More from the day @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/75897530@N00/sets/72157610669768586/
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Madness Continues at Yahoo
Leading stories:
"Huge Drop in Popularity: Voters souring on McCain, Obama stays steady"
"McCain to Letterman 'I Screwed Up.'"
Gallup Poll:
Obama: 49%
McCain: 47%
Zogby:
Obama: 48%
McCain:43%
Yahoo has shown itself an incredibly biased news source during this election cycle.
Obama is leading, but according to the polls quoted above - there has been no significant change over the last few months - and the margin of error for these polls still gives McCain a shot.
I have switched to Google - too bad I still have Yahoo.mail.
"Huge Drop in Popularity: Voters souring on McCain, Obama stays steady"
"McCain to Letterman 'I Screwed Up.'"
Gallup Poll:
Obama: 49%
McCain: 47%
Zogby:
Obama: 48%
McCain:43%
Yahoo has shown itself an incredibly biased news source during this election cycle.
Obama is leading, but according to the polls quoted above - there has been no significant change over the last few months - and the margin of error for these polls still gives McCain a shot.
I have switched to Google - too bad I still have Yahoo.mail.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
The King of Love My Shepherd Is
http://www.peterwaldvogel.com/forpeter/ju.mp3
Here is another attempt - I am getting a little better at this - but still have a way to go.
Here is another attempt - I am getting a little better at this - but still have a way to go.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Intolerable Bias of the Conspiratorial - A Rant for today
How can we accept a "press" with such blatant disregard for intellectual responsibility? Nearly every news source that feigns objectivity is slavishly working to promote the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. Nearly every political story is designed to serve this "master." Information is a weapon and the easier it is to distort and twist into an attack on the Republican Party, the more likely it will be used to that end.
Here is one small example from the headlines - Today Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was selected as John McCain's running mate. Here is what Yahoo news had to say:
McCain's VP choice 'risky'
Analysis: Palin's age, inexperience rival Obama's
This is not analysis - it is the imposition of biased opinions on the minds of those who lack the facility to think for themselves!
Information is what we need in this story. Who is she? Where is she from? What experiene does she have? Instead, before we even know how to pronouce her name our minds are influenced by the people at Yahoo.
Meanwhile, the press for all intents and purposes ignores a glaring weekness of the democrat party. With every passing day, we go further and further down the slippery slope toward collectivism.
After watching the Democrat convention for a few nights this week, it is very clear that the ideas of personal responsibility and pride in one's work and accomplishments are things of the past, at least for the bulk of that party.
When did we accept the idea that people don't need to support themselves but instead should expect their needs to be met by the government. This attitude will destroy us, that is, unless we are willing to make those who are successful the slaves of the indolent and irresponsible.
Time and time again we hear the same old song! "Times are hard, people are suffering," "What is the government going to do about it?" Yet it is so rare to hear the simple truth that the government isn't capable of doing anything about it. Economic booms come from the people, not the state.
If a family or individual is struggling financially it is their own responsbility to change things, to work harder, to forge their own life and destiny. Hand-outs can meet needs for a short time - but their recipients will always become dependents - always wanting more from the pockets of those who were more careful, more thoughtful, or more responsible.
These not secrets. These are ideas that have been systematically crushed by a media that is interested in maintaining the plantation.
Here is one small example from the headlines - Today Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was selected as John McCain's running mate. Here is what Yahoo news had to say:
McCain's VP choice 'risky'
Analysis: Palin's age, inexperience rival Obama's
This is not analysis - it is the imposition of biased opinions on the minds of those who lack the facility to think for themselves!
Information is what we need in this story. Who is she? Where is she from? What experiene does she have? Instead, before we even know how to pronouce her name our minds are influenced by the people at Yahoo.
Meanwhile, the press for all intents and purposes ignores a glaring weekness of the democrat party. With every passing day, we go further and further down the slippery slope toward collectivism.
After watching the Democrat convention for a few nights this week, it is very clear that the ideas of personal responsibility and pride in one's work and accomplishments are things of the past, at least for the bulk of that party.
When did we accept the idea that people don't need to support themselves but instead should expect their needs to be met by the government. This attitude will destroy us, that is, unless we are willing to make those who are successful the slaves of the indolent and irresponsible.
