Thursday, August 26, 2004
In response to Bill O' Reilly's Talking Points for August 25th, 2004...
So, Bill O' Reilly thinks that the Canadians are too coddled by the welfare state and therefore unable to win as many olympic medals as the Australians. O' Reilly provides no evidence to back up his theory, but thats the norm for his column. Nevertheless, Trying Times must point out to Bill a scientific axiom that the rest of us high school grads learned in intro to common sense 101: Correlation does not equal causation. Simply because Canada and Australia having different economic systems and different medal totals at this years olympics does not imply that one causes the other, no matter how much you wish it so. I'm sure Mr. O' Reilly's heard the one about increasing ice cream consumpation and expanding crime rates. Stop eating Rocky Road! Whose looking out for ice cream trucks, Bill? Perhaps O' Reilly should consider this hypothesis: In Australia, its Summer ALL YEAR LONG; In Canada, your lucky to go swimming outdoors in the middle of July. So, perhaps, the reason the Canadians don't have as many medals as the Australians at the SUMMER olympics is because its Summer 3 months a year in Canada! I'm sure O' Reilly will be quick to reassess his conclusions during the 2006 Winter olympics when the Canadians are defending and winning their hockey GOLD MEDAL while the Australians win jack squat. In addition, perhaps Mr. No Spin will recount his theory when he realizes that in the 2002 Winter olympics Canada won 17 medals while Australia won two. The difference is probably attributable to the fantastic health care system in Canada keeping those players in such prestine condition.
So, Bill O' Reilly thinks that the Canadians are too coddled by the welfare state and therefore unable to win as many olympic medals as the Australians. O' Reilly provides no evidence to back up his theory, but thats the norm for his column. Nevertheless, Trying Times must point out to Bill a scientific axiom that the rest of us high school grads learned in intro to common sense 101: Correlation does not equal causation. Simply because Canada and Australia having different economic systems and different medal totals at this years olympics does not imply that one causes the other, no matter how much you wish it so. I'm sure Mr. O' Reilly's heard the one about increasing ice cream consumpation and expanding crime rates. Stop eating Rocky Road! Whose looking out for ice cream trucks, Bill? Perhaps O' Reilly should consider this hypothesis: In Australia, its Summer ALL YEAR LONG; In Canada, your lucky to go swimming outdoors in the middle of July. So, perhaps, the reason the Canadians don't have as many medals as the Australians at the SUMMER olympics is because its Summer 3 months a year in Canada! I'm sure O' Reilly will be quick to reassess his conclusions during the 2006 Winter olympics when the Canadians are defending and winning their hockey GOLD MEDAL while the Australians win jack squat. In addition, perhaps Mr. No Spin will recount his theory when he realizes that in the 2002 Winter olympics Canada won 17 medals while Australia won two. The difference is probably attributable to the fantastic health care system in Canada keeping those players in such prestine condition.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
In response to Bill O' Reilly's Talking Points for Tuesday, August 24th...
O' Reilly claims that his opponents on the left have been defaming him . O' Reilly fails to inform his reader as to when and under what context he has been defamed. Not once in this article does he cite a specific instance of defamation and compare it to the lies (or, at the very least, opinion that goes against military records) being thrown at John Kerry's service record. He feels no need to bring up any evidence that either he or the President have been "defamed". Many people have pointed out that Bill makes things up on his show (such as, to cite an actual occurance, when he described the existance of a magazine called the Paris Business Review, which does not actually exist). Whenever someone points instances such as this out he calls it defamation, but never manages to actually dispute any of the specific charges. Of course, its hard to know exactly which of the times O' Reilly has been caught lying that he refutes, because again he gives no specific examples. He has described the Media Matters group as equivalent to the Klu Klux Klan, but has not cited any of the times they have caught O Reilly fibbing and disputed the facts they lay out. He accuses George Soros, the LA Times, the NY Times, and later the entire "left wing media" of "forfeiting all credibility" without ever saying how their earlier and current opinions are in anyway incredible. Like it or not, the left wing media is here to stay, because someone needs to keep looking after O' Reilly and Bush while they still have power.
