A number of people are getting messages that they're banned from posting comments, when they're not. It's a glitch, who nows why - maybe the commenting software is made by Diebold? In which case, maybe I've just been elected president!
Anyay, if you find yourself banned and you're not a freeper, and can't think of what you might have done wrong, then close your browser, reopen it and try to post another comment. That tends to fix the glitch. Sorry about that.
Read the rest of this post...
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Saturday Evening Open Thread
Hit the bars and find our president a man date.
Read the rest of this post...
Execute The Mentally Retarded
Don't yell at me. That's what Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times says. If only Democrats would only execute mentally retarded people found guilty of murder, why they'd win more elections. It might make them feel icky, but until the Democrats are ready to compromise their principles, they're going to be stuck in the minority.
"I wish that winning were just a matter of presentation. But it's not. It involves compromising on principles. Bill Clinton won his credibility in the heartland partly by going home to Little Rock during the 1992 campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally disabled convict named Ricky Ray Rector," writes Kristof.
"There was a moral ambiguity about Mr. Clinton's clambering to power over Mr. Rector's corpse. But unless Democrats compromise, they'll be proud and true and losers."
His suggestions: support the blurring of the line between church and state and encourage the faith-based programs that prosyletize with our taxpayer dollar. (Don't you DARE help a poor, black woman get health planning that involves a reference to condoms as protection against disease and pregnancy. But, sure, give her a little soup and a fundamentalist sermon to go with it.)
Also, stop getting so uptight over the Confederate flag, stop moaning about the policemen gunned down by criminals with once-illegal Uzis (and give their widows a Bible to comfort them, I suppose), don't worry if those Uzis get into the hands of terrorists, and if a Supreme Court nominee of Bush's might set the Court back ten years, don't put up a fuss because people will claim you're an obstructionist.
Is all of that idiotic or is it just me?
Supporting our police is a winning stance with mainstream America. (And every police organization in the country is furious that Bush is letting those automatic weapons get back on the streets. Every time a cop or innocent person is killed -- press conference. That's not taking cynical advantage of the situation -- that's standing up for our men and women in blue.)
Ignoring the spread of the Confederate Flag -- which causes Southern states business and is deeply offensive to our core -- is sure to dismay black voters, one of the few dependable groups the Dems can claim. They already feel slighted and taken for granted. Imagine if the Dems told them objecting to a racist symbol that only appears on most state flags because the Southerners objected to desegregating schools was a waste of time.
Objecting to government funds going to Moonies, Scientologists, Falun Gong and other minor religions or cults would play well for traditional Dems, fundamentalist Christians and many others. (Lots of major religions are leery of gov't funding propping them up.)
Finally, and most importantly, the Democrats did not lose the election because they refused to compromise their principals. That's absurd.
Bush NEVER compromises his core principles and that's exactly what 51% of the population admires about him, even when they disagree with some of those principles.
Kerry lost because he DID compromise his core principles, during the campaign and during his career. There is no way to justify his stance on gay marriage (just call it "civil unions" and give them all the same rights but don't use that word?) as anything other than cynical politics. There is no way to explain his voting against that $87 billion funding for the war other than cynical politics. (Kerry was trying to innoculate himself against the peace-now Deaniacs.)
Compromising core principles is EXACTLY what's WRONG with the Democrats. Republicans never do it so why would anyone think it's a formula for success?
Read the rest of this post...
"I wish that winning were just a matter of presentation. But it's not. It involves compromising on principles. Bill Clinton won his credibility in the heartland partly by going home to Little Rock during the 1992 campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally disabled convict named Ricky Ray Rector," writes Kristof.
"There was a moral ambiguity about Mr. Clinton's clambering to power over Mr. Rector's corpse. But unless Democrats compromise, they'll be proud and true and losers."
His suggestions: support the blurring of the line between church and state and encourage the faith-based programs that prosyletize with our taxpayer dollar. (Don't you DARE help a poor, black woman get health planning that involves a reference to condoms as protection against disease and pregnancy. But, sure, give her a little soup and a fundamentalist sermon to go with it.)
Also, stop getting so uptight over the Confederate flag, stop moaning about the policemen gunned down by criminals with once-illegal Uzis (and give their widows a Bible to comfort them, I suppose), don't worry if those Uzis get into the hands of terrorists, and if a Supreme Court nominee of Bush's might set the Court back ten years, don't put up a fuss because people will claim you're an obstructionist.
Is all of that idiotic or is it just me?
