Why is the stock market rising along with the terror threat level? Does Wall Street know something that we don't?
Remember the administration's plans for a terrorism threat futures market? The idea was that the perfection of the market would lead to better indicators of where terrorists would strike, etc... The wingnuts believe in The Market as a religion, and believe that by setting up markets where greedheads can place bets on things like terrorist strikes, we can watch where people are placing their bets, and that will show us what is going to happen.
Well, here's a terrorist threat, and here's the stock market. It's supposed to be the worst threat since 9/11. But the stock market went UP today.
I know that the Bush administration has so politicized national security that their credibility is zero with half the country -- but the stock market doesn't even pay attention to them anymore? The stock market believes that they put out terrorist threats for political reasons?
We need to get these clowns out of office for our own protection. What if this is a REAL threat? What if the next one is? We need an administration that people trust.
12/22/2003
Fighting For Whose Country?
I've been hearing praise of the soldiers who "died for their country." Now that the President's justification for the Iraq war has changed -- now that it was a war to "free the Iraqi people" instead of a war to protect us from an imminent threat -- how does this square with soldiers "dying for their country? Iraq wasn't their country. Did they sign up to free Iraqis?
I've been hearing that our soldiers are "fighting to preserve our freedom." Now that the President's justification for the Iraq war was that it was a war to "free the Iraqi people," how does "freeing the Iraqi people" preserve OUR freedom?
I'm complaining about the lies, not about the good this has done for Iraqis. (Iraqi men, anyway, not women.)
I've been hearing that our soldiers are "fighting to preserve our freedom." Now that the President's justification for the Iraq war was that it was a war to "free the Iraqi people," how does "freeing the Iraqi people" preserve OUR freedom?
I'm complaining about the lies, not about the good this has done for Iraqis. (Iraqi men, anyway, not women.)
Workers In Iraq
Everybody, everybody, everybody, please go read this:Whiskey Bar: Right to Work State.
Then think about what the Bush Administration is planning for a second term HERE.
Then think about what the Bush Administration is planning for a second term HERE.
Long Past Time For Some Changes
Democrats Forced To Work on Margins (washingtonpost.com):
And good riddance Zell!
"The The Republicans' aggressive moves caught the Democrats off guard. Although they had come to expect tough GOP tactics in the House, they were stunned when the strategies moved to the Senate, where relations between the parties have been less confrontational. Some Democrats now regret they did not react more quickly and aggressively."Didn't catch ME "off guard." I understood what The Party was all about. I knew that the Republicans had declared war on half of the country. I knew it years ago. And when you're in a war, you want leadership that at the very least recognizes there's a war going on.
""We never imagined they would not include all conferees" in the negotiations, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said in an interview as the session was ending. "Our mistake was we didn't insist on inclusion" before key bills were sent to conference for final drafting, he added."Sounds like it's time for Tom to go.
Democrats "probably should have done more" to protest the Medicare negotiations and will be "much more resolute" in confronting future GOP tactics, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who played a pivotal role in the Democrats' response to the Medicare legislation."Sounds like it's time for Teddy to go.
"On Medicare, Democrats see plenty of blame to go around.DEFINITELY time for Max and John to go!
Some question Kennedy's early support for a Senate bill that opened the way for conference agreement. Many are furious at Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.) and John Breaux (La.), who stuck around to negotiate after Republicans barred all other Democrats, including Daschle, from the conference. Others say Daschle should have kicked up more of a fuss, although he insists it would have done little good. Still others say Democratic critics of the bill might have prevailed if the AARP had not endorsed it."
And good riddance Zell!
"New Economy"
New Economy: Offshore Jobs in Technology: Opportunity or a Threat?:
All the experts say that the old, "low skill" jobs like software engineer will be replaced by new jobs that we don't even know about yet. Well, it's a FACT that I don't know about the new jobs, because here in Silicon Valley we SURE haven't seen them yet. The argument seems to be that because sometimes in the past new kinds of jobs have shown up to replace the jobs that were lost, therefore new jobs will always show up. Personally, I'm not one to place my bets on an angel showing up and waving a wand and making everything better. I'm more one for planning what to do in case that doesn't happen.
It's supposed to be a good thing when we find ways to get more work done using fewer people:
The solution? We need to break up the rich white mens' club and get the money circulating again. The way to do that is to bring back very high taxes at the top, and estate taxes, and use the money to strengthen "the commons" -- our public resources and human resources. Education, hospitals, health care, roads, infrastructure, arts and quality of life.
We also need to change the way our corporations are chartered to being back the idea that they exist to benefit the public at large. Perhaps we should require that representatives of workers sit on the boards of corporations. A personal favorite solution is to ban corporations from using money for anything that does not directly benefit shareholders. This means no more political contributions, and contributions to "think tanks" and other fronts for political operations. This would help lessen the influence of money on our democracy, returning us closer to one-person-one-vote instead of one-dollar-one-vote.
What do you think?
"So what is really happening? Is the offshore outsourcing of technology jobs a cataclysmic jolt or a natural evolution of the economy?Man, oh man. I'll tell you. I've learned that when people start talking about a "new economy" it's time to run and hide. "We have to move up the technology food chain." What the fuck does that even MEAN?
The short answer is that the trend is real, irreversible and another step in the globalization of the American economy. It does present a challenge to industry, government and individual workers. But the shifting of some technology jobs abroad fits into a well-worn historical pattern of economic change and adjustment in the United States.
'To be competitive and to maintain and improve American living standards, we have to move up the technology food chain,' said Craig R. Barrett, the chief executive of Intel."
All the experts say that the old, "low skill" jobs like software engineer will be replaced by new jobs that we don't even know about yet. Well, it's a FACT that I don't know about the new jobs, because here in Silicon Valley we SURE haven't seen them yet. The argument seems to be that because sometimes in the past new kinds of jobs have shown up to replace the jobs that were lost, therefore new jobs will always show up. Personally, I'm not one to place my bets on an angel showing up and waving a wand and making everything better. I'm more one for planning what to do in case that doesn't happen.
It's supposed to be a good thing when we find ways to get more work done using fewer people:
"In an information economy, technology services are an "input'' in the same way that steel, glass and rubber are parts of a car. So reducing the cost of technology services curbs inflation while improving efficiency and productivity. A recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that every dollar of costs that United States companies move offshore yields a benefit of $1.12 to $1.14 to the American economy, mainly from cost savings and steering workers toward jobs that add more value than those replaced."The problem now is this money is not being distributed past the top floor. Instead of paying workers more, the money is going to the top. The concentration of wealth is accelerating. YOU AND I are not benefiting from the changes in the economy, while a few are becoming vastly richer.
The solution? We need to break up the rich white mens' club and get the money circulating again. The way to do that is to bring back very high taxes at the top, and estate taxes, and use the money to strengthen "the commons" -- our public resources and human resources. Education, hospitals, health care, roads, infrastructure, arts and quality of life.
We also need to change the way our corporations are chartered to being back the idea that they exist to benefit the public at large. Perhaps we should require that representatives of workers sit on the boards of corporations. A personal favorite solution is to ban corporations from using money for anything that does not directly benefit shareholders. This means no more political contributions, and contributions to "think tanks" and other fronts for political operations. This would help lessen the influence of money on our democracy, returning us closer to one-person-one-vote instead of one-dollar-one-vote.
What do you think?
12/21/2003
Aspirin Factory?
Suddenly the Right finds it useful to stop claiming it was an aspirin factory: The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties.
How will this mesh with their claim that Clinton did nothing about al-Queda? AND with their claim that the attack on the chemical plant was a "wag the dog" effort to deflect attention from Monica?
Anyway, it looks like they're trying SO hard to justify invading Iraq that they're willing to let go of one of their anti-Clinton myths. Or, perhaps, they just expect the public not to make the connection.
How will this mesh with their claim that Clinton did nothing about al-Queda? AND with their claim that the attack on the chemical plant was a "wag the dog" effort to deflect attention from Monica?
Anyway, it looks like they're trying SO hard to justify invading Iraq that they're willing to let go of one of their anti-Clinton myths. Or, perhaps, they just expect the public not to make the connection.
Yahoo! News - Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops
Yahoo! News - Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops. I saw this at Debka a week ago, but didn't pay much attention. Here's another source, with what looks like confirmation.
12/19/2003
The Bush Tax!
Blog for America : The Bush Tax -- How Much is it Costing You?
"George W. Bush talks a lot about "tax cuts," but he doesn't mention how much his fiscal irresponsibility costs. Call it the Bush Tax—what we are all forced to pay because the president gave away your money in tax breaks that gave the most benefits to people making over $300,000 per year. The Bush Tax shifts tax costs to states and communities, which then raise your taxes to make up the difference."Re-framing the discussion. Calling Bush's cuts in services a "tax." VERY good move! And there's a web site to go along with it.
Psychological Warfare
Tom Hartman writes, in Conservatives Target Testicles:
"Rush Limbaugh just declared psychological war on the working white males of America, although most of them probably didn't realize it. This week Limbaugh rolled out a 'funny' faux advertisement for the 'Hillary Clinton Testicle Lock Box' that now any woman can use to clamp down on men's testicles just like Hillary does.Read it, read it, read it!
This wasn't just a whim of Limbaugh's, or a response to his recent rehab. It's part of a sophisticated psychological operations program by conservatives that explicitly targets working men in America, and dates back to research first done for Richard Nixon.
[. . .] The majority of unemployed or under-employed men don't kill themselves, however. Instead, they get angry, and look for the sources of their anger. And this is where the conservatives are working hard to perform an elegant smoke-and-mirrors switch of attention.
Conservatives have figured out how crucial it is to make sure that the working-class "NASCAR Dad" demographic - so important to conservatives that NASCAR drivers were invited to place their cars on the White House lawn for a Bush photo op - don't connect their sense of lost masculinity with this conservative administration's anti-worker policies.
Thus the Hillary Clinton Testicle Lock Box. And the Phallic Projection Force War In Iraq. And the Big Bulge Strut On The Aircraft Carried Deck.
[. . .] If Democrats can help NASCAR Dads realize that conservative trade and fiscal policies are at the root of their problems, they may wake America up from the web of deceit being spun by Bush and Rove. If not, prepare for another four years of the rich getting richer while the middle class slides into the abyss, perhaps taking American democracy with it."
Animal Rights: What the Nobel Committee Failed to Note
Animal Rights: What the Nobel Committee Failed to Note:
"Forty-eight billion farm animals are killed each year around the world - nearly eight times the human population, more than 130 million a day, more than five million every hour, almost 100,000 a minute. These numbers do not include the billions of other animals whose lives are taken, bodies injured, and freedom stolen in the name of entertainment, sport, or fashion. As Costello wearily asks, how is it possible that the great mass of humanity fails to recognize what humans do to animals for the great evil that it is?"
12/18/2003
That Great "New Jobless" Number Today
Perhaps you read that there was a "dip" in the "new jobless" number this week. It was a "seasonally adjusted number:
In Washington, the Labor Department (news - web sites) said new claims for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week. It said that for the work week ending Dec. 13, new applications for benefits declined by a seasonally adjusted 22,000 to 353,000, the lowest level since Nov. 1. The drop was much larger than economists were expecting.What were the UNADJUSTED numbers? From the Labor Department's report, ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report:
"The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 411,081 in the week ending Dec. 13, a decrease of 75,048 from the previous week. There were 486,258 initial claims in the comparable week in 2002. "The ACTUAL new jobless number was 411,258. That's not good at all.
