Well, I guess it is time to show my stupidity and try wrassling with a Yalie about logic.

James of Off the Fence, who claims to be an evolving liberal (or some such nonsense), but who links pretty exclusively to conservative blogs (Insta, Lileks, etc. -- Sullivan and OxBlog are about as good as it gets on the list), says that anti-Coca-Cola protesters look ridiculous and will make Bush look comparatively sane.

Fair enough, not much argument there.

But he then takes that argument, which is decent enough, if poorly developed (and overly reliant on some name dropping and appeals to authority), and turns it into a claim that Coca-Cola is a fundamentally good company.

Now, granted, Coca-Cola has brought jobs to a lot of people. So did a number of companies in the US during the Gilded Age. But things like labor unions were also important in building a middle class and widespread prosperity. The argument against Coca-Cola is that they kill union leaders as a form of union-busting. It's a pretty damn serious charge. Given that Atlanta's response to the argument typically comes in the form of "Well, we can't control what goes on at independent bottling companies in South America" as opposed to "Murdering does not happen" or even "Coca-Cola has never killed union leaders" while staying silent on their affiliated bottling operations (aka a non-denial denial), I think it may be safe to say that the charges are true.

Not that Coke would be alone. Exxon, for example, gave the use of its facilities for harsh regimes to torture opposition groups.

This was a fairly big issue on UM's campus last year, because the administration signed an exclusive contract with Coke. I've heard from some of the labor leaders actually involved down there (and, if you pay attention to community events, you can probably find a chance to meet some them too). Some people tried to push a rather ineffective boycott. I thought that was a silly idea, much for the reasons given - the public just doesn't buy it.

But just because the public ain't willing to stop drinking Coke and just because the tactics of the protesters may even be counter-productive, it doesn't necessarily follow that their cause is wrong. And the only thing more dangerous than knee-jerk anti-corporatism is knee-jerk pro-corporatism in the third world. I'm a free trader and all, but murder is, well, wrong. And if Jamie and InstaHack want to take a different tack, I suggest they go organize in South America for a bit (or, Hell, even go fight in Iraq) instead of smugly declaring their moral superiority from a hot spot at their respective institutions of higher learning.

From the folks at the Kerry campaign:

Bush Tries to Outsource the Deficit

President Bush shows how the outsourced deficit will go "over there"

Washington, DC -- The White House announced today that President Bush will be sending legislation to Congress to outsource the deficit.

"Outsourcing is the solution to all of America's problems," said President Bush. "If it worked for Andersen and McKinsey, it works for me."

Bush's announcement is a dramatic extension of the Administration's growing support for offshore outsourcing, an increasing trend that has moved hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing and service sectors from the U.S. to lower wage countries.

In December, the Commerce Department hosted workshops at the 2003 Economic and Trade Conference to train American companies in outsourcing and to specifically encourage the exportation of jobs to China.

In February, the President's Chief Economic Advisor said the "movement of U.S. factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries [is a] positive transformation."

On an official trip to India in March, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that the Administration would continue to support the outsourcing of American jobs.

Bush also explained why the world must take responsibility for America's deficit. "Why should every kid born in America be stuck with $35,000 in debt -- when we can just outsource it and stick it to every kid on the planet?"

President Bush also indicated that outsourcing the deficit could help support multilateral cooperation in the war on terror. "And make sure that other countries pick up the tab for the war on terror -- that's multilateral cooperation for ya'!"

President Bush's new plan flies in the face of Democrats' criticisms that providing economic incentives for companies to outsource risks America's prospects for economic recovery.

John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, responded strongly to Bush's proposal: "Five years, not four, at Andover, and then Yale and Harvard and he still can't balance the budget? Pigs will have wings before this plan passes the Congress. Come November, let's outsource George W. Bush instead."

April Fools!

These are not actual Bush quotes. Like Bush's economic plan, this email is just a joke.

George W. Bush takes the American people for fools. Let's show him we know better -- send this email to five friends now.

