A Choice...Reason or Ignorance

Ron Reagan Jr. offered this choice in his passionate speech before the Democratic National Convention on the topic of Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research. A choice in our election in November between reason or ignorance.

Reagan was offered the prime time speaking slot to tweak the Republicans, of course. To stick a knife into his old man's name. And to take shots at George W. Bush, who the Democrats accuse of blocking miracle cures just around the corner to foist his own ignorant religious beliefs on the country. The bastard! George W. Bush must be evil. Ron Reagan Jr. said so.

Reagan made the simplified case. People have diseases. Miracle cures are just around the corner. The cures are only being stopped by the ignorant, like super meany George Bush, who can't tell the difference between a clump of stem cells and a full grown person. Why, oh why, can't everyone see how reasonable ESC is? Why aren't we pouring in the federal dollars to line up and destroy embryos in the petri dishes? Why is Bush so stupid and mean?

The case was made to the convention. The delegates gushed their approval. Ron Reagan was their new champion.

The esteemed Ron Reagan Jr.

Noted Scientist and Physician. Nobel prize winner in genetics and neurologic research. Gifted deep thinker and noted embryologist.

Oh, wait. Ron Reagan has none of those credentials. In fact, what exactly does he do? I mean besides being a professional besmircher of his father's legacy?

Democrats - why are you listening to Ron Reagan Jr on a topic like Stem Cell Research? You're emabarrassing yourself nodding along like puppets  at his sophmoric appeal to "reason".

Ron Reagan Jr. and I have about equal credentials to opine on the subject of Stem Cell Research. We both watch TV and we both read newspapers. He pretends to be a journalist, I write a blog. His father died from a terrible disease. My grandfather died from the same disease. We're even.

Oh, wait - he has special empathy for the subject. He said so. Because he knows a little girl with diabetes who could benefit from a cure.

Oh, wait - I have diabetes and could benefit from a cure. I guess I'm one up on young Mr. Reagan.

Okay. For the know-nothing bobbleheads on the convention floor who were swooning at young Ron's profound choice between reason and ignorance, let's look at the two key facts.

First, there are deep and unavoidable moral issues here that Reagan just swept aside. He may not give pause to the thought of destroying life to benefit life, but many people including me do and you can't just sweep it aside and accuse those who disagree with you of being ignorant. Or bad people.

Second, he's wrong. There is plenty of informed medical opinion, if you care to read it, outside of the realm of those with a political axe to grind that indicates that Embryonic Stem Cell Research is non-operative and that there is no miracle cure around the corner. In fact, there have been no research projects with ESC's that have had positive results. There have been studies with adverse results that had to be halted. There have been positive studies with Adult Stem Cells, which do not have the moral issues attached. But ESC has not panned out. Want proof? George Bush did not make stem cell research illegal, he just limited federal funding. Private funding is fully legal and permissable. If ESC held the hope of miracle cures around the corner for diabetes, private companies would be rushing to fund it and patent it. They're not. Why? Because it doesn't work. The few who want to keep pushing it have to go for government funding because the private funders know it doesn't work. That's your proof.

So why do Ron Reagan Jr. and the know-nothings keep pushing failed Embryonic Stem Cell research over promising Adult Stem Cell research and distort the hope of imminent cures? Because it fits with the abortion-at-all-costs agenda of his crowd that dominates the Democratic National Convention. If they make it noble to destroy embryos to advance science they further legitimize abortion.

Okay, bobbleheads on the floor of the convention- keep swooning at the the profound young Ronnie. I, on the other hand, have no problem choosing between reason and ignorance.

Bill Clinton Rocks!

Okay, I haven't been smoking marijuana. I haven't changed my mind on the fact that Bill Clinton is a pathological liar and a disgrace to the country.

But the man can give a speech. There is no doubt about it. His speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight was amazing.  Clinton rocked the Fleet Center and the Democratic party faithful adore him. He didn't disappoint. The man can give a speech. Everyone else on the podium pales in comparison. Especially the dreadful Hillary.

He was lying, of course. Shoveling the B.S. full speed.  But as expertly as anyone ever has shoveled the B.S.

Gotta hand it to him.

You've also got to give credit to the Dems for the theme that they've settled on: "Strength and Wisdom are not mutually exclusive".  Their shorthand slap at Bush. They don't want to come out and say they think Bush is stupid. So they've shorthanded it.

I think it's misleading and irrelevant. I would ask them if "Strength and Appeasment" are mutually exclusive, because they're leading the appeasement parade.