It Can Only Decline
Most Americans continue to believe that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attack. The politics of this break down pretty clearly: Those who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 support Bush's position on the war and therefore support Bush. Those who do not believe this do not support Bush's position on the war and do not support Bush. Bush's entire political advantage going into 2004 is based on this public perception.
Many "moderate" Democrats take the position that, since most of the public currently believes that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, it is therefore foolish to go against the grain and claim otherwise. Their political position is that it is not politically advantageous to disagree with a majority of the public regardless of where the facts lie on a given issue. They say that Dean is way out of "the mainstream" for saying that invading Iraq and capturing Saddam was a strategic mistake that has not made us safer.
It may be true on any given day that it is a politically risky position to contradict what the public believes. Doing so leaves you open to opportunistic attacks from those who would prefer that the public remain deceived for their own political advantage. On any given day this may be a political reality. But what happens when you take a position that is at odds with the facts -- as well as at odds with the overall good of the country -- and do so for short term political advantage, and then the public's understanding of the facts changes? Doesn't today's convenient political position bring with it the risk that public understanding of an issue will change tomorrow, leaving you looking foolish and opportunistic? Isn't it therefore better in the longer term to take positions that agree with the truth and facts of an issue, and the good of the country?
Those of us who follow the news know that it is not true that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. This means that, as the facts come out, more and more people will come to understand that since Iraq was not behind 9/11, the invasion of that country was a foolish diversion from protecting us against those who were responsible for 9/11. As time passes the number of people supporting Bush on this issue can only decline, because the facts do not support his position. Between now and the election facts are not going to emerge that support the public's belief that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but since facts exist that contradict this belief, some or many of them might emerge and affect public understanding and change the poll numbers.
Furthermore, we must realize that those who believe Bush and think that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attack are not going to vote for anyone but Bush. So supporting this position only to appear to be siding with the majority will not help Democrats politically.
It makes sense to take the opposing position -- the one that also agrees with the facts and the one that is in the best interest of the country -- and oppose Bush on this Iraq war issue. Democrats should that a position advocating protecting the country from the real terrorists rather than diverting attention and resources. It is the task of Bush's opponents to find ways to inform the public of the facts. As more people become aware of the facts they will move from support of Bush's position to support of Dean's.
Many "moderate" Democrats take the position that, since most of the public currently believes that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, it is therefore foolish to go against the grain and claim otherwise. Their political position is that it is not politically advantageous to disagree with a majority of the public regardless of where the facts lie on a given issue. They say that Dean is way out of "the mainstream" for saying that invading Iraq and capturing Saddam was a strategic mistake that has not made us safer.
It may be true on any given day that it is a politically risky position to contradict what the public believes. Doing so leaves you open to opportunistic attacks from those who would prefer that the public remain deceived for their own political advantage. On any given day this may be a political reality. But what happens when you take a position that is at odds with the facts -- as well as at odds with the overall good of the country -- and do so for short term political advantage, and then the public's understanding of the facts changes? Doesn't today's convenient political position bring with it the risk that public understanding of an issue will change tomorrow, leaving you looking foolish and opportunistic? Isn't it therefore better in the longer term to take positions that agree with the truth and facts of an issue, and the good of the country?
Those of us who follow the news know that it is not true that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. This means that, as the facts come out, more and more people will come to understand that since Iraq was not behind 9/11, the invasion of that country was a foolish diversion from protecting us against those who were responsible for 9/11. As time passes the number of people supporting Bush on this issue can only decline, because the facts do not support his position. Between now and the election facts are not going to emerge that support the public's belief that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but since facts exist that contradict this belief, some or many of them might emerge and affect public understanding and change the poll numbers.
Furthermore, we must realize that those who believe Bush and think that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attack are not going to vote for anyone but Bush. So supporting this position only to appear to be siding with the majority will not help Democrats politically.
It makes sense to take the opposing position -- the one that also agrees with the facts and the one that is in the best interest of the country -- and oppose Bush on this Iraq war issue. Democrats should that a position advocating protecting the country from the real terrorists rather than diverting attention and resources. It is the task of Bush's opponents to find ways to inform the public of the facts. As more people become aware of the facts they will move from support of Bush's position to support of Dean's.
Not Just Dean
It's not just the Dean people who will be going door-to-door in the coming year. Read the article In These Times | Door by Door, and then go volunteer to help.
12/17/2003
The Timing
Tom and I have written recently about whether Saddam's trial and execution will be timed for political purposes. In Post Pop, The Blogging of the President: 2004 writes about political timing in general. A good read.
This Changes My Opinion
Critics: Convicted felons worked for electronic voting companies:
But no, all this is starting to look more than a little suspicious:
The companies are owned by hard-right wingnut Republicans.
The companies sacrifice the extra profits from the add-on sale of printers.
The companies resist changing in response to criticism and adding printers. They don't fix software flaws that are pointed out to them. Instead they hire PR firms to tell lies and smear and ridicule their critics (a typical REPUBLICAN response.)
They sneak in uncertified software.
Republicans in the Congress refuse to co-sponsor bills to fix this problem.
So what IS going on here? And how long do we all have to wait to be sure that our election process is NOT being stolen? It's the "be sure" part of that sentence that is important to me. I saw David Dill speak recently, and he began his talk by saying that democracy depends on the losers accepting the results of elections. Whether The Party is involved in a scheme to steal elections or not, this has gone too far. I can't accept that the results of elections conducted with these machines are fair because there is no way to know for sure.
Now, I was in the computer business for a long time, and of course a computer hardware crash or software bug never happened to me in all that time. An intentional virus never happened to me, either. And I'm sure none of these things never happened to you. Right? They certainly never happened to the election officials who are buying these machines. So you and I and the election officials never had any reason to make backups of our critically important data. Right? But, theoretically, just theoretically we know that these things could happen to us, probably in an alternate universe, but they could happen. So, theoretically, we should be backing up our data. Right? So shouldn't our voting machines also have a way to verify that our votes are counted correctly?
Duh?
"A manufacturer of electronic voting machines has employed at least five convicted felons as managers, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software.Before now my thinking was that it's a little bit too wild to try to say that there really was a PLAN to steal elections. My thinking was that the voting machines were not secure enough to ensure AGAINST this happening, and against loss of data if a machine malfunctions -- that it just didn't make sense to have voting machines that didn't have a way to verify that the voters' choices were what was recorded and counted. AND, if I WERE going to try to fix an election, I'd need to have people in on the plan that I could count on to be dishonest enough, and to keep quiet.
Voter advocate Bev Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of Diebold Inc., one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions, and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records."
But no, all this is starting to look more than a little suspicious:
So what IS going on here? And how long do we all have to wait to be sure that our election process is NOT being stolen? It's the "be sure" part of that sentence that is important to me. I saw David Dill speak recently, and he began his talk by saying that democracy depends on the losers accepting the results of elections. Whether The Party is involved in a scheme to steal elections or not, this has gone too far. I can't accept that the results of elections conducted with these machines are fair because there is no way to know for sure.
Now, I was in the computer business for a long time, and of course a computer hardware crash or software bug never happened to me in all that time. An intentional virus never happened to me, either. And I'm sure none of these things never happened to you. Right? They certainly never happened to the election officials who are buying these machines. So you and I and the election officials never had any reason to make backups of our critically important data. Right? But, theoretically, just theoretically we know that these things could happen to us, probably in an alternate universe, but they could happen. So, theoretically, we should be backing up our data. Right? So shouldn't our voting machines also have a way to verify that our votes are counted correctly?
Duh?
Voting Machines Story
Voting machine maker dinged: AUDITOR SAYS SOFTWARE WASN'T APPROVED:
"Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said Tuesday that Diebold Elections Systems could lose the right to sell electronic voting machines in California after state auditors found the company distributed software that had not been approved by election officials.This company is just bad news.
The auditors reported that voters in 17 California counties cast ballots in recent elections using software that had not been certified by the state. And voters in Los Angeles County and two smaller counties voted on machines installed with software that was not approved by the Federal Election Commission."
What Did Bush Know?
Misleader.org: Daily Mislead:
"At his press conference yesterday, President Bush was asked about charges that he had received warnings prior to the September 11th attacks that a terrorist incident was imminent. He answered that even asking such a question was 'an absurd insinuation.'1 It was the same sentiment expressed by Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who said in May of 2002 that '[no one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane.'2And why is the Bush administration continuing to block efforts to find out what they knew?
The problem for the president and the administration is that the White House has previously admitted that the president had personally received such specific warnings. As ABC News reported in May of 2002, 'White House officials acknowledge that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the September 11th attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.'3 As Condoleezza Rice said at a hastily called press conference to spin these revelations, the President specifically received an 'analytic report' on August 6th, 2001 at his Crawford mansion that 'talked about Osama bin Laden's methods of operation' and 'mentioned hijacking.'4 According to Reuters, that report was congruent with 'intelligence since 1998 that said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes.'5."
12/16/2003
Eric Alterman
Eric Alterman's Altercation can be found HERE. I think that somehow MSNBC has messed up the usual links.
Is America Safer Now?
After 9/11 we were in a "war on terror," fighting those who attacked us. How did it make America safer to DIVERT resources -- intelligence assets, Arabic language translators, military resources, etc. -- from that "war on terror" to INSTEAD fight a war against Iraq? We actually moved assets OUT of Afghanistan. We actually took troops AWAY from searching for bin Laden and al Queda, to instead participate in the invasion of Iraq! Shouldn't we have concluded the "war on terror" before starting that other adventure? Isn't is a basic principle of war that you don't want to fight on two different fronts at the same time?
Tell me how invading Iraq made America safer?!
Tell me how invading Iraq made America safer?!
Death for Political Purposes
Now folks when Dave put up this post, I really wasn't sure I bought the premise of it.
Surely W and the boys aren't going to have our little puppet government (currently headed by noted INC liar Ahmad Chalabi) in Iraq have a trial and execute Saddam just before the election in order to have the news dominated by this story next fall, thereby helping to assure W's re-election, right?
Well, my goodness. Since W apparently spent a fair amount of time in his interview / positive photo op tonight with the Diane Sawyer of the SCLM on ABC talking about this very topic, I can't help but wonder now.
I mean, heck folks, I think Saddam's a monster who should be put on trial (although perhaps not executed -- that's always barbaric).
However, if this trial and execution becomes a story primarily for domestic political consumption to help W's re-election chances, that's just surreal and horrific all by itself -- not that I have a great deal of sympathy with Saddam or anything.
Surely they really wouldn't do this, right?
Right?
Surely W and the boys aren't going to have our little puppet government (currently headed by noted INC liar Ahmad Chalabi) in Iraq have a trial and execute Saddam just before the election in order to have the news dominated by this story next fall, thereby helping to assure W's re-election, right?
Well, my goodness. Since W apparently spent a fair amount of time in his interview / positive photo op tonight with the Diane Sawyer of the SCLM on ABC talking about this very topic, I can't help but wonder now.
I mean, heck folks, I think Saddam's a monster who should be put on trial (although perhaps not executed -- that's always barbaric).
However, if this trial and execution becomes a story primarily for domestic political consumption to help W's re-election chances, that's just surreal and horrific all by itself -- not that I have a great deal of sympathy with Saddam or anything.
Surely they really wouldn't do this, right?
Right?