And don't forget the best way to show the Republicans we mean business: give $25 now.

https://contribute.johnkerry.com

Thanks for your support,

John Kerry for President

Bush Addresses 8.2 Million Unemployed: 'Get A Job'

Above: President Bush urges America's jobless to get off their duffs.

WASHINGTON, DC—Responding to the nation's worst unemployment rate since the Hoover Administration, President Bush addressed the nation's 8.2 million unemployed workers in a televised speech Monday.

"The economy has been on the rebound for months, but 5.6 percent of you are still out of work," Bush said. "Come on, people: Get a job! Don't just sit there hoping that you'll win the lottery. Turn off that boob tube, get off that couch, and start pounding the pavement."

When the number of people taking part-time jobs because they can't get full-time work is factored in, the unemployment figure approaches 15.1 million, a number Bush called "unacceptable."

"My fellow Americans, don't come crying to me," Bush said. "I've got a job. I go to work every day, whether I feel like it or not. I don't take handouts, and I don't give them. That's a belief my daddy taught me. Now, let's get this show on the road!"

I'm listening to Randi Rhodes screaming at Ralph Nader on Air America. Randi is yelling "we can't afford you" and Ralph is still denying that he cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

Okay, Ralph just hung up on her. Wow. Great radio.

Anyway, it seems that they're both missing the point.

The issue is our electoral system. The way Ralph tells it, the two parties have conspired to dominate our system to the exclusion of other ideas and movements. While in some small-scale cases that is indeed the case (the Commission on Presidential Debates is one), the larger reality of two-party rule is a product of our winner-takes-all system.

The way for Ralph Nader, the Greens, the Libertarians, and everyone else fed up with the two-party "duopoly" to have a real chance at holding office lies in changing the way we elect our leaders. And the place to start isn't the presidency -- it's in the states.

It's a question of proportionality. All these folks should be fighting for states to allocate power proportionally in their legislatures and potentially even in their Congressional delegations. That way if the Greens or anyone else work hard and get, say, 10%, they'll get some folks in power and can start building a true party capable of governing.

There are arguments for and against proportional representation (I'm generally sympathetic), but there's no question that Nader and his supporters (are there any out there anymore?) are fighting the wrong battle.

UPDATE: A caller is challenging her, and Rhodes is still talking about "prioritizing" and how government is about choices. I'm not really sure what she means; it seems like it would be more effective to just say that the system doesn't work that way, and if you don't like it, change the system.

As a Red State Liberal, I feel compelled to jump in on Kathleen Parker's riff on John Kerry. Jesse, as always, has already made the conservative in question look pretty dumb, but frankly, anyone who thinks owning a non-working ranch is that manliest activity in the world is pretty lame. It typically means simply that you have some money. At least where I come from.

Parker probably doesn't know too much about the dryland west, though.

As for skiing and snowboarding, virtually everyone I grew up with out here where we have mountains skis or snowboards in the winter, and backpacks, hunts, and fishes during the summer. Oh yeah, and we float down rivers with coolers full of beer.

Chopping wood may be considered "manly." But we used to have a girl here in Missoula who would chop wood in a bikini. We thought that was "sexy." Here's hoping Dubya doesn't do that.

But the real question with regards to all of this is why does it really matter? Apparently George likes the summer, Kerry apparently likes the winter. That has more to do with preferences than testosterone.

As to which one would win a wrasslin' match, I'm not sure. I also don't know who would be more likely to survive a Butte bar brawl.

The real question I have is why there's this huge conservative movement to see their grand leader as this masculine gift from heaven. The only sad thing is that we sort of already have a name for it: duToitification.

Come on, didn't Franken challenge Lowry to a wrestling match? Wasn't it a Republican 50-something Representative who got scared of a little brawl with a 70-something Democrat? Wasn't it Bush who couldn't figure out how to eat pretzels?

As I tell myself on a regular basis, there's only one whiny minority in this country: Republicans.

