Asymmetrical Information

I didn't catch it, but I'm sure there is a market for this stuff. I mean, heck, people willing listen to Ruch and I can't imagine why. It's just utter crap.

And I generally have a deep and abiding respect for crap. Not in these cases.

I didn't catch it, but I'm sure there is a market for this stuff. I mean, heck, people willingly listen to Rush and I can't imagine why. It's just utter crap.

And I generally have a deep and abiding respect for crap. Not in these cases.

Jane...you are referring to Randi Rhodes. And I agree, Franken wasn't all that great. Rhodes is definitely better.

I've been doing some real time blogging on this nut case who never gives her name but don't think I can keep it up

I wouldn't stake my life on the failure of Radio America, but I'm pretty skeptical that it will succeed. Conservative talk radio is the product of radio people who saw it as a way to increase audience share and make a buck. They make it their business to know what people want to listen to. This doesn't make them infallible, but it does mean that they have some sort of rational basis for programming decisions, and so far, conservative talk radio seems to be (in general) a commercial success.

From everything that I've read and heard about Radio America (much of it from people in the mainstream press who I think are really rooting for it to be a big hit), it's the product of earnest hand-wringing liberals who are upset that there aren't enough earnest hand-wringing liberals on talk radio. Apparently, many of the people involved in this thing have little or no background in radio.

Of course, I could be wrong. I don't really know that there's not an audience crying out for liberal talk radio, but it's not at all clear to me that the people behind it know that there is.

I have to say that NPR (of which I love and am well-pleased, even though I'm quite conservative) is far better at 'liberal talk radio.' Today's "O'Franken Factor" was an annoying copy of the unparalleled sycophancy that is Diane Rehm's show.

. . .accusing George Bush of using the children to whom he was reading on the morning of September 11th as "human shields".

Wow. Forget Air America, this is IndyRadio.

I don't get why Dems think they need to imitate the GOP on this.

Look at the phenomenon of the Daily Show, the best political show on TV today. On certain key demographics it's already beating Hannity and Fox News. Conservatives have nothing like that. Each side has to find what fits them best.

the link is actually wrong
http://www.airamericaradio.com/

Klug, I suspect that, rightly or wrongly, Air America's target demographic does not consider NPR to be liberal.

Look at the phenomenon of the Daily Show, the best political show on TV today. On certain key demographics it's already beating Hannity and Fox News. Conservatives have nothing like that. Each side has to find what fits them best.

...and the nice thing about the Daily Show is that you don't have to lean left to enjoy it. Stewart cuts 'em sharp, but he usually does so without becoming snide or grating, a rare gift. And he's not hesitant to turn the blade from right to left once in a while when the left-leaning position is clearly excessive.

I'm not in an area that gets the new liberal talk radio, but this is the second place I've read about Randi Rhodes' accusing President Bush of using the school children as "human shields." That has to be about the lamest theory I've ever heard. Doesn't she know that one of the most prefered targets of terrorists are children? How stupid would someone have to be to think that hiding behind children would be any defense at all against terrorists? If representative, that level of "critical thinking" does not bode well for the liberal radio experiment.

Air America is now launched. Judging from the little bit I heard, it still has a few kinks to work out. Do not despair though, the right wing hasn't completely destroyed all airwaves.

OT is another radio related item in the meantime. Here is a link to an hourlong interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski on March 31st (11:00).

While some might not agree with his take on US foreign relations, I find his analysis on these matters more compelling than nearly anyone I've ever read, academic or journalist. His views could provide a strong baseline for any emerging Democratic platform in the foreign policy arena. The guy was Carter's National Security Advisor (yeah, big whoop, but not totally irrelevant) and still has the chops. Here's a little bit I transcribed:

Diane Rehm: You said just before the break that president bush after 911 said to all the countries of the world, 'if you're not with us your against us'. What did that statement do, not only in the minds of Europeans, but other countries around the world?

ZB: Well, in a way, you know, you can almost put it on a personal basis, if I said you're not with me you're against me, you'd probably think I was a bit extremest in my views.Being not with you, not agreeing with you, doesn't mean your against you. The point is, if you want to treat people as allies, and if you want them to make sacrifices, you have to have a shared sense of strategic direction, you have to have some degree of consensus regarding historical vision, and if you simply say your not with us, you're against us, your're really trying to dictate. And that always produces a negative reaction.

Granted, geopolitics can be a bit dry, but this guy makes a pretty strong refutation of the Bush administration's supposed strong card.

"How stupid would someone have to be to think that hiding behind children would be any defense at all against terrorists?"

