CE Volume 4

[Galactus]

Seems like everybody's got the fuzzy memories these days...





Friday, September 3, 2004 Posted: 10:58 AM EDT (1458 GMT)

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks at convention.



VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Austrian historians are ridiculing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child and left a "Socialist" country when he moved away in 1968.

Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes."

No way, historians say, challenging Schwarzenegger's knowledge of postwar history -- if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America's most populous state.

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.

Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, when Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, Karner noted.

"Let me tell you this: As a boy, I lived for many years across the street from where the Russians were based in Vienna -- and honestly, I never saw a Russian tank there," retiree Franz Nitsch said Friday. "He said it all on purpose -- and that's bad."

In his convention address, Schwarzenegger also said: "As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left" in 1955 and Austria regained its independence.

But Martin Polaschek, a law history scholar and vice rector of Graz University, told Kurier that Austria was governed by coalition governments, including the conservative People's Party and the Social Democratic Party. Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation's chancellors were conservatives -- not Socialists.

What's more, when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by People's Party Chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic and a sharp critic of both the Socialists as well as the Communists ruling in countries across the Iron Curtain.

Schwarzenegger "confuses a free country with a Socialist one," said Polaschek, referring to East European Communist officials' routine descriptions of their countries as Socialist.

Polaschek saw the moderate Republican governor's recollections at the convention as a tactical move. Schwarzenegger, he said, was "using the old Communist enemy image for Bush's election campaign."

"He did not speak as a historian, after all, but as a politician," Polaschek said.

Norbert Darabos, a ranking official of Austria's opposition Social Democratic Party, sharply criticized Schwarzenegger's "disdain for his former homeland."

"The Terminator is constructing a rather bizarre Austria image," he said.

But many ordinary Austrians seemed to be in a forgiving mood Friday over the gaffes.

"Maybe he has a wrong recollection -- it's so many years since he left," said Wilma Fadrany, 32, a Vienna waitress.

"There must be political reasons for such comments," she said. "You've got to tell the (convention delegates) what they want to hear in order to win them over. Politicians always talk the way it fits into their agenda."

[strat-0]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

At least 100 bodies have reportedly been found in a school in southern Russia where Chechen separatists had been holding hundreds of hostages.

Heavy gunfire and loud explosions were heard throughout the morning as Russian troops stormed the school, in the town of Beslan in North Ossetia.

There is confusion as to why the Russian forces went in, as the operation seems to have been unplanned.

Hundreds of children were freed in the seizure, though some are badly injured.

Russian officials confirmed that some dead had been found inside the school, while a correspondent for the Interfax news agency put the number at more than 100.

More than 400 people were injured.

I'm glad they don't cave in to the terrorsts, but this was nearly as bad or worse than when they tried the "knockout gas" in the theater. It knocked them out alright - all the way out - hostages included.

[chrisfan]

stratman19 said:

Some post RNC thoughts...

I thought President Bush gave a remarkable speech last night (at least the last half). The last half inspired me, while the first half didn't do a lot for me.

The first half didn't inspire me, because as a small government conservative, there wasn't a lot there for me to like. This is nothing new for me though, as I've taken issue with this administration many times for what I feel is excessive spending. That's one reason I find Mary's assertion that President Bush is an ultra conservative, frankly rather laughable. At any rate I was, and am, squarely in the President's corner. All that's left to do is to kick some Democratic ass in November. Let's get to it.

You've summed up my thoughts on his speech pretty well as well. Just about the time that I was thinking to myself "ho hum, just another rehersed Bush speech. This isn't going to do much for him" he turnedi it around for me. you're better off to end big, and he did. The portion where you could tell he was getting choked up, as he talked about how the spirit of America is reflected in the people who've suffered the most from the tragedies and hardships we've faced was just amazing. Michael Gerson can turn poetry into a speech, and he certainly did it there. I think I might just have to say that he did an even better job there of reflecting on the greatness in America with that section of the speech than even Reagan did in his best "what's so great about America" moments.

On the programs he proposed ... I agree with you that they didn't thrill me, and I agree with you that thoe are the sorts of things that in my eyes blow holes in the Bush as ultra-conservative mantra. But if you have to have that kind of stuff, I'd rather the programs be of the "help people to help themselves" kind that he proposed than the "we're going to hand things out to people we choose" approach of Kerry.