Why the Hell are people upset that MoveOn created an ad featuring Clarke's thoughts on the administration? Because Clarke doesn't want them to? Look, folks, this isn't about dragging Clarke into partisan politics. This is about a national organization highlighting a real concern with Bush. Would we prefer MoveOn used our money raising less important concerns with our President? Do people really want election issues to be meaningless?

Then don't complain when people raise the profile of real issues.

Clarke's doing a fine job raising the issue on Sunday morning talk shows and in the newspapers, but for Americans who get their information from TV ads, something more was necessary.

Honestly, I'm amazed that anyone thinks that this is either (A) bad strategy or (B) unethical.

Got a note from my mom today. Apparently, she got a note from George and Laura thanking her for her early support of his reelection campaign.

Of course, she's only made one contribution this cycle and it was to Howard Dean.

Does Bush really think a check for Dean is a check for Bush?!?

Too many questions.

The editor of Lakota Times has entered the race against Tom Daschle. I suppose I should have known this was going to happen. I first heard three years ago that the Lakota nation was planning on challenging Dakota the next time around.

One more interesting race to watch.

Update

Like Josh Marshall, I think this is still going to be Daschle's to lose. Daschle is the local 800-lb. gorilla of South Dakota politics. He can raise money like a madman. South Dakota voters already passed over Thune once. And unlike in 2002, when Bush et al. could unload on South Dakota with the fury of a pack of power-drunk Republicans, all those lovely surrogates will be dispatched to swing states this time around. This seat is still definitely a Lean D, probably even a strong Lean D.

Tracy Velazquez, the Democratic candidate for Congress here in Montana, has a new blog. It's really pretty well written. I think my favorite line comes in her post about her female supporters: a woman's place is in the House.

Tracy faces an uphill battle, but she is energy incarnate. She's a great public speaker. She has a great background. She would make a great Representative.

OK, so you sit on the 9/11 Commission. You've been trying to get the National Security Advisor to testify publicly under oath so that you can figure out what the hell is the truth since this guy who used to work with her has accused her of f***ing up real bad.

But she keeps saying something about how NSAs don't testify in front of Congress. It doesn't matter that the commission you sit on isn't Congress or that NSAs have testified in front of Congress, because the truth, well, doesn't seem to matter much anymore. Regardless, you still have the hope that if she is put under oath, she may take that oath seriously and speak some truth.

And the White House realizes that they are starting to look really, really bad and Sunday morning talk shows are no longer doing it. Condi needs to testify. But the Administration still needs to save face.

So they ask a panel they have been calling "Congress" to sign a slip of paper stating that this appearance will not be precedent setting. Frankly, I'm sure everyone on the commission went along with it the way most of us go along with silly requests from little kids:

Adult: Johnny, you've got to put on your shoes.

Johnny: I only wear moon shoes!

Adult: Fine, those are moon shoes. Put them on.

Johnny puts on shoes.

The only thing that concerns me was that I was about to write that this slip of paper does not matter because it will never be referred to again, just like no sane adult will ever invoke the "moon shoe" clause.

But then I remembered our current White House. Imagine Bush gets reelected. Imagine another terrorist attack occurs on US soil.

Can't you imagine these people waving their "moon shoe" card? I can.

Hello, my name is Ryan Davis and I’m new here at Not Geniuses. If you want to know the basics about me, check out my biography and my blog entries archived from Generation Dean.

Currently, I’m shooting my audition video for Showtime’s new reality show “American Candidate.” Showtime has noticed how popular voting and politics are with the American people and decided to capitalize on it. The show will feature twelve contestants running for “President” over six weeks this summer.

Could this show have any effect on the 2004 race? Perhaps.

Hi!

I'm Clay Johnson, former lead programmer from the Dean campaign. Now I'm working with Joe on Blue State Digital and I'm working on taking on everybody's favorite Senator, Zell Miller, my senator, here in Georgia with Gary Leshaw.