12/15/2003
My Printer Died
I had JUST installed a new color ink cartridge, and the Epson 777 turned itself off. It won't come back on! Does anyone out there have any suggestions? (The ink cartridge was, of course, very expensive, and didn't even get used once!)
Can anyone suggest a good color printer?
Does anyone want to buy me a new printer for Christmas?
Can anyone suggest a good color printer?
Does anyone want to buy me a new printer for Christmas?
Probably In October -- Surprise!
Official: Saddam May Face Death Penalty.
What was I thinking? OF COURSE -- an EXECUTION just before the election! This is BUSH we're talking about!
And start talking about the punishment NOW, even before the trial. Bush justice. Try him ourselves, without involving the U.N. and international law. Use Bush law.
What ELSE would he want? And this is Republicans -- what better wedge to stir up lots and lots of division, and give them the opportunity to do lots and lots of name-calling?!
Update - Headline over at Drudge: "XX SADDAM DEATH TRIAL ON TV XX"
What was I thinking? OF COURSE -- an EXECUTION just before the election! This is BUSH we're talking about!
And start talking about the punishment NOW, even before the trial. Bush justice. Try him ourselves, without involving the U.N. and international law. Use Bush law.
What ELSE would he want? And this is Republicans -- what better wedge to stir up lots and lots of division, and give them the opportunity to do lots and lots of name-calling?!
Update - Headline over at Drudge: "XX SADDAM DEATH TRIAL ON TV XX"
12/14/2003
Saddam's capture
It is good that Saddam has been captured. Saddam is a monster who deserves to be tried for his crimes.
Atrios warns us to be on the lookout for someone in the media to try and link Saddam's capture in some way to 9/11.
Well, nothing like that as of yet.
However, we do have this braindead story from the SCLM about how this development "roils" the presidential race for the Democrats.
Say what?
It's not like Saddam's capture will change anything at all on the ground in Iraq.
Holy cow.
What a transparently pro-Bush story.
Not that I'm surprised or anything.
--Tom Spencer
Update:Think this guy will be wishing he hadn't said this a month from now?:
Don't bet on it folks.
Update 2: The RNC's talking points on Saddam's capture, disguised as a news story, are right here.
Terrifying, eh?
Atrios warns us to be on the lookout for someone in the media to try and link Saddam's capture in some way to 9/11.
Well, nothing like that as of yet.
However, we do have this braindead story from the SCLM about how this development "roils" the presidential race for the Democrats.
Say what?
It's not like Saddam's capture will change anything at all on the ground in Iraq.
Holy cow.
What a transparently pro-Bush story.
Not that I'm surprised or anything.
--Tom Spencer
Update:Think this guy will be wishing he hadn't said this a month from now?:
"I think the way we captured Saddam Hussein and the fact that he gave up without a fight will take the oxygen out of a certain kind of resistance," CBS News Analyst Fouad Ajami, a Middle East scholar, tells Dan Rather. "When the man himself in this hole in the ground gives himself up without a fight it's very difficult to enlist jihadists - kids from Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. - who will come to Iraq to fight and die for the cause."
Don't bet on it folks.
Update 2: The RNC's talking points on Saddam's capture, disguised as a news story, are right here.
Terrifying, eh?
Open Letter to Kerry
From Eschaton:
Dave Johnson- Seeing the Forest http://seetheforest.blogspot.com
"Dear Senator Kerry,Add me to the list (except that I don't take advertising anyway):
We write this open letter as a group of bloggers whose audience you
respect enough that you advertise on our web sites.
We are deeply disturbed that former staff members of your campaign and
other Dean rivals now working at the so-called “Americans for Jobs,
Health Care and Progressive Values” have resorted to the Willie Horton
campaign tactic of linking Howard Dean to Osama Bin Laden. Vigorous
competition among Democrats is expected and welcome, but all
Democratic leaders should denounce these kinds of tactics.
Given your staff link to this attack through your former press
secretary, Robert Gibbs—the new group’s spokesman— we feel it is
incumbent on you and your campaign to make it clear that this kind of
attack is unacceptable. Otherwise, there will be the appearance of
covert cooperation by your campaign in supporting this effort.
If your campaign does not make clear that you have no link to this
scurrilous attack, all of us will have to reevaluate our willingness
to allow advertising by your campaign on our web sites.
We don’t expect to have to make that decision, since we have faith in
your integrity and expect you to quickly make clear your denunciation
of this destructive and anti-democratic operation.
Yours,
Atrios- Eschaton http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Jeralyn Merritt- Talk Left http://www.talkleft.com/
Nathan Newman- NathanNewman.org http://www.nathannewman.org/log/
Oliver Willis- Oliver Willis http://www.oliverwillis.com/
Jesse Taylor and Ezra Klein- Pandagon http://www.pandagon.net
Dave Johnson- Seeing the Forest http://seetheforest.blogspot.com
In Reality
U.S. Suits Multiply, but Fewer Ever Get to Trial, Study Says:
"On television and in the popular imagination, lawsuits and prosecutions end in trials, in open court before a jury. In reality, according to a new study, trials have become quite uncommon. "In America, "in reality" isn't relevant.
12/12/2003
Karma
This came to me, titled, "Karma's a bitch"KATV Channel 7 - Father and Son Drown in Eudora
"Eudora - A man and his son drowned Monday night after the son tried to drown their dog. It happened near the city of Eudora, just outside of city limits. Police say the son fell into a pit full of water inside an old cotton gin and the father went in after him.What can I say?
Police say the son and his cousin were trying to drown their pit bull, because the dog was old and wouldn't fight anymore. Before drowning the dog, the son fell in and the cousin ran for help.
18-year-old Eugene Weston Junior and his cousin planned to drown their pit bull in an old abandoned cotton gin across the street from their home.
The gin hadn't been used in more than 30 years and inside the pit was a thick combination of water, oil, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, and dirt. As the son looked into the eight to ten foot pit, he slipped and fell in.
The cousin ran for help and called 9-1-1. That's when the father, 42-year-old Eugene Weston Senior, jumped into the pit after his son.
Police say the old gin has been pumped dry and is now covered up. They plan to fill it in with dirt to prevent this kind of accident in the future.
The pit bull is still alive and unharmed. "
Jimmy Carter Calls Zell A Mistake
Carter: Miller appointment a mistake:
"Former President Jimmy Carter says the appointment of Georgia's Zell Miller to the Senate was a mistake because his fellow ex-governor 'betrayed all the basic principles that I thought he and I and others shared.'Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Zell! On second thought...
[. . .]
"I would rather not even comment about Zell Miller on the radio," then proceeded to call the appointment "one of the worst mistakes" then-Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes made in his four years in office.
Barnes tapped Miller in 2000 to fill the vacancy left by the death of Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. He then went on to win a special election to complete Coverdell's term, which ends in January 2005. Miller has announced he won't seek re-election, and Republicans are viewed as the favorites to capture the seat."
Better Support The Prez - Or You Don't Get No Turkey on Thanksgiving!
Thanks to TBOGG we learn that the troops who attended Bush's Thanksgiving visit were pre-screened and many were turned away from having a Thanksgiving turkey dinner at all!
"With the Pentagon just recovering from that, Stars and Stripes is blowing the whistle on President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, saying the cheering soldiers who met him were pre-screened and others showing up for a turkey dinner were turned away."And the White House line is that this campaign photo-op visit was to improve the morale of the troops!
Campaign Finance
I'd like to make a point about the Campaign Finance law, which seems to be over the head of everyone in the media this week.
The ban on issue ads only involves corporate and union money. You can't run an issue ad paid for with corporate or union money in the 30-day period before an election.
The ban on issue ads only involves corporate and union money. You can't run an issue ad paid for with corporate or union money in the 30-day period before an election.
A Moral Issue
In the car just a minute ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about the issue of denying Iraq contracts to companies from countries that did not support the US position on invading. He said, "They have engaged in no behavior that deserves to be rewarded."
To you and me, the issue of contracts to rebuild Iraq would seem to involve diplomatic relations, preservation of our relationships with Europe and the rest of the world, international law, logic, fairness, competitive bidding, and especially "common sense" -- that further pissing off our allies does us no good, and in fact endangers us because these countries may not be there for us when we really DO need them because of some REAL threat we might someday face.
This is an excellent opportunity to encourage people to read George Lakoff's book Moral Politics! From this book you will gain understanding of how the right-wing mind works. Lakoff shows how, for the Right, this is a moral issue. All arguments of logic, fairness, or anything else, pale in comparison to the moral issue of rewarding what they regard as bad behavior! This is the Right's version of "common sense." It doesn't matter what the future consequences of breaking with decades of international relationships might bring. In fact, the concept of international law itself is objectionable to the Right because it leads to situations where we violate the Right's moral values.
In the meantime, while waiting for the book to arrive, you can read a summary of Lakoff's ideas here and here (part 2).
Update - Richard, in the comments, makes a VERY GOOD point! Rush is saying here that the contracts are being used as REWARDS for behavior. So what behavior is Halliburton being rewarded for?!! Very good question.
To you and me, the issue of contracts to rebuild Iraq would seem to involve diplomatic relations, preservation of our relationships with Europe and the rest of the world, international law, logic, fairness, competitive bidding, and especially "common sense" -- that further pissing off our allies does us no good, and in fact endangers us because these countries may not be there for us when we really DO need them because of some REAL threat we might someday face.
This is an excellent opportunity to encourage people to read George Lakoff's book Moral Politics! From this book you will gain understanding of how the right-wing mind works. Lakoff shows how, for the Right, this is a moral issue. All arguments of logic, fairness, or anything else, pale in comparison to the moral issue of rewarding what they regard as bad behavior! This is the Right's version of "common sense." It doesn't matter what the future consequences of breaking with decades of international relationships might bring. In fact, the concept of international law itself is objectionable to the Right because it leads to situations where we violate the Right's moral values.
In the meantime, while waiting for the book to arrive, you can read a summary of Lakoff's ideas here and here (part 2).
Update - Richard, in the comments, makes a VERY GOOD point! Rush is saying here that the contracts are being used as REWARDS for behavior. So what behavior is Halliburton being rewarded for?!! Very good question.
Calpundit Has A Good Idea
Calpundit, talking about software patents:
I remember when (I think it was) Magnavox claimed a patent on using the "XOR" (exclusive or) instruction to generate graphics in video games. They sued some small companies that would have to settle, and used the precedent to go after bigger companies. Finally they went after Activision, won the lawsuit, and received a huge award.
Software patents are bad enough, and restrict innovation, but the practice of keeping your patent a secret until a rival has built up a significant business, and then pouncing, should be outlawed.
ALSO - go read the comments following Calpundit's post!
"I happen to think that patents on 'fundamental' software technologies are way too easy to get in any case, but the real problem here is that of letting a broad patent sit dormant for a long time while other people use it, either knowingly or not. After there's a critical mass, and the users can't easily switch to something else, the patent holder sues. Unisys pulled this same trick over the underlying technology for the GIF image format.Defend it or lose it. That's a start, anyway.
It strikes me that patent law should resemble trademark law in this respect: if you don't defend your patent, you lose it. Companies that adopt technology need to have a reasonable way of knowing whether the technology is patented and what the patent holder's licensing terms are, and they need to know this before they invest heavily in the technology. Anything else is fundamentally unfair."
I remember when (I think it was) Magnavox claimed a patent on using the "XOR" (exclusive or) instruction to generate graphics in video games. They sued some small companies that would have to settle, and used the precedent to go after bigger companies. Finally they went after Activision, won the lawsuit, and received a huge award.