Time and time again we hear the same old song! "Times are hard, people are suffering," "What is the government going to do about it?" Yet it is so rare to hear the simple truth that the government isn't capable of doing anything about it. Economic booms come from the people, not the state.
If a family or individual is struggling financially it is their own responsbility to change things, to work harder, to forge their own life and destiny. Hand-outs can meet needs for a short time - but their recipients will always become dependents - always wanting more from the pockets of those who were more careful, more thoughtful, or more responsible.
These not secrets. These are ideas that have been systematically crushed by a media that is interested in maintaining the plantation.
Monday, June 30, 2008
No time for the Times
Hi all,
No more NY Times. I would like to say that I was so sick of the biased coverage that I had to cancel my subscription. However, the truth is that since I started working three jobs I don't have the time to read the Times and the Economist - and quite frankly - the Economist is a much better publication with broader coverage of issues and locations and a bias toward intelligent pro-capitalist coverage. In short, I am learning a lot more from the Economist than from the Times. Most of it I promptly forget, but I am going for the long-term cumulative effect.
Aside from all this - the Times was getting stolen several times a week and it can be had free online... So why pay for biased news coverage with limited scope and a lack of intellectual and political responsibility?
No more NY Times. I would like to say that I was so sick of the biased coverage that I had to cancel my subscription. However, the truth is that since I started working three jobs I don't have the time to read the Times and the Economist - and quite frankly - the Economist is a much better publication with broader coverage of issues and locations and a bias toward intelligent pro-capitalist coverage. In short, I am learning a lot more from the Economist than from the Times. Most of it I promptly forget, but I am going for the long-term cumulative effect.
Aside from all this - the Times was getting stolen several times a week and it can be had free online... So why pay for biased news coverage with limited scope and a lack of intellectual and political responsibility?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Weakness of the Times #3
Today I just want to point out what I see as one of the most embarrassing aspects of NY Times journalism - the politicized photo editing. As a part time events-photographer, and someone who has studied propaganda photography, this is a field with which I have some familiarity.
Before raising the issue I will just point out that there is never an accident. There are always better photos available – probably dozens of them.
Consider the juxtaposition of these two photos on the front page of the Times on 5/7/2008.
Before raising the issue I will just point out that there is never an accident. There are always better photos available – probably dozens of them.
Consider the juxtaposition of these two photos on the front page of the Times on 5/7/2008.
I am no Clinton supporter. However, this kind of disrespect of a presidential candidate is a disgrace. How can the times be taken seriously when they choose to express their political bias through humiliating photos?
This photo should have been consigned to the recycle bin for imminent deletion. As a photographer, I would not feel that I was acting in good conscience if I gave an image like this to my editor. It demonstrates a serious lack of respect for the subject and the profession of photojournalism.
This journalistic failure is enhanced by the fact that the Times has an incredible photography staff and its pages are often graced by incredibly compelling images.
I never thought I would see the day when this paper would turn on a Clinton so blatantly.
More to come...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Another Quartet
Another sloppy quartet attempt.
http://www.peterwaldvogel.com/OSH.mp3
One of these days, I will do a serious one.
http://www.peterwaldvogel.com/OSH.mp3
One of these days, I will do a serious one.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Weakness of the Times #1
A NY Time's subscriber’s frustration with the bias and propaganda of New York's most respected "news" source.
I have been contemplating a regular feature on my blog along this line ever since I subscribed to the NY Times a few weeks ago. (I simultaneously subscribed to The Economist and I am sure there will be reasons to discuss that publication as well)
The realization that objectivity is not possible has, in many ways, been a boon to the intellectual world, ridding it of invalid confidences and allowing for constant reassessment of old and new arguments. However, many news organizations continue to maintain a semblance of objectivity, giving them an aura of added credibility. The more ideologically-affiliated publications, like National Review or The Nation are not expected to keep up appearances. They have a clear agenda and those who log on to their websites or still read their printed copy don't expect anything more or less.
The Times needs to be consigned to this latter category of "news-punditry." A significant percentage of its articles are written with a demonstrable political agendas. Unfortunately, in many cases the agenda is at odds with the interests of the United States. I am sure that the editors, writers and many readers don't see it this way, but they are aligning themselves with a political and cultural movement that is destructive to our economic, political and geopolitical interests (not to mention this nation's political discourse) and undermines the intellect and integrity of readers as individuals and citizens.
