|
For The Trees
Who is our economy FOR, anyway? About the Authors: Dave Johnson John Emerson Richard Reich Thomas Leavitt
Recent Posts: BEST OF STF: Dave's: Articles not at STF: The ATLA Speech on building a progressive infrastructure Lowering the Bar The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors On the Right and their communications infrastructure: Why Republicans Win Win or Lose The "Conventional Wisdom" Machine Some History of the Conservative Movement HOW TO FIGHT BACK An Amplifier Of Our Own Don't Blame the Democrats How They Do It 1 2 3 4 Getting Rolled Other: You're Gonna Get Drafted Scalia and Self-Government Who is Our Economy For? Voting Machine Story Link Collection What's Wrong with this Picture? (Voting Machines) Like Meat in the Supermarket Get Active Thin Line 1 2 3 Fixing Social Security Seeing the Forest I, II, III "Incredibly Positive News" The Breadth of It The Republican Crony Club Moon Bush Ralph Nader is a Scab John's Best Of: Kerry Smear Page Bandar Bush 9/11 Commission Report Damages Bush -- if you read it Florida Goon Squad Intimidated the Supreme Court The Use and Abuse of George Orwell Zizka's Archives (John's previous identity) Zizka Sampler News Sources: AlterNet BuzzFlash Common Dreams Cursor Drudge Retort Information Clearing House Smirking Chimp TruthOut What REALLY Happened Links to Other Weblogs: |
 7/31/2003 The Meetup Numbers I checked over at Meetup to see how the candidates are doing. Here's what I saw: Dean in 2004 (>68,300 members) Kerry in 2004 (>8,100) Clark in 2004 (>5,900) Kucinich in 2004 (>5,000) Edwards in 2004 (>1,000) Bush2004 (>800) Gore2004 (>500) Biden in 2004 (>400) Gephardt in 2004 (>300) Barack Obama for Senate (>200) Lieberman in 2004 (>100) Nader in 2004 (>100) Graham in 2004 (>100) Sharpton in 2004 (72) Moseley-Braun in 2004 (69) --- Posted at 7/31/2003 04:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post  
7/30/2003 Voting Machines Story In this story: "Diebold Election Systems President Tom Swidarski defended his technology Tuesday as the safest, 'most advanced out there.' He dismissed the Hopkins study as a 'homework assignment' by a bunch of graduate students aimed as a 'misguided,' personal attack' on his company. Swidarski called computer science election watchdogs such as those gathered in Denver this week 'fringe organizations' 'without much real practical knowledge of the election process.'"This is a very odd statement coming from the president of a company that would MAKE MORE MONEY if they sold an add-on device to print voter-verifiable ballots! Why on earth is he opposing this add-on sale? --- Posted at 7/30/2003 03:52:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Go Read Digby Go read Hullabaloo today instead of me. He get's it just right. "The DLC is still saying exactly what they said back in 1985, (which should be terribly embarrassing because it indicates that they have failed spectacularly to change the party’s image.) The truth is that they succeeded quite well at first, but the result was a GOP that saw the Democrats moving their way and seized the opportunity to move the goalposts ever further to the right and also become more aggressive and hostile. They did not meet us in the middle, guys, they just kept on going in the direction they wanted to go anyway. And they lost all compunction about tarring the opposition with outright lies and character assassination. The fact is that it does not matter if our candidate actually supported the war in Iraq or not. If John Kerry is the nominee rather than Howard Dean, do they actually believe that the Republicans will not find a way to portray him as soft on national security? Please. It. Does. Not. Matter. What. We. Actually. Do. We could sign on to a 0% tax rate for millionaires, repeal of Social Security, prison terms for homosexuality and oil rigs in the middle of San Francisco Bay and they would still say we are liberal, tax and spend, tree hugging, treasonous pacifists because it is in their interest to do so. "Exactly right. It's what they do. --- Posted at 7/30/2003 03:24:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
2003 Legal Document of the Year From The Smoking Gun: "Yes, five months remain in the year, but we're ready to announce the winner of the prestigious 2003 Legal Document of the Year award. The below motion was filed earlier this month in connection with a criminal charge filed against a Colorado teenager. "Read the whole thing! Thanks Calpundit. --- Posted at 7/30/2003 01:31:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush Campaign Commercials Driving to get some lunch today I was listening to Sean Hannity. He was repeating what Joe Lieberman said about other Democrats: "Senator Lieberman's comments were aimed at some other Democratic presidential hopefuls, notably former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who are vocal opponents of the war. 'Some in my party are sending out a message that they do not know a just war when they see it, and more broadly, that they are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom,' he said. "Since there is no chance of Leiberman becoming the candidate, doesn't this kind of thing just hand the election over to Bush? Democrats "are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom." Thanks Joe! This quote will be a Bush campaign commercial! --- Posted at 7/30/2003 01:15:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Oil Profits Thanks to BuzzFlash I saw this: "Shell is the first of the world’s top three oil companies to report second-quarter results. World leader ExxonMobil Corp and No. 3 BP plc will follow next week. All three have been producing some of the largest quarterly profits ever recorded by publicly traded companies, helped by oil prices that have soared on the back of the war in Iraq and supply disruptions in Nigeria and Venezuela. "But no, it's not about the oil. Of course not. I think this one is a "do" from the phrase "what what they are doing, not what they are saying." --- Posted at 7/30/2003 09:42:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Afhgan Election Scheduling Karl Rove has scheduled the Afghanistan elections for October, 2004, and is sending $1 billion to help them look good. Do you think this might be timed to influence OUR elections a few weeks later? U.S. mulls $1 billion in aid to Afghans: "The $1 billion package, which more than triples the $300 million Afghanistan receives, represents new spending on Afghanistan and is designed to fund projects that can be completed within a year to have maximum impact on the lives of the Afghan people before scheduled elections in October 2004, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity."How much of that $1 billion do you think is for PR in the U.S.? Thanks to Body and Soul. --- Posted at 7/30/2003 09:10:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Explain This Air marshals pulled from key flights: "Despite renewed warnings about possible airline hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration has alerted federal air marshals that as of Friday they will no longer be covering cross-country or international flights, MSNBC.com has learned. "WTF??? --- Posted at 7/30/2003 08:40:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/29/2003 Julia Butterfly Hill I just learned that one of my heros, Julia Butterfly Hill, has started a weblog, called Circle of Life. Julia stayed in an ancient redwood tree named Luna from December 10, 1997 to December 18, 1999 to keep it from being cut down. --- Posted at 7/29/2003 10:13:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/28/2003 Today's Google Experiment - Screwing Your Supporters The San Jose News had a story this weekend - Bush, Republicans losing support of retired veterans. Normally Republican, many retired veterans are mad that Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress are blocking remedies to two problems with health and pension benefits. They say they feel particularly betrayed by Bush, who appealed to them in his 2000 campaign, and who vowed on the eve of his inauguration that "promises made to our veterans will be promises kept."This reflects a recent Army Times editorial, In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately. For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.So for today's Google Experiment, let's look back to 1981. