Monday, January 26, 2004
Evil Chemistry and Evil Biology
I was just reading an article on MSNBC about some statements John Ashcroft made about Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities (WMD-RPA). Ashcroft was in Vienna justifying the US war in Iraq saying it was okay because Saddam was using "evil chemistry" and "evil biology." Last time I checked, neither chemistry nor biology were inherently evil. Just like a rock that is picked up on the street is neither good nor evil. You can either add that rock to your collection or use it to throw through a window. Unfortunately, this administration tends to see things in black and white, good and bad, yin and tang terms. The world simply isn't like that.
On another note, I also watched Bill O'Reilly give a commentary about the most recent Democratic Debates. He droned on about Michael Moore's support of General Wesley Clark. He showed a clip where Peter Jennings asked General Clark about Michael Moore calling Bush a deserter. Peter Jennings said there was no evidence that he had deserted. I guess that's technically correct. However, the Boston Globe did a thorough report on Bush's service (or lack thereof) when he served in the Texas Air National Guard. They clearly showed that he missed about a year of service. While Michael Moore has the right to speak his mind, Bush is not technically a deserter - he would have to be labeled and charged that by his commanding officer. By sheer luck or family influence, Bush failed to do his obligated service to the Texas Air National Guard. Now Bill O'Reilly says General Clark should have checked on Michael Moore's statements. I agree (shock!). Though I think if he did, his response could have been more scathing. It could have been something along the lines of, "While I was serving in Viet Nam and getting wounded for my country, George Bush, as documented by the Boston Globe, failed to serve out the last year of his obligated service to the Texas Air National Guard."
Then Bill O'Reilly called the questioning by Jennings "excellent." Um, yeah. As a reporter, Jennings should have done his research, too. O'Reilly clearly doesn't like Michael Moore and people like him. What's O'Reilly scared of? That they speak their mind? I've heard plenty of outrageous stuff coming out of Michael Moore's mouth. I've also heard a ton of drivel spewing from O'Reilly's mouth, too. I like Michael Moore. I think he has commentary that makes people think. Some of it is pretty humourous. And, I do not hate America. He closes by saying, "Stuart Smalley, Michael Moore, and others like him (the graphic said "and now General Clark") should be ashamed. So should General Clark for buying into this terrible trend."
No they shouldn't, Bill. One, you should at least refer to Al Franken by his name, not a Saturday Night Live character he played. Second, do your research. Maybe if you did, you wouldn't spout such nonsense. Oy!
I was just reading an article on MSNBC about some statements John Ashcroft made about Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities (WMD-RPA). Ashcroft was in Vienna justifying the US war in Iraq saying it was okay because Saddam was using "evil chemistry" and "evil biology." Last time I checked, neither chemistry nor biology were inherently evil. Just like a rock that is picked up on the street is neither good nor evil. You can either add that rock to your collection or use it to throw through a window. Unfortunately, this administration tends to see things in black and white, good and bad, yin and tang terms. The world simply isn't like that.
On another note, I also watched Bill O'Reilly give a commentary about the most recent Democratic Debates. He droned on about Michael Moore's support of General Wesley Clark. He showed a clip where Peter Jennings asked General Clark about Michael Moore calling Bush a deserter. Peter Jennings said there was no evidence that he had deserted. I guess that's technically correct. However, the Boston Globe did a thorough report on Bush's service (or lack thereof) when he served in the Texas Air National Guard. They clearly showed that he missed about a year of service. While Michael Moore has the right to speak his mind, Bush is not technically a deserter - he would have to be labeled and charged that by his commanding officer. By sheer luck or family influence, Bush failed to do his obligated service to the Texas Air National Guard. Now Bill O'Reilly says General Clark should have checked on Michael Moore's statements. I agree (shock!). Though I think if he did, his response could have been more scathing. It could have been something along the lines of, "While I was serving in Viet Nam and getting wounded for my country, George Bush, as documented by the Boston Globe, failed to serve out the last year of his obligated service to the Texas Air National Guard."
