North . . Dogma

Let me say off the top that I’m not talking about the entire left-of-center section of the spectrum; nor am I discussing all "Democrats" or "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever the latest
accepted phrases. 

 

I’m pointing out the ‘base’, the foundation, the vocal diehards.  The fringe.

In a nutshell, they’re not "liberal".  Often, they’re not even "left".

Rather, they’re reactionaries.

I wish I had a dollar for every time that I visited a left-of-center site – make that far left – and agreed with someone on a point or some remnant of an entry & ended up getting attacked because I
either (a) didn’t support the notion fully/enough; (b) am a ‘freeper’ or ‘winger’; (c) ‘probably believe ____’ (enter unbelievable claim here).  There is a legitimate left in this country, but it is
not represented by the very vocal reactionaries.

Think I’m exaggerating?

Taxes/Spending:

Currently, we’re spending around $2.2 trillion dollars. 

• Spending (let’s leave social security out of the equation) has outpaced GDP^a and inflation^b for decades.


• ^aA GDP during the greatest economic decade in the history of civilization, yet we still spend much more.


• ^bAn inflation level not seen since the early 60s, yet we still spend much more.


• Oh, and we’ve gotten some tax cuts.

The response?

"Starving children"

"Privatizing medicare"

"Gutting social security."

"Massive cuts."

"School cuts"

"We can’t afford to pay for tax cuts when…"

"Tax cuts for the rich."

And yet, we need a new federal program for prescription pills (just not the one proposed by the Republicans).  Am I exaggerating?  Quick: name the last Democratic president to pass across-the-board income tax cuts.  Hint: don’t say anyone after JFK.  Is it out of kilter for me to point out
that no national Democrat has proposed income tax cuts for all those who pay them since 1962?  And yet, the current debate amongst the reactionaries is the call for granting income
tax cuts to people who do not pay income taxes?  And to be against such welfare would be the actions of the anti-poor?

To me, that’s not ‘liberal’.  That’s not ‘progressive’.

Social Security:

Social security insurance is our nation’s way of securing a safety net for (primarily) the elderly or those afflicted with the death of a loved one.  It began with a small addition to the
paychecks of Americans (payroll) and has steadily grown over the years.  Currently, more than 14% of the net pay of an employee (the ‘matching’ portion is simply taken from the salary…if there
are any questions, ask a self-employed person) goes
toward payroll taxes, most of which funds SS.  And, our nation at large has accepted this as the ‘third rail’ of our country, so to speak.  It has endured for more than half a century and despite its flaws (which I
have addressed on numerous occasions) remains one of the more popular programs around.

And what have we gotten from the reactionaries?

"Cut payroll taxes on the lower incomes."

"Eliminate payroll taxes on the lower incomes."

"Eliminate the cutoff for the upper incomes."

"Increase the payroll taxes on the upper incomes."

"The income tax cuts come from the social security surplus"

The largest federal outlay program in the history of our country, which has run surpluses for almost 20 years, is still not enough?  There’s not enough ‘progressivity’ in a system that has
been founded on – and been maintained successfully – you getting credits for the payroll taxes that you pay in?  And any tax cut you can imagine (especially income tax cuts) will magically cause
money coming in via payroll taxes to suddenly be shipped back out to the nearest millionaire unless you vote for the Democrats?  This is supposed to be ‘liberal’ ideology instead of the
ramblings of partisan reactionaries?

Abortion:

Forget the arguments for or against (not here), how many consecutive election cycles have we heard that if you vote for the Republicans ‘they’ll take away a woman’s right to choose’?  Well,
we’ve had (since Roe v. Wade) Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush41 and now Bush43, with only Carter and Clinton to keep us from being overtaken by the folks who can’t wait for all abortions to take
place in back-alleys with hangers.  Since the Carter/Clinton duo have given us two justices & the people we’ve been warned about for the last 30 years have given us seven of the nine, and
abortion was still quite legal the last time I checked, why is it again that I’m not supposed to think that all this language was nothing more than scare tactics by reactionaries trying to get
Democrats elected?  I can easily envision the scenario where Bush could put two justices on there for Ginsberg & Breyer and we’d be privy to campaign commercials from the reactionary left opining
that a vote for Bush would endanger ‘a woman’s right to choose’, since he’d have the power to replace one of the nine Republican-appointed justices on the court.  Why do I jest in such a
manner?

Because we’ve already seen it with regards to seven-of-nine for years.

