Archive for March, 2001
Posted by Joshua Stanton on March 4, 2001 at 8:36 am · Filed under Uncategorized
The four co-sponsors present, as follows:
- Sen. John McCain, R, Arizona
- Sen. Joe Lieberman, D, Connecticut
- Rep. Frank Wolf, R, Virginia
- Rep. Tom Lantos, D, California
I walked in during their introductory statements, maybe five minutes late.
Rep. Wolf was speaking when I walked in. Of the four congressmen, he’s the one you’re least likely to have heard of, which is a shame. Rep. Wolf seemed to belong in the presence of giants and spoke cogently about the importance of what Natan Sharansky had said in his book. I’d add that I’d have more to tell you about what he said, but for the snippy press corp byaatch whose annoying questions seemed aimed at outing me as one of Jeff Gannon’s boys (private lives are apparently newsworthy again; where will the Wheel of Newsworthiness stop next week?). I started scribbling and she eventually gave up. It’s not like they going to haul me out of a press conference about freedom in front of Al-Jazeera, right?
Tom Lantos was hawking a book, too, Breaking the Axis of Evil by Ambassador Mark Palmer. Lantos told the journos about his experience of having actually lived under a “fascist” regime, and contrasted what happened in his Hungarian homeland in 1956 versus what happened in 1989. To Lantos, the difference was the support of democratic nations, as he also believes it was in the Ukraine. For a Democrat, Lantos was remarkable for his willingness to go out of his way to praise President Bush’s “Braveheart” inauguration speech. He directly critcized “cynics” who didn’t believe that the United States could or should spread democracy to other countries. The two countries Rep. Lantos mentioned by name were Belarus and North Korea. Oh, and he said, “Lebanon needs our help.”
First Question: North Korea
The first question was about North Korea, and came from Sun Myung-Moon’s former holding, the Segye Ilbo (one of the Korean print media’s most reliable instigators of anti-American hack journalism). The question was much better than the paper: in essence–given that the bill depends heavily on funding and organizing pro-democracy activities through our embassies, how could this bill have much effect in places like North Korea where the U.S. has no embassy?
John McCain took the question. He came right out of the gate by stating that North Korea was one of the targets of this bill–”among the most repressive” regimes on earth–and that it was also likely to be among the last nations to be free. He drew a few laughs when he contrasted conditions there to the “vibrant democracy” of South Korea, adding that it was “sometimes vibrant.”too
Joe Lieberman also responded, noting that the bill creates what he called “regional democracy hubs” and provides greatly expanded funding for pro-democracy NGOs, which don’t work out of embassies in any event.
Second Question: May I see your target list?
In response to a rather rambling and disjointed question from a Russian reporter, Lantos stated that he was “optimistic” about North Korea, given the long-term historical trend. I silently prayed that he’d say, “It’s inebbitable!,” but in vain. Paging back mentally to the previous question, Rep. Lantos noted that the United States had just negotiated its way back to Libya, and that with sufficient time, American values would penetrate Libyan society and politics. He predicted that eventually, Libya would hold free elections. Lantos stressed the fact that democratizing the world (or most of it, I suppose he meant) would take many years. He noted the odd fact that the U.S. State Department has an office devoted to human rights but none to devoted to democracy, which isn’t the same thing, of course.
Representative Wolf talked about nations that had been freed, where we only later discovered the surprising extent to which those living inside heard the words spoken by our own leaders (here, it wasn’t hard to guess what he was thinking). He brought up the fact that the United States had no diplomatic relations with Albania before the overthrow of its goverment (to which I’d add that the Albanian government was nearly as oppressive as North Korea’s).
Third Question: When did you stop drinking the blood of Arab children?
Al-Jazeera, whose correspondent no doubt slid into the room like a minnow through pondwater, got the most laughs of the day when he asked, “Can we fairly say that America will be a friend of all opposition groups now?” McCain took the question, sidestepped the inanities, and related his belief that our message was already getting through to the Middle East, but that building democracy there would take a long time. Lieberman was more indulgent, admitting that America had often “mouthed the language” of democracy in the past–especially in the Middle East–without much sincerity. No argument from me on that one. Lieberman strongly praised President Bush for his SOTU statements challenging Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reform themselves.
Fourth Question: North Korea
The next question was from Yonhap. The reporter was a nice guy, but his question was predictably stupid, which turned out fine given that John McCain took it. How, the reporter asked, might this bill affect the six-party talks, given North Korea’s unpleasant reaction to the North Korean Human Rights Act (Yonhap’s guy apparently didn’t get the memo about those talks, and yeah, I got this memo myself, to which I say, “So?“). Wouldn’t this make North Korea angry? McCain said that while he listens to what many world leaders say, “I don’t pay a lot of attention to statements from the Dear Leader myself.”
Fifth Question: Chairman Mao, Great Leader!
The hands-down dumbest question of the day was the ChiCom reporter’s faithful parroting of the Partei doctrine, demanding to know what business the United States had demanding that other countries respect the rights of their people, when . . . Abu Ghraib! He even had the brass balls to attack the United States for its prison conditions (cough! cough!). McCain handled it just right, laughing off the prison question, then conceding that the United States is not perfect, and saying that it has a system that holds abusers accountable. The world can judge whether the United States is protecting the rights of its citizens, McCain said, and flipping on his irony switch, noted that the world could reach the same judgments about China.