Then Bill O'Reilly called the questioning by Jennings "excellent." Um, yeah. As a reporter, Jennings should have done his research, too. O'Reilly clearly doesn't like Michael Moore and people like him. What's O'Reilly scared of? That they speak their mind? I've heard plenty of outrageous stuff coming out of Michael Moore's mouth. I've also heard a ton of drivel spewing from O'Reilly's mouth, too. I like Michael Moore. I think he has commentary that makes people think. Some of it is pretty humourous. And, I do not hate America. He closes by saying, "Stuart Smalley, Michael Moore, and others like him (the graphic said "and now General Clark") should be ashamed. So should General Clark for buying into this terrible trend."
No they shouldn't, Bill. One, you should at least refer to Al Franken by his name, not a Saturday Night Live character he played. Second, do your research. Maybe if you did, you wouldn't spout such nonsense. Oy!
Friday, January 23, 2004
Ellipses...
I've done quite a bit of writing in my lifetime. As such, I know some of the tricks of the trade to bend a quote to the way you want it. One of those ways that I've seen abused so often recently is the ellipse (...) - you know, those cute little dots used in quotes. Matt Drudge (Hmmm, I've written about him before. And not in a good way.) Matty quoted, or rather misquoted, General Wesley Clark's testimony before Congress in September about going to war with Iraq. With those cute little ellipses, Matty, made it seem like Wesley Clark supported the war, then during his campaign, flip-flopped. Then Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman ran with Matty's quote. Didn't Eddie even bother to go read Wesley Clark's testimony to make sure that's what was said? If he didn't, and it looks that way to me, he either is incredibly stupid, lazy, or just incompetent. The Annenberg Political Fact Check center has a good expose on this.
Many journalist and writers use ellipses. The problem with using ellipses is having the quote becoming twisted into something that it was not. When others fact check the work, the error will be found. With tools like Google and the Internet, the misquote will be discovered in seconds. The writer then has two choices, either run a correction (which usually gets buried in an obscure section of the web site or publication) and apologise or not running a correction and end up looking stupid. Sure some people, especially diehards to the cause will believe what was initially written, even in light of new evidence. However, if the correction is not run the rest of the world will see the writer for the fraud they really are.
I've done quite a bit of writing in my lifetime. As such, I know some of the tricks of the trade to bend a quote to the way you want it. One of those ways that I've seen abused so often recently is the ellipse (...) - you know, those cute little dots used in quotes. Matt Drudge (Hmmm, I've written about him before. And not in a good way.) Matty quoted, or rather misquoted, General Wesley Clark's testimony before Congress in September about going to war with Iraq. With those cute little ellipses, Matty, made it seem like Wesley Clark supported the war, then during his campaign, flip-flopped. Then Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman ran with Matty's quote. Didn't Eddie even bother to go read Wesley Clark's testimony to make sure that's what was said? If he didn't, and it looks that way to me, he either is incredibly stupid, lazy, or just incompetent. The Annenberg Political Fact Check center has a good expose on this.
Many journalist and writers use ellipses. The problem with using ellipses is having the quote becoming twisted into something that it was not. When others fact check the work, the error will be found. With tools like Google and the Internet, the misquote will be discovered in seconds. The writer then has two choices, either run a correction (which usually gets buried in an obscure section of the web site or publication) and apologise or not running a correction and end up looking stupid. Sure some people, especially diehards to the cause will believe what was initially written, even in light of new evidence. However, if the correction is not run the rest of the world will see the writer for the fraud they really are.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Cho 'Nuff
Oy! It's been a long time since I last blogged. I guess I'm only blogging when I get moved. And I guess I'm moved enough to blog today. :-)
I was reading Eschaton and came across a semi-cryptic entry entitled, "Will Asian Americans Ever Stop Being Foreigners?" I scrolled down a bit to the previous entry, "Monkey Mail" and saw what he meant by it. The link in the Monkey Mail entry led to the American Politics Journal Mailbag section. Perusing through the poorly written, grammatically incorrect drivel I saw shocked me.
