Wednesday, September 27, 2006
CLINTON TELLS IT LIKE IT IS -- CHRIS SMIRKS
The republican front persons are on the air regularly giving forth their poison rhetoric in bombastic fashion, filled with name calling, accusations, and inflammatory pet phrases. The President goes before audiences and the press waving his arms, leaning forward, repetitively shouting his scripted answers and talking points. Mr. Rumsfeld does everything except flip the bird to the press and the public, refuses to answer direct questions, and belittles reporters and their questions.
But along comes Mr. Clinton, who has just experienced a biased and untruthful presentation of his administration's responses to Al Quaida by the ABC network, and he grants an interview to the reporter from the Fox republican network with an understanding that he is to talk about his recent achievements in bringing huge private resources into the humanitarian projects that have occupied his time for the last few years. Bingo! Right off, the smirking Chris Wallace asks him the accusative and provocative question, "Why did you not connect the dots and do more to combat Al Quaida during your administration?" The question was accusative.
Sure, he felt like he was set up. David Gergen, prominent journalist and statesperson, said that he was "sandbagged." And, Mr. Clinton reacted accordingly. He let off the steam which had been built up by the false presentation of ABC, carried on by partisan pundits, and aired by the partisan Fox network talking heads. The accusation of Fox's smirking Chris Wallace was the last straw.
Mr. Clinton has a right to defend himself. He has the right to the same very direct approach that others use regularly. This writer listened carefully to his answer and his extended comments. He was correct in what he said. He had the right, and even the obligation, to say it and to say it directly and strongly.
Democrats have too often allowed republicans, in their discourteous and sometimes obnoxious way, to bully them on television. Mr. Clinton has ordinarily been quite restrained in his manner and his comments, although clear in his phraseology if one listens carefully. No one has endured the public persecution that this man has had to take. He has a right to hit back. It was great to behold an intelligent leader in action.
On wonders about all this "outrage" from republicans. Do they really expect the man to stay still and quiet while they slap him around?
Could anyone honestly characterize Fox's O'Reilly as anything other than a bully? How about Hannity, or Clear Channel's Limbaugh? They are all bullies. This Chris Wallace is different. He tends to be pushy but sneaky in his attacks. And, he smirks at his interview subjects. He did not get by with it this time. Bravo for Mr. Clinton!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
But along comes Mr. Clinton, who has just experienced a biased and untruthful presentation of his administration's responses to Al Quaida by the ABC network, and he grants an interview to the reporter from the Fox republican network with an understanding that he is to talk about his recent achievements in bringing huge private resources into the humanitarian projects that have occupied his time for the last few years. Bingo! Right off, the smirking Chris Wallace asks him the accusative and provocative question, "Why did you not connect the dots and do more to combat Al Quaida during your administration?" The question was accusative.
Sure, he felt like he was set up. David Gergen, prominent journalist and statesperson, said that he was "sandbagged." And, Mr. Clinton reacted accordingly. He let off the steam which had been built up by the false presentation of ABC, carried on by partisan pundits, and aired by the partisan Fox network talking heads. The accusation of Fox's smirking Chris Wallace was the last straw.
Mr. Clinton has a right to defend himself. He has the right to the same very direct approach that others use regularly. This writer listened carefully to his answer and his extended comments. He was correct in what he said. He had the right, and even the obligation, to say it and to say it directly and strongly.
Democrats have too often allowed republicans, in their discourteous and sometimes obnoxious way, to bully them on television. Mr. Clinton has ordinarily been quite restrained in his manner and his comments, although clear in his phraseology if one listens carefully. No one has endured the public persecution that this man has had to take. He has a right to hit back. It was great to behold an intelligent leader in action.
On wonders about all this "outrage" from republicans. Do they really expect the man to stay still and quiet while they slap him around?