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization - PATCO - had endorsed Reagan for President. (Was it the ONLY union that did?) How did Reagan repay them? Blood wasn't spilled, nor was a single life lost, but August 3, 1981 still stands as one of the darkest days in modern labor history. Tired of working clock-busting shifts on "obsolete" equipment, 13,000 members of the U.S. Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) chose this day to walk off the job. President Reagan fired back, threatening to fire any workers who were still on the picket line as of August 5th. A good chunk of the controllers stood their ground, though their determination wasn’t matched by the media and public relations savvy that now seem necessary for mustering-up popular support. Having seemingly won the battle of public perception, Reagan made good on his promise: citing a law that forbade strikes by federal employees, the President canned 11,500 strikers and decertified the union. A crop of replacement controllers was rounded-up, trained and quickly installed into the vacant positions. The PATCO strike ultimately triggered a protracted retreat by labor, as Reagan's tactics emboldened employers to take a more aggressive stance against union activity.I'm reminded of Whoopi Goldberg's comedy routine about Reagan thanking PATCO for their support. Can I describe that in a blog? Let's just say it's a sight gag that has something to do with the title of this piece. Leave a comment if you know what I'm talking about. --- Posted at 7/28/2003 11:11:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/27/2003 Afghanistan I was wondering why we never hear any news from Afghanistan, so I went to Google News, and found this: A new threat of Taliban attacks in southern Afghanistan The fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar is reported to have approved a new deputy military commander for southern Afghanistan. A Taliban official says the leader has ordered the commander to intensify guerrilla attacks on international and government forces. The announcement follows stepped-up activity by suspected Taliban guerrillas in southern Afghanistan which saw nine soldiers of the 11,500-strong U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan wounded in several attacks last weekend. Mullah Abdul Samad, an intelligence officer in the hardline Taliban regime revealed the new strategy to Reuters newsagency. He was speaking by satellite phone from an undisclosed location. The location of the Mullah Omar remains unknown more than 18 months since the Taliban were forced out of Afghanistan.Oh, I guess that's why we never hear any news from Afghanistan. No news is good news. Also this and this and this. --- Posted at 7/27/2003 10:04:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/26/2003 No One Is Acting Like It's Real War. Weapons of mass destruction. Presidential deception. Imminent threats. Nuclear bombs. Smallpox. Anthrax. Nerve gas. Let's try to back away from the politics for a minute and look at all the things we are discussing as if they were real things, and the words we are using had real meanings and were not shaded by agendas and innuendo and elections. We just went to war with a country, bombed them, invaded their territory, killed a LOT of people, and risked disrupting a region and possibly the world, because we believed that our lives were at immediate risk from that country threatening us with imminent use of weapons of mass destruction. Now we're occupying that country and we haven't found those weapons. Therefore we MUST conclude those terrible weapons are now in the hands of terrorists, and that we are much less safe than we were before we went to war. It means all of our lives are at much greater immediate risk than before we went to war. Right? It means that smallpox is imminent - or anthrax - or nerve gas attacks - or nuclear weapons. Right? That's WHY we went to war, and it is what the President's words MUST mean today! So is this what we are all talking about - including the Bush administration? Is this how we are all acting? Are we expressing the appropriate level of concern that all of our lives are at greater risk today than before the war? Once again - we went to war because we were in immediate danger of losing our lives to weapons of mass destruction and now we face an even greater risk. So is the government taking more or fewer steps to protect us? Has the administration set aside all other concerns, and is it spending 100% of its time and energy working on ways to keep us safe from the terrible threat from the missing WMD? Is the Congress in a frenzy of concern over the terrible threat we face? Is the "terror alert level" higher than before the war? Are the newspapers carrying more or fewer stories about threats to our safety - smallpox, anthrax, nerve gas, nuclear weapons? But no one is acting like that, especially not the government! What must we conclude from that? That the Bush administration is not concerned that we are all about to die from smallpox or nuclear attack! This MUST mean that they do not believe it. They just aren't acting like we face the terrible risk that their WORDS must mean. Forget the POLITICS of this - forget "how it is playing" or whether "the story has legs" or whether "the President can get past this" or "how it will affect his ratings" and look at what the WORDS mean! Are we in terrible danger or not? Either we face the most terrible and immediate risks to our lives OR we have been terribly deceived - one of the worst deceptions in the history of our country. There isn't any middle ground on this. But none of us - not the Bush administration, not the public, not the press, not the Congress - are ACTING like the reality of the situation demands we act! It's like we're all hypnotized or something. It's like we are all playing a video game, or watching a TV show instead of living in the reality of the meaning of what is happening around us! This started as a comment I left following this post over at CalPundit: The Real Reason for War. I edited it to make me look better. --- Posted at 7/26/2003 01:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
WE : DESERVE : THE : TRUTH WE : DESERVE : THE : TRUTH --- Posted at 7/26/2003 11:49:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/25/2003 Dean to President Bush: 'It's Time for the Truth' I just read Dean to President Bush: 'It's Time for the Truth.' This is a very hard-hitting, extensive piece, and outlines some of the ways that Bush has been deceiving the country. It's very, very good. It starts out with: "When George W. Bush ran for president three years ago, he promised us an era of responsibility in Washington--instead we've got an era of irresponsibility unparalleled in our history. A week after discovering that the cost of occupying Iraq will be double the original estimates, we found out that the nation's deficit is 50 percent higher than estimated just five months ago. In fact, during his two-and-a-half years in office, the President has misled us, the American people, on nearly every policy initiative his administration has put forth."Go read the rest. It's also a good one to e-mail to people who don't know what to think of Dean. --- Posted at 7/25/2003 08:51:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