Maybe as stupid as Bush? Human shields or not, it probably was a bad idea to keep the photo op appointment at the Booker Elementary school knowing that a plane had just crashed into the North Tower and that other planes had been hijacked.

Absolutely. Terrorists, as we all know, are omniscient regarding presidential movements, and thus are able to tell where he is even from the cockpit of a hijacked plane. If only Bushitler weren't such a stupid smirking Enron chimp who was too busy thinking about ooooiiiillll to spare a thought for the poor children he was endangering.

"Diane Rehm: You said just before the break that president bush after 911 said to all the countries of the world, 'if you're not with us your against us'."

Pity, though, that Bush never actually said that. He said, "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."

"Absolutely. Terrorists, as we all know, are omniscient regarding presidential movements, and thus are able to tell where he is even from the cockpit of a hijacked plane."

They wouldn't have to be omniscient - there could have been more terrorists who were on the ground with a different strategy. Since no one knew the extent of what was happening, it probably would have been smart to divert the President away from his scheduled location once the first plane hit and 3 others were possibly hijacked.

Wow! Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor.

Doesn't this completely destroy ZB's credibility? He had his chance in the arena and he totally and completely flunked. Why should we listen to his opinions? He clearly has proven that he lacks the judgment to make good decisions in foreign policy.

Someone who couldn't figure out that communism and the Soviet Union were bad for the world is too stupid to give anyone advice.

GT, the Daily show isn't competing with H&C or FoxNews. They're two different animals--and, FoX runs a re-run in The Daily Show's timeslot(a re-run of O'Reilly)

If you want a real comparison, try comparing the ratings of South Park to The Daily Show. Both are similarly structured, with each taking pot shots at the issues of the day, both are willing to smack at all sides and both are comedies. They have opposite underlying biases however.

WhereWasGeorge, Bush was informed of the attack while AT the school. That lump of fatty tissue that's in your head? It's called a brain, try to use it.

The difference between conservative talk radio--Rush, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, and the like--and Franken, or any other liberal they want to trot out, was demonstrated on Franken's first day: conservatives deal in facts, while liberals deal in emotions. When the facts are not on one's side, as they surely are not on the side of the liberals, emotion turns to hysteria and insanity. Witness the woman who accused President Bush of using 2nd-graders as human shields. Could there be more virulently illogical paranoia?

Re: Bush staying where he was in the attack:

This is exactly what you do if you are providing security for a high risk target, and the POTUS is about as high risk as it gets. Your greatest threat in the Secret Service is the unknown. The school had already been swept and secured. It was a known. To panic and put him on the road before the route was cleared would have been mindless and stupidly dangerous. It would have been the unknown. The unknown gets your target killed.

She riffed on how the POTUS was "scared" and "ran to Nebraska". It makes me wonder where she was during the Cold War. When the US mainland gets attacked, we go into a precise plan. Part of that plan is to get the CinC in the air, get him well within US radar cover (the entire route from Florida to DC is too close to the coast) and put him in direct line of sight to NORAD and SAC command (for radio communication.) That means Nebraska.

She wanted the president to go to DC, apparently to be a Cowboy (I thought that was bad?) and to get out of communication with the people he needed to be in communication with. Critical thinking doesn't seem to be one of her skills.

Actually, Stan, it's Communism I have to thank for my free health care. Yes, Communism has its gigantic flaws here and there, but what's worse is being afraid to admit that it has its benefits.

I am a Canadian living in Canada, very close to the border. For this reason, I am blessed with the opportunity to observe American media and compare it to ours. The biggest difference is that here in Canada (and I say this not out of arrogant nationalism, but rather mere observation), media outlets tend to be somewhat more objective. At the very least, we're more subtle about our biases. Punditry is virtually nonexistant north of the border.

Anyway, the point I was going to make is that the American Liberals, until very recently, always seemed rather Canadian with respect to journalism so it's very disappointing to see them sliding down that terribly slippery slope into "Yell Radio."

At least they're being up front about their politics, though. The Conservatives would never have the balls to actually acknowledge the fact that they actually do run exclusively Right-Wing networks. I guessit's entirely possible, however unlikely, that they don't realise it.

Re: Bush staying where he was in the attack:

This is exactly what you do if you are providing security for a high risk target, and the POTUS is about as high risk as it gets. Your greatest threat in the Secret Service is the unknown. The school had already been swept and secured. It was a known. To panic and put him on the road before the route was cleared would have been mindless and stupidly dangerous. It would have been the unknown. The unknown gets your target killed.