Sixth Question: OK, I actually didn’t hear the sixth question.
It’s entirely possible that I just wasn’t paying attention.
It came from a reporter from the Middle East News Service, and the answer from John McCain was that Syria should leave Lebanon ASAP and stop supporting terrorists
Posted by Joshua Stanton on March 4, 2001 at 8:36 am · Filed under Uncategorized
ADVANCE DEMOCRACY ACT
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The ADVANCE Democracy Act reaffirms that the promotion of democracy, freedom, and fundamental rights constitutes an essential element of U.S. foreign policy; strengthens the ability of the Department of State to promote of democracy, particularly with respect to non-democratic countries; and requires a study of U.S. democracy assistance in order to ensure its efficiency and effectiveness.
In particular, the Act includes the following key provisions:
- Declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote freedom and democracy as a fundamental component of U.S. foreign policy, to see an end to dictatorial and other non-democratic forms of government, and to strengthen alliances with other democratic countries to better promote and defend shared values and ideals.
- Establishes in statute the Under Secretary for Global Affairs with a strong mandate to promote democracy and fundamental freedoms; expands the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to specifically include democracy promotion; and enhances the Human Rights and Democracy Fund controlled by that Bureau.
- Establishes a new Office of Democracy Movements and Transitions and separate Regional Democracy Hubs to be points of contact for democracy movements and to promote democratic transitions and democratic consolidation, and creates a Democracy Promotion Advisory Board to provide outside expertise to the Department of State on democracy promotion and to conduct a study on the efficiency and effectiveness of current U.S. democracy assistance.
- Requires the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on democracy that will include a specific action plan, developed in consultation with local organizations, individuals and movements, to promote and achieve transition to democracy in non-democratic countries.
- Provides for U.S. embassies to be “islands of freedom” and encourages U.S. ambassadors to promote democracy in non-democratic countries, including by meeting with representatives of democracy movements and speaking out on democracy and human rights in such countries, particularly at universities.
- Provides training for State Department personnel on democracy promotion and links promotion and performance awards to effective advocacy and promotion of democracy, particularly in non-democratic countries.
- Establishes a Congressional Democracy Award for U.S. government officials who have made an extraordinary effort to promote democracy.
- Provides for increased efforts to work with other democratic countries to promote democracy including bilaterally, with the UN and related organizations, the Community of Democracies, and the new Democracy Transition Center being established by European counties in Hungary.
- Requires translation of the annual report on democracy, the country reports on human rights practices, the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, and the annual Trafficking in Persons Report, and requires the creation of a democracy and human rights Internet web site collecting these and other materials related to the promotion of democracy and human rights.
My own impressions of the press conference start here.
Posted by Joshua Stanton on March 4, 2001 at 7:50 am · Filed under Uncategorized
Be very afraid for the security of this country, for just as the scandal over Jeff Gannon started to die down, I’ve proven again that any schmoe without the slightest big media imprimatur can wander right into a high-level government press conference. And it’s not the security stuff you ought to be worried about; I went through security three times, and by all appearances, it works very efficiently. It’s the fact that I’ve learned how weak a weak link the press is between the voters and the votees.
All I broke through (quite accidentally, as it turned out) was the closed shop of the press, who for all their obsession with exclusivity, don’t actually appear to have reported anything. They’re using taxpayer funds to turn the U.S. Capitol into their own closed shop, into which none shall pass!
Let us review how the media’s monolopy served our understanding of this historic day:
Exhibit A: The New York Times. Nope, not there.
Exhibit B: The Washington Post. Nothing but yawners about things like the WTO and cotton, and this prominent story on the Chinese party line on the U.S. and democracy.
Exhibit C: Al-Jazeera. They were there, too. Nothing.
Exhibit D: Yonhap. There. They covered it, but forgot to append the words “this is an editorial.”
Exhibit E: BBC: They were invited. So where’s the story?
At least I know Jeff Gannon gets paid for. As an added bonus, he’s also much more honest about his biases. Plus, he’s screwing other, consenting people. Gannon’s still on the little mind of Frank Rich (a theater critic!), who’s justifiably concerned that ABCNews is running two-hour specials on UFOs and that few reporters report anymore, but doesn’t get it through his skull that some competition in the marketplace of information–even if from the likes of Gannon and his many counterparts on the left–might actually force the “real” reporters off their lardy glutes.
Wanna hear more about the officious, plasticky parasites? The snotty lady at the front desk, on learning that I’m not from any of the big media, was energized by my offhand statement that the government was certainly not looking very accessible that day. This brought down an icy crapstorm about the rules being set by the press corps, not the government. At this point, I was gripped by the obvious fact that I happened to be standing in the United-States-Freaking-Capitol Building.
“So does that mean I get to decide who can hang out in my neighbor’s den?”
“Oh. You apparently have a problem with the policy, sir.”
“No lady. I don’t have a problem, I have what’s known as ‘an opinion.’ And I’m now late for this conference.”
