Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Staying Together For The Kids | Main | It's No Ike »


Glenn has some good advice for presidential candidates:

Take your own camera to every interview, and post the raw video online. The news folks won't like that, but, really, what principled basis is there for objection?

I think that a "principled" basis would be too much to expect from them. It would be amusing to see what their response is.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Accountability.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Leland wrote:

Glenn's the lawyer, but I would think the principle objection would be exclusivity of the interview contents for distribution. I suppose a few clauses in the agreement could remedy that, but I would expect such an argument against having your own camera.

Rand Simberg wrote:

My response to that would be, "you can have an non-exclusive interview for distribution, or you can have no interview. Your choice." Someone would take them up on it. Competition works.

Carl Pham wrote:

I've always wondered why anyone agrees to an interview with the media without a specification up front that the entire interview will be broadcast, unedited in any way.

I mean, otherwise, you're giving the media the ability to refashion what you said (or at least respin it) in whatever way they please. That makes sense, barely, if you think they're totally on your side, but otherwise it seems nuts.

Larry J wrote:

The Press would object because it would undermine their power to interview someone for hours and then edit to make the subject look as bad as possible.

Continuing To Soil Pants In Panic wrote:

McCain-Palin's Lie of the Day:

How stupid does McCain think the American people are?

What would you guys be saying if Obama said something equally false about Biden?

Yes, I know: McCain is an honorable man .

Obama the gaffe machine wrote:

"How stupid does McCain think the American people are?"

He believes they are a lot smarter than OCarter the arrogant ass does.

The Sanity Inspector wrote:

I'd like to see someone's entourage whip out a bunch of mirrors when a press rush descends on them. Then people could see what the hounds of the press in full fly look like.

Larry J wrote:

Continuing To Soil Pants In Panic, your link tells us everything we need to know about you. You're getting your crap from talking points website and posting it wherever you can. Too bad all it shows is that you're a drone unable to think for yourself. You're like a near-sighted little dog humping a table leg - thinking you're really scoring but only looking ridiculous. It must suck to be you.

Have a nice day.

Note to Rand: perhaps "Leg Humper" would be a good substitute name for Anonomyous Moron.

Can't Believe My Guy Is Imploding wrote:

Go ahead guys, celebrate your paean to low expectations in the capability of your leaders. McCain-Palin picked Charlie Gibson as the most likely person to quiz Palin, he asked grovellingly simple question, and she did the best she could.

You know Palin isn't qualified to take over and lead the greatest nation on earth. You know it and I know you know it.

But then, you are the same guys who wanted George Bush, who actually was a hell of a lot more qualified than Palin. Fancy that.

Well, if McCain-Palin wins you can have an even less informed version of GWB, this time in a dress, ready to take over from Mr. Ballistic. Next time you discuss the great philosophers think about that. Congratulations.

Rand Simberg wrote:

But then, you are the same guys who wanted George Bush, who actually was a hell of a lot more qualified than Palin.

I don't think that any of us here wanted George Bush. I know I didn't. We were just smart enough to not want Al Gore and John Kerry more than we didn't want George Bush.

But please, keep flailing as your messiah goes down in flames.

Carl Pham wrote:


Hey, thanks. Didn't expect you to be so gracious about losing for the third time in a row.

And...don't worry, it's a very nice place to which you'll be going. Really, almost like a country club, except for the locks and stuff, but that's just for your protection. The nice nurses will help you remember to take your medicine each morning, and if you want to keep writing down your amazing insights for we morons, they've got a wonderful selection of nontoxic crayons you can use. I hear the other...guests...have already organized a Two-Minute Hate for Vice-President Palin -- oops! sorry! sorry! c'mon now, put down the knife, no one is going to hurt you! -- I meant former small-town corrupt lying mayor and evil reincarnation of Bad Mommy Who Doesn't Love Me Anymore Sarah Palin, of course -- every Wednesday after group therapy. You'll feel right at home, among friends at last, safe. Won't that be nice?

Carl Pham wrote:

I don't think that any of us here wanted George Bush

I did, both times. And I think he's been a great President. I think the war in Iraq was not a good idea -- I oppose foreign military adventures generally -- but once decided upon, he followed through with energy and grit, and he'll reap the only successful major counter-insurgency victory since the Brits kicked Boer ass in 1900. I think he's also through this more or less "demonstration" war smashed Islamic terrorism as a really serious foreign policy threat. I don't think its state sponsorship lies near the top of the toolbox of any second-rate power these days, and that is a giant change from the 1970s through 1990s.

His tax cuts have done wonders for the economy, and even the stupid donks are only talking about fiddling around the edges; confiscatory rates seem almost medieval these days.

