Lance Armstrong outsprinted Andreas Kloden to the finish line to capture Thursday's 17th stage of the 2004 Tour de France. Armstrong, who began the day with the leader's yellow jersey, finished the 127-mile trek in the Alps in a time of six hours, 11 minutes and 52 seconds. He extended his overall lead from 3:48 to 4:09 and is in position to make history with his sixth straight Tour de France crown. It was the third consecutive stage win and the fourth overall of this year's Tour for Armstrong. The American has 20 career stage victories.
Armstrong beat Kloden to the finish by inches and the two concluded the stage with the same time, while Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso were just a second off the pace. Armstrong's teammate, Floyd Landis, finished fifth -- 13 seconds behind.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/22/2004 11:14:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I can't believe the work Landis has been doing in the Alps. On Stage 15 Landis (not the first guy I think about when it comes to climbing) was the other US Postal rider to escort Lance to the next to last stage (the other guy's Azevedo, currently 5th overall). After that, and the TT up Alpe d'Huez, he comes in fifth on what was being hyped as the hardest day of the Tour? Unbelievable!
The only excitement left - can Kloden (T-Mobile, Ullrich's teammate) dislodge Basso (CSC) for second? Basso's in front of Kloden by 1'2", and Kloden's a better time trialist than Basso. Saturday's stage (55 Km) will be fun to watch for that battle.
#5
Raj, you were right about Basso a couple days ago. He doesn't have the time trial skills yet.
One thing that strikes me as I've watched this cycling season unfold is that. aside from Lance, there appears to be a changing of the guard. Cipolini is out done by Petacchi. Jalabert retired last year. Museeuw just retired. Ullrich is more bark than bite. Joseba Beloki, after so many podium finishes, is nowhere to be found. If Landis and Basso and a dozen other guys I couldn't name are the future of cycling, then this is its' golden age.[/pointless rant]
Posted by: Scott R ||
07/22/2004 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Beloki is suspended... when is he allowed back?
via NYT - EFL
Use BugMeNot for Login, if req'd - wasn't at time of posting.
By ALAN COWELL - July 21, 2004 Is Knighthood Ready for the Ax? How Unchivalrous!
When it comes to the finer shadings of status, the British could never be called slouches at decoding those telltale clues of vocal inflection and sartorial manner that separate noblesse from nonentity, aristo from arriviste. But some of that may be about to change. Until now, when Queen Elizabeth II summoned some 3,000 of her subjects to Buckingham Palace each year to receive honors known colloquially as gongs (medals) and K's (knighthoods), even the list of the newly anointed notables offered grandeur by grade, respect by ranking.
To a cacophony of approving grunts from some and disapproving harrumphs from others, however, a body of legislators called the House of Commons Public Administration Committee recommended this month that the list of available aristocratic honors be trimmed drastically, from 16 to 4, and that the word "empire" be replaced with "excellence" in such medals as the Order of the British Empire. Most radical of all, it urged that knighthoods and their female equivalent, the title of dame, be abolished within five years. You can imagine the fuss. ...more...
I have no dog in this fight, but I'd wager this is heavyweight stuff for the cousins...
They want to replace Empire with Excellence, and then abolish that in five years? Why do I get the impression nobody pushing this idea's going to qualify for the next five years?
Posted by: .com ||
07/22/2004 4:22:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought all this honors kind of stuff was the perogotive of the crown.
#2
"Order of the British Excellence"? Sounds like something out of that Anglican PC bible. Mind you, I'm generally in favor of deep-sixing the aristocracy, but better an archaic bastion of inequality and elitism with some minimal sense of style than an up-to-date, ungainly edifice of inequality, elitism, and utter, unspeakable lameness.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/22/2004 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
but better an archaic bastion of inequality and elitism with some minimal sense of style than an up-to-date, ungainly edifice of inequality, elitism, and utter, unspeakable lameness.
#5
I always thought that the purpose of the titles were to serve as warnings to potential suitors that the holders thereof were dangerously inbred. There's a reason the blood is blue instead of bright red.
#6
no, these are titles for life only, they give as prizes for lifetime accomplishment. Kinda like being honored at the Kennedy center, except bankers and civil servants get em too.
via Rooters Chavez calls Bush meddling "Emperor of Evil"
Thu 22 July, 2004 04:12
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has blasted U.S. President George W. Bush as a meddling "Emperor of Evil" who was backing his opponents ahead of an August referendum on his rule. Chavez, a populist ex-army officer who often locks horns with Washington, condemned Bush for urging transparency in the August 15 recall to decide whether to end his presidency of the world's number five oil exporter. "Tell me what right does President of the United States have to call for transparency in any electoral process in the world when he won fraudulent elections in the U.S.," Chavez told cheering supporters at an election rally. Since Chavez survived a brief 2002 coup, he has often blamed the United States for supporting his opponents in an attempt to overthrow him and end his self-styled revolution for the poor. U.S. officials deny those charges. "You see how now the Emperor of Evil has spoken from Washington giving orders," Chavez said. The U.S. president on Monday called for an "honest and fair" referendum and backed calls for international observers to be allowed free access to the voting process.
#2
Old Spook, Chavez is still trying to bait Bush as a way of garnering domestic support. Hopefully, he is in the process of "circling the drain" already. If he beats the rap, then we have problems.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 3:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Cool! Hope GWB starts wearing the evil sunglasses and cape and referring to his cabinet members as "minions" and drowning puppies and laughing like this: Mwa-ha-ha!
ONE of America's more unusual political commentators is running a red hot "Re-elect Prime Minister John Howard" campaign via the internet from Kansas. Gabrielle Reilly, a raven-haired 35-year-old bikini model who hails from Alice Springs, claims to have scored more than 1.3 million hits on her conservative political website last month and was seriously quoted in Darwin's Sunday Territorian as a "US-based political columnist".
Reilly's website features as many pictures of her in bikinis as it does political messages -- which should attract voters who find the headshots of local pundits such as The Australian's Paul Kelly and The Sydney Morning Herald's Alan Ramsey less than sexy.
Intrigued by her sudden appearance, Diary contacted Reilly and quizzed her about her politics. "I am campaigning for John Howard because I consider him to be fundamental in the global war on terror," she said. "I personally have nothing against Mark Latham, in fact he seems like a nice bloke. But I believe the strategies Mark Latham is platforming contribute directly to allowing terrorism to proliferate around the world."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
07/22/2004 10:25:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Very attractive lady, but I remember her stating / complaining that, her being a smart woman, a beautiful woman isn't taken seriously in the brains department. Heh.
#5
It's ironic that we are defeating the Axis in its crucial support base: visual media appeal.
