From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #211 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, July 19 2004 Volume 13 : Number 211 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Bush VS an actual reporter [steve ] RE: Bush VS an actual reporter ["FS Thomas" ] RE: Bush VS an actual reporter [Aaron Lowe ] Re: Red? Blue? Purple? [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Bush VS an actual reporter [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: Bush VS an actual reporter ["FS Thomas" ] Re: Bush VS an actual reporter [Tom Clark ] Re: Bush VS an actual reporter ["Matt Sewell" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:10:32 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Bush VS an actual reporter On Jul 17, 2004, at 8:15 PM, Aaron Lowe wrote: > Will "The Presidency" ever recover? Will we ever be able to truly > respect the leader of our country again? I am afraid that this will > be W's biggest legacy -- that of having destroyed what little faith we > had as a people in the President as an ideal or concept. To the best of our knowledge he has yet to shoot anybody. (Then again, he never took very long to consider all those death warrants). Subject: RE: Bush VS an actual reporter > At 07:31 PM 7/15/2004, helmut poe wrote: > >BabyBush meets a reporter and is flummoxed: > >http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/rte-carol-coleman-bush.mp3 I had read the transcript of that back when it happened, but hadn't heard it before. > I wish I had something insightful or witty to say in response > to hearing > this interview, but instead, I am just ... dumbfounded. I'm rather taken aback, too. I've always thought the Irish were at least rudimentarily polite. The reporter, on three or four occasions, wouldn't allow him to finish answering questions. At the end of the day it's forgotten Reading a bit deeper into the original link, indymedia.org has some fantastically unbiased, objective reporting, too. Great stuff. Example! http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/96072/index.php The whole world will be watching New York City during the Republican National Convention. Some are looking for a repeat of recent summit protests. But if we re scanning history for inspiration, perhaps this moment will be more Prague Spring than Battle of Seattle. If the five boroughs come together with dignity, history will be made. On Aug. 29, we will fill the streets of Manhattan while thousands of GOP delegates gangbang Reagan's corpse inside Madison Square Garden. The city is playing games with permits, but come the convention, the people will permit themselves to send Bush back to Texas no matter what "Homeland Security" has to say about it. The verdict is in: the Republican National Convention is not welcome. "Gangbang Regan's corpse." I can completely understand the need for--and fully endorse--an independent media. This, though, is nothing more than a watermelon Mooreon letting off steam. Laughability: 4, Credibility: 0. - --- Before the Jeme strikes up his fannypack flamethrower, I'll offer something on a different track: I read this (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/15/030148.php) a day or two ago and agree with it pretty whole-heartedly. It may not fend off the flamestrike, but it'll distract long enough to let me wiggle into my asbestos PJs. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:46:26 -0500 From: Aaron Lowe Subject: RE: Bush VS an actual reporter At 09:25 PM 7/17/2004, FS Thomas wrote: >Reading a bit deeper into the original link, indymedia.org has some >fantastically unbiased, objective reporting, too. Great stuff. The "gangbang Reagan's corpse" reference made me shudder in much the same way as listening to the Irish Bush interview did. But the fact that the website supplying the bandwidth for said MP3 file is horribly biased against Bush doesn't change the interview itself. I didn't (still haven't) browsed any of indymedia.org. Just clicked on the audio link and listened to as much of it as I could stomach. All of Bush's politics aside, he just doesn't come across as a very smart man. Granted, I probably couldn't have given much more coherent answers than he did, but I'm not *President of the United States*. More often than not, he didn't seem to fully understand what he was being asked. When he tries to interject an original thought, it comes out so discombobulated that it's hard to know exactly what he's even trying to say. The rest of the time, he seems to be parroting back rehearsed statements that sort of loosely apply to the subject matter being covered. A day or two after Reagan died, I was flipping through the channels. On one of the cable news channels, former U.S. Congressman James Rogan was talking about an encounter he'd had with Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1973. He went into a little more detail on TV than he did in this excerpt, but it beats me having to retell his story: http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/28/Features/From-A.New.Bookhow.I.Ruined.Ronald.Reagans.Day.And.How.He.Made.Mine-685432.shtml One thing that struck me while listening to Rogan speak was that, though I wouldn't have agreed with Reagan's politics had I been politically cognizant in the 80's when he was President, perhaps I would have respected him and the office a lot more than I do now. I *got* from Rogan's admiring description that Regan was an intelligent man who understood (or took it upon himself to be sure he understood) the issues he was forced to deal with as Governor or as President. The very fact that he was working so diligently on reworking his handwritten speech made me stop to think whether I could imagine George W. Bush toiling over a stack of handwritten notecards, sweating over an upcoming appearance. I hope I'm wrong, but when Bush speaks, I always get the impression that it's all been written for him, and he only marginally understands the topics about which he is speaking. I know some people who just say, "Well, Bush just isn't a great public *speaker*; that's just not one of his strong points." To my eye and ear, his ineptitude goes deeper than just not being a good speaker, and that's downright scary given the state of the world and U.S. Foreign Affairs at the moment. I don't typically get deep into political debates , although they certainly are raging. I had no idea that the list would be so active when I decided to rejoin you all. I don't feel like I'm informed enough to comment on much of what is being said about Bush, Kerry, the upcoming election, etc., but I am reading it with a certain amount of interest, realizing that perhaps I *should* be more informed. I voted for Nader last time. I've been told