She riffed on how the POTUS was "scared" and "ran to Nebraska". It makes me wonder where she was during the Cold War. When the US mainland gets attacked, we go into a precise plan. Part of that plan is to get the CinC in the air, get him well within US radar cover (the entire route from Florida to DC is too close to the coast) and put him in direct line of sight to NORAD and SAC command (for radio communication.) That means Nebraska.

She wanted the president to go to DC, apparently to be a Cowboy (I thought that was bad?) and to get out of communication with the people he needed to be in communication with. Critical thinking doesn't seem to be one of her skills.

Hmm.

1. "Actually, Stan, it's Communism I have to thank for my free health care. Yes, Communism has its gigantic flaws here and there, but what's worse is being afraid to admit that it has its benefits."

Actually the primary reason why Canadian and European national healthcare systems work is that they pretty much steal the drugs needed to treat their patients. They do this by setting the price levels of drugs for their domestic markets.

I'll be laughing when America does the same thing and the pharmaceutical industry dies off.

2. "Maybe as stupid as Bush? Human shields or not, it probably was a bad idea to keep the photo op appointment at the Booker Elementary school knowing that a plane had just crashed into the North Tower and that other planes had been hijacked."

Mybe you should revisit that timeline. He was *at* the school when the first plane hit. Might be helpful if you didn't end up looking like a twit.

telly,

Your health care isn't free. Unless you're some sort of jobless freeloader, you pay for your health care every day you go to work.

Have you ever sat down and figured out exactly how much of your paycheck goes to health care? As an American with private, optional health insurance, I know exactly how much I pay - $26 a month.

"Maybe as stupid as Bush? Human shields or not,
it probably was a bad idea to keep the photo op
appointment at the Booker Elementary school
knowing that a plane had just crashed into the
North Tower and that other planes had been
hijacked."

Are people really that ignorant? As I recall Bush already was AT the school and CONTINUED to meet and greet with the children mainly to prevent any sort of panic BEFORE they had a better understanding of what was happening. Also, was it not Bush who insisted on heading back to DC as soon as possible over the objections of the Secret Service? How can that be construed in any way as "running and hiding?"

I know we need to better understand how 911 happened so we may learn to prevent anything like this from happening again. But, I am having a really hard time understanding how the liberals say Bush and Condie Rice should have known it would happen. Even though some people may have foreseen this type of threat, how could it have been prevented at that specific date and time without violating someone's Civil Rights....another favorite issue in liberal talk?

Actually, WhereWasGeorge is correct - Bush learned that Flight 11 crashed into the WTC North Tower before the motorcade arrived at Booker Elementary. Here is the timeline he/she linked as a name:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/bushon911.html

MaB,

I guess those "fact based" people here like Hale and Ed will be happy to correct themselves after reading some of the sources cited in your link.

Actually, ZB doesn't really fit into any of the boxes either side seems to want to put him in. After all, he was one of the architects of the plan to draw the USSR into Afganistan:

"Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Actually, ZB doesn't really fit into any of the boxes either side seems to want to put him in. After all, he was one of the architects of the plan to draw the USSR into Afganistan:

"Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Perhaps MaB should read the links before she posts them.

"It would make sense that Bush is told about the crash immediately and at the same time that others hear about it. Yet Bush and others claim he isn't told until he arrives at the school."

I admit that I did not waste my time reading the entire document. After reading this line based on what "make(s) sense" to the writer, why bother? Maybe the writer could tell by the expression on Bush's face?

Jim English
Chicago

Most of the sources cited in the link say that Bush was notified when he arrived at the school; the ONLY one saying otherwise is the guy from Sarasota Magazine who wasn't with the motorcade and doesn't mention any reason for believing Bush was told enroute (much less any reason for believing he was told it was terrorism).

Not that it matters in this context anyway, since canceling the visit would have protected the kiddies only if the imagined terrorists could be apprised of the change in plans before the imagined attack on the school went forward. In which case the demented harridan from Air America would be gibbering about how the eeevil Bush used children as a decoy while he scuttled away to safety.

You can tell things are going well in Iraq: all the armchair generals have resigned their commissions to become armchair Secret Service agents.

Jim,

You quote the final sentences of a graf in which we learn a reporter riding in Ari Fleischer's car hears Mr. Fleischer say into a cell phone, "Oh, my God, I don't believe it. A plane just hit the World Trade Center." It is not credible that the press secretary in the same motercade with the President would know and not share this with the President - that is unless the President had received the news before Fleischer. We also learn that Congressman Dan Miller, waiting for the President at Booker, heard of the first crash before the motorcade arrived. Again, it is almost inconceivable that the President was the only high official out of the loop during at that time.