Software patents are bad enough, and restrict innovation, but the practice of keeping your patent a secret until a rival has built up a significant business, and then pouncing, should be outlawed.
ALSO - go read the comments following Calpundit's post!
Senator Boxer Introduces Paper Trail Voting Bill
Boxer wants new voting machines to give receipts:
"Sen. Barbara Boxer, reacting to a growing controversy over possible security flaws in electronic voting, said Thursday she would propose a law requiring all states with counties that use such computerized touch-screen systems to provide voters with a paper receipt -- and do it by next November's presidential election."It's in the mainstream, people.
12/11/2003
Weblog Awards
If you can think of any weblogs to nominate, do it here: Wampum: The 2003 Koufax Awards.
Sen. Graham Introduces Verified Voting Bill In Senate
Statement -- October 23, 2003:
"Senator Bob Graham, D-Florida, today introduced the Voter Verification Act, legislation that would require computer voting systems to produce a paper record.
“After the election of 2000 and the mid-term election – where stories of voter problems were not uncommon – we have to put an electoral system into place in which Americans can have full confidence,” said Graham. “This legislation will take us one step further to ensure that every vote really counts and we do not have another debacle like the 2000 election.”
Election Central
electioncentral.blog-city.com:
"Election Central is published by Warren Slocum, a non-partisan Registrar of Voters. This site chronicles the voting machine wars and explores the nexus of technology and voting and the battle for integirty of elections - legislation, verified voting, election reform, voting machine innovations, security and election policy making are of special interest."
What will W and the boys try to get away with over the Christmas holiday?
Occasional guest blogger Tom Spencer from the defunct (at least for the next few months) Thinking It Through blog over at History News Network here.
As we all know, this administration is always trying to get away with things. Today's story about Halliburton's profiteering is a perfect example of this. Do you really think they'd be announcing the results of any sort of investigation into Halliburton if it hadn't been for the NYT story earlier this week? They'd love to keep the gladhanding of their political cronies under the radar, right?
BTW, I'm shocked, shocked I say, to discover that there's profiteering going on in those no-bid contracts to the Vice President's old company. Aren't you?
As a historian of the Gilded Age, I'm used to seeing corruption like this in my research -- especially since a lot of my research is in Lincoln Steffens's favorite town, St. Louis. However, I must admit, these guys may have outdone what I thought were some of the most corrupt administrations in American history.
But I digress. The point of this post is that I'd like to ask bloggers and readers of STF an interesting question that we can all talk about for the next week or so. What do you think the Bush administration will try to slip under the radar over the upcoming holiday? We all know how adept they are at trying to sneak things under the radar, don't we? They really do make Clinton's folks look like amateurs at times, don't they?
My bet is that they'll release the 20% of Gitmo detainees they've known were innocent for several months now over the holiday. It is a helluva note that these guys are so ethically challenged that they're waiting for the right time to do it instead of, um, doing it immediately because it's the, um, ethical thing to do.
But, once again, I digress. What bombshell will the administration quietly announce "ho-hum" like around the holiday? Let's say between the dates of December 23 and December 26?
What do you think?
As we all know, this administration is always trying to get away with things. Today's story about Halliburton's profiteering is a perfect example of this. Do you really think they'd be announcing the results of any sort of investigation into Halliburton if it hadn't been for the NYT story earlier this week? They'd love to keep the gladhanding of their political cronies under the radar, right?
BTW, I'm shocked, shocked I say, to discover that there's profiteering going on in those no-bid contracts to the Vice President's old company. Aren't you?
As a historian of the Gilded Age, I'm used to seeing corruption like this in my research -- especially since a lot of my research is in Lincoln Steffens's favorite town, St. Louis. However, I must admit, these guys may have outdone what I thought were some of the most corrupt administrations in American history.
But I digress. The point of this post is that I'd like to ask bloggers and readers of STF an interesting question that we can all talk about for the next week or so. What do you think the Bush administration will try to slip under the radar over the upcoming holiday? We all know how adept they are at trying to sneak things under the radar, don't we? They really do make Clinton's folks look like amateurs at times, don't they?
My bet is that they'll release the 20% of Gitmo detainees they've known were innocent for several months now over the holiday. It is a helluva note that these guys are so ethically challenged that they're waiting for the right time to do it instead of, um, doing it immediately because it's the, um, ethical thing to do.
But, once again, I digress. What bombshell will the administration quietly announce "ho-hum" like around the holiday? Let's say between the dates of December 23 and December 26?
What do you think?
Joke
A guy gets into a car wreck in 1988, goes into a coma. He wakes up, and they start to tell him about things, and eventually he asks about President Reagan. They tell him that President Reagan has Alzheimer's disease.
He says, "OH MY GOD!! That means that George Bush is President!!!"
He says, "OH MY GOD!! That means that George Bush is President!!!"
Who Is Our Economy For?
What does rising productivity mean to you? A commenter named Lawrence Krubner left this excellent comment at Brad DeLong's weblog:
When unions are strong labor gets more of productivity gains than capital. When unions are weak, capital gets more of productivity gains than labor. When markets are competitive consumers get the majority of productivity gains. When markets are monopolistic the majority of the gains go to labor or capital, depending on the strength of the unions.Saying unions are weak now would be an understatement.
Take No Prisoners
Take No Prisoners -- watch US Marines execute a wounded man, while other Marines cheer. (Warning - disturbing footage.)
Watch the Marine describe the feeling of executing the guy as "awesome." How many Timothy McVeighs are we creating?
Watch the Marine describe the feeling of executing the guy as "awesome." How many Timothy McVeighs are we creating?
Bush Mocks The Very Idea Of Laws Applying To Him
Yahoo! News - Bush Rejects Europeans on Iraq Contract Flap:
"Bush scoffed at a question seeking his reaction to Schroeder's statement on Thursday that international law must apply to the awarding of the contracts.
'International law? I better call my lawyer,' he said. "
12/10/2003
Who Spends?
From The Volokh Conspiracy:
Not exactly what Rush and the rest of The Party would have you believe.
"...in the first three years of the Bush administration, non-defense discretionary outlays will have risen by 20.8 percent. This compares to a .7% decrease in such spending for the first three years of the Clinton administration..."That first 3 years of the Clinton presidency, by the way, was before the Republicans took the House and Senate.
Not exactly what Rush and the rest of The Party would have you believe.
Who Are We "At War" With?
Something I've been thinking about -- Who are we "at war" with?
With the Bush administration and the dictatorship of The Party, we have to look at what they DO, not what they SAY, to understand their agenda. Because they lie. Because they use a cloud of false words as a smokescreen to cover what they really wish to achieve.
The United States was attacked on 9/11 by al-Queda, an organization run by Osama bin Laden. They were harbored in Afghanistan, by the Taliban. We invaded that country, overthrew the Taliban government, and have been pursuing the remnants of al-Queda since.
But, with Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Queda largely out of the way, Bush has instead declared that we are still "at war" with "terrorism," that there is a larger war to be fought, and that this "war" will go on for many, many years.
So who and where are the "terrorists" we are "at war" with? Are we at war with Chechnya? Are we at war with Palestinians? If so, WHY? What do Palestinian or Chechnyan terrorists have to do with the United States? In the Philippines we are at war, again against Islamists who were no threat whatsoever to the people of the United States. What about Iraqis? What threat were Iraqis to the people of the United States? No.
Are we at war with American militias? Are we at war with the Irish Republican Army? Clearly not. So by looking at what they are DOING instead of what they are saying, we can see that it isn't just any "terrorism" that is our enemy. By ignoring American right-wing terrorists, The Party shows that it isn't even terrorism that DOES threaten Americans that they are "at war" against.
If there is any tie between al-Queda, the Taliban, Palestinians, Chechnyans, etc., it is because of their religion, not because they had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks or any other threat to the people of the United States. So are we "at war" with a religion? Many in the U.S. would say that we are -- would say that this is a war of Christianity (never mind that the U.S. is not entirely Christian -- under Bush it IS entirely Christian for all practical purposes) against Islam.
What are the goals of this "war?" What are the limits? When is it over? Only when The Party says so?
With the Bush administration and the dictatorship of The Party, we have to look at what they DO, not what they SAY, to understand their agenda. Because they lie. Because they use a cloud of false words as a smokescreen to cover what they really wish to achieve.
The United States was attacked on 9/11 by al-Queda, an organization run by Osama bin Laden. They were harbored in Afghanistan, by the Taliban. We invaded that country, overthrew the Taliban government, and have been pursuing the remnants of al-Queda since.
But, with Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Queda largely out of the way, Bush has instead declared that we are still "at war" with "terrorism," that there is a larger war to be fought, and that this "war" will go on for many, many years.
So who and where are the "terrorists" we are "at war" with? Are we at war with Chechnya? Are we at war with Palestinians? If so, WHY? What do Palestinian or Chechnyan terrorists have to do with the United States? In the Philippines we are at war, again against Islamists who were no threat whatsoever to the people of the United States. What about Iraqis? What threat were Iraqis to the people of the United States? No.
Are we at war with American militias? Are we at war with the Irish Republican Army? Clearly not. So by looking at what they are DOING instead of what they are saying, we can see that it isn't just any "terrorism" that is our enemy. By ignoring American right-wing terrorists, The Party shows that it isn't even terrorism that DOES threaten Americans that they are "at war" against.
If there is any tie between al-Queda, the Taliban, Palestinians, Chechnyans, etc., it is because of their religion, not because they had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks or any other threat to the people of the United States. So are we "at war" with a religion? Many in the U.S. would say that we are -- would say that this is a war of Christianity (never mind that the U.S. is not entirely Christian -- under Bush it IS entirely Christian for all practical purposes) against Islam.
What are the goals of this "war?" What are the limits? When is it over? Only when The Party says so?
The War WAS About The Money - Not The Iraqis
Yahoo! News - U.S. Defends Barring Iraq Opponents from Contracts.
So it's about getting contracts, not who can do the best job of helping the Iraqis build a new country.
So it's about getting contracts, not who can do the best job of helping the Iraqis build a new country.
A Good Analysis Of What Has Been Going On
This, in today's Washington Post, does a great job explaining what has happened to the Democratic Party:
"By winning office with a negative 540,000-vote margin and then proceeding to govern in the most relentlessly partisan fashion from the right, the president has made unmistakably clear that the concerns of Democrats are of no interest to him. On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, the Republican leadership relies solely on Republican votes to get its measures passed, going so far as to exclude mainstream Democrats from conference committees. When America's new laws are to be negotiated, Republicans talk only to themselves.
Disastrously, it's been the Democrats in Congress who've been the slowest to pick up on their new marginality. Some of the Democrats who voted to authorize the Iraq war in October 2002 did so -- or say they did so -- in hopes of prodding Bush to embrace a more multilateral approach toward Iraq.
Call this the Tony Blair Fallacy -- both the prime minister and our own legislators failed to realize that Bush wanted only their permission, not their advice. And this year it was Ted Kennedy -- long the wisest liberal head on the Hill -- who calculated that the Medicare bill would grow more palatable the longer it was deliberated. In any previous Congress, that could well have been the case. In this Congress, however, no Democrats are allowed into the deliberations that matter.
[. . .]
