How to Get to the Beltway

A journalist's guide in four stages.

Stage 1: The young, dedicated, idealistic reporter investigates a story about worker abuse at a power plant. A power plant that happens to be a be a big advertiser in his newspaper. He takes this excellent piece of work to his editor, and his editor acknowledges the fine work, but after a minute of false reflection, the editor tells the young reporter that the paper cannot run the story.

Stage 2: The young, dedicated reporter comes up with a great idea for a story, but runs it by his editor before chasing it down. Again the editor, noting that the likely tone of the story won't reflect well on local business, tells the young reporter that he's sorry, but tells him to forget about it. The paper can't run that kind of story.

Stage 3: Finds our young reporter getring another great idea for a story. He tonelessly dismisses it himself, knowing that it's unlikely that his paper will run it.

Stage 4: He no longer gets any ideas. He no longer looks critically at these types of issues.

This reporter is now ready for duty as a Beltway reporter :)

I heard a variation of this some time ago. I'd give it an attribution, but I cannot recall who said something relatively close.

Nice story, now move along

Oops.

Didja hear about that angry guy with the armored bulldozer that terrorized a Denver suburb? Whacky stuff.

Need a link? Or seven?

Okay.

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7.

I think someone at the Denver Post is a little excited.

Love them or Loathe Them

Ronald Reagan is dead at 93.

And the French can't seem to give Bush any love.

Love or loathe them, both Reagan and Bush elicit deep emotional responses amongst the people.

I never liked Reagan's politics, and I am certainly not enamored of Bush's policy stances.

While discussing Reagan with a friend a bit ago, she said, "Reagan was a great speaker." Now I don't know if this was a nod to the oft-stated phrase that Reagan was: The Great Communicator, but I did remind her that there is no evidence that Reagan ever wrote a word he spoke as President. We both chuckled nervously. Neither of us knew how to react to news of Reagan's passing. Neither of us agreed with any of his policies.

We agreed that while Reagan was a flawed policy maker, he was probably someone with which you'd like to share a brew.

We further agreed that if asked to have a beer with Bush, we'd accept, but only if we could bring the pretzels :)

Color Me Yellow

I still intend to add some lacking historical context to this amazing screed by Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institution.

I do not feel that I can do it proper justice in my self-imposed 750 word limit. Sperry raises a lot of good points, but unfortunately his tone and delivery weaken his message.

Antiwar.com is the only site..other than blogs that seems to have run this piece.

I am working on a thorough address of this piece, but I'll post it off-site. I am fact-checking my own work as time allows.

Why 'Color Me yellow?'

Because I do not trust my own memory of events(and their chronologies) well enough to post a piece that is entirely events based.

I am yellow.

NIH Under Fire

The National institutes of Health are under pressure to answer more questions about its various research programs.

I think that there is but one engineer formerly involved in research, in the U.S Congress, and but two physicians. The rest - a huge majority - do not have largely scientific training. It bothers me greatly to hear(read really) statements like the following:

Referring to last year's highly publicized controversy over NIH funding of research grants to study human sexual behavior, two Democrats on the subcommittee — Henry Waxman and Lois Capps, both of California—complained that Republican lawmakers had "interfered" with the NIH peer-review process for ideological reasons. But Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said: "It helps us in rural America if the grants pass the 'common sense' test. Can you bring some sense or explanation for those that don't?"

Zerhouni(NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni) agreed, noting that since the controversy, he has required every extramural grant to include an explanation of its benefit and relevance to society "in plain language."

"We depend on the support of all the taxpayers," Zerhouni said.

The first link in this entry will bring you to the full article, as well as many relevant links.

Having performed in research in the private sector, I can state that there are times that management - which is a good proxy for Congress - didn't always appreciate that much of research gives rise to serendipity. Discovering something entirely by accident and unrelated to the primary research is much more common than is generally realized.

(of course private sector research is hampered by the need to produce something of immediately recognized commercial value *sigh*)

I would distill this down to something like: the future is invented, not predicted.

It is difficult to imagine research grants being awarded for development of the automobile when the horse and carriage, rail and waterways were already proven modes of transportation. So it goes for the airplane, quantum theory(which gave rise to the transistor), and FM radio to name but a few.

These were all serendipitous inventions, at least in part, which no one in the West could easily function effectively within the industrial construct in which we now live. They are now a part of the fabric of our everyday lives.

You can't always give a "common sense" answer to the whys of research. There is ofttimes nothing common about research whatever.

In order for science to remain vibrant, governments should maintain as little oversight over research as is practical.

Sure, there needs to be discernible explanations as to why a given research body is important, but I think Jefferson's aphorism: "The government which governs least, governs best," is especially relevant here.

Annenberg Again

This is really splitting hairs.

