October 09, 2004

Please send in the foreign press!

Letter to the Editor

As you all know, we in America are holding elections on November 2. I would ask all the world to send reporters to cover it. We used to be a free nation with a free press and fair and honest elections. We are not that country anymore. Our press is controlled by President Bush's party. The electronic voting machines are supplied by another Bush supporter and it is widely known that these machines are easily altered.

Our president stole the election in 2000 and then lied to the world and initiated an unprovoked war in Iraq in defiance of international law and putting all the people of the world in a more dangerous place. The stakes in this election are high for every person on the planet. This is the point where people of good conscience must speak out and tell it like it is. We have a duty to prevent a madman from starting more wars. I therefore ask the world news media to come to America and pay close attention to an event that will shape our future for generations to come.

Posted by marc at 10:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Republican owned television network to air Anti-Kerry special before election

This is why central ownership of thye media is a bad idea.

THE NATION
Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film
Sinclair, with reach into many of the nation's homes, will preempt prime-time shows. Experts call the move highly unusual.

By Elizabeth Jensen, Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK -- The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives in recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Sinclair has told its stations -- many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida -- to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.

Executives at Sinclair did not return calls seeking comment, but the Kerry campaign accused the company of pressuring its stations to influence the political process.

Posted by marc at 09:01 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

October 08, 2004

Kerry 3 - Bush 0

Kerry won it again. It was as I predicted not a slaughter. He was still as wrong as ever on the facts. But his style wasn't terrible as he was the last time. Still - when it comes to how the viewing audience will see this - it depends on if they check out the facts or not. If you check the facts - Kerry wins. If you don't know the facts then it depends on who's style you like better.

So - I'm going to watch Star Trek Enterprize. First show of the year in the new season. So - I'll be bask after I get my Trek fix.

Posted by marc at 07:47 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Read my lips?

Bush say - no new draft. But - will he say "Read my lips - no new draft?"

Posted by marc at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bush Logic

I told Kerry a lie - and Kerry believed my lie - therefore Kerry and I agreed. And now just because he discovered he was suckered - he wants to flip flop and change his mind.

Posted by marc at 06:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Most of Iraq is now run by Iraqis

It is true that most of Iraq is now run by Iraqis. But it's not what it sounds like. You see - most of Iraq is controlled by the insurgents which are Iraqi's. The rest of the country live under the tyranny of a foreign oppressor.

Neither one of these two situation is freedom or democracy. Both are worse than they were under Saddam.

And that is the reality of what is happening today in Iraq.

Posted by marc at 05:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How bad is the economy?

How bad is the economy? The economy is so bad that Herbert Hoover is flip flopping in his grave!

Posted by marc at 05:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I sure do feel safe now!

Now that criminals like Martha Stewart are safely in jail and terrorist like Cat Stevens can no longer enter America - I sure feel safe now! Maybe it's time for me to take the bars off the windows!

Posted by marc at 04:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 07, 2004

Five Bucks worth of Gas

I remember when you could drive into a gas station and put 5 bucks in and it was significant. But now 5 bucks of gas is less that 2 gallons and it keeps going up. If we have 4 more years of Bush it's going to cost $100 every time you want to fill up the tank.

Posted by marc at 01:21 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

Watch the Debates

Letter to the Editor

It's interesting to see the difference between what the media says about the debates and what the online polls say. Some people thing the press is liberal - while others thing that the press is Republican owned and controlled. So I say - get rid of the media filter and watch the debates yourself. That way what you see is what they said and the news media can't interfere with reality.

Don't let "them" tell you what to think. If you are a patriot and you care about the future of America - then invest the time to watch the debates yourself - compare what the candidates say to reality - and go out and vote for who you think will be best for America's future.

Posted by marc at 12:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pre Debate Spin

Coming up on the second debate between Bush and Kerry. What are the stakes this time?

First - at this point all honest people know that Kerry beat Bush to a pulp last time. Could Bush do even worse this time? I have to say I doubt it. I'm predicting Bush will do better.

So - how will the media spin that? They will use "Bush Math" to describe it. Bush will have made "great progress" since the first debate, where Kerry made "no progress". Thus they will conclude that Bush has momentum and Kerry doesn't. That Bush's gains since last time was far greater than Kerry's gains. Bush is moving forward while Kerry is standing still.

It's the same math as they use on the economy. When the deficit doesn't increase as fast as some predicted it would - then Bush calls that "progress" and a "recovery".