But it is a clever slogan. And it was a great speech. I'll give them that. It won't be much consolation when they lose the election, of course.

Why is this a "Leak"?

I'm still amused by the breaking Sandy Berger story last week. Do you still need evidence of a liberal bias in the news?

A former National Security Advisor, preparing for testimony before the 9/11 commission related to his administration's handling of terrorism, walks out of the National Archives with all of the copies from the White House file of a terrorism report stuffed in his socks. Is that the headline? No. The headlines in the national press were centered on the Democrat's outrage that anyone would ascribe devious motives to this innocent act of sloppiness. Also, the "news" outlets parroted the Democrats suscpicion on the timing of the "leaks" about the Berger investigation by the FBI?

Leaks? What leaks? Who said it was a leak?

Why is it a leak? It can only be a "leak" if it is secret or classified information that was inappropriately divulged to the public.

Why is an investigation by the FBI of the theft of classified documents by a formal federal official a secret? Why does it have to be "leaked"? Why wasn't this public information from day one?

There used to be a time when it wasn't as clear that the mainstream press was an arm of the Democratic party. A time when a journalist discovering a federal investigation of a former federal official would call it "news", not a "leak". 

Of course, it is news. And, of course, the Democrats are just doing their usual scandal diversion by shouting "look over there - eek! it's a leak" to cover up for one of their own getting caught in misdeeds.

But journalists shouldn't be aiding their diversion.

For the journallistically impaired journalists out there - I'll help you out. The story is the theft of national security documents, not a "leak". Now, go and pretend you know how to report a story.

Where Have I Heard This Before?

So the main recomendation from the 9/11 committee is to have a single point of focus for our nation's intelligence gathering. A single director or czar for intelligence.

Maybe one focal group or task force or organization. I've got it! An Agency.

That collects data or worthwhile information related to national security. Something we would call "intelligence".

A group that all data flowed through. A group that was common to all data gathering groups. A Central group.

What we would call this Agency that was Central to all Intelligence gathering? That's a tricky one.

What would we call a Central Intelligence Agency? How about the C.I.A. ?

Oh, we already have that.

How about we just rebuild the agency that was gutted by Democratic congressmen for the last 3 decades?

Keep these people away from the Documents!

"Democrats denounce allegations about Berger" says the MSNBC headline.

What are the allegations? Did he turn left without signalling? Did he corrupt an intern in his National Security Advisor office? (Not likely, they were all down the hall in the little kitchen off the oval office with his boss.)

No - the allegation is that he walked out of the National Archives with classified documents hidden in his briefcase, his pants, and even in his socks.

Oh, that allegation. The one with the FBI investigation. The one with the possible jail time.

But Democrats, as usual, can't seem to muster any concern about the theft of classified documents related to 9/11. They are mad! They're furious! Not at the theft of classified documents, but at "the timing of the leak"! Nice try at a diversion by the ethically challenged. But it won't work.

"He was just sloppy", they said.

Kind of like Hillary was sloppy with the missing subpoened billing records that showed up in her residence with her fingerprints on it. Kind of like the security chief in Clinton's White House was with the 800 FBI files on key republicans that just happened to show up in his office. Remember? "Just a bureaucratic snafu".

Sloppy like that.

Keep these people away from important documents.

Revisiting Jihad

In my recent post "Rethinking Russia" I was entertaining the idea that we should revisit previous world conflicts to evaluate whether Al Qaida or terrorists played a role in areas where we hadn't focused on that possibility.
 
Reader Jill left an excellent comment where she challenged my assertion that Al Qaida was playing a role in Bosnia and Chechnya.
 
I've learned two things since:
 
1. I'm reading Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies". Readers of this blog will know that I'm not a fan of Dick Clarke. However, he has some interesting relevant info in his book on this topic. He indicates, approximately around page 138, that as the CIA and other agencies began tracking Al Qaida that they knew that they were strategically planning and executing the exportation of "jihad" into countries like Bosnia and Chechnya. Their goal was and is to establish a Caliphate in that region of the country to reestablish Islamic rule.  Yes, he said Bosnia and Chechnya specifically.
 
2. USA Today had a cover story yesterday about a top Al Qaida officer, with direct ties to Osama Bin Laden, surrendering in Saudi Arabia. An interesting little sidenote in the article was that he was offloaded in Saudi Arabia in a wheelchair. Why a wheelchair? Because he was injured fighting in Bosnia and Chechnya.
 