Consider: We have_______________They have
Bo Derek---------------------Linda Ronstadt
Arnold Schwarzeneggar-------Michael Moore
Ann Coulter------------------Jeanine Garofalo
Bruce Willis-----------------Oliver Stoned
Tom Selleck------------------Ed Asner Fawn Hall--------------------Sandy Berger
France's agriculture minister pledged Wednesday to inject more money into the promotion of French wines as the industry braces for a new dilemma: a bumper harvest. After meeting with winemakers, Herve Gaymard announced plans for a 50 percent increase in public funding just two days after his ministry forecast that the country will produce 1.5 billion gallons of wine in 2004 — 20 percent more than last year. Production was hurt last year by a record-breaking heat wave that scorched Europe. For an industry that's already overproducing, a good harvest can be bad news. "On the one side, we've got a market that's shrinking, and then — in France at least — there's a potential production that's very high," Roland Feredj, director general of the Council of Bordeaux Wines, said in a television interview. "The risk is there will be a very strong imbalance in the market because supply is going to be strong and demand will be weak." Especially American demand for French wine. "French wines have steadily lost market share in the USA, Britain and other big markets in the last decade. The trend has been accelerating in the USA, where French wines have experienced double-digit monthly declines since spring as a result of the bitter Washington-Paris rift about the Iraq war."
Gaymard's talks with winemakers aimed at reviving the flagging fortunes of France's vineyards, which are squeezed between falling consumption at home and tougher competition abroad. Gaymard said funding for "promotion and communication" for French wines would be increased to $18.5 million from $12.3 million. Global prices are already depressed by an oversupply of up to 1.6 billion gallons a year on world markets, Feredj said. According to figures published Wednesday in the financial daily La Tribune, the value of French wine exports fell 10 percent in the first five months of the year compared with the same period in 2002. Exports also fell compared with 2003, which is seen as an atypical year because of the heat wave and a lucrative sell-off of Bordeaux wines made in 2000.
Wines from places like Chile, Australia and California overtook French wines on global export markets for the first time in 2003. France exported 1.78 billion bottles; so-called New World vintners exported 1.93 billion. The global oversupply of wine and downward pressure on prices makes mass marketing campaigns crucial to winning and keeping market share. Improving cooperation among France's thousands of small vineyards and simplifying their message abroad were among the items discussed at the Paris meeting Wednesday. Not all the winemakers' problems lie overseas. Wine consumption has been falling steadily the past four decades in France, where the average person over 14 now drinks just a quarter bottle a day. In 1961 it was a half bottle. Sales have been hurt by an onslaught of anti-alcohol campaigns and tougher drunk driving rules the last two years. This has prompted protests by winemakers' groups, who earlier this month gave out free bottles of wine at highway toll stations to protest what they see as overzealous rules. To boost consumption, powerful wine-loving lawmakers are demanding the lifting of advertising restrictions. All together now:
TOUGH SHIT YOU TREACHEROUS GALLIC LOSERS! F&%K OFF AND DIE WITH ALL YOUR CONSTANT UNDERMINING OF ANTI-TERRORISM EFFORTS, ESPECIALLY IN IRAN. AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, STICK YOUR VILE ANTI-SEMITISM WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!
Posted by: Zenster ||
07/22/2004 4:43:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is rather ironic that the Frogs screwed up the relations with one of their biggest markets to fawn over folk that don't drink, no?
Posted by: Alan ||
07/22/2004 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
French wines have steadily lost market share in the USA, Britain and other big markets in the last decade
a significant reason for this is that while US, Australian, South African and Chilean vintners have turned to scientific methods for assessing the quality of the soil, grape and wine, the french have steadfastly rejected science and have held onto their old methods, using "experts."
typical. Side with the loser. How consistent. The thing is, though, when you side with the loser, you lose.
#6
If they become the FRENCH ISLAMIC REPUBLIC officially, then all the vines will be ripped out (no alcohol you see) and this whole arguement will be moot. BUY CALIFORNIA WINE!
Since Muslims think wine and dogs are bad. . .
Piss 'em OFF! Support the Korbels of Napa.
They not only make California Champagne, but breed Boxer dogs! Champagne Dawgs
#8
#1It is rather ironic that the Frogs screwed up the relations with one of their biggest markets to fawn over folk that don't drink, no?
And the award for "Most Ironic Post in an anti-French Diatribe" goes to ...
Good call, Alan. If the French think Muslim crime and unrest are bad now, just see what happens when their voting population becomes outnumbered and sharia law is put in place.
Gallic anti-Semitism is just one facet of a much deeper and pervasive xenophobic French provincialism that rejects all outsiders. The "Muslim ghetto" problem in Paris is a clear example of this.
France is merrily breeding up their own doom. If they weren't so busy pissing in the global punchbowl, I'd say let them go ahead and rot. Instead, the French are in desperate need of some international parking lot therapy. All of Europe neeeds to carefully examine what is happening in France and do the exact opposite.
LAS VEGAS — After being booed and kicked off the property, will Linda Ronstadt return to the Aladdin Hotel here and sing on stage with "Fahrenheit 9/11" director Michael Moore?There's a strong possibility, as the resort casino on the Las Vegas Strip is likely to get a new owner soon, an owner who didn't object to Ronstadt publicly announcing her support for the controversial filmmaker. "Upon the assumption of ownership, and with a new management team in place, we would like to offer the use of the Theatre of Performing Arts to Linda Ronstadt for a second concert and further to take Michael Moore up on his offer to join her on stage to introduce her and sing a song," said Planet Hollywood CEO Robert Earl, who is awaiting approval by the Nevada Gaming Commission to become Aladdin's new owner.
"We respect artists' creativity and support their rights to express themselves," said Earl. "We were very sorry to hear about the unfortunate circumstances of this past Saturday night and want to make it clear that Planet Hollywood has never, in our 13-year history, restricted any artists' right to free speech and we will continue with that policy once we take ownership."
Guess the free speech rights of the current owner don't matter, eh?
It was Ronstadt's in-concert support for Moore that prompted hundreds of concertgoers to boo and leave the event in disgust. Ronstadt dedicated her final song, The Eagles' "Desperado," to Moore whom she called a "great American patriot" and "someone who cares about this country deeply and is trying to help." The singer, 58, also encouraged the audience to see Moore's Iraq-war documentary, which is critical of President Bush. According to the Las Vegas Sun, some of the angry fans reportedly defaced posters of Ronstadt in the lobby of the hotel, writing comments and tossing drinks on her pictures. Others are said to have cheered her remarks.
Moore says Aladdin owes Ronstadt an apology, and suggests to the hotel: "Invite her back and I'll join her in singing 'America the Beautiful' on your stage. Then I will show 'Fahrenheit 9/11' free of charge to all your guests and anyone else in Las Vegas who wants to see it."
And let's invite back all the people who were offended while we're at it.
In an open letter to Aladdin's current president Bill Timmins, Moore blasted the way the singer was booted off the property. "For you to throw Linda Ronstadt off the premises because she dared to say a few words in support of me and my film, is simply stupid and un-American," Moore wrote.