TOE The Right Christians: "why progressives need a TOE (Theory of Everything)" --- Posted at 7/25/2003 08:26:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Because Of The Government Thomas Leavitt found this: 'Most of the things that have generated the enormous advances in our economy are things that started on some campus or in some laboratory,' [Bill] Gates [Sr.] said in an exclusive interview [with USA Today] last week. 'And most of those are because the government financed it.'(And he says thanks to MyDD.com for the pointer.) --- Posted at 7/25/2003 07:09:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Don't Let the President Lie With Impunity I'm doing some research and came across this petition from 96 conservative law professors, titled Don't Let the President Lie With Impunity. It's talking about President Clinton, not Bush. Read it - it's hilarious in that context. --- Posted at 7/25/2003 03:15:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
What's Up With This? U.S. media still REFUSES to mention Bush sexual assault lawsuit that Texas woman continues to pursue. --- Posted at 7/25/2003 02:10:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Law RuminateThis points to Pfaffenblog, talking about the killing of Saddam's sons. It's a good read. Don't get me wrong. I'm cheering, like many Iraqis, that Saddam's two sons are dead. But it's a muted cheer. Here's what bugs me. If you listen to President George W. Bush or British Prime Minister Tony Blair, we're in Iraq to create a stable, flourishing democracy -- and we can do that best, not by the force of weapons alone, but by demonstrating the worth of our principles. Surely, these principles include the right to live one's life without fear of arbitrary execution and the right to a trial. If Iraqis can find any hope in Saddam's fall and the American occupation, it's that they will no longer be subjected to state actions that violate the most basic principles of international law and human civility. And here's my point. Like it or not, the facts strongly suggest that the killings violated international law -- in fact, to the extent that they were undertaken by an occupying power, they may amount to war crimes. That is precisely why many Iraqis are disturbed, even angered, by the manner in which the killings took place. For example, an Iraqi man told a television interviewer that he was very glad to see Saddam's sons dead, but he was disquieted by the way they were killed: "This shows that the principles [the Americans] talk about are just so much ink on paper."I think the idea that the right wingers respect any kind of law, anywhere, is missing the forest. --- Posted at 7/25/2003 11:47:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Another Voting Machines Story MSNBC: E-voting flaws risk ballot fraud --- Posted at 7/25/2003 11:24:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/24/2003 NY Times Voting Machine Story Today in the NY Times: Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say: "The software that runs many high-tech voting machines contains serious flaws that would allow voters to cast extra votes and permit poll workers to alter ballots without being detected, computer security researchers said yesterday. 'We found some stunning, stunning flaws,' said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines operating in the United States. The systems, in which voters are given computer-chip-bearing smart cards to operate the machines, could be tricked by anyone with $100 worth of computer equipment, said Adam Stubblefield, a co-author of the paper." --- Posted at 7/24/2003 08:28:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/23/2003 Where Did The WMD Go? Every single person in the United States should go read this at Hullabaloo. --- Posted at 7/23/2003 02:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Big Story - Retaliation And Intimidation In his piece, VALERIE PLAME STORY CONFIRMED, Mark A. R. Kleiman outlines the story of the Bush administration "outing" a covert CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's involvement in the Niger uranium story. Revealing this identity was a very serious crime, and had a potentially serious impact on national security. This is something that has happened, rather than just a wild charge that was made up - like the "Travelgate" charge, or the charge that Vince Foster was murdered, or that the President was involved with a failed Savings and Loan. But those charges warranted massive, multi-year, multi-million-dollar investigations of the Clintons - and everyone they had ever so much as spoken with. But we all know that this charge that they outed a CIA agent will not lead to an investigation, because the Bush administration controls all of the means of investigation, and they only investigate Democrats. (Who's indicted, Martha Stewart or Ken Lay?) Think about that for a minute. Think about the state of the country. When Clinton was President we had eight years of wild-assed accusations that ran as headlines in the newspapers and lead stories on the TV news, leading to massive investigations involving hundreds of FBI agents, dozens of Congressional committees. The full apparatus of the federal government was put to the task of investigating the President, trying to find something - anything - to pin on him. But now we have a different situation. The president is not even asked tough questions by the press. The worst transgressions are ignored. For example, the administration blocks an investigation into intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attack - and gets away with it. The President is involved in an insider trading and stock manipulation scandal that mirrors the huge Enron scandal - and it barely gets a mention in the press. Think about what the differences in treatment of the two Presidents says about the state of justice in America. But wait - there's more. This was a very serious crime. But let's look at WHY they committed the crime, because this leads to something that is going on that is even more serious and sinister. This crime was committed as "a shot across the bow" of the intelligence community. It was a warning, an act of intimidation. And it is part of a pattern. There are other acts of intimidation - a series of them - a pattern. Employees of government agencies who, as part of their everyday jobs release information that contradicts the right-wing ideology of this administration, are transferred or fired. Reporters who ask tough questions are retaliated against - denied access or moved to the back of the room thereby ending their careers. Today, another example of intimidation tactics: Senator Accuses White House of Retaliation. Even countries that don't "toe the line" face threats and retaliation. Remember the boycott of French goods? Remember the threats the President made against Mexican citizens living in the U.S.? Threats and intimidation are the M.O. of the people now "governing" us, and they continue to get away with it. Just how strong are our Deomcratic institutions, that we have fallen this far? --- Posted at 7/23/2003 07:15:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/22/2003 California Energy Crisis A Pre-9/11 Iraq Setup? Thanks to Blah3, I discovered this story, Fraud Traced to the White House. It claims that the California energy crisis was not just a set-up to make Enron and other energy companies a ton of money. We do now know that the crisis was the result of energy company supply manipulation, assisted from the new Bush administration. But this story claims that it was also part of a set-up to provide a pretext for war with Iraq. This is the second recent story I've seen claiming that Cheney's secret Energy Task Force was about setting up the invasion of Iraq. Until the Bush administration releases the full notes and other information, we'll never know. Secrecy breeds rumors. Are these rumors worse than what's being hidden? I guess not, because if they were, the White House would release the information and clear things up. --- Posted at 7/22/2003 02:04:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Stealing Iraq's Oil? Listening to Thom Hartmann's radio show this morning, he mentioned a story about weather satellite photos showing what looks like construction of an oil pipeline from Iraq's oil fields into Kuwait. "At the State Department in Washington, D.C., David Staples on the Future of Iraqi Projects desk says he doesn't know if Iraq's oil is flowing into Kuwait. He referred the query to the Defense Department. A DoD spokesman suggested contacting the Office of Coalition of Provisional Authority (OCPA) in Baghdad. OCPA was not immediately available for comment. "He also mentioned that Kuwait is increasing its refining capacity. --- Posted at 7/22/2003 09:59:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Good Company Over at The Smirking Chimp today you'll see pieces by Gov. Howard Dean, Paul Krugman, and, well..., me. Over at BuzzFlash today, too, actually. --- Posted at 7/22/2003 09:42:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/21/2003 Gary Hart Democracy By Combat --- Posted at 7/21/2003 04:42:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Call Them "Cheap Labor" Conservatives "LESS GOVERNMENT" AND "CHEAP LABOR". --- Posted at 7/21/2003 11:41:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Shouldn't We Be Afraid? In today's Washington Post there's a story, Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat, that says that intelligence agencies told the Bush administration that attacking Iraq would expose the public to much greater dangers than leaving Iraq alone. "In fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States. "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, . . . already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States, could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct," one key judgment of the estimate said. It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the "extreme step" of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it "would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."The only honest intelligence they had said that attacking Iraq opened up the threat. So in pursuit of their imperial goals, the Bush people knowingly exposed the public to terrible, lethal danger. So shouldn't we be afraid? I recently wrote about The Fear that was everywhere before the election and then the war. The constant terror alerts, the smallpox warnings, the talk of "dirty bombs," even instructions on what to do if there is a nuclear explosion nearby! But now, there is very little fear in the air! Looking at what is going on, we are in a MUCH more dangerous situation than we were before the war. Al-Queda is regrouping. North Korea's nuclear weapons development is an extremely serious situation. Our military is stretched to its limit with the Iraq occupation. And most seriously, Iraq's WMD are missing, and we now know that intelligence sources had warned that Saddam would give them to terrorists if we attacked. Where is the fear? Logically we should be much more afraid now, but we aren't. I think the timing of the fear -- terrible fear leading up to the election and then the attack on Iraq, and absence of fear now -- points to something sinister. Fear before the election helped them scare voters into supporting The Party. Fear after the election helped them gain support for attacking Iraq. The Bush administration has more to lose than gain from fear now because they promised that electing them and supporting an attack on Iraq would reduce the fear. So fear now would lower the poll ratings of the President and The Party. I think all of this points to intentional manipulation of public emotions before the 2002 election, and the subsequent attack on Iraq. It's one thing -- a bad enough thing -- to manipulate our thinking and reasoning with false information. It is another thing entirely to manipulate our deepest psychological triggers with stories of how smallpox is one of the most painful deaths, with rumors of nuclear bombs smuggled into the U.S. in shipping containers, and drawings of the "kill zone" of a "dirty bomb." I think this is worse than the evidence of cynical manipulation of information that is in the news now. To me, the manipulation of public emotions is a much more serious offense, because it strikes us at a much deeper level, a more basic instinctive level. It makes our children cry. It makes us lose sleep at night. Maybe later I'll write about manipulation of our inner spiritual lives, circulating stories of signs of the apocalypse, and spreading tales of God speaking to our leaders. --- Posted at 7/21/2003 10:39:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/18/2003 GOP Voters American Sucker --- Posted at 7/18/2003 07:29:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Draft Is Coming U.S. struggling to find replacement troops: "The Pentagon is scrambling to find enough fresh troops to begin an orderly rotation program that would bring home some of the 147,000 soldiers spread thinly across troubled Iraq. ... The need for replacement troops is putting great strain on both the active and reserve forces already stretched thin meeting obligations in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan, South Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Sinai - and a brigade-sized force of up to 5,000 troops expected to be deployed to peacekeeping duties in Liberia. With only ten active duty divisions the 480,000-man U.S. Army has been stretched almost to the breaking point by the Iraq deployments. While Defense Secretary Donald L. Rumsfeld and his top civilian aides have talked in the past of chopping another two divisions out of that Army, some in Congress have begun urging an increase in the active Army by as much as 25 percent." --- Posted at 7/18/2003 04:34:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq: "According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85. This includes a staggering number of non-combat deaths. Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be alive if they were still back in the States. Nevertheless, the media continues to report the much lower figure of 33 as if those are the only deaths that count. " --- Posted at 7/18/2003 04:20:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
More On That Pension Bill U.S. House Panel Backs Pension Fix Companies with underfunded pension plans would get relief for three years under legislation backed by the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee on Friday, in an acrimonious session to which police were called. ... Under the measure that the committee approved, traditional "defined benefit" pension plans would be allowed to assume a more generous return on investments based on an index of high-grade corporate bonds rather than the current formula based on 30-year U.S. Treasury bond yields. ... But critics say changing the method of valuing the funds is an accounting device that doesn't address the shortfall.Companies will be allowed to SAY they are getting higher returns on their pension savings than they really ARE making. And just how bad is the problem? Total pension underfunding exceeds $300 billion at U.S. companies, with $60 billion in the auto industry, according to the agency that bails out troubled corporate pension plans.That's right - the companies are $300 billion in the hole owed to pensions - but it is not on their books for purposes of evaluating investments in the companies. Hence the new stock market bubble. Think about this - those companies that still give pensions don't have enough money saved up to PAY the pensions, and the Republicans are letting them off the hook here. Meanwhile, our Social Security money went away to pay for the huge Bush tax cuts! So the ENTIRE "baby-boomer" generation is losing its pensions, its Social Security and those lucky enough to have had jobs with 401Ks, well, half of that's gone, too. It MATTERS who wins elections! And, by the way, how did the Republicans get this passed? The measure was rushed through by the Republican majority as Chairman Bill Thomas of California called a voice vote while committee Democrats were conferring over last-minute changes in an adjacent library. --- Posted at 7/18/2003 02:37:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Dean's Questions for Bush From Blog for America, these are Gov. Howard Dean's questions to President Bush: "As the Niger uranium story has unfolded, what has become increasingly obvious is that there are many questions that must be answered about the way the Bush Administration led us to war, managed the conflict in Iraq, and failed to foresee the continuing resistance that our military is now confronting. We must be clear: decisions regarding war and peace are the most serious and solemn that a Commander-in-Chief is called upon to make. There are now fundamental questions about President Bush’s leadership in taking us to war with Iraq. There has been much discussion about the 16 words included in the State of the Union address. Today I call on the President to answer these sixteen questions to ensure that the American people can retain their trust in their government and to help ensure that the United States can retain its credibility as a moral force in the world. 1) Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited Niger uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech. 2) Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the Niger evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President’s October 7th speech. (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003) 3) Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed this very week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence “subsequent” to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from your administration and the intelligence community on the matter. (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003) 4) Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003) 5) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002) 6) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war – including the supposed link to al-Qaeda – while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary. (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03) 7) Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003) 8) Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have “irrefutable evidence” that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war. (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003) 9) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February before the UN Security Council that, “Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” (UN Address, 2/05/2003) 10) Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003) 11) Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003) 12) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those would be, and now continues to try keep the projected costs hidden from the American people. 13) Mr. President, we need to know why you said on May 1, 2003 , that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003) 14) Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort. 15) Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.” (Washington Post, Mike Allen, 5/31/2003) 16) Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work. (Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003) If you can’t or won’t answer these 16 questions, Mr. President, I call on the Republicans in Congress to stop blocking efforts to create an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate what is a matter of the highest importance: whether your decision to go to war was sound and just. The American public deserves answers to all of these questions. I urge you to lead with the honor and integrity that you promised as a candidate." --- Posted at 7/18/2003 12:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Blogs Today skimble skippy Ruminate This pfaffenBlog Not Geniuses Nathan Newman Notes on the Atrocities The Left Coaster Brad DeLong --- Posted at 7/18/2003 11:19:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
House Committee Approves $50 Billion Pension Bill (washingtonpost.com) House Committee Approves $50 Billion Pension Bill. This is just another big ($50 billion) tax break that is only for the rich. It's a bit complicated hot this one works, so I'll see if I can simplify it a bit. People who aren't rich need to use any money they have saved in retirement accounts, so this doesn't apply to them at all. When you take money out of a retirement account you have to pay income taxes. The government makes you start taking money out of a retirement account when you reach a certain age, as a protection against the money being sheltered forever and never subject to taxation. By increasing the age when one is required to take money out of a retirement account, they put off paying these taxes, and if the person dies, the money is inherited without paying taxes at all. Hence - another huge tax shelter just for the rich. I wrote about how whole retirement account scam screwed workers out of their pensions in the post titled Screwing Workers. --- Posted at 7/18/2003 11:04:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
How Does It Save Money? News story: Republican Governors Studying Job Cuts "Several Republican governors are studying ways to eliminate thousands of state jobs by turning the work over to private contractors, a strategy they say will save millions of tax dollars."Let's see. You fire the state workers. They're hired by a private company. Private companies have higher overhead (example: CEO - $56 million). So how does this save money? Oh, wait, I get it - the workers are paid much less, and lose their health care, pensions, job safety protections, and other workers' rights. This is good public policy? Of course, this is REPUBLICAN governors! --- Posted at 7/18/2003 07:14:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/17/2003 The Democrats Are Bad Senate Defeats Call for Intelligence Probe. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell said of the Democrats, by calling for a look into what happened with the pre-war intelligence, "They've sacrificed the national interest on the altar of partisan politics. " --- Posted at 7/17/2003 07:11:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Party Over Country Read this story in The Nation. The Bush people intentionally outed an undercover CIA agent, for the purpose of ruining her career, as punishment for her husband's role in letting the public know about Bush's lying. Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad, the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.The resulting damage to national security is serious. And who is responsible for this? "The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be 'two senior administration officials.' If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as 'nonofficial cover' and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person--and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her--her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, 'Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.' If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good. "For Republicans it's ALL about the politics. NONE of it is about the security of the United States. Their methods are smears and intimidation. And, of course, lies. This was a crime. An extremely serious one. So where is the investigation? Where are the headlines? Along these lines, yesterday the Republicans in the Senate defeated an attempt to start an investigation of the Iraq uranium story. With Republicans closing ranks around President Bush, the Senate on Wednesday voted down a Democratic proposal to create an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the administration's use of secret intelligence to justify war with Iraq.The interests of the country de damned! They conflict with the interests of The Party. --- Posted at 7/17/2003 12:14:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/15/2003 Good Sign Not that kind of sign. A real sign. Thinking It Through has a picture of a great sign on Interstate 5 somewhere. --- Posted at 7/15/2003 09:28:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
It's Just A Campaign Issue In this NY Times story, White House Tries to Dismiss Iraq Claim as Campaign Issue, the Republicans are all over the place talking about how this is all political. The Republican National Committee issued a statement tonight asserting that "Democrats politicize war in Iraq," while party leaders declared that Democrats did not have the standing to challenge Mr. Bush on the subject.What depth of cynicism is required to accuse the Democrats of politicizing the Iraq situation? What degree of irony is demonstrated in this statement? This from the people who forced a war vote just before the 2002 election, who moved their New York convention into September so their candidates can participate in 9/11 memorials, who pumped fear into the public to get them to vote their way. They don't even get it, that this isn't about politics, or Democrats. They don't get it that the public is concerned with issues of war and peace, truth and honesty and integrity. They don't get it that the credibility of the country is diminished, and this is important and will have consequences. Truth, honesty and integrity are no more to them than words to use when focus groups show they are the best way to persuade a few more people to vote for The Party. They aren't concerned with the substance, they're concerned with the politics. It's all they know. To them everything is politics, everything is The Party, everything is advancing their ideology. They don't even understand that people might be upset by what they did, upset that kids are dying, upset that we invaded a country with no reason, except to the degree that it comes up in a focus group, and then they'll design a "strategy" for "damage control" instead of answering the public's questions. --- Posted at 7/15/2003 03:14:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Light Blogging I apologize that I have notbeen writing as much lately. I'll be back on the ball soon. --- Posted at 7/15/2003 02:10:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush Said WHAT? Joe Conason writes about Bush's statement yesterday that we went to war not because Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but because, "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."Joe asks the question, "What possessed the president to make an assertion that everyone on the planet knows to be untrue?" (Remember - Bush tried to prevent U.N. inspectors from going to Iraq, and then insisted they were taking too long.) Go read it. It's astounding. Why isn't the press repeating this statement? Americans should know that their leader is seriously unhinged. --- Posted at 7/15/2003 02:08:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Court Denies Clintons' Request for Legal Reimbursement A panel of judges turned down the Clintons' request for reimbursement of their legal costs for the Whitewater investigation. So guess who the judges were? The judicial panel, chaired by Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, said the Clintons should be entitled to reimbursement of $85,312. Sentelle was part of a three judge panel that appointed Starr to the case. The judicial panel also included Judge Thomas M. Reavley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Peter T. Fay of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.Peter T. Fay -- Senior appelate judge first appointed by Nixon later elevated to appeals court by Ford. They just won't leave CLinton alone. They still have to do what they can to hurt him. --- Posted at 7/15/2003 10:24:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/14/2003 <...turningtables...> Live, from Iraq... --- Posted at 7/14/2003 10:55:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
CalPundit: Avoiding the Press In CalPundit: Avoiding the Press, Kevin says the real reason Bush avoids foreign travel is because he has to actually answer questions from the press. And last week's news demonstrates what happens when Bush has to actually answer questions from the press. --- Posted at 7/14/2003 10:43:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/12/2003 What If ... ? From the October, 2002 Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq: Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; ... Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; ... Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; ... Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; ... Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction ... ... Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; ... Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; ...So ... what if Iraq DIDN'T participate in the Sept. 11 attack, and DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction, and WASN'T working with al-Queda? --- Posted at 7/12/2003 06:30:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/11/2003 Deflation Wholesale prices increased .5 percent in June. What really happened was that energy prices increased a bunch, and the most other prices went down. I have heard some analysts say increasing energy prices are good, because it keeps the inflation rate up, which means the threat of deflation is lower. But this doesn't sound right to me. I'm not an economist, but isn't deflation - dropping prices - a symptom of the problem rather than the problem? The problem is reduced demand. So wouldn't increasing energy prices work to further reduce demand, as people and businesses divert more and more of their spending power into paying the higher energy bills? And wouldn't this make the problem worse instead of better? --- Posted at 7/11/2003 03:21:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
The Fear Do you remember the fear? The theme of the 2002 elections was this: Terrorists are everywhere, and are about to do terrible things to us. The Democrats won't protect you, but the Republicans will. The Republicans said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, had weapons of mass destruction - including and especially nukes - and was going to give those weapons to terrorists or use those weapons on us SOON unless we act. "Dirty bombs" might go off at any moment. Smallpox might hit any day. We must go to war to save ourselves. Those Democrats are against the war - are against protecting ourselves. The threat was so imminent that we must take the unprecedented step of having a war vote just before the elections. The Republicans campaigned that they would protect the public from this terrible, immediate, imminent, mounting threat, and the Democrats won't. Their campaign ads said Democrats are weak and wishy-washy and we must not risk delay at this time. Their radio stations and columnists said that liberals hate America (just like the terrorists), and "objectively" support Saddam. In the South they said that liberals are not good Christians; they are on the side of evil. Remember how the terror threats were raised, and there was constant talk of the terrible dangers we faced? The public was pumped full of fear, day after day. The news was full of terrible stories about smallpox, and the horrific effects of nerve gas, even warnings about what to do if there is a nuclear explosion in your area. But now - what happened? Where are the threats? They didn't find any weapons in Iraq, which could only mean that terrorists possess them now. Yet, the "threat level" is lowered. The budget for homeland security is reduced, but not discussed. The papers and radio and television are not warning us that terrorists will strike at any moment. What changed? What happened to the fear? --- Posted at 7/11/2003 03:07:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
This Changes Everything Atrios points to Oliver Willis, who remind us: Condi June 8, Meet the Press: "We did not know at the time - no one knew at the time, in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."Today's news: "There was even some discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought and the speech was cleared," Rice said. "Some specifics about amount and place were taken out...with the change in that sentence, the speech was cleared."What are we talking about here? CBS News: CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said. The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.Put the pieces together. They changed the speech to say "The British government has learned," AFTER the CIA said the story was bogus. But on June 8, Rice said on Meet the Press, "We did not know at the time - no one knew at the time, in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." We now know that June 8 statement was a flat-out lie. As far as I know this is the first instance of indisputable documentation of a flat-out, indisputable lie on the part of the Bush administration on this issue. This changes everything. This is no longer a "He said, She said" dispute. It is now a matter of how much of this was a lie, a plot to influence the 2002 elections, a plot to manipulate data to gain support for the conquest of a country? --- Posted at 7/11/2003 08:26:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/10/2003 They Didn't Retract It CBS News : Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said. The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true. Today at a press conference during the President’s trip to Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell portrayed it as an honest mistake. “There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” said Powell. But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa. “I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world,” Powell said.EVEN IF BUSH DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A LIE, THEY NEVER RETRACTED BUSH'S STATEMENT! THEY LET THE COUNTRY GO TO WAR WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVING - BECAUSE BUSH HAD SAID SO IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH - THAT IRAQ WAS MAKING NUKES! --- Posted at 7/10/2003 09:49:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Strong Statement Dean Says Those Who Misled Nation Should Resign : Manchester, NH -- Governor Howard Dean issued the following statement today: 'Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's statement yesterday -- that he only found out that the Niger documents were forgeries -- “within recent days” was stunning. 'What is now clear is that there are those in this administration that misled the President, misled the nation, and misled the world in making the case for the war in Iraq. 'They know who they are. And they should resign today. 'There will be investigations, and the truth will come out - the American people must know the truth - and those in this administration must be held accountable for their failure to give us the truth before we went to war. 'But we do not need to wait for the investigations to rid these people from our government - they can resign on their own today. 'I am now convinced more than ever that it was a mistake to have given this administration a blank check to engage in this war - as too many in Congress did when they supported the Iraqi war resolution.'" --- Posted at 7/10/2003 02:18:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
They Knew It Was A Lie When They Went To War In "Is there a plumber in the house?," over at Left Coaster, Mary points out that even if, as the White House is claiming, Bush didn't know that the Niger uranium story was a lie when he used it in the State of the Union speech, he DID know it was a lie when we went to war. The public's support for the war (and the President) was based partly - if not mostly - on belief and fear that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, a belief the public held because Bush had told them this story in the State of the Union speech. The story was not retracted until this week. --- Posted at 7/10/2003 11:12:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
More Focus Group Language? Bush again uses the "attempts to rewrite history" charge. I heard Rumsfield say the same the other day. Also on the right-wing radio shows. Focus groups and polls must have shown this to be a phrase that provides them some cover. --- Posted at 7/10/2003 10:50:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Greens - Go Take The Pledge! Repentant Nader Voter...because Bush is so bad. --- Posted at 7/10/2003 10:44:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Tort Reform If you are interested in tort reform, here is an index to the P.L.A. weblog's writings on this issue: Missing Class Can be Costly Juries The Damages Cap Defensive Medicine Tort Reform and Frivolous Suits Tort Reform Quiz A Different Kind of Medical Malpractice Reform No Pricing Power More Tort Reform and the Damages Cap Tort Reform Stalls In the Senate Like a Good Neighbor George Bush’s Perverse View of Juries Eliminate Junk Science—A Tort Reform Proposal Curbing Frivolous Lawsuits – A Tort Reform Proposal Medical Malpractice – By the Numbers Mort Zuckerman Gets Busted --- Posted at 7/10/2003 06:43:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/09/2003 Meetup Numbers I was curious so I looked up the Meetup numbers for the different candidates as of today: Dean 59,661 Kerry 5,467 Clark 3,910 Kucinich 1,025 Edwards 974 Gephardt 302 Leiberman 128 Graham 90 Sharpton 55 Mosley-Braun 55All the candidates have Meetups. All of them have websites. All of them take contributions online. I don't think it's the Internet that is behind Dean's grassroots popularity. I think Dean's grassroots popularity