Supporting our police is a winning stance with mainstream America. (And every police organization in the country is furious that Bush is letting those automatic weapons get back on the streets. Every time a cop or innocent person is killed -- press conference. That's not taking cynical advantage of the situation -- that's standing up for our men and women in blue.)
Ignoring the spread of the Confederate Flag -- which causes Southern states business and is deeply offensive to our core -- is sure to dismay black voters, one of the few dependable groups the Dems can claim. They already feel slighted and taken for granted. Imagine if the Dems told them objecting to a racist symbol that only appears on most state flags because the Southerners objected to desegregating schools was a waste of time.
Objecting to government funds going to Moonies, Scientologists, Falun Gong and other minor religions or cults would play well for traditional Dems, fundamentalist Christians and many others. (Lots of major religions are leery of gov't funding propping them up.)
Finally, and most importantly, the Democrats did not lose the election because they refused to compromise their principals. That's absurd.
Bush NEVER compromises his core principles and that's exactly what 51% of the population admires about him, even when they disagree with some of those principles.
Kerry lost because he DID compromise his core principles, during the campaign and during his career. There is no way to justify his stance on gay marriage (just call it "civil unions" and give them all the same rights but don't use that word?) as anything other than cynical politics. There is no way to explain his voting against that $87 billion funding for the war other than cynical politics. (Kerry was trying to innoculate himself against the peace-now Deaniacs.)
Compromising core principles is EXACTLY what's WRONG with the Democrats. Republicans never do it so why would anyone think it's a formula for success?
Read the rest of this post...
Get this. Daschle was TOO confrontational! Yeah, right
It time for a counterattack against these bozos trying to destroy our party. According to today's Washington Post, some members of Congress think we need to be nicer to the Republicans or we could alll end up like Tom Daschle (the Senate Democratic leader who just lost his re-election bid). They have the nerve to suggest that Daschle was TOO mean to the Republicans! Yes, this is the guy who when Bush proposed an unnecessary budget-busting $1.6 trillion tax cut, he countered with an unnecessary budget-busting $1.3 trillion tax. Ooh, pretty obstructionist there, Tom.
This election was lost - if we lost, still not sure on that one - because of a lot of reasons, but being too mean was NOT one of them. If anything, it was mean that won the election for Bush. We need a "new" mean in this town, and it's not going to happen with the same old tired people hogging all the money and calling all the shots. Read the rest of this post...
This election was lost - if we lost, still not sure on that one - because of a lot of reasons, but being too mean was NOT one of them. If anything, it was mean that won the election for Bush. We need a "new" mean in this town, and it's not going to happen with the same old tired people hogging all the money and calling all the shots. Read the rest of this post...
Dodd May Leave Senate To Be Governor of Conn.
Se. Christopher Dodd has already reportedly given up on running for the post of minority leader, according to the New York Times. They paint it as inevitable that the milquetoast, appeasing, "peace in our time" Harry Reid of Nevada will get the job.
Dodd is dispirited by being in the minority and having little or no chance of a major position of power, despite having served for 24 years. So now he may leave office to run for Governor of Conn. (Besides, if you want to run for President, being governor is a lot better than being a Senator.) Chuck Schumer of NY and Jon Corzine of NJ are also both abandoning the weak Senate and running for governor of their states.
Two things: who can blame him and, just as importantly, we need to really push for a better minority leader. Email, phone or write your reps in Washington and tell them you DON'T support Reid and that nothing is a done deal and that the Dems need a strong leader who is going to champion our values and fight the Republicans, not appease them. Not when we have votes for Supreme Court justices looming on the horizon, rising deficits, and attacks on our personal liberties. Joe Biden is just one good alternative. Call! It matters! Feeling distraught by the election? Here's something you can do.
Read the rest of this post...
Dodd is dispirited by being in the minority and having little or no chance of a major position of power, despite having served for 24 years. So now he may leave office to run for Governor of Conn. (Besides, if you want to run for President, being governor is a lot better than being a Senator.) Chuck Schumer of NY and Jon Corzine of NJ are also both abandoning the weak Senate and running for governor of their states.
Two things: who can blame him and, just as importantly, we need to really push for a better minority leader. Email, phone or write your reps in Washington and tell them you DON'T support Reid and that nothing is a done deal and that the Dems need a strong leader who is going to champion our values and fight the Republicans, not appease them. Not when we have votes for Supreme Court justices looming on the horizon, rising deficits, and attacks on our personal liberties. Joe Biden is just one good alternative. Call! It matters! Feeling distraught by the election? Here's something you can do.