This, she did not like. Nor does it help matters when I concede that she’s not the one who makes the rules. We have obviously found a person who believes she makes the rules. By now, I can see the restraining order:
By order of this Court, you will not approach within 100 yards of:
The United States Senate
___________________________
A real biyaatch. The final indignity is when she tells me that I can only go to a “listening room” that has an audio speaker, but no video screen. C-SPAN would be better than this, but it’s all I have. Resigned not to miss any more of the conference, I head for the Ordinary Schmoe Sequestration Area, but I’ve never done directions well (and thus never ask for them, as my wife will confirm). Through a door on my left, I see a bunch of people in a room listening to something. Must be it. I walk in, and there, fifteen feet in front of me, is Frank Wolf standing between John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Call me “the accidental journalist.” Works for me!
Continued here.
Posted by Joshua Stanton on March 4, 2001 at 4:34 am · Filed under Uncategorized
The four co-sponsors present, as follows:
- Sen. John McCain, R, Arizona
- Sen. Joe Lieberman, D, Connecticut
- Rep. Frank Wolf, R, Virginia
- Rep. Tom Lantos, D, California
I walked in during their introductory statements, maybe five minutes late.
Rep. Frank Wolf was speaking when I walked in. Of the four congressmen, he’s the one you’re least likely to have heard of, which is a shame. Frank Wolf seemed to belong in the presence of giants as he spoke cogently about the importance of the ideas Natan Sharansky had discussed in his book. I’d add that I’d have more to tell you about what he said, but for yet another snippy press corp byaatch who started in with some annoying questions–who are you with? are you sure you’re not from the Talon News Service? (take note: private lives are apparently newsworthy again; where will the Wheel of Newsworthiness stop next week?). I started scribbling stuff and she eventually gave up.
It’s not like they going to haul me out of a press conference about freedom in front of Al-Jazeera and the Red Chinese, right?
Tom Lantos was hawking a book, too, Breaking the Axis of Evil by Ambassador Mark Palmer. Lantos told the journos about his experience of having actually lived under a “fascist” regime, and contrasted what happened in his Hungarian homeland in 1956 versus what happened in 1989. To Lantos, the difference was the support of democratic nations, as he also believes it was in the Ukraine. For a Democrat, Lantos was remarkable for his willingness to go out of his way to praise President Bush’s “Braveheart” inauguration speech. He directly critcized “cynics” who didn’t believe that the United States could or should spread democracy to other countries. The two countries Rep. Lantos mentioned by name were Belarus and North Korea. Oh, and he said, “Lebanon needs our help.”
First Question: North Korea
The first question was about North Korea, and came from Sun Myung-Moon’s former holding, the Segye Ilbo (one of the Korean print media’s most reliable instigators of anti-American hack journalism). The question was much better than the paper: in essence–given that the bill depends heavily on funding and organizing pro-democracy activities through our embassies, how could this bill have much effect in places like North Korea where the U.S. has no embassy?
John McCain took the question. He came right out of the gate by stating that North Korea was one of the targets of this bill–”among the most repressive” regimes on earth–and that it was also likely to be among the last nations to be free. He drew a few laughs when he contrasted conditions there to the “vibrant democracy” of South Korea, adding that it was “sometimes too vibrant.”
Joe Lieberman also responded, noting that the bill creates what he called “regional democracy hubs” and provides greatly expanded funding for pro-democracy NGOs, which don’t work out of embassies in any event.
Second Question: May I see your target list?
In response to a rather rambling and disjointed question from a Russian reporter, Tom Lantos was “optimistic” about North Korea, given the long-term historical trend. I silently prayed that he’d say, “It’s inebbitable!,” but in vain. Paging back mentally to the previous question, Rep. Lantos noted that the United States had just negotiated its way back into Libya, and that with sufficient time, American values would penetrate Libyan society and politics. He predicted that eventually, Libya would hold free elections. Lantos stressed the fact that democratizing the world (or most of it, I suppose he meant) would take many years. He noted the odd fact that the U.S. State Department has an office devoted to human rights but none to devoted to democracy, which isn’t the same thing, of course.
Representative Wolf talked about nations that had been freed, where we only later discovered the surprising extent to which those living inside heard the words spoken by our own leaders (here, it wasn’t hard to guess what he was thinking). He brought up the fact that the United States had no diplomatic relations with Albania before the overthrow of its goverment (to which I’d add that the Albanian government was nearly as oppressive as North Korea’s).
Third Question: When did you stop drinking the blood of Arab children?
Al-Jazeera, whose correspondent no doubt slid into the room like a minnow through pondwater, got the most laughs of the day when he asked, “Can we fairly say that America will be a friend of all opposition groups now?” McCain took the question, sidestepped the inanities, and related his belief that our message was already getting through to the Middle East, but that building democracy there would take a long time. Lieberman was more indulgent, admitting that America had often “mouthed the language” of democracy in the past–especially in the Middle East–without much sincerity. No argument from me on that one. Lieberman strongly praised President Bush for his SOTU statements challenging Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reform themselves.
Fourth Question: North Korea
The next question was from Yonhap. The reporter was a nice guy, but his question was predictably stupid, which turned out fine given that John McCain took it. How, the reporter asked, might this bill affect the six-party talks, given North Korea’s unpleasant reaction to the North Korean Human Rights Act (Yonhap’s guy apparently didn’t get the memo about those talks, and yeah, I got this memo myself, to which I say, “So?”). Wouldn’t this make North Korea angry? McCain said that while he listens to what many world leaders say, “I don’t pay a lot of attention to statements from the Dear Leader myself.”
