Update [2008-8-30 21:22:7 by eeblet]: Media Matters has got quite a bit of dirt on the AP.

Update [2008-8-30 21:32:12 by eeblet]: the second - I feel like such a moron. It's THAT journalist, the one with the donuts! The one who loved riding that straight-talk express! Video after the jump, in case there's anyone left who hasn't seen it. Apparently, Liz Sidoti is a journalist who writes articles for the AP that would be removed from Wikipedia for using "weasel words" and otherwise not adhering to NPOV by asserting opinions rather than facts about opinions.  
It is really sad to see that Wikipedia hold higher standards of objectivity than the Associated Press. Perhaps the AP should open themselves up to public editing....

From the "objective" AP, courtesy of Liz Sodoti:

Voters either don't know McCain's record of breaking with the party on a range of issues like global warming and stem cell research, or they don't believe it given McCain's alliance with Bush on Iraq and other issues.

-from McCain hopes to reclaim reformist mantel

To any Booman wikipedia nerds... I'd love some help.  Please join in the discussion on the Georgia talk page, and/or help improve the Georgia article!

The current foreign relations section reads, in part:

Georgia maintains good relations with its direct neighbours Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey and participates actively in regional organizations, such as the Black Sea Economic Council and the GUAM.[44] Georgia also maintains close political, economic and military relations with Ukraine.

The growing US and European Union influence in Georgia, notably through the Train and Equip military assistance programme and the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, have frequently strained Tbilisi's relations with Moscow.

Here's what I wrote on the talk page:

Georgia-Israel Relations

"The growing US and European Union influence in Georgia, notably through the Train and Equip military assistance programme and the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, have frequently strained Tbilisi's relations with Moscow."  This leads the reader to believe that it's mainly the US & Europe interested in the pipeline (Israel has a stake in the pipeline - 1 2 3) and also having influence in Georgia...  when in fact Israel has been an ally of Georgia, and assisted in training troops and providing arms [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010224.html].

Please rescue me from trying to write this!

After frantically looking around for perspectives on Georgia that were in my language (as someone who is very very bad at Risk and Diplomacy), I found an excellent blog post, written by a linguist: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2008/08/trouble-with-georgia.html.

For the truly lazy, here's the crux of it:

It may be difficult for some people to grasp why it is that the Abkhaz or the Ossetians do not much fancy suddenly becoming Georgian, so let me offer you a precise analogy. Suppose Los Angeles, California, were to collapse as the USSR once did, and East L.A. quickly moved to declare its independence. Suppose, further, that the 88% of its population that is Hispanic/Latino voted that the other 12% were free to stay on as "guests," provided they only spoke Spanish. The teaching of English were to be forbidden. After some bloody skirmishes, East L.A. split up into ethnic enclaves. Then some foreign government (say, Russian, or Chinese) stepped in and started shipping in weapons and providing training to the Latino faction, in support of their efforts to restore East L.A.'s "territorial integrity." As a non-Hispanic resident of East L.A., would you then (1) run and hide, (2) stay and fight, or (3) pick up a copy of "Spanish for Dummies" and start cramming?

To which I say: holy shit.

Ward Wilson has written a piece for the Chicago Tribune on how Hiroshima didn't cause the Japanese to surrender, and how nuclear weapons do not win wars.

He points to the "cultural divide" aspect of talking about nuclear weapons... and how it misses the point.

Last week was the 63rd anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. People argue a lot about Hiroshima, but often what they're really arguing about is whether America is good or bad.

....

What gets lost in the shouting is the really important question: Did the atomic bomb work? We assume it did, because the Japanese decided to surrender three days after Hiroshima. But it makes sense to look more closely, because almost everything we think about nuclear weapons--how impressive they are, how useful they are, how necessary they are--depends on Hiroshima.

He goes on to say:

It turns out, though, that Hiroshima didn't win the war. As historians do more research, it becomes clear that what really shocked the Japanese government was the declaration of war by the Soviet Union early in the morning of the same day we bombed Nagasaki. That was the day the Japanese declared martial law. That was the day they decided to meet to discuss surrender. That was the day the military talked privately about overthrowing the emperor. Nagasaki occurred in the afternoon--after they were already meeting to discuss surrender--and they largely ignored it.

The simplicity of his thesis is shocking to me: why isn't this taught in schools if it is indeed true?  It's horrifying that we can go on perpetuating the notion that the bomb won the war; perhaps because it's a myth both the US & Japan have bought into, it's a lot harder to debunk despite the evidence being there.