Read the rest of this post...
Courting Gays
No, gays and lesbians can't get married in 11 states -- in many of them, they can't even get a civil union. But that doesn't stop big business from courting them. Even the New York Post writes about major corporations cultivating the gay market at a major expo in NYC without blinking an eye.
It's just one more example that gays and lesbians are a part of mainstream America and anyone who tries to fight that is waging a losing battle.
Mercedes-Benz
Jet Blue
Avis
American Express
J.P. Morgan Chase
Citigroup
Met Life
the New York Police Department
Macy's
Time Warner
and even Tupperware
are among the major companies at the expo.
"Companies are here just to reach everyone on a personal level. When exhibitors see gays and lesbians, they don't see politics; they see dollars. It's good business," said one of the organizers said to the NY Post.
Read the rest of this post...
It's just one more example that gays and lesbians are a part of mainstream America and anyone who tries to fight that is waging a losing battle.
Mercedes-Benz
Jet Blue
Avis
American Express
J.P. Morgan Chase
Citigroup
Met Life
the New York Police Department
Macy's
Time Warner
and even Tupperware
are among the major companies at the expo.
"Companies are here just to reach everyone on a personal level. When exhibitors see gays and lesbians, they don't see politics; they see dollars. It's good business," said one of the organizers said to the NY Post.
Read the rest of this post...
Condemning Gays -- Blame Game Continues
Here's another article trying to rationalize why the Dems lost by blaming our core values -- in this case, equal rights for gays. (And by "our" core values, I mean America's core values.) The argument? If the homos in San Francisco hadn't made such a spectacle of themselves (by politely lining up for hours or days in a fervent desire to have their lifelong partners recognized by the state), then Bush wouldn't have been able to rile up the evangelicals so much and Kerry would have won.
As John pointed out to me, in 2000, the Dems tried to blame Gore's loss on groups pushing for reasonable gun laws. In other words, if we just abandoned the idea of reasonable gun laws (which are supported by the vast majority of Americans), abandoned the fringe idea of equal rights for all citizens, and, heck, abandoned a woman's right to choose, then we could win elections AND rename ourselves the Republican Party and save lots of money on stationery to boot.
You could point to many different groups as making the difference in this election since it came down to 3% of the popular vote and one state. John Kerry didn't reach out strongly enough to the black community (turnout was so-so in Ohio). John Kerry didn't reach out to Hispanics enough. And so on.
But let's assume for a moment that John Kerry's belief that gays deserve civil unions (which is also endorsed by Bush), that John Kerry's opposition to a Constitutional Amendment taking away rights from gays as unnecessary and divisive (an amendment that was rejected by the Republican controlled Senate) DID in fact make him lose. So what?
I would be proud to lose an election because I denounced slavery.
I would be proud to lose an election because I supported the suffrage movement.
I would be proud to lose an election because I supported the Civil Rights Voting Act and finally guaranteed blacks the right to vote. (Though even today we can't guarantee those votes will be counted.)
Why wouldn't John Kerry and the Democratic Party be proud to lose an election because they defended equal rights for all citizens? Because they said gays/blacks/women are NOT inferior to anyone else and do deserve respect and equal and fair treatment under the law?
Who do you think history is going to judge more kindly? George Bush -- who demonized gays and ran a nasty, divisive campaign maligning them to get elected?
I can't imagine anything that would make me prouder than to stand up for my fellow citizens' rights and to pay a price for that stance. I would pay it happily. Why aren't the Democrats?
Read the rest of this post...
As John pointed out to me, in 2000, the Dems tried to blame Gore's loss on groups pushing for reasonable gun laws. In other words, if we just abandoned the idea of reasonable gun laws (which are supported by the vast majority of Americans), abandoned the fringe idea of equal rights for all citizens, and, heck, abandoned a woman's right to choose, then we could win elections AND rename ourselves the Republican Party and save lots of money on stationery to boot.
You could point to many different groups as making the difference in this election since it came down to 3% of the popular vote and one state. John Kerry didn't reach out strongly enough to the black community (turnout was so-so in Ohio). John Kerry didn't reach out to Hispanics enough. And so on.
But let's assume for a moment that John Kerry's belief that gays deserve civil unions (which is also endorsed by Bush), that John Kerry's opposition to a Constitutional Amendment taking away rights from gays as unnecessary and divisive (an amendment that was rejected by the Republican controlled Senate) DID in fact make him lose. So what?