How in the hell can people in this country still think like that? Do they not possess the cranial capacity to have clear, concise thoughts? I highly doubt it. I read e-mail after e-mail excoriating Margaret Cho for what she said during the "Bush in 30 Seconds" award presentation. Actually, it wasn't about everything she said, just a small excerpt of the speech she gave that they read via the Drudge Report.
They said Margaret Cho was Chinese. Um, no. She's Korean. Her parents moved here from South Korea. Geographically, they are kind of close, but I bet most of the people who sent the e-mails probably couldn't find either on a map of the world. The said she should move back to her own country. Um, she was born in the US, which makes her a US citizen. Since she's in the US, I guess she wouldn't have very far to move, would she? They said she was fat. I saw her in concert in Austin, Texas (Bush lived there when was governor. That might help those of you who are geographically disabled to find it.) She was anything but fat. In fact, she was pretty skinny to my eyes, and I was sitting third row-centre. They called her a lesbian. She's not. She happens to be very GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transsexual)-friendly, though. Does that mean Margaret Cho is an innocent angel? No. She does curse alot during her performances. So what. She's an adult. The people who go see her, watch her on television, or listen to her CDs are adults (or accompanied by them).
I can go on, and on, and on refuting pretty much all of the comments that were made about her. It wouldn't do any good, though. People like that are closed-minded. They pick a point and stick to it, no matter what. Some one can prove them wrong and they would resort to name calling, cursing, and yelling. Margaret Cho had a 20 minute presentation. The Drudge Report, and subsequently, the Free Republic, posted 2 minutes of her presentation. Selective cutting and pasting can work wonders to present the point you want to make about a person. I bet I could selectively cut and paste one of Bush's speeches and make him appear as if he were a serial rapist.
Until people become more open-minded, we'll always have racists, homophobes, and people like them. It's going to take time, but people need to start seeing others as human beings first, not as categories - Christian, Jew, Black, White, Male, Female.
Oy! It's been a long time since I last blogged. I guess I'm only blogging when I get moved. And I guess I'm moved enough to blog today. :-)
I was reading Eschaton and came across a semi-cryptic entry entitled, "Will Asian Americans Ever Stop Being Foreigners?" I scrolled down a bit to the previous entry, "Monkey Mail" and saw what he meant by it. The link in the Monkey Mail entry led to the American Politics Journal Mailbag section. Perusing through the poorly written, grammatically incorrect drivel I saw shocked me.
How in the hell can people in this country still think like that? Do they not possess the cranial capacity to have clear, concise thoughts? I highly doubt it. I read e-mail after e-mail excoriating Margaret Cho for what she said during the "Bush in 30 Seconds" award presentation. Actually, it wasn't about everything she said, just a small excerpt of the speech she gave that they read via the Drudge Report.
They said Margaret Cho was Chinese. Um, no. She's Korean. Her parents moved here from South Korea. Geographically, they are kind of close, but I bet most of the people who sent the e-mails probably couldn't find either on a map of the world. The said she should move back to her own country. Um, she was born in the US, which makes her a US citizen. Since she's in the US, I guess she wouldn't have very far to move, would she? They said she was fat. I saw her in concert in Austin, Texas (Bush lived there when was governor. That might help those of you who are geographically disabled to find it.) She was anything but fat. In fact, she was pretty skinny to my eyes, and I was sitting third row-centre. They called her a lesbian. She's not. She happens to be very GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transsexual)-friendly, though. Does that mean Margaret Cho is an innocent angel? No. She does curse alot during her performances. So what. She's an adult. The people who go see her, watch her on television, or listen to her CDs are adults (or accompanied by them).
I can go on, and on, and on refuting pretty much all of the comments that were made about her. It wouldn't do any good, though. People like that are closed-minded. They pick a point and stick to it, no matter what. Some one can prove them wrong and they would resort to name calling, cursing, and yelling. Margaret Cho had a 20 minute presentation. The Drudge Report, and subsequently, the Free Republic, posted 2 minutes of her presentation. Selective cutting and pasting can work wonders to present the point you want to make about a person. I bet I could selectively cut and paste one of Bush's speeches and make him appear as if he were a serial rapist.