I have no doubt that Kerry will wind the second debate. The only variables are by how much and how the media will lie about who won. In the VP debate Edwards clearly won - but the media disagrees with reality and after being pressured by Bush - they are now saying the Bush admin line.

Microsoft NBC was the biggest whore. No matter what happens in Friday's debate - MsNBC will say that Bush won it. They are totally sold out.

But - there will be viewers and people will get to see it for themselves. My hope is that there will be a big audience to watch so that it doesn't get filtered by the Republican controlled news media.

Posted by marc at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 06, 2004

Edwards on Tort Reform

Letter to the Editor

John Edwards make a very interesting suggestion during the VP debate about legal reform that I had never heard before. Edwards said: "We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don't do it; have a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases."

As someone who has been abused by crooked lawyers personally and have seen how much lawyers get away with - I was very impressed with this suggestion. This is the most aggressive proposal against lawyer abuse I have ever heard come from a politician. I think this is a good idea and that it's something that should be pursued.

--------

As you can see - we Kerry supporters want people to watch the debates. I doubt Bush supporters want the same thing.

Posted by marc at 10:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 05, 2004

Cheney says - check the web for facts

During the debate - Cheney siad to go to FactCheck.com and check out the facts. I agree - go there and find out for yourself.

Posted by marc at 10:40 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

News Coverage of the Debates

It's interesting to see that Fox News has it more accurate than Microsoft NBC. Fox seems to know that Cheney got his ass kicked and trying to explain that. Microsoft NBC thinks Cheney won it in spite of the reality that Republicans are very unhappy tonight about the job Cheney did.

The numbers I'm looking for is the audience size. How many people actually watched it because if the audience was high - then that's good for Kerry. That means that people were interested and that they got to see it first hand for themselves.

What's interesting is that Microsoft NBC seems to disagree with its viewers. 70% give it to Edwards and 30% for Cheney. So I would say that Microsoft NBC is losing the debate with it's viewers.

So - are all these online polls wrong? Do Democrats have more computers than Republicans? I agree that online polls are less scientific that GOP manipulated polls - but when it's so slanted in favor of Edwards - there has to be some reality there.

CNN changed the question on their web site. Instead of asking who won - now they are asking if the debate will help you decide. CNN doesn't want to call it for Edwards who was winning 85 to 15 percent when CNM pulled the poll.

I'm seeing far less polls tonoght than I did last thursday. I see less that 1/3 of the polls last week. Seems to me that the news media doesn't want us to vote online any more because the voice of the people must be suppressed.

CBS News running 87 Edwards - 20% Cheney.

Fox News - with 184,000 votes Edwards winning 53% to 46%. And Fox is heavily biased towards Republicans. What this says is that Republicans know Edwards won it. Thanks to Fox for being a little more honest than NBC.

Admit it! If Edwards wins a poll on FOX - Edwards won it! And he won it BIG!!!

Posted by marc at 08:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kerry 2 - Bush 0

Another happy night for me. Edwards kicked butt! I didn't think he was going to do much more than tie Cheney and I thought Cheney was going to do a lot better than he did. Cheney did come across as Darth Vader and he also came across as not very smart.

I suppose that that might be good because he didn't come across as being way smarter than Bush - but it is also ad that he didn't come across as being smarter than Bush.

The body language said it all. Edwards was cool and composed and his answers ware simple and straigt forward. Cheney was tight and nervous. His sholders were shrugged and hands clasped in tension. It was about the 3rd question that you could see Cheney starting to lose it.

Cheney did what people were worried that Kerry was going to do. He got involved in complicated answers that left the viewers behind and confused. Edwards answers were simple and clear - and were far more accurate.

So - all Edwards had to do was tie it and he came across as far stronger that Cheney. I think the viewers would think that Edwards was more prepared to be president than Cheney.

Posted by marc at 07:39 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Pre Debate Spin - VP

This is going to be an interesting debate. Cheney has the experience advantage - but also the experience disadvantage in that there's the Cheney Bush record of failure he has to try to pass off as some sort of success. I expect the VP debate to be smarter than the last presidential debate.

Unlike his performance in the real world - Cheney will come across as a nice guy. He will not be Darth Vader and anyone who underestimates him will be making a mistake.

I'm sure Halliberton will be mentioned - but not sure how it will play out. The real targets are at the top of the ticket and both of them know it.

