John Hackworth, a reporter for the Sun-Herald newspaper in Port Charlotte, reported three incidents which illustrate what sometimes happens to Democrats where we live.
On Election Day, a Democratic Party member found a nice downtown corner in Punta Gorda to put up some signs for Democratic candidates. It was nowhere near a polling place. But police said she was violating some local ordinance or other.
Another Democratic Party member handed out materials outside a polling place in Punta Gorda only to be confronted by a poll worker who charged up to her and demanded she leave and take her handouts with her. She told him to go call the police because she knew she was in the right. This time, there were no police. Other poll workers apparently reminded the aggressive one that the line was 100 feet from a polling place beyond which politicking is legal.
The city council of Punta Gordsa did a thoughtful thing. They allowed the Republicans who won the primary to leave their signs up until November. They did not happen to also allow Dems to put up their signs sooner than 45 days before the election, which is the usual requirement.
A couple years ago, a Dem took a sign into the local county-supported cultural center where Governor Jeb Bush was speaking. The lone man stood quietly against the wall opposite the entrance to the meeting room. His sign was critical of the Iraq war. The county sheriff himself arrested the man for disturbing the peace, handcuffed him, and escorted him to a deputy who drove him to the court house where he was released.
As my friend Garrett said, "Some folks want to have a police state, as long as they can be the police!"
I must add that the sheriff took a lot of heat for his actions.
At the polling places where I've worked, you really can't tell which workers are one party or the other or neither. Each polling place has to have at least one of each. Usually, the atmosphere has been like an "Old Home Week."
I really haven't heard of others given the unfair treatment I listed above.
But as I reported in my previous blog, several things are either incompetently done or are intentionally done to discourage voters.
The first time I worked in the precinct was also a primary. The precinct had just changed the voting site, giving an address that put people on the wrong street. Further, the people at the former voting site did not know where the new site was. Sounds familiar! Even so, 152 people made it for that election.
We had 121 this time.
We had ethnic families vote that year and in the Presidential Primary last January. No ethnic families came this time even though school was out. White mothers with kids came this time in numbers I don't remember from before.
Another problem was the various ID numbers we had to record before we started and reconcile after closing the polls on sheets that were not always clear about what they wanted. In fact, one key sheet was on the very bottom of the main materials bag, something we did not find until after the poll had to open.
There are always glitches when a new system is tried. It will be interesting to see if those same glitches plague us in November. . . .
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Prospects for the Two Parties in November
Let me try to sort out some of the major factors that will work in favor of each party in their congressional races and the Presidential race. This is not a fully informed analysis but contains some things I think are significant and need to be taken into account.
For the Democrats, the Congressional prospects are quite good. Republicans have been in charge from 1996 to 2006 and, except for the Clinton legacy of a budget surplus, much of what has happened since belongs to the Republicans, most of it because of the rubber-stamping of the Bush administration’s policies and failure to investigate serious violations like the torture issue.
Because many of the Republican congressional leaders have retired in order to get cushy jobs as lobbyists, something the main stream media (MSM) has reported, and because so many have been convicted of sex or corruption charges, also reported widely in the MSM, Democrats in most states and districts have an excellent chance of winning those House and Senate seats.
Since those are mostly “local” elections, that is, are usually matters of which candidate will represent the mood of that district or state re: their particular needs and views, those races will not be overshadowed by foreign or even many domestic issues that may flare up between now and November.
Not everyone is savvy to how obstructionist the Republicans (both in Congress and in the Administration) have been since the Democratic takeover in 2006, the rest of the problems facing the Republicans will overcome that ignorance. The Democrats will win enough Senate seats to override a filibuster (more than 60). And the House majority will be strong enough to override a veto. That will put most Republicans into the situation where they will want to collaborate
Will progressives be the major power in the Democratic take-over? That will depend on their success in the primaries. Those that become the candidates will have a good chance of winning because they will reflect the mood of their constituencies. But many “blue dog” candidates from conservative states will win and Congress will end up having to work across the benches as well as across the aisle.
A partisan problem will not be eliminated by the likely Democratic congressional victory because districts will still tend to be gerrymandered so that whoever is elected will tend to operate on behalf of the base that elected them from their districts.
Only an Administration that is intent on collaboration and bringing everyone to the table can reset the mode of operation in Washington to work past that. It will be a tough sell.
If the new Administration blinks, it will be Washington as usual, only the fights will be between the progressives and moderates with the Republicans being spoilers.
It appears the prospects are excellent for the Democrats in both houses of Congress.
Prospects for the Presidency for the Democrats are better than for years.
Senator Obama has mobilized more people into his organization so that not only will Democrats be campaigning actively in all fifty states which helps the local Democratic Party as well as the national ticket, that mobilization has already out-raised and outspent the Republican Party. One significant recent report shows that military contributors back Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain by a margin of 6-1.
The strengths of the Obama campaign are that they have reached out to every group in the country, not just the traditional core groups of the Democratic Party. They have engaged young people way beyond anyone’s expectations. They have engaged all of the minorities far more successfully than the Republicans have. Since minorities are becoming majority in many parts of the country, that is a major plus for the Democrats.
Use of the internet has been incredibly effective so far and will continue to be through November, far more effective than what the Republicans have done in terms of quality, organization, and immediacy.
Sen. Obama himself is a far more winsome candidate and far more thoughtful and articulate candidate than Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain’s moral lapse in divorcing his first wife and the pettiness and ignorance of the rich guys campaigning for Sen. McCain will encourage a lot of moderate folks to vote against Sen. McCain and for Sen. Obama.
I think that Sen. McCain will drive off pro-Sen. Clinton supporters and will send them into Sen. Obama’s camp where they will vote. Things will be so bad on the Republican side that even the staunchest Clinton supporters will have to vote against McCain some way.
But will all of that be enough to provide a Democratic victory for Sen. Obama?
The first observation that needs to be made is that the American electorate tends to vote one way for Congress and the other way for President. They tend to not want to put all the political power into one basket.
That has not been true between 1992 and 2006, though in some districts it was clearly so.
--Note: I cannot document the above statements nor most of my other assertions, so take these as hypotheses which I think have been documented by others. You will hear them from others and maybe someone will show some of mine are not correct!--
My second observation is that the electoral processes all across the country have some real problems. While Ohio and Florida are the best examples of conflict of interest where Republicans and the computer voting machines of Republicans, even with the paper back-up, can leave a dark cloud of suspicion over the results.
