"All that is old and already formed can continue to live only if it allows within itself the conditions of a new beginning."
Kevblog Feedback Page
Pulling the Plug
Post received 8:21 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2005
Kevin: Good thoughtful comment on the Schiavo case. Overlooked by the right wing nuts, but pointed out in a N.Y. Times editorial was the fact that Bill Frist and Tom DeLay had no trouble pulling the plug on relatives who were in a similar state as Terry Schiavo (and after a much shorter interval, too). What hypocrites. When my time comes, I sure as hell don't want it to be after 15 years hooked up to a feeding tube or respirator.
Paul Mamula,
St. Paul, Minn.
This Awful Spectacle
Post received 12:44 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2005
Kevin: Thank you for returning to your pages with a clear, thoughtful, and personal message about this awful spectacle. Republicans without soul and Democrats without spine leave our society's course to the most hollow "leaders. Sen. Kiscaden's comments illustrate that public office can be filled by compasionate thinkers who "get it" and speak common sense.
Daniel Justesen,
Treasurer, Independence Party of Minnesota
Minneapolis
Stop Shutting Up
Post received 9:19 a.m., Monday, Feb. 14, 2005
Kevin: As of late, your website has been quite unsatisfactory. When are you going to "pump up the volume" a bit? You know, include a few articles about why the BoSox are nearly as evil as the Bush administration. Instead, I see nothing--not even a decent column concerning where I can go to find the best lounge singers in the Twin Cities. When will the silence on this Web site end? When, I ask?
Joel Ryan,
Madison, Wis.
Conservative Media Elite?
Post received 9:19 a.m., Monday, Feb. 14, 2005
Kevin: In doing a little research on Gov Pawlenty's corporate past, I hit your blog site. You presented some interesting information, but I'm amazed that you'd consider the Trib a "traditionally liberal" paper. The Trib and the Press are, in my view, incredibly conservative papers in a reasonably moderate state. For actual news of what's going on in our two cities, I never count on either of these ad-zines for information. They are so pro-corporate and anti-resident that everything they write has to be taken with a block of salt.
Thomas W. Day,
White Bear Lake, Minn.
... Kev responds: You must be mighty liberal, Mr. Day. I don't argue with you on the Pioneer Press. But on the Strib, I cannot possibly agree that it is "an incredibly conservative" paper. You are frankly the absolute first and only person in my experience who has ever made the claim.
Thanks very much for your note.
Kev
Caught in the Act
Post received 12:12 a.m., Monday, Feb. 7, 2005
My friend Howard Owens takes issue with a response I wrote to his letter to the Kevblog of Jan. 1. I wrote:
Kev responds: You may have a valid point, here, How. But in my scans of the press--I'm sure you would label it "the liberal media"--I have not seen those accounts. But not being an avid reader of the Washington Times (except for Barry Casselman's column) or FOX News ("SRT," or "State-Run Television," as I once heard Brian Williams describe it), I'm not exposed to that stuff. That certainly does not mean it's not out there. And it also doesn't mean it's not accurate. It likely is. Like I say, Howard, you may indeed have a fair point here. I do not discount it.
... Howard responds: I don't read the Washington Times nor do I watch Fox News.
First-hand accounts of what has been going on in Iraq are all over the Internet. And the vast majority of these accounts make MSM stories about Iraq dubious in both honesty and spin.
And since the election, some of the comments from MSM reporters in Iraq (can be found on Romenesko) indicate that MSM reporters have been largely clueless as to how well things have been going in Iraq. Few people were more surprised by the stunning election than reporters who have been living in Iraq.
By the way: You kind of backed into it, but I generally react with great passion to liberals who assume that because my world view is not theirs, I must watch Fox News. The implicit condension is that the only way to disagree with liberal orthodoxy is to be imbued with "right-wing" propaganda. You know, it just might be possible that conservatives are well informed and don't need marching orders from the "Karl Rove media machine."
Also, I find Brian Williams' remark quite interesting. And people say there's no liberal bias in the media! I mean, Fox must be full of right-wing nuts intent on pushing Karl Rove's agenda, right? Because only the liberal world view is based on facts, right? Rather than look critically at Fox News, it's easier for Williams to dismiss it with an ad hominem attack. It's easier than thinking.
The fact is, what little I see of Fox, they're really no better at informing the public than CNN or CBS. The spin may be different, but the lack of substance is just the same. And that goes for Brian Williams and whatever network he's with (forget which one), too.