His Medicare drug plan for the elderly was expensive, but oh well, once committed to state funding of health care for old folks, you can't realistically leave increasingly expensive drugs out of it, and he thereby sucked a whole lot of oxygen out of the drive for nationalized health care.

I think "No Child Left Behind" has worked very well, and I love the imposition of standardized testing and standards on the public schools. I can see it working for my children, with all the public school teachers grimacing in pain and forcing themselves to teach "to the test" i.e. teach actual facts and concrete skills instead of how to bullshit in a politically-correct way. I love the regular "report cards" each school is forced to give the public, which have shone a harsh light on the cockroaches in crappy public schools, and let parents see what's going on.

I think John Roberts and Sam Alito are damn good Supreme Court picks, and very unlikely to Souterize themselves ("grow in office").

I think he's done admirable and totally overlooked work in Africa on AIDS, and in general has done well at sending concrete and useful American aid to the folks in the Indonesian tidal wave, the Iranian earthquake, and even to the Georgians, showing the humane side of the flag, embarassing the useless pigs at the UN, and making the USMC's informal slogan (no better friend, no worse enemy) apply to the whole country. I think the ordinary people of a lot of the world will remember those things long after their snotty anti-American leadership has turned to dust, or been booted out for corruption and idiocy.

He's strengthened the Anglo alliance, and by example of success prodded even the Germand and French to elect more seriously free-market leaders, and forged long-lasting ties to the emerging Eastern European little tigers.

He's had nearly zero major personnel scandals, a novel record as far as I know in two-term Presidencies, and allowed a generation of senior Republican executive-branch officers to come to maturity without being tarred by the pecadilloes of their colleagues.

He's done wonders for military morale, and raised to positions of leadership some really outstanding general officers. It's mind blowing that in the 6th year of what by 20th century standards is a miserable occupation/terrorist fighting/nation-building exercise, young men and women keep signing up to go, and are coming back to a nation that generally regards them as heroes. A whole generation of boomer children is achieving early a maturity their parents haven't reached, nor will ever.

Against that, he failed to get anywhere with SS/Medicare reform, he screwed around in Iraq for 3 years and helped the Republicans lose Congress in '06, he did not take a serious enough stand against pork or ethical crapping around among his party, he did not groom an heir, he did a terrible job speechifying and fighting the endless donk/MSM take-down smears, he did not take the threat of Putin seriously enough, he did nothing about nuclear power, and he doesn't really give a damn about any of Asia. He's treated tech issues with benign neglect, which pisses people in the business off (they want government money, natch), but is probably healthiest in the long run.

Stacked up against the nations best Presidents, I think he comes off very well indeed. I attribute his present low ratings to, on the Democratic side, the insane jealousy of the impotent, on the Republican side, to the unreasonably high standards of the jadedly successful, and also in general to the everlasting hunger of the American people for something new after having Bushes in high executive office for 20 of the past 28 years.

Obama the gaffe machiene wrote:

"You know Palin isn't qualified to take over and lead the greatest nation on earth. You know it and I know you know it."

...and you know the child-emperor Obambi isn't qualified to even be shift manager at the local Elby's, much less the President.

You know it and I know you know it and almost everyone elso on the board knows you know it as well retard!

Jason Bontrager wrote:

Getting back to the original post, they need GavCams

"a miniature video feed attached to his glasses, hooked up to a cellular modem that transmits images directly to his website."

What's your Congresscritter or Candidate up to? Find out in Real Time!

Doug Jones wrote:

A reasonable compromise on exclusivity vs transparency, is for the interviewee's crew to run a wide angle low resolution video with audio, from a fixed tripod. It won't compete with the slick production values of the media outlet, but will catch most of the blatant abuses of the record that are so endemic in political reporting. The raw footage could be posted in full on the target's server, embargoed until after the broadcaster's program airs.

Attempts to truncate a speaker's words to change their meaning would be clearly revealed for the dishonest manipulation they are.

ken anthony wrote:

Lost in all this seems to be the fact that Charlie doesn't know international law, and both of Sarah's answers to his gotcha attempt with the Bush Doctrine were exactly correct.

Republican's should take smarter preventative measures when dealing with the blatantly biased enemy of the American people.

Habitat Hermit wrote:

That's a damn good post Carl, I think many future historians will be even kinder and more praising though (in about ten years time when Iraq is the new Germany and Afghanistan the new Japan and in about twenty when the Israeli wall is no longer needed).

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 12, 2008 7:18 AM.

Staying Together For The Kids was the previous entry in this blog.

It's No Ike is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1