Here are some of the problems in a little more detail. The county elections offices control the voting processes. Often, they are backed up by the state election officials (office of the Secretary of State). Decisions made by those local officials are crucial and often are potentially partisan.
The clearest example was the 2000 Florida Presidential election. Control of the kinds of ballots used, the format of those ballots, and the poor security around recounts all fell back upon Republican operatives.
That conflict of interest has not been addressed in Florida as yet.
Nor has it been addressed in Ohio, to my knowledge, where Diebold who makes many of the nation’s voting machines, is run by a Republican who was on President Bush’s state election committee in 2000 and 2004.
All it would take in most districts is a chip in the computers used for voting to switch 3% of a vote to make it possible for a candidate to “win” without raising a challenge. Since voting machines and their respective chips are considered by the courts as business secrets and cannot be checked, there is no way to know if the computers have been tampered with.
I still think something was fishy when in the 2000 and 2004 elections, exit polling and election results differed. To my knowledge, that had not been so in all previous elections.
--This is one more of my hypotheses based on my recollection of decades of watching elections.—
The Republicans still hold this edge and it could make a difference in who ends up being our next President.
Another problem where Republicans are in control of the election processes is that they determine whether or not someone may vote. In the last two elections a Texas company gathered all the names of felons and distributed them to election officials across the country. The lists were so long that there was little checking of the accuracy of the lists. Consequently, people with the same name, especially if they were ethnic (read that African-American), were turned down at the poles even if there was information which would have ordinarily qualified them to vote (like never being convicted anywhere, let alone of a felony).
I do not believe that possibility has been eliminated as we head into the 2008 elections.
News reports indicate that some election officials are not recognizing the voter registration of groups working with college students, minorities, and the elderly. If those folks show up at the polls and are turned away without having been warned that they were not yet registered, that will be horribly discouraging to potential voters.
I do not believe that issue has been addressed. It is likely to take law suits that are costly and time-consuming to resolve, so those voters will be disenfranchised for this election.
In Florida, voters must present a driver’s license. In Missouri, that is illegal because courts have ruled that it discriminates against the elderly and ethnic and student voters who do not drive nor have the resources to go to an obscure office to get some other kind of comparable ID. Despite that, election workers in Missouri were trained to turn down voters without a driver’s license!
For years, all I had to show was my voter registration card. Now it is no longer enough. There needs to be a national policy that is enforced across partisan lines and meets constitutional tests.
There are subtle ways that voters can be discouraged. I am a poll worker here in Florida. There are many things that bother me.
One, our precinct has been moved for the third time in three years with no notice of change being posted at the previous sites.
Two, we have an elderly population but the polling place has been moved to an elementary school which has long halls, too few staff to give direction and assistance in those long halls, small chairs and restroom facilities, obscure restrooms, an incorrect address, and a small amount of space for two precincts to function. We have informed the county elections office and do not see most of these problems being resolved. The school is free for the use of the election office.
Three, the new ballot system does include a paper ballot on which voters are to fill in small circles with a pencil that is then read by a computer which has its “proprietary” chips. It will take a fair amount of time to fill out. I can foresee our older voters pondering and penciling for more than a few minutes. I foresee the long lines in November. The Republican officers in charge of this election loved the touch screen computer voting machines and are choosing a paper program that is clearly more time-consuming even though there are other machines which print out the results of a touch screen system which is as fast as clerks use at McDonalds.
Back on the national stage, the MSM (mainstream media) seems to continue to slant its news about the candidates so that they will appear to stay close. They also may be very much more interested in protecting the business interests of the corporations that own them. I think that will be hard to overcome. The internet can do only so much.
The Republicans have no problem with telling the truth. For them, under Richard Viguery and Karl Rove, they will say anything they think someone will believe even if it is not true. They are already sending out e-mails which are well-designed and cleverly written but which are not signed. And they intend to play on the fears and prejudices of Americans. That may backfire as people become skeptical of these attacks . . . but maybe not.
Finally, the deep-seated prejudices in many individuals and communities and neighborhoods will operate in many folks’ hearts when they are in the voting booths. They want to believe all the bad stuff they hear about Sen. Obama so they can justify keeping their racial prejudice but have an excuse that doesn’t sound racist..
How many of them are there? A lot more than we want to think. Enough of them to make a major difference in this election? Possibly not just by themselves. But with all the other factors to the advantage of Sen. McCain, the Republican candidate won’t turn these votes down.
A frightening problem is that the lies and fear-mongering will persuade someone to try to assassinate Sen. Obama. The Secret Service is very competent but there have already been complaints about them not providing tight security in some contexts.
The chances are very good that they will see to it Sen. Obama will be safe for the rest of his life.
MY CONCLUSION
Based on this set of observations, I believe that more Americans will vote for Sen. Obama than will vote for Sen. McCain. Despite all the tricks, electoral process advantages, and lies of the McCain supporters, Sen. Obama will maintain his lead and will win more states and more electoral votes than Sen. McCain.
Sen. Obama will have a Congress with which he can work his collegial style. America has a chance to come out of its funk.
For the Democrats, the Congressional prospects are quite good. Republicans have been in charge from 1996 to 2006 and, except for the Clinton legacy of a budget surplus, much of what has happened since belongs to the Republicans, most of it because of the rubber-stamping of the Bush administration’s policies and failure to investigate serious violations like the torture issue.
Because many of the Republican congressional leaders have retired in order to get cushy jobs as lobbyists, something the main stream media (MSM) has reported, and because so many have been convicted of sex or corruption charges, also reported widely in the MSM, Democrats in most states and districts have an excellent chance of winning those House and Senate seats.
Since those are mostly “local” elections, that is, are usually matters of which candidate will represent the mood of that district or state re: their particular needs and views, those races will not be overshadowed by foreign or even many domestic issues that may flare up between now and November.