Timmins simply exercised his free speech rights, didn't he Lumpy?
A spokeswoman for Timmins tells WorldNetDaily the current ownership has no intention of responding to Moore. "What happened had nothing to do with Michael Moore, so why would we respond?" said Aladdin's Tyri Squyres. "We hired Linda Ronstadt to entertain our guests. She used our venue as a political platform," she added. "We're known for music, gaming, dining and fun, and not for political statements. That's why people pay $80 a ticket, to hear her beautiful voice."
I should ask .com, since he's the Rantburg expert on Vegas, but if I were going to a show there it would be for one of two reasons: 1) celebrate my winnings 2) forget my losses at the table. Linda's job was to smile, hit the high notes and make the band look good, not blabber about her politics. It wasn't her microphone.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2004 2:31:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dr. Steve, I may have one in the sink trap that repis a dupe. Go ahead an flush it, si vous plais.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 3:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Because of what they did to Rondstfat, I booked my wedding at the Aladdin (Aug 13-16). If Moore is around, you can be sure I'll bust him one in his fat mouth.
#6
Did you see the photo of Linda? I don't think it was her! Oh, how sad if it was. She looked exactly like Michael Moore in drag. Could have been twins separated at birth.
Michael Moore lip sinking.... anyone?
Posted by: B ||
07/22/2004 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
cont.
I'm beating Kerry in the morning!
Ding dong his head is gonna chime!
Excellent article by Malkin on 'Security Moms' - EFL (Read the entire article)
I am what this year's election pollsters call a "security mom." I'm married with two young children. I own a gun. And I vote.
Nothing matters more to me right now than the safety of my home and the survival of my homeland. I believe in the right to defend myself, and in America's right to defend itself against its enemies. I am a citizen of the United States, not the United Nations.
I want a president who is of one mind, not two, about what must be done to protect our freedom and our borders. I don't care about the hair on his head or the wrinkles in his forehead. I am not awed by his ability to ride a snowboard or fly a plane. Nor does it matter much to me whether his wife speaks four languages or bakes good cookies.
What I want is a commander in chief who will stop pandering to political correctness and People magazine editors, and start pandering to me.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks shook me out of my Generation X stupor. Unlike Hollywood and The New York Times and the ivory tower, I have not settled back casually into a Sept. 10 way of life. I have studied the faces on the FBI's most-wanted-terrorists list. When I ride the train, I watch for suspicious packages in empty seats. When I am on the highways, I pay attention to large trucks and tankers. I make my husband take his cell phone with him everywhere — even on a quick milk run or on a walk to the community pool.
Educate the children
We have educated our 4-year-old daughter about Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. She knows that there are bad men in the world trying to kill Americans everywhere.
She has helped us decorate packages of books and bubblegum for our brave soldiers. And at night, we ask God to bless our troops as they risk their lives trying to kill the bad men before they kill us.
This isn't living in fear. This is living with reality. We drive defensively. Now, we must live defensively, too.
I am not alone. Professors and political analysts have observed the remarkable conversion of "soccer moms" to "security moms" since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. According to GOP pollster David Winston, "security moms" now make up between 11% and 14% of the electorate. The trend has manifested itself in increased concealed-weapons-permit applications among women; the rise of national-security-focused Web logs published by hard-hitting female "war bloggers"; and an upsurge in political activism by women on core homeland-defense issues, such as immigration enforcement. -- examples of security moms clipped --
Do the presidential candidates truly comprehend how fierce this sentiment is among ordinary moms across the country? Do they understand our demands for a president who will ensure that Islamic terrorists are kept out of our country and that criminal illegal aliens are kicked out for good? Will they ensure that our children grow up in a world where the bloody, severed heads of Americans are not a weekly occurrence on the evening news? Do they have what it takes to keep suicide bombers off our shores and out of our malls?
So far, neither presidential ticket quite measures up. Judging from the touchy-feely-fest put on by the John Kerry-John Edwards campaign recently, it is clear that the Democratic Party still thinks it can win by wallowing in the Sept. 10 politics of grievance, entitlement and passivity. The Democratic presidential campaign is softer than a Kleenex tissue, when its motto should be "No More Tears."
As for the Republicans, I have supported President Bush's war on terror overseas, but he continues to fight only a half-hearted battle to defend Americans on American soil from hostile invasion or attack. Recently, the White House revived an amnesty plan for millions of illegal aliens, and the Department of Homeland Security retreated on immigration-enforcement sweeps in Southern California. It is clear that the GOP elite gravely underestimates the wrath we security moms feel toward Washington's fatal addiction to "cheap labor" and "cheap votes" at the expense of secure borders. --snip--
The Republican National Committee will have a 30-person staff in Boston to coordinate daily press conferences, Republican speeches and a 24-hour rapid response to Democrat activities. The RNC has already launched a website -DemsExtremeMakeover.com - to serve as an information clearinghouse.
"The Democrats are trying to have this cosmetic convention, hoping on the back end they can meet the historic average over the last 30 years of a 15-point swing in the polls," said Ed Gillespie, the RNC's chairman. "We'd like to try to make clear the record and reality in hopes of blunting that effort."
Gillespie noted that it won't be easy for Republicans to get press coverage during the Democrats' big week, but that hasn't stopped the RNC from putting together a lineup of prominent Republicans. The list includes former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (Texas) and Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and John Cornyn (Texas).
-snip-
I think there will be the same lack of bounce after the convention that there was after Edwards name was added to the ticket. Despite what people say very few people have not made up their mind on this one already.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 2:15:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No bounce? I think Kerry must be made of lead. If this doesn't smart a bit, I don't know what would: Brokaw: "Did you know that [Berger] was under investigation?"
Kerry: "I didn't have a clue, not a clue."
Brokaw: "He didn't share that with you?
Kerry: "I didn't have a clue."
#2
"Clueless in Boston - 2004"
Featuring Ted Cassidy and Ron Howard as "The Ticket"
With "Mozambiqui Madam and Stereotype Soccer-Mom" as "The Spouses"
Featuring the "Hamburgular" as "The Advisor"
("Hey, Sandy, there are some documents coming out the bottom of your left pant leg!")
Special Gursts "Bubba the Insufferable and Witch of the East" As "They Who Will Never Leave" . .
via WaPo - EFL
Login: gnafgnnsy1@lnubb.org / gnafgnnsy
By John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt - Thursday, July 22, 2004 Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m.
What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye.
After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some went missing, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case.
The notion of one of Washington's most respected foreign policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one. But the peculiarities -- and conflicting versions of events and possible motives -- were just then beginning in a case that this week bucked Berger out of an esteemed position as a leader of the Democratic government-in-waiting that had assembled around presidential nominee John F. Kerry. ...more...
Word is, of the big MSM outlets, WaPo stands out for deciding to play this story straight and above board. We shall see, but perhaps this is the first step in the WaPo rehab... Nahhh, I don't think so, either - the barn's full of idiots. Prolly some sort of war between the turf queens.
