?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
12 April 2006 @ 01:58 pm
 
"You know the administration's argument: We are slowly making progress in Iraq, but the media are so fixated on car bombs and suicide attacks they never get around to reporting that. I would suggest this line is growing dated. The war has aroused a growing number of critics who have nothing to do with the MSM and can't by any stretch be called liberal. When Republicans and former military men are ripping the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld handling of the war, I'd say that Houston, we have a problem. My only question in these matters: What took them so long?"
-Howard Kurtz

"President Bush dismissed reports that he is planning to attack Iran as 'wild speculation' yesterday. But that's a far cry from saying it flatly ain't so. And Bush - who, it is now abundantly clear, secretly decided to go to war in Iraq long before he admitted as much in public - lacks credibility on such issues."
-Dan Froomkin

"Oh, and by the way, if the president wanted the truth out, and he was declassifying the thing anyway, why not make a speech about it, rather than having it secretly slipped to Judith Miller (who didn't write a story anyway)?"
-Howard Kurtz

QUICK NEWS:
* "Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show."
* Well, duh: did the White House knowingly push a bogus WMD claim?
* "Young liberals in 2004 belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives."
* Andrew Sullivan digs into the poll numbers, and finds out where Bush faltered.
* Poll shows anti-Bush sentiment could hurt Republicans at the ballot box.
* Three words: FEMA yurt.
* Cuba quietly plans for a life after Castro.
* More opposition to inserting product placements into shows digitally.
* Maggie Gyllenhaal and Peter Sarsgaard, engaged and epecting.

Survey finds most internet users don't go past page three of search results.

Interview with Robin Laws concerning his upcoming City Of Heroes novel, The Freedom Phalanx.
Tags: ,
 
 
Jake Thrashjakethrash on April 12th, 2006 06:31 pm (UTC)
I can't say it did much for Bush's credibility to state that he declassified the info...so that it could be leaked.

Read another article someplace that talked about presidents (or their party successors) pardoning members of their political staff as part of their actions prior to leaving office. So while Libby may end up taking all the heat for leaking info, once he gets pardoned (for being a loyal party member) it's all water under the bridge.
PMMJ: MTV Newscheetahmaster on April 12th, 2006 06:40 pm (UTC)
I can't say it did much for Bush's credibility to state that he declassified the info...so that it could be leaked.

And, apparently, after it was leaked.

I honestly don't know what they're thinking.

Read another article someplace that talked about presidents (or their party successors) pardoning members of their political staff as part of their actions prior to leaving office. So while Libby may end up taking all the heat for leaking info, once he gets pardoned (for being a loyal party member) it's all water under the bridge.

Right, or pardoned even before then. Again, it looks bad, but not like Bush has anything to lose. And he is big on loyalty.
Jake Thrashjakethrash on April 12th, 2006 07:22 pm (UTC)
My guess is they think the American public is comprised entirely of idiots.

It's amazingly reminiscent of 1984's revisionist governmental propaganda.
Jenexamorata on April 12th, 2006 06:59 pm (UTC)
Man I hope Sarsgaard and Gyllenhaal hyphenate their names. We'll have a worldwide shortage of "a"s!
mediaprophetmediaprophet on April 13th, 2006 04:58 am (UTC)
Statistical analysis to the rescue.

"This pattern persists at the community level. Young liberals in 2004 belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood. These differences were not due to demographics such as age or education."

Organizations (theory): Church organizations are the most common organizations Americans belong to *in their communities*. People who belong to a church are more likely to be conservative. Few Americans are members of organizations *in their community* beyond church, not because they don't care, but because of globalization and the dissolution of local ties. I personally count as a member of a bunch of national-level organizations such as NARAL and IBPAT. But I am not a member of ANY local organizations (even the Graduate Student Government doesn't count as local for me; I'm 17 miles away from UMCP and it might count as a professional or political organization). How many local organizations are in YOUR community? My community includes a HOA, a few churches, a stitch-and-bitch, a tennis club, and, um, that's about it.

Using the 1998 General Social Survey ('cause I can access and analyze that data just for the hell of it at this point) I did a little investigation of my own.

Gave $0 to their church
58% of liberals
44% of moderates
31% of conservatives

Gave $1-100 to their church
17% of liberals
18% of moderates
14% of conservatives

Gave $101-$60,000 to their church (the max someone reported was $60,000)
25% of liberals
38% of moderates
55% of conservatives

A tithe of 10% of your income, in 1998, would have been ~$4000 on average. A tithe of $100 or less would just be a petty alms box donation.

This means that conservatives are more than TWICE as likely to tithe to their church as liberals, which more than explains away the charity donation statistic: To wit, if liberals are donating 30% less to church (assuming the relationship hasn't changed) and only 12% less overall, it means they're giving a LOT more money to direct charities. I think liberals are more cynical about what the church uses its money for. We all know that a good deal of the money the church takes in goes to charitable works, but it also supports the infrastructure and personnel of the largest bureaucracy in the world (or a protestant version thereof). AND it supports the church's CONSERVATIVE political agenda. No birth control. No abortion. No homosexuality.

I think it just means liberals donate more precisely.