I, along with just about every other Democrat in the country, am sick and tired of Zell Miller's zig-zagging. But we've spent a lot of time about it on blogs complaining about him, now I for one think it is time to fight back.

Miller's record as Governor was a great one. The HOPE scholarship here in Georgia is one of the most incredible programs in the country. He managed to pass a lottery and construct a system that makes it free for every student in the state of Georgia that keeps above a 3.0 to go to college for free at a state university.

But I suspect that in the senate he shares more votes with Trent Lott than he does his friend Max Cleland.

People in Vermont, when Miller came out hard against Howard Dean, asked me "What happened to Zell?" and I've been stumbling around trying to find the answer: what happened to the most progressive governor of the South? Has he lost his mind? Continue reading for the answer.

I was excited to see the Times take up the controversy of the disenfranchised felons in Florida. But it seems that the writer spent much more time looking into actual disenfranchised felons than into the true controversy -- the really interesting part only gets one disjointed paragraph:

In one lingering puzzle from 2000, an unknown number of legal voters were removed from Florida's rolls leading up to the presidential election, after a company working for the state mistakenly identified the voters as felons. At the same time, some counties mistakenly allowed actual felons to vote or turned away legitimate voters as suspected felons. A lawsuit filed in January 2001 sought to prevent similar errors, while another, filed just before the 2000 election, charged that the ban on felons voting discriminated against blacks and should be overturned.

Anyone know of any organizations, preferably 501(c)4's with affiliated PACs, that focus on liberal issues and are largely youth directed. The PIRGs would be close, except they obviously don't have PACs.

I'm guessing if any exist, they are limited largely to activity within one state.

Also, I'm not interested in groups like 2020 Democrats that are clearly tied to one party, even though 2020 Dems does good work.

An Army of One.

Zell has launched Democrats for Bush. That's infuriating enough, but then there's this stupid comment:

Like me, Marc [Racicot] was a governor and he understands the importance of strong leadership. He’s doing important work over at the campaign, making sure that America has a strong and steady leader for another four years.

But it is pretty damn hard to call him a leader. The man grew up in Libby, MT, a town suffering from asbestosis. He didn't do a thing to help them. He did nothing to build business in the state. Montana just slipped economically AND environmentally under his watch.

Honestly, folks, get your damn facts straight.

Spencer Ackerman's Iraq'd blog goes after Wolfowitz for accusing Clarke of falsifying his record on the 1993 bombings:

The second point he made is demonstrably untrue. Wolfowitz attempted to cast doubt on Clarke's credibility by saying that Clarke, in the aftermath of the 1993 Trade Center bombing, himself believed the theory that Iraq was responsible, because Iraq had tried to assassinate the first President Bush. Well, Wolfowitz smugly noted, the assassination attempt occurred a few months after the bombing. So, he implied--and the implication hung in the air--Clarke can't even get his story straight.

Only that's not even close to what Clarke wrote. Clarke never bought the theory of Iraqi responsibility for the 1993 bombing, nor does he ever suggest that he does. The closest that he comes is in this sentence, on page 96: "More than anyone, I wanted the World Trade Center attack to be an Iraqi operation so we could justify reopening the war with Iraq--but there was no good evidence leading to Baghdad's culpability." And he never, ever writes that he contemporaneously connected the World Trade Center bombing with Saddam due to the attempted hit on Bush 41. He writes clearly that bombing took place in February 1993 ("Within two weeks of the bombing ... Muhammad Salahme was arrested while seeking his deposit at the Ryder office on March 4," p.78) and that "one Sunday in April" [p.80, my emphasis] Clarke took note of a report of the attempted assassination. He never for a moment suggests that the latter event influenced his thinking on the former.

Yet Wolfowitz, in the transcript quoted by Matt Yglesias suggests that this came from a memo:

By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark's creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, "When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month," unquote.