Think the Yonhap guy put any of this in his story, or much of anything else about the bill? Think again.
Fifth Question: Chairman Mao Great Leader!
The hands-down dumbest question of the day was the ChiCom reporter’s faithful parroting of the Partei doctrine, demanding to know what business the United States had demanding that other countries respect the rights of their people, when . . . Abu Ghraib! He even had the brass balls to attack the United States for its prison conditions (cough! cough!). McCain handled it just right, laughing off the prison question, then conceding that the United States is not perfect, and saying that it has a system that holds abusers accountable. The world can judge whether the United States is protecting the rights of its citizens, McCain said, and flipping on his irony switch, noted that the world could reach the same judgments about China.
Sixth Question: OK, I actually didn’t hear the sixth question.
It’s entirely possible that I just wasn’t paying attention.
It came from a reporter from the Middle East News Service, and the answer from John McCain was that Syria should leave Lebanon ASAP and stop supporting terrorists.
Posted by joshua on March 4, 2001 at 3:36 am · Filed under Uncategorized
The four co-sponsors present, as follows:
- Sen. John McCain, R, Arizona
- Sen. Joe Lieberman, D, Connecticut
- Rep. Frank Wolf, R, Virginia
- Rep. Tom Lantos, D, California
I walked in during their introductory statements, maybe five minutes late.
Rep. Wolf was speaking when I walked in. Of the four congressmen, he’s the one you’re least likely to have heard of, which is a shame. Rep. Wolf seemed to belong in the presence of giants and spoke cogently about the importance of what Natan Sharansky had said in his book. I’d add that I’d have more to tell you about what he said, but for the snippy press corp byaatch whose annoying questions seemed aimed at outing me as one of Jeff Gannon’s boys (private lives are apparently newsworthy again; where will the Wheel of Newsworthiness stop next week?). I started scribbling and she eventually gave up. It’s not like they going to haul me out of a press conference about freedom in front of Al-Jazeera, right?
Tom Lantos was hawking a book, too, Breaking the Axis of Evil by Ambassador Mark Palmer. Lantos told the journos about his experience of having actually lived under a “fascist” regime, and contrasted what happened in his Hungarian homeland in 1956 versus what happened in 1989. To Lantos, the difference was the support of democratic nations, as he also believes it was in the Ukraine. For a Democrat, Lantos was remarkable for his willingness to go out of his way to praise President Bush’s “Braveheart” inauguration speech. He directly critcized “cynics” who didn’t believe that the United States could or should spread democracy to other countries. The two countries Rep. Lantos mentioned by name were Belarus and North Korea. Oh, and he said, “Lebanon needs our help.”
First Question: North Korea
The first question was about North Korea, and came from Sun Myung-Moon’s former holding, the Segye Ilbo (one of the Korean print media’s most reliable instigators of anti-American hack journalism). The question was much better than the paper: in essence–given that the bill depends heavily on funding and organizing pro-democracy activities through our embassies, how could this bill have much effect in places like North Korea where the U.S. has no embassy?
John McCain took the question. He came right out of the gate by stating that North Korea was one of the targets of this bill–”among the most repressive” regimes on earth–and that it was also likely to be among the last nations to be free. He drew a few laughs when he contrasted conditions there to the “vibrant democracy” of South Korea, adding that it was “sometimes vibrant.”too
Joe Lieberman also responded, noting that the bill creates what he called “regional democracy hubs” and provides greatly expanded funding for pro-democracy NGOs, which don’t work out of embassies in any event.
Second Question: May I see your target list?
In response to a rather rambling and disjointed question from a Russian reporter, Lantos stated that he was “optimistic” about North Korea, given the long-term historical trend. I silently prayed that he’d say, “It’s inebbitable!,” but in vain. Paging back mentally to the previous question, Rep. Lantos noted that the United States had just negotiated its way back to Libya, and that with sufficient time, American values would penetrate Libyan society and politics. He predicted that eventually, Libya would hold free elections. Lantos stressed the fact that democratizing the world (or most of it, I suppose he meant) would take many years. He noted the odd fact that the U.S. State Department has an office devoted to human rights but none to devoted to democracy, which isn’t the same thing, of course.
Representative Wolf talked about nations that had been freed, where we only later discovered the surprising extent to which those living inside heard the words spoken by our own leaders (here, it wasn’t hard to guess what he was thinking). He brought up the fact that the United States had no diplomatic relations with Albania before the overthrow of its goverment (to which I’d add that the Albanian government was nearly as oppressive as North Korea’s).
Third Question: When did you stop drinking the blood of Arab children?
Al-Jazeera, whose correspondent no doubt slid into the room like a minnow through pondwater, got the most laughs of the day when he asked, “Can we fairly say that America will be a friend of all opposition groups now?” McCain took the question, sidestepped the inanities, and related his belief that our message was already getting through to the Middle East, but that building democracy there would take a long time. Lieberman was more indulgent, admitting that America had often “mouthed the language” of democracy in the past–especially in the Middle East–without much sincerity. No argument from me on that one. Lieberman strongly praised President Bush for his SOTU statements challenging Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reform themselves.
