democracy & peace: October 2004 Archives

Micheal shares this wisdom from a friend:

"In the previous 17 Presidential election cycles, if the Washington Reskins won their game the weekend before the election, the incumbent party won on Tuesday. If they lost, the incumbents lost. The Skins looked pretty awful on offense today, as they have all season, but suddenly went ahead with only about 2 minutes left. Except that they didn't; the refs called the play back with an extremely questionable penalty call and the Green Bay Packers pulled it out."

This could be interesting:

"here in seattle, we've organized a pretty interesting series of events that
will take place across the university of washington campus on the day before
the election (http://www.thedaybefore.org). what is interesting, to me at
least, is the diversity of supporters and the number of supporters (80 and
growing!). the idea is simple: there are 55,000 students, staff, and
faculty at UW and we think they should all vote. we expect some public
spectacles, so be sure to tune in on our web cam"

From David Silver of the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

This one really bothered me. Maybe cuz of Lisa's class and a resultant heightened awareness. First, there was forcing all the Hispanics in Atlanta to prove - for the second time - that they were U.S. citizens and therefore eligble to vote. Now comes this:

David sends this; its good with sound. :-)

All I can say is I hope Bryan is wrong! Here's his prediction:

"... friends, you heard it here first. If you thought 2000 was divisive, you ain't seen nothin' yet.... I think when all is said and done we're going to have a tie of 269-269. I know that a while back I mentioned that several analysts had noted the possibility of a tie scenario (everything from 2000 stays the same with the exception of WV and NH). This is actually quite a bit different than that....

Today's NYTimes editorial, Dangerous Territory, hasn't yet made the list of "most requested articles in the last 24 hours", which I find disturbing and counter to the editorial's optimistic conclusion:

"If the company is thinking about seriously changing course, it should do it quickly. Sinclair is in dangerous territory. If television companies force their local stations to campaign blatantly, it will not be long before the administrations that have the power to grant licenses begin expecting such favors as a quid pro quo. And the public will question whether it can afford to allow such concentrations of power in the hands of huge media corporations."

"The public" appears willing to overlook such concentration and misuse of power, and - given recent events with the FCC and FBI, the US government already feels entitled to grant and deny licenses wherever it sees fit.

David says, "This is absolutely frightening. There is a mounting global protest."

from http://indymedia.org/en/2004/10/111999.shtml

Thursday morning, US authorities issued a federal order to Rackspace
ordering them to hand over Indymedia web servers to the requesting agency.
Rackspace, which provides hosting services for more that 20 Indymedia sites at
its London facility, complied and turned over the requested servers, effectively
removing those sites from the internet.

I think so. The earliest poll I saw last night (CNN?) gave the third debate 52% to 30-some% to Kerry. Stephen was maniacally flipping channels between the ball game, The Daily Show, and post-convention coverage so I don't know what we were watching when. :-) The NYTimes this morning is playing it safe...balanced....although the most frequently emailed article so far is the OpEd piece Addicted to 9/11 by Thomas L. Friedman, which favors Kerry's desire to context the war on terror as a passing historical event rather than Bush's promotion of it as an irrevocable society-changing event.

This bit about the Sinclair forced broadcast of "Stolen Honor" (the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry) seems highly problematic though, in terms of people's swayability.....not to mention voter fraud breaking out ... I've neglected those links and in a rush now, but the media and technology are both being massively mobilized, eh? and in ever more sophisticated and coordinated ways.

I can hardly wait to check out Bruce Springsteen at Sut's tonight....this house party idea is rocking!

Split-screen effects from the first debate....

Split Decision discusses spatial and perceptual effects of attending to multiple features of interaction.

Stephen suggested that the debate rules for the vice-preseidential slugfest required seated performances because Cheney on his feet would have looked even more stolid and inanimate compared to a freely moving, uncontained Edwards. (My paraphrase.)

~ from ros to the air-l listserv:

"PoliticsMatters is a collective blog launching October 5th on PoliticaOnline.it

The approaching US elections seem to promise a new push for political
attention and participation as an affirmative answer to a polarized
ideological battle. Not only because of its worldwide effects and high
stakes, but also due to a resurgence of grassroots activism using new
collaborative technologies."

Kerry gains the upper hand in a debate as significant for its substance as for what it revealed about Bush.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal for salon.com.

After months of flawless execution in a well-orchestrated campaign, President Bush had to stand alone in an unpredictable debate. He had traveled the country, appearing before adoring preselected crowds; delivered a carefully crafted acceptance speech at his convention; and approved tens of millions of dollars in TV attack commercials to belittle his opponent. His much-touted charisma was a reflection of the anxiety and wishful thinking of the people since Sept. 11. In the lead, Bush believed he had only to assert his superiority to end the contest once and for all.

But onstage the incumbent president ran out of programmed talking points. Unable to explain the logic for his policies, or think on his feet, he was thrown back on the raw elements of his personality and leadership, and he revealed even more profound issues than the policies being debated.

Every time he was confronted with ambivalence, his impulse was to sweep it aside. He claimed he must be followed because he is the leader. Fate in the form of Sept. 11 had placed authority in his hands as a man of destiny.