Connect the dots, people.

America is Safer

I caught a little bit of President Bush's speech today at Oak Ridge Laboratory while I was dressing for work. Not all of it, but snippets. It was in part a defense of our actions in the War on Terror.

It had a tag like this throughout the speech: "The terrorists have suffered defeat after defeat and America and the world are safer". Great line. And true. (Don't believe me? Read the text of the speech and argue it with me.)

Another great line: "The War on Terror will not be fought to a draw".

Well written. Convincing. Why haven't I heard a speech like this every month for the last year? He's got the right message. Why haven't he used the bully pulpit to defend it more.

I sat through a seminar today on change. One of the key recommendations in a change environment? Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.

I would say the War on Terror was a big change for the country. President Bush, take the seminar advice. Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.

The Black Screen Tells All in Farenheit 9/11

Propaganda. Webster defines it as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". It's not a word much in use anymore. It's a word I heard often growing up during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and their Communist puppet states were masters of propaganda. Now all that the twentysomethings coming up behind me ever hear about is propaganda's kinder little brother: "spin". But, with the release of Michael Moore's outrageous new movie, "Farenheit 9/11", propaganda makes a roaring comeback.

And a minute or two of black screen in the movie tell you all you need to know about it. I'll get back to that.

Before I review the movie let me make three things clear. First, Michael Moore has a right to make this movie and to profit from it. I'm a free market capitalist and a first amendment fan and I say he's entitled to submit his movie to market forces and be seen. Second, I would say Moore is a skilled propagandist. He even makes a point or two worth considering. But they are lost in the orgy of Bush bashing and anti-war exploitation of widows and amputees. Third, I would say that as Moore as the right to put the movie out, the rest of us have a responsibility to review it and to revile it for what it is: vile anti-American propaganda.

I knew that if I was going to comment on the movie, and how could I not as a conservative blogger, I needed to actually see the whole movie. So I reluctantly went to my local metroplex and, with teeth gritted, coughed up the $7.50 to see it. Let me just say it took enormous willpower not to walk out in the first 10 minutes or heckle the screen throughout. But I made it. As painful as it was I suffered through the whole movie. Here's my review:

Unfortunately, the movie is effective as propaganda. It drives hard at it's theme (Bush is bad) with a relentless unflattering portrayal of George W. Bush. Also of everyone in the administration: Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Paul Wolfowitz. All get hammered with unflattering portayals. All driven by a running narrative by Moore telling his simple story that goes something like this:

George Bush is a bad man from a bad family including Pappa Bush. They are all corrupted by oil money. They are owned by Saudi Arabia, who owns a large portion of America, and are their puppets. First, the Bush's (George, Jeb, etc.) disenfranchised all of the blacks in America and stole the 2000 election by stealing Florida and then having Pappa Bush's friends on the Supreme Court seal the deal. Then the set their eyes on looting the country through big oil. The Bush's are surrounded by corrupt people who are also owned by big oil (Haliburtion, Harken, Arbusto Drilling) and by big defense (The Carlyle Group). Bush's corrupt minions (Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) were all asleep at the switch for 9/11 because they were plotting a takeover of Iraq for it's oil and for revenge from the Gulf War. After 9/11 all the evil minions realized that their friends (Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia) were guilty, so they decided to attack poor innocent Sadaam Hussein as a coverup. (See the video of the smiling dancing Sadaam. Hey, he's not too bad!). They had to attack Afghanistan first, but only as a ruse. And they did all of this so that they could build a pipeline through Afghanistan and make billions of dollars with all of their corrupt oil buddies.

And oh, by the way, Al Gore and all of the Democrats are guilty too because they didn't stop it.

And oh, by the way, all of the media is guilty too because they reported favorably on the war. And Fox News Network is especially evil because they apparently conspired with the evil Bush's by calling Florida for Bush on election night. (Disregard the fact that they were right).

And oh, by the way, all of our troops are bloodthirsty killers who play rock and roll in their tanks as they blow up only innocent Iraqis in a country that "never killed a single American".

And oh, by the way, Michael Moore really does love America and our troops.

Can I gag now? I certainly did while I was watching the movie.

Moore is a master of weaving falsehoods, quick edits, unflattering pictures, and interviews with only those that support his views. He mixes, out-of-context quotes, outlandish speculation, and unfounded accusations in a building pace to walk you to a conclusion: George W. Bush and his people are the biggest evil on the planet.