Fourth Question: North Korea
The next question was from Yonhap. The reporter was a nice guy, but his question was predictably stupid, which turned out fine given that John McCain took it. How, the reporter asked, might this bill affect the six-party talks, given North Korea’s unpleasant reaction to the North Korean Human Rights Act (Yonhap’s guy apparently didn’t get the memo about those talks, and yeah, I got this memo myself, to which I say, “So?“). Wouldn’t this make North Korea angry? McCain said that while he listens to what many world leaders say, “I don’t pay a lot of attention to statements from the Dear Leader myself.”
Fifth Question: Chairman Mao, Great Leader!
The hands-down dumbest question of the day was the ChiCom reporter’s faithful parroting of the Partei doctrine, demanding to know what business the United States had demanding that other countries respect the rights of their people, when . . . Abu Ghraib! He even had the brass balls to attack the United States for its prison conditions (cough! cough!). McCain handled it just right, laughing off the prison question, then conceding that the United States is not perfect, and saying that it has a system that holds abusers accountable. The world can judge whether the United States is protecting the rights of its citizens, McCain said, and flipping on his irony switch, noted that the world could reach the same judgments about China.
Sixth Question: OK, I actually didn’t hear the sixth question.
It’s entirely possible that I just wasn’t paying attention.
It came from a reporter from the Middle East News Service, and the answer from John McCain was that Syria should leave Lebanon ASAP and stop supporting terrorists
Posted by joshua on March 4, 2001 at 3:36 am · Filed under Uncategorized
ADVANCE DEMOCRACY ACT
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The ADVANCE Democracy Act reaffirms that the promotion of democracy, freedom, and fundamental rights constitutes an essential element of U.S. foreign policy; strengthens the ability of the Department of State to promote of democracy, particularly with respect to non-democratic countries; and requires a study of U.S. democracy assistance in order to ensure its efficiency and effectiveness.
In particular, the Act includes the following key provisions:
- Declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote freedom and democracy as a fundamental component of U.S. foreign policy, to see an end to dictatorial and other non-democratic forms of government, and to strengthen alliances with other democratic countries to better promote and defend shared values and ideals.
- Establishes in statute the Under Secretary for Global Affairs with a strong mandate to promote democracy and fundamental freedoms; expands the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to specifically include democracy promotion; and enhances the Human Rights and Democracy Fund controlled by that Bureau.
- Establishes a new Office of Democracy Movements and Transitions and separate Regional Democracy Hubs to be points of contact for democracy movements and to promote democratic transitions and democratic consolidation, and creates a Democracy Promotion Advisory Board to provide outside expertise to the Department of State on democracy promotion and to conduct a study on the efficiency and effectiveness of current U.S. democracy assistance.
- Requires the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on democracy that will include a specific action plan, developed in consultation with local organizations, individuals and movements, to promote and achieve transition to democracy in non-democratic countries.
- Provides for U.S. embassies to be “islands of freedom” and encourages U.S. ambassadors to promote democracy in non-democratic countries, including by meeting with representatives of democracy movements and speaking out on democracy and human rights in such countries, particularly at universities.
- Provides training for State Department personnel on democracy promotion and links promotion and performance awards to effective advocacy and promotion of democracy, particularly in non-democratic countries.
- Establishes a Congressional Democracy Award for U.S. government officials who have made an extraordinary effort to promote democracy.
- Provides for increased efforts to work with other democratic countries to promote democracy including bilaterally, with the UN and related organizations, the Community of Democracies, and the new Democracy Transition Center being established by European counties in Hungary.
- Requires translation of the annual report on democracy, the country reports on human rights practices, the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, and the annual Trafficking in Persons Report, and requires the creation of a democracy and human rights Internet web site collecting these and other materials related to the promotion of democracy and human rights.
My own impressions of the press conference start here.
Posted by joshua on March 4, 2001 at 2:50 am · Filed under Uncategorized
Be very afraid for the security of this country, for just as the scandal over Jeff Gannon started to die down, I’ve proven again that any schmoe without the slightest big media imprimatur can wander right into a high-level government press conference. And it’s not the security stuff you ought to be worried about; I went through security three times, and by all appearances, it works very efficiently. It’s the fact that I’ve learned how weak a weak link the press is between the voters and the votees.
All I broke through (quite accidentally, as it turned out) was the closed shop of the press, who for all their obsession with exclusivity, don’t actually appear to have reported anything. They’re using taxpayer funds to turn the U.S. Capitol into their own closed shop, into which none shall pass!
Let us review how the media’s monolopy served our understanding of this historic day:
Exhibit A: The New York Times. Nope, not there.
Exhibit B: The Washington Post. Nothing but yawners about things like the WTO and cotton, and this prominent story on the Chinese party line on the U.S. and democracy.
Exhibit C: Al-Jazeera. They were there, too. Nothing.
Exhibit D: Yonhap. There. They covered it, but forgot to append the words “this is an editorial.”
Exhibit E: BBC: They were invited. So where’s the story?
At least I know Jeff Gannon gets paid for. As an added bonus, he’s also much more honest about his biases. Plus, he’s screwing other, consenting people. Gannon’s still on the little mind of Frank Rich (a theater critic!), who’s justifiably concerned that ABCNews is running two-hour specials on UFOs and that few reporters report anymore, but doesn’t get it through his skull that some competition in the marketplace of information–even if from the likes of Gannon and his many counterparts on the left–might actually force the “real” reporters off their lardy glutes.