Edwards is a legendary trial lawyer and he got that way because he can not only think on his feel - but can convince a jury to vote his way. Edwards is definitely the most likable person in the race and his personality will draw people to the ticket who are uncomfortable with Kerry's personality.

Cheney will create confidence in the ticket where people are worried that Bush is to stupid to be president. I think it would help Cheney to just admit he's the puppeteer and Bush is the puppet.

Momentum is with Kerry so Cheney has to do better than just beat Edwards or hold his own. Cheney needs a decisive win just to stop the bleeding. Edwards needs to handle the issue that he isn't experienced enough to become president in case some right wing idiot kills the president. If the debate is a tie - that's not good enough for the Bush team because for Edwards to tie Cheney makes him as big as Cheney.

As to Edwards being a lawyer - that's not going to count against him. As to Cheney being a business CEO - that's not going to count against him either. If this debate is about hating lawyers vs. hating corporate execs - no one wins.

If I were Edwards - I would talk about the future of America. Where were we four years ago - where are we now - which was are we heading - and do we want to stay the course to failure - or do we want to go back to success?

That's my take on the pre debate spin. Let's see what happens.

Posted by marc at 05:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The GOP Message in just a few words

Here's a Quick Time Movie that gets the GOP message down to a few words and phrases.

Posted by marc at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 04, 2004

Using Bush Math in Relationships

I've been admiring Bush's ability to take failure and try to describe it as a success. Bush will say that because the economy isn't failing as fast as predicted as a recovery. That somehow going from the biggest surplus in the history of the world to the biggest deficit in the history of the world is a strong economy.

So I got inspired by this and pointed out to my girlfriend that the number of women in the world that I didn't sleep with is greater than the number of men in the world that she didn't sleep with.

Posted by marc at 11:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Looking Forward to VP Debate

Letter to the Editor

I think the Vice Presidential debate Tuesday evening will be even more of an interesting contest than the Bush - Kerry debate. The incumbent, Vice President Cheney, is a seasoned politician who has had a lifelong career in government and as CEO of Haliburton. In the 2000 VP debate Cheney stomped Senator Joe Lieberman into the ground.

His opponent, John Edwards, has less political experience. But he has come from nowhere to national contender in record time. Edwards is considered a legendary trial lawyer. He has won cases for victims where no lawyer has won before. To be a lawyer of that caliber, you have to be very sharp - think fast - and be able to get the jury to vote your way.

This is a match up of a reigning champion against a highly talented hotshot newcomer and I think it will be a much more exciting event to watch than the presidential debate was where one party was clearly smarter than the other. The presidential debate might be more important - but I think the VP debate will be more interesting. I'm looking forward to watching it.

Posted by marc at 12:25 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

New York Times Guide to writing Letters to the Editor

For those of you who are thinking about writing letters to the editor - this is a good guide as to how to do it. The New York Times send this to me.

But first - Marc Perkel's simple guide:
Keep it short.
Write about what's in the headlines that day.
Be interesting

September 14, 2003

To the Reader:
By THOMAS FEYER

Readers of this page know that all letters to the editor, by convention, begin with the same salutation, "To the Editor," as if addressed to some faceless higher authority at The Times. In fact, the mountains of mail that we receive every day pile up on a very real editor's desk.

Mine.

For readers who wonder how the process unfolds, this is an attempt to demystify things a bit. Every day at least 1,000 submissions, and often far more, pour in to the letters office by e-mail, fax or postal mail. We print an average of 15 letters a day. That means the competition is intense, to say the least. Many, many worthy letters never see print, and those that do cannot reflect all the topics of interest to readers.

What qualifies as a publishable letter to the editor? The answer is necessarily highly subjective. We are looking for a national (and often international) conversation about the issues of the day ­ big and not so big ­ as well as fresh, bright writing that stands out through its own charm. Timeliness is a must; brevity will improve your chances; stylishness and wit will win my heart.

In times of great stress, the letters page has become a national town hall meeting of sorts. For months after Sept. 11, 2001, readers gave voice to their shock, horror, sadness and rage. They grieved for the dead, and then asked pointed questions about how the terrorist attacks could have happened. The page was a forum for dissecting the drawn-out presidential election of 2000, and for debating whether we should go to war in Iraq.

Contrary to the impression of some readers, the letters page, unlike the editorials with which we share a home, does not have a political coloration of its own. We are eager to print all points of view ­ liberal, conservative and anything in between ­ expressed according to the rules of civil discourse. You are free to agree or disagree with the opinions expressed in the editorials, columns and Op-Ed articles, or with the articles in the news columns. We seek robust debate and strive for balance.