[Mary]

Well, I'll give melon and stratman one thing - the first half of Bush's speech last night didn't sound ultraconservative, what with all those promises of additional federal spending. However, this only adds to my frustration with Bush, insofar as I am highly skeptical that any of these things will come to pass if Bush does get re-elected. Unless Iraq miraculously becomes the sparkling shiny capitalist democracy utopia that Cheney and Wolfowitz dream abouut at night. On the one hand he promised about 5 or 6 new spending programs (or increased spending programs, as in the case of increased funding for community colleges), on the other he insisted on making the tax cuts permanent, and then he fell blissfully silent about the enormous budget deficit. Where is this money going to come from? At least Kerry can say he will raise money partialy through revoking Bush's tax cuts - in the case of Bush, money can apparently be conjured out of thin air, even in the middle of a chaotic war in Iraq, a deteriorating, warlord-ruled country in Afghanistan, and a worldwide war on terror. Yeah, I can certainly see why hard-right conservatives would be cringing through the first half of the speech - but I just think it's more of this manipulative "compassionate conservative" rhetoric, designed to appeal to those moderate "swing voters" everyone is falling over themselves to ass-kiss, and hardly to be taken seriously.

BTW I thought the speech itself was pretty good, delivered pretty well. Although to answer Chrisfan's about the appeal of Pataki, I was wondering the same thing myself until I realized Pataki was announcing Bush to the convention - fuck, put someone as wooden and insomnia-curing as Pataki onstage before the star speaker, and Bush is guaranteed to look like a fucking king of charisma!!

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

Well, I'll give melon and stratman one thing - the first half of Bush's speech last night didn't sound ultraconservative, what with all those promises of additional federal spending. However, this only adds to my frustration with Bush, insofar as I am highly skeptical that any of these things will come to pass if Bush does get re-elected. Unless Iraq miraculously becomes the sparkling shiny capitalist democracy utopia that Cheney and Wolfowitz dream abouut at night. On the one hand he promised about 5 or 6 new spending programs (or increased spending programs, as in the case of increased funding for community colleges), on the other he insisted on making the tax cuts permanent, and then he fell blissfully silent about the enormous budget deficit. Where is this money going to come from?

The argument that if you increase spending and don't raise taxes there will be a deficit only works if you assume that people's income will remain the same. If more people are working, tax revenue goes up. If peopleare making more money, tax revenue goes up. In addition, if you cut spending in areas deemed outdated or unnecessary (and even if we don't agree on what they are, we can all agree that there are areas like that out there) that contributes to balancing the budget too. There are countless examples of taxes being cut, and tax revenues going up.

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

To answer your question in short Mary, I'm saying that BOTH the article you posted, and the media in general, is too one-sided. Allow me to make a few distinctions.

I make (and from what you've said in the past I think that you do too) a very strong distinction between journalists and commentators/editorialists/pundits. By definition of what they do, I think that the commentators/pundits must express their opinions and bias, and should be up front about where they are coming from, bias-wise. Journalists on the other hand, should not be expressing their opinions, and we shouldn't know where they are coming from bias-wise.

Chrisfan, I think there's a little bit of a tension between these two parts of your post. The article I posted was an editorial, from a man who has admitted upfront and repeatedly all over salon.com that he is a liberal Kerry supporter. According to your own definition, he's not a journalist, so I don't really understand how what he wrote could be too "one-sided" - anymore than a Krauthammer or a Podhoretz column.

As for the media's bias more generally, I will say what I always say when these accusations of bias appear here: people who accuse the media of bias are themselves necessarily biased, insofar as we all have our own political preferences. I am skeptical that any of us can really be fair judges of an "impartial" media - what looks "impartial" to a conservative is very different from what looks "impartial" to a liberal. When discussing media bias, it's necessary to take into account both the media's own presentations, but also the ideological assumptions of its viewers. No one ever talks about or studies viewer bias.

The idea that there could ever really be purely impartial coverage, or that we as biased, ideologically invested individuals could ever judge whether that coverage really is impartial, seems implausible to me. For example I keep getting emails from lefty friends complaining that the media isn't giving sufficient attention to the protestors outside, and that they should be given more opportunity to express their views to the American public. On the other hand my mom keeps emailing me and complaining that the protestors are getting too much coverage, and that the media is making all Bush opponents look bad by conflating them with the "nutjobs" outside the convention. On the other...um....foot?, I've seen several Republicans also call for more coverage of the protestors, but not to give them a platform to express their views, but rather to expose them for the dangerous leftist wackos that they are. One of my conservative friends from college sent out a mass-email complaining that the media was conspiring to hide the destructiveness and ugliness of the protestors from the American people so we wouldn't know just how fucked up the left really is. To which a liberal friend responded that actually the media was really just conspiring to hide how brutal and fascist the NYC police were being in their treatment of the protestors.

