, double the usual. Primaries tend to be uneventful because the incumbent has so much money and name recognition that they are very difficult to beat. Not this time, the incumbent was so unpopular that the voters kicked him out. That's democratic justice, it's the foundation of our country.
A true patriot does not sacrifice the democratic bedrock of this country, just to promote their own opinion. Joe Lieberman looks like a spoiled brat.
jason - 08/20/06 16:29
I see it this way - if it is not against the rules for him to run, and if he has a viable campaign, and if he wants the job, then I don't have a problem with him running.
I'm sure the anti-war folks would love for the race to be between a non-entity Republican and Ned Lamont, because it would be viewed as a crushing defeat for Republicans after the inevitable landslide victory for Lamont. Essentially without Lieberman there is only one real choice.
I think people are very pissed off that he doesn't treat Republicans like lepers. People like him are a dying breed, and this is wonderful for others who thrive on partisan hackery.
Why didn't the culling start with unprincipled bastards who voted for the war, and then made ridiculous excuses for themselves later? Why aren't they being taken to task? Lieberman and Feingold are basically the only ones I feel weren't absolute BS artists.
What this race does show all of us is that WE have more power than we give ourselves credit for. Grassroots campaigning is the future.
I see it this way - if it is not against the rules for him to run, and if he has a viable campaign, and if he wants the job, then I don't have a problem with him running.
I'm sure the anti-war folks would love for the race to be between a non-entity Republican and Ned Lamont, because it would be viewed as a crushing defeat for Republicans after the inevitable landslide victory for Lamont. Essentially without Lieberman there is only one real choice.
I think people are very pissed off that he doesn't treat Republicans like lepers. People like him are a dying breed, and this is wonderful for others who thrive on partisan hackery.
Why didn't the culling start with unprincipled bastards who voted for the war, and then made ridiculous excuses for themselves later? Why aren't they being taken to task? Lieberman and Feingold are basically the only ones I feel weren't absolute BS artists.
What this race does show all of us is that WE have more power than we give ourselves credit for. Grassroots campaigning is the future.
The Daily Show is a comedy show. It is NOT a news show - its a fake one where Jon Stewart feigns some kind of underlying meaning. The problem with this strategy is that you cannot remain credible if on one hand you want to be known as a comedy show, and on the other hand you want people to take what you say seriously. This is why its particularly alarming that anybody would actually get their news from Comedy Central. Daily Show ranks lower than FNC, CNN and all the rest by default simply because of its farcical nature.
Colbert is a lot funnier! At least for my tastes, I should say.
Anyhow, yes TV news is failing us horribly. Where are the REAL media watchdogs?
I prefer The Daily Show. :-D
Its edutainment. Nothing particularly enlightening goes on during TV news broadcasts... its such a competitive industry that the focus is on keeping you tuned in rather than giving you what you need. Everyone should keep that in mind when watching TV news.
I actually agree with you about Jim Lehrer's show though. Its mind numbingly dry, and the ratings reflect that, but his is not a bad show.