I'm sure you've all seen the cover of the latest "New Yorker." Of course a lot of people are upset about it. While slightly offensive, it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is hard to take a joke in this election campaign. Sadly it is a perfect image of satire, but without an article to go along with it, it is completely out of context. It would've made a better picture inside the magazine than on the cover. Gladly, Obama seems to have brushed it off without much concern for the misguided outrage that has been set off.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Twisting the truth.
Every politician does it. We all do it to a certain extent. Telling a date we're more athletic than is the reality. Telling a job interviewer we had a few more responsibilities than we did. It is just something we all have learned to do to get ahead. When public figures do it however, there are plenty of people who are willing to throw in their two cents(with the price of gas I'm now charging a nickle for my thoughts.) I'm learning to laugh at the weekly spins, and becoming more disheartened at the increase in flat out lies.
It has become common practice to use what your opponent says against them by carefully selecting what you quote, then telling everyone how they're wrong or "out of touch." While obnoxious and slightly misleading, it is the bigger stuff that hurts the average voter and will send many to apathy this year. There are still people questioning Obama's religion. Even people who know about all the news with his former pastor still think he might not be a Christian.
It would seem to me that lately, the GOP has been trying to over spin more than normal. I would guess they are trying to fight off accusations of bringing a 3rd Bush to the White House along with all the other scars from the current president. It feels like they're willing to say anything to get people to vote for their party over the ones they are competing with. Topics like Iraq, where suddenly, when Obama said he would listen to his commanders on the ground and adjust his plan accordingly, people are saying he's on McCain's side and he is waffling on his own policies. When did listening to strategy from the people who know more about a topic turn into giving up? I guess McCain was giving up on reducing the deficit when he suggested millions in business tax breaks?
The answer of course is no. Obama is not going to stay in Iraq, he still plans to withdraw, but he is saying, and has said since the primaries, that he would accept suggestions for how to accomplish this from his commanders. McCain is not giving up on the budget deficit, he plans on dealing with it, his priority is assisting businesses with their taxes first. Hopefully that will trickle down and help the economy (I compare it to pouring water on a 3 foot stack of paper towels, some of the water might leave a wet spot on the bottom, but the top towels will be soaked.)
Personally I enjoy watching the creative way people are spinning news now. Obama says he won't take public financing? Everyone is up in arms over the "disadvantage" McCain will have on the advertising front. The GOP just started a $3 million ad campaign in 4 states using an "independent expenditure committee." In simple terms is a group of people who collect money on behalf of a party, not a candidate, and they can spend it however they want. It is almost like a dreaded 527 group, except it is run by a party instead of a group of like-minded people who have no certain political affiliations, just common policy goals. Considering that the GOP has well over $50 million in the bank, they should have no problem keeping up with Obama's juggernaut of donors. I'm sure they plan to complain the whole way though.
...Read more
It has become common practice to use what your opponent says against them by carefully selecting what you quote, then telling everyone how they're wrong or "out of touch." While obnoxious and slightly misleading, it is the bigger stuff that hurts the average voter and will send many to apathy this year. There are still people questioning Obama's religion. Even people who know about all the news with his former pastor still think he might not be a Christian.
It would seem to me that lately, the GOP has been trying to over spin more than normal. I would guess they are trying to fight off accusations of bringing a 3rd Bush to the White House along with all the other scars from the current president. It feels like they're willing to say anything to get people to vote for their party over the ones they are competing with. Topics like Iraq, where suddenly, when Obama said he would listen to his commanders on the ground and adjust his plan accordingly, people are saying he's on McCain's side and he is waffling on his own policies. When did listening to strategy from the people who know more about a topic turn into giving up? I guess McCain was giving up on reducing the deficit when he suggested millions in business tax breaks?
The answer of course is no. Obama is not going to stay in Iraq, he still plans to withdraw, but he is saying, and has said since the primaries, that he would accept suggestions for how to accomplish this from his commanders. McCain is not giving up on the budget deficit, he plans on dealing with it, his priority is assisting businesses with their taxes first. Hopefully that will trickle down and help the economy (I compare it to pouring water on a 3 foot stack of paper towels, some of the water might leave a wet spot on the bottom, but the top towels will be soaked.)