Wanna hear more about the officious, plasticky parasites? The snotty lady at the front desk, on learning that I’m not from any of the big media, was energized by my offhand statement that the government was certainly not looking very accessible that day. This brought down an icy crapstorm about the rules being set by the press corps, not the government. At this point, I was gripped by the obvious fact that I happened to be standing in the United-States-Freaking-Capitol Building.
“So does that mean I get to decide who can hang out in my neighbor’s den?”
“Oh. You apparently have a problem with the policy, sir.”
“No lady. I don’t have a problem, I have what’s known as ‘an opinion.’ And I’m now late for this conference.”
This, she did not like. Nor does it help matters when I concede that she’s not the one who makes the rules. We have obviously found a person who believes she makes the rules. By now, I can see the restraining order:
By order of this Court, you will not approach within 100 yards of:
The United States Senate
___________________________
A real biyaatch. The final indignity is when she tells me that I can only go to a “listening room” that has an audio speaker, but no video screen. C-SPAN would be better than this, but it’s all I have. Resigned not to miss any more of the conference, I head for the Ordinary Schmoe Sequestration Area, but I’ve never done directions well (and thus never ask for them, as my wife will confirm). Through a door on my left, I see a bunch of people in a room listening to something. Must be it. I walk in, and there, fifteen feet in front of me, is Frank Wolf standing between John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Call me “the accidental journalist.” Works for me!
Continued here.
Posted by joshua on March 4, 2001 at 2:50 am · Filed under Uncategorized
Be very afraid for the security of this country, for just as the scandal over Jeff Gannon started to die down, I’ve proven again that any schmoe without the slightest big media imprimatur can wander right into a high-level government press conference. And it’s not the security stuff you ought to be worried about; I went through security three times, and by all appearances, it works very efficiently. It’s the fact that I’ve learned how weak a weak link the press is between the voters and the votees.
All I broke through (quite accidentally, as it turned out) was the closed shop of the press, who for all their obsession with exclusivity, don’t actually appear to have reported anything. They’re using taxpayer funds to turn the U.S. Capitol into their own closed shop, into which none shall pass!
Let us review how the media’s monolopy served our understanding of this historic day:
Exhibit A: The New York Times. Nope, not there.
Exhibit B: The Washington Post. Nothing but yawners about things like the WTO and cotton, and this prominent story on the Chinese party line on the U.S. and democracy.
Exhibit C: Al-Jazeera. They were there, too. Nothing.
Exhibit D: Yonhap. There. They covered it, but forgot to append the words “this is an editorial.”
Exhibit E: BBC: They were invited. So where’s the story?
At least I know Jeff Gannon gets paid for. As an added bonus, he’s also much more honest about his biases. Plus, he’s screwing other, consenting people. Gannon’s still on the little mind of Frank Rich (a theater critic!), who’s justifiably concerned that ABCNews is running two-hour specials on UFOs and that few reporters report anymore, but doesn’t get it through his skull that some competition in the marketplace of information–even if from the likes of Gannon and his many counterparts on the left–might actually force the “real” reporters off their lardy glutes.
Wanna hear more about the officious, plasticky parasites? The snotty lady at the front desk, on learning that I’m not from any of the big media, was energized by my offhand statement that the government was certainly not looking very accessible that day. This brought down an icy crapstorm about the rules being set by the press corps, not the government. At this point, I was gripped by the obvious fact that I happened to be standing in the United-States-Freaking-Capitol Building.
“So does that mean I get to decide who can hang out in my neighbor’s den?”
“Oh. You apparently have a problem with the policy, sir.”
“No lady. I don’t have a problem, I have what’s known as ‘an opinion.’ And I’m now late for this conference.”
This, she did not like. Nor does it help matters when I concede that she’s not the one who makes the rules. We have obviously found a person who believes she makes the rules. By now, I can see the restraining order:
By order of this Court, you will not approach within 100 yards of:
The United States Senate
___________________________
A real biyaatch. The final indignity is when she tells me that I can only go to a “listening room” that has an audio speaker, but no video screen. C-SPAN would be better than this, but it’s all I have. Resigned not to miss any more of the conference, I head for the Ordinary Schmoe Sequestration Area, but I’ve never done directions well (and thus never ask for them, as my wife will confirm). Through a door on my left, I see a bunch of people in a room listening to something. Must be it. I walk in, and there, fifteen feet in front of me, is Frank Wolf standing between John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Call me “the accidental journalist.” Works for me!
Continued here.
Posted by joshua on March 3, 2001 at 11:34 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
The four co-sponsors present, as follows:
- Sen. John McCain, R, Arizona
- Sen. Joe Lieberman, D, Connecticut
- Rep. Frank Wolf, R, Virginia
- Rep. Tom Lantos, D, California
I walked in during their introductory statements, maybe five minutes late.
Rep. Frank Wolf was speaking when I walked in. Of the four congressmen, he’s the one you’re least likely to have heard of, which is a shame. Frank Wolf seemed to belong in the presence of giants as he spoke cogently about the importance of the ideas Natan Sharansky had discussed in his book. I’d add that I’d have more to tell you about what he said, but for yet another snippy press corp byaatch who started in with some annoying questions–who are you with? are you sure you’re not from the Talon News Service? (take note: private lives are apparently newsworthy again; where will the Wheel of Newsworthiness stop next week?). I started scribbling stuff and she eventually gave up.