Not everyone is savvy to how obstructionist the Republicans (both in Congress and in the Administration) have been since the Democratic takeover in 2006, the rest of the problems facing the Republicans will overcome that ignorance. The Democrats will win enough Senate seats to override a filibuster (more than 60). And the House majority will be strong enough to override a veto. That will put most Republicans into the situation where they will want to collaborate
Will progressives be the major power in the Democratic take-over? That will depend on their success in the primaries. Those that become the candidates will have a good chance of winning because they will reflect the mood of their constituencies. But many “blue dog” candidates from conservative states will win and Congress will end up having to work across the benches as well as across the aisle.
A partisan problem will not be eliminated by the likely Democratic congressional victory because districts will still tend to be gerrymandered so that whoever is elected will tend to operate on behalf of the base that elected them from their districts.
Only an Administration that is intent on collaboration and bringing everyone to the table can reset the mode of operation in Washington to work past that. It will be a tough sell.
If the new Administration blinks, it will be Washington as usual, only the fights will be between the progressives and moderates with the Republicans being spoilers.
It appears the prospects are excellent for the Democrats in both houses of Congress.
Prospects for the Presidency for the Democrats are better than for years.
Senator Obama has mobilized more people into his organization so that not only will Democrats be campaigning actively in all fifty states which helps the local Democratic Party as well as the national ticket, that mobilization has already out-raised and outspent the Republican Party. One significant recent report shows that military contributors back Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain by a margin of 6-1.
The strengths of the Obama campaign are that they have reached out to every group in the country, not just the traditional core groups of the Democratic Party. They have engaged young people way beyond anyone’s expectations. They have engaged all of the minorities far more successfully than the Republicans have. Since minorities are becoming majority in many parts of the country, that is a major plus for the Democrats.
Use of the internet has been incredibly effective so far and will continue to be through November, far more effective than what the Republicans have done in terms of quality, organization, and immediacy.
Sen. Obama himself is a far more winsome candidate and far more thoughtful and articulate candidate than Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain’s moral lapse in divorcing his first wife and the pettiness and ignorance of the rich guys campaigning for Sen. McCain will encourage a lot of moderate folks to vote against Sen. McCain and for Sen. Obama.
I think that Sen. McCain will drive off pro-Sen. Clinton supporters and will send them into Sen. Obama’s camp where they will vote. Things will be so bad on the Republican side that even the staunchest Clinton supporters will have to vote against McCain some way.
But will all of that be enough to provide a Democratic victory for Sen. Obama?
The first observation that needs to be made is that the American electorate tends to vote one way for Congress and the other way for President. They tend to not want to put all the political power into one basket.
That has not been true between 1992 and 2006, though in some districts it was clearly so.
--Note: I cannot document the above statements nor most of my other assertions, so take these as hypotheses which I think have been documented by others. You will hear them from others and maybe someone will show some of mine are not correct!--
My second observation is that the electoral processes all across the country have some real problems. While Ohio and Florida are the best examples of conflict of interest where Republicans and the computer voting machines of Republicans, even with the paper back-up, can leave a dark cloud of suspicion over the results.
Here are some of the problems in a little more detail. The county elections offices control the voting processes. Often, they are backed up by the state election officials (office of the Secretary of State). Decisions made by those local officials are crucial and often are potentially partisan.
The clearest example was the 2000 Florida Presidential election. Control of the kinds of ballots used, the format of those ballots, and the poor security around recounts all fell back upon Republican operatives.
That conflict of interest has not been addressed in Florida as yet.
Nor has it been addressed in Ohio, to my knowledge, where Diebold who makes many of the nation’s voting machines, is run by a Republican who was on President Bush’s state election committee in 2000 and 2004.
All it would take in most districts is a chip in the computers used for voting to switch 3% of a vote to make it possible for a candidate to “win” without raising a challenge. Since voting machines and their respective chips are considered by the courts as business secrets and cannot be checked, there is no way to know if the computers have been tampered with.
I still think something was fishy when in the 2000 and 2004 elections, exit polling and election results differed. To my knowledge, that had not been so in all previous elections.
--This is one more of my hypotheses based on my recollection of decades of watching elections.—
The Republicans still hold this edge and it could make a difference in who ends up being our next President.
Another problem where Republicans are in control of the election processes is that they determine whether or not someone may vote. In the last two elections a Texas company gathered all the names of felons and distributed them to election officials across the country. The lists were so long that there was little checking of the accuracy of the lists. Consequently, people with the same name, especially if they were ethnic (read that African-American), were turned down at the poles even if there was information which would have ordinarily qualified them to vote (like never being convicted anywhere, let alone of a felony).
I do not believe that possibility has been eliminated as we head into the 2008 elections.
News reports indicate that some election officials are not recognizing the voter registration of groups working with college students, minorities, and the elderly. If those folks show up at the polls and are turned away without having been warned that they were not yet registered, that will be horribly discouraging to potential voters.
I do not believe that issue has been addressed. It is likely to take law suits that are costly and time-consuming to resolve, so those voters will be disenfranchised for this election.
In Florida, voters must present a driver’s license. In Missouri, that is illegal because courts have ruled that it discriminates against the elderly and ethnic and student voters who do not drive nor have the resources to go to an obscure office to get some other kind of comparable ID. Despite that, election workers in Missouri were trained to turn down voters without a driver’s license!
For years, all I had to show was my voter registration card. Now it is no longer enough. There needs to be a national policy that is enforced across partisan lines and meets constitutional tests.
There are subtle ways that voters can be discouraged. I am a poll worker here in Florida. There are many things that bother me.
One, our precinct has been moved for the third time in three years with no notice of change being posted at the previous sites.
Two, we have an elderly population but the polling place has been moved to an elementary school which has long halls, too few staff to give direction and assistance in those long halls, small chairs and restroom facilities, obscure restrooms, an incorrect address, and a small amount of space for two precincts to function. We have informed the county elections office and do not see most of these problems being resolved. The school is free for the use of the election office.
Three, the new ballot system does include a paper ballot on which voters are to fill in small circles with a pencil that is then read by a computer which has its “proprietary” chips. It will take a fair amount of time to fill out. I can foresee our older voters pondering and penciling for more than a few minutes. I foresee the long lines in November. The Republican officers in charge of this election loved the touch screen computer voting machines and are choosing a paper program that is clearly more time-consuming even though there are other machines which print out the results of a touch screen system which is as fast as clerks use at McDonalds.