There is a lot more information about what's going on in Iraq than any MSM outlet is giving us. The election only proved it. It's far more complex than pundits on either side ever let on.
... Kev responds: Howard's right. It's wrong to assume that because someone is conservative, they read the Washington Times and watch Fox News. Guilty as charged for buying into the cliche. Also, I think it is appropriate to point out that Brian Williams, in his talk before the Society of Professional Journalists in New York last September, did not directly call Fox News "SRT" as I suggest. In reality, he was referring to a reference he had heard uttered by an acquaintance.
Kev
End of a Communications Era
Post received 10:02 a.m., Friday, Feb. 4, 2005
Kevin: I greatly admire Fallows and his writing, and agree with him. I would like to add, though, that the notion of a "national conversation" about news is a relatively recent one, enabled by the media of mass communication. It may be that we've passed through a particular era in the evolution of communication and are now entering a new one, whose contours in some ways may resemble pre-mass media ones (when news made its way from person to person more often than not, with all the attendant issues of bias and accuracy) combined with some of mass communication's hallmarks (such as rapid dissemination).
Steve Jones,
Chicago, Ill.
... Kev responds: I should point out that the phrase "national conversation," to the best of my memory, is mine and not Fallows', so I am probably using a paraphrase to describe his thoughts. But you may well be right. I would venture a little further. I wonder if perhaps we are sort of backsliding into neo-Colonial style press, where the various news organs splinter off into politicallly partisan roles--which incidentally is still the model in most of the world. I would not be troubled by that, but for one thing. We don't have a neo-Colonial styled audience--meaning, I don't see Americans shifting their habits and beginning to subscribe to between five and eight newspapers in order to sort out the relevant perspectives for themselves, which is what many Colonial readers, and many current Asian and European readers do. We're too concerned about what we might miss on "American Idol."
Kev
Bust the Media Trusts
Post received 1:14 a.m., Friday, Feb. 4, 2005
Kevin: I have always felt that it was dangerous to allow non-news corporations to buy news organizations. Perhaps anti-trust regulations forbidding such conglomerations might work - especially for the TV and radio stations, more than the print media, due to their use of "public frequencies."
Asad Zaman,
Inver Grove Heights, Minn.
Overrated Insurgency?
Post received 9:40 p.m., Monday, Jan. 31, 2005
Kevin: I was going to respond this: "I will spare some reservations for exactly what it means; it could be that the elections weren't disrupted more broadly because the insurgents have some other bigger plans. Or it could be that Iraq has turned the corner on the insurgency, and will now beat it back with their ballots."
Or it could be that the insurrgency has never been what the media has portrayed it to be. It is probably much weaker, and has been much weaker, than the impression left by the drumbeat of negative coverage. A lot of first-hand accounts from the men in the field and Iraqis have left this impression all along.
Howard Owens,
Ventura, Calif.
... Kev responds: You may have a valid point, here, How. But in my scans of the press--I'm sure you would label it "the liberal media"--I have not seen those accounts. But not being an avid reader of the Washington Times (except for Barry Casselman's column) or FOX News ("SRT," or "State-Run Television," as I once heard Brian Williams describe it), I'm not exposed to that stuff. That certainly does not mean it's not out there. And it also doesn't mean it's not accurate. It likely is. Like I say, Howard, you may indeed have a fair point here. I do not discount it.
Kev
You Kinky Boy!
Post received 1:09 p.m., Sunday, Jan. 30, 2005
Kevin: This is too funny I remember you going around with your Sony player and listening to your loud music and taking the earphones off and saying "Listen to this, Bob." But alas, Loverboy did have my soul at that time.
Bobby Pellant,
Waltham, Mass.
... Kev responds: I remember. I even remember that I was pushing you to listen at high volume to the Kinks' original recording of "You Really Got Me" at the time. The solo, Bob! The SOLO! I thought of myself then as locked in a death struggle against crappy pop music, which to me was tantamount to serving as the last sentry barring the gates of the promised land against the ignoble hoards of barbarians. I've since relaxed my standards a bit to permit without complaint others to have their own tastes--and my own have modified considerably to take in the likes of Sinatra, Coletrane, even Billy Joel in weaker moments. But I still can't go Loverboy. God help you! Loverboy!
Kev
Welcome Back
Post received 10:14 a.m., Friday, Dec. 10, 2004
Kevin: Fabulous piece. The best I've read on this topic. Love the analogy to the WWF. Great to see you writing again.