Until people become more open-minded, we'll always have racists, homophobes, and people like them. It's going to take time, but people need to start seeing others as human beings first, not as categories - Christian, Jew, Black, White, Male, Female.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Because God said so...
"Chalk up another Allahuakbar and a hip, hip, hooray for the Muslim who terrorized an entire nation industry without firing a shot. " - Osama Bin Laden
Actually, Osama Bin Laden didn't say that. The original quote is:
"Chalk up another hallelujah and a hip, hip, hooray for the Christian who terrorized the entire nation's abortion industry without firing a shot. " - Chuck Spingola
Why is it alright for Americans to terrorise other Americans in the name of God? Since when did God abdicate His power and give these people permission to maim and kill people? Did God say, "Ya know, I flooded the world, wiped out cities, and took first born children, but I'm gonna take a break and let y'all do that stuff now."? As far as I know, never.
Americans get so upset when Muslims pervert Islam and use it to recruit people to fly planes into buildings. Why aren't more American pissed off at these perverters of the Christian faith? Killing someone in the name of your religion is wrong. Period. I don't care what religion you are - Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
I know John Ashcroft is a pretty religious Christian. However, as the Attorney General of the US, he should do everything in his power as the top law enforcement official to try to prevent or prosecute terrorist activity, be it foreign or domestic. Christian terrorists should be pursued and receive the same punishment as the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay. Perhaps they should even be labeled as enemy combatants and be shut in small cells without access to lawyers. Blowing up an abortion clinic and terrorising doctors, nurses, workers and patients deserves the same prosecutorial zeal as someone who attempts to blow up the World Trade Centre. I think terrorism is terrorism. Using your religion to justify a terroristic act doesn't make it any more right.
"Chalk up another Allahuakbar and a hip, hip, hooray for the Muslim who terrorized an entire nation industry without firing a shot. " - Osama Bin Laden
Actually, Osama Bin Laden didn't say that. The original quote is:
"Chalk up another hallelujah and a hip, hip, hooray for the Christian who terrorized the entire nation's abortion industry without firing a shot. " - Chuck Spingola
Why is it alright for Americans to terrorise other Americans in the name of God? Since when did God abdicate His power and give these people permission to maim and kill people? Did God say, "Ya know, I flooded the world, wiped out cities, and took first born children, but I'm gonna take a break and let y'all do that stuff now."? As far as I know, never.
Americans get so upset when Muslims pervert Islam and use it to recruit people to fly planes into buildings. Why aren't more American pissed off at these perverters of the Christian faith? Killing someone in the name of your religion is wrong. Period. I don't care what religion you are - Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
I know John Ashcroft is a pretty religious Christian. However, as the Attorney General of the US, he should do everything in his power as the top law enforcement official to try to prevent or prosecute terrorist activity, be it foreign or domestic. Christian terrorists should be pursued and receive the same punishment as the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay. Perhaps they should even be labeled as enemy combatants and be shut in small cells without access to lawyers. Blowing up an abortion clinic and terrorising doctors, nurses, workers and patients deserves the same prosecutorial zeal as someone who attempts to blow up the World Trade Centre. I think terrorism is terrorism. Using your religion to justify a terroristic act doesn't make it any more right.
Friday, January 02, 2004
2K4
I hope everyone had a fun and safe New Year's Eve. San Antonio's New Year's Eve celebrations were kind of lackluster because of the weather. It was foggy and dreary. I was at a friend of a friend's place watching TV, talking, and joking around. We first saw Dick Clark's TV special. I think Dick's hair is starting to turn gray; pretty good for someone who's 125. Actually, I know he's not that old, but he looks damn good for someone who's 74.