And on and on and on and on. Same coverage, about 6 different accusations of bias from 6 different ideological positions! If people can all watch the same coverage and all find different kinds of bias, can we really trust viewers to judge the fairness and impartiality of news coverage??

Cheers,
M

[Mary]

One more example, just cause this is a topic that interests me:

Should journalists refer to Iraq as having been "liberated"? When I hear newscasters talk about the "liberation" of Iraq, this seems like laughably slanted coverage to me, because I think Iraq is a bloody mess right now and hardly a liberated country. On the other hand, I could imagine a conservative complaining that it was a sign of liberal, antiwar bias if a particular channel continually refused to call Iraq liberated. David Horowiz and Christopher Hitchens are constantly complaining that the media is conspiring to present the postwar situation in Iraq as bleakly as possible. Yet I find that they are thoroughly whitewashing all the problems - such as the economic ones Naomi Klein pointed out, which are virtually absent from mainstream media coverage.

So, what would an "impartial" coverage of Iraq even look like? What could the media really do that wouldn't look biased either to me or to Horowitz??

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

Chrisfan, I think there's a little bit of a tension between these two parts of your post. The article I posted was an editorial, from a man who has admitted upfront and repeatedly all over salon.com that he is a liberal Kerry supporter. According to your own definition, he's not a journalist, so I don't really understand how what he wrote could be too "one-sided" - anymore than a Krauthammer or a Podhoretz column.

Fair enough. I'll stand corrected on that one. In my defense, I didn't pay much attention to the writer of the piece, and since I don't frequent Salon, I can't say that I'd know it if the guy does profess himself to be a bias Kerry supporter on a regular basis. Additionally, given the number of times that I've beat my head against a brick wall with other people on these boards arguing over whether or not Salon is a liberal opinion piece or a reliable on-line newssource, I tend to (mistakenly) assume that anyone with a liberal slant views it as a news source and not an opinion source.

Mary said:

As for the media's bias more generally, I will say what I always say when these accusations of bias appear here: people who accuse the media of bias are themselves necessarily biased, insofar as we all have our own political preferences. I am skeptical that any of us can really be fair judges of an "impartial" media - what looks "impartial" to a conservative is very different from what looks "impartial" to a liberal. When discussing media bias, it's necessary to take into account both the media's own presentations, but also the ideological assumptions of its viewers. No one ever talks about or studies viewer bias.

The idea that there could ever really be purely impartial coverage, or that we as biased, ideologically invested individuals could ever judge whether that coverage really is impartial, seems implausible to me. For example I keep getting emails from lefty friends complaining that the media isn't giving sufficient attention to the protestors outside, and that they should be given more opportunity to express their views to the American public. On the other hand my mom keeps emailing me and complaining that the protestors are getting too much coverage, and that the media is making all Bush opponents look bad by conflating them with the "nutjobs" outside the convention. On the other...um....foot?, I've seen several Republicans also call for more coverage of the protestors, but not to give them a platform to express their views, but rather to expose them for the dangerous leftist wackos that they are. One of my conservative friends from college sent out a mass-email complaining that the media was conspiring to hide the destructiveness and ugliness of the protestors from the American people so we wouldn't know just how fucked up the left really is. To which a liberal friend responded that actually the media was really just conspiring to hide how brutal and fascist the NYC police were being in their treatment of the protestors.

And on and on and on and on. Same coverage, about 6 different accusations of bias from 6 different ideological positions! If people can all watch the same coverage and all find different kinds of bias, can we really trust viewers to judge the fairness and impartiality of news coverage??

Cheers,
M

You do make a fair point about view bias, and how it plays into media bias. But I'm sorry, I cannot and will not accept the notion that the bias is not there. It's certainly not as prevelant as some people claim (as an example, I heard conservatives complaining today that the networks were apparently taking down the sound of the supportive reaction of the delegates during Bush's speech last night -- I think the accusation of liberal bias is hogwash there. To me, that was simply a technical effort to ensure the SPEECH was heard well over the air). But when you look at the surveys that show what percentage of journalists identify themselves as liberals, I don't think the slant can be denied. I tend to agree with the Bernard Goldberg analyssi of the bias -- that it is not an intentional bias, but one that simply happens. But it is there. When reporters go into a press conference with a president more concerned with getting him to admit a mistake (and waste questions asking for it over and voer) rather than seeking information, it's evident. When the NY Times produces 2 charts demonstrating the connections between swift boat veterans and Bush campaign people, without any sort of investigation in the same ties between the KErry campaign and anti-Bush groups, it's evident.