The Progress Report makes short work of some White House talking points today. Humorously enough, the White House is claiming that the policy of rollback and containment was not enough, that they wanted the destruction of al Qaeda from day one. Yet in other places, they are quoted as saying that Clarke focused too much on foreign al Qaeda threats and not on domestic terrorism. Further, as Clarke argues, Bush did, in fact, want to eliminate al Qaeda. Clarke was ready to give a plan. But the foreign policy team was too busy reliving their cold war glory days to call a meeting.

Oops.

And now, Condi, who was too busy to call that meeting, is citing "separation of powers" concerns with appearing before an independent commission. Maybe if she wasn't so busy trying to dull the difference between 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the 4th Estate (appearing on every Sunday morning talk show), she'd be able to actually help the country improve its security. Could it be that Condi is scared of swearing (or affirming) an oath to tell the truth to the American public?

letters@nytimes.com

editorial@nytimes.com

DHinMI highlights why Judith Miller's article is a load of hooey. There's some work being done on a Democratic Defense Corps, but we don't have it yet, so I say we raise a little hell about this one.

Fred Kaplan has one of the best write-ups on Richard Clarke I've read to date. But one of the things that is interesting about this article is that it raises one quotation that struck me as being pretty similar to a passage from O'Neill's book, where Bush doesn't understand why another tax cut for the rich is necessary:

The White House document insists Bush did take the threat seriously, telling Rice at one point "that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaeda."

Here's how Clarke describes that exchange:

President Bush, reading the intelligence every day and noticing that there was a lot about al Qaeda, asked Condi Rice why it was that we couldn't stop "swatting flies" and eliminate al Qaeda. Rice told me about the conversation and asked how the plan to get al Qaeda was coming in the Deputies' Committee. "It can be presented to the Principals in two days, whenever we can get a meeting," I pressed. Rice promised to get to it soon. Time passed.

As the story explains, the Clinton White House did effectively fight terrorism. They stopped the attack on LAX. It took al Qaeda almost two years to plan the next attack, but they got away with it.

Some conservatives often refer to the parable of the talents as a Biblical reference to supply-side theory. Perhaps the Bush Administration should think more carefully about the lessons of that passage the next time they start complaining about what they "inherited."

Scene from JFK's Latest Ad

Familiar?

According to [pollster Stan] Greenberg, the time is right to move beyond a critique of specific Bush policies to "mount[ing] an assault" on "the entire Reagan project--the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy and enriching the few, and pro-market and corporate policies are really the best way to bring prosperity to the country as a whole." For Greenberg, this means that the Democrats need their own project: dedication to a opportunity-oriented society "where all share in America's bounty," the vision which he believes animated the Democrats of Kennedy's day. These new "opportunity Democrats" or "JFK Democrats," [hehe] to use Greenberg's buzzwords, can build on the Democrats' strength in their core groups and win over significant sections of swing groups to whom these themes are attractive, thereby breaking the current political deadlock.

Well, let's see. InstaHack got a refund and now the "InstaWife" is pleased with Bush (Q: Does the InstaWife appreciate being called an InstaWife? Is she really alive? Are we sure she's not some nanotech gizmo?). Now I just think it's laughable that the WSJ accuses lucky duckies like me of being prone to government bribery in exchange for votes.

Look, the fact is that for most Americans, real tax relief would involve payroll tax cuts. And for young Americans like myself, the tradeoff of even a twice-as-large tax refund versus the public debt we're now dealing with does not make it worth it. That means that basically old, rich guys are doing very well. And, in the long run, we're getting screwed.

Hey, old, rich guys, enjoy your god damn money. I'll be pissing on your grave when the world goes to hell.

Dorothy Regal
81 years old
Seattle, Wash.

I received this in my inbox today:

Dear disgruntled blogger,

Please stop busting my balls about the ski trip to Idaho.

I needed it. You know I needed. You know my top campaign staff thought I needed it.

And look, I didn't take the break when I did for the reasons you might think - it wasn't because I'd finally locked up enough delegates to win the nomination. Remember, I actually did that a week before I took off. (I ended up deciding to keep up the "fighting for every vote" fascade through West Virginia - it'll be a nice pick-up come November.)