It’s not like they going to haul me out of a press conference about freedom in front of Al-Jazeera and the Red Chinese, right?
Tom Lantos was hawking a book, too, Breaking the Axis of Evil by Ambassador Mark Palmer. Lantos told the journos about his experience of having actually lived under a “fascist” regime, and contrasted what happened in his Hungarian homeland in 1956 versus what happened in 1989. To Lantos, the difference was the support of democratic nations, as he also believes it was in the Ukraine. For a Democrat, Lantos was remarkable for his willingness to go out of his way to praise President Bush’s “Braveheart” inauguration speech. He directly critcized “cynics” who didn’t believe that the United States could or should spread democracy to other countries. The two countries Rep. Lantos mentioned by name were Belarus and North Korea. Oh, and he said, “Lebanon needs our help.”
First Question: North Korea
The first question was about North Korea, and came from Sun Myung-Moon’s former holding, the Segye Ilbo (one of the Korean print media’s most reliable instigators of anti-American hack journalism). The question was much better than the paper: in essence–given that the bill depends heavily on funding and organizing pro-democracy activities through our embassies, how could this bill have much effect in places like North Korea where the U.S. has no embassy?
John McCain took the question. He came right out of the gate by stating that North Korea was one of the targets of this bill–”among the most repressive” regimes on earth–and that it was also likely to be among the last nations to be free. He drew a few laughs when he contrasted conditions there to the “vibrant democracy” of South Korea, adding that it was “sometimes too vibrant.”
Joe Lieberman also responded, noting that the bill creates what he called “regional democracy hubs” and provides greatly expanded funding for pro-democracy NGOs, which don’t work out of embassies in any event.
Second Question: May I see your target list?
In response to a rather rambling and disjointed question from a Russian reporter, Tom Lantos was “optimistic” about North Korea, given the long-term historical trend. I silently prayed that he’d say, “It’s inebbitable!,” but in vain. Paging back mentally to the previous question, Rep. Lantos noted that the United States had just negotiated its way back into Libya, and that with sufficient time, American values would penetrate Libyan society and politics. He predicted that eventually, Libya would hold free elections. Lantos stressed the fact that democratizing the world (or most of it, I suppose he meant) would take many years. He noted the odd fact that the U.S. State Department has an office devoted to human rights but none to devoted to democracy, which isn’t the same thing, of course.
Representative Wolf talked about nations that had been freed, where we only later discovered the surprising extent to which those living inside heard the words spoken by our own leaders (here, it wasn’t hard to guess what he was thinking). He brought up the fact that the United States had no diplomatic relations with Albania before the overthrow of its goverment (to which I’d add that the Albanian government was nearly as oppressive as North Korea’s).
Third Question: When did you stop drinking the blood of Arab children?
Al-Jazeera, whose correspondent no doubt slid into the room like a minnow through pondwater, got the most laughs of the day when he asked, “Can we fairly say that America will be a friend of all opposition groups now?” McCain took the question, sidestepped the inanities, and related his belief that our message was already getting through to the Middle East, but that building democracy there would take a long time. Lieberman was more indulgent, admitting that America had often “mouthed the language” of democracy in the past–especially in the Middle East–without much sincerity. No argument from me on that one. Lieberman strongly praised President Bush for his SOTU statements challenging Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reform themselves.
Fourth Question: North Korea
The next question was from Yonhap. The reporter was a nice guy, but his question was predictably stupid, which turned out fine given that John McCain took it. How, the reporter asked, might this bill affect the six-party talks, given North Korea’s unpleasant reaction to the North Korean Human Rights Act (Yonhap’s guy apparently didn’t get the memo about those talks, and yeah, I got this memo myself, to which I say, “So?”). Wouldn’t this make North Korea angry? McCain said that while he listens to what many world leaders say, “I don’t pay a lot of attention to statements from the Dear Leader myself.”
Think the Yonhap guy put any of this in his story, or much of anything else about the bill? Think again.
Fifth Question: Chairman Mao Great Leader!
The hands-down dumbest question of the day was the ChiCom reporter’s faithful parroting of the Partei doctrine, demanding to know what business the United States had demanding that other countries respect the rights of their people, when . . . Abu Ghraib! He even had the brass balls to attack the United States for its prison conditions (cough! cough!). McCain handled it just right, laughing off the prison question, then conceding that the United States is not perfect, and saying that it has a system that holds abusers accountable. The world can judge whether the United States is protecting the rights of its citizens, McCain said, and flipping on his irony switch, noted that the world could reach the same judgments about China.
Sixth Question: OK, I actually didn’t hear the sixth question.
It’s entirely possible that I just wasn’t paying attention.
It came from a reporter from the Middle East News Service, and the answer from John McCain was that Syria should leave Lebanon ASAP and stop supporting terrorists.
Posted by joshua on March 3, 2001 at 11:34 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
The four co-sponsors present, as follows:
- Sen. John McCain, R, Arizona
- Sen. Joe Lieberman, D, Connecticut
- Rep. Frank Wolf, R, Virginia
- Rep. Tom Lantos, D, California
I walked in during their introductory statements, maybe five minutes late.