The page is not a scientific survey of public opinion. So the variety of opinions expressed in a package of letters about one topic should not be read as poll results, but rather as a sampling of reader responses.

We welcome letters from all quarters, but especially from ordinary readers who have no titles after their names. Of course, we publish many writers speaking with authority in their areas of expertise, and letters from officeholders responding to criticism in these pages. We enjoy hearing from literary lights about what interests them ­ Norman Mailer on Kosovo, Jane Smiley on the Bush administration, Roger Kahn on crying in baseball.

But concerned, informed readers have the pride of place here ­ the thousands who write about what gets them worked up, or what moves them. And no subject is off-limits, within the bounds of good taste.

Many writers offer their insights into how we live our lives ­ how we drive our S.U.V.'s, gab on our cellphones on our commuter trains, deal with e-mail spam and telemarketers calling during dinner. One couple, responding to a front-page article about Internet dating, took the time to write in from their honeymoon cruise to recount how they met through an online dating service. Many writers, including a 12-year-old whose letter we published, were exercised about an Op-Ed article that took jabs at the adults who read the Harry Potter books.

A few important ground rules: Letters should be kept to about 150 words. (Not enough space? Well, the Gettysburg Address was only about 250 words.) They should be exclusive to The Times and respond to an article that appeared in the newspaper in the last week. In fact, writing by the next day is a good idea. Like other sections of the newspaper, the letters page seeks to be timely, so even a very good letter that arrives three days later may get passed over.

We will try to reach you if your letter is selected, so we need your daytime and evening telephone numbers, as well as your address (we'll protect your privacy). Letters are subject to editing, as is anything that appears in a newspaper, but we send you the edited letters for your approval.

Our door is always open, so keep the cards and letters coming. But, please, hold off on the spam.

-----------------------------------

May 23, 2004
FROM THE LETTERS EDITOR

The Letters Editor and the Reader: Our Compact, Updated
By THOMAS FEYER

Last September, as letters editor of The Times, I used some of this space for an essay called "To the Reader," introducing myself and outlining the mission and the mechanics of the letters page.

It seemed to strike a chord, and scores of readers wrote back. Many were pleased to learn that the anonymous editor had a name. Some were grateful for the advice; others were amused, acerbic, occasionally even dyspeptic. I had my 15 minutes of fame: a flurry of dissection on the Internet; an interview on TV that lasted, well, about 15 minutes. We printed two letters in response ­ pro and con, naturally.

But readers, new and old, send in questions (and even complaints!) about the letters page almost every day, and so a refresher course may help. This is an attempt to answer some frequently asked questions.

I've submitted many letters, but none have been published. How can I improve my chances?

Thanks largely to the ease and ubiquity of e-mail, letters submissions (and a lot besides) come in relentlessly, round the clock, from around the country and around the world, at a rate of roughly a thousand a day. My small staff and I try to read them all, but we can publish only about 15 letters a day.

While the odds are long, some letter writers seem to know how to shorten them. Here are some tips: Write quickly, concisely and engagingly. We're in an age of fast-moving news and virtually instant reaction; letters about an especially timely topic often appear within a day or two (and almost always within a week).

At times, some big stories generate hundreds of letters a day ­ Sept. 11 (at one point we were getting hundreds an hour), the war in Iraq, politics, to name a few. When you write about a particularly contentious issue, bear in mind that many others do so as well. We can try to capture a sense of what's on readers' minds, but we can't be comprehensive.

Your suggested length for letters is about 150 words. Why so short? (Or, as one writer put it after I cited the brevity of the Gettysburg Address, "Why does Lincoln get 250 and the rest of us a measly 150?")

Ideally, the letters page should be a forum for a variety of voices, and that means letting a lot of readers have a turn. With our limited space, we have room for letters that make their case with a point or two, but not for full-length articles. (For those, try our neighbors at the Op-Ed page.)

Once in a while, a particularly eloquent, newsworthy or pointed letter is allotted Lincolnesque space in print, but that is the exception.

You've said that the letters page "does not have a political coloration of its own." Yet liberal opinion seems to dominate, and conservatives seem to have a lesser voice. Why?

In selecting letters, I try to present a fair sampling of reader opinion, as well as a balance of views, pro and con. Writers to The Times ­ by no means all, certainly, but a clear majority ­ tend to be liberal, often vociferously so. Among our letter writers, critics of the Bush administration, especially over the war in Iraq, outnumber its defenders by a substantial margin.