We then turned to local coverage hoping to see what was happening in downtown San Antonio. I don't know if other cities do a good job of local celebrations or not, but KENS 5's coverage was bad. Really, really, bad. Bridget Smith, of the news reporters and on-air announcers for the evening's festivities, looked like a bad drag queen. She had this hideous green sequined dress on, artificial blonde hair, and Tammy Faye make up. Her banter with her co-host (I can't remember his name, that's how deep an impression he left on me)was bad, too. Lu Parker looked stylish and sophisticated. My biggest complaint was that KENS 5 would have Lu, Bridget, and Bridget's co-host talk over the people (Mayor Ed Garza, Lila Cockrell, and others) who were talking to the crowd that had gathered to see the fireworks. Now what the Mayor and other dignitaries had to say to the crowd may or may not have been interesting, but please, let me decide that. I don't want to hear inane chatter. I think the on-air personalities could have been quiet for the few minutes it took for them to make their short speeches just before midnight.
The party was pretty good. I had sparkling grape juice, everyone else had champagne (someone has to drive, tell stories, etc.). We had fun making fun of the camera work. At one point, the camera zoomed over the crowd and stopped for a moment as someone puked all over the street. And with the million of so adverts one furniture store had, I could tell who sponsored the night. The music San Antonio picked could have been better, too. It seemed like they had a mix of 29 second clips that really had nothing to do with ringing in the New Year. I'm not sure if the city did that because they didn't want to pay royalties, couldn't find a good DJ, or just wanted to play as many songs as they could. My celebrations ended a little after 12:30 for me. I couldn't watch the coverage any more.
Hopefully the KENS 5 coverage won't be a foreshadowing of what lies ahead in 2004. This will be an interesting year, though. I refuse to make predictions, because I am not Nostradamus and most prognosticators get it wrong, anyway. I just wish everyone a safe and good 2004.
I hope everyone had a fun and safe New Year's Eve. San Antonio's New Year's Eve celebrations were kind of lackluster because of the weather. It was foggy and dreary. I was at a friend of a friend's place watching TV, talking, and joking around. We first saw Dick Clark's TV special. I think Dick's hair is starting to turn gray; pretty good for someone who's 125. Actually, I know he's not that old, but he looks damn good for someone who's 74.
We then turned to local coverage hoping to see what was happening in downtown San Antonio. I don't know if other cities do a good job of local celebrations or not, but KENS 5's coverage was bad. Really, really, bad. Bridget Smith, of the news reporters and on-air announcers for the evening's festivities, looked like a bad drag queen. She had this hideous green sequined dress on, artificial blonde hair, and Tammy Faye make up. Her banter with her co-host (I can't remember his name, that's how deep an impression he left on me)was bad, too. Lu Parker looked stylish and sophisticated. My biggest complaint was that KENS 5 would have Lu, Bridget, and Bridget's co-host talk over the people (Mayor Ed Garza, Lila Cockrell, and others) who were talking to the crowd that had gathered to see the fireworks. Now what the Mayor and other dignitaries had to say to the crowd may or may not have been interesting, but please, let me decide that. I don't want to hear inane chatter. I think the on-air personalities could have been quiet for the few minutes it took for them to make their short speeches just before midnight.
The party was pretty good. I had sparkling grape juice, everyone else had champagne (someone has to drive, tell stories, etc.). We had fun making fun of the camera work. At one point, the camera zoomed over the crowd and stopped for a moment as someone puked all over the street. And with the million of so adverts one furniture store had, I could tell who sponsored the night. The music San Antonio picked could have been better, too. It seemed like they had a mix of 29 second clips that really had nothing to do with ringing in the New Year. I'm not sure if the city did that because they didn't want to pay royalties, couldn't find a good DJ, or just wanted to play as many songs as they could. My celebrations ended a little after 12:30 for me. I couldn't watch the coverage any more.
Hopefully the KENS 5 coverage won't be a foreshadowing of what lies ahead in 2004. This will be an interesting year, though. I refuse to make predictions, because I am not Nostradamus and most prognosticators get it wrong, anyway. I just wish everyone a safe and good 2004.