In fact, I think we planned my vacation at the best possible time. The campaign knew Clarke's revelations were coming. CBS had been producing the Clarke spot, we knew when it was going to air, and we knew the stink it would make. You don't think the campaign had that in mind when it was doing our first ad, the one that skated over national security?

Oh, I forgot, that was a sore spot for you bloggers, too. Here's the deal on that one:

When we were deciding on the focus of that first ad response, it wasn't a choice between national security and the economy. It was a choice between national security and "John 'Taxy-Tax' Kerry wants to tax you - EVERYONE - by a taxillion dollars!!"

We simply had to respond. You see, with national security, most folks don't know which policies they support and which they oppose. I could be more liberal than Dean (in fact...), but if I use my cosmetic strengths effectively - the baritone voice, the sweeping patriotic prose, the Vietnam references, the salutes and "band of brothers" bit - I can convince everyone that I need to convince to win in November.

The tax issue is another thing altogether. I am going to raise taxes - sure, they'll only be on the wealthiest Americans, but I'm gonna do it. And the Republicans are going to repeat that - they're going to repeat it and repeat it and confuse as many old ladies and apolitical suburbanites as they can. And, unlike security issues, people know their position on taxes. Their position is: I don't vote for people who I think are gonna raise my taxes.

So, again, I hope you're not too upset. Please, stop bitching and let's unify. I'm gonna run through George Bush like that sonofabitch on the slopes, and I need your help.

I know I don't have a flashy, inviting website like Dean and Edwards did - but don't punish me for it by not getting involved with my campaign. I know my whole machismo thing is scaring you a bit - you feel like I'm making that same ol' 2002 mistake of running to the center, and you're bracing for the liberal infighting that's bound to come. Please don't punish my campaign for it.

Instead, get involved. Start bombarding our blog with ideas about how it could be better. Demand a more user-friendly website. Demand some nicely-produced leaflets you can start handing out, and demand some national house-party days.

You can change things -- I promise.

Best,
J.K.

Neve Gordon, a professor at Ben Gurion University in Negev, Israel, spoke today about the growing nonviolent resistance movement against the separation barrier on the part of Palestinian, Israeli, and international peace activists. This is a hopeful development; it ought to be encouraged and brought to light.

In Gordon's view, the ramping up of Israeli activities in the territories is connected to the use of these new tactics (and the general political vulnerability Israel is facing because of the barrier). Whether or not he is correct, it will be interesting to see if momentum for nonviolent political action in the territores will be amongst the casualties of today's chaos.

What we have been seeing for the past month in the occupied territories is that the Palestinians have moved to grassroots non-violent resistance around the fence and the separation wall that Israel is building.

The way Israel is reacting to this non-violent resistance is exactly what happened yesterday, people are coming and are lying down in front of the bulldozers, are lying down where the root of the fence will be built, Palestinians, international and a few Israelis and the military beats them, shoots at them and as Mustafa said, yesterday a person was wounded [an Israeli peace activist was shot in the eye].

So, we see an attempt to change the character of the intifada, which has been a violent intifada to a non-violent, grassroots popular mobilization. This act that happened early this morning of assassinating Sheikh Yassin is just one other way of Israel resisting this non-violent intifada, because what is clear will happen and has already happened today in Ramat Gan, with the lone Palestinian that managed that enter and to attack a few Israelis, that there will be retaliation.

What Sharon is actually doing, what we see here, is basically the subjugation of the political to the military. Again, Barghouthi said that Sharon was authorized this killing. According to Israeli radio, he not only authorized this killing but he commanded over this killing. Sharon is seeing himself again as a soldier, and basically allowing the military values and the military way of seeing the world to control the Israeli political realm and the political has been relegated to a secondary status. So, there's no diplomacy, there's no negotiation, and there will be no way out of this bloody conflict, so long as the military option is the basic option, is the favored option.