Schools

Anything other than the formula that has failed for more than a generation (more $, more teachers, more $, more NEA members, more $) is immediately attacked as coming from people who want to
‘destroy the public schools’.  There is no debating with a reactionary over schooling, no matter how pathetic the government schools perform.

 

The impending doom

Not only will the elections of Republicans be the end of women’s choice, but we’re also likely to see the deterioration of the environment, the removal of civil rights, the implementation of a
theological government, burning black churches, poison in the water, and a depression (for beginners).  All because our nation, which has free elections, cannot withstand the representative
government in place when Republicans are in power.

 

War in Afghanistan

I’m supposed to take credibly that these arguments are not reactionary:

• 
  Unbelievable charges regarding the C.I.A.’s involvement in September 11th, or Bush 41’s ‘connections’ with the
  Bin Laden family.
  


• Arguments that the C.I.A. was never really shackled in getting the necessary intel to help put the pieces of 9/11 together before it
  happened.


• Someone is hailed when they assert that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism
  against the United States (think John Walker Lindh will be participating in a terrorist act any time soon?)


• Trying to demean our credibility by making charges of violence of the American soldiers in Gulf War I to the tune of slaughtering retreating Iraqis who had
  surrendered and were trying to head home.


• 
  Trying to diminish US credibility by asserting that many yeas ago, instead of helping liberate the Filipino people from colonial bondage, the Americans simply took over from the Spaniards "using duplicity and brutality" and declared
  ourselves the new colonial masters.


• Further blaming the US by charging that America has "exacerbated the inequalities of the world" that create fertile ground for terrorism, and that
  "military actions
  against specific groups cannot eliminate the conditions that contribute to this threat".


• Going the Richard Gere route & claiming that the 9/11 terrorist attacks could have been defined as ‘crimes against humanity’, and the
  perpetrators should’ve been ‘tried before some kind of ad hoc international court’ instead of the military actions (bombing) in Afghanistan.


• Muddying the water via playing around with the
  definition of ‘terrorist’ in order to cloud the subject of what
  we’re fighting against.  After all, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (that ‘we’ created, remember?).


• Stating that Mullah Omar – the former Taliban leader – was (you guessed it) another US creation.


• Why stop with Omar?  The CIA created the Taliban!


• Comparing the current makeup of Afghanistan to that of when the Taliban was holding Friday night soccer field massacres as "a little less
  repression".


• Complaining that "only" 2 of the 29 leaders in the new Afghan government were women (as
  opposed to when women were beheaded for committing adultery or dancing?).  You mean to tell me that it’s a ‘progressive’ stance to bitch because women went from being stoned for learning how to
  read to being in the leadership of the government, wholly because of US military action?


• Praising the ever-reasonable Robert Fisk as he gives us his own sad realities behind the war’s "success" [note the scare quotes].


• Complaining that the war in Afghanistan has demonstrated that technology is making it safer and easier for military personnel to wage war and
  may also be making it psychologically easier to kill.  Insert ‘cowboy’ reference here.


• Hinting that the US wasn’t doing all it could to prevent civilian deaths.

War in Iraq

The current hot topic.

Hey, I have no problem with someone being against the recent war.  I was ambivalent about ground troops myself & said as much here.  There are lucid, honest and respectable reasons for
being against a war in Iraq & I can respect that position just as much as I hope someone would respect a stance that I may take that isn’t of their preference.

But when the usual suspects start implying that the current president would send soldiers to die so that his buddies in the
Carlysle group can get their cash, the image of Cynthia McKinney immediately comes to mind.  Then again, I’ve already gotten the reactionaries telling me that McKinney was
really on the mark, all along. 

Double that when I read that our country is ultimately responsible for the
conditions that created Osama bin Laden (why do they hate us?  Why, it’s our fault, of course).  If ‘we’ created Osama bin
Laden, then perhaps David Corn (author of the previous link) can tell us how pro-choicers ‘created’ Eric Robert Rudolph.  Yet, this is standard fare amongst the ‘progressive’ wing of the left. 
These are some of the arguments/actions the reactionaries have presented surrounding the war in Iraq:

• Need I bring up the marches across America, run by a communist association?  The participation of people even after they heard it was being setup by communists?


• Charges of a "strategic power-grab" for resources, which is described as  "colonialism, imperialism, or perhaps even manifest
  destiny".


• Hinting that we’re misguidedly demonizing terrorists (or ‘bad guys’, as Josh Marshall would say) by claiming that a belief in the inherent
  morality (i.e. "goodness") of one’s own group, and stereotyping of outsiders is part of the problem (with the US, of course).