Regarding MaB's link to CooperativeResearch.org: Go read the entire 9/11 timeline on that site; it's rich with anti-Bush, anti-administration arguments and inferences, including the implication that UA flt 93 was shot down by the U.S. military. Bush and Cheney are insulted throughout and accused repeatedly of lying. Other interesting topics to be found on CooperativeResearch.org's site include U.S. Atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq, Why the Iraq war is illegal, and so on. This is what's presented as an unbiased look at the facts of 9/11?

If one assumes that the official story of the Bush Administration is the inarguable truth, then any facts or testimony that contradict it will be seen as biased. I see no reason why one should proceed with that assumption.

Chris,

Your posts are telling.
"It is not credible..."
"..it is almost inconceivable..."

If you think so. But as your own posts illustrate, there is no evidence to prove anything.

Maybe everybody assumed that someone else would tell the president. I don't know that this is what happened with Bush on 911. You can't know that it didn't. Again, there is no evidence one way or the other.

"If one assumes that the official story of the Bush Administration is the inarguable truth, then any facts or testimony that contradict it will be seen as biased."

If there were any facts or testimony to be discussed, we could discuss them. As I have previously stated, there are none presented that lend any credence to the assertion that Bush new prior to arrival at the school. I don't know about anybody else, but when people make extremely serious assertions without supporting evidence, I assume they are biased. I suppose they could be stupid. But it is one or the other.

Jim English
Chicago

But Chris. . . Don't you find it a little bit fruitless for MaB to direct her/his adversaries to a leftwing website (CooperativeResearch) that ascribes Bush's and Cheney's activities on 9/11 to either evil or imbecility? The timeline for 9/11 shown there is rife with opinions and accusations and thus cannot qualify as relating the "facts" of that terrible day. Or have we become so accustomed to present-day journalism that we can no longer discern the reporting from the editorials?

Jack,

For purposes of what I am talking about the Daily Show does compete against Fox News. Not necessarily on time slots but as sources of news and information for certain demographics.
From a CNN report:

The Daily Show" reached a ratings milestone during the two weeks of the Iowa caucus, New Hampshire primary and State of the Union address. For the first time, Stewart's show had more male viewers aged 18 to 34 than any of the network evening news shows.

One newspaper, Newsday, has Stewart listed atop a list of the 20 media players who will most influence the upcoming campaign. Tim Russert, Ted Koppel, Sean Hannity, among others, trailed.

The NBC Nightly News cast, and I suspect others as well, meets every day to watch the prvious night's Daily Show.

I fail to see what South Park has to do with anything. It's not a source of news for anybody.

GT, have you ever actually watched South Park? It isn't always political, but when it is, it gets WAY into it - why else would so many people use the label "South Park Republican"? It's a popular comedy, often political, with a distinctive slant - I think lumping it with The Daily Show isn't unreasonable at all.

I have watched it but I fail to see how it supports Republicans.

SP is a sitcom, of sorts. It comments on politics like the Simpsons does. It is not a source of Political news but includes has social commnetary as part of its routine. Just like the Simpsons.

Brothers! We really need more truth being broadcast! The truth will set us free and we can get a real leader in power. As the leaders of the free world you have to know that our intelligence is to important to constantly be fooling ourselves. Listen to both sides and watch out, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Liddy, and Savage I know are practiced liars. nothing is off the cuff. My prayer is that the voters really think about what they are doing this time around. One more bad leader will definitely change things for generations.

Of all the complaints about Bush being stupid....isn't it a bit ironic that John Kerry, the New England Enlightened Intellectual was "duped'" by said president in the run up to the Iraq War.

How will Mssr. Kerry do against the North Koreans?....the Mullahs? or sacre bleu !! the Security Council?

Of all the complaints about Bush being stupid....isn't it a bit ironic that John Kerry, the New England Enlightened Intellectual was "duped'" by said president in the run up to the Iraq War.

How will Mssr. Kerry do against the North Koreans?....the Mullahs? or sacre bleu !! the Security Council?

Of all the complaints about Bush being stupid....isn't it a bit ironic that John Kerry, the New England Enlightened Intellectual was "duped'" by said president in the run up to the Iraq War.

How will Mssr. Kerry do against the North Koreans?....the Mullahs? or sacre bleu !! the Security Council?

Of all the complaints about Bush being stupid....isn't it a bit ironic that John Kerry, the New England Enlightened Intellectual was "duped'" by said president in the run up to the Iraq War.

How will Mssr. Kerry do against the North Koreans?....the Mullahs? or sacre bleu !! the Security Council?

Comments are Closed.