Posted by: .com ||
07/22/2004 1:56:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's gotta be the margin notes and editing.
Clarke, who wrote the report, worked under Berger. So it's Sandy's requested changes reflected in the various draft copies, which is what he was apparently after.
Plus - You don't risk something like that for anybody else. He was trying to cover his own ass, I'd lay money on it.
#3
I'd like to hear from the security support people who ordinarily train White House staff on proper security. Someone had to train Sandy originally, and I suspect (don't know) that when he became the NSA, some tech-type person reviewed with him -- again -- the basic do's and don'ts of handling codeword documents.
I'd like that security tech person to tell us that he did indeed train Mr. Berger properly, just so as to remove any potential 'excuse' from the table.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2004 2:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What gets my goat is that the media colludes with the democrats in NOT focusing on the ESPIONAGE of Berger, but on the "Republican leak" of the information. Shit, I'm glad whoever leaked it, leaked it. I want to know shit like this, as do most Americans. It's NOT a leak to pass on information you've learned. But those goddamn democrats will try everything they can, (with the help of the media), to discredit the Bush administration and Republicans in general. Nevermind that berger committed espionage.....and I'm sure that if the documents he stole were useful to them, the chinese would be able to purchase them from him.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
07/22/2004 2:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Stay on target. Encourage your representative to stay on target. The only questions that matter: "What did he take?" and "Why did he take them?"
I'm speculating this: the notes show that Clinton Knew that al-Qaeda was in America already.
#6
dot com - the WaPo is still pretty strongly pro-dem, but also asserts its own (relatively hawkish, and pro democracy promotion) line on foreign policy. If WaPo is harder on Berger than the NYT, etc, my gut would be that theyre trying to strengthen a COMPETING foreign policy advisor in the Dem camp - probably Richard Holbrooke I think, who is perceived as more tough minded (though not by you, Im sure :) ) than many others in the Dem FP establishment.
#7
I'm deeply unhappy and angry about Berger's actions, but HaPete is way off base here. Berger did not commit espionage and it is NOT helpful to the country to throw this sort of irresponsible language around.
I'm a strong supporter of Bush in the GWOT, but ya'll better be careful about exploiting this situation for short-term political ends. Berger had his faults and limitations, he also served in a really grueling and high pressure job for 8 years.
Do you WANT to make it so unattractive for people to take that job that no decent human being will want it? That's what you'll get if you go beyond what this incident demands and use it for character assassination.
Kid: Aww, Mom ... all the OTHER kids get to run smear campaigns.
Mom: So if they want to jump off of bridges you'll do it too? No kid of mine is going to go out there and help run this country into the ground ....
Posted by: too true ||
07/22/2004 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#8
too true says:
Berger had his faults and limitations, he also served in a really grueling and high pressure job for 8 years.
Tough luck. No one forced him into his job. He chose to do so. Or rather his ego pushed him to seek it out. No way too true. That is BS.
Do you WANT to make it so unattractive for people to take that job that no decent human being will want it? That's what you'll get if you go beyond what this incident demands and use it for character assassination.
Too bad. This man betrayed his country by meddling with an alleged investigation into the cause of national nightmare. There is no excuse for his actions. None. It is not "character assassination" to report that he stole classified documents. Period. You are wrong.
#9
I get the feeling he was outed by the Dems from what I read. It's being spun by the "media" as being done by the republicans which is crap because they gain nothing by this.
#10
Sandy Bergler wasn't NSA for 8 years.
He only served for 4.
And I think they've caught him red-handed breaking the law.
I want to see him do jail time, after he tells the American people what he destroyed!
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Gee whiz, what's a few memos after all these are the people who sold out missile and nuclear secrets to the Chinese!
Berger should be fitted for an orange jump suit and locked away for a very long time. The same goes for his former boss, but I know that'll never happen.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
07/22/2004 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#12
too true - it has nothing to with politics..this guy broke the law, plain and simple. why shoud he be immune? now if this was guy was part of Bush's staff the media would be flamming with headlines of BERGERGATE
but he is a dem and the media is using kid gloves.
Posted by: Dan ||
07/22/2004 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Wen Ho Lee. Sandy, you were in the White House when the order was issued to get Mr. Lee. How about its your turn to dance. Or do members of your inner party enjoy a different standard than the common folk?
Posted by: Don ||
07/22/2004 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Too true:
I guess you've never been in a position of trust, so don't understand how we take this. Whether or not his actions were legally treason, he betrayed us. He had a much higher clearance than I and did things I would never even think about doing.
If I did that (and I work with stuff way lower classification) once, I would be out of a job, probably lose My clearance, and possibly be prosecuted and convicted of a crime.
If I did it a second time, I would go to prison, and never get any kind of clearance ever again. If I did it a third time, well, there wouldn't be a third time, since no would put Me in a position of trust.
This guy did is five times. If Bergler walks, can you understand how corrosive that is to security awareness to everyone? Several people here at work are already saying that some low-level guy will become a scapegoat while this slimeball gets off. And then the next time one of us peasants makes an "honest mistake," he will have the book thrown at him to show that we are "serious" about security. Sure.
#15
Too true: I guess you've never been in a position of trust, so don't understand how we take this
Let's see .... I worked for the Joint Chief of Staff's National Command and Control Center and my significant other spent many years in the black world.
Nope, I guess I don't have a clue about security.
I specifically objected to the use of the word "espionage". It's precisely because I know a number of CIA and other national security people first hand that I want words like this to be used carefully.
And I never said Berger should get off. I said that we all have a stake in using words carefully
Posted by: too true ||
07/22/2004 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#16
This man betrayed his country by meddling with an alleged investigation into the cause of national nightmare. There is no excuse for his actions. None. It is not "character assassination" to report that he stole classified documents. Period. You are wrong.
Strong words, "betrayed his country". I don't see that at this point, nor do I see that he meddled so much as that he likely was trying to cover his very exposed ass.
Look, guys - I sleep with someone who for years would go on trips to I-never-knew-where to do I-never-knew-what-at-the-time-and-to-some-degree-still-don't. So don't start lecturing me on how important security is --- or on what betraying one's country could look like.
The first issue here is the political aspect: the likelihood that this guy was at the least, very concerned about those memos and how others might read them.
The larger issue it seems to me is this:
Berger's really really bad judgement, combined with Clinton laughing it off, and with Wilson's lies, and Clarke's political granstanding in front of the 9/11 commission shows that the Democratic party cannot be trusted with national defense right now.
Stay on target with that message. If you claim more about Berger's actions than is warranted -- if you use words like "espionage" and "betrayal" -- you will lose a lot of centrist voters like me, people who care deeply about our country but who are already more than a little wary about the "nuke 'em till they glow" attitudes floating about on places like RB.