Rep. Frank Wolf was speaking when I walked in. Of the four congressmen, he’s the one you’re least likely to have heard of, which is a shame. Frank Wolf seemed to belong in the presence of giants as he spoke cogently about the importance of the ideas Natan Sharansky had discussed in his book. I’d add that I’d have more to tell you about what he said, but for yet another snippy press corp byaatch who started in with some annoying questions–who are you with? are you sure you’re not from the Talon News Service? (take note: private lives are apparently newsworthy again; where will the Wheel of Newsworthiness stop next week?). I started scribbling stuff and she eventually gave up.
It’s not like they going to haul me out of a press conference about freedom in front of Al-Jazeera and the Red Chinese, right?
Tom Lantos was hawking a book, too, Breaking the Axis of Evil by Ambassador Mark Palmer. Lantos told the journos about his experience of having actually lived under a “fascist” regime, and contrasted what happened in his Hungarian homeland in 1956 versus what happened in 1989. To Lantos, the difference was the support of democratic nations, as he also believes it was in the Ukraine. For a Democrat, Lantos was remarkable for his willingness to go out of his way to praise President Bush’s “Braveheart” inauguration speech. He directly critcized “cynics” who didn’t believe that the United States could or should spread democracy to other countries. The two countries Rep. Lantos mentioned by name were Belarus and North Korea. Oh, and he said, “Lebanon needs our help.”
First Question: North Korea
The first question was about North Korea, and came from Sun Myung-Moon’s former holding, the Segye Ilbo (one of the Korean print media’s most reliable instigators of anti-American hack journalism). The question was much better than the paper: in essence–given that the bill depends heavily on funding and organizing pro-democracy activities through our embassies, how could this bill have much effect in places like North Korea where the U.S. has no embassy?
John McCain took the question. He came right out of the gate by stating that North Korea was one of the targets of this bill–”among the most repressive” regimes on earth–and that it was also likely to be among the last nations to be free. He drew a few laughs when he contrasted conditions there to the “vibrant democracy” of South Korea, adding that it was “sometimes too vibrant.”
Joe Lieberman also responded, noting that the bill creates what he called “regional democracy hubs” and provides greatly expanded funding for pro-democracy NGOs, which don’t work out of embassies in any event.
Second Question: May I see your target list?
In response to a rather rambling and disjointed question from a Russian reporter, Tom Lantos was “optimistic” about North Korea, given the long-term historical trend. I silently prayed that he’d say, “It’s inebbitable!,” but in vain. Paging back mentally to the previous question, Rep. Lantos noted that the United States had just negotiated its way back into Libya, and that with sufficient time, American values would penetrate Libyan society and politics. He predicted that eventually, Libya would hold free elections. Lantos stressed the fact that democratizing the world (or most of it, I suppose he meant) would take many years. He noted the odd fact that the U.S. State Department has an office devoted to human rights but none to devoted to democracy, which isn’t the same thing, of course.
Representative Wolf talked about nations that had been freed, where we only later discovered the surprising extent to which those living inside heard the words spoken by our own leaders (here, it wasn’t hard to guess what he was thinking). He brought up the fact that the United States had no diplomatic relations with Albania before the overthrow of its goverment (to which I’d add that the Albanian government was nearly as oppressive as North Korea’s).
Third Question: When did you stop drinking the blood of Arab children?
Al-Jazeera, whose correspondent no doubt slid into the room like a minnow through pondwater, got the most laughs of the day when he asked, “Can we fairly say that America will be a friend of all opposition groups now?” McCain took the question, sidestepped the inanities, and related his belief that our message was already getting through to the Middle East, but that building democracy there would take a long time. Lieberman was more indulgent, admitting that America had often “mouthed the language” of democracy in the past–especially in the Middle East–without much sincerity. No argument from me on that one. Lieberman strongly praised President Bush for his SOTU statements challenging Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reform themselves.
Fourth Question: North Korea
The next question was from Yonhap. The reporter was a nice guy, but his question was predictably stupid, which turned out fine given that John McCain took it. How, the reporter asked, might this bill affect the six-party talks, given North Korea’s unpleasant reaction to the North Korean Human Rights Act (Yonhap’s guy apparently didn’t get the memo about those talks, and yeah, I got this memo myself, to which I say, “So?”). Wouldn’t this make North Korea angry? McCain said that while he listens to what many world leaders say, “I don’t pay a lot of attention to statements from the Dear Leader myself.”
Think the Yonhap guy put any of this in his story, or much of anything else about the bill? Think again.
Fifth Question: Chairman Mao Great Leader!
The hands-down dumbest question of the day was the ChiCom reporter’s faithful parroting of the Partei doctrine, demanding to know what business the United States had demanding that other countries respect the rights of their people, when . . . Abu Ghraib! He even had the brass balls to attack the United States for its prison conditions (cough! cough!). McCain handled it just right, laughing off the prison question, then conceding that the United States is not perfect, and saying that it has a system that holds abusers accountable. The world can judge whether the United States is protecting the rights of its citizens, McCain said, and flipping on his irony switch, noted that the world could reach the same judgments about China.
Sixth Question: OK, I actually didn’t hear the sixth question.
It’s entirely possible that I just wasn’t paying attention.
It came from a reporter from the Middle East News Service, and the answer from John McCain was that Syria should leave Lebanon ASAP and stop supporting terrorists.