While the nation's Democratic leaders were unable to understand just how marginal they'd become, however, millions of rank-and-file Democrats and just plain disgruntled Bush-haters intuitively grasped what was going on. Bush was bent on repealing the New Deal and replacing the internationalist order that the United States had erected after World War II with a more nationalist vision of his own. If you weren't with him, you were against him. And he was against you. "
12/09/2003
We All Lose Now
US Using Israeli Military to Train Special Ops to fight Iraqis: "I have a sinking feeling that Bush just lost the war on terror."
A Better Reason
If you're looking for Machiavellian reasons for the timing of Gore's endorsement of Dean, take a look at LiberalOasis. LiberalOasis suggests the timing was to put Bush's signing of the Medicare reform and prescription drug con-job on the back pages.
"It’s tough to step on a presidential news story. But Gore did, making Bush’s sell job, already uphill, just a little bit harder."It worked. And all the TV and radio talking heads, talking about Gore vs Hillary (see below), helped. Joke's on them.
Spam
I'm getting in the many hundreds of spams a day. If I check my mail, and then check my mail again, there is at least one new spam NO MATTER HOW QUICKLY I CHECK IT AGAIN!
Wurlitzer
This morning I was driving around, so I had the radio on, listening to Rush and O'Reilly. This evening, after today's Democratic Party Presidential debate I did something I don't usually do anymore -- I flipped through the cable TV channels to see what they were saying. I shouldn't be, but I am rather surprised that every single pundit on every single channel said the same things, and it was the very same things that Rush and O'Reilly were saying this morning! It was all about Gore's endorsement, and how it is some kind of war with Hillary Clinton for leadership of the party, and had nothing to do with Dean, and how Dean is a little twit who Bush will easily stomp, and how Gore has moved way to the left, and Dean is a leftist extremist, and it's all about the 2008 election because this one is all over.
Total and complete uniformity of opinion, on the radio and on the TV. I imagine this is what I'll read in the major papers tomorrow.
So here's the problem. How do we get enough Americans away from the Wurlitzer? If this is all they hear, of course this is what many of them will think. It isn't like they will have a choice. Sure, Dean will be able to buy commercials, but if each commercial is followed by 10 minutes of the media telling the public why everything Democrats say is nonsense what good are they?
So how DO we reach the broad, mainstream public in time for the election? The Internet has been good for us to reach EACH OTHER, but how do we get honest news to regular Americans? THIS will be the problem of the election.
Total and complete uniformity of opinion, on the radio and on the TV. I imagine this is what I'll read in the major papers tomorrow.
So here's the problem. How do we get enough Americans away from the Wurlitzer? If this is all they hear, of course this is what many of them will think. It isn't like they will have a choice. Sure, Dean will be able to buy commercials, but if each commercial is followed by 10 minutes of the media telling the public why everything Democrats say is nonsense what good are they?
So how DO we reach the broad, mainstream public in time for the election? The Internet has been good for us to reach EACH OTHER, but how do we get honest news to regular Americans? THIS will be the problem of the election.
Dean Condemns Profanity and Ethnic Humor
I was listening to some right-wing stuff on the radio today, and they said that at a Dean fundraiser last night a speaker called Bush a "piece of shit" along with some other choice words. They were all outraged that Dean did not condemn it, and said this is typical of him and Democrats, and shows what Democrats think of "regular Americans."
Well, of course, Gov. Dean did condemn it. Here's one reference: Dean Objects to Ethnic Humor at a Comedyfest in His Honor. Of course, he also condemned it and condemned the profanity.
Expect right-wing lies -- it's all they have.
Well, of course, Gov. Dean did condemn it. Here's one reference: Dean Objects to Ethnic Humor at a Comedyfest in His Honor. Of course, he also condemned it and condemned the profanity.
"When the M.C., Kate Clinton, introduced Dr. Dean, she had to stall for a few minutes, because he was still fuming in the other room. A few minutes later, he took the stage and apologized for what he called offensive language. "I just don't have much tolerance for ethnic humor," he said. "We are all one community."Nasty, personal attacks are not the trademark of the Dean campaign. Sure, you get a dose of Bush-hating at Seeing the Forest and many other places online, but Dr. Dean's campaign is about policy, democracy, integrity and the people.
[. . .]
"That's not the kind of humor that has any place in the governor's campaign," said a spokesman, Doug Thornell, adding that the comedians had all been "given instructions to keep it clean."
"The governor was incensed and angry," Mr. Thornell said. "He thought the language was totally outrageous.""
Expect right-wing lies -- it's all they have.
The Attack On Dean
We're seeing the Right's attack on Dean starting to shape up. Here is an example:
Dean IS for free trade, as long as the rights of workers in all countries are protected. What's wrong with that?
The "old" Dean did not "court" the NRA, and the new Dean is no more for gun control than the "old" Dean. He says keep the laws we have and leave the rest to individual states, just like he always said. Vermont does not HAVE gun murders.
There is nothing contradictory about being pro-business and fiscally moderate, and wanting to do something about multi-national corporations turning us all into serfs.
When Dean said we can't pull out of Iraq responsibly, he meant that we have responsibilities to rebuild and establish order. When he says we need to bring the troops home he means after establishing order and bringing in an international force to keep the peace.
Well, I just got caught in old the trap of refuting each little lie - each tree - and letting this distract me fom seeing the forest. The forest is that they lie. They just lie. They're like the con men who always have a fast response,a new lie, trying to get you to look the other way while they pocket your wallet.
Brooks pretends not to understand Dean's positions, even to say Dean does not have positions. This is the Right's attempt to transmit that because Dean's well-thought-out positions aren't sound bites, they should be dismissed as eggheaded liberal intellectual stuff. "Don't listen to that man's positions. Let's all laugh at him instead. Hey, look over there."
The attack is shaping up now. Because Dean's positions have DEPTH they should be mocked, ridiculed, distorted, lied about. This is how they are going to attempt to campaign around their own unpopular positions -- character assassination, distraction, ridicule and lies, mixed with a dose of give-the-public-something-to-hate-so-they-don't-think. And, of course, lots and lots of fear. They count on Americans being stupid. Of course, this is what we knew they would do - it is what they always do. They lie. They just lie. It's really all they have to offer. That's the forest. Each lie is a tree. Let's start pointing this out at every opportunity.
"The old Dean was a free trader. The new Dean is not. The old Dean was open to Medicare reform. The new Dean says Medicare is off the table. The old Dean courted the N.R.A.; the new Dean has swung in favor of gun control. The old Dean was a pro-business fiscal moderate; the new Dean, sounding like Ralph Nader, declares, "We've allowed our lives to become slaves to the bottom line of multinational corporations all over the world."I find this stunningly dishonest. Of course, it's from The Party so what else should I expect?
[...]
But the liberated Dean is beyond categories like liberal and centrist because he is beyond coherence. He'll make a string of outspoken comments over a period of weeks — on "re-regulating" the economy or gay marriage — but none of them have any relation to the others. When you actually try to pin him down on a policy, you often find there is nothing there.
For example, asked how we should proceed in Iraq, he says hawkishly, "We can't pull out responsibly." Then on another occasion he says dovishly, "Our troops need to come home," and explains, fantastically, that we need to recruit 110,000 foreign troops to take the place of our reserves. Then he says we should not be spending billions more dollars there. Then he says again that we have to stay and finish the job.
At each moment, he appears outspoken, blunt and honest. But over time he is incoherent and contradictory.
He is, in short, a man unrooted. This gives him an amazing freshness and an exhilarating freedom."
Dean IS for free trade, as long as the rights of workers in all countries are protected. What's wrong with that?
The "old" Dean did not "court" the NRA, and the new Dean is no more for gun control than the "old" Dean. He says keep the laws we have and leave the rest to individual states, just like he always said. Vermont does not HAVE gun murders.
There is nothing contradictory about being pro-business and fiscally moderate, and wanting to do something about multi-national corporations turning us all into serfs.
When Dean said we can't pull out of Iraq responsibly, he meant that we have responsibilities to rebuild and establish order. When he says we need to bring the troops home he means after establishing order and bringing in an international force to keep the peace.
Well, I just got caught in old the trap of refuting each little lie - each tree - and letting this distract me fom seeing the forest. The forest is that they lie. They just lie. They're like the con men who always have a fast response,a new lie, trying to get you to look the other way while they pocket your wallet.
Brooks pretends not to understand Dean's positions, even to say Dean does not have positions. This is the Right's attempt to transmit that because Dean's well-thought-out positions aren't sound bites, they should be dismissed as eggheaded liberal intellectual stuff. "Don't listen to that man's positions. Let's all laugh at him instead. Hey, look over there."
The attack is shaping up now. Because Dean's positions have DEPTH they should be mocked, ridiculed, distorted, lied about. This is how they are going to attempt to campaign around their own unpopular positions -- character assassination, distraction, ridicule and lies, mixed with a dose of give-the-public-something-to-hate-so-they-don't-think. And, of course, lots and lots of fear. They count on Americans being stupid. Of course, this is what we knew they would do - it is what they always do. They lie. They just lie. It's really all they have to offer. That's the forest. Each lie is a tree. Let's start pointing this out at every opportunity.
Blogger Acting Screwey (Surprise!)
Blogger is acting screwy. In fact, you probably aren't reading this. Things I posted yesterday aren't showing up... Good luck.
12/08/2003
When The PEOPLE Get The Chance To Speak
THIS is why The Party is struggling so hard to keep anyone from having any say in policy, and to keep anyone from investigating anything they are doing. Because when you can actually shine some light on their activities, and bring them in front of PEOPLE for judgment, the people DO judge:
"A hometown jury deliberated just five hours Monday before convicting Rep. William J. Janklow, the state's only congressman, of manslaughter for killing a motorcyclist after running a stop sign."
Good News For Software Engineers
Are you a software engineer (programmer)? I've got good news for you! You are now a "low-skilled" worker! Hooray! From this NYTimes story from yesterday -- read on an airplane, ON PAPER! -- Who Wins and Who Loses as Jobs Move Overseas? an economist says this:
And for the rest of you, who might think you are not as "low-skilled" as software engineers, there is this:
Who IS our economy for, anyway?
"Out in the Bay Area there are plenty of folks who would love to create a little bit of protectionism around their I.T. jobs, but we are far better off letting a lot of those jobs go. Low-skill jobs like coding are moving offshore and what's left in their place are more advanced project management jobs."Better off letting those jobs go? As compared to high-skill jobs like economist?
And for the rest of you, who might think you are not as "low-skilled" as software engineers, there is this:
"China for all practical purposes has an infinite supply of labor: 400 million in its urban population and another 900 million in the rural area. The average wage of a Chinese worker is still 2.5 to 3 percent of the counterpart in the developed world. Those are disparities that will be around for a long time."Someone, somewhere, please tell me why it is a good thing to negotiate trade agreements that do not protect workers and the environment? Aren't we guaranteeing a "spiral to the bottom," when we set up these deals with China allowing them to pay workers only pennies per hour, meanwhile forcing them to work 80-hour+ weeks? No one can compete with that - but the Chinese workers don't benefit either, and they certainly aren't earning enough to buy anything we make in the US! They are not allowed to organize independant unions, and they know that if they make trouble they can be replaced by one of those 900 million from the rural areas. Meanwhile the labor savings are not passed on to regular Americans. They are pocketed by CEOs and ultra-rich shareholders who don't even have to pay much in taxes on the money gained from sending OUR jobs offshore. We get poorer, the Chinese don't get particularly richer -- at least not rich enough to be buying the few things we still make. Over time this HAS TO erode demand in the US so even our corporations stop benefitting from this arrangement. (Of course the current crop of executives will have already pocketed their millions, (giving a share to The Party,) and flown off in one of their jets to one of their $5 million homes, so they don't care.)