Okay, Berger doesn't have much to do w/ nukes ... I threw that in, but for a reason. Some of us here have first hand knowledge about nuclear weapons, as it turns out. We don't think they're evil -- but it's my guess that like me, most of those with actual experience don't talk lightly about their use (nuke Mecca). Maybe that's because we know exactly what their use would entail. I, at least, get turned off really fast by idiots on the right as well as on the left who indulge themselves in extreme talk about difficult matters.
If you want voters to understand the ambiguities inherent, say, in the intel re: Iraq pre-war, you'd better show you will acknowledge ambiguities in other matters too. Berger was an idiot and I'm furious about his actions because they *potentially* compromised critical security information. But until I learn that he gave that info way or that it found its way into the wrong hands, words like "espionage" and "betrayal" are simply not warranted IMNSHO.
If you want Bush to win in November, if you want the public to catch on to what is really happening, don't overstate your case. Set the facts out and let people see the truth as it is.
Posted by: too true ||
07/22/2004 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Jackal, Too True, thanks for your comments, both of you have helped me on this. You're both on the same team, by the way.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2004 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#18
too true ...I almost agree with you this time around. I would say that a man who is either covering his craven a%^, or someone elses, and in so doing removes classified information comes really, really, really close to betraying his country. How you ask? I really hope you do not have to ask.
Now, I do agree that we should, "Stay on target with that message." It has its own legs and will swiftly be taken for a walk down the halls of justice.
#19
too true, while I don't sleep with a spook or Special Forces, I have every right to comment because I pay Sandy Bergler's salary with my taxes and if any of our enemies are able to nuke us, I could be killed, too!
"Berger doesn't have much to do with nukes..."--That's the problem!
As NSA, that was his job!!
Berger already had a track record of loose security during Clintoon's second term because he was a "made man" of Loral and the Chicoms.
Lo and behold, the Chinese are able to launch missiles just fine after 1996, whereas before they'd been trying without success for years.
And they happened to be among the biggest contributors to the
DNC and the Clinton Administration.
Los Alamos nuke labs are shut down right now because of leaks and a lot of their leaky security problems started with Bergler , Clinton and Co.
I assert that there's every reason to believe that Berger went in to the Archives to grab and destroy docs that would show that Clinton did nothing to stop OBL and AQ on his watch.
9/11 will always be Clinton's legacy, but no more so now that this incident with Berger stealing and destroying intell docs has come to light!
Sandy was stealing them for Clinton. Both of them.
And it's too bad if Right Wing rhetoric makes you sick, but we just happen to be right about 99% of the time.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#20
LH - Thanks for the insights regards WaPo. Perhaps it's just which of the barn's inhabitants are assigned WoT stories (our focus), lol!
Excellent thread, folks. I don't pretend to know the why, but the facts are quite damning. I don't give a tinker's damn for the political shenanigans, such as who leaked the investigation. I do care about our national security. The Clinton Admin was "sloppy" in the most criminal manner and with the most sensitive info we have. To say it's appalling barely covers my contempt for their actions. Bill's laughing-boy routine is an excellent charactization of the entire 8 years. Berger's arrogance fits right in. We won't see justice done, IMHO. It's spot-on that the Donks can't be trusted to hold office.
#21
And it's too bad if Right Wing rhetoric makes you sick, but we just happen to be right about 99% of the time.
Jen, you are full of bullshit most of the time -- including when you take positions that in general I agree with. You enjoy trolling and doing the Coulter schtick.
Go for it, if that's your choice -- but alas it does mean you don't carry much credibility with those of us who have some idea of things from the inside.
And I'm more than aware of tech transfer issues and the Chinese threat.
Now, about specifics: there is no evidence that Berger tried to "grab and destroy docs that would show that Clinton did nothing to stop OBL and AQ on his watch." I think the Clinton administration's policies were dangerously weak -- but in point of fact, there WERE Islamacist attacks that were stopped, on 12/31/1999 and other dates as well. To what degree that was due to administration policies is open to debate, but stopped they were.
Stick to the facts, they last longer under scrutiny. There are plenty of factual criticisms to make of the Clinton / Berger et al actions in the late 90s. Making unsupportable claims doesn't advance your cause, it undercuts it.
Posted by: too true ||
07/22/2004 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#22
The millenium bombings were stopped by an alert and smart customs lady on the US-Canada border not by anything brilliant done by Clintoon, Bergler or Richard Clarke.
And I NEVER EVER make unsupportable claims.
It's just not my style.
Carp at me and attack me with ad hominems, but I'm still right and me and my team will protect this country while you're still bitching because we're right and are armed with the facts and the knowledge.
Bergler was sent in to get these papers to protect the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, which was that Clinton wasn't "responsible."
That's why the story broke 2 days before the report was published.
Clinton's in the clear and Sandy's gonna take the fall.
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#23
me and my team will protect this country while you're still bitching because we're right and are armed with the facts and the knowledge.
Jen, there are people who are serving this country and protecting it who don't share your political views. There are more Democrats in the military than you might realize, for instance.
And not everyone in office whose policies are wrongheaded are traitors, either.
If you can't see that, if you dismiss the service and sacrifice that my family has made for decades and is making today, then you are dangerously near-sighted.
#24
I would never denigrate your service or anyone else's in the U.S. military.
I am deeply grateful and proud of every one of our men and women in uniform and support them every chance I get!
Actually what I said wasn't a put down of the military in any way!I just didn't care for it to be used as a qualifying 'litmus" test for being able to comment on our nation's security and safety.
Since 9/11 we are all soldiers on the front lines now.
(It has been ever thus. We just didn't know it.)
Everything I've read and seen leads to believe that most servicemen and women vote GOP and support Bush as the CiC and have reasons similar to mine for not having much time for Democrats Clinton and Carter, and then some (like Clinton's attempt to have gays in the military and to put women in combat, both of which have hurt morale).
Remember it was Al Gore's people who threw out the military ballots in the Florida Recount 2000 because they were mostly Bush votes.
Our GIs were the people who were disenfranchised.
Shame.
This Berger affair is more of the same corrupt and sleazy antics we've come to expect from the "most ethical administration in history."
Posted by: Jen ||
07/22/2004 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Jen, you've made it pretty clear that in your opinion "your team" (by which I assume you mean Republicans) are the only good guys and are good guys on all issues. And that it's "your team" that is defending the country while others bitch.
I'll repeat what I said above: there are more Democrats that you might think in the military. I know this from personal experience. And I rather resent your assumption that I and my family members who are active in the military/nation security arena automatically agree with you on political matters. It's pretty presumptuous of you to say so.
Of course having military experience isn't a litmus test for commenting on security issues. But if you don't, and others do -- and if they disagree with you on some issue -- it might be that their opinions are based on some important insights.
Doesn't mean you need to agree with them. Does suggest you tone down your "my side is 99% right and the rest of you are idiots ... oh and my guys are the only ones who care about security" rhetoric.