Back on the national stage, the MSM (mainstream media) seems to continue to slant its news about the candidates so that they will appear to stay close. They also may be very much more interested in protecting the business interests of the corporations that own them. I think that will be hard to overcome. The internet can do only so much.
The Republicans have no problem with telling the truth. For them, under Richard Viguery and Karl Rove, they will say anything they think someone will believe even if it is not true. They are already sending out e-mails which are well-designed and cleverly written but which are not signed. And they intend to play on the fears and prejudices of Americans. That may backfire as people become skeptical of these attacks . . . but maybe not.
Finally, the deep-seated prejudices in many individuals and communities and neighborhoods will operate in many folks’ hearts when they are in the voting booths. They want to believe all the bad stuff they hear about Sen. Obama so they can justify keeping their racial prejudice but have an excuse that doesn’t sound racist..
How many of them are there? A lot more than we want to think. Enough of them to make a major difference in this election? Possibly not just by themselves. But with all the other factors to the advantage of Sen. McCain, the Republican candidate won’t turn these votes down.
A frightening problem is that the lies and fear-mongering will persuade someone to try to assassinate Sen. Obama. The Secret Service is very competent but there have already been complaints about them not providing tight security in some contexts.
The chances are very good that they will see to it Sen. Obama will be safe for the rest of his life.
MY CONCLUSION
Based on this set of observations, I believe that more Americans will vote for Sen. Obama than will vote for Sen. McCain. Despite all the tricks, electoral process advantages, and lies of the McCain supporters, Sen. Obama will maintain his lead and will win more states and more electoral votes than Sen. McCain.
Sen. Obama will have a Congress with which he can work his collegial style. America has a chance to come out of its funk.
Tire pressure and Newt Gingrich
I understand from a variety if sources that Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told a national audience via FOX new that Sen. Obama's tire pressure talking point really benefited Big Oil because air pressure pumps at gas stations were not free and the profit went to Big Oil.
How silly can such an allegedly intelligent man get? Quite silly, as a matter of fact.
Remember how George H. W. Bush lost a lot of credibility when he went into a grocery store and had no idea what the scanner was where the clerk checked out the customers. Silly.
The wealthy have no idea what is going on in the world where people buy food and gas and clothing every day.
Soon after our current President was elected, George W. Bush said he'd talk to his friends if gas prices went up. He was asked more recently to do that and he said, "I tried." Silly!
Sen. McCain owns ten multi-million dollar homes so he will not be able to really understand what the foreclosure situation is. I expect he will say something silly soon. I may already have missed it!
And here is Speaker Gingrich too rich to know better telling us something stupid. Big Oil has its name on local stations but the local stations are independently owned and operated by local business people. By the time the local dealer finishing paying for gasoline off the tank trucks, Big Oil has already got every penny it is going to get. Actually, every dollar! The dealer gets pennies by how much s/he marks up the price to cover the business expenses.
If s/he decides to put in an air pump, that is a business expense to that dealer. The air that is pumped is free. Big Oil has not got its hands on that yet. So the profit, if any, for pumping air into tires goes to the dealer and not Big Oil.
I love it when some of these rich politicians say silly things. Folks in the backwaters of the country, in the slums, in the small towns, in the neighborhoods, even in most suburbs, know dealers and how their costs work. We learned when we fussed with them about the rise in prices two years ago when gas went to TWO dollars a gallon.
Rich folks don't even buy their own gas so they never notice.
Sen. Obama knows these common kinds of things. Properly inflated tires cut into Big Oil profits.
Maybe the best ones to help Sen. Obama in his campaign for President are the rich politicians trying to run him down. Their own ignorance will sound silly to everyone else.
How silly can such an allegedly intelligent man get? Quite silly, as a matter of fact.
Remember how George H. W. Bush lost a lot of credibility when he went into a grocery store and had no idea what the scanner was where the clerk checked out the customers. Silly.
The wealthy have no idea what is going on in the world where people buy food and gas and clothing every day.
Soon after our current President was elected, George W. Bush said he'd talk to his friends if gas prices went up. He was asked more recently to do that and he said, "I tried." Silly!
Sen. McCain owns ten multi-million dollar homes so he will not be able to really understand what the foreclosure situation is. I expect he will say something silly soon. I may already have missed it!
And here is Speaker Gingrich too rich to know better telling us something stupid. Big Oil has its name on local stations but the local stations are independently owned and operated by local business people. By the time the local dealer finishing paying for gasoline off the tank trucks, Big Oil has already got every penny it is going to get. Actually, every dollar! The dealer gets pennies by how much s/he marks up the price to cover the business expenses.
If s/he decides to put in an air pump, that is a business expense to that dealer. The air that is pumped is free. Big Oil has not got its hands on that yet. So the profit, if any, for pumping air into tires goes to the dealer and not Big Oil.
I love it when some of these rich politicians say silly things. Folks in the backwaters of the country, in the slums, in the small towns, in the neighborhoods, even in most suburbs, know dealers and how their costs work. We learned when we fussed with them about the rise in prices two years ago when gas went to TWO dollars a gallon.
Rich folks don't even buy their own gas so they never notice.
Sen. Obama knows these common kinds of things. Properly inflated tires cut into Big Oil profits.
Maybe the best ones to help Sen. Obama in his campaign for President are the rich politicians trying to run him down. Their own ignorance will sound silly to everyone else.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Saturday Debate, Part II
From Salon.com, I've borrowed the following quote from Dan Gilgoff of Beliefnet.
Dan Gilgoff: Some Obama supporters are claiming that McCain saw the questions before the forum began, giving him a leg up on Obama.
Rick Warren: They're dead wrong. That's just sour grapes. They both did fantastically well. The only question he knew, I gave them the first question and I was changing the questions within an hour [before the forum began]. I talked to both of them a week before the debate and told them all the themes. I talked personally to John McCain and I talked personally to Barack Obama. I said, 'We'll talk about leadership, talk about the roles of government,' I said I'd probably have a question about climate change, probably a question on the courts. I didn't say, 'I'm going to ask which Supreme Court justice would you not [nominate]. They were clearly not prepared for that.
D.G.: A source at the debate tells me that McCain had access to some communications devices in the few minutes before he went on stage with you and that there was a monitor in his green room, in violation of the debate rules.
