Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 111 To 120 Of 205 Comments
longz:
Did you read what I said? Neither Michael J. Fox's actions or the 9/11 victims actions are under discussion. My point was that both political parties have used tragedy for political gain. Nothing you said undermines that point. 9/11 images were certainly used in political ads, regardless of what was agreed to. Visual images of people's illnesses have been used for emotional impact just as well. Embryonic stem cell research has shown so little promise up to this point, I oppose federal funding of such projects and am appalled at debilitated famous people being used to shill for political support. By the same token, huckstering by those in favor or opposing the Iraq War with the emotions of "let's roll" sloganeering or the searing images of 9/11 to say "vote for me", or "I'm a poor 9/11 widow so listen to me" is an equally nasty piece of business.
Comment Posted By ed On 25.10.2006 @ 10:26
I don't see one whole hell of a lot of difference between showing Fox's palsy for political influence and repeated displays of the 9/11 attacks for political influence. Both sides shamelessly use tragedy to manipulate the emotions of voters. There is no high road here for either side. Any argument that the right or the left is any more noble in this example is pure, unmitigated bullshit. A pox on both their houses for such exploitation. And thanks Rick, for pointing out the bigoted, narcissistic prevaricator that is Rush Limbaugh.
Comment Posted By ed On 25.10.2006 @ 07:42
You are human after all! Take that break. Maybe its the upcoming election, but you haven't written about much of anything except politics for a while. Perhaps an update on space and/or NASA is in order. LiftPort and others have some new stuff on the space elevator that could use an intelligent review.
Comment Posted By ed On 23.10.2006 @ 08:03
KENNEDY AND OTHER LIBERALS ANSWER TO A DIFFERENT MORALITY
This is exactly why the political blogosphere is important. Although the evidence at this point of the Kennedy accusation is weaker than skimmed water, it will be churned and followed up on until the memo is either revealed as a fraud or Kennedy is openly hung with a traitor label. Accountability is important, regardless of name, wealth, position or party affiliation.
Even if it comes with crazy-assed partisanship and nutball "all-my-guys-are-good and all-your-guys-are-evil" left and right commentary and true believers for whom "the truth" is whatever their opinion was in the first place, regardless of the quality and quantity of evidence. Huzzah, the blogosphere!
Comment Posted By ed On 23.10.2006 @ 07:12
CNN SEES NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND TERRORISTS
Chris,
Do YOU know who Tokyo Rose and Lord Ha-Ha was and why I made that reference? Look it up and you will know whose side I am on. And goddessoftheclassroom, please understand that we can have an opinion of who the "true Iraqis" are, but that doesn't mean that any or all Iraqis are under any obligation to accept our opinion. Tom, I know who the good guys are, we Americans are trying to do good for Iraq. A true democracy will make Iraq (and other totalitarian states) better serve their people and be better citizens of the world. I am with you. Where we part company is on the notion that we can force democracy onto countries or that the United States has the final call on what other countries do. Just because we know we are right does not require other countries to do what we think is right.
Comment Posted By ed On 20.10.2006 @ 18:29
I agree that the reporter involved should be horsewhipped within an inch of his life for presenting insurgent propaganda (perhaps his education didn't include exposure to Tokyo Rose or Lord Ha-Ha). But Rick,
"Their refusal to acknowledge the difference – that one side is killing Americans and the other side is killing the enemy. . ."
the other side considers Americans the ememy as much as Americans consider the Iraqi snipers as enemies! Not sure what you meant by this, but in war, both sides try to kill each other, and both sides see themselves as the good guys and the other side as the enemy.
Comment Posted By ed On 20.10.2006 @ 13:27
ARE PRE MORTEM REYNOLDISTAS SABATOGING THE GOP?
Also, ed, keep this in mind. Whenever someone bleats about the need to be taught lessons in “humility,†the word often comes with an unspoken reminder “Don’t you forget who put you in this position. Don’t you forget to take care of them.â€
If you’re quite the independent-minded person, that unspoken phrase should make you feel contempt for anyone who hints it.
Don't feel that way, Brad. I have needed a lesson or two about humility, and it had to do with my behavior and nothing else.