[shin]

Chrisfan said:

Shin, I think the problem here is another example of your not allowing for ANY shades of gray in a discussion. I pointed out some notable Democrats who have come out in favor of Bush to refute your claim that the Democrats are free of dissent and TOTALLY together right now. By saying that claim is not true, I am NOT saying "They are in total disaray". I am saying "they are not in total agreement". There is a huge huge huge space between one statement and the other.

But to add to my refuting your claim, I heard polling numbers which simply do not support what you are saying. The support for President Bush among people who strongly identify themselves as Republicans right now is somewhere in the 90's percentage wise. On the flip side, support for Senator Kerry among people who strongly identify themselves as Democrats right now is somewhere in the 60's percentage wise. So, perhaps you're right,and Democrats are in the 90s in their agreement that Bush should not continue as president -- I dont know. I have not seen that poll done. But the numbers indicate that is where their agreement ends. And honestly, not wanting Bush in office is going to be enough to get Kerry elected.

I guess I have to ask -- if the Democrats are as strongly together as you are saying they are right now, why is Kerry either in a dead heat, or lagging behind slightly, in the polls?

Wow. First of all, here's what I actually said:

The party's come together like never before on pretty much all issues. It's a good thing.

How is that me saying "free of dissent"? How is that me not seeing shades of grey? "TOTALLY " together now? Give me a break. You're the queen of semantics, you should know better. Oh yeah, out of your "notable" dissenters, you've only been able to actually NAME two of them, unless his legal name is "mayor of Youngstown, Ohio". Not so notable after all

And to answer your question of why if Democrats are as strongly together as I say they are, and yet Kerry is tied with Bush, I say to you that I have no idea what that has to do with anything, but if it does, one might also ask why 90% of Republicans voting for Bush only gets him tied with a man who's only got 60% of the Dems vote. Presidential votes are far more complicated than the bases of each president, from swing voters to disgruntled voters, as I'm sure you already know, Ms. Shades-of-gray.

First, I'm glad to see you acknowledge that salon is a liberal leaning editorial site, because there are several around here who'd argue that it's a reliable source of news.

Well this is a big shock for me. I've always found them an incredibly reliable source of news, but I've never noticed their liberal leaning editorial bent. You're right, that DOES argue against them being a reliable source of news, simply because of their liberal leaning editorial bent. How could I have been misled for so long....

But I have to say, I find it very very telling that the criticism of Zell Miller thus far has been nearly exclusively about his demeanor, and so little is being said about what he actually said.

www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/01/se.03.html

Shall I list here?


BLITZER: But as you well know, they're been many times over the years, you've worked very closely with him and praised him. The Democrats are circulating information that as recently as three years ago, you were praising him.

(...)

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Senator Miller, the Democrats are pointing out that John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came through Congress while he was in the Senate, and many of these votes that you cited, Dick Cheney also voted against, that they were specific weapons systems.

(...)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: You also were, I would say, almost indignant that anyone would possibly call America military occupiers, not liberators, on at least four occasions. President Bush has referred to the presence of American forces in Iraq as an occupation, and the question is: Are you not selectively choosing words to describe the same situation the president of the United States is describing?

(...)

BLITZER: You know that when the secretary -- when the vice president was the secretary of defense he proposed cutting back on the B-2 Bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons systems.


According to Miller's own responses, he admittedly has no idea what he's talking about.



...AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE! YEAAAAH!

(whoops, wrong picture)

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

One more example, just cause this is a topic that interests me:

Should journalists refer to Iraq as having been "liberated"? When I hear newscasters talk about the "liberation" of Iraq, this seems like laughably slanted coverage to me, because I think Iraq is a bloody mess right now and hardly a liberated country. On the other hand, I could imagine a conservative complaining that it was a sign of liberal, antiwar bias if a particular channel continually refused to call Iraq liberated. David Horowiz and Christopher Hitchens are constantly complaining that the media is conspiring to present the postwar situation in Iraq as bleakly as possible. Yet I find that they are thoroughly whitewashing all the problems - such as the economic ones Naomi Klein pointed out, which are virtually absent from mainstream media coverage.

So, what would an "impartial" coverage of Iraq even look like? What could the media really do that wouldn't look biased either to me or to Horowitz??