R.W.: That's absolutely a lie, absolutely a lie. That room was totally free, with no monitors -- a flat out lie.
Hmmm. . . . I was right that Rev. Warren did some pre-debate discussing of the questions with both candidates. If I had been him, I would have done the same thing to reassure both candidates that it was a legitimate event. The difficulty is that if he as moderator has a preference between the two, he may say a little more to one than to the other. The moderator's credibility is on the line since it is his opportunity to gain national stature. Who knows how honest he was in his pre-debate discussions?
Well, Rev. Warren's honesty was put to the test because while he told the audience that Sen. McCain was in a room where he couldn't hear what was going on onstage, Sen. McCain's staff reported that he was still in his motorcade on the way to the event. For someone who had so much at stake to put on a responsible effort with a national audience, Rev. Warren had to either know of Sen. McCain's actual whereabouts or presumed too much. He certainly had not accompanied Sen.McCain to the room as a matter of hospitality, which would have been what I'd have done.
Rev. Warren failed that test.
How much of the debate Sen. McCain heard is not clear from this snippet. But other reports say there was a monitor in the green room where Sen. McCain was supposed to have waited and that it was turned off (disabled?). But Rev. Warren offers a different response. There was no monitor!
Is this a big deal?
Is truth telling a big deal? Was it the Packer offensive line whose names Sen. McCain used when he was asked for names of his unit as he wrote in a book about his POW experience or was it the Steelers' defensive line as he told a Pittsburgh crowd this year?
Somehow those who do not worry about the truth in little things do not worry about it in the big things.
Update: You may have noticed that I removed the reference to the "cross in the dirt" vignette that McCain uses and some have said was borrowed by McCain from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I still have my doubts but researchers at FactCheck.org have found that the story could have happened but no one will ever know. The alleged borrowing is unlikely because of the differences in the details, the likelihood of numerous such communications among the many Christians under persecution, and the ambiguity about Solzhenitsyn's actual use of the story. - I've tried to find the blogs where I originally got information related to the vignette and I can't find them now. . . .
Monday, August 18, 2008
Saturday Night's "Debate" in the California Church
We got the impression that the questions for each candidate would be the same, would be given to each fresh (Sen. McCain was assigned a seat in the "cone of silence" so he would not hear the questions and Sen. Obama's answers), and thus each would be spontaneous and unrehearsed.
But I had the impression that both candidates may have seen copies of the questions ahead of time. Both candidates, as I saw them interact with Rev. Warren, seemed to be aware of the questions and responded not as much with spontaneity as with their typical way of answering.
Despite Rev. Warren's intent, it appears the questions fit better into Sen. McCain's talking points than with Sen. Obama's.
In fact, there seemed to be a sense that Sen. McCain had his answers ready and pounced on most of the questions.
Some bloggers and the Obama campaign committee now claim they think that McCain actually did hear some if not all of the questions and Sen. Obama's answers.
There was one moment about 19 minutes into Sen. McCain's time for which I reran a recording to see if I heard him right.
On my way there, I heard Sen. McCain open with a response to Rev. Warren's concern about his comfort in the "cone of silence." "I was trying to hear through the walls." Motive was there, but not enough to be decisive. At the nineteen minute mark, Rev. Warren asked the question about abortion to which Sen. McCain responded he would be the "Pro-Life President" if elected. Then he asked, "Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices?"
When I heard it Saturday night, my impression was that he was referring back to when Sen. Obama talked about the justices that he would not have nominated.
As I watched the rerun, I was not far from keeping that interpretation. But the actual words do not provide any clear alternative to his simply wanting to discuss Supreme Court nominations as part of the abortion issue.
But I still feel that McCain had time to prepare his answers and that Obama may have.
There is no question that McCain knew what he wanted to give that friendly audience.
I was not happy with his failure to answer some of the questions but inserted his talking points instead.
And I think he may have really lost the women's vote by proclaiming he is the pro-life candidate.
But it is hard to say whether or not he cheated and was not in the cone of silence.
Update: Criticism of the "debate" Saturday includes the possibility that McCain came late to the site and therefore had an opportunity to listen to the broadcast in his car as he was driven in. While he apparently went to the green room, which Rev. Warren jokingly called the "cone of silence," where the monitor in there was turned off (Rev. Warren asserted), he may have heard enough of the broadcast to have time to anticipate his own responses.
I recall that in the lead up to the broadcast, Rev. Warren said the two candidates would meet briefly at the beginning of the broadcast and then not be on stage together at any other time. It was smoother to have the two meet after Sen. Obama had concluded his turn. But if that was not the original plan, then Sen. McCain could have had a major advantage.
I hope there is a careful review of what happened.
Further update: The McCain people stated that Sen. McCain was still in his motorcade on the way to the site when the broadcast was going on.
But I had the impression that both candidates may have seen copies of the questions ahead of time. Both candidates, as I saw them interact with Rev. Warren, seemed to be aware of the questions and responded not as much with spontaneity as with their typical way of answering.
Despite Rev. Warren's intent, it appears the questions fit better into Sen. McCain's talking points than with Sen. Obama's.
In fact, there seemed to be a sense that Sen. McCain had his answers ready and pounced on most of the questions.
Some bloggers and the Obama campaign committee now claim they think that McCain actually did hear some if not all of the questions and Sen. Obama's answers.
There was one moment about 19 minutes into Sen. McCain's time for which I reran a recording to see if I heard him right.
On my way there, I heard Sen. McCain open with a response to Rev. Warren's concern about his comfort in the "cone of silence." "I was trying to hear through the walls." Motive was there, but not enough to be decisive. At the nineteen minute mark, Rev. Warren asked the question about abortion to which Sen. McCain responded he would be the "Pro-Life President" if elected. Then he asked, "Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices?"
When I heard it Saturday night, my impression was that he was referring back to when Sen. Obama talked about the justices that he would not have nominated.
As I watched the rerun, I was not far from keeping that interpretation. But the actual words do not provide any clear alternative to his simply wanting to discuss Supreme Court nominations as part of the abortion issue.
But I still feel that McCain had time to prepare his answers and that Obama may have.
There is no question that McCain knew what he wanted to give that friendly audience.
I was not happy with his failure to answer some of the questions but inserted his talking points instead.
