Links and Minifeatures 2008 10 16 Thursday

A very good article: What's good about McCain-Obama mudslinging

I'll push my own Straight Talk Express even further: Any democracy demands negativity. Our nation rests on the idea that ordinary citizens can replace one set of leaders with another. But to make that change, we need those out of power to explain what's wrong with those in charge. The beauty of our system is the peaceful transfer of power, and that absolutely requires negativity.

Criticism that is truthful and to the point serves a vital function. So does criticism that is not - it tells you quite a bit about the people making or sponsoring it. And who does the vetting? The individuals who see it. Criticism is a two-edged sword. It has the potential to hurt the one making it as badly as the one who is the target of it. This makes it valuable to those making the decision.

The problem is neither advocacy nor negative ads. The problem is that the guardians of public discourse (major media) are pretending to be neutral when they are not. In actual point of fact, Fox, reviled on the left for its supposed right wing bias, has repeatedly been measured to be the only major network within the margin of error of being neutral.
(as determined by ratios of percentages of positive and negative mention of partisans on each side of the aisle). The others are all Democratic partisans to the tune of multiple sigmas. This would be tolerable if they held themselves up as Democratic partisans - but then they'd lose audience share even faster than they are. So they cling to labeling themselves neutral, even though they are not.

Don't believe me? Here's a side by side comparison between the Obama campaign's official talking points, and the New York Times.

A reporter hallucinating that the crowd at a Palin rally was saying "kill him!" (Obama). The Secret Service never heard it. Neither did any of the other witnesses interviewed.

now a second allegation has the Secret Service investigating, but again finding no evidence.

by comparison, a search on Google yields almost 800,000 results for "kill bush", and while I was typing it, Google was trying to suggest "kill bush games" and "kill bush online games" among others.

Two allegations by single individuals in crowds of thousands where no other witness has come forward, and it's a problem for Obama and his supporters. Nearly 800,000 instances from an on-line search anyone can do and verify for the incumbent president, and it's somehow not a problem for Obama's supporters? Including at least three commercial enterprises (on the first page of results) and some unknown number of their subscribers, large enough to make offering such things profitable?

1) Is the entire game simply to slander Obama's way into office?

2) Are they really that stupid that they cannot see the contradiction?

3) Do they think it is somehow okay because "We're the Good Guys&trade"? Last I checked, they were slandering the American military, who really are the Good Guys, for holding enemies captured in battle as prisoners of war and not doing enough to not kill people they don't absolutely have to, even when those involved are enemy combatants and our own troops take casualties because of it. The point is this: The Good Guys are the Good Guys because they don't think like that, and they don't act like they think like that. People who think and act like this aren't the Good Guys.

Let us suppose that Obama is inaugurated President, and some sick Republicans decide to copy the "kill bush" games straight across to "kill Obama", changing nothing but the name (and target silhoutte, if appropriate - I certainly wasn't going to sign up for something that sick). Is there anyone reading this that would think that would somehow be okay? How could one possibly be acceptable - to the Secret Service or anyone else - while the other one is not?

For that matter, I must be some kind of old dinosaur for believing the whole idea is unacceptable. And let me ask: What next if the unthinkable does happen and we lose either Bush or the new president to an assassin's bullet? How funny is it going to be then? Do you think there might be a little bit of societal backlash? For illustration purposes, suppose there had been an ongoing "Kill Kennedy" game going on in 1962 and 1963? Do you think maybe there would have been some blowback when Lee Harvey Oswald did his deed? And here's a really chilling thought: Suppose Lee Harvey Oswald had participated in such a game? What do you think might happen to the other participants and those who ran such games? Obviously, in that case, it wasn't all harmless fun. There would be a dead president to prove it. Prosecution of such individuals and corporations would not be likely to be dismissed under the heading of "protected speech," because there is a clear exception in the law for threatening speech or expression of any sort, under which heading this sort of nonsense would obviously fall in such circumstances.

I was unable to watch the debate last night, as I was with clients and forgot to record it.

Disco tune "Stayin' Alive" could save your life

That's enough for me to forgive the Bee-Gees for having recorded it. I was a senior in high school when it came out, and I will never like the tune, which was played ad nauseum (and almost ad infinitum) everywhere that year. I was driving to work one day, and it was synchronized to the word on three different radio stations. Bad enough that they all - even FM stations - played it every hour. It was alright the first few times, but after several months of you can't listen to music for five minutes without hearing it, I was ready to do violence.