Lisa Schnirring,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Bizarro Kev
Post received 2:37 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 30, 2004
Kevin: Aaah, my friend. After reading some of your blogs I was worried that I had stepped through some vortex and I was living in a Bizarro universe and that Kev Featherly was supporting some of Bush's policies.
But I see that all is well with the universe and things are as they should be.
I was in Madison Thursday for Springsteen and Kerry. Eighty thousand people. That for me was the story.
I had a flashback back to 1988 and I seem to recall a certain long haired, guitar playing protester at a Vice-President Bush campaign stop in Eau Claire (Wis.). Hmm, who could that have been?
I hope you are well and enjoy the next two months of election hell as the lawyers sort this one out. I hope I'm wrong but I think it will be worse than 2000. You know, I always wanted to live in a bananna republic. Just wish we had Central America's weather.
Kevin Miller,
Cedarburg, Wis.
... Kev responds: Oh yes, that fellow with the guitar and the long hair was me, and that character lives on, though the hair is shorter now. Still use the same guitar, even sing the same songs. Turns out I haven't changed all that much, just discovered the reality of where I stood all along. (Though I was more in favor of profligate government spending back when I thought the government had an unlimited supply of cash, and a naive view of where that money came from.) When it comes to fighting wars, with the exception of Afghanistan--the only war in my lifetime that had my endorsement--I have never agreed with Bush's approach. Going into Iraq has always been a monstrous mistake, as I think I pointed out pretty clearly in a blog from last summer that you might have missed:
Iraq and the Clash of Civilizations http://www.featherly.com/kevblog/kevblogarchive_0613.htm
There aren't many Bush policies I favor. Greed-head politics drive me insane. There is one idea that I could have supported, but Bush wasn't serious about it anyway. I could go along with creating a partial private investment account for Social Security funds--though I would only go along with take the approach Paul O'Neill favored, diverting a portion of each person's FICA tax into a private 401K-style account, starting only with people age 37 and younger. That would've required a big infusion of government funds to make up for the loss of ongoing revenue that would then be drained from the coffers so the programs could continue without interruption. It would be a big short-term expenditure with a long-range payoff of making the program self-solvent, and giving beneficiaries some control--and some responsibility--over their own future retirement funds. Of course, the president refused to go this route because it would have made his massive tax cut package for the wealthy an impossibility. In fact, it might have required a tax hike.
So in reality, Bush is not all that interested in making any improvements or reforms to that system, sadly. But we have to do something new, or we really will become a banana republic. The International Monetary Fund has already issued the kind of warning about U.S. fiscal policy that it usually reserves for the Argentinas of the world, with the added umph of a warning that, if you don't get it together, Mr. U.S. of A., you're going to drag the whole blamed world down with you. And to me, that's an even greater worry than the struggle against terror.
This issue of budget solvency is Numero Uno why I don't call myself a liberal. The liberals are fighting for status quo, even refusing to engage in means-testing for Medicare so that wealthy who can afford their own care do not get the benefits they do not need. Teddy Kennedy of all people has argued most pointedly against means-testing, apparently feeling that we need to bribe the rich--slathering money on them unnecessarily--to maintain the benefits for the poor. We need to be stronger than that. And we can only put off tough choices so long. We've put them off too long already. I'm praying for a serious centrist third-party challenge in 2008 just to direct voters' attention to this stuff and to force the major party candidates to address them, the way Perot did in 1992.
Interestingly, while this maybe is a relatively conservative position, I saw on Bill Moyers last night that possibly the nations most prominent "progressive," Howard Dean campaign chair Joe Trippi, was making the same case. That is a very, very hopeful sign to me, but only if the liberals can be guided to tear their eyes off the New Deal/Great Society model of unchecked government spending that simply is unsustainable. Read "Running on Empty," by former Nixon Secretary of Commerce Pete Peterson. He points out that the unfunded mandate--benefits promised to living prospective beneficiaries for which there is no money in the bank--already amount to the equivalent of $200,000 per household. And that is based on 2002 numbers--before the second and biggest tax cut, before the Medicare prescription drug benefit, before the just-passed glut of corporate tax giveaways, before the war. It could easily be $300,000 per household right now and climbing. Got $300K sitting around the house to do your part to make this right? Not me.
I don't see Kerry honestly dealing with this stuff, but if he wins, I think there is at least a reasonable hope that--because he will have a Republican congress to deal with--the government will let up on the accelerator and the deficits won't at least get a lot worse during a Kerry term. I don't think he will clean up the mess as much as he should, but maybe if he brings Bob Rubin back into the room with him ...