I would be proud to lose an election because I denounced slavery.
I would be proud to lose an election because I supported the suffrage movement.
I would be proud to lose an election because I supported the Civil Rights Voting Act and finally guaranteed blacks the right to vote. (Though even today we can't guarantee those votes will be counted.)
Why wouldn't John Kerry and the Democratic Party be proud to lose an election because they defended equal rights for all citizens? Because they said gays/blacks/women are NOT inferior to anyone else and do deserve respect and equal and fair treatment under the law?
Who do you think history is going to judge more kindly? George Bush -- who demonized gays and ran a nasty, divisive campaign maligning them to get elected?
I can't imagine anything that would make me prouder than to stand up for my fellow citizens' rights and to pay a price for that stance. I would pay it happily. Why aren't the Democrats?
Read the rest of this post...
"We had to destroy the city in order to save it."
Why do I get the feeling that we're going to hear a similar line to this quote from a US officer (after the leveling of Hue in 1968) following the upcoming battle in Falluja? The US has already taken out countless homes and killed innocent civilians with "precision strikes" but now 10,000 troops are forming a barrier around Falluja and ready to win it one way or another. Without an independent US press operating in Iraq, our news is being filtered through the Pentagon which we already know covers its own ass. People can spin it any way they like but killing civilians and destroying their houses will not win over the local populations and will only at best be a short term victory. With all of the talk about "moral values" I would like to know where the hell the American moral values are in Iraq. They're surely not in the US military or in the White House. This war and the execution of this war is morally wrong.
Read the rest of this post...
Read the rest of this post...
More death and destruction in Iraq, blah blah blah
To 51% of America: You broke it, you voted for it, you own it.
Wonder if Osama knows the difference between a red state and a blue state? Read the rest of this post...
Wonder if Osama knows the difference between a red state and a blue state? Read the rest of this post...
Eternal Damnation
Interesting piece by David Brooks today in the NYT about how the "values" phenomenon may not have been the overwhelming force so many people say it was in this election. Of course, Brooks uses his argument to take swipes at "liberals" for their arrogance, when it's people like Gary Bauer making the "values voters" claim much more than any lefty I've seen. Brooks may be right about the values stuff. But if Bauer, Reed, and Robertson want to claim victory, let's hold them to their word. Or at least God's word.
I live in a red state, and for months now I've been continually reminded by letters from Bauer's people to the editor of my local paper that I can't be a Christian and support gay marriage, abortion rights, or embryonic stem cell research at the same time. I can't even say I'm "not a good Christian," I'm simply NOT a Christian if I support any of these things even a little bit. There's no room for debate, for finding some scrap of scripture that might help my case. I saw the voters' guides being distributed at churches and it's pretty clear where they stand on a couple of issues. Go directly to hell, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
I looked long and hard at the bible (yes, I've read it - shocking!) and couldn't find the words "embryonic stem cell research" anywhere in it. I did find, however, "Thou shall not kill." So I get it. Pretty clear.
So here's my question -- why did these voters' guides ignore the death penalty? "Thou shall not kill" seems pretty clear to me. I know some bullshit arguments have been made citing a couple of passages in Genesis and Exodus that skirt around the issue. I know some "scholars" suggest that even though Jesus refused to support the execution of an adulterous woman in the Book of John, that doesn't mean he opposed the death penalty. I just keep going back to "Thou shall not kill." Pretty clear. You either support it or you don't.
Another question -- why did these guides ignore the war in Iraq? There are plenty of stories in the Bible about wars, and "just wars." The Pope doesn't think this is a just war. I realize he's just one Christian, though it seems he's a fairly influential one. It's my understanding that Catholics are supposed to follow his lead on stuff like this.
So American Christians, and our Head Christian in Charge, need to face up to it. If you support the death penalty, you're violating God's law. There's no wiggle room here. If Bush were a Catholic, he couldn't receive communion. Because he supports the death penalty, he's going to hell. There is absolutely, positively, no room for compromise on this. Don't give me some bullshit justification from some circumspect quote in Genesis or Exodus. Thou shall not kill.
By the way, I think it's OK for dems and libs to read the Bible. I'm a big fan of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm not trying to preach to anyone. But this is a pretty good read, and I've found it very fulfilling when someone questions my values by looking at my vote.
Read the rest of this post...
