Ooops! I Dropped My Crack Pipe!

"I've never wavered in my life. I've been consistent on Iraq."

John Kerry


I think it's time to check into rehab! I'm having aural hallucinations!

Sovereignty: To Be Or Not To Be!

Beyond the points and the counterpoints. Beyond the zingers and the missed-zingers. Beyond the opportunities won and the opportunities missed. There is one overarching message of last nights debate:

*If you want the United States of America to be run by
and for the interests of United States of America, then
you will vote for George W. Bush.

*If you want the United Sates of America to be run by
and for the interests of the international community,
then vote for John Kerry.

I think it is obvious where GWB stands when it comes to the interests of the USA.

* "Over the next four years, I'll continue to work with our allies and
friends, but I will never turn over America's national security
decisions to leaders of other countries."

Three things stand out as to where JK stands in regard to how he would ensure the USA's interests.

* John Kerry would subject American citizens to the
International Criminal Court.

* John Kerry would only act preemptively to prevent a
threat to America if the action "...passes the global
test."

* John Kerry would allow Kim Jong Il dictate how the
USA conducts its foreign policy concerning North
Korea.


To be sovereign or not to be sovereign; (sorry Shakespeare) there is no question!

Light On The Lectern Dilemma

A theory is floating around out there about the real reason why the Kerry campaign is so concerned, and some might say panicked, about blinking timer lights being located on each candidate's lectern during tonight's debate.

John Kerry really is The Frenchurian Candidate.

We all think we know that Sen. Kerry is a multifaceted, nuanced, and complex individual. But the real truth is that he is a multipersonality "bot" who is controlled by a nefarious group of handlers who use small blinking lights within close proximity to switch him from one persona to another depending on the situation. You've seen many of these different personas and not realized it.

A short list of Kerrybots:

Sportybot - Good for photo-ops, likes to windsurf and
snowboard and shoot guns...

Anti-warbot - you know, "...wrong war, wrong place, wrong
time" blah blah blah..., Voting against
funding for the troops. Winter Soldier,
throwing medals(woops, ribbons) over
White House fence...

Pro-warbot - Voting for authorization for war with Iraq...

Soldierbot - "John Kerry; Reporting for duty!" Band of
brothers. Douglas Brinkley...

Psychicbot - "We should not have gone to war knowing the
information we know today."...

Metrosexualbot - spray tans, botox, Christophe haircuts...

Lexicographerbot - "I call them misleadisments."...


Now it is easy to understand why Sen. Kerry has obtained the reputation for being a flip flopper. His handlers have failed to keep him clear of small blinking lights.

Scary E-Mails

Ace Of Spades HQ Alert

"Breaking News: Apolitical Citizens Worry That John Kerry Will Raise Taxes to 90% on All Income Levels and Outlaw Christianity

I'm really concerned about this, and I just got an email about it getting me "all riled up."
Tell your friends about this outrage so that CBS News will then "cover the worry that's out there" without disclosing that these worries are in fact without any substantiation whatsoever, and that, indeed, it seems to be hard-core Republicans entirely behind these rumors.
I know CBS News will cover these worries o' mine, because they just assured Bill from INDC that partisanship had nothing at all to do with pushing the Democrats' attack-of-the-week about the draft."


Indeed, spread the word!

Scare Tactics

According to Talon News:

"MoveOn: Bush to Blame For 'Extreme'
Hurricane Season"

I know this is a little stale but I just came across it and I am stunned. No, actually, I am not stunned. At a hurricane victims benefit cocktail party in St-Germain-des-Pres a couple of weeks ago, I heard some mumblings of this sort from a number of people. Now I don't normally consider myself naive, but in this instance, I must be because I really never believed that anybody would actually run with something like this.

Talk about scare tactics!

Trouble For Porter Goss

Over at OpinionJournal.com is a very insightful editorial about the difficult road ahead for new CIA Director Porter Goss. It seems that one of his hardest tasks will be to get a handle on the Bush hatred that permeates parts of the CIA. And if Bush is reelected, it will be a national security imperative to neutralize this destructive movement.

As per OpJo:

"It's become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated and anonymous leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush Administration look bad."


And the money quote:

"...at senior rungs of the agency there is a culture that has deep policy attachments that have been offended by Mr. Bush, and these officials want him defeated."