• That we’re dehumanizing people in order to kill them easier.


• Or scapegoating them.


• The ever present ‘is the US doing all this for oil‘?


• Going for the trifecta; that the war was really (1) to scare the countries in the region into capitulating to US and Israeli interests;
  (2) to secure access to oil; (3) to counter the threat of competition from China by surrounding it


• Trying to build a coalition?  Better not make deals dealing with defense, because military assistance to win friends is
  "undermining US interests by spreading
  instability and fueling conflict".  Yep, as usual, it’d be our fault should a conflict occur in the future between two countries (but that’s not being anti-US).


• Blaming Bush’s push for action in Iraq for any hostilities that could happen in Asia.


• Hinting that we’re somehow ‘worse’ because our defense trade (read: commerce) is more successful that the countries in the
  axis of evil.


• Claiming that arms manufacturers think that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are the weapons industry’s "dream team,"
  and that are both are "running a war that is potentially very profitable".


• American media giving you too much jingoism?  Hey, there’s plenty of praise for Al Jazeera over
  right-wing outfits like CNN.
  
   

The US in general

Arguments from the reactionaries:

• The actions in Kosovar?  Forget the humanitarian aspect, let’s blame the ‘weapons’ industry & the $$ they’ll get.


• We (via the CIA) created…..drumroll, please: Pinochet!


• We helped create….Manuel Noriega!


• We provided the intel so that Suharto could kill thousands in East Timor.

 

Now, I can imagine that some of you (those who didn’t scroll down the lists of info) are probably thinking "wait, Ricky’s trying to play the guilt by association game", since you no doubt
saw some links to the world socialist web site, or commondreams or workingforchange and some other ‘out there’ places.  Well, yes, I’m providing many links from a number of locations that would
be designated as ‘reactionary’ be a lot of folks.  But, the thing is, I didn’t have to look very hard.

Each and every link within this post was taken from moveon.org.

Yes, folks, the ‘darling’ of the left side of the blogosphere is the genesis of this entry (mostly pertaining to the WOT).  The same moveon.org (in the form of peace.moveon.org) that used as
one of its arguments against a war in Iraq that Hussein would use his WMDs against
our soldiers (no note that he didn’t have them….back then).  Or, if we acted, that Hussein would unleash his
arsenal on Israel, who would (of course) use chemical or nuclear weapons.  Which would then cause Pakistan to launch nukes against
India (I kid you not).  Or, if Israel didn’t do that, they might attack Iran.  Or it could launch nukes
against Jordan.

No, the examples given here are not ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ thought, IMO.  They are reactionary at best and arguments put forth by folks who could be considered rather loony at worst. 
So, if you’re one of the people who signed up to vote in the ‘online’ primary or if you think moveon is such a great and forward-thinking entity, try to remember that
most reactionaries consider themselves to be rather mainstream, as well.

 

 

The goal posts have officially been moved.

And people are noticing:

July 30 Nearly half of Americans believe President Bush exaggerated the evidence for going to war with Iraq, according to a new survey for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal,

The big question becomes… Does anybody care?

From one of my favorite lefty sites, Matthew Yglesias:

Better Schools, Worse Education

The lede graf tells you what you need to know:

Growing numbers of students most of them struggling academically are being pushed out of New York City’s school system and classified under bureaucratic categories that hide their failure to graduate.

This underscores the broader problem with the recent conservative fetishization of "standards" and "accountability" as the solution to the nation’s education problems.

 

Further failure of the New York City schools = a problem with conservative solutions?

 

Wiping eyes.

 

Huh?  What?  ????  We’re looking at conservatism when NYC schools fail?  Watch out, Berkeley…..you’re under the gun.

Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river

By David Harrison in Nasiriyah

(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, coalition forces said yesterday.

The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from American troops or local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction.

A spokesman for the United States marines, based just outside the city, described the quantities of chemical agents found as "significant" and claimed that it was further evidence that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of
mass destruction.

He said yesterday: "I think this discovery shows what kind of guy is running this country.

"This stuff is just dumped in the Euphrates without any concern for the many people who drink and wash with water from the river."

 

 

Anyone found something that refutes this?  BTW, I know full well that many anti-war types will accept any conceivable and possible explanation for alternate uses for any component therein, as an excuse to buttress their hatred
for Bush ("mustard gas can be used in kerosene heaters, a hot commodity in Iraq, so the smirking chimp killed innocent civilians so his buddies can get oil revenue")....while any retort from Tony Blair pertaining to uranium purchases
are not to be believed (check your consistency at the door, thank you).