Who IS our economy for, anyway?
12/06/2003
Oh My God!
Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns:
This is AMERICA doing this!
"As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire."Oh my God!
"In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers."Oh my God!
"They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in."Oh my God!
"In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.Oh my God!
"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."
The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger."
""You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face." "OH MY GOD!
"The next day, an American jet dropped a 500-bomb on the house that had been used to attack them. The Americans arrested eight sheiks, the mayor, the police chief and most members of the city council. "We really hammered the place," Maj. Darron Wright said.OH MY GOD!
Two and a half weeks later, the town of Abu Hishma is enclosed in a barbed-wire fence that stretches for five miles. Men ages 18 to 65 have been ordered to get identification cards. There is only way into the town and one way out.
"This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot."
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.OH MY GOD!
"In Abu Hishma, residents complain that the village is locked down for 15 hours a day, meaning that they are unable to go to the mosque for morning and evening prayers. They say the curfew does not allow them time to stand in the daylong lines for gasoline and get home before the gate closes for the night."OH MY GOD! THIS IS US!
This is AMERICA doing this!
12/05/2003
Party Over ... Everything
L.A. Daily News - GOP guts projects by local Dems:
"If a congressional Democrat asked for it, Southern California won't be getting it.If you live in a Democratic district, you aren't Americans, and don't get any of the benefits of citizenship.
In one of the year's ugliest political battles, Republican lawmakers have rejected almost every request made by a Democrat for a local education, job or health program.
[. . .]
Local GOP lawmakers said they are standing behind their party, despite losses to local communities.
[. . .]
"I think it's difficult to say, 'We're deciding how to spend your tax dollars depending on whether you have a D or an R representing this patch of land or that patch of land,"' said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks.
[. . .]"Should we really build bridges based upon which areas have a conservative congressman and which have a Democratic member?" he said."
Surprise! Limbaugh Blames Liberals
Yahoo! News - Limbaugh Attorney Blames Politics in Probe:
Oh, wait, I forgot -- laws, ethics, responsibility, honesty ... these things don't apply to Republicans!
"Rush Limbaugh's attorney accused the local prosecutor Friday of having political motives in investigating his client for allegedly purchasing painkillers illegally. "Is this what they teach you in rehab? To blame others? What happened to the right-wing mantra of personal responsibility?
Oh, wait, I forgot -- laws, ethics, responsibility, honesty ... these things don't apply to Republicans!
12/04/2003
Stage Management
This is Tom Spencer folks. Since my retirement a couple of weeks ago, Dave invited me to guest blog here whenever I wanted to.
I thought I'd take him up on it every now and then.
Everyone really should read this by Paul Vitello of Newsday.
Here's a bit of it:
Indeed.
Now go read the rest of it.
And Vitello apparently didn't know about the administration's lies about the flight over to Iraq and the turkey itself when he wrote the column.
The way this administration has played the media and a distressingly large number of Americans for suckers through deft stage management is truly frightening.
We truly have reached the point in American politics where it's all about the style and not the substance, haven't we? Of course, American politics have really been largely about style for quite a while -- ever since television started playing a major role in the late 1950s actually.
However, W and the boys really do excel at the photo-op presidency. The current situation in Iraq is a perfect example. They are quite capable of making it look like things in Iraq are progressing nicely to the average uninformed American. Meanwhile, outside the administration's carefully constructed reality, everything over there is obviously falling apart.
Okay. That's all. I hope you enjoyed it.
I thought I'd take him up on it every now and then.
Everyone really should read this by Paul Vitello of Newsday.
Here's a bit of it:
I am no photo editor. But this is the time when we begin to see roundups of the best news photos of the past year. And just running the loop of the year's most memorable pictures in my head, a funny thing happens:
I keep seeing staged photos.
...
But between you and me, the most compelling images of the year have probably been the photos never taken - pictures one can only imagine, even if one might not actually want to see them.
There are no enduring photos, for instance, of the costs of the war in Iraq. I have seen some pictures of American soldiers killed. But usually these are met with angry denunciations by the public, and American newspapers are not publishing many.
There have been some pictures of killed and wounded Iraqi civilians, including children, but usually these too are met with angry denunciations by the public; and American newspapers are not publishing many.
The traditional photographing of flag-draped coffins descending from U.S. military planes, bearing home the bodies of American soldiers killed in the war, has been banned, for the time being, by the Pentagon.
We do not have these images engraved on us, as we do the images of the statue falling, and the president flying here and there.
But these are real pictures for me, and perhaps for you. I keep them in the photo loop of my inner eye, where they run every time I am told again that things are improving, or that 60 percent of the people of Iraq (according to a recent Zogby poll) are glad to see us.
OK, this is not about the Year in Photos. It's about the country's conscience.
Photo images - not the staged ones, but the ones that capture life unfolding in all its unpredictability and awesomeness - are among the most powerful informers of the national conscience. Without them, we are left making only choices that have been stage managed: To vote or not, to shop or not, to see or look away.
Indeed.
Now go read the rest of it.
And Vitello apparently didn't know about the administration's lies about the flight over to Iraq and the turkey itself when he wrote the column.
The way this administration has played the media and a distressingly large number of Americans for suckers through deft stage management is truly frightening.
We truly have reached the point in American politics where it's all about the style and not the substance, haven't we? Of course, American politics have really been largely about style for quite a while -- ever since television started playing a major role in the late 1950s actually.
However, W and the boys really do excel at the photo-op presidency. The current situation in Iraq is a perfect example. They are quite capable of making it look like things in Iraq are progressing nicely to the average uninformed American. Meanwhile, outside the administration's carefully constructed reality, everything over there is obviously falling apart.
Okay. That's all. I hope you enjoyed it.
Losing Money
"Out of Change" by Bruce Reed:
"He turned a $5 trillion projected surplus into a $5 trillion projected deficit. With a trillion dollars in deficits in a single term, Bush has done what baseball owners do best--lose money. "Great line.
Jeeze
FT.com / World / US:
"Boeing has taken a $20m stake in an investment fund run by Richard Perle, a top Pentagon adviser, underlining the close links it has built to Washington's defence establishment.The blatant corruption and criminality just DOES. NOT. STOP.
Mr Perle, a former Reagan assistant secretary of defence, is considered one of the most influential civilian advisers to the Pentagon and an architect of the US policy on Iraq.
[. . .]
Two other members of the Defence Policy Board, a retired admiral and a retired Air Force general, featured in an internal Boeing e-mail from January identifying them as company consultants, and claiming they were "engaging" Pentagon circles on the tanker deal.
Mr Perle, whose mixture of high-level business and political contacts has drawn scrutiny, was out of the country, and did not return phone calls or e-mail messages."
Oh, Please!
A line toward the end of this story, Dean Now Courting Party Insiders (washingtonpost.com), says:
If there were 1,300 people there, and she raised $200,000 ... well, I guess any of us can do the math better than the Washington Post can.
It is OUTRAGEOUS that the Post compares this to Bush's high-dollar corporate contributors, who in turn receive huge government handouts!
While Dean has criticized Bush for relying on fundraisers known as "Rangers," who collect at least $200,000, and "Pioneers" who round up $100,000, Dean has his own roster of party insiders raising big bucks. [. . .] In early September, Lofgren raised more than $200,000, the largest amount collected for Dean's campaign at a single event. The fundraiser at her home was attended by more than 1,300 people, some of whom donated $1,000 each.Oh, please! I was at that event, and I paid I think $35.
If there were 1,300 people there, and she raised $200,000 ... well, I guess any of us can do the math better than the Washington Post can.
It is OUTRAGEOUS that the Post compares this to Bush's high-dollar corporate contributors, who in turn receive huge government handouts!
Dean's Hardball Transcript
Here.
"Where we’re at right now in this cycle is that we need somebody to mitigate the power of corporations. Corporations are not bad things. They’re neither good nor bad. But the problem is, they’re a bad influence on society if they get too much power, because their basic interest is the bottom line. And they forget that human being have-human beings have souls. We’re not meant to be simply cogs in a machine.
And right now, we’re at that cycle where we are cogs in a machine. When I first went to Iowa, the lesson I learned from about 20 ordinary people was, we don’t trust our employers anymore because they don’t value us, because they’ll move our jobs anyplace, including offshore. "
Who Tried To Bribe Rep. Smith? The Question Should Be Repeated!
Someone at the very top of the Republican Party offered Representative Nick Smith, R-Michigan, over $100,000 to change his vote on the Medicare bill. This is a Federal crime. According to this story, President Bush was himself calling Republican Representatives trying to change their votes. The bribe was offered either by President Bush himself, or someone on behalf of President Bush.
The theme of President Bush's campaign for office was that he would "restore honor and integrity to the White House." But those of us who get our news from non-mainstream or foreign sources hear story after story of bribery, lies and cover-ups from the White House and the leadership of The Party. Each story of corruption dies after a few days because no one is willing to pursue it. The Justice Department, the FBI, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Courts and the mainstream corporate media are all controlled by the Republican Party, so we can expect no investigation from any of them.
Now another day passes with the story receiving little attention. This story should not die. It should be repeated every day by every weblogger, and Progressive news site until pressure builds and something is done. The weblog community and the public are not yet under the thumb of The Party and we can continue to make noise! All of us should repeat the demand for an investigation. All of us should call their representative's office and demand to know who tried to bribe Rep. Smith.
The Republicans understand the power of a story like this one. This is the kind of story that Newt Gingrich would use to full advantage. He would arrange all night sessions on the House floor, with Representative after Representative speaking into C-Span's cameras, demanding an investigation. This is the kind of story that the Right's Wurlitzer would repeat endlessly as an example of the corruption of their opponents. This is the kind of story that the public will easily understand. So why shouldn't we continue to demand an investigation until someone in authority if forced to do something? This is the Republican Party caught red-handed engaging in the worst kind of corruption and criminality. If it is investigated someone is going to jail, and The Party will be exposed for what it is!
Stick with this. Webloggers - do not let this drop. People, keep calling your representatives, newspapers, television and radio stations.
The theme of President Bush's campaign for office was that he would "restore honor and integrity to the White House." But those of us who get our news from non-mainstream or foreign sources hear story after story of bribery, lies and cover-ups from the White House and the leadership of The Party. Each story of corruption dies after a few days because no one is willing to pursue it. The Justice Department, the FBI, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Courts and the mainstream corporate media are all controlled by the Republican Party, so we can expect no investigation from any of them.
Now another day passes with the story receiving little attention. This story should not die. It should be repeated every day by every weblogger, and Progressive news site until pressure builds and something is done. The weblog community and the public are not yet under the thumb of The Party and we can continue to make noise! All of us should repeat the demand for an investigation. All of us should call their representative's office and demand to know who tried to bribe Rep. Smith.
The Republicans understand the power of a story like this one. This is the kind of story that Newt Gingrich would use to full advantage. He would arrange all night sessions on the House floor, with Representative after Representative speaking into C-Span's cameras, demanding an investigation. This is the kind of story that the Right's Wurlitzer would repeat endlessly as an example of the corruption of their opponents. This is the kind of story that the public will easily understand. So why shouldn't we continue to demand an investigation until someone in authority if forced to do something? This is the Republican Party caught red-handed engaging in the worst kind of corruption and criminality. If it is investigated someone is going to jail, and The Party will be exposed for what it is!