I took the challenge posted on the Obama-Get-FISA-Right wiki, and designed a flyer for others to print out and post before Tuesday.

1. View and print out the PDF; you'll have to write in your own Senator info, unless you live in CA or NJ. (If anyone wants me to type up one for their state, I'm happy to add it!)

2. Cut it in half (2 flyers per page)

3. Post them around town ASAP!

For any further design requests, feel free to email me, comment here, or comment on my get-FISA-right wiki page.

I am seeking photographers, amateur or pro, who live in or visit Alaska.  I'm volunteering to make graphics for begich.com, and I'd love to have access to a bunch of photography.  Right now, asking people on Flickr seems to be working, but I'd love a bunch of photo pools to search, since they're adding new features, and each needs an image.   If you don't live in Alaska, but have lots of random photos of potentially symbolic stuff (books, lights, whatever), feel free to post a link.  I'll still ask before using a photo.

Thanks!
Beth

This was my comment answer to Steven D's post.  The quotes are from HRC's speech.

I am running because I still believe I can win.... I believe I can provide that leadership.

Almost all of the people have spoken, and the majority of them do not agree with you.  To be fair, it's only a slight majority.  To be fairer, you started off as the presumptive nominee and then after Iowa, people started rallying around Obama.  Of course you believe you can provide presidential leadership, or you wouldn't be running.  But to believe you can win?  Now?  How?  You are clearly out of touch with reality.

If Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain.

 What a refreshing change from the months of free campaigning you did FOR McCain against Obama.

I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party.

I might believe you if you hadn't so successfully turned your strategy into a matter of Black & White, Man & Woman.  If you cared about uniting, you would have done as Edwards did and spoke out preemptively against racism (and sexism!), saying that if someone is only voting for you because you are white or you are a woman, you don't want their vote.

I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

I'll cede this one to you - but you know damn well the only reason it would be controversial if the party shouted you off the stage now is because you've made it a goddamned civil rights issue, when in fact it is your self-absorbed political motivations keeping you in so long.

I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter.... As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

God forbid one accept a loss gracefully.  You are setting a horrible example for young women - the kind of macho toughness that some women think they have to adopt in order to beat men at their own game.  I'd give you my copy of the Tao te ching if I thought you'd read it: "the softest thing overcomes the hardest thing".  Obama had been gentle, and you've mocked him as weak.

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families.

Yes... because Obama is only helping the wealthy and welfare moms?  Huh?

I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week because I'm standing up for them.

With NAFTA?  With pandering?  With smear campaigns?

Finally, I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain.

Sadly, the popular vote and the delegate vote do not support your belief. You also fail to take into account the large percentages of Obama supporters who are independents and first-time voters and Obamacans and who will not turn out for you.

Good lord.  All this is doing is casting further doubt on Obama.  A few months ago, I was excited by HRCs campaign - even though I've been anti-DLC & Clintons for years, I was just thrilled that in my lifetime a woman might be president.  But now any comraderie I felt with Hillary Clinton is replaced with embarrassment.  I want a leader who can say "I'm sorry" or "I messed up".  The blustering bullshit of "I did not have sex with..." was never as bad as WMD, of course... but I'm ready for a politician who is also able to be human, speak frankly, and admit mistakes.  It takes real strength to be vulnerable, and as an independent-minded woman, I know I've often confused strength with toughness....  It takes the most strength to be soft.

A nice lady I barely know overheard me raving about the PA elections, and said something like, "Well, at first I was a Clinton supporter, but then she went negative.  Then I was a Barack Obama supporter, but he just seems like such a whiner.  I'll vote for whoever's not McCain, but I won't be happy about it!"

Obama's a whiner?  I'd seen lots of blog comments where HRC supporters called Obama supporters "whiners", but no actual Obama whining.  I could see thinking he's arrogant or "weak" (of course if he was half as vicious as HRC or angry as McCain he'd be a terrifying angry black man)... but a whiner?  Huh?  Where the hell did this spin come from?

A flashback to the midterms:

Howard Dean was hopeful that lots of things would get done, including on healthcare....  Now it's 2008.  And, well... anyone want to break it down for me?  I tuned out for a few years there.

"Clinton Presses for Florida, Michigan Voters"

And also, if you click on this... notice what happens as you scroll the page.  Clinton & McCain are paired.  Obama & Ron Paul are paired.  As a designer, I'd like to say - no decisions like this are accidental.  Not that it's some big conspiracy, but it would have been a do-able design decision to show Obama & Clinton next to each other, or otherwise prevent this from appearing the way it does.

Ugh.