countless times that by doing so, I just helped elect Bush. Since I didn't vote in Florida, I don't think this is quite the case, but I shudder to think that it might be. I don't even know if I will vote this time around. I don't like Kerry much better than Bush. How on earth did he end up being the Democratic nominee, anyway? And if a candidate benefits from the huge fundraising power and visibility that comes from being a major party candidate, shouldn't he agree with at least a majority of that party's political platform? I'm all for free thinkers and not being forced to subscribe to beliefs you don't really hold in order to call oneself "Democrat" or "Republican," but I can't help but feel that the 2004 Presidential Election has come down to a choice between Bush and Bush Lite, and neither choice makes me feel any better about living in this country. In 2000, I found myself believing very much as Jeme does that a vote for a third party candidate was a vote to initiate, or continue, perhaps, a kind of change that is much needed in this country. I really don't know what to do this time around. It feels rather hopeless. This is the most politically-charged thing I've written in a long, long time. Usually I steer clear of such conversations and keep these kinds of thoughts to myself, mostly because I feel pretty uninformed and therefore unqualified to even have an opinion. Thanks for the outlet. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:04:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Red? Blue? Purple? Fortissimo wrote: > BTW: Am I the only person who has a moment of cognitive > dissonance every time the red/blue thing is mentioned... > since, for me, "red" means *left* - which of course is > the opposite? I suppose if I try to associate > "blue" with "blueblood"...but that's not right either. I think it's for that reason that they do it the opposite way. They have to use red and blue, since they are on the flag, but they know they'd get in trouble for associating "red" with "liberal" because of communism, and the tendency of more wankerish conservatives to not notice the difference between liberals and communists. Same would apply if black or brown was one of the plausible colors with conservatives and fascists. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin "I'm going to keep playing music until somebody shoots me." -- Scott McCaughey "It would not now surprise me in the least if, one night on TV, right there during The Memo, [Bill] O'Reilly declared himself to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia." -- Charles Pierce on MSNBC.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:08:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Bush VS an actual reporter steve wrote: > Aaron Lowe wrote: > > Will "The Presidency" ever recover? Will we ever be > > able to truly respect the leader of our country again? > > am afraid that this will be W's biggest legacy -- that > > of having destroyed what little faith we had as a > > people in the President as an ideal or concept. > > To the best of our knowledge he has yet to shoot anybody. > (Then again, he never took very long to consider all > those death warrants). > > > > - Steve > __________ > "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldnt > do my job." - > George W. Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, during a > private > meeting with an Amish group. > ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin "I'm going to keep playing music until somebody shoots me." -- Scott McCaughey "It would not now surprise me in the least if, one night on TV, right there during The Memo, [Bill] O'Reilly declared himself to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia." -- Charles Pierce on MSNBC.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:45:38 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: Bush VS an actual reporter > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org > [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Lowe > > In 2000, I found myself believing very much as Jeme does that > a vote for a > third party candidate was a vote to initiate, or continue, > perhaps, a kind > of change that is much needed in this country. I really > don't know what to > do this time around. It feels rather hopeless. The fact that a third party even has a candidate on the Presidential ballot is huge, but I think it's mis-guided. What really (desperately) needs to happen is that constituencies need to, on a city- and state-level, start electing third party candidates; get a few seats in the state House, etc, and then move to Washington. With heavier state-level representation then a third party candidate would have a chance. Vying for the Presidency without even having a majority of seats in *one* state (or a Governor, for that matter) is akin to my entering the Tour de France because I like to ride bikes, without training, and expecting to win. You cannot just, as a no-name, expect to walk onto the national stage and enter the campaign for the Presidency and expect to ascend. Especially if you have nominal name recognition and your party's politic are unknown. If you all want to see a /realistic/ third (fourth, fifth) option added to the two we're stuck with right now, then I would suggest you would start promoting candidates from those parties in your town, city, and state elections. Don't just shoot for the Presidency. (Or, in this case, the President...) - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:19:36 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Bush VS an actual reporter On Jul 17, 2004, at 6:15 PM, Aaron Lowe wrote: > Will "The Presidency" ever recover? Will we ever be able to truly > respect the leader of our country again? I am afraid that this will > be W's biggest legacy -- that of having destroyed what little faith we > had as a people in the President as an ideal or concept. > Of course this is what those on the Right always say about Clinton for getting head in the Oval Office - which I think we all agree is a far greater blow to the Presidency than just being a complete and utter human failure. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:27:50 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: Bush VS an actual reporter Was that a concious pun, Tom? A far greater blow to the Presidency from Monica Lewinsky, eh? No doubt! Cheers Matt >From: Tom Clark >> > >Of course this is what those on the Right always say about Clinton >for getting head in the Oval Office - which I think we all agree is >a far greater blow to the Presidency than just being a complete and >utter human failure. > >-tc - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #211 ********************************