It would take pages to do a complete critical analysis of the movie, and those can be found from more talented writers than me. Let me just take a few shots:

Mockery: Moore has a field day making fun of Bush for taking a "vacation" in Texas in August 20001. He states, not implies, that Bush was loafing and "should've shown up for work" right before the terrorist attacks. Never mind that presidents before him routinely get out of Washington in August because the Congress is not in session and there's no legislative work to do. Never mind that president's are rarely ever truly on vacation - with satellite phones and secret service and National Security staff meeting with them every day.

Conspiracy Theory: Moore makes a lot out of a blacked out name on Bush's released medical records from his Texas National Guard days. The released record includes a page relating to two airmen failing their medical exams: Bush and a Mr. Bath. Moore makes a lot out of the blacked out name of Mr. Bath and weaves an elaborate conspiracy involving the Saudis and oil money. A more reasonable explanation to anyone who has ever served in the military is that the Privacy Act applies and Bush cannot release the record of Mr. Bath. That' why it's blacked out. But that's too simple and doesn't fit the need of a propagandist.

Falsehoods: An early example comes in the opening montage about Bush stealing the 2000 election. Moore pans a newspaper headline "Gore wins in statewide recount", followed by a video clip of a Gore partisan saying the same thing. Wow! Really! Gore won? The trick here is the phrase "statewide recount". True, 3 independent news sources obtained the ballots after the election and finished the "recount". They did conclude that Gore won a statewided recount. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Gore's official challenge to the election was not statewide. Gore only challenged 4 cherry-picked heavily Democratic counties. The independent news agencies concluded that Bush won the election when recounting just those 4 counties. So, under Gore's chosen contest - Bush won and the election stands. Moore left out those inconvenient facts because they do not fit with his propaganda.

Outrageous claims: Moore repeats the canard that Bush's allies purged the voter rolls in Florida of "people not likely to vote for him. You know, you can usually tell them by the color of their skin". That's a vicious and racist allegation. The rolls were purged of felons ineligible to vote. And they were purged by county officials, most of whom in Florida are Democrats.

Interviews: Moore interviews several people, all of them from the same viewpoint. Only two congressmen, McDermott and Conyers, who are among the most liberal partisans in Congress. He inteviews a 9-11 widow mad at Bush. She has a right to her anger, but do you suppose there are widows who support Bush? Of course there are. Not in Moore's film however. Moore exploits the grief of a mother who lost a son in Iraq who's mad at Bush. Do you think there are parents of soldiers who support the war? Not in Moore's film. He interviews wounded soldiers mad at Bush. Again, they are entitled to their anger but I imagine that there are wounded soldiers who are proud of what they accomplished in Iraq. Not in Moore's film. Most eggregiously, he films Iraqi people shouting their hatred of Bush. Are there Iraqis who are grateful that we liberated their country? Of course there are. Not in Moore's film.

I could go on and on. But the black screen is the most telling. So let's go back to it.

Since the film is nominally about 9-11 Moore has to cover it and he does. For a few moments the screen goes black. We hear the sounds of the planes slamming into the buildings. We hear screams and moans and chaos. All of the sounds we are familiar with from that day. But no pictures. Eventually the picture comes back and we see people standing confused in the street. Crying. Ashes falling. Some brief comment by Moore and then he moves on.

Why the black screen? Why no video of the planes slamming into the buildings? Why no video of the bodies jumping out of the buildings? Why no video of the buildings collapsing with mass murder as the consequence? Why none of that most compelling video. This is afer all a movie, not an audio, and this is after all the pivotal moment of 9/11. Is it because there's no video of those events? No - there is plenty of video available. We've all seen them. Is it because it's too gruesome? No - Moore has no problem showing gruesome footage when it makes America look bad.

Ah, that's it. It's because propaganda is most effective when appealing to emotions. And the emotions you feel when you watch the planes hitting the towers, and the bodies jumping out, and the buildings falling are not the emotions that the master propagandist Moore wants you to experience. Those emotions helped us bond with George W. Bush. They do not fit the 'Bush is Bad' conclusion that Moore is driving at. That's why the screen is black during the most pivotal moment of 9/11. And that black screen is Michael Moore's shame.

Those few of you that clapped when the lights came up - I'm worried about you. I know that there is no talking to the grown up Bush-haters in the crowd who saw their own blind partisan hatred of Bush echoed back in this film. But I am worried about the twentysomethings who did not grow up in an era of real propaganda and are unprepared to critically analyze it. But then again, most of those clapping did not look to me like people likely to be registered voters, so I'll relax.