Annenberg's latest. This is verbatim from Annenberg's email alert service:

Kerry released a TV ad June 3 in which he tells a small gathering that 43 million don't have health care. That's not true -- he means they don't have health insurance. He also says health care "ought to be a right that we make accessible and affordable to every single American." But even his own proposals fall short of making health care a "right," and would leave an estimated 16 million uninsured.

Despite the exaggeration, Kerry's ad gives a generally correct impression of a growing problem, and highlights a major point of difference between the candidates on what to do about it.

Hey, I'm not the brightest point of light, but I asked my 12 year old nephew what 'health care' meant, and he answered without hesitation: health care insurance.

Out of the mouths of babes.

More Annenberg:

The ad is named "Country," and it opens with Kerry standing in front of three American flags, telling a small group "I love this country." You can't get much more positive than that.

Of course, he hastens to add: "and I think it's going in the wrong direction."

Of course? Isn't that editorializing more than just a bit? Three American flags..underlined? This is really starting to trouble me.

Annenberg's follies can be found here.

The rest of the Fact Check's analysis is much more balanced and essentially sticks to the facts. It rightly points out errors in Kerry's new ad. Under Kerry's actual health care proposal, as noted above, some 16 million Americans will still be without health care insurance. That's 95% of the population.

Kerry's message is, that as of today, 43 million Americans are without health care insurance. This is not in dispute.

I'll be watching for additional cases of editorial statements from Fact Check. It is our duty to see that Fact Check does just exactly that. Check facts.

Kerry: Many U.S. Military Back Him as Their Commander

That's the headline Reuters is running.

Is it true? Almost certainly. It is equally certain that many in the U.S. military back Bush as their commander.

As is the norm, the best bits of the article are near the end. On page 2 in this case.

Following this salvo from the Kerry camp on page 1:

"You can't run around the country talking about patriotism, the flag and service to the nation and willfully turn your back on the people you've asked to serve," he said, citing Bush administration cuts in veterans' benefits.

The Bush campaign counters at the top of page 2:

Bush re-election spokesman Steve Schmidt said the Republicans' campaign to win over veterans for the Nov. 2 election was the largest grass-roots veterans organization in history.

"Our focus on peer-to-peer contact among veterans supporting the president is truly unprecedented and reflects the strong ties between America's veterans and President Bush's principled leadership and commitment to our military," he said.

So, in classic tit-for-tat politicking, both camps offer opposing views. The following second paragraph is the most telling item about where the Kerry campaign is likely headed in its battle(no pun intended) to woo the votes of veterans:

There are more than 26 million veterans in the United States and their vote usually goes Republican. In a CBS poll released on Friday, Bush got 54 percent, of the veterans' vote while Kerry had the support of 40 percent.

Democrats believe they can close the gap by contrasting the military records of Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, and Kerry, who volunteered for two tours in Vietnam, pushing for increased veterans' benefits and critiquing the president for the way he went to war in Iraq.

You can almost feel the race for this block of voters - which may be crucial in a close race - heating up.

Who knows who will win the majority of this traditionally Republican voting block? I think we can be assured of one thing. That the truth isn't likely to be spared in the coming months as both camps look for votes.

No matter who wins in November, it is certain that veracity will be a victim. We deserve better.

Slowly but Shirley

Blog info. update: I'm still working on two pieces.

1) The Bush-Iraq nexus, and his invocation of WWII language.(Churchillian? Nah.)

2) A piece by a former ardent Bush supporter. What he said, and more importantly, what he didn't.

I know that you're on the edge of your seat(computer chair?) waiting for these two items of no consequence, so I've a classic little game you can play while you wait. :)

Timing is Everything

What did Bush know, and when did he know it?

Interesting times, these.

Fact Check: The Sequel

Annenberg Fact Check director Brooks Jackson gives us consumers of political ads some background on how the ads can be patently false while deception in other forms of consumer advertising - namely commercial goods - has been a crime for decades.

He cites examples, laws, and 'problems with enforcement' to illustrate the point.

After their most unusual showing of 1 June, we at pure bs headquarters(my pc room, really) will be watching Fact Check watch the campaigns.

Here's a link to Brook Jackson's latest piece.

Stuff

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has a U.S. release date of 25 June 2004.

Making Contact has June's ElectionWatch ?04: "War on Terror" available for streaming and or download.

Making Contact's weekly half-hour radio shows are an adjunct to the aganda setting big media. Investigative journalism and in-depth analysis you can use. Not an end-all, but another place to gather facts in order to assist you in developing a view of the world that satisfies the tenets of objective reality. Simply that objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe it or not.

On an unrelated note, 'tenet' homograph CIA Director George Tenet resigned last night citing - "personal reasons."