Seeing that our nation's security depends on an effective intelligence agency, I find this disgusting.

Good luck to you Director Goss! I think you are going to need it.

A Note to the Ombudsman

I've been home for only a week and I am already forced to complain to the editors of the local paper. The Kansas City Star is a Knight Ridder newspaper and is thus rife with NY Times, AP, and WaPo content. During the election season, they have a 1/3 page section called "On The Campaign Trail." It contains briefs about the local and national campaigns which is compiled from news service reports. It is usually headed off with a photo and about a three line caption. Which brings me to my complaint. When I was in J101, the first thing I was taught about captions was that they were supposed to be very brief factual descriptions of the contents of a photo. I guess I was absent the day they told us that captions should include editorial commentary. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a link (and I have scoured the net looking for them) to the pictures and captions which have raised my ire. Thus I will try to give you a description of the pictures.

The first day's picture is of two men wearing flag decorated shirts and waving Bush/Cheney '04 signs taken at a rally featuring VP Cheney. They are amidst a large number of people and the whole scene looks rather raucous. And if I were among "the elite," I would have to say that they look rather buffoonish.

The second day's picture is of Elizabeth Edwards bending down lovingly and smiling with a darling little blonde haired six year old girl. They appear to be quite happy and act as if they just shared a little joke.

To me, the contrast between the captions which accompanied these two pictures is a perfect example of the liberal bias which permeates much of the MSM. The following is the letter that I sent to the paper's reader's representative:

_________________________________________________________

Mr. Donovan,

In an effort towards full disclosure, I am a conservative KC Star subscriber. That being said, I would like to take a try at being a caption writer for the KC Star; one who happens to have a conservative perspective. I want you to see how unhappy I am with the bias I perceive on a daily basis in the paper. Here are just a couple of examples of the KC Star's supposedly unbiased work.

1) 10/25/04 - Page A2 - On The Campaign Trail

Star's caption for picture at a VP Cheney rally:

"Partisans: At a Friday rally for VP Dick Cheney at the Warren County Fairgrounds in Warrenton Mo., Max Aubuchon (left) and Kevin Sanderlin, both of Hermann, Mo., flaunted their political leanings.

My caption:

"Go Bush/Cheney! At a Friday rally for VP Dick Cheney at the Warren County Fairgrounds in Warrenton Mo., Max Aubuchon (left) and Kevin Sanderlin, showed their support for the Vice President.

Analysis: The words "partisans," "flaunted," and "political
leanings" evoke a negative reaction from the
reader. These are not neutral words. They have
a negative connotation in this context. They
also add editorial commentary to what is
supposed to be simply a description of a picture.



The words "go Bush/Cheney," "showed," and
"support" are more "just-the-facts" like. What
you have in the picture are people expressing
their approval of VP Cheney at a rally by said
VP. Facts.


2) 10/26/04 - Page A2 - On The Campaign Trail

Star's caption for picture of Elizabeth Edwards at a public appearance:

"The Youth Vote? After a healthcare forum Saturday in Burnham Brook, Mich., Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, greeted Deanna Alm, 6, of Portage, Mich.

My caption:

"Political Pandering? After a partisan public appearance Saturday in Burnham Brook, Mich., Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, aped for a photo-op with a brainwashed Deanna Alm, 6, of Portage, Mich.

Analysis: The words "the youth vote," "forum," and
"greeted Deanna Alm" when put together are
very warm and fuzzy. They are the exclamation
mark on a cute and "feel good" photograph.
Very positive. I will concede that this caption is
close to neutral and does not bother me. What
bothers me is when you contrast it to the first
caption. Why the double standard? Why the
loaded caption with the Republican picture and
the "cutesy" caption with the Democrat picture?

The words "political pandering," "partisan public
appearance," "aped for a photo-op," and
"brainwashed" reinforce what a conservative
sees in the cute picture. They neutralize the
age old political tactic of politicians being
pictured with babies and children. I know they
are a bit hyperbolic but I think you discern my
point.