Keeping hope alive, I'm:
Kev
Kerry's Sweet Rhetoric
Post received 2:37 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004
Kevin: Very thoughtful and well-spoken speech by Kerry, indeed. However, one thing people tend to ingnore or fail to remember about this is that Bush did go to the U.N., did get a resolution passed in conjunction with other countries outlining specific U.N. requirements for Saddam to meet. [Saddam] ignored it. Many of the conditions Kerry puts on Bush in this speech were, indeed, met.
And a great orator in Washington will always include comments in foresight that will seem Nostradamic in hindsight. Ahhhh. The sweet rhetoric of politics.
Vince Kern,
Pinckney, Mich.
... Kev responds: Sorry, Vinman, but I don't see it that way. Yes, Bush did yield to the advice of Colin Powell--probably the only time on record he ever heeded his Secretary of State--and he went to the U.N.
According to the conservative Internet news organ NewsMax.com, the following terms applied to the U.N. resolution Bush sought and received. "By Dec. 7, (2002,) [Iraq] must detail all its weapons of mass destruction programs and stockpiles, and by Dec. 22 U.N. weapons inspectors must be in the country and carrying out inspections without interference. The resolution declared Iraq in 'material breach' of earlier agreements, and that any failure to adhere to provisions of this resolution would be considered similarly, a status that would lead to 'serious consequences.'"
Saddam didn't adhere to this, it is true, because he didn't detail his WMD systems--it turns out, we now know, because he had no such weapons. He could have told the U.N. that, but then he would have rendered himself vulnerable to attack both from neighbors and from internal enemies, who were up to them cowed by the dictator by their fear of his ghost WMD.
But Saddam did allow the inspectors in, and just a few days ago, the chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix asserted that had his team had just two more months, they would have discovered that Saddam had no weapons.
But the president, if you will recall, was derisive about the prospects of what the inspectors would find, intimating that inspectors from the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency would never find anything because Saddam was simply too clever and would outwit them at every turn. The Bush adminsitration, according to Blix, consistently insisted that any barred weaponized substance existed--whether sarin or nerve gas or anthrax--if it could not be accounted for.
"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," said Vice President Dick Cheney days before the fighting began. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."
So, despite the fact and presence of the U.N. resolution, inspectors who were a key part of its terms were not really allowed to do their work, and the war began. It was, as Kerry terms it, a rush to war. It was not a war of last resort.
Seeking the U.N. resolution was the one condition Kerry gave that Bush met. I don't quite see your point that "many of the conditions Kerry puts on Bush in this speech were, indeed, met." You'll have to be a little more specific for me to buy into this.
Re: Kerry's Pre-war Speech
Post received 8:41 a.m., Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004
Kevin: Amazingly prescient.
This is an example of the failings of our news media. This statement is NOT ONLY on the record for any reporter to find. You can be certain that Kerry's people have made this text available to any and all reporters ever since the "flip-flop" charge was leveled. But the consistency of Kerry's position has NEVER (to my knowledge) been written up by any reporter.
My guess is that they were fearful of appearing to "take Kerry's side" in this political debate over whether or not he was a "flip-flopper."
Tim Penny
Waseca, Wis.
Dems Do It, Too
Post received 6:49 a.m., Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004
Kevin: I have heard and read of the same thing happening in Florida where the Democrats were disposing of Republican forms.
Galen Barth
Minong, Wis.
... Kev responds: And I have heard of men on the moon. But there don't seem to be any documented examples. Can you show me a news story to indicate this has happened? Don't give me a talk radio example, I have come to conclude through some study that talk radio is full of blatant, wreckless and unaccountable lies. If you have a documented example, I will happily add it to the column. This isn't a Dem/GOP thing to me. LBJ, indeed, was probably guilty of even more egregious ballot-stuffing behavior when he stole a Texas election for U.S. House in the early 40s.
...
Post received 12:17 p.m., Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004Kevin: I read it in a newspaper last week during a trip to Ely and northeast Minn. God knows you can not believe the media. Good luck in the election!
Galen Barth
Minong, Wis.
... Kev responds: I do not question what you say, Galen. I believe you read that report. But I haven't been able to find reference to it. And you're right, you can't trust everything you read in the media. A skeptical eye is absolutely essential. But it is also unwise to focus your attention only on those media items that flatter your own opinions.
I say again, if someone can find evidence that such an offense has been carried out by Democratic operatives, I'd like to see it. But I will be surprised if you will find any other registration initiatives as widespread and systematically slanted as the one that is under scrutiny now in Oregon and Nevada right now.