O' Reilly claims that his opponents on the left have been defaming him . O' Reilly fails to inform his reader as to when and under what context he has been defamed. Not once in this article does he cite a specific instance of defamation and compare it to the lies (or, at the very least, opinion that goes against military records) being thrown at John Kerry's service record. He feels no need to bring up any evidence that either he or the President have been "defamed". Many people have pointed out that Bill makes things up on his show (such as, to cite an actual occurance, when he described the existance of a magazine called the Paris Business Review, which does not actually exist). Whenever someone points instances such as this out he calls it defamation, but never manages to actually dispute any of the specific charges. Of course, its hard to know exactly which of the times O' Reilly has been caught lying that he refutes, because again he gives no specific examples. He has described the Media Matters group as equivalent to the Klu Klux Klan, but has not cited any of the times they have caught O Reilly fibbing and disputed the facts they lay out. He accuses George Soros, the LA Times, the NY Times, and later the entire "left wing media" of "forfeiting all credibility" without ever saying how their earlier and current opinions are in anyway incredible. Like it or not, the left wing media is here to stay, because someone needs to keep looking after O' Reilly and Bush while they still have power.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Its time we all admit to a truth of our contemporary, frenzied, light speed media . Any kind of assertion about a presidential candidate can gain some traction quickly, no matter the mendacity of said assertion OR the speed with which the victim attempts to defend against it. Such is the current case with John Kerry and the attacks on his war record by the other Swift Boat veterans (and others who have associations with the Bushes). Many pundits are claiming that if John Kerry doesn't hit back hard and quick, their will be a political price to pay. While this is certainly true, its also time we admit that no matter what Kerry does to combat these vague and highly dubious assertions, there will be a politically negative impact for Kerry. There's nothing he can do but swiftly and persistantly tell the truth to the media and American people and hope they buy it. But the media has an essential role here to go beyond their timid attempts at evenhanded reporting and show their readers the truth. This includes the comparative truth of the two candidates, including a side by side comparison of their times during Vietnam.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
If the war on terrorism is about trust, and the public needs to trust the president and the homeland security department to be telling the truth (no matter how vague or lacking concrete details), shouldn't we have a president with a history of telling the truth? Neither Presidents Bush nor Clinton have or had such a record, respectively, so it seems worthwhile to give Kerry a chance to establish such a bond. How can a current Administration that turns EVERTHING into politics be trusted to keep terrorism out of such polarizing areas? Is it any wonder that people doubt the timing of these recent terror alerts? I want to believe Bush is telling the truth, and that the timing of the alerts is intended to make us safer. But what thinking adult can, given the exagerated mendacity of earlier Bush claims on a wide range of issues, not at least have an inkling of doubt?
In response to George P. Shultz' op-ed A Record of Recovery in the NYTimes...
Shultz must not have a lot of time on his hands, because the brevity of this piece by someone of his stature makes a George Bush sound bite sound like an economics lecture. Shultz spends the entirety of two paragraphs to assert that the evidence shows that former President Clinton left the U.S. with a recession and current President Bush has magnanimously bequeathed us with a recovery, or in Shultz' terminology, "Prosperity". A hem, not to intrude too much on the logic of this curt propaganda piece, but Trying Times must affirm that what the collective American worker has lived the last three years (subsequent to the beginning of Bush's "recovery") can hardly be referred to as prosperity, if we look at such a term in a historical manner. Bush's recovery has had the slowest and smallest rate of job production since the 1920's. Perhaps while writing this op-ed, Shultz forgot that we had recorded such statistics. Trying Times will admit that Clinton did leave a recession for which Bush cannot be blamed. However, the following three years have shown that Bush's policies while possibly helpful in the long term have done nothing so far to build upon Clinton's buxom record of job creation during the 1990's (22 million net jobs). Not only that, but the median average of the jobs created under the Clinton years payed better than those being created now, even adjusted for inflation. If we look in another direction, In an article written by Michael Kinsley for the LATimes entitled Do the Math, we can take a another view at the "record" that Shultz lauds. This quote from Kinsley will suffice without further explanation: "higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats" (in the last 40+ years). "Lower taxes under Republicans". Like it or not, Shultz' and other Bush apologists broken record of ad naseum RNC talking points cannot change the historical facts.
Shultz must not have a lot of time on his hands, because the brevity of this piece by someone of his stature makes a George Bush sound bite sound like an economics lecture. Shultz spends the entirety of two paragraphs to assert that the evidence shows that former President Clinton left the U.S. with a recession and current President Bush has magnanimously bequeathed us with a recovery, or in Shultz' terminology, "Prosperity". A hem, not to intrude too much on the logic of this curt propaganda piece, but Trying Times must affirm that what the collective American worker has lived the last three years (subsequent to the beginning of Bush's "recovery") can hardly be referred to as prosperity, if we look at such a term in a historical manner. Bush's recovery has had the slowest and smallest rate of job production since the 1920's. Perhaps while writing this op-ed, Shultz forgot that we had recorded such statistics. Trying Times will admit that Clinton did leave a recession for which Bush cannot be blamed. However, the following three years have shown that Bush's policies while possibly helpful in the long term have done nothing so far to build upon Clinton's buxom record of job creation during the 1990's (22 million net jobs). Not only that, but the median average of the jobs created under the Clinton years payed better than those being created now, even adjusted for inflation. If we look in another direction, In an article written by Michael Kinsley for the LATimes entitled Do the Math, we can take a another view at the "record" that Shultz lauds. This quote from Kinsley will suffice without further explanation: "higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats" (in the last 40+ years). "Lower taxes under Republicans". Like it or not, Shultz' and other Bush apologists broken record of ad naseum RNC talking points cannot change the historical facts.