Could anyone honestly characterize Fox's O'Reilly as anything other than a bully? How about Hannity, or Clear Channel's Limbaugh? They are all bullies. This Chris Wallace is different. He tends to be pushy but sneaky in his attacks. And, he smirks at his interview subjects. He did not get by with it this time. Bravo for Mr. Clinton!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
AN ABC -- PAC 10 ANALOGY
Lest we draw parallels where none exist, it might first be appropriate to present the scenarios and facts of two different series of events the past week.
In one case we have the broadcast of a so-called docudrama on AB C about the "Path to 9/11," which purports to be a dramatized depiction of the events, conversations, and actions during a period leading up to the tragedy of the twin towers. However, the architects of the docudrama decide to present a version of these events contrary to that established as truth by the 9/11 Commission, and a version different from that which participants say actually happened. Words never said are put into the mouths of real persons, fictionalized for dramatic effect or for political purposes.
Now this docudrama smells so bad that its technical advisor from the 9/11 Commission disavows it, as do the actors in it. It is attacked as untruthful by historical persons depicted in it. Corporate advertisers shy away from sponsorship, because nobody wants to be held responsible. Nevertheless, decisions are made to show it anyway.
What about instant replay? People actually watch, and the public is influenced by this travesty. It comes in first one night and second the other in Nielsen ratings. There is no real outrage in the press. There are only cries of "foul" from democratic groups. The calls made by the network, revealed as partisan bias, were in essence upheld in review by mainstream media.
Now, let us turn to a scene in Eugene, Oregon, where a game of football was played on a balmy Saturday afternoon. The outcome of this game between the universities of Oregon and Oklahoma was determined by the officials. That is to say, the outcome was based upon "declared truth" rather than actual truth.
We saw the Oregon player jump in front of the Oklahoma player, knocking the ball away before it had traveled the legal 10 yard distance. Further, we saw that after a skirmish for the ball that an Oklahoma player covered it, picked it up, and walked away. On replay, we have seen the same thing dozens of times. It was clear.
However, the "official truth" was different. Game officials apparently did not see the ball touched by the Oregon player fewer than 9 yards after being kicked, and they did not see the Oklahoma player as the first to possess the ball. To compound the errors, the replay officials refused to see what the rest of the world saw on the camera footage, would not reverse the bad calls, and handed the game to Oregon.
Now, the only ones really disturbed by all this are the partisans, i.e. most of us in Oklahoma.
An inquiry by the PAC 10 conference officials has found fault with all the officials, and they have slapped their wrists with a game suspension. It seems unlikely that anyone will make any serious effort to correct the damage done.
Are there parallels between the ABC controversy and the PAC events in Oregon? It may be a stretch, but it appears that there are definite similarities. The difference may be that ABC knew of their unethical and untruthful scripting beforehand, and they proceeded anyway. How about those officials in Oregon?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Thursday, September 14, 2006
HAUNTED BY THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS
President Bush's utterances are often disturbing, but seldom haunting. But during the course of his fusilade in defense against critics of his Iraq policies, the president made a remark which has been haunting the Militant Moderate. Within the context of a vigorous justification of his "stay the course" stance on Iraq, the President said, "We will not leave Iraq, so long as I'm president!"
What did he mean by that? Was it merely another way of reiterating his determination to keep on trying failed policies and practices? Is this akin to an "over my dead body" declaration? Was it just an emphasis with bravado and bluster, which he demonstrates on occasion?
Was this a slip indicating that he thinks the war will continue on its stormy course beyond the elections of 2008, and his term ends? Does this contradict all the rosy interpretations and predictions made by Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and friends? As some have suggested, does it mean that we are there for the oil, and not for dethroning Saddam or democratization motives?
Has Mr Bush given up on the administration's solutions in Iraq? Does he really expect now that the situation will worsen rather than improve over the next two years? Will this country be called upon to sacrifice another 2,600 young men and women, with thousands more maimed. Must the Iraqi people add to their 50,000 or more dead in the escalating internecine violence?