That said, there are few if any alternative news sources available for those who are interested in expanding their knowledge of international and domestic affairs. For this reason I am continuing my subscription and have decided to use this blog to vent some of my frustrations.
Today I will keep it short.
Consider the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washington/18policy.html?ref=world
Here, Eric Schmitt informs us (in different terms) that the United States does not have a broad-based strategic plan for enforcing its will on the sovereign state of Pakistan. Instead the various agencies of the federal government are working with an a uncoordinated jumble of approaches.
He writes:
"The Bush administration has failed to develop a governmentwide (spelling error in original ;) ) plan to combat terrorism in Pakistan’s unruly tribal areas, even though top American officials concede that Al Qaeda has regenerated its ability to attack the United States and has established havens in that border region, government auditors said Thursday."
As one reads on, it becomes clear that a politically motivated congressional report that has more to do with Washington than Islamabad, is being interpreted as a fair assessment of the Bush administration's handling of Pakistan.
The blatant lack of respect for Pakistani sovereignty and the failure to acknowledge many of the ways in which it's government has attempted to deal with a very complex situation are all overlooked and the blame for "failings" is place squarely on the back of the administration.
In a very odd turn of logic, the Schmitt implies that employing a variety of strategies to address a single issue is problematic. (...the State Department, the Pentagon, the Agency for International Development and other agencies carrying out individual counterterrorism (again – spelling error maintained from the original) strategies for Pakistan, with little or no formal integration of the plans by the National Security Council and the National Counterterrorism Center. ) The implication here is that the National Security Council and the National Counter Terrorism Center have a mandate to direct the policies of various federal agencies.
Anyone who has been paying attention to Washington for any length of time is aware that this is not how the executive agencies function. There are a variety of political and ideological "cultures" fostered by these organizations, not to mention differing responsibilities and authorities. It is natural to assume that they would pursue the same policy goals through differing means and strategies - and this is in fact a sign that they are working toward the same goals.
Mr. Eric Schmitt needs to enhance his critical understanding and stop acting like an fawning operative in a democratic propaganda machine.
I have been contemplating a regular feature on my blog along this line ever since I subscribed to the NY Times a few weeks ago. (I simultaneously subscribed to The Economist and I am sure there will be reasons to discuss that publication as well)
The realization that objectivity is not possible has, in many ways, been a boon to the intellectual world, ridding it of invalid confidences and allowing for constant reassessment of old and new arguments. However, many news organizations continue to maintain a semblance of objectivity, giving them an aura of added credibility. The more ideologically-affiliated publications, like National Review or The Nation are not expected to keep up appearances. They have a clear agenda and those who log on to their websites or still read their printed copy don't expect anything more or less.
The Times needs to be consigned to this latter category of "news-punditry." A significant percentage of its articles are written with a demonstrable political agendas. Unfortunately, in many cases the agenda is at odds with the interests of the United States. I am sure that the editors, writers and many readers don't see it this way, but they are aligning themselves with a political and cultural movement that is destructive to our economic, political and geopolitical interests (not to mention this nation's political discourse) and undermines the intellect and integrity of readers as individuals and citizens.
That said, there are few if any alternative news sources available for those who are interested in expanding their knowledge of international and domestic affairs. For this reason I am continuing my subscription and have decided to use this blog to vent some of my frustrations.
Today I will keep it short.
Consider the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washington/18policy.html?ref=world
Here, Eric Schmitt informs us (in different terms) that the United States does not have a broad-based strategic plan for enforcing its will on the sovereign state of Pakistan. Instead the various agencies of the federal government are working with an a uncoordinated jumble of approaches.
He writes:
"The Bush administration has failed to develop a governmentwide (spelling error in original ;) ) plan to combat terrorism in Pakistan’s unruly tribal areas, even though top American officials concede that Al Qaeda has regenerated its ability to attack the United States and has established havens in that border region, government auditors said Thursday."
As one reads on, it becomes clear that a politically motivated congressional report that has more to do with Washington than Islamabad, is being interpreted as a fair assessment of the Bush administration's handling of Pakistan.
The blatant lack of respect for Pakistani sovereignty and the failure to acknowledge many of the ways in which it's government has attempted to deal with a very complex situation are all overlooked and the blame for "failings" is place squarely on the back of the administration.