Pretty Dirty
Post received 11:29 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2004
Kevin: Just so you know, I heard from a friend recently that the same thing happened here only it was the other way around. It was a Democratic group that threw away voter registration cards of Republicans.
Either way it's pretty dirty.
Dennis Sanders
Minneapolis, Minn.
(URL: The Moderate Republican)
... Kev responds: I've not heard this, or seen evidence of anything like it, other than Rep. Phyllis Kahn's idiotic choice of removing campaign literature from house's mailboxes. And the Democrats have played pretty rough with Ralph Nader's attempts to gain ballot access.
But even if what you allege were true, there really is no comparison, at least as it regards Minnesota. Here, even if that happened, the voter at least has recourse. There is same-day voter registration here, so a voters' options, at least technically, can't be cut off by voter-registration skullduggery. Those folks allegedly victimized by this company in Nevada and Oregon are SOL. They'll go try to vote, and they won't be allowed to. Period. This isn't a GOP/Democrat issue. I have nothing invested in the Democratic party's fortunes. This is about fair play. Believe me, I would have written the same column if I had seen this news with the parties' roles reversed.
Distressingly Unsurprising
Post received 9:46 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 9, 2004
Kevin: Thanks for posting this link! If you're interested, check out Paul Boyer's wonderful survey about Doomsday prophecy belief in American history. The book's called "When Time Shall Be No More."
The unwillingness of so many journalists to write about this type of thing is distressingly unsurprising. One need only to call to mind the journalistic bootlicking and sycophancy that came with the American invasion of Iraq. Like Joe Strummer sang a generation ago, "If Adolf Hitler, flew in today; they'd send a limousine anyway!" I'm surprised folks haven't jumped on you yet for posting this. Possibly, like me, they're too bummed out about the Twins' loss to post anything. Go Yankees!
Joel Ryan
Madison, Wis.
... Kev responds: Thank you, Joel, and you're right. So far, no reaction to my having posted Moyers' comments. I can tell you, though, that since his speech there has been a fairly fundamental change in one aspect of news coverage that seems to me a distinct improvement over the 2000 presidential campaign, and I think maybe Moyers has had something to do with it. I'm talking about the very thorough job that a number of the major news organizations have been doing to test the statements of the candidates made in the debates against the facts. Both sides' adherence to honesty and forthrightness can be criticized, though I acknowledge it seems to me that the GOP side of the ledger is far and away the greater offender when it comes to disinformation in the current campaign. But, religion, despite its obvious importance and relevance to the current social climate, still gets the third-rail treatment in the media.
Fundamentally Unstable
Post received 4:32 p.m., Saturday, Oct. 9, 2004
Kevin: Ah yes, Moyers is right on and it's unfortunate. I used to work out with a gal who believed all this nonsense; she has since become a near Unitarian. Her daughter was married for quite awhile to a military guy who was sure he could compute exactly when this rapture would happen. I discussed this rapture phenomenon with both mother and daughter after both had divorced their husbands and left the fundamentalist mind-set. I asked them (because it seemed to me that fundamentalists I had known throughout my life seemed to be mentally unstable) if they thought that some of these people were unstable and they both said, "They all are." Oh my!
Sonja Johnston
Bloomington, Minn.
... Kev responds: Thanks for your letter, Sonja. I would say only that all blanket statements are false. Including this one.
Gracious Thanks
Post received 2:56 p.m., Friday, Oct. 7, 2004
Kevin: Thank you for sharing your insights with us.
Janet Stevens
Bloomington, Minn.
... Kev responds: Thank you, Janet. Those are very kind words.
Bloggers Ain't So Bad
Post received 10:36 a.m., Friday, Oct. 1, 2004
Kevin: Hear, Hear!
The chorus of blog critics are guilty of painting all bloggers with the same brush. While it is natural for established journalists to fight against (what they perceive to be) encroachments on their domain, it is an exaggeration to claim that all of those in the blogosphere are members of the ignorant, unwashed masses. At [our] blog we have four master's degrees for four people (soon to be five master's degrees, with two of those from Harvard). Like yourself, we don't think of our blog as anything less than an idiosyncratic magazine. Sure it reflects our interpretations of events and even sometimes uses humor to make a point, but those elements are present in most major journals as well. So why the animus against us?
Eventually a natural separation may result between the ranting bloggers without a following, the merely bored, and those blogs that do actually increase the depth and breadth of information available online.
Thanks, Kevin, for standing up for blogg bourgeois.