Stick with this. Webloggers - do not let this drop. People, keep calling your representatives, newspapers, television and radio stations.
12/03/2003
Just How Far To The Right Is Bush?
Just how far to the right is Bush? How divisive, nasty and harmful to civil discourse? How closely linked to the worst of the Far Right's character assassins?
Here's a clue:
The current talking point of The Party is that liberals are viscous haters. Remember, their tactic is to accuse you of what they are doing.
Here's a clue:
"The White House announced Wednesday former Wall Street Journal Editor Robert Bartley has been selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.Robert Bartley is the guy Clinton aide and friend Vince Foster's suicide note was talking about when he wrote, "The [Wall Street Journal] editors lie without consequence. I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport." Bartley has been one of the very worst of the Right's liars and character assassins. Bush gives him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The citation terms Bartley one of the most influential journalists in American history.
The award characterizes Bartley as: "A champion of free markets, individual liberty, and the values necessary for a free society. His writings have been characterized by profound insights, passionate convictions, a commitment to democratic principles, and an unyielding optimism in America.
"The United States honors him for his contributions to American journalism and to the intellectual and political life of our Nation."
The current talking point of The Party is that liberals are viscous haters. Remember, their tactic is to accuse you of what they are doing.
Just For The Hell Of It
You know by now that one of the talking points of The Party is that those who are upset by Bush as not rational, are simply full of hate, etc. You have heard almost the entire Wurlitzer repeat that theme. (Remember also, one of the tactic of The Party is to acuse us of what they do.)
Just for the hell of it, read this, posted at Heritage's Town Hall, from yet another guy funded by Scaife, Gary Aldrich: Hate speech.
All I can say is Jeeze.
Just for the hell of it, read this, posted at Heritage's Town Hall, from yet another guy funded by Scaife, Gary Aldrich: Hate speech.
All I can say is Jeeze.
Another Day, No Bribery Investigation
Rep. Smith still has not shared with the Justice Dept. information about who tried to bribe him.
The Congressman says a bribe was attempted, but won't say who did it. Naturally, Congress, the FBI, and no one else is launching an investigation, because it might embarrass The Party. And it's Party over Law and Country every time with this crowd.
The Congressman says a bribe was attempted, but won't say who did it. Naturally, Congress, the FBI, and no one else is launching an investigation, because it might embarrass The Party. And it's Party over Law and Country every time with this crowd.
Is This Supposed To Be A Good Thing?
Productivity Grew at Fastest Rate Since 1983.
This means that businesses need to hire fewer people to get the same amount of work done. If the resulting profits were SHARED with workers and the public this might be a good thing. In Europe they have a shorter workweek, six weeks paid vacation each year, health insurance for everyone, and generous pensions when they retire. (And they can retire earlier.) But in America it means that a few rich fucks will be even richer, while the rest of us are competing with more and more un- and under-employed people for fewer jobs, losing our health insurance, working longer hours, losing the right to overtime pay, etc.
Who is our economy for? Until we take our country back, good economic news will be BAD news for most of us.
This means that businesses need to hire fewer people to get the same amount of work done. If the resulting profits were SHARED with workers and the public this might be a good thing. In Europe they have a shorter workweek, six weeks paid vacation each year, health insurance for everyone, and generous pensions when they retire. (And they can retire earlier.) But in America it means that a few rich fucks will be even richer, while the rest of us are competing with more and more un- and under-employed people for fewer jobs, losing our health insurance, working longer hours, losing the right to overtime pay, etc.
Who is our economy for? Until we take our country back, good economic news will be BAD news for most of us.
12/02/2003
Bottom of the Barrel
Bottom of the Barrel:
"Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware. "Running out of oil.
Repeating Myself (Again)
After a long phone conversation on fighting the Right, I wrote up a summary to send via e-mail. I think it's worth sharing here:
My research and the research of others shows that the Right has been so successful because they developed an "infrastructure" of organizations specifically designed to follow a long-term plan to move public opinion to the ideological right. After the public is "primed" with repeated messaging from the Right's echo chamber of organizations and media, they are softened up and prepared to be responsive to the right's politicians. In contrast, our (centrists, moderates and progressives) politicians are faced with the entire burden of developing a message themselves, from scratch, each election cycle, usually on their own, to a public that is NOT primed ahead of time to be responsive. Even if we manage to elect a new President, he will not be in a position to be effective because of the power of the Right's network of organizations -- look at what happened to Clinton.
We can't be successful without fighting the Right's underlying ideological messaging. We need to fund and develop our own advocacy organizations designed to move public attitudes back toward "the center." Our organizations can be modeled after the Right's successful organizations, but would operate within our value system -- no lies, trickery, gimmicks and deceit needed because we aren't trying to trick people into giving up their health care, Social Security, etc.
My research and the research of others shows that the Right has been so successful because they developed an "infrastructure" of organizations specifically designed to follow a long-term plan to move public opinion to the ideological right. After the public is "primed" with repeated messaging from the Right's echo chamber of organizations and media, they are softened up and prepared to be responsive to the right's politicians. In contrast, our (centrists, moderates and progressives) politicians are faced with the entire burden of developing a message themselves, from scratch, each election cycle, usually on their own, to a public that is NOT primed ahead of time to be responsive. Even if we manage to elect a new President, he will not be in a position to be effective because of the power of the Right's network of organizations -- look at what happened to Clinton.
We can't be successful without fighting the Right's underlying ideological messaging. We need to fund and develop our own advocacy organizations designed to move public attitudes back toward "the center." Our organizations can be modeled after the Right's successful organizations, but would operate within our value system -- no lies, trickery, gimmicks and deceit needed because we aren't trying to trick people into giving up their health care, Social Security, etc.
War Pigs
Black Sabbath's War Pigs:
Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!
Update - Anyone else out there old enough to tell me what year this came out?
Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!
Update - Anyone else out there old enough to tell me what year this came out?
Another This Just In
This just in - an e-mail I received:
"The Daily Show" - absolutely the best show on television. This back and forth between Jon Stewart and "White House Correspondent" Stephen Colbert says it all:
Jon Stewart: It sounds like no one in the White House press corps had even a clue that this trip was going to take place...
Stephen Colbert: That's right, Jon! Gotta give the White House credit on this one. My colleagues and I are incredibly impressed by how well we were misled. And this was for a good cause. Just imagine if they were doing something they were ashamed of? We'd never find out! This just proves that we journalists shouldn't even try. Which we don't.
Jon Stewart: ...Clearly an incredible amount of logistics and foresight had to go into all this.
Stephen Colbert: Yes, Jon. This visit was an extremely well-coordinated operation. And the Bush team has learned a lot from this mission that they can now apply to the rest of their work in Iraq. For instance, when it comes to planning - do some.
Jon Stewart: That's interesting...
Stephen Colbert: Yes, this Thanksgiving trip has shown the president that a lot of the best preparation is done in advance. Unfortunately, with regard to our occupation of Iraq, we did all our preparation afterwards. And now it's a seething cauldron of death and rage. But hey! That's why pencils have erasers.
Now lesson two of this Thanksgiving trip: With respect to an exit strategy - have one. What we saw last Thursday was a president with a clear idea of when and how he would leave Iraq: Specifically - at noon and full of giblets.
My Birthday
Had a big party for my 50th. Here's what you missed:
My wife, Sudeep, is in the middle.
The end of a skit about being old.
It's a real sword. (Clcik a picture for more.)
OK, enough, now back to Bush-bashing.
My wife, Sudeep, is in the middle.
The end of a skit about being old.
It's a real sword. (Clcik a picture for more.)
OK, enough, now back to Bush-bashing.
This Just In
From the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:
From Florida, to California, to Colorado, to Texas, Republicans are attempting to hold onto power by any means necessary. On December 1, 2003, the GOP's plan to RE-redistrict congressional boundaries in Colorado was stuck down by the Colorado Supreme Court which stated clearly: "the Colorado Constitution requires the General Assembly to redistrict after each census and before the ensuing general election, and does not allow redistricting at any other time."
But even as Colorado rejected this blatant GOP power grab, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and White House master strategist Karl Rove are attempting to force through an even bigger RE-redistricting plan in Texas. John Ashcroft's Department of Justice is believed to be within days of "pre-clearing" the proposed GOP plan that would suppress the voting strength of up to 3.6 million Hispanic and African-American voters.
The NAACP, The Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the American GI Forum have filed suit in U.S. federal court to stop this unconscionable attempt by the GOP to undermine the integrity of our electoral system in order to consolidate their hold on power.
PLEASE VISIT www.DemocraticAction.org and sign our petition demanding that John Ashcroft allow Justice Dept. voting rights professionals - and not partisan political appointees - to rule on the GOP plan.
Really Shitty Court Decision - Literally
Nathan Newman writes about a literally shitty court decision. Read this, then ask: Who Is Our Economy FOR, Anyway?
12/01/2003
Blatant Bribery
Thanks to Atrios: Who Tried To Bribe Rep. Smith? - Stop protecting him, Congressman. By Timothy Noah.
Another blatant crime, committed in public, with the Republicans getting away with it. Every one of us should be calling the press, and our representatives, and forwarding this article to everyone we know, demanding an investigation!
The Party controls the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI, the military, and the Courts. They believe they can get away with anything, and so far are priving this to be true. They are going to continue their blatant lawlessness and cover-ups until enough people make enough noise, and the press understands that we are PISSED OFF.
Perhaps you could ask the ombudsman at the Washington Post who to write to? Can anyone else make any suggestions of who to write to about this?
Another blatant crime, committed in public, with the Republicans getting away with it. Every one of us should be calling the press, and our representatives, and forwarding this article to everyone we know, demanding an investigation!
The Party controls the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI, the military, and the Courts. They believe they can get away with anything, and so far are priving this to be true. They are going to continue their blatant lawlessness and cover-ups until enough people make enough noise, and the press understands that we are PISSED OFF.
Perhaps you could ask the ombudsman at the Washington Post who to write to? Can anyone else make any suggestions of who to write to about this?
What Have You Done Today?
Have you done your part? Have you sent e-mail to people you know, letting them know about BuzzFlash.com, and MoveOn.org? If you send an e-mail to the right person, they might know 10 or 20 more people who would be interested and don't know about these resources. And those people might know even more people. Every little bit helps. Spreading the word is so important! It's vitally important that everyone who might see things our way become connected!
As MoveOn says, "Democracy is not a spectator sport."
As MoveOn says, "Democracy is not a spectator sport."
MoveOn House Parties Sunday
From MoveOn.org:
This Sunday, December 7th, over 2,000 MoveOn members are hosting house parties to screen the new documentary Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War. Some of these folks are opening up their homes to other MoveOn members, and you’re invited to attend. You can find a public party in your area and sign up at: http://action.moveon.org/meet/parties.html
Political Problem
OK, I've been listening to Rush and O'Reilly in the car... The Republicans have their finger on something. If you criticize what's happening in Iraq by just telling the truth, you sound unpatriotic. That's all there is to it. You CAN'T criticize them with the truth because the truth is so far out there!