To bring this back to Berger, I'm reserving judgement on motives at this point. He has admitted to taking code word classified documents, inadvertently according to him. He also admits to having taken notes which he smuggled out.
This is pretty serious stuff. That level of classification is not given lightly. I hope to God the information was not compromised to third parties because by report it contained very sensitive intelligence data and descriptions of ongoing undercover operations &/or security precautions in place.
I'm inclined to believe his motives were to prepare for potential criticism, andperhaps also to censor out evidence that he tried to get Clark to soften his criticsm of the Clinton administration's counter terror actions (or lack thereof).
But you know, I'm pretty sure no one here is a reliable mind reader, so for now we'll just have to say that we don't know what his motives were, even if we have pet theories about them.
#27
One more point, while I'm sucking up bandwidth here ... (and I did donate to Fred this week for the new server LOL):
There's a difference between bad policies and not caring.
Clinton et al seemed to believe the whole "end of history" nonsense. In retrospect (and in my opinion at the time) they failed to see that the dominant world power must draw the line on the outrageous behavior of countries like N. Korea, China and Iraq.
That does not, however, mean they didn't and don't care about the security of this country. It means they defined it differently than most here do, or saw the threat differently.
Berger's a good example of this (I mean, pre-Archive rifling). By report, he was not in favor of accepting Sudan's offer to turn over bin Laden, for instance. But I don't think the reason was that he didn't care about the US, it was because he judged (very incorrectly) that it was in our best interests not to stir up major anti-US sentiment among Moslems by such a move.
It's a serious mistake to believe that people who don't share your opinion or judgement on policy issues doesn't care about security or the homeless or whatever.
Now, it's certainly possible that someone in the position of National Security Advisor could be indifferent or casual about the country's defense. But that's not been my experience of people in senior leadership positions, anymore than it is my experience that social and fiscal conservatives don't care about good lives for the poor.
I think Berger's policies and advice as NSA were based on false assumptions and wishful thinking. I don't think they were due to corruption. No personal knowledge, I admit, but based on long conversations with a deeply conservative military officer who spent a lot of time around the NSC in the late 90s.
Here's why the distinction matters. If you assume that Democrats or whomever care about the country, it's possible to have a debate about policy and to hold our country together.
If you don't, if you assume that everyone who disagrees with you on some issue is stupid and/or evil, we will tear ourselves apart before the Islamacists or the Chinese or whomever do it for us.
#28
One interesting point that isn't getting a lot of play:
Clinton says that he knew about this "for months."
And he didn't warn Kerry? I can't believe that Kerry would have Berger on his team if he knew. Maybe Clinton is working against Kerry.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
07/22/2004 15:42 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Aggh ... sloppy typing in my last comment. That's what comes from slipping a response in while in a hurry. Sigh - I hate finding serious grammar/spelling errors in something I post. One of my quirks LOL.
#30
too true ....I wanted to apologize for my tone earlier today. For whatever reason it appears I came across a little combative. That was not my intention, nor do I think it instructive or healthy for this type of content.
Well, that didn't come out quite right. I didn't mean to insult you with the "position of trust" statement and I apologize if it came out that way. It's just that everyone with whom I work is saying the same thing as I, that this guy is a traitor, while My friends who have never dealt with classified stuff think it's either NBD (Dems) or another example of Clinton sleaze or Kerry's unfitness to be Pres (GOPs).
Your message sounded as if you were in the latter class. I guess it's a culture thing. I was never in the services and to Me, people who wear medals they didn't earn is silly, but that's all. Whereas My friends who did serve have a much harsher opinion of them and use stronger language. I'm not part of that culture. I guess I ass-u-me-ed that you were not in classified processing.
I think the same way about someone who betrays the trust in handling classified stuff. We all were saying "if I screwed up once, I would be canned and perhaps be put in prison, while this guy does it five times and is still out there."
The Constitution says that he didn't commit "treason," but I can't find any other word strong enough for what he did. We feel "betrayed" by him. He was let into the club, then went and abused it. He has hurt the country. He has weakend the morale of us who are expected to suffer the annoyances and nit-picking rules in order to be able to serve the country. Oh, I'm not saying he's made us turn Vichy, but every little hit to morale and trust hurts us a little bit, and the add up.
Please note that I do not thinks this reflects in any way on Kerry, since he dumped him. Frankly, until a couple days ago, I would have said that he was the logical choice for Kerry's foreign-policy advisor. Wrong, with bad ideas, but not evil. Nor do I tie this in any way to the Clintons.
But Berger. Grrrrrrr. Oh, and the people who actually let him do it five times. OK, I can understand maybe once and perhaps the second time could have been a Sting to get evidence to convict, but after three or four times, stop already!
...So what does Kerry need to achieve with this convention to continue to improve his fall chances? At least four things: One of which is:
Kick-ass moment
On top, underneath and inside of all of the self- and policy-defining that he does next week, John Kerry needs to make sure that undecided voters know that he is willing to "kick ass" when it comes to terrorists.
While it galls Democratic partisans that their highly decorated combat veteran has to prove his toughness in a race against two men who never fought in Vietnam, the reality is that he does.
Indeed, a recent Washington Post poll showed that, by 51 percent to 42 percent, voters surveyed said they considered Bush a better candidate than Kerry on terrorism. John Kerry needs to undercut that Bush advantage, not just by providing policy ideas or stories of his youthful heroism, but by explicitly -- perhaps even crudely -- convincing undecided voters that he can; that he would not just cooperate with allies, but kick ass and take the lead against anyone (friend or foe) who threatens the safety of the United States.
It seems grotesque, even backward to some, but in this post-9/11 environment, if Kerry leaves the convention without having made that impression forcefully, he may be a sitting Dukakis. LMAO. Dream on.
I had no idea Karl Rove was this good.
Posted by: Rafael ||
07/22/2004 1:30:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A slap upside the head? Seriously the LOL side of the Dems have been running the show in the DNC for far too long as the more centerist and conservative Dems most likely have to do other things during the year. Like working to earn a living.
#3
I think it boils down to the Dukakis "Capital Punishment Question." A question in which he must answer yes or no. No equivocating allowed.
In Dukakis' case, when emotion was needed, he responded like a Vulcan. I suspect that Kerry would be almost as pitiful, trying to see both his wife's point of view *and* the rapists, then pondering what France would think about both rape and killing a rapist and maybe that a committee should be formed to examine the question.
More like crush it by sitting on it...
Democrats were abuzz and Republicans aghast yesterday as Bush-hating filmmaker Michael Moore unveiled plans to descend upon, and steal some thunder from, John F. Kerry's hometown nominating party.
Aghast? Karl Rove most likely made his hotel resevations.
It is just me or does Michael Moore crave attention?
First time I've seen the media admit the obvious (Moore as Bush hater).