And I think he may have really lost the women's vote by proclaiming he is the pro-life candidate.
But it is hard to say whether or not he cheated and was not in the cone of silence.
Update: Criticism of the "debate" Saturday includes the possibility that McCain came late to the site and therefore had an opportunity to listen to the broadcast in his car as he was driven in. While he apparently went to the green room, which Rev. Warren jokingly called the "cone of silence," where the monitor in there was turned off (Rev. Warren asserted), he may have heard enough of the broadcast to have time to anticipate his own responses.
I recall that in the lead up to the broadcast, Rev. Warren said the two candidates would meet briefly at the beginning of the broadcast and then not be on stage together at any other time. It was smoother to have the two meet after Sen. Obama had concluded his turn. But if that was not the original plan, then Sen. McCain could have had a major advantage.
I hope there is a careful review of what happened.
Further update: The McCain people stated that Sen. McCain was still in his motorcade on the way to the site when the broadcast was going on.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
News Media Priorities
David Gregory heads up the NBC election coverage team. White House correspondent for many years, sometimes pressing good questions, Gregory also attained the respect of (was co-opted by?) the White House who had him on stage, dancing with Karl Rove, at a recent correspondents' dinner in Washington.
Gregory, showing his earnestness to cover the election scene, jumped all over the story of John Edwards' admission of an affair, and asked the question, "How will this affect the Democratic candidate's chances?"
Let's see. Former Senator Edwards admits to a brief affair. Senator McCain refuses to talk about his relationship with a young blond woman who traveled alone with him several times this past year and somehow the press has not really had an interview with her?
Well, that's not the same thing . . . .
Neither is the way the Republican members of the Senate applauded when their colleague David Vitter was welcomed back after admitting to buying the services of Washington prostitutes. . . .
No, you see, Elizabeth gained some public attention with her fight against cancer. That means the philandering of Vitter and possibly McCain are minor deals. Their consorts were not in the public eye. That changes the media's priorities.
A cardinal rule of what makes news is that it is about a significant person. Elizabeth is a significant person. David Vitter's wife and prostitutes are not. Neither was that McCain assistant.
This priority is not new.
When we lived in Louisiana, we noticed that President H. W. Bush frequently flew into New Orleans, fouling up traffic in order for his car cavalcade to make its way from the airport into the city and then later, usually the same day, back to the airport. Whomever he visited was not an important enough person for the media to report. His frequent trips were not noted in the national news.
Coincidentally, a high end house of prostitution in the Garden District was closed down. That closing made those prostitutes news. But of course, former President Bush did not visit New Orleans after that so there was no media attention.
During this flap over the Edwardses, Harriet Myers and Josh Bolton want to have a judge (a Bush appointee) postpone their appearance before Congress where like other Bush appointees, they will not remember, or will claim executive privilege, or offer some other excuse for not answering questions. Somehow they are no longer significant persons so the media hardly notices.
The Republican members of the House are trying to call the Democrats back from Congress' summer break because they say the House should pass a bill allowing off-shore drilling. They do not seem to be significant people either because their ploy is largely ignored by the media.
That's probably good because they are now claiming credit for the drop in gasoline prices which happened at the same time. Everyone knows that prices dropped because of people suddenly got serious about conserving gasoline by driving less, keeping their tires properly inflated, and buying cars that use less gasoline. And the oil companies are trying to backtrack a little after being able to brag they had after another record high profit quarter.
But then, we aren't significant persons and the oil companies are not seen by the media as significant persons so all those stories disappear behind the glare of what the media sees as news about a significant person, Elizabeth Edwards, who happens to be married to former Senator John Edwards and that spills over, in their minds, onto the Democrats' prospects in the fall election.
I guess the media's brief flirtation with reporting the truth last week was an anomoly.
Gregory, showing his earnestness to cover the election scene, jumped all over the story of John Edwards' admission of an affair, and asked the question, "How will this affect the Democratic candidate's chances?"
Let's see. Former Senator Edwards admits to a brief affair. Senator McCain refuses to talk about his relationship with a young blond woman who traveled alone with him several times this past year and somehow the press has not really had an interview with her?
Well, that's not the same thing . . . .
Neither is the way the Republican members of the Senate applauded when their colleague David Vitter was welcomed back after admitting to buying the services of Washington prostitutes. . . .
No, you see, Elizabeth gained some public attention with her fight against cancer. That means the philandering of Vitter and possibly McCain are minor deals. Their consorts were not in the public eye. That changes the media's priorities.
A cardinal rule of what makes news is that it is about a significant person. Elizabeth is a significant person. David Vitter's wife and prostitutes are not. Neither was that McCain assistant.
This priority is not new.
When we lived in Louisiana, we noticed that President H. W. Bush frequently flew into New Orleans, fouling up traffic in order for his car cavalcade to make its way from the airport into the city and then later, usually the same day, back to the airport. Whomever he visited was not an important enough person for the media to report. His frequent trips were not noted in the national news.
Coincidentally, a high end house of prostitution in the Garden District was closed down. That closing made those prostitutes news. But of course, former President Bush did not visit New Orleans after that so there was no media attention.
During this flap over the Edwardses, Harriet Myers and Josh Bolton want to have a judge (a Bush appointee) postpone their appearance before Congress where like other Bush appointees, they will not remember, or will claim executive privilege, or offer some other excuse for not answering questions. Somehow they are no longer significant persons so the media hardly notices.
The Republican members of the House are trying to call the Democrats back from Congress' summer break because they say the House should pass a bill allowing off-shore drilling. They do not seem to be significant people either because their ploy is largely ignored by the media.
That's probably good because they are now claiming credit for the drop in gasoline prices which happened at the same time. Everyone knows that prices dropped because of people suddenly got serious about conserving gasoline by driving less, keeping their tires properly inflated, and buying cars that use less gasoline. And the oil companies are trying to backtrack a little after being able to brag they had after another record high profit quarter.
But then, we aren't significant persons and the oil companies are not seen by the media as significant persons so all those stories disappear behind the glare of what the media sees as news about a significant person, Elizabeth Edwards, who happens to be married to former Senator John Edwards and that spills over, in their minds, onto the Democrats' prospects in the fall election.