I’m asking an honest question & not looking for any partisan one-upsmanship. I did a search last night & came up empty but want to get the skinny instead of political posturing.

...because the implications here scare the bejeezus outta me

Rape law permits changing mind during sex act



SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP)—A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex.



Under the law, if someone says “no” at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape. The National Crime Victim Law Institute said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country.

This is nucking futs. Where, precisely, do we draw the line? One thrust after “no”? 2 thrusts? One second? How long before a good time turns into rape?



This is absurd. This law creates the very real possibility that ANY time a man has sexual intercourse with a woman, he opens himself up to a rape charge.



Didn’t take out the garbage tonight? You’d better stop when I tell you to or you’re going to jail for rape.



Goddamn, the potential for abuse is STAGGERING.



And, of course, the REAL tragedy is that now honest-to-goodness cases of rape are going to be so diluted by the flood of new “rape” victims that they will get lost in the system. Little Suzie who got pissed at her boyfriend for going out with the guys last weekend and uses this law to give him a weekend in jail is going to use the same services as a woman caught in a brutal home invasion.



I absolutely cannot fathom how on earth the GIANT FUCKING MORONS that passed this legislation thought it might help ANYTHING.



IMHO, it gives an unprecedented level of power to the “victim”, real or no.



Yes, there are real, horrible, violent cases of rape. There are date rapes where the woman was rendered incapable of saying no. My objection to the above legislation has nothing to do with legitimate cases of rape. My objection is more that legitimate instances of rape will now be looked at through a very jaded lens.



The legislation above makes all men suspected rapists. She says no, you don’t pull out INSTANTLY, BOOM! Rapist. IMHO, the woman consents to sex, 99.9% of the time that should be enough. Are we going to have to KEEP asking, with a videotape rolling, for permission???



This is insanity. Nothing short of insanity.

The buck passed through so many hands, a lot of us wondered if it would ever stop anywhere. After weeks of pointing fingers at everybody else, George W. Bush finally admits that he’s responsible for the words that come out of his mouth…

I TAKE PERSONAL responsibility for everything I say, absolutely,

It’s about damn time! That wasn’t so hard, now was it?

And since we’re quoting the president, I have to share this little nugget with you. When asked about Saddam, he replied:

Were closer than we were yesterday, I guess… All I know is were on the hunt.

I love the man’s eloquence.

I just read a disturbing article that describes how the War On Terror was compromised by the war on Iraq. Read it if you want the ugly details, but one small section jumped out at me…

NBC News has learned that in one still-classified incident in Yemen, commanders wanted to engage what sources call a viable mission against an al-Qaida target. After all, in the past they had used the missiles on the remotely piloted drones to strike at terrorists. But in this case, because of the Iraq war, there was not a Predator they could use. The al-Qaida target got away.

There was never any solid evidence that Saddam was working with al-Qaida, yet we had to invade Iraq to disarm him liberate the Iraqis as part of the campaign… This is extremely annoying when we learn that al-Qaida operatives, possibly bin Laden himself, are walking free because we put too much on our plate. I know many people were led to believe otherwise, but Saddam did not attack us. Now we’re bogged down in Iraq, and real terrorists are walking free because of it.

Oopsie

Kerry Questions Bush on Iraqi Occupation

Money quote:

“The obligation of the United States government is to rapidly internationalize the effort in Iraq, get the target off of American troops, bring other people, particularly Muslim-speaking and Arab-speaking Muslim troops, into the region,” Kerry said.

(Emphasis mine)



How, praytell, does one actually speak Muslim?



Now, anyone wanna guess how much press this would have received had it been Bush who had uttered those very same words???



(See, Skeejin, I don’t just pick on Dean…)

Josh Marshall is on the Valerie Plame case… This is a big deal by all accounts. Even strict partisans will admit to the seriousness of outing a covert CIA operative. In case you don’t get it, this is why it matters:

By telling the world who she really works for, those senior administration officials not only jeopardized her career, they also compromised whatever operations she may have worked on, whatever networks she may have developed or relationships she may have cultivated. According to one highly-respected retired CIA officer who I spoke to Monday, revealing the identity of a NOC like Plame could literally put the lives of those who cooperated with her at risk. To reveal her identity, he told me, was grossly irresponsible.

And since her job had to do with combating WMDs, this is a very serious problem. We’re in the middle of fighting a war on terror, and administration officials compromise our national security to play politics!

Doesn’t anybody give a shit!? Where is the outrage!?