Here's my thinking. You would think that the Republicans have been doing so much bad shit that there are SO MANY things you could go after. Things like Cheney still receiving money from Halliburton, and Halliburton getting no-bid contracts in Iraq, then buying gas in Kuwait for 50 cents and selling it to the US military in Iraq for $2.60. Or Bush and Harken Oil. Or Bush going AWOL in a time of war. Or privatizing Medicare and selling seniors to drug companies. There;s just SO MUCH SHIT going on! You would think with all this bad shit they do there would be something there you could use to get the public to see what's going on.
But that's just the problem. Here's what I think we're missing. They are the government, and a reasonable government just wouldn't do that. And America is a good country with a reasonable government.
I think a lot of what is going on is that they have successfully done SO MUCH that is SO BAD that the public just won't believe it.
Iraq - the simple fact is that we already did invade Iraq. The American public simply will not accept that we would do something like that for reasons unrelated to 9/11. The US would never do such a thing, therefore we didn't. To believe that we invaded a country that had done nothing to us -- in the middle of a national emergency requiring our full attention after we were attacked on 9/11, doing things like transferring Arabic translators and intelligence assets FROM the terrorists who attacked us TO a country that did not -- who would ever think that America would ever do such a thing. And if you say we did you sound like a paranoid fanatic nutcase.
These things just don't happen in America, therefore they didn't happen. These things don't happen in America, and don't you dare say they do.
How the hell do you fight THAT?
Here's my thinking. You would think that the Republicans have been doing so much bad shit that there are SO MANY things you could go after. Things like Cheney still receiving money from Halliburton, and Halliburton getting no-bid contracts in Iraq, then buying gas in Kuwait for 50 cents and selling it to the US military in Iraq for $2.60. Or Bush and Harken Oil. Or Bush going AWOL in a time of war. Or privatizing Medicare and selling seniors to drug companies. There;s just SO MUCH SHIT going on! You would think with all this bad shit they do there would be something there you could use to get the public to see what's going on.
But that's just the problem. Here's what I think we're missing. They are the government, and a reasonable government just wouldn't do that. And America is a good country with a reasonable government.
I think a lot of what is going on is that they have successfully done SO MUCH that is SO BAD that the public just won't believe it.
Iraq - the simple fact is that we already did invade Iraq. The American public simply will not accept that we would do something like that for reasons unrelated to 9/11. The US would never do such a thing, therefore we didn't. To believe that we invaded a country that had done nothing to us -- in the middle of a national emergency requiring our full attention after we were attacked on 9/11, doing things like transferring Arabic translators and intelligence assets FROM the terrorists who attacked us TO a country that did not -- who would ever think that America would ever do such a thing. And if you say we did you sound like a paranoid fanatic nutcase.
These things just don't happen in America, therefore they didn't happen. These things don't happen in America, and don't you dare say they do.
How the hell do you fight THAT?
Ralph Says
The Nader Page | Pharmaceutical Prices: "If Sam's Club can negotiate for lower pharmaceutical prices, why can't Uncle Sam?"
11/30/2003
AFL-CIO sponsors "Tell Us The Truth" concert tour...
[The American labor movement has been, and in a large sense, still is, the last vestige of organized and institutionalized opposition to the status quo in American politics - the only one with the resources to really make things happen on a large scale... it is great that they're funding this tour. Progressives have, and have always had, a huge advantage over right-wingers on the cultural front... it is one that they've really failed to take advantage of effectively. This is a good sign, I hope to see more of it. And note how well Morello was able to stay "on message" even when challenged on the reasons for attacking globalisation. Good work. Of course, this item appears to have only made it into "print" on the web...]
Raging Against the Machine
Lefty rockers like Tom Morello join forces and hit the road in an antiestablishment tour sponsored by the AFL-CIO
By Brian Braiker
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Nov. 26 — Iconoclastic rockers Billy Bragg, Steve Earle and friends recently wound down the first month-long leg of a group tour at the unlikeliest of venues: the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the AFL-CIO. Unlikely, that is, if this were your run-of-the-mill pop concert. But in an era of mega-tours organized and sponsored by soft drink and SUV-makers, the labor-backed “Tell us the Truth” tour is the unlikeliest of shows.
[...]
--Thomas Leavitt
Raging Against the Machine
Lefty rockers like Tom Morello join forces and hit the road in an antiestablishment tour sponsored by the AFL-CIO
By Brian Braiker
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Nov. 26 — Iconoclastic rockers Billy Bragg, Steve Earle and friends recently wound down the first month-long leg of a group tour at the unlikeliest of venues: the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the AFL-CIO. Unlikely, that is, if this were your run-of-the-mill pop concert. But in an era of mega-tours organized and sponsored by soft drink and SUV-makers, the labor-backed “Tell us the Truth” tour is the unlikeliest of shows.
[...]
--Thomas Leavitt
The Emperor's New Clothes
[Obviously, not all the members of the American media are blind...]
Ellis Henican - Theatrics Of It All In Iraq
--Thomas Leavitt
Ellis Henican - Theatrics Of It All In Iraq
--Thomas Leavitt
Letters to the Editor in Washington Post
[The Washington Post just published a great letter to the editor (also below, in italics), just below a letter to the editor from John Podesta and the Center for American Progress rebutting the editorial mentioned (and linked to) below.
The publication of an editorial by the Washington Post with a line like this speaks volumes about how effective the ultra-right has been at defining the terms of the game... somewhere in a Washington area smoke filled room, the right has decided to go on the offensive, and make attacking Mr. Soros and Peter Lewis the issue of the day.
Thus, editorials this ("Mr. Soros's Millions" in the WP) which fail to place Mr. Soros' actions in any context, and news articles (LAT, "Democrats Line Up Their Own Billionaire Firepower") which, even as they mention the Heritage model that the Center for American Progress aims to emulate, fail to mention the overwhelmingly larger amounts poured in to the ultra-right over the last thirty years by a much broader cast of characters (most of it "laundered" through tax-exempt foundations [great tax dodge]), and paint progressives as hypocrites for accepting money from these folks.]
I was dumbfounded by this sentence in the Nov. 22 editorial "Mr. Soros's Millions":
"For Democrats thrilled with the Soros millions, imagine conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife opening his bank account on behalf of Mr. Bush."
Although his money did not go to advocate defeating a particular candidate, Mr. Scaife has given $700 million to conservative organizations over more than four decades. He has been one of the main funders of the Heritage Foundation and many other conservative "think tanks" such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Contemporary Studies. In 1994 he set up a fund to investigate whether Clinton official Vince Foster was murdered, and he funded the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
Besides Mr. Scaife, let's not forget about other right-wing billionaires such as Howard Ahmanson, who has spent millions promoting religious-right candidates and funding many conservative groups.
There is plenty of reason to worry about money in politics, but why single out Mr. Soros without pointing out the rich funders on the right too?
MIGUEL VARGAS
Washington
[The other point I wish to make, and I'll be brief, in deference to Dave's sensibilities: Podesta, Lewis, Soros, MoveOn.org... they represent a moderate to liberal, Clintonian style politics. What used to be the center of American politics (before the right pulled things so far out of balance). While I appreciate what they're doing, they're by no means attempting to shift American politics to the degree that their ultra-right-wing opponents aimed at, thirty years ago. These groups represent baby-steps in an attempt to move things back into balance... not that I'm unhappy to have them test the waters and take the point on this, mind you.
You'd have to go to the left of the Greens (who represent what used to be the liberal/left wing of the Democratic Party) to the Peace and Freedom Party in California (who are seeking to nominate Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier for President/VP), before you find anyone near as radical as Scaife, the Koch brothers, and the Coors family, et. al. ... you sure as hell don't see Mr. Soros, et. al pouring millions into the pockets of these folks, people whose goal is to upend the system as it now exists (just as was the goal of the Heritage Foundation, et. al. and still is). When I see seven figure donations pouring in from an assortment of multi-millionaires and the foundations they control to organizations like The Green Insititute, well, then I'll think that maybe the campaign to create balance is beginning to get some traction.
We're living in a skewed media environment, where the American Enterprise Institute is a non-ideological mainstream institution, and Richard Perle can get away with attacking the "new liberal institutions" (where the hell does the plural come from) as "political", and "not scholars" (as if what the Heritage Foundation produces is scholarship).
I sincerely hope that Podesta, et. al., at the very least, begin to force some "honesty in labeling" upon the American media. That would be a good first step.]
--Thomas Leavitt
The publication of an editorial by the Washington Post with a line like this speaks volumes about how effective the ultra-right has been at defining the terms of the game... somewhere in a Washington area smoke filled room, the right has decided to go on the offensive, and make attacking Mr. Soros and Peter Lewis the issue of the day.
Thus, editorials this ("Mr. Soros's Millions" in the WP) which fail to place Mr. Soros' actions in any context, and news articles (LAT, "Democrats Line Up Their Own Billionaire Firepower") which, even as they mention the Heritage model that the Center for American Progress aims to emulate, fail to mention the overwhelmingly larger amounts poured in to the ultra-right over the last thirty years by a much broader cast of characters (most of it "laundered" through tax-exempt foundations [great tax dodge]), and paint progressives as hypocrites for accepting money from these folks.]
I was dumbfounded by this sentence in the Nov. 22 editorial "Mr. Soros's Millions":
"For Democrats thrilled with the Soros millions, imagine conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife opening his bank account on behalf of Mr. Bush."
Although his money did not go to advocate defeating a particular candidate, Mr. Scaife has given $700 million to conservative organizations over more than four decades. He has been one of the main funders of the Heritage Foundation and many other conservative "think tanks" such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Contemporary Studies. In 1994 he set up a fund to investigate whether Clinton official Vince Foster was murdered, and he funded the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
Besides Mr. Scaife, let's not forget about other right-wing billionaires such as Howard Ahmanson, who has spent millions promoting religious-right candidates and funding many conservative groups.
There is plenty of reason to worry about money in politics, but why single out Mr. Soros without pointing out the rich funders on the right too?
MIGUEL VARGAS
Washington
[The other point I wish to make, and I'll be brief, in deference to Dave's sensibilities: Podesta, Lewis, Soros, MoveOn.org... they represent a moderate to liberal, Clintonian style politics. What used to be the center of American politics (before the right pulled things so far out of balance). While I appreciate what they're doing, they're by no means attempting to shift American politics to the degree that their ultra-right-wing opponents aimed at, thirty years ago. These groups represent baby-steps in an attempt to move things back into balance... not that I'm unhappy to have them test the waters and take the point on this, mind you.
You'd have to go to the left of the Greens (who represent what used to be the liberal/left wing of the Democratic Party) to the Peace and Freedom Party in California (who are seeking to nominate Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier for President/VP), before you find anyone near as radical as Scaife, the Koch brothers, and the Coors family, et. al. ... you sure as hell don't see Mr. Soros, et. al pouring millions into the pockets of these folks, people whose goal is to upend the system as it now exists (just as was the goal of the Heritage Foundation, et. al. and still is). When I see seven figure donations pouring in from an assortment of multi-millionaires and the foundations they control to organizations like The Green Insititute, well, then I'll think that maybe the campaign to create balance is beginning to get some traction.
We're living in a skewed media environment, where the American Enterprise Institute is a non-ideological mainstream institution, and Richard Perle can get away with attacking the "new liberal institutions" (where the hell does the plural come from) as "political", and "not scholars" (as if what the Heritage Foundation produces is scholarship).
I sincerely hope that Podesta, et. al., at the very least, begin to force some "honesty in labeling" upon the American media. That would be a good first step.]
--Thomas Leavitt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)