| |
|
18. september 2004
|
|
Those stupid guardsmen
William Saletan is condescending guardsmen in this Slate piece where he contrasts the young George Bush's alleged unwillingness to fulfill his guard obligations with the president's decision to employ guard units in the Iraq war. He is very frustrated that guard members themselves don't see it that way.
Most Guard officers, however, refuse to admit that their institution is being abused. They gave Bush standing ovations on Tuesday when he told them that "you're fighting terrorist enemies in Iraq" and that the war was "necessary to defend America."
Kerry brought them a different message. "Far too many of you have been on the ground for far too long, much longer than was expected or promised," he reminded them Thursday. "Many of you are our first responders here at home: fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians. To take you out of your communities is to take down our critical first line of defense. That's no way to protect America."
What response did Kerry get? Silence.
Those brave, loyal, hoodwinked guardsmen. They think Bush is one of them. They don't understand that the only presidential candidate who's done the job they're doing now—risking life and shedding blood—is the guy on the other side.
Only deep frustration can make a columnist write such stupid and insulting comments. It's this kind of journalistic arrogance that leads to RatherGate and other scandals.
10:22:51 PM 
|
|
Will pay up to $250,000 for spammer
The Federal Trade Commission suggests a programme where the government pays a reward of between $100,000 and $250,000 for tip-offs about the identity of spammers.
Spammer wanted dead or alive, reward $100,000.
I like it!
8:24:34 PM
|
|
Man walks into own funeral
As the Toronto daughter watched the casket get loaded with what she thought was the remains of her father she was interrupted by a phone call. Forty-eight year old Dane Squires, who was thought to have been a victim of a tragic train accident, had walked into his own funeral.
The police has no clue who the badly injured victim really is..
6:10:15 PM
|
|
CBS poll confirms solid Bush lead
In the latest CBS News poll, there are few signs that Bush's post-convention bounce was short-term (if a bounce doesn't come down, wasn't it a takeoff?).
The contest between President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry looks much as it did in a CBS News Poll conducted last week, after the Republican convention. Bush’s post-convention bounce remains intact, if even slightly larger in this poll; Bush now leads Kerry 50 percent to 41 percent among registered voters, giving the President a 9-point margin.
As you'd expect, many voters tend to think the campaign is overly negative, but it is far from boring.
Yesterday's poll overview.
PS: The Left Coaster argues that Gallup's methodology is flawed because it underrepresents democrats when it weights the poll numbers. Without investigating the claims, his arguments sound like a valid objection. However, the CBS News poll has now confirmed the Bush lead. Do these pollsters use the same flawed method?
PS 2: Jimmy Brelsin in Newsday calls the polls a "sham" since pollers only call people with landlines, not mobile phones. A good point, even if he writes it in way that makes me want to kick him. I don't have a landline, and many of my friends don't either. But Americans I know tend to have landlines. To be misileading, this error has to be systemic (that is, people without landlines must be significantly different in the political orientation than those who have), they have to be voters, the error correction measures pollsters take must not correct this, and there has to be a lot of them. Breslin doesn't really demonstrate either, he just asserts it.
1:03:22 PM
|
|
More boots on the ground
From many quarters there have been calls for a significant increase in US Army and Marine Corps size, especially considering the shortage of "boots on the ground" in Iraq. Michael O'Hanlon argues convincingly that such an increase is necessary, while also providing the raw numbers.
Those who argue that the US occupation included insufficient forces often forget that active duty army doesn't number more than about 500,000 troops. WIth reservists and national guard forces deployed in large numbers, there simply are not any significant number of additional troops to send. While extremely costly, it appears necessary to increase the size of the US Army and Marine Corps.
It is obviously fiction to expect allies (except Australia and in particular the United Kingdom) to provide any significant forces. True, Germany and France were opposed to the Iraq war, but they did support the Afghanistan operations, and yet show few signs of being willing to increase their commitment there.
Via Phillip Carter.
12:59:32 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.10.2004; 07:26:29.
|
|
|