Personally I enjoy watching the creative way people are spinning news now. Obama says he won't take public financing? Everyone is up in arms over the "disadvantage" McCain will have on the advertising front. The GOP just started a $3 million ad campaign in 4 states using an "independent expenditure committee." In simple terms is a group of people who collect money on behalf of a party, not a candidate, and they can spend it however they want. It is almost like a dreaded 527 group, except it is run by a party instead of a group of like-minded people who have no certain political affiliations, just common policy goals. Considering that the GOP has well over $50 million in the bank, they should have no problem keeping up with Obama's juggernaut of donors. I'm sure they plan to complain the whole way though.
...Read more
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
White House trying to bury the truth again.
Bush is at it again. His administration is trying to block and edit the EPA's findings on the dangers of CO2 and the ability of the US government to regulate emissions. The EPA is releasing this statement based on a Supreme Court decision that the EPA can and should regulate CO2 using the Clean Air Act. The White House is trying to block the original draft and get it changed so that they can say the CAA is broken and needs to be replaced (more than likely with some weaker policies and regulation). What are they trying to hide?
According to leaked copies of the draft, "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" if the US government changed fuel standards for cars to "well above 35 mpg." The White House has repeatedly tried to block things like this from being released, while would require them to act on it. This kind of editing and censoring of government agency's opinion and public releases should not be happening.
If the EPA, DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. decide that something is/is not happening and releases a statement on it, it should not be edited. I understand the security concerns for things such as terrorism, but this has nothing to do with that. This is simply a piece of work that directly challenges the idea that acting on CO2 would hinder the US/world economy. The EPA is saying the this is just not true, and Bush wants to silence that, since it is his biggest argument for not doing anything on climate change in the last 7 years. The Executive branch should not be allowed to censor things that they just don't agree with. The EPA is just doing what it is paid to do, and Bush just wants it to say what he wants, not what the data says.
I think given the way Obama and McCain have been touting their energy plans, they should stand up and take a side on this. Either you believe that the EPA is right, and the US can effectively regulate CO2 and avoid hurting (or in this case actually assisting, by $2 trillion) the economy, or you think that Bush is right for trying to have it removed. I imagine neither will speak on it, and that it is really a pipe dream that someone would stand up and say what is happening is just plain wrong. Hopefully it will either be release as is was intended soon, or the EPA will be able to stall until a White House administration that will allow it to publish what it has spent millions of taxpayer dollars researching. ...Read more
According to leaked copies of the draft, "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" if the US government changed fuel standards for cars to "well above 35 mpg." The White House has repeatedly tried to block things like this from being released, while would require them to act on it. This kind of editing and censoring of government agency's opinion and public releases should not be happening.
If the EPA, DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. decide that something is/is not happening and releases a statement on it, it should not be edited. I understand the security concerns for things such as terrorism, but this has nothing to do with that. This is simply a piece of work that directly challenges the idea that acting on CO2 would hinder the US/world economy. The EPA is saying the this is just not true, and Bush wants to silence that, since it is his biggest argument for not doing anything on climate change in the last 7 years. The Executive branch should not be allowed to censor things that they just don't agree with. The EPA is just doing what it is paid to do, and Bush just wants it to say what he wants, not what the data says.
I think given the way Obama and McCain have been touting their energy plans, they should stand up and take a side on this. Either you believe that the EPA is right, and the US can effectively regulate CO2 and avoid hurting (or in this case actually assisting, by $2 trillion) the economy, or you think that Bush is right for trying to have it removed. I imagine neither will speak on it, and that it is really a pipe dream that someone would stand up and say what is happening is just plain wrong. Hopefully it will either be release as is was intended soon, or the EPA will be able to stall until a White House administration that will allow it to publish what it has spent millions of taxpayer dollars researching. ...Read more
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Update:Are we really that sensitive?
I just watched the whole video of Clark's statement. This is just the same old crap, taking quotes out of context to fit what ever design you need it to. McCain should be ashamed of his campaign turning this into and issue, and Obama should be ashamed for not standing up by his general. See for yourself:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/what-wesley-cla.html
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/what-wesley-cla.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