Cheers,
M

Well, why not go by a dictionary defintion of liberation, given that any other defintion is going to have a person's own emotional attachments to it? The dictionary says that liberation is "n 1: the act of liberating someone or something". I guess I would argue that since Sadaam Hussein is no longer the dictator in Iraq, that yes, it has been liberated. Therefore, i would say that it is ok for journalists to call it "liberated Iraq". On the other hand, I would not endorse their calling it "democratic Iraq".

Please understand, when I talk about the bias in journalism, and what I think needs to be done to fix it, I'm not looking for semantics that bring me joy every day. I'm looking for an equal application in scrutiny. I'm looking for journalists to actually do their job and dig, rather than reciting the press releases they're handed.

[shin]

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Austrian historians are challenging California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child and that he left a "Socialist" country when he moved away in 1968.

Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes."

Historians, however, are questioning Schwarzenegger's version of postwar history -- if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America's most populous state.

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/03/schwarzenegger.ap/index.html

I believe he meant to say "tanks in Cambodia on Christmas Eve."

[Proud]

i found both kerry and bush's mentions of clinton's health situation today touching and charming, whether or not there were political ambitions behind them.

as far as kerry goes with his talk yesterday about not letting people like bush and cheney insult his war record, i like that comment, BUT kerry did say that he felt bush "served honorably" in the national guard. john, you're a great man, but you have to think before you speak. i think a lot of this talk that he's a "flipflopper" is bull (i mean, he's not more of one than any other candidate... they all are hypocrites, or just about all), but that isn't the way to prove you're politically straight...

[chrisfan]

I've heard several people on various news programs this afternoon "extending their condolences" to Bill Clinton and his family. Isn't that an inappropriate choice of words? Well wishes, prayers, etc make total sense to me. But condolences?

[chrisfan]

Proud said:

as far as kerry goes with his talk yesterday about not letting people like bush and cheney insult his war record, ...

Perhaps someone should contact the ACLU. They may need to take a stand against John Kerry for all of the examples that are starting to pile up of his attempting to squelch the free speech of people who choose to speak out againt him.

[Ampage]

Another reason why celebs should not get involved, this ones laughable, enjoy!


Political
9/1/2004 - New York City

ok, now this is REALLY going to be the last political update for a while...
you know what politics is/are like in the united states?
it's like pop-music and/or dating.
example a: pop-music.
republicans are like ashley simpson, and democrats are like radiohead. radiohead fans will forever be mystified as to why someone would buy an ashley simpson cd, but ashley simpson's handlers/managers understand what the lowest common denominator are looking for and they give it to them. radiohead fans think 'that disposable pop music is terrible, and someday people will see the error of their ways and buy radiohead cd's instead of ashley simpson cd's', meanwhile ashley simpson and her managers are selling millions of records.
example b: dating.
democrats are the bright, conscientious, responsible guy in the corner of the party and republicans are the loud, boastful, arrogant guy in the middle of the room. the bright guy in the corner thinks 'that loud guy in the middle of the room is a jerk and eventually everyone will see him for what he is', but the loud guy goes home with the hot girl and the bright guy in the corner goes home alone.
my point?
yes, radiohead are better than ashley simpson.
and yes, the bright, interesting guy in the corner is better than the loud jerk in the middle of the room. but ashley simpson and the loud jerk in the middle of the room know what people want, and that's why they(and the republicans)are winning.
democrats are nuanced and complicated and republicans are simple and sound-bitey.
people want bright shiny simplicity, not dark obscure complexity.
the democrats put their trust in people's better instincts whereas the republicans put their trust in people's basest instincts.
and that's why the republicans are winning, because they're not governed by ideals, they're governed by results. the republicans want to win no matter what, whereas the democrats want to win because the public will, hopefully, recognize the primacy of their ideas.
and that's why democrats are the step-child party. that's why democrats are the avis to the republicans hertz. that's why democrats are the runners up. because the republicans know how to sell and they know how to win.
of course my hope is that the democrats will learn from the republicans and learn how to win.
but too often it seems that democrats take the 'high road' when the noble and effective thing would be to join the battle in the trenches.
republicans are dirty, and will stop at nothing to win. we saw in 2000 that when democrats take the 'high road' that they lose.
so that's the choice, democrats: take the 'high road' and lose, or learn how to compete in the real world and run the risk of winning...
bill clinton did it, and he won.
al gore didn't do it, and he lost.
i hope that john kerry learns from bill clinton...
-moby