Moore will team up with the Democratic presidential primary's chief Bush critic, Howard Dean, for one of his three Hub appearances in the first two days of the convention. Now that's a matchup made in heaven, Nutty and Nuttier.
Republicans said the ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' creator will reflect poorly as a surrogate for Kerry. ``It's just another example of the pessimism and the conspiracy theories coming from John Kerry and John Kerry surrogates,'' said Kevin Madden, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Not to mention the fact that it tends to steal the spotlight from Liveshot.
``We're seeing a lot of hate and vitriol from this John Kerry celebrity set - Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg. It shows that their intent is to frame anger as an agenda.'' Exactly right. I spotted something last week that mentioned one of the Democratic planks concerning the war on Iraq stated no actual pro / con position. This may change but you still get the impression of a party truly bereft of ideas, original or otherwise.
Democrats, though careful to say Moore won't outshine Kerry, brimmed with excitement. ``Clearly the star of the week will be Sen. Kerry and Sen. (John) Edwards, but having Michael Moore in Boston to enjoy the events just adds a lot of excitement to everything else going on,'' Massachusetts Democratic Party spokeswoman Jane Lane said. Jane Lane should consider a name change - how bland. Moore's only reason for showing up is to have the wide-angle cameras on himself; by definition he detracts from the John-John self love fest.
``I don't see it diminishing the real star of the week, but I think every Democrat in Massachusetts will be thrilled.'' Especially the ones that utilize that stretch of Interstate 93 between Braintree and Meffa (Medford for you normal enunciators).
Kerry, whose campaign has gone out of its way to avoid Moore and his movie's controversial claims, wouldn't comment on his appearances. Tough having to avoid a body with its own gravitational constant...
Moore, who won't be among the 15,000 credentialed Democratic National Convention journalists, will appear at a screening of his ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' at the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline. Brookline - fan friendly moonbats crowd. So how's he going to crash the DNC if he's not invited?
He also will speak Monday to the Congressional Black Caucus. Where? The Orpheum?
The CBC, comprised of 39 African-American members of Congress, was prominently featured in ``Fahrenheit 9/11,'' complaining that Bush ``stole'' the 2000 election. "It's highway robbery, I tell you! We wuz robbed! They took our jaaaaaaaabs!1"
``We're like minds. He shares that focus of bringing in a new leadership,'' CBC spokeswoman Candace Tolliver said. ``We're happy to have him.'' "Yeah, we really like white people..."
The private screening in Brookline will be for members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, including 150 DNC delegates. In other words, state hacks. Say hello to Bernie Crowley for me, lardass. 1 = Obscure reference, anyone?
Posted by: Raj ||
07/22/2004 10:20:57 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If I was in the GOP, I wouldn't comment on this at all. It would sound like sour grapes. Let Moore make a fool of himself on a public stage. He will totally turn off any independents or undecided voters. If I was a GOP strategist/spokesperson I'd just point out (dryly) that if the best the DNC can do is a pathiological liar (Moore not Kerry in this instance) then that should speak for itself.
#2
I disagree, I'd comment on it all day and night. I'd bring all the attention I could to it so that as many people as possible tune in to see what Michael Moore has to say. The Dems associating with this anti-american scum bag is a disaster for them and the GOP should make sure everyone sees them doing it.
#6
"Democrats were abuzz and Republicans aghast" - strike that, reverse it. Talk about a Br'ar Rabbit moment...
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/22/2004 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Democrats, though careful to say Moore won’t outshine Kerry, brimmed with excitement."
I absolutely love it when Democrats brim with excitement-- not to mention when they gush or burble! I love it, because it means they're about to do something incomprehensibly, scintillatingly stupid.
Such as, assuming Republicans would be "aghast" at the notion of the Democrats making this 450-lb, obnoxious, ignorant, bigoted asshole a prominent fixture at their National Convention.
Here's another great idea that would really make the Republicans "aghast": while they're at it, why not let Woody Harrelson give the keynote address?
Sheesh. I can't believe that I once belonged to that party.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/22/2004 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#8
And Linda Ronstadt should sing the National Anthem at the DNC, of course, preferably on the night of Kerry's acceptance speech.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/22/2004 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It is just me or does Michael Moore crave attention? Steve, Attilla and the Huns nailed that with "Michael Moore,Michael Moore you're a media whore." mms://audio.aath.net/hatefullies
#14
As Mitch says, it strikes me as improbable that Republicans would be "aghast". But if the reporter is one of the people who thinks that Moore's movie is a daring revelation of the deep truth that the Republicans don't want you to see and know about, then I can see how the reporter might well think Republicans would be afraid of having Moore doing this. The reporter wouldn't need to go out and actually find any Republicans to ask them what they really felt (and besides which, they're damned hard to find in Massachusetts).
Posted by: Steven Den Beste ||
07/22/2004 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#15
(mhw: "... and that leads to the Dark Side. No. Wait..." -- Xander Harris?)
#16
Wow. They'll do anything for ratings these days. Pity that the convention is in the Fleet Center and not the Gahden, else I would have nominated him for an obstructed view seat. Instead the unlucky folks behind them will win that award.
I wonder where/when they'll let him bleat speak to his flock of sheeple.
Now that’s a matchup made in heaven, Nutty and Nuttier.
Heh. That's a great assessment, Raj - but which is which?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/22/2004 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
#18
CrazyFool - I don't care who presents the Democratic platform, I'd just like to know what it is (other that Bush=Hitler and we don't pay all of our money to them in taxes to fork over to other, non-tax-paying people in order to buy their votes).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/22/2004 22:16 Comments ||
Top||
When you make an investment, you don't necessarily expect it to start paying back immediately. What's important is whether in the long run the payback is greater than the cost of the investment.
By the same token, it doesn't really matter whether we are more secure now . What's important is whether we will be more secure in the long run.
In an investment, it's quite common for cash-flow to be negative for a long time before it turns positive. By the same token, in this war it's almost unavoidable that there will be periods in which our security must suffer.
(Oh, and by the way. "More secure" than what? Than if we hadn't fought back? More secure than we deceived ourselves into thinking we were back on 9/10?)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste ||
07/22/2004 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Steven asks the right question, I think.
Troops in a camp removed from the front lines are more secure than they are when they are in transit or fighting.
OTOH, if they don't fight ..... that security is ephemeral.
The real issue is how to craft the most effective strategy and tactics for that fight. Those who focus mainly on security and safety will find they have precious little of it, in the face of real threats.
Posted by: too true ||
07/22/2004 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
The Onion.
NEW YORK—According to a study published by the Popular Culture Research Group Monday, the majority of American citizens are out of touch with mainstream American society.
"We're not sure, at this point, whether this is a new trend or a continuation of an old trend," PCRG consultant Paul Van Lamm said. "All we know right now is that 70 to 85 percent of Americans are unfamiliar with, unaware of, or just plain don't care about what the American people are watching on television, seeing at the movie theater, listening to on their radios, wearing, rooting for, falling in love with all over again, or downloading."