I guess the media's brief flirtation with reporting the truth last week was an anomoly.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Brett Favre, Gorman Thomas, and Sports
Bud Lea, writer emeritus for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, made an interesting observation. He said that watching the Packers practice the day Brett left wasn't any fun.
He put his finger on one aspect of sports that we all know but often overlook. Brett is an entertainer. He may not be conscious of it but he is willing to show enthusiasm, smile, and play. Yes, I mean "play." It's all a game, really. And his style of play, whatever skills he had, didn't have, or lost, made winning and losing almost irrelevant.
That spontaneity is probably why Commissioner Goodell leaned so hard on Brett and the Packers to resolve this thing in a way that kept Brett playing as long as possible.
Those old enough to remember Gorman Thomas who played for the Brewers some years ago may also remember that the Brewers lost some of their spark when he was traded to Cleveland. "Crash," as he was sometimes called, never saw an outfield wall he felt should stop him in his effort to catch a fly ball. He was the club house clown. The Brewers smiled a lot in those days before he was traded.
Milwaukee had great crowds when he played for them. Things went south for the next couple years and the team worked out a trade that brought Gorman back.
Others will have to say whether or not his spirit perked up the team again. I was out of the state.
But any sports franchise that has an "entertainer" draws those who appreciate that kind of entertainment. The whole country appreciated Brett's kind of humor and childlikeness. Goodell is smart enough to want that kind of spirit alive and well, not only for the positive aspect of it but for the fact it counters the negative attention-grabbing stuff some players use to entertain "their" fans.
That raises two questions. 1) Will a new clubhouse clown step up and bring smiles back to the Packer lockerroom? 2) Will Favre be eaten alive by the stress of the Commissioner's expectations, especially on the East Coast stage and also after a spring and summer of little athletic training to be ready for the NFL?
We'll see. . . .
He put his finger on one aspect of sports that we all know but often overlook. Brett is an entertainer. He may not be conscious of it but he is willing to show enthusiasm, smile, and play. Yes, I mean "play." It's all a game, really. And his style of play, whatever skills he had, didn't have, or lost, made winning and losing almost irrelevant.
That spontaneity is probably why Commissioner Goodell leaned so hard on Brett and the Packers to resolve this thing in a way that kept Brett playing as long as possible.
Those old enough to remember Gorman Thomas who played for the Brewers some years ago may also remember that the Brewers lost some of their spark when he was traded to Cleveland. "Crash," as he was sometimes called, never saw an outfield wall he felt should stop him in his effort to catch a fly ball. He was the club house clown. The Brewers smiled a lot in those days before he was traded.
Milwaukee had great crowds when he played for them. Things went south for the next couple years and the team worked out a trade that brought Gorman back.
Others will have to say whether or not his spirit perked up the team again. I was out of the state.
But any sports franchise that has an "entertainer" draws those who appreciate that kind of entertainment. The whole country appreciated Brett's kind of humor and childlikeness. Goodell is smart enough to want that kind of spirit alive and well, not only for the positive aspect of it but for the fact it counters the negative attention-grabbing stuff some players use to entertain "their" fans.
That raises two questions. 1) Will a new clubhouse clown step up and bring smiles back to the Packer lockerroom? 2) Will Favre be eaten alive by the stress of the Commissioner's expectations, especially on the East Coast stage and also after a spring and summer of little athletic training to be ready for the NFL?
We'll see. . . .
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Good Luck, Brett
Brett Favre is going to need all the luck he can get.
There is a real possibility that he will not be welcome in Tampa Bay or any place else right now.
I heard part of an interview on the NFL Channel with Steve Mariucci. "Mooch" is a personal friend of Brett's and called him this morning. After that forty minute talk between the two, "Mooch" called in to the TV channel. He described the group including Frank Winters, Deana, and Bus Cook sitting on the couch in Brett's Green Bay home. After Brett reported how he felt unwanted and unwilling to play for Green Bay any more because of the hurt, "Mooch" said to him, "You need to get off your butt and get to training."
He said Brett laughed and said, "You want me to start running down the street here with the neighbor kids running along like Rocky Balboa?"
I confess to not remembering how "Mooch" responded. I was so struck by that response that my brain went numb. "Yes!" I wanted to yell at Brett. "That's exactly what a champion is willing to do if he really cares about getting in shape. You have to start somewhere!"
I do wish I had listened to find out what "Mooch" did. How do you tell a good friend who has spoken to you whenever you needed something for the NFL network that he needed to grow up and get his butt in gear if he wanted to be a professional athlete?
Brett now has to live with the attitude he has taken. Maybe Jon Gruden can to get through to him.
I suspect Brett is looking for a coach who will let him have his way as he did under Mike Sherman. I do not think that is "Chuckie," who has a stinger nearly every player who has been coached by him has felt at one time or another. That may be why Ted Thompson was unable to do the press conference this morning. Gruden may have talked to Brett and discovered what so many of us have seen, a lack of commitment to do the work it now takes to be an NFL quarterback.
He either will have to be lucky to get to play with another team or he will have to get real.
If he gets real, he will return to the Packers, put aside his hurt against Ted Thompson and anyone else who told him he was no longer prepared to work professionally, go to work to get into playing shape, start at the bottom, and be ready to play when the chance comes along.
I do not know what lucky thing will happen to bring about that result. Whatever that would be, I wish it for Brett.
There is a real possibility that he will not be welcome in Tampa Bay or any place else right now.
I heard part of an interview on the NFL Channel with Steve Mariucci. "Mooch" is a personal friend of Brett's and called him this morning. After that forty minute talk between the two, "Mooch" called in to the TV channel. He described the group including Frank Winters, Deana, and Bus Cook sitting on the couch in Brett's Green Bay home. After Brett reported how he felt unwanted and unwilling to play for Green Bay any more because of the hurt, "Mooch" said to him, "You need to get off your butt and get to training."
He said Brett laughed and said, "You want me to start running down the street here with the neighbor kids running along like Rocky Balboa?"
I confess to not remembering how "Mooch" responded. I was so struck by that response that my brain went numb. "Yes!" I wanted to yell at Brett. "That's exactly what a champion is willing to do if he really cares about getting in shape. You have to start somewhere!"
I do wish I had listened to find out what "Mooch" did. How do you tell a good friend who has spoken to you whenever you needed something for the NFL network that he needed to grow up and get his butt in gear if he wanted to be a professional athlete?