Comment Posted By ed On 19.10.2006 @ 16:27
Brad S:
Thanks for the expansion on your comments. Your examples of our staying in serious shooting wars were a little strained for the point I was making, but your point is valid and taken.
I agree that the media wants power and relevance, as that translates into dollars. The MSM is used for a whipping boy, and is subject to being used as a strawman in conservative arguments. By the same token, liberals use fundamentalist religions (to name just one group) in a similar manner. My main point is that the majority of Americans know they are being whipsawed by the rhetoric of the left and the right and more honestly from both would be appreciated. And by the way, I agree that the media loves to use Bush and other politicians as gotcha trophies.
Comment Posted By ed On 19.10.2006 @ 14:10
From Brad S
"It’s really simple, if I may be so presumptuous: All a lot of folks in the Mainstream Media want is a Bush defeat of some sort. With a clean slate for the 2008 Presidential elections, the only way Bush can be “defeated†is to send the GOP Congress packing. After the MSM has gotten that, there’s no real interest in pushing for withdrawal (And let’s be honest here: The US will not fully withdraw from Iraq for another generation. Our history of military engagements overseas proves we will not fully do so.)."
Um, if the MSM is powerful enough to get a Republican Congress defeated in 2006, why have we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress up to this point? Wouldn't the all powerful liberal press have prevented this? Conservatives use the MSM as an all-powerful devil at times (not born out by any facts that I can see), and an out of touch helpless relic at others (when pointing at talk radio and plotical blogs as the real voices that matter). Isn't it uncomfortable to insist that you are headed east and west at the same time?
As to our history of military engagements keeping us in Iraq for another generation, where in our history have we maintained troop presence in an active shooting war (and a civil war at that) with large U.S. military deaths, for at least 25 years (a generation)?
The split in the GOP Rick describes has several sources. Perhaps many Republicans can no longer "stay the course" with the conservatives that keep starting with an answer and then bending the facts to make the world appear to fit their answers, as does Brad above. Conservatism in some hands is a belief system that cannot be wrong, instead of a set of ideas that make a lot of sense for managing human affairs, but need to be re-examined and altered as situations change.
My thought is that those Republicans who wish to teach the GOP a lesson are referring to a lesson in humility, proclamations of unwavering certitude in spite of massive evidence of being wrong, and a mind-numbing arrogance that any means justifies the ends.
Politics, as a means of social control, has always (and will always) swung on a pendulum of progressive and conservative cycles. Societies need a certain amount of stability to maintain its own structure, traditions, identity, and the means to allow citizens to succeed (conservatism). Societies also need to adapt to the changing world around it, to bring more goods and services to the largest number possible of its citizens, and to fight the inevitable overcontrolling tendencies of governing bodies (liberalism). Both are necessary, neither are perfect, and neither can be permenant in a functioning society.
Comment Posted By ed On 19.10.2006 @ 10:40
IS A REPUBLICAN COMEBACK IN THE CARDS?
Outstanding analysis, sir. This is going to be a very odd mid-term election, with a huge amount of uncertainty in the electorate. I agree that the War in Iraq is not popular and that neither party has defined a way out of a bad situation. Not even Republican syncophants are buying the "stay the course" slogan any more. The Democrats offer an equally muddy and undefined "don't stay the course" slogan. The lack of a tangible plan, after throwing Saddam out, has paralyzed American efforts in Iraq and seems to have carried over to the American public. Frequently shifting polling data reflect the uncertainty we feel as a nation.
The Far Left and the Far Right hurl insults at each other, leaving the old, but still quite real Silent Majority unenthused about either party. My guess is that people will hold their nose and vote in a small Republican majority in the Senate and a razor thin majority for Republicans in the House. The message of fear, far less resonant than in the past (but with Democrats offering no alternative), will have just enough play for the Republicans to barely survive 2006.
The gutting of Republican power will come in 2008. Some charismatic Democrat not tied to previous administrations(Obama is my guess) will use the Clinton strategy of appealing to the middle (with Clinton it was more words than deeds, but it worked) to sweep Democrats into power in the White House and Congress. This 2006 election will be a wild ride up to election day!
Comment Posted By ed On 18.10.2006 @ 09:00