You know it.
You missed it.
You loved it (and most hated it).
Hide the women & children because the Clinton countdown meter returns to NGD (scroll down the left column)!

Why? Why not? I tweaked the admin supporters with the anti-SD post yesterday & lord knows that I love to tweak the Clinton-water-carriers. And, it’s fun.

Steal it if you want it (the code is in the source).

Insert "Lieberman’s campaign is living on a prayer" reference here, but please nothing about Osama/Saddam riding on steel horses going down in a blaze of glory.

What? Throwing racism charges around on a whim? Say it ain’t so!

Wapo:

President Bush refused on Tuesday to declassify 28 pages of a congressional report on possible links between Saudi government officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers, saying that "would help the enemy" by revealing intelligence
sources and methods.

Okay, I don’t want to give away anything that could possibly used by the enemy, but…..28 pages?  Come on, we all know that our moderate friends the Saudis are as deep into terrorist financing/coddling as
Ted Kennedy is into vehicular manslaughter.  I’m naive, but not that naive.

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called suggestions of such links "an outrage to any sense of fairness" and said his country had been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity in the attacks."

Yeah.  Right. 

Ahem.

Heaven forbid someone mention that there’s already bona-fide evidence of Saudi gov’t money going to one of the fifteen (of 19) Saudi hijackers.  They need us as customers more than we need
them as vendors, folks (hello, Pres. Putin).

The top Republican senator on the 9-11 inquiry, Richard Shelby, said Sunday that 95 percent of the classified pages could be released without jeopardizing national security.

Finally.  Someone willing to step up to the plate & not worry about pissing off our moderate friends the Saudis.

Bush ignored a reporter’s question Tuesday on Shelby’s assessment.

What?

But he did leave the door open to declassifying portions of the report at some point.

If that’s not the "let the Democrats get their ridiculous comments on record & then we go ahead as planned & make them look like boobs" door, it’s better stay opened.  I know we’re still investigating, but…..come on,
at least split the difference with Shelby & open up 45% (okay, I’m rounding).  This is ridiculous.

I just happened to be looking at the NYTimes best-seller list, and I couldn’t help but notice that only one book on the entire list had the little “dagger” next to it.

A dagger (+) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders.

Why would anybody need more than one book? I don’t get it…

Remember them?

Apparently, things are going… well… limp in Bizkit land. Fred Durst threw a temper tantrum and left the stage after playing only twenty minutes.

When Limp Bizkit actually appeared around 7 o’clock, the boos intensified, and some fans pelted the stage with garbage. The famously brainless Durst only fanned the flames, first encouraging the catcalls and flying trash, then swerving into a bizarre tirade against the crowd and city. Ranting that he’d fight anyone in earshot and spluttering explicit sexual putdowns, uncreative curses and ludicrous homophobic slurs, Durst simply self-destructed.

So much drama. It’s tough being a rock star.

My home page is msnbc.com, and I’m usually staring bad news in the face every morning [insert liberal media comment here]. Today, I was pleasantly surprised to find two (two!) positive articles about Iraq splashed across the front page.

The first one talks about a recent change in U.S. tactics from their instinctive shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to a much needed and more respectful way of handling the situations…

In an effort to ease the desire for revenge, they delivered formal apologies to local tribal sheiks and paid blood money for every dead and injured person deemed not to be a combatant.

The compensation payments $1,500 for a death and $500 for an injury are regarded by Fallujahs political, tribal and religious leaders as one of several bold strategies employed by U.S. commanders here over the past few weeks to appease a city brimming with discontent. Officers have ordered soldiers to knock on doors before conducting most residential searches. They have also permitted the mayor to field a 75-member armed militia and doled out nearly $2 million on municipal improvements instead of waiting for private American contractors to arrive.

In the most significant concession, the commanders have pulled soldiers out of every fixed location in the city, including the police station and city hall, leaving a police force run by Iraqis to man checkpoints and guard key installations.

Novel ideas, huh? I read about similar tactics months ago from the British controlled South. Better late than never, I say… Read the rest of the article, but to make a long story short, it looks like it’s working.

The other article shows how close we are to capturing Saddam:

TIKRIT, Iraq, July 29 American soldiers overpowered and arrested a bodyguard who rarely left Saddam Husseins side Tuesday and said they obtained documents and information that could help them close in on the former dictator.

While I have yet to be convinced that capturing Saddam (or his sons) will reduce the attacks on our boys, this is undoubtedly some very good news.

Update: Then again, maybe it’s just propaganda. You’d think I’d have learned by now… Sheesh!