S.P. Bourgeois
Co-publisher, The New Republican
Mr. President, You're Fired
Post received 1:54 p.m., Thursday, Sept. 23, 2004
Kevin: Simply put, anyone responsible for such grave misjudgments should lose his or her job. And when you break it down like that, it sort of seems to sound nonpartisan.
Lisa Schnirring,
Minneapolis, Minn.
The Major Parties:
State-Sanctioned for Your ComfortPost received 12:04 a.m., Thursday, Sept. 23, 2004
Kevin: Amen to your piece about Big Brother Hatch and Big Sister Kiffmeyer purging the ballots. This is insane. Even the dictator of Uzbekistan allows token opposition parties, just to create the illusion that he actually allows opposition. And Uzbekistan's Illusion Parties probably get about the same percentage of the vote as our Independence Party. Why would the two State-Sanctioned parties give a rip about the IP's 0.00437% of the vote? Is this just payback for inflicting Ventura on the state?
Kirk Anderson,
St. Paul, Minn.
... Kev responds: I think it's partly that the two major parties are disturbed that the Independence Party keeps hanging around. Sure, after Ventura, all they've got is one state senator. And Tim Penny only received 15.9 percent of the state vote in 2002--after initially emerging as the race's leading candidate. Even Penny's fairly meager standing still shows that close to two out of ten people in the state were willing to "throw their vote away" on a third party candidate because the two-party alternative is so far away from what they believe in. And that's got to be embarrassing to Democrats and Republicans who are quite used to having the deck stacked in their favor.
Remember, this isn't even the first time this year that a major-party action was taken in what apppears to be an attempt to shove the little players off the field. I think they're just worried enough that they feel like they've got to show a little muscle to demonstrate who's dominant on the electoral stage.
Thanks for writing.
Election '04: The Death Rattle
Post received 12:04 a.m., Thursday, Sept. 23, 2004
Kevin: Thanks for the heads up on the Matt Miller article ("Iraq: There Are Terrible Ways To Do a Good Thing.") And I like your line about a "rosegarden springing from a quagmire."
I think it's the election death rattle, when about this time in a campaign, you hear the sound of thousands of supporters telling the candidate what he should have been saying six months ago. Miller's (or Carville's) refrain of, "If the war with Iraq had been thrust upon us.../ But in a war fought at a time of our own choosing..." is very effective, but it doesn't fill the hole of Kerry's contradicting views, or his vote. It doesn't say that, no, invading Iraq was not a good idea; rather it says that invading Iraq imprudently was not a good idea.
Well, once thousands of bodies are in the ground, the issue is war and peace, life and death, not prudent war and imprudent war. It doesn't say that, no, preemptive war is not America's way, it is the despots' way; preemptive war is not the way of the rule of law, it is the way of anarchy and war crimes; preemptive war is not the Kerry administration's way, it is the way of empire.
The legitimacy of "preemptive" war remains scarcely discussed in this country, as if it is the Right Of A Just Empire. Kevin, stop me before I vote for Ralph.
Kirk Anderson,
St. Paul, Minn.
... Kev responds: This is all very well stated, Kirk. And I fear you are right. Kerry has been banking on his reputation as "a good closer." But I think that's a horrible strategy against this gang of folks backing Bush who are willing and able to do whatever it takes, including repeating each other's words ad nauseum with a completely straight face until, magically, a lot of people begin to believe what they say. One of my coworkers today, a woman who likes race cars, told me that she is going to vote for Bush because he is "strong" and Kerry is a "wimp." When I brought up that Kerry is a decorated war hero, she said she didn't believe it. "I think he probably had a desk job," she said. Pat Moynihan was wrong: Some people, apparently, are entitled to both their own opinions, and their own facts.
Kind Words
Post received 7:33 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004
Kevin: Great article on the secretary of state ruling regarding the Independence party.
Buford Johnson,
Pequot Lakes, Minn.
Newsies and Navel-Gazing
Post received 10:04 a.m., Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2004
Kevin: Great piece, Feathaman! Very timely and insightful. Regardless of one's political bent, I would highly recommend BIAS and AROGANCE by Bernard Goldberg. Just finished them both (quick reads). Any journalist with an open mind would find some cause for introspection in these books despite the fact that it substantiates bias in the media. Get past the "ouch" of that claim, agree or not, and Goldberg DOES deal with the real and underlying causes of bias while admitting it is not a concious attack effort by the media.
Vince Kern,
Pinckney, Mich.
More past Discussion Page comments
Copyright 2004, by Kevin Featherly