In a very odd turn of logic, the Schmitt implies that employing a variety of strategies to address a single issue is problematic. (...the State Department, the Pentagon, the Agency for International Development and other agencies carrying out individual counterterrorism (again – spelling error maintained from the original) strategies for Pakistan, with little or no formal integration of the plans by the National Security Council and the National Counterterrorism Center. ) The implication here is that the National Security Council and the National Counter Terrorism Center have a mandate to direct the policies of various federal agencies.
Anyone who has been paying attention to Washington for any length of time is aware that this is not how the executive agencies function. There are a variety of political and ideological "cultures" fostered by these organizations, not to mention differing responsibilities and authorities. It is natural to assume that they would pursue the same policy goals through differing means and strategies - and this is in fact a sign that they are working toward the same goals.
Mr. Eric Schmitt needs to enhance his critical understanding and stop acting like an fawning operative in a democratic propaganda machine.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
One Man Quartet
I have always wanted to try this and the other day I realized I could do it on my computer without any additional equipment.
I did this one rather quickly - its much harder than it sounds so please excuse the many mistakes.
Here is the link. Blogger is acting up so the link doesn't actually work for some reason. You will have to cut and paste.
http://www.peterwaldvogel.com/comehomedream.mp3
I did this one rather quickly - its much harder than it sounds so please excuse the many mistakes.
Here is the link. Blogger is acting up so the link doesn't actually work for some reason. You will have to cut and paste.
http://www.peterwaldvogel.com/comehomedream.mp3
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Strangeness of the Times
(Far be it from me to criticize grammar, syntax or anything relating to proficiency in the use of the English language. I am aware of my own weaknesses in this area. My complaints below are more conceptual than grammatical)
As a recent subscriber to the NY Times, I continue to be amused and disturbed by the nature of the headlines and reports this paper generates. This evening on the NY Times website a prominent headline reads "Iraq Seems Calmer After Cleric Halts Fighting."
Although in recent years opinion polls and perception have come to dominate news headlines, one still yearns for some level of certitude from a publication with the prestige of the Times. Does Iraq "seem" calm or is it in fact calm. Has violence really subsided or has the killing just gone in doors or maybe the Times reporters happened to be in the wrong place at just the right time.
The problem with the use of the verb "seems" in relation to a word like "calm" is that there is a kind of logical contradiction here. Calmness is a matter of relativity and subjectivity - and therefore it must be impossible for something to seem calm without being so. One might get the impression from this article that there has been a lull in hostilities; that tomorrow morning fighting might again escalate. However, calmness would still be an apt description for this moment in time. Why is it necessary to say that the situation "seems" calm?
Consider the following headline - "New Thai Eatery Seems to Serve Mouth-watering Spring Rolls." Does this make logical sense? How about next weeks possible headline? - “Iraqi Streets Seem More Violent After Government Crack Down?”
This has more to do with the political and ideological orientation of the Times than the situation in Iraq. There are many ways that this positive news could have been reported. However, the Times, as usual chose to promote a sense of failure and uncertainty with the very first line of this article.
As a recent subscriber to the NY Times, I continue to be amused and disturbed by the nature of the headlines and reports this paper generates. This evening on the NY Times website a prominent headline reads "Iraq Seems Calmer After Cleric Halts Fighting."
Although in recent years opinion polls and perception have come to dominate news headlines, one still yearns for some level of certitude from a publication with the prestige of the Times. Does Iraq "seem" calm or is it in fact calm. Has violence really subsided or has the killing just gone in doors or maybe the Times reporters happened to be in the wrong place at just the right time.
The problem with the use of the verb "seems" in relation to a word like "calm" is that there is a kind of logical contradiction here. Calmness is a matter of relativity and subjectivity - and therefore it must be impossible for something to seem calm without being so. One might get the impression from this article that there has been a lull in hostilities; that tomorrow morning fighting might again escalate. However, calmness would still be an apt description for this moment in time. Why is it necessary to say that the situation "seems" calm?
Consider the following headline - "New Thai Eatery Seems to Serve Mouth-watering Spring Rolls." Does this make logical sense? How about next weeks possible headline? - “Iraqi Streets Seem More Violent After Government Crack Down?”
This has more to do with the political and ideological orientation of the Times than the situation in Iraq. There are many ways that this positive news could have been reported. However, the Times, as usual chose to promote a sense of failure and uncertainty with the very first line of this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)