Indeed.

The AP is reporting that Adnan Pachachi is interested in potentially pursuing the Iraqi 'presidency' after Iraq's transition from U.S. occupation to democracy is complete.

I like Pachachi. Out of all of the members of the IGC, he is the only one that wouldn't take free housing, insisting that he pay rent. On my book, that's very cool.

Meanwhile, in Iraq of 3 June 2004, al-Sistani gives tacit approval to the new U.N. appointed interim government.

This while U.S. forces battle 'insurgents' in Kufa - al-Sadr's Mehdi it appears - and in Baghdad.

The best way to stay atop the situation is the UK's GoogleNews trumper NewsNow.

The situation in Iraq, on so many different issues, and battlefronts is so fluid that you not only 'need a program to tell the players,' but you need a new program several times per day.

I'm going to try and collect on my sleep debt now. I'm utterly silly. Sorry for any inconvenience.

After a rest, it is my aim to look at what Bush said yesterday about Iraq, democracy and terrorism, as well as look at a formerly ardent Bush supporter's latest piece and see what is left out.

Noam and Me

I read Chomsky skeptically. Like other intellectuals, what he(I'm gender neutral - Dr. Vandana Shiva is another favorite read) says is a good guide to then go out and verify the facts, distill all the available information and hopefully arrive at a conclusion that is, if not an accurate reflection of reality, at least sane :)

That's all I try and do.

Bearing that in mind, Noam Chomsky has three new entries to his weblog on Zmag.

And if you aren't acquainted with Ms. Shiva's work, definitely give her a look.

My "Fact Check" Trouble

As anyone that follows this blog knows, I am a big fan of Annenberg's Political Fact Check.

The information is good information. They are very fair in the treatment of issues.

Hence, I'm a bit puzzled - only a bit :) - at yesterday's installment that was an analysis of a Kerry ad that lacked any facts to check.

I find this only a bit odd. The critique of the ad states that the ad: "offers a string of glittering general statements without a single specific factual claim."

Okay, so why did this ad fall under Fact Check's watchful eye?

The most rational armchair analysis of Fact Check's analysis, is that while Bush has arguably run the most negative campaign in history to this point, Kerry has maintained a relatively high-road approach - and it seems to be working.

I can think of other, partisan reasons why Fact Check would use phrases such as "empty oratory" and "some of the ad's statements -- like hydrogen itself -- are lighter than air," but similar if less pithy language was used to describe three early Bush ads.

Bush's "steady leadership in times of change" ad caused me to reflect on exactly on what Bush's weakest point is; simply that he sets the course, and stays the course, regardless of new realities.

Steadyness, in Bush's case, could be seen as a euphemism for rigidity in thinking, dogmatism and or inability for 'big picture' thinking. I'll let you my dear, gentle reader draw your own conclusions.

I think that Fact Check needs to stick to what it does best. If they want to comment on opinion and generalities, then the phrase 'fact check' becomes meaningless.

I know that's being harsh, but I think it is also correct.

From WAY outside the Beltway..pure bs

Proof that Irony is not Dead

This headline speaks for itself: CIA to Investigate Chalabi - U.S. Lawmaker so reads the Reuters headline.

That the CIA would allow one of their most abysmal 'experiments' to even go to the 'gents' unescorted is beyond me. Sure, the neocons loved him..Am I the only one that finds that relationship alone justification for 24/7 surveillance? Egads.

(the second link - to a NewSpeak article - is a good Chalabi primer, for those that haven't been following along)

I just had a forehead slapping incident. This is utterly amusing and tragic at once.

Trudeau Honors Troops

Hats off to Gary Trudeau of Doonesbury fame for publishing this. I'd also like to extend thanks to all those Sunday newspapers that published the strip.

It would be all the more powerful if he could name the names of the roughly 12x number of Iraqis that have lost their lives in the interest of _____________ insert the moving rationale de jour for the Iraq War redux.

We know so few of their names.

That they were also human beings with lives, loves, joys and sorrows cannot be lost because Iraqis are 'them.'

Kerry-McCain Again?

Well it looks like this going to be a hard story to kill. The Punditocracy love speculating about this, so you do too. So goes the rationale that the media set the agenda for what we think about.

This is of course true in large part.

Items comes in over the news wires at night, and the NYT, Washington Post and others decide what Americans are to be focused on the following day.

Speculating over a Kerry-McCain ticket is only a dead issue if the media decide that it is..It may be some time before we hear the end of this, as pundits are drawn like moths to flame over the novelty of the idea.

I really like Knight-Ridder, too. Tis a shame.

Bush Hates Veterans

After yesterday's heartfelt commencements to verterans past and present, President Bush shows his true colors.

Nod to copygodd