On same-sex marriage, to cite another example, proponents far outnumber opponents among our letter writers. But there is more of a divide on other national issues, like abortion, affirmative action and immigration.

We welcome opinions from all sides: the majority, the dissenters, the contrarians. While I naturally have to use my judgment, it's not my opinion that determines the complexion of the page, it's yours.

Do you edit letters?

We reserve the right to edit for space, clarity, civility and accuracy, and we send you the edited version before publication. If your letter is selected, we will try to reach you and ask a few questions: Did you write the letter? (We're not amused by impostors.) Is it exclusive to The Times? (It should be.) Do you have a connection to the subject you're writing about? (Readers should be able to judge your credibility and motivation.)

What is your responsibility for ensuring that facts cited in letters are accurate?

Letter writers, to use a well-worn phrase, are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. There is, of course, a broad gray area in which hard fact and heartfelt opinion commingle. But we do try to verify the facts, either checking them ourselves or asking writers for sources of information. Sometimes we goof, and then we publish corrections.

Why are there so many letters from people with credentials or titles after their names?

These come in many flavors: an official's response to criticism; a statement of policy, printed for the record or for its news value; a view that we feel adds an interesting perspective or expertise to the debate.

As with any letter, writers speak only for themselves or their organizations; publication should not be taken as an endorsement of that view by The Times. The aim is to stimulate discussion, not end it.

A personal note, for those who've asked: I've been an editor at The Times for 23 years and counting, nearly 5 as letters editor, and a New Yorker since early childhood. I was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1953 and came to America with my parents ­ survivors of Nazism and refugees from Communism ­ in 1957. Five years later, we swore an oath as naturalized American citizens.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, my core belief as letters editor is that healthy, informed debate is the lifeblood of a strong democracy. Other than that, I'm an avid Times reader, just like you. If what's in this newspaper interests you, it interests me.

Posted by marc at 07:21 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 03, 2004

Nader targets swing states to throw the election to Bush

Nader to Hit Swing States; Kerry Improves

By THEO EMERY, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - With polls showing a narrowing gap between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, independent candidate Ralph Nader said Sunday that he planned to continue campaigning in key battleground states in the final month of the presidential election.

In a Newsweek poll, the first taken since the debate Thursday night, Kerry was running even with Bush after having trailed him in the same survey last month. A Los Angeles Times poll of debate viewers showed favorable perceptions of Kerry rose 5 percent, but the survey of 725 registered voters indicated little change in overall backing for the two candidates.

The Times poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, was released for Sunday's editions.

The Newsweek poll showed Kerry had the support of 47 percent and Bush 45 percent, with Nader at 2 percent.

Bush led 49-43 in the poll in early September and was up by 11 points in the poll following the GOP convention. The Newsweek poll of 1,013 registered voters was taken from late Thursday to early Saturday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Nader has long disputed the charge that he will be a "spoiler" for the Democrats in November. Critics have said his candidacy cost Democrat Al Gore the presidential election in 2000 when he lost by just a few hundred votes in Florida, where the liberal Nader got 97,000 votes for his Green Party candidacy.

While preparing for a campaign trip that begins at Harvard on Monday and continues to the swing states of Maine and New Hampshire on Tuesday, Nader said defeating Bush is a priority, but he's still trying to capture as many votes as possible in November.

"The assumption of all these questions is that I take more votes away from Kerry than Bush. Part of that is in Kerry's hands. He once said he wants to take away my votes by taking away my issues: I'm delivering it to him on a silver platter. He's responsible for that problem," Nader said.

Tobe Berkovitz, a political analyst and professor of communication at Boston University, said Nader's role could prove pivotal once again in the election.

"Nader is a factor because, in a race that seems to be this close, a point here, two points there in a battleground state can make a real difference in the Electoral College," he said.

Nader said that his supporters don't pull votes from one party or the other. Rather, half of his supporters would not otherwise vote at all, and the other half are split equally between Kerry and Bush.

"You never know. Our problem is how to break up the two-party system, not how to concede to one or the other," he said.

Nader's potential swing role for the election spurred a California peace activist to pledge last week not to eat until Nov. 2 in an effort to persuade Nader to drop out of the race.

"We're sending him some carrot juice," Nader said Sunday.

Posted by marc at 05:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack