Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Yet another body armor snafu
We're going to be involved in in our 3rd war before Bush and company can figure out what the hell is going on with the body armor. This would be funny if it weren't so deadly serious. Could these guys be any more incompetent? Four years into these wars and they still haven't figure it out.
Read the rest of this post...
"The banality of evil"
A few words about Hannah Arendt and her essay "Eichmann in Jerusalem." Something to keep in mind the next time someone tries to tell you that a vicious Republican like Jesse Helms or Pat Buchanan is actually a very nice person when you meet them. Rather than calling that person crazy, consider the nuance of what they're actually telling you:
She controversially uses the phrase 'the banality of evil' to characterize Eichmann's actions as a member of the Nazi regime, in particular his role as chief architect and executioner of Hitler's genocidal 'final solution' (Endlosung) for the 'Jewish problem'. Her characterization of these actions, so obscene in their nature and consequences, as 'banal' is not meant to position them as workaday. Rather it is meant to contest the prevalent depictions of the Nazi's inexplicable atrocities as having emanated from a malevolent will to do evil, a delight in murder. As far as Arendt could discern, Eichmann came to his willing involvement with the program of genocide through a failure or absence of the faculties of sound thinking and judgement. From Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem (where he had been brought after Israeli agents found him in hiding in Argentina), Arendt concluded that far from exhibiting a malevolent hatred of Jews which could have accounted psychologically for his participation in the Holocaust, Eichmann was an utterly innocuous individual. He operated unthinkingly, following orders, efficiently carrying them out, with no consideration of their effects upon those he targeted. The human dimension of these activities were not entertained, so the extermination of the Jews became indistinguishable from any other bureaucratically assigned and discharged responsibility for Eichmann and his cohorts.Read the rest of this post...
Arendt concluded that Eichmann was constitutively incapable of exercising the kind of judgement that would have made his victims' suffering real or apparent for him. It was not the presence of hatred that enabled Eichmann to perpetrate the genocide, but the absence of the imaginative capacities that would have made the human and moral dimensions of his activities tangible for him. Eichmann failed to exercise his capacity of thinking, of having an internal dialogue with himself, which would have permitted self-awareness of the evil nature of his deeds. This amounted to a failure to use self-reflection as a basis for judgement, the faculty that would have required Eichmann to exercise his imagination so as to contemplate the nature of his deeds from the experiential standpoint of his victims. This connection between the complicity with political evil and the failure of thinking and judgement inspired the last phase of Arendt's work, which sought to explicate the nature of these faculties and their constitutive role for politically and morally responsible choices.
Lieberman booed at Connecticut state Democratic party dinner tonight
We just got a call from someone attending the dinner that Lieberman was just introduced and got loudly booed by the audience.
Read the rest of this post...
The Left's Fear of Money, Part II
Nine months ago I wrote a post that got a good amount of attention, it was about the fear of money that some people have on the left. I think it's time for the next installment.
Last night I attended the Radio and Television Correspondents Association annual dinner in Washington, DC. I got invited by a radio-industry friend who had bought a few tables. It's a biggest-of-the-year kind of gala where anyone who's anyone in journalism and politics attends, from Senators to national TV anchors. The president is usually the invited guest, but as Bush was in Mexico, Cheney attended.
I knew, because of past experience with some reading this blog, that when I got back home and posted photos of the event a minority of my readers, but a very vocal minority, would be upset. Why? Because I'd be wearing a tuxedo at a party with famous people.
Da-da-da-dum.
The reaction was quick and furious, and rather vicious. Some examples:
1. I was attacked for having a photo taken with Katherine Harris, the woman who threw the election in Florida for Bush. Rather than appreciate the camp value of getting a photo with Harris (and I seriously tried to get one with Bay Buchanan, Pat Buchanan's sister, but she left before I could corner her), I was lectured about the impropriety of being photographed with “that woman” and folks decided to accuse me of selling out. One person had the nerve to write that politics might not be personal for me, but it was for him. Another commenter even came up with the crazy idea that apparently Katherine and I had been "partying" together last night. Uh huh. Me and Katherine, quite the item, you should have been there.
2. Then people got irate that I noted that Harris was rather nice in person. I went one step further and reported a conversation I had with another friend last night who knows Harris quite well. The friend, who is a good liberal, told me that I'd be surprised, on a personal level Harris is one of the nicest people my friend knows. I report that fact, and big surprise, all hell breaks loose. I am now, apparently, broadcasting that Katherine Harris is actually a wonderful human being. No, I said she's nice in person and has a reputation, even among liberals, of being an incredibly nice person. That doesn't mean I think she's a wonderful human being, it simply means that whatever she is, it's a lot more complicated than folks would like to present.
Read Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” then get back to me and see if you still miss the point.
3. Then I make the larger observation that the nastiest of Republicans can be some of the nicest people, and vice versa for Democrats. If you live in DC and actually meet "famous" political types, you'll likely know what I mean.
Newt Gingrich, for example. I just appeared on O'Reilly, went back to the green room, and Newt starts telling me what an amazing job I did. Mind you, I was debating gay rights with O'Reilly, Newt knows this, and is still praising me. It was weird, trust me. But it was also fascinating that Newt would be that nice one-on-one.
Then there are the gun nuts. Joe can tell you stories about them. Awful people. But incredibly, shockingly nice on a personal level. And how about arch-bigot Jesse Helms, famed for being wonderful in person. Same goes for Pat Buchanan. Yes, they're horrible people, but they're FAMED for being wonderful people in person. That's fascinating, it's not something you'd expect, and I noted that fact. And of course, lots of folks freaked out again in the comments, this time saying I thought conservatives were good people and Democrats bad people.
Again, uh huh.
4. I was told I was now in danger of being wooed to the dark side (whatever that is) and that I could no longer write objectively on the blog since I'd attended this event and seen these famous people whom I now would idolize and do anything to make them happy. I get this every time I meet someone 'famous' and report back to you guys about it. Apparently, the past 20 years of working with famous people on the Hill and in my other work, including meetings heads of state, ambassadors, the secretary of state (actually two), secretary of defense, heads of major US corporations, and more didn't corrupt me, but attending one gala in a tux will. And oh yeah, when I pointed this fact out, I was accused of being egotistical.
5. I was told I was going to lose my outsider status if I continued to go to these kind of events. When I pointed out that, per number 4 above, I've lived in DC for 20 years and lost that outsider status a few heads of states and cabinet secretaries ago, I was again "arrogant" for pointing out that fact.
6. I was chastised for not making this an evening of "substance" rather than treat it as a gala. Yes, a massive dinner dance with 2,000 people in tuxedos out for an elegant evening and I'm supposed to get out my laptop and ask the hard questions, oh yeah, and kick Katherine Harris in the shins.
7. One person said they saw this day coming, AMERICAblog for along time hasn't done substantive work - as if our work on the cell phone privacy issue just two months ago wasn't substantive. Some accused me of being arrogant and egotistical for having the temerity to suggest that maybe Katherine Harris would be mortified when she found out she got her picture taken with a top gay activist. My crime? I called myself a top gay activist. Apparently I'm either not, or I'm not supposed to know it, or I'm not supposed to acknowledge it, or something. I have no idea. But apparently in defending myself I conveniently again violated some PC code of uber-liberal ethics.
8. Another person said I'd become a media whore, or something. That all I wanted was to get my face on TV, rather than helping the cause. Of course, this person has no clue about how important the media is for our cause, and how important TV appearances are for pushing our values, our projects, our legislation, our advocacy, and more generally for fighting the growing right-wing media bias. No, it was easier to attack me personally, since after all, going on TV is the electronic equivalent of wearing a tux: Someone must pay for the sacrilege.
I'm writing about all of this not to provoke the rest of you to write encouraging words. I know that the overwhelming majority of those who read this blog don't think like this. I also know that the comments are reflective of those who comment, nothing more, nothing less. But, as I pointed out 9 months, there is something seriously wrong with a core group in our party, and I really think their loathing of money and power and access and anything good in life (and perhaps even themselves) is seriously hurting our party.
There is a core group of Democrats who simply don't like money and power. They distrust it on a such a visceral level that anything that even vaguely smells of either is immediately suspect and worthy of public ridicule. Thus they freak out over my attending the gala. It's the same freak out I get when I ask for donations for the blog. How dare you try to earn money, I'm asked always, every time, by numerous commenters. Why don't you go on a budget like other Americans, one person wrote, rather than asking us for donations (as if the income were coming from somewhere else other than ad sales and donations?) That person went on to add a familiar refrain I've heard before - how dare you expect me to pay for your trips abroad! When I pointed out that most of my trips abroad have been paid for by clients or third parties like the Dutch government, the person launched into some other excuse to criticize me (not to mention, I don't recall anyone ever asking one of their employees how much they spend on their family vacation so you can lower their paycheck accordingly). And let’s not even talk about the criticism I got for going to France last summer. Yes, I decided to cat-sit for friends in Paris – the horror, the horror - and somehow that meant I was living high on the hog. It apparently meant I had a lot of money (though how staying for free at a friend’s place in exchange for taking care of their pets was somehow lucrative still escapes me - then again, there were those who didn't think it was lucrative at all, they just figured I'd spent all of your donations on the trip and publicy said so) and, again, didn’t deserve donations, because apparently writing from Washington DC is good, but writing from Paris, not so much.
The criticism happens far too often, is far too nasty, and comes from far too many people, to be written off as a few trolls or crazies. They may not be the majority of the party, thank God, but they are far too many in number to be left unchallenged.
What's at the core of all of this? It think it’s something that someone noted in the comments to the gala post below. In the same way that conservatives don't respect anyone who doesn't have money and power, a core group of liberals don't trust anyone who HAS money or power. The problem is that we live in a society where money and power are part of the key to political success. So how exactly is it that we win if we insist on keeping our wealth and our power to a minimum?
How do we expect our blogs and bloggers to continue being the first and only left-wing-noise-machine we have (along with Air America, Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart), to keep pushing the Hill, to keep working on elections and advocacy, to keep the media honest, if we think actually paying them to do their full-time jobs is somehow immoral?
The answer is: We don't win.
Too many Democrats are afraid to pay people a wage they deserve. Sure, they’ll give millions to a big-name liberal advocacy group, but when it comes to individuals, to real people, having them earn even half the salary of the muckety mucks at the big organizations is somehow immoral. Rather than ask ourselves “how much is our freedom worth? How much would I pay to get my country back?”, we look at our lives and say "I can't afford to take my wife and daughters to Europe, so why should I donate to you when all you do is spend my donation on vacations" (true post). Suddenly, the worth of my work is linked to how well YOU have or have not provided for your family. Suddenly my success is an affront to you, and must be stopped, lest... what? And the result? We don't get the best people for the job because "good people shouldn't expect to be paid." Which is a fascinating concept I'll use next time my rent is due.
I’ve even had people criticize the fact that I grow orchids. It’s a rich-man’s hobby. How dare I try to earn a living running this blog when I grow orchids. How do you respond to that kind of crap?
And it's not just wages. I think that far too many liberals have no idea what it takes to win in politics. The mixture of intelligence, creativity and chutzpah it takes to win in Washington and beyond. God knows we see it on the Hill, in terms of members of Congress who refuse to do what it takes to win, even when the opportunity is handed to them. Far too many liberals - still a minority I think, but a far too loud and influential minority - don't understand that we need money, we need power, we need influence and connections and friends in the media and even, God forbid, some Republican friends if we want to win. You simply can't sit back, hug a tree and sing cumbaya in your Birkenstocks by the campfire and expect the crystal fairy to hand you your civil rights and your country back.
If these people have a better idea for how we do all of this, I'm open to hearing it. But they don't see to have any ideas at all. All they do is criticize those who try to make a difference, then whine when they see the party continuing to fail.
I'm not going to solve this conundrum here, and I'm sure in 9 more months there will be cause for yet a third installment of this ongoing essay. But I want to share something I did over the past month that, in retrospect, really ticks me off.
The reason I got so sick a few weeks ago is because I was traveling like a fool and finally couldn't take it anymore. I went to Amsterdam on the blogger trip, and within two days of returning home had to go speak at a donor's conference in Miami to try to get funding for the blog. After getting home from that conference in Miami, two days later I flew to San Francisco to take some media training so I could do a better job selling our party and policies in speeches and in the media. After a 4 hour coffee meet-up with AMERICAblog readers, SF finally did me in. I was stuck in my hotel for 2 days sicker than a dog.
I was concerned about telling you guys that I was going to San Francisco, and outright refused to mention the Miami conference. Why? Because I knew the vocal minority would give me a hard time about it. Living the life of leisure, they’d write, making all that money traveling (as if somehow doing free appearances at conferences and trainings is lucrative, when in fact it cost me several hundreds dollars each trip). I knew that if I fully disclosed all the work-related travel I had this past month, which included going to Philly to speak, for free, and flying to Dallas to speak at a gay fundraiser, for free - both of which I canceled when I got sick - there wasn't a bat's chance in hell that I wouldn't be publicly savaged when I held our regular fundraiser for the blog, which was already a few week’s behind. If I told you guys how much I was doing to try to help the blog and the liberal cause, I’d be punished for it by the vocal angry minority. So I didn’t tell you.
So, rather than report on a rather interesting political conference – and Miami is absolutely fascinating, what I saw of it - rather than tell you about a rather interesting meeting in Philly and event in Texas (both of which I canceled, but had no intention of telling you had I gone), I chose to shut up because I knew a far too vocal minority of you would take over the donations thread and give me shit for doing my job, and ironically, doing it for free.
There is something seriously wrong here.
I have a good friend in liberal politics who always worked too much. We're talking until midnight every evening. He was working on AIDS policy, civil rights, education, poverty, all the good stuff. But he refused to ever take time to smell the roses, let alone sleep. I remember telling him once "what's the point in fighting for a world you never plan to live in?" I'd ask the same of those who are the first to criticize any time I flower an orchid or visit New York. If you love this country and this world so much, why do you so hate anyone who tries to enjoy it? Read the rest of this post...
Last night I attended the Radio and Television Correspondents Association annual dinner in Washington, DC. I got invited by a radio-industry friend who had bought a few tables. It's a biggest-of-the-year kind of gala where anyone who's anyone in journalism and politics attends, from Senators to national TV anchors. The president is usually the invited guest, but as Bush was in Mexico, Cheney attended.
I knew, because of past experience with some reading this blog, that when I got back home and posted photos of the event a minority of my readers, but a very vocal minority, would be upset. Why? Because I'd be wearing a tuxedo at a party with famous people.
Da-da-da-dum.
The reaction was quick and furious, and rather vicious. Some examples:
1. I was attacked for having a photo taken with Katherine Harris, the woman who threw the election in Florida for Bush. Rather than appreciate the camp value of getting a photo with Harris (and I seriously tried to get one with Bay Buchanan, Pat Buchanan's sister, but she left before I could corner her), I was lectured about the impropriety of being photographed with “that woman” and folks decided to accuse me of selling out. One person had the nerve to write that politics might not be personal for me, but it was for him. Another commenter even came up with the crazy idea that apparently Katherine and I had been "partying" together last night. Uh huh. Me and Katherine, quite the item, you should have been there.
2. Then people got irate that I noted that Harris was rather nice in person. I went one step further and reported a conversation I had with another friend last night who knows Harris quite well. The friend, who is a good liberal, told me that I'd be surprised, on a personal level Harris is one of the nicest people my friend knows. I report that fact, and big surprise, all hell breaks loose. I am now, apparently, broadcasting that Katherine Harris is actually a wonderful human being. No, I said she's nice in person and has a reputation, even among liberals, of being an incredibly nice person. That doesn't mean I think she's a wonderful human being, it simply means that whatever she is, it's a lot more complicated than folks would like to present.
Read Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” then get back to me and see if you still miss the point.
3. Then I make the larger observation that the nastiest of Republicans can be some of the nicest people, and vice versa for Democrats. If you live in DC and actually meet "famous" political types, you'll likely know what I mean.
Newt Gingrich, for example. I just appeared on O'Reilly, went back to the green room, and Newt starts telling me what an amazing job I did. Mind you, I was debating gay rights with O'Reilly, Newt knows this, and is still praising me. It was weird, trust me. But it was also fascinating that Newt would be that nice one-on-one.
Then there are the gun nuts. Joe can tell you stories about them. Awful people. But incredibly, shockingly nice on a personal level. And how about arch-bigot Jesse Helms, famed for being wonderful in person. Same goes for Pat Buchanan. Yes, they're horrible people, but they're FAMED for being wonderful people in person. That's fascinating, it's not something you'd expect, and I noted that fact. And of course, lots of folks freaked out again in the comments, this time saying I thought conservatives were good people and Democrats bad people.
Again, uh huh.
4. I was told I was now in danger of being wooed to the dark side (whatever that is) and that I could no longer write objectively on the blog since I'd attended this event and seen these famous people whom I now would idolize and do anything to make them happy. I get this every time I meet someone 'famous' and report back to you guys about it. Apparently, the past 20 years of working with famous people on the Hill and in my other work, including meetings heads of state, ambassadors, the secretary of state (actually two), secretary of defense, heads of major US corporations, and more didn't corrupt me, but attending one gala in a tux will. And oh yeah, when I pointed this fact out, I was accused of being egotistical.
5. I was told I was going to lose my outsider status if I continued to go to these kind of events. When I pointed out that, per number 4 above, I've lived in DC for 20 years and lost that outsider status a few heads of states and cabinet secretaries ago, I was again "arrogant" for pointing out that fact.
6. I was chastised for not making this an evening of "substance" rather than treat it as a gala. Yes, a massive dinner dance with 2,000 people in tuxedos out for an elegant evening and I'm supposed to get out my laptop and ask the hard questions, oh yeah, and kick Katherine Harris in the shins.
7. One person said they saw this day coming, AMERICAblog for along time hasn't done substantive work - as if our work on the cell phone privacy issue just two months ago wasn't substantive. Some accused me of being arrogant and egotistical for having the temerity to suggest that maybe Katherine Harris would be mortified when she found out she got her picture taken with a top gay activist. My crime? I called myself a top gay activist. Apparently I'm either not, or I'm not supposed to know it, or I'm not supposed to acknowledge it, or something. I have no idea. But apparently in defending myself I conveniently again violated some PC code of uber-liberal ethics.
8. Another person said I'd become a media whore, or something. That all I wanted was to get my face on TV, rather than helping the cause. Of course, this person has no clue about how important the media is for our cause, and how important TV appearances are for pushing our values, our projects, our legislation, our advocacy, and more generally for fighting the growing right-wing media bias. No, it was easier to attack me personally, since after all, going on TV is the electronic equivalent of wearing a tux: Someone must pay for the sacrilege.
I'm writing about all of this not to provoke the rest of you to write encouraging words. I know that the overwhelming majority of those who read this blog don't think like this. I also know that the comments are reflective of those who comment, nothing more, nothing less. But, as I pointed out 9 months, there is something seriously wrong with a core group in our party, and I really think their loathing of money and power and access and anything good in life (and perhaps even themselves) is seriously hurting our party.
There is a core group of Democrats who simply don't like money and power. They distrust it on a such a visceral level that anything that even vaguely smells of either is immediately suspect and worthy of public ridicule. Thus they freak out over my attending the gala. It's the same freak out I get when I ask for donations for the blog. How dare you try to earn money, I'm asked always, every time, by numerous commenters. Why don't you go on a budget like other Americans, one person wrote, rather than asking us for donations (as if the income were coming from somewhere else other than ad sales and donations?) That person went on to add a familiar refrain I've heard before - how dare you expect me to pay for your trips abroad! When I pointed out that most of my trips abroad have been paid for by clients or third parties like the Dutch government, the person launched into some other excuse to criticize me (not to mention, I don't recall anyone ever asking one of their employees how much they spend on their family vacation so you can lower their paycheck accordingly). And let’s not even talk about the criticism I got for going to France last summer. Yes, I decided to cat-sit for friends in Paris – the horror, the horror - and somehow that meant I was living high on the hog. It apparently meant I had a lot of money (though how staying for free at a friend’s place in exchange for taking care of their pets was somehow lucrative still escapes me - then again, there were those who didn't think it was lucrative at all, they just figured I'd spent all of your donations on the trip and publicy said so) and, again, didn’t deserve donations, because apparently writing from Washington DC is good, but writing from Paris, not so much.
The criticism happens far too often, is far too nasty, and comes from far too many people, to be written off as a few trolls or crazies. They may not be the majority of the party, thank God, but they are far too many in number to be left unchallenged.
What's at the core of all of this? It think it’s something that someone noted in the comments to the gala post below. In the same way that conservatives don't respect anyone who doesn't have money and power, a core group of liberals don't trust anyone who HAS money or power. The problem is that we live in a society where money and power are part of the key to political success. So how exactly is it that we win if we insist on keeping our wealth and our power to a minimum?
How do we expect our blogs and bloggers to continue being the first and only left-wing-noise-machine we have (along with Air America, Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart), to keep pushing the Hill, to keep working on elections and advocacy, to keep the media honest, if we think actually paying them to do their full-time jobs is somehow immoral?
The answer is: We don't win.
Too many Democrats are afraid to pay people a wage they deserve. Sure, they’ll give millions to a big-name liberal advocacy group, but when it comes to individuals, to real people, having them earn even half the salary of the muckety mucks at the big organizations is somehow immoral. Rather than ask ourselves “how much is our freedom worth? How much would I pay to get my country back?”, we look at our lives and say "I can't afford to take my wife and daughters to Europe, so why should I donate to you when all you do is spend my donation on vacations" (true post). Suddenly, the worth of my work is linked to how well YOU have or have not provided for your family. Suddenly my success is an affront to you, and must be stopped, lest... what? And the result? We don't get the best people for the job because "good people shouldn't expect to be paid." Which is a fascinating concept I'll use next time my rent is due.
I’ve even had people criticize the fact that I grow orchids. It’s a rich-man’s hobby. How dare I try to earn a living running this blog when I grow orchids. How do you respond to that kind of crap?
And it's not just wages. I think that far too many liberals have no idea what it takes to win in politics. The mixture of intelligence, creativity and chutzpah it takes to win in Washington and beyond. God knows we see it on the Hill, in terms of members of Congress who refuse to do what it takes to win, even when the opportunity is handed to them. Far too many liberals - still a minority I think, but a far too loud and influential minority - don't understand that we need money, we need power, we need influence and connections and friends in the media and even, God forbid, some Republican friends if we want to win. You simply can't sit back, hug a tree and sing cumbaya in your Birkenstocks by the campfire and expect the crystal fairy to hand you your civil rights and your country back.
If these people have a better idea for how we do all of this, I'm open to hearing it. But they don't see to have any ideas at all. All they do is criticize those who try to make a difference, then whine when they see the party continuing to fail.
I'm not going to solve this conundrum here, and I'm sure in 9 more months there will be cause for yet a third installment of this ongoing essay. But I want to share something I did over the past month that, in retrospect, really ticks me off.
The reason I got so sick a few weeks ago is because I was traveling like a fool and finally couldn't take it anymore. I went to Amsterdam on the blogger trip, and within two days of returning home had to go speak at a donor's conference in Miami to try to get funding for the blog. After getting home from that conference in Miami, two days later I flew to San Francisco to take some media training so I could do a better job selling our party and policies in speeches and in the media. After a 4 hour coffee meet-up with AMERICAblog readers, SF finally did me in. I was stuck in my hotel for 2 days sicker than a dog.
I was concerned about telling you guys that I was going to San Francisco, and outright refused to mention the Miami conference. Why? Because I knew the vocal minority would give me a hard time about it. Living the life of leisure, they’d write, making all that money traveling (as if somehow doing free appearances at conferences and trainings is lucrative, when in fact it cost me several hundreds dollars each trip). I knew that if I fully disclosed all the work-related travel I had this past month, which included going to Philly to speak, for free, and flying to Dallas to speak at a gay fundraiser, for free - both of which I canceled when I got sick - there wasn't a bat's chance in hell that I wouldn't be publicly savaged when I held our regular fundraiser for the blog, which was already a few week’s behind. If I told you guys how much I was doing to try to help the blog and the liberal cause, I’d be punished for it by the vocal angry minority. So I didn’t tell you.
So, rather than report on a rather interesting political conference – and Miami is absolutely fascinating, what I saw of it - rather than tell you about a rather interesting meeting in Philly and event in Texas (both of which I canceled, but had no intention of telling you had I gone), I chose to shut up because I knew a far too vocal minority of you would take over the donations thread and give me shit for doing my job, and ironically, doing it for free.
There is something seriously wrong here.
I have a good friend in liberal politics who always worked too much. We're talking until midnight every evening. He was working on AIDS policy, civil rights, education, poverty, all the good stuff. But he refused to ever take time to smell the roses, let alone sleep. I remember telling him once "what's the point in fighting for a world you never plan to live in?" I'd ask the same of those who are the first to criticize any time I flower an orchid or visit New York. If you love this country and this world so much, why do you so hate anyone who tries to enjoy it? Read the rest of this post...
Amb. Wilson to attend DailyKos annual conference
Very cool, Wilson is attending YearlyKos and speaking on a panel. I just got invited to speak on a panel as well, and will be going. Should be one hell of an event.
Read the rest of this post...
House GOPers can't stop their immigrant bashing
The immigration issue is front and center in Congress this week. The House Republicans are getting uglier and uglier by the day:
"I say let the prisoners pick the fruits," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, one of more than a dozen Republicans who took turns condemning a Senate bill that offers an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship.Ugly and classless:
"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter A," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, referring to a guest worker provision in the Senate measure.
[Congressman Dana] Rohrabacher said Americans should be able to "smell the foul odor that's coming out of the U.S. Senate."Gotta love those values driven conservatives. Read the rest of this post...
More local media criticism of Lieberman
Angry Joe.
Anyway, how could anyone expect Lamont to resist tying Lieberman to Bush? Maybe W's "favorite Democrat" is really some good ol' boy back in Midland, but he did plant a big wet one on Lieberman's cheek, and he mentioned Lieberman at least twice in speeches defending the war in Iraq.Read the rest of this post...
Frist busted at immigration event by Congressman Joe Crowley
It's not easy being Bill Frist these days. He wants to be President but that pesky role he has as Senate Majority Leader is making it hard for him:
Yesterday, Frist tried to pull of an event for an immigration group and the press to make himself appear more balanced on the immigration issue. In fact, he's been one of the anti-immigrant leaders in Congress. But we heard a great story about how a funny thing happened on the way to Frist's event: Congressman Joe Crowley showed up and took it over.
Even though Frist's office arranged the event in the Capitol yesterday, Frist didn't show. He sent a staffer to brief the group and the press that showed up (including Telemundo, Univision, and Telivisa, and the newspaper Hoy.)
Crowley was actually the only lawmaker who showed up. His view on immigration is the polar opposite of where Bill Frist stands. Crowley spoke in favor of legislation that includes a guest worker program and a clear path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented living in America. He blasted the GOP enforcement-only legislation passed in the House, and then talked about how Frist's proposed bill is similar to that House legislation.
Heard that the crowd loved it. They even started chanting which you can imagine left the Frist staffers shifting uncomfortably and smiling nervously to each other. So, the Frist sponsored event, which was supposed to be a way for him to misrepresent his position on the issue, didn't turn out that way thanks to Crowley.
We love hearing these stories. Joe Crowley shows that Democrats can play hard ball politics while standing up for their values. That is a very good thing.
And, if Frist's operation is this pathetic and clumsy, his presidential campaign is going to be a blast to watch. Read the rest of this post...
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says his high-profile job is a "terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible" post for seeking the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.Oh, poor Bill Frist. Do any GOP elected officials actually like their jobs? Of course, it's an even worse when they do a terrible job.
Yesterday, Frist tried to pull of an event for an immigration group and the press to make himself appear more balanced on the immigration issue. In fact, he's been one of the anti-immigrant leaders in Congress. But we heard a great story about how a funny thing happened on the way to Frist's event: Congressman Joe Crowley showed up and took it over.
Even though Frist's office arranged the event in the Capitol yesterday, Frist didn't show. He sent a staffer to brief the group and the press that showed up (including Telemundo, Univision, and Telivisa, and the newspaper Hoy.)
Crowley was actually the only lawmaker who showed up. His view on immigration is the polar opposite of where Bill Frist stands. Crowley spoke in favor of legislation that includes a guest worker program and a clear path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented living in America. He blasted the GOP enforcement-only legislation passed in the House, and then talked about how Frist's proposed bill is similar to that House legislation.
Heard that the crowd loved it. They even started chanting which you can imagine left the Frist staffers shifting uncomfortably and smiling nervously to each other. So, the Frist sponsored event, which was supposed to be a way for him to misrepresent his position on the issue, didn't turn out that way thanks to Crowley.
We love hearing these stories. Joe Crowley shows that Democrats can play hard ball politics while standing up for their values. That is a very good thing.
And, if Frist's operation is this pathetic and clumsy, his presidential campaign is going to be a blast to watch. Read the rest of this post...
My full report from the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner
(Note: Several of the photos can be clicked on to see larger versions of them.)
The best comes first. Yes, me and Katherine Harris. Interestingly, she was very nice, and a friend who knows her quite well says Harris is the nicest, NICEST person you will ever know. Doesn't mean we like her politically, but it amazes me how "nice" so many of the most strident Republicans are in person. Compare that to some of the most strident Democrats - they can be less nice.
UPDATE: Some of you didn't get the camp factor behind why I wanted a photo with Katherine Harris. (Guess I'm lucky I didn't get that photo with Bay Buchanan.) As much as you may not like me taking a photo with her (personally, I think it's funny), imagine the fun that we now have a photo of Katherine Harris with her arm around one of America's top gay activists :-) It's all a matter of perspective...
The grand ballroom at the Hilton, where we had dinner. Nothing special, it's the same grand ballroom where every advocacy group in town (practically) holds their annual dinners. You can see the dais in the back to the right, where Cheney and company were.
Sitting at our table was Victoria Jones with the Talk Radio News Service. You can see her in the photo near the bottom left. You might recognize her from the daily White House briefings where she usually grills Scottie with really good hard questions. We like her. I was sitting next to the senior counsel for Congressman John Conyers, who was also quite interesting, and very interested in blogs.
What's important about these events is that, yeah, they're fun, but they're also important networking opportunities. And that's what makes Washington work, when it works. In that regard, the two most important contacts of the evening were finally meeting General Wesley Clark, and a great talk I had with a guy from CNN about my perceptions of the network.
I was invited by Ellen Ratner of the Talk Radio News Service. She's a wonderful woman I met through another journalist friend. Ellen is incredibly spunky, energetic, smart, and kick-ass. It's hard to find enough adjectives to describe her adequately. She has a new book coming out soon, we'll be talking about that more when it comes out.
Me and my prom date, CNN blogchick Jacki Schechner (while it could be taken as vaguely sexist, I still like the word blogchicks for Jacki and Abbi (Abbi's photo is coming), especially since the "chick" ending, phonetically, is a diminutive in Russian, like "ito" is in Spanish, so in essence it's kind of like an affectionate term for blog. Whatever, I'm tired).
And by the way, check out the sunglasses on the woman behind me. [Shiver]
Blogchick #2 Abbi Tatton, who was equally fabulously decked out. Women get to wear the best stuff, all the guys were penguins (cute penguins, but penguins).
CNN's after-party, called "Club CNN" or something like that. It was quite fun. Great music, mood, and the best margarita I've ever had. A wee bit crowded, but it was fun. It was actually there that I had the really interesting talk with the CNN guy about my take on the networks, it's problems, fixes, etc.
Again, it's fun going to these kind of things, I won't deny it - actually, it's a lot of fun, hanging out with a who's-who of politics (there were a lot of members of Congress there - I had a very odd discussion with former Senator Breaux (D-LA) in line for the metal detector, it involved the Senator running naked - like I said, it was a bit odd, and he started it) and journalism when that's what I do for a living, it's fun, and you definitely get swept up in a moment if that's your kind of thing. But it's also incredibly worthwhile from a political networking perspective (I met a lot of TV producers on the various political shows and networks), so it's good all the way around.
Anyway, there you have it. Oh yeah, I also got to talk to Madeleine Albright, who was my old prof at Georgetown, that was fun (but unfortunately that was when I thought taking photos was low-brow - silly me). Read the rest of this post...
The best comes first. Yes, me and Katherine Harris. Interestingly, she was very nice, and a friend who knows her quite well says Harris is the nicest, NICEST person you will ever know. Doesn't mean we like her politically, but it amazes me how "nice" so many of the most strident Republicans are in person. Compare that to some of the most strident Democrats - they can be less nice.
UPDATE: Some of you didn't get the camp factor behind why I wanted a photo with Katherine Harris. (Guess I'm lucky I didn't get that photo with Bay Buchanan.) As much as you may not like me taking a photo with her (personally, I think it's funny), imagine the fun that we now have a photo of Katherine Harris with her arm around one of America's top gay activists :-) It's all a matter of perspective...
The grand ballroom at the Hilton, where we had dinner. Nothing special, it's the same grand ballroom where every advocacy group in town (practically) holds their annual dinners. You can see the dais in the back to the right, where Cheney and company were.
Sitting at our table was Victoria Jones with the Talk Radio News Service. You can see her in the photo near the bottom left. You might recognize her from the daily White House briefings where she usually grills Scottie with really good hard questions. We like her. I was sitting next to the senior counsel for Congressman John Conyers, who was also quite interesting, and very interested in blogs.
What's important about these events is that, yeah, they're fun, but they're also important networking opportunities. And that's what makes Washington work, when it works. In that regard, the two most important contacts of the evening were finally meeting General Wesley Clark, and a great talk I had with a guy from CNN about my perceptions of the network.
I was invited by Ellen Ratner of the Talk Radio News Service. She's a wonderful woman I met through another journalist friend. Ellen is incredibly spunky, energetic, smart, and kick-ass. It's hard to find enough adjectives to describe her adequately. She has a new book coming out soon, we'll be talking about that more when it comes out.
Me and my prom date, CNN blogchick Jacki Schechner (while it could be taken as vaguely sexist, I still like the word blogchicks for Jacki and Abbi (Abbi's photo is coming), especially since the "chick" ending, phonetically, is a diminutive in Russian, like "ito" is in Spanish, so in essence it's kind of like an affectionate term for blog. Whatever, I'm tired).
And by the way, check out the sunglasses on the woman behind me. [Shiver]
Blogchick #2 Abbi Tatton, who was equally fabulously decked out. Women get to wear the best stuff, all the guys were penguins (cute penguins, but penguins).
CNN's after-party, called "Club CNN" or something like that. It was quite fun. Great music, mood, and the best margarita I've ever had. A wee bit crowded, but it was fun. It was actually there that I had the really interesting talk with the CNN guy about my take on the networks, it's problems, fixes, etc.
Again, it's fun going to these kind of things, I won't deny it - actually, it's a lot of fun, hanging out with a who's-who of politics (there were a lot of members of Congress there - I had a very odd discussion with former Senator Breaux (D-LA) in line for the metal detector, it involved the Senator running naked - like I said, it was a bit odd, and he started it) and journalism when that's what I do for a living, it's fun, and you definitely get swept up in a moment if that's your kind of thing. But it's also incredibly worthwhile from a political networking perspective (I met a lot of TV producers on the various political shows and networks), so it's good all the way around.
Anyway, there you have it. Oh yeah, I also got to talk to Madeleine Albright, who was my old prof at Georgetown, that was fun (but unfortunately that was when I thought taking photos was low-brow - silly me). Read the rest of this post...
Open thread
Working on my photos from last night, they'll be up in a bit.
Read the rest of this post...
Photographer: Scalia lied in saying he didn't make an obscene gesture at church; Scalia also told reporter to "go get fucked up the ass" in Italian
The photographer has come forward, angered that Scalia lied. The photo is published in today's Boston Herald.Per the Herald:
Amid a growing national controversy about the gesture U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made Sunday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the freelance photographer who captured the moment has come forward with the picture.And just as importantly, Scalia also told the reporter to go get fucked up the ass, in Italian:
“It’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.
Despite Scalia’s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper “got the story right.”
“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.Vaffanculo means "go get fucked up your ass."
So, rather than simply moving his hand under his chin to indicate "indifference," which is what Scalia claimed he was doing in an open letter to the Herald, in fact Scalia flipped off the media and used a phrase in Italian that is incredibly vulgar, and that only reinforces the gesture not being a sign of indifference, but the gesture itself meaning "fuck you" in Italian.
He did this minutes after taking the Eucharist (communion), in church, during Lent, and two weeks before Easter. In addition, he's now lying again during Lent and right before Easter.
Some man of conservative family values. He's not even a good Christian, let alone a good Christian conservative. Which begs the question of what the religious has to say about their darling being an obscene liar who shows disrespect in church?:
"We were hoping the President might elevate someone like Scalia," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council.Still hoping a foul-mouthed man who disrespects church during Lent becomes the standard-bearer for Supreme Court justices? Read the rest of this post...
Indicted warlord Charles Taylor arrested
Yesterday Taylor went missing in Nigeria where he was supposed to be under guard. Taylor had been indicted and was to be sent to Liberia for a trial and he is also wanted by the UN for war crimes in Sierra Leone.
Read the rest of this post...
Evangelicals one of only Christian groups divided over immigration
Interesting. Immigration is proving to be a wedge issue not just with Republicans, but also with evangelicals.
From the Wall Street Journal:
From the Wall Street Journal:
The majority of influential Christian conservatives have either delayed taking a stand, such as the National Association of Evangelicals, or have no position, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Black Evangelical Association, James Dobson's Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America.That's because the lead "evangelical" groups are partisan Republican operatives and not simply Christians. They're not responding to the Bible, they're responding to the current state of the Republican party, chaos. Thus they don't want to take a position that offends the White House and Congress, so they take no position at all, rather than worrying about what might offend Jesus. Read the rest of this post...
Traditional journalists ripping off bloggers
Some reporters think that blogs aren't "real" enough to cite as sources for stories. The only problem is that many of them still steal our stories and run them as their own. So obviously the blogs are pretty real if you're willing to steal our stories.
Anyway, Josh Marshall is on a well-earned, and rare, rant about the issue. Check it out. Read the rest of this post...
Anyway, Josh Marshall is on a well-earned, and rare, rant about the issue. Check it out. Read the rest of this post...
Was GOP candidate Kaloogian - who claims Baghdad is now peaceful and the media is lying - in Iraq only as recently as a year ago?
If so, then he's the one lying. Check out this email I just received from AMERICAblog reader Eric. I checked out the links, they're correct. What we need to know is whether Kaloogian went to Baghdad any time AFTER July of 2005. If not, then he has no right lecturing the media today about how they're lying about the truly good conditions in Iraq. Not to mention, he's posting photos of how "safe" Iraq is - photos that now appear to have been perhaps taken a year ago.
Here's Eric's note:
Here's Eric's note:
I’ve been digging into the Kaloogian claim of recent calm in Baghdad streets. Forget the fake photo, can anyone confirm what I am finding?Read the rest of this post...
Checking into when Kaloogian was in Iraq, I find that the photos on his campaign website refer to his visit to Iraq as indeed "during the 'Voices of Soldiers' Truth Tour. The website for the tour (http://www.voicesofsoldiers.com/) seems to be down, but the Google cache clearly points out that the trip was in July 2005.
The photo of Kaloogian with soldiers in Iraq which the ‘Kaloogian for Congress’ website uses on its homepage is identical to the one on the ‘MoveAmericaForward.org’ website which appears to have been involved with the July 2005 trip. On their website Kaloogian authored an article 'Courage plentiful in Iraq' -- dated July 12, 2005.
I can find no reference to any recent visit by Kaloogian to Iraq -- only this one from last year.
If he hasn't been there recently, his claims of recent calm and peace (as well as the bogus photo) show questionable ethics to ‘spin’ the situation in Iraq.
- Eric
Unconfirmed report that Jill Carroll has been released in Iraq
Just heard it on the radio. Article here. She's the Christian Science Monitor reporter. But again, it's not confirmed.
Read the rest of this post...
Debt clock can't keep up with the rapid pace
Tell me again about how the GOP is more fiscally responsible? Is there anyone left that actually believes that myth any more?
Read the rest of this post...
It must be nice to be a GOP Congressman
Wow, another incredible real estate deal involving a Republican Congressman. OK, it may not be quite as juicy as Duke Cunnigham's deal but who wouldn't want to buy a DC house for $410,000 and then have it appraised for $764,000? How do these guys manage to find houses that sell for less than the market value, not to mention less than the previous owners paid only a short time ago? Must be random good luck. We should all be so lucky.
Read the rest of this post...
Back from the big hoo-ha dinner
It was fun. I'm going to post some photos tomorrow - I didn't take that many, wasn't sure if it was poor form. And by the time I learned it wasn't poor form, I already missed Paula Zahn (who was quite fabulous with frizzy hair and very sleek black dress, and who couldn't be nicer), and General Clark (who also couldn't be nicer, great handshake too).
Anyway, I'll fill you in more tomorrow, and fret not, I do have a couple great photos, one in particular will I suspect make you howl.
In answer to a few of the questions in the comments:
1. No I didn't have a date, the tix are hard to get, I don't think 'date' is part of the mix.
2. Yes it was a tux malfunction. Total disaster when the tie fell apart right at the time I was supposed to already be there. It also didn't help that my tenth floor apartment elevator suddenly broke when Joe was bringing over the suspenders. Anyway, it all worked out, after I unfairly ripped Joe's head off for messing up my tie :-)
3. No Tweety.
4. Did see Tim Russert however, he's an enormous man. Think Hagrid.
5. Hung out with the blog chicks a bit, more on that tomorrow.
6. Cheney's first joke, or 2nd, was about the NSA illegal spying. I didn't laugh.
7. CNN, great margaritas, who knew?
8. No Mary, they brought the straight daughter Elizabeth.
Okay, gotta get up at the ungodly hour of 6:30 tomorrow, in less than 6 hours, which for me is living death. Gotta give a presentation about blogging, ugh. Presentation will be fun, but 8am lectures. Obscene. Read the rest of this post...
Anyway, I'll fill you in more tomorrow, and fret not, I do have a couple great photos, one in particular will I suspect make you howl.
In answer to a few of the questions in the comments:
1. No I didn't have a date, the tix are hard to get, I don't think 'date' is part of the mix.
2. Yes it was a tux malfunction. Total disaster when the tie fell apart right at the time I was supposed to already be there. It also didn't help that my tenth floor apartment elevator suddenly broke when Joe was bringing over the suspenders. Anyway, it all worked out, after I unfairly ripped Joe's head off for messing up my tie :-)
3. No Tweety.
4. Did see Tim Russert however, he's an enormous man. Think Hagrid.
5. Hung out with the blog chicks a bit, more on that tomorrow.
6. Cheney's first joke, or 2nd, was about the NSA illegal spying. I didn't laugh.
7. CNN, great margaritas, who knew?
8. No Mary, they brought the straight daughter Elizabeth.
Okay, gotta get up at the ungodly hour of 6:30 tomorrow, in less than 6 hours, which for me is living death. Gotta give a presentation about blogging, ugh. Presentation will be fun, but 8am lectures. Obscene. Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