According to Van Lamm, 71 percent of U.S. citizens polled had no interest in NASCAR racing, America's fastest-growing sport. Van Lamm added that 69 percent of poll respondents said they did not have a single Hispanic friend, in spite of the fact that Hispanics are the nation's fastest-growing minority group. Additionally, the majority of poll respondents did not see the final episode of Friends, television's most-watched sitcom.
"It's disturbing," Van Lamm said. "I'm uncomfortable with the number of U.S. citizens who have no interest in what interests the greater part of their fellow citizens."
Additional data collected by prominent forecasters, pollsters, and trend-watchers indicates that an overwhelming number of Americans have not seen this week's box-office smashes; do not own a Munsingwear penguin-logo golf shirt, the country's hottest fashion item; and not only do not own the must-have Apple iPod, but have never even participated in the runaway fad of downloading the nation's top albums, many of which they've never heard.
Interviews with average Americans seem to support such findings.
"Kanye West? He's in one of those shows. Or was in. It's off the air now, is that it?" said Pewaukee, WI resident and HVAC technician Carl Danford. "Huh... DaVinci Code, you say. I know: Is it a movie? What's Nordic Walking? I mean 'who.' Who is Nordic Walking?"
"I know The White Stripes is a band that younger people like," Danford added.
When asked to name the latest and most buzzworthy figures in entertainment, Tempe, AZ daycare provider Tina Jefferson said, "A lot of the children here saw the Harry Potter movie. And Yao Ming plays sports. How is that?"
"Oh, wait!" Jefferson added. "I know that Anna Nicole Smith lost a lot of weight and people are talking about it. Well, not me or people I know, but other people."
Carson Mannheim, lead statistician and founder of Mannheim Media Research, said he is trying to make sense of the confusing data.
"We're unsure exactly what these figures may mean, but the implications must be far-reaching," Mannheim said. "We're used to Americans not knowing the capital of the next state over, or who their congressman is, or how a bill becomes a law. But the idea that most residents of this country don't know anything about 'Fit But You Know It,' Usher, Dragonball Z, or the WWE is terrifying. No one seems to care that these are the things that influence the everyday life of most Americans."
Posted by: Korora ||
07/22/2004 10:47:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In one breath they say, "MOST Americans are out of touch". In the next breath they say, "No one seems to care that these are the things that influence the everyday life of MOST Americans." Hmm......no wonder they're confused.....they don't know what MOST means. I reckon they're still trying to find out what the meaning of the word "IS" is.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
07/22/2004 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Ok, it's the Onion, but like all good humor, it has a lot of truth in it. I didn't watch the final episode of "Friends", don't have a iPod, don't download music, don't wear penguin-logo golf shirts, don't go to half of the "Hollywood smashes", haven't read the DaVinci Code, or listen to Usher. I know they are happening as backround noise, but don't care to find out more. The reason is personel choice, not because of ignorance. We have such a vast array of choices to pick from these days that the idea you'd be able to know everything (or want to) is a joke. I think that's what the Onion was trying for. They did a great job, if it wasn't tagged as a piece from the Onion, how would you know?
Posted by: Steve ||
07/22/2004 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think that this is pointing out is that what the alledged 'experts' claim as being 'mainstream' (such as watching 'Friends' reading 'DaVinci Code' etc...) are not the mainstream america is all about. In truth there is no 'mainstream' America -- it is kind of like finding the 'average american' (he/she/it doesn't exist).
These 'experts' are kind of like those Greenpeace 'pollsters' around here in Seattle -- I have yet to see them ever 'poll' someone in a business suit (and not everyone around here goes around in tie-dye and sandles).
Actually I had the same reaction as Pete until I checked for a scrappleface/onion byline....
#7
There was an insipid article in the Chicago Tribune (barf, but blame the wife, not me) a few weeks ago entitled: Why is America So Fascinated by Young Blonde Celebrities Who Have Nothing to Say? It had photos of Britney, Christina, Kate/Mary-Wazzherface, etc.
But just like the entire Princess Diana thing, most Americans aren't interested in them. Some yo-yo journalism major (who didn't have the IQ to do the heavy lifting required for a French major) sits at a news desk and decides for himself that Britney is interesting.
And they wonder why they have to fake their circulation numbers.
#13
This is funny but there is a grain of truth in that most people around here don't care about the things that most "chic" people do.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/22/2004 20:34 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Personally I think the Onion hasn't been worth the paper its printed on since it left Madison for New York. I mean when it was in Madison you "knew" it was an ernest piece of leftist crap instead of just maybe being a smug tongue in cheek New York piece of crap.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/22/2004 03:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This behavior assumes that Ms. Ronstadt had no right to express a political opinion from the stage. It implies - for some members of the audience at least - that there is a philosophical contract that says an artist must entertain an audience only in the ways that audience sees fit.
Damn right she does not have the right to express her opinion during a concert which the patrons paid money for. Ms Ronstadt was not paid to express her opinion but to "Shut [the f--k] up and Sing".
I cannot express my opinion at work -- cannot hand RNC/Bush-Cheeney posters outside my cubicle. This is right and fair because I am not being paid to express my opinion but to develop software.
#4
Perhaps her praise for Mr. Moore, even at the very end of her show, did ruin the performance for some people. They have a right to voice their disapproval - to express their opinion as Ms. Ronstadt expressed hers and to ask for a refund. But if their intemperate behavior began to worry the management, then they were the ones who should have been thrown out and told never to return, not Ms. Ronstadt,..
Sorry NYT, but you just don't get it. The old saying applies here more than ever: "The customer is always right."
By Peter Griffiths - Jul 21, 6:06 PM (ET)
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking lost one of the most famous bets in scientific history Wednesday after he rejected the 1975 black hole theory that helped make his name. The best-selling author of "A Brief History of Time" conceded that American physicist John Preskill was right to doubt his theory and gave him a baseball book as a prize. "I am now ready to concede the bet," said Hawking, 62. "I offered him an encyclopedia of cricket, but John wouldn't be persuaded of (its) superiority."
Hawking, who has a crippling muscle disease and is confined to a wheelchair, accepted the bet in 1997 when Preskill refused to accept black holes permanently destroy everything they suck up. For over 200 years, scientists have puzzled over black holes, which form when stars burn all their fuel and collapse, creating a huge gravitational pull. Hawking now believes some material oozes out of them over billions of years through tiny irregularities in their surface. ...more...
Cooool.
Posted by: .com ||
07/22/2004 4:09:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
200 years? I'm surprised Jefferson didn't figure out the paradox.
#12
Shipman, fer criminey sakes, it's QANTAS! One of the few common usage English Australian words, besides Qatar, to have a "Q" without a "U" following behind it. Sheesh, I learned that in the fifth grade.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m.