is what is behind his Internet activity. --- Posted at 7/09/2003 10:16:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/08/2003 Fighting The Last War Good post over at Situation Room. It seems we're fighting a fourth generation war with techniques designed for 2nd and 3rd generation wars. --- Posted at 7/08/2003 09:01:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush No Friend of Military Take a look at The Salt Lake Tribune -- No friend of military One of the most hypocritical sights I've ever seen was George W. Bush in full flight gear strutting around the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln at the end of the Iraq invasion. Given that he was AWOL from his National Guard post for over a year, Bush's actions were insulting to all former and present military personnel. Now, according to The Army Times, we learn that the White House fought a proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty, and it wants to roll back recent increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones. The White House budget proposal for 2004 also cuts $1.5 billion of the $9.2 billion military construction request, ensuring that a lot of military housing will remain substandard. President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget plan even proposes to cut Impact Aid funding by over $200 million, with the entire reduction to come from the portion designed to support the education of children of military personnel. As hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters are still in harm's way, his cuts are particularly offensive. Except for political show, President Bush is no friend of the military.I encourage readers to write similar letters to the editors of your local papers. --- Posted at 7/08/2003 01:10:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Big Electronic Voting Machines Story Scoop: Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program. This story says that votes can be changed in the software used at a county election headquarters, where the voting machines send their data after the election - and shows some evidence that suggests the software is set up for this! --- Posted at 7/08/2003 12:28:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/07/2003 Is It Legal? GOP.gov? Is that even legal? --- Posted at 7/07/2003 09:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Precinct Work There's a guest post at Interesting Times, talking about how to do precinct work. THIS is how you win elections! Please go read this, and start thinking about it. If YOU could do this where YOU live, starting soon, getting your neighbors registered to vote, and then getting them to the polls on election day, it really can make enough of a difference to change the election results! This is the old-fashioned way, and it works. --- Posted at 7/07/2003 03:32:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
It's Not Just The Information In previous posts I have said that if more Americans were getting actual news they might change their opinion of President Bush and the far right. Recent polls showing that Americans still believe that Iraq was at least partly behind 9/11 are examples of beliefs based on lack of information or misinformation. Today I was reading the comments over at tacitus' blog. In particular this post. And in particular there look for comments from "carter." Or, if you can stand it, go read any comments over at Free Republic on any given day. I think the problem is deeper than just information, it goes to the context for understanding the information. For some, simply being told (by the right people, with the right code words) that Bush is "a good Christian" is enough, and after that it simply does not matter what he does or says, they'll support him. For others, knowing that Bush supports the correct policies of the right is enough, and it simply does not matter what else he does or says - even if he publicly says something completely opposite of what they know his position to be; the lying doesn't matter, doesn't bother them at all. An example of this is in the comments is AmeriCorps where the commenter faults Bush for starving AmeriCorps rather than killing it. So he understands that Bush is starving it - but in public Bush SUPPORTS AmeriCorps! I guess that's OK. That's something I have noticed - the lying is OK as long as you they think Bush is on "their side." --- Posted at 7/07/2003 03:08:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Virtual Journalist Virtual Journalist --- Posted at 7/07/2003 11:30:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/04/2003 Gary Hart Gary Hart on patriotism. --- Posted at 7/04/2003 04:43:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Big Mistake In the Ideologues piece below I linked to the wrong article. What's interesting is that I linked to a Democratic Leadership Council (Lieberman supporters) piece where they call Dean supporters ideologues. I meant to link to a right-wing piece that called Democrats "ideologues," because I have been seeing more and more from the far right types calling people who oppose them "ideologues" which I thought was interesting. Inoculation - accusing someone of being what you are, to divert the public from seeing what you are up to. A favorite Republican tactic. It's an interesting mistake, though. --- Posted at 7/04/2003 08:25:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/03/2003 Kucinich Considering that MoveOn.org was started by people fed up with the impeachment drive against President Clinton, I wonder how Rep. Kucinich explains the following? House Votes on the Impeachment Inquiry Friday, October 9, 1998 Following are the 31 Democrats who voted with 227 Republicans yesterday to launch an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton: Boswell (Iowa), Condit (Calif.), Cramer (Ala.), Danner (Mo.), Etheridge (N.C.), Evans (Ill.), Goode (Va.), Hall (Tex.), Hamilton (Ind.), John (La.), Kind (Wis.), Kucinich (Ohio), Lampson (Tex.), Lipinski (Ill.), Maloney (Conn.), McCarthy (N.Y.), McHale (Pa.), McIntyre (N.C.), Minge (Minn.), Moran (Va.), Peterson (Minn.), Pickett (Va.), Roemer (Ind.), Sisisky (Va.), Skelton (Mo.), Spratt (S.C.), Stenholm (Tex.), Tauscher (Calif.), Taylor (Miss.), Turner (Tex.), Weygand (R.I.).I wonder how many MoveOn primary voters knew this? Update - "I am happy that I was able to play such a key role in bringing about the formation of this fine organization." Does that work? Update 2 - Seriously, I agree with almost all of Rep. Kucinich's positions and I respect him and recognize his courage and commitment in running for President. But the investigation and impeachment of President Clinton - and the terrible hounding of so many others who were dragged into that terrible witchhunt - was wrong, and was an entirely partisan act. Rep. Kucinich had no business lending any support to the Republicans on this, and should not have contributed his name to any claim the Republicans might have made of any degree of bipartisan support whatsoever for their attempted overthrow of our last legitimately elected President. --- Posted at 7/03/2003 04:50:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Voting Machines Article Newsday.com - In Computerizing Voting, Memory Would Help. --- Posted at 7/03/2003 03:33:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
I Feel A Draft I feel a draft coming. --- Posted at 7/03/2003 12:08:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bring Them On Bring Them On. (High bandwidth necessary) --- Posted at 7/03/2003 11:27:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Howard Dean Is Not A TV Show Now that Governor Dean is a