Summary:

I am confident that as the Star's Readers' Representative, you have accumulated extensive education in writing and have undergone thorough training in journalism. That is why I am also confident in my assumption that you understand that words convey, on multiple levels, more than what is actually said on the page in black and white. I know these two examples are anecdotal, but they are indicative of a voluminous list I could compile if I were so inclined. That is why, I do not buy into the theory that over time, a balance will be reached. I grow weary of having my intelligence insulted on a daily basis by the Star in particular and the media in general. Contrary to what appears to be the media consensus, we are not a bunch of morons out here. The fact is, I could tolerate most of the media's tendentiousness if it didn't wrap itself up in the banner of objectivity. I think that with today's instant access to information and opinion, the goal of striving for objectivity may have become a quixotic endeavor.

Sincerely,
Lisa Trieste

_________________________________________________

I wonder if I will hear back from Mr. Donovan?

Temporary Locale Change

Fall is family time for me so for the next couple of months, I will be writing this blog from here in the United States of America. I am now nestled snugly amongst my loving family here in the midwest. It sure is wonderful to breathe in the fresh air of home!

Sensitive Diplomacy?

In a riposte designed to display the superior diplomatic flair that has been bragged about for months on the campaign trail, candidate Kerry made haste to the nearest Columbus Ohio fire station to respond to Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi's statements to congress and at a rose garden press conference. Sen. Kerry Had this to say:

"I think the prime minister is obviously contradicting his own statement of a few days ago when he said that terrorists are pouring into the country," (Read - Allawi is a liar.)

And:

"The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story." (Read - The president and Allawi are liars, the CIA is right in this case only, Iraq is a complete and utter failure and the world is going to end because of it and because of Bush unless, unless you elect me and then I will save the day with my superior diplomatic skills.)

And:

''Prime Minister Allawi told Congress today that democracy was taking hold in Iraq and that the terrorists there were on the defensive. Is he living in the same fantasyland as the president?'' (Read - Well, this one is kind of obvious.)

Well, if this is an example of Sen. Kerry's diplomatic skills, we are in a world of hurt. I think that columnist Mark Steyn summed it up pretty well in this little exposition. A key paragraph:


What a small, graceless man Kerry is. The nature of adversarial politics in a democratic society makes George W. Bush his opponent. But it was entirely Kerry's choice to expand the field, to put himself on the other side of Allawi and the Iraqi people. Given his frequent boasts that he knows how to reach out to America's allies, it's remarkable how often he feels the need to insult them: Britain, Australia, and now free Iraq. But, because this pampered cipher has floundered for 18 months to find any rationale for his candidacy other than his indestructible belief in his own indispensability, Kerry finds himself a month before the election with no platform to run on other than American defeat. He has decided to co-opt the jihadist death-cult, the Baathist dead-enders, the suicide bombers and other misfits and run as the candidate of American failure. This would be shameful if he weren't so laughably inept at it.

Indeed and well said Mark!

Kerry's Drinking Problem?

Over at The Ace of Spades, a debate has arisen about a series of news photos from the AP and Reuters and AFP et al. showing candidate Kerry imbibing beer amongst the hoi poloi in local drinking establishments. The commonality among all the pictures is that while the beer mugs of the folks sitting around Kerry appear to be well drained, his mug remains unusually full. Why is this?

After pondering this monumental quandary for some time, I was forced to join the debate to set the record straight.

I hate to play devil's advocate here but I believe there is a perfectly reasonable and nuanced explanation for J. "F***ing" Kerry's reticence to enthusiastically partake of his tall stein of ice-cold amber lusciousness. Knowing the importance of controlling the symbology elicited from a photo-op, the cerebral Sen. Kerry had to conduct an internal intellectual debate as to what message he wanted to send. Obviously, he wanted to convey that he is just one of the guys. But also, in drinking beer, he also wanted to convey that he is a manly man. However, being of Gaelic descent, he realized that real men only drink stout. So when Sen. Kerry was offered a pale ale, he determined that he would have to settle for the one-of-the-guys symbology only. And with further reasoning, he determined that people of his class don't really drink beer, except at lobster boils, so it was not necessary for him to actually consume the said liquid. After all, most of the bozos in the bar would be so awe struck by his mere presence that they would never even notice that he did not condescend to drink that pisslike swill.

UPDATE: I have been informed, rather emphatically, that John F***ing Kerry is not of Gaelic descent. At first, I thought my theory was debunked. But then I had an epiphany. It was during one of the many intense strategy sessions with his mentor, Sen. Ted "Belch" Kennedy, that he was enlightened with the little bit of Gaelic wisdom that real men only drink stout!