Brett now has to live with the attitude he has taken. Maybe Jon Gruden can to get through to him.
I suspect Brett is looking for a coach who will let him have his way as he did under Mike Sherman. I do not think that is "Chuckie," who has a stinger nearly every player who has been coached by him has felt at one time or another. That may be why Ted Thompson was unable to do the press conference this morning. Gruden may have talked to Brett and discovered what so many of us have seen, a lack of commitment to do the work it now takes to be an NFL quarterback.
He either will have to be lucky to get to play with another team or he will have to get real.
If he gets real, he will return to the Packers, put aside his hurt against Ted Thompson and anyone else who told him he was no longer prepared to work professionally, go to work to get into playing shape, start at the bottom, and be ready to play when the chance comes along.
I do not know what lucky thing will happen to bring about that result. Whatever that would be, I wish it for Brett.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Good Old Harry
A friend received the following from a friend so I can't vouch for its accuracy. But I sure like it. I heard him speak and the quotes in this essay sound just like him. If you can verify any of it, let me know. Thanks.
-----
When President Truman retired from office in 1952, his income was substantially a U. S. Army pension, $13,507.72 a year.
Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an allowance and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."
On May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
Today, many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now clearly for sale.
Was good old Harry correct when he observed, "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference anymore. I, for one, believe the piano player to be much more honorable than many current politicians."
Too bad we can't come up with someone like Harry today.
-----
When President Truman retired from office in 1952, his income was substantially a U. S. Army pension, $13,507.72 a year.
Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an allowance and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."
On May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
Today, many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now clearly for sale.
Was good old Harry correct when he observed, "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference anymore. I, for one, believe the piano player to be much more honorable than many current politicians."
Too bad we can't come up with someone like Harry today.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Propaganda
A friend sent me a copy of a letter circulating through e-mails that makes Obama look bad. Here, in part, is what it says:
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area
to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the
opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
Really sounds plausible and looks authentic to the average reader.
But you may also have spotted a few things that should raise questions as to its veracity.
1. You know the press was on top of the Obama trip to see if this greenhorn would make any gaffes. The one time they made a fuss was over his not talking to the troops at the German hospital. They never mentioned his walking past soldiers in Bagram. In addition, I remember seeing Obama shaking hands with lots of soldiers.
2. "You know that I am not political." I don't know that at all. I do not know the man who signed this letter. Add to it that he feels it necessary to include "American Soldier" at the end, so it seems like he is "protesting too much." That makes me uncomfortable.
3. He closes with a classic line, "What you see in the news is all fake." He is trying to make you disbelieve what you may have seen with your own eyes. Oh we must "test every spirit" but we must also test the spirit of this writer!
The plausibility of this story is that visiting dignitaries often are there for photo ops and cut out everything in between. Part of that is the tight schedule and part is security.
But the realitry is that no one else reports the events the way this letter writer does.
Okay, so I've picked up on a few things that are more like propaganda than a true letter.
There are at least three places you can check to see if this letter has a history that has been checked for being factual: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/, http://www.vil.mcafee.com/hoaxasp/, and http://www.urbanlegends.about.com/. There are others.
Check to see if they will fact-check something you can send them.
I also received an e-mail from a dear friend that showed ANWR in gorgeous pictures which included a bear walking on an oil pipeline and all kinds of elk on oil fields in another part of Alaska. The claim was that ANWR would hardly be touched and that the current kind of oil extraction programs are immensely wildlife friendly.
It was persuasive until I noticed no credits given to the photographers. Then I remembered "photoshopping," the simple technique where with your computer you can move items in one picture into another. That bear picture began to look phony. And finally, no one took credit for putting together this sophisticated piece of work. It was unsigned.
Propaganda looks very plausible. But it usually tries to cover its tracks so it is hard to blame the ones who did it or to really check back.
I don't always document every source for my opinions. That puts this blog on the verge of being propaganda!
But at least you know who wrote it and can challenge me.
Feel free!
-----
From the first comment:
"I also suggest www.snopes.com to test the validity of such emails."
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area
to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the
opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
Really sounds plausible and looks authentic to the average reader.
But you may also have spotted a few things that should raise questions as to its veracity.
1. You know the press was on top of the Obama trip to see if this greenhorn would make any gaffes. The one time they made a fuss was over his not talking to the troops at the German hospital. They never mentioned his walking past soldiers in Bagram. In addition, I remember seeing Obama shaking hands with lots of soldiers.
2. "You know that I am not political." I don't know that at all. I do not know the man who signed this letter. Add to it that he feels it necessary to include "American Soldier" at the end, so it seems like he is "protesting too much." That makes me uncomfortable.
3. He closes with a classic line, "What you see in the news is all fake." He is trying to make you disbelieve what you may have seen with your own eyes. Oh we must "test every spirit" but we must also test the spirit of this writer!
The plausibility of this story is that visiting dignitaries often are there for photo ops and cut out everything in between. Part of that is the tight schedule and part is security.
But the realitry is that no one else reports the events the way this letter writer does.
Okay, so I've picked up on a few things that are more like propaganda than a true letter.
There are at least three places you can check to see if this letter has a history that has been checked for being factual: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/, http://www.vil.mcafee.com/hoaxasp/, and http://www.urbanlegends.about.com/. There are others.
Check to see if they will fact-check something you can send them.
I also received an e-mail from a dear friend that showed ANWR in gorgeous pictures which included a bear walking on an oil pipeline and all kinds of elk on oil fields in another part of Alaska. The claim was that ANWR would hardly be touched and that the current kind of oil extraction programs are immensely wildlife friendly.
It was persuasive until I noticed no credits given to the photographers. Then I remembered "photoshopping," the simple technique where with your computer you can move items in one picture into another. That bear picture began to look phony. And finally, no one took credit for putting together this sophisticated piece of work. It was unsigned.
Propaganda looks very plausible. But it usually tries to cover its tracks so it is hard to blame the ones who did it or to really check back.
I don't always document every source for my opinions. That puts this blog on the verge of being propaganda!
But at least you know who wrote it and can challenge me.
Feel free!
-----
From the first comment:
"I also suggest www.snopes.com to test the validity of such emails."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)