I live in a red state, and for months now I've been continually reminded by letters from Bauer's people to the editor of my local paper that I can't be a Christian and support gay marriage, abortion rights, or embryonic stem cell research at the same time. I can't even say I'm "not a good Christian," I'm simply NOT a Christian if I support any of these things even a little bit. There's no room for debate, for finding some scrap of scripture that might help my case. I saw the voters' guides being distributed at churches and it's pretty clear where they stand on a couple of issues. Go directly to hell, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
I looked long and hard at the bible (yes, I've read it - shocking!) and couldn't find the words "embryonic stem cell research" anywhere in it. I did find, however, "Thou shall not kill." So I get it. Pretty clear.
So here's my question -- why did these voters' guides ignore the death penalty? "Thou shall not kill" seems pretty clear to me. I know some bullshit arguments have been made citing a couple of passages in Genesis and Exodus that skirt around the issue. I know some "scholars" suggest that even though Jesus refused to support the execution of an adulterous woman in the Book of John, that doesn't mean he opposed the death penalty. I just keep going back to "Thou shall not kill." Pretty clear. You either support it or you don't.
Another question -- why did these guides ignore the war in Iraq? There are plenty of stories in the Bible about wars, and "just wars." The Pope doesn't think this is a just war. I realize he's just one Christian, though it seems he's a fairly influential one. It's my understanding that Catholics are supposed to follow his lead on stuff like this.
So American Christians, and our Head Christian in Charge, need to face up to it. If you support the death penalty, you're violating God's law. There's no wiggle room here. If Bush were a Catholic, he couldn't receive communion. Because he supports the death penalty, he's going to hell. There is absolutely, positively, no room for compromise on this. Don't give me some bullshit justification from some circumspect quote in Genesis or Exodus. Thou shall not kill.
By the way, I think it's OK for dems and libs to read the Bible. I'm a big fan of the Sermon on the Mount. I'm not trying to preach to anyone. But this is a pretty good read, and I've found it very fulfilling when someone questions my values by looking at my vote.
Read the rest of this post...
Michael Stipe is becoming my Prozac
For those of you who find inspiration in music (real music, not that lip "synch" corporate crap) the old REM is back. And they aren't going anywhere. From Newsday:
His name was never uttered - 'Mr. Still-Not-My-President,' the 'Commander-and-Cheat.' There was no need.Read the whole article, there's a lot in there for politically minded REM fans. Read the rest of this post...
When R.E.M. opened its show with its traditional closer, the not-so-fond farewell to the Reagan era 'It's the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine,)' the crowd knew what was going on. When singer Michael Stipe would scream 'I feel fine!,' there was no mistake. This would be something special.
Though Sen. John Kerry's concession-speech plea to 'bridge the partisan divide' the day before was eloquent, it was still too early for R.E.M. and its supporters to 'begin the healing.' They needed to rage. They needed to dream. Perhaps most of all, they needed to rock.
Mass graves found - in Bosnia
Another mass grave found in Bosnia. Political prisoners of Bosnian Serb forces, apparently. How many Republicans opposed U.S. involvement in this war? Where was the Republican chattering class on this? Remember Lugar? Remember Hannity?
Just more proof that it's not your values, it's who's President when it's time to invoke them.
Read the rest of this post...
Just more proof that it's not your values, it's who's President when it's time to invoke them.
Read the rest of this post...
While we're on the subject of jobs...
The airline industry is also planning more reductions. I guess the Big Airline Welfare Mamas realize that there will not be another bail out of a pathetically run industry. Somehow the airline executives are going to have to learn how to survive with only a mere $500,000 annual salary instead of the multi-million dollar packages that were courtesy of you and I in the last few years. Oh dear, these are lean times.
Read the rest of this post...
Read the rest of this post...
Dollar hits new low, deficit drags
Before the election I listened to a few pro-Bush financial analysts talk about the market reaching new highs and going on an extended winning streak if Bush won. OK, the markets went up yesterday but the run was tempered by the sagging dollar, which is now at an all time low against the Euro. The deficit will continue to be a drag and I have not heard anything that tells me Bush will take it seriously enough to do anything about it. His plan for a second term has spending 'til the cows come home and the GOP in Congress says "how high?" when he says jump. Let's just wait and see how much the markets eat up the Bush policy. The only thing that might temper their caution is the Wall Street Welfare plan (privitization of Social Security) that should be coming soon.
Read the rest of this post...
Read the rest of this post...
"Kerry Won"
From TomPaine.com. Another good explanation of how Ohio and New Mexico may very well have been won by John Kerry.
Read the rest of this post...
Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