"We will be in Iraq, so long as I'm president." That is a serious declaration, Mr. President.
In contemplation, this remark indeed raises too many questions. Perhaps it would be best to accept it in its simplest form, as a part of a blustery defense of his controversial war. But it can be haunting.
There arises a serious motivational question: "For what?" Is this squandering of human and financial resources just to keep Mr. Bush in Iraq for two more years so he will not have to admit the error of his ways, and can blame leaving on his successor?
All indications are that conditions are worsening in Iraq. The conflict has become (or is becoming) a civil war. There are those who say that our presence there is more of a cause than a deterrent. Some say that if we leave, the Iraquis will have to find a way to get along together. Mr. Bush says that conditions will worsen if we leave, but others contend these will worsen if we do not leave.
It has become incresingly clear that Iraq is a quagmire. It is obvious that we cannot peacefully impose a secular democracy in a country with both tribal and religious divisions that are both fanatic and hostile to one another. Perhaps we should remember our own history of thirteen independent-minded colonies, which first tried a confederation of autonomous states before a constitutionally federated democracy was born.
Is it time to remove our forces and allow the Iraqis some form of self-determination -- even if their course displeases us? Must we really wait until Mr. Bush is out of office? How about a whole new Congress?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Thursday, September 07, 2006
KATIE'S NO-NEWS NONSENSE
Like most of the better known and more popular pundits, this writer will take his turn in either praising or denigrating Miss Couric on her maiden tries into the realm of serious news broadcasting. Well, actually she has not done that yet.
What ever happended to CBS News? Wherever it went, its departure was likely coincident with Katie Couric's arrival, rather than as a result of it. Sure, Katie seems to be a programmed humanoid, moving from this posture to that posture as per queue. But maybe she will get over that and regain the spontaneity for which she is known. But what happened to the news?
CBS appears to have replaced the news with some kind of dumbed-down, shortened, mediocre, human interest and public affairs version of 60 Minutes. It is slow-paced and rather boring. Obvious pandering to the left and to the right is evident in its "free speech" segment, and to a lesser extent in other topic selections.
Don't pander, just give us the news! Cut the magazine stuff. Don't script out the host's (excuse me, anchor's) most endearing qualities. Those are the reason for paying the big bucks.
The second segment's story on Central American mothers was inappropriate for a news program, and it was stretched so far left as to leave even the moderates behind. While guest George Bush may be the president, he turns 60% of the audience off. The scheduled appearance of Rush Limbaough will lead at least 75% of the viewers, including the Militant Moderate, to other channels.
Who in the world is making those programming and formatting decisions at CBS? Whoever it may be, those persons are sabotaging the $15 million dollar girl. Come on, give her a chance!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
What ever happended to CBS News? Wherever it went, its departure was likely coincident with Katie Couric's arrival, rather than as a result of it. Sure, Katie seems to be a programmed humanoid, moving from this posture to that posture as per queue. But maybe she will get over that and regain the spontaneity for which she is known. But what happened to the news?
CBS appears to have replaced the news with some kind of dumbed-down, shortened, mediocre, human interest and public affairs version of 60 Minutes. It is slow-paced and rather boring. Obvious pandering to the left and to the right is evident in its "free speech" segment, and to a lesser extent in other topic selections.
Don't pander, just give us the news! Cut the magazine stuff. Don't script out the host's (excuse me, anchor's) most endearing qualities. Those are the reason for paying the big bucks.
The second segment's story on Central American mothers was inappropriate for a news program, and it was stretched so far left as to leave even the moderates behind. While guest George Bush may be the president, he turns 60% of the audience off. The scheduled appearance of Rush Limbaough will lead at least 75% of the viewers, including the Militant Moderate, to other channels.
Who in the world is making those programming and formatting decisions at CBS? Whoever it may be, those persons are sabotaging the $15 million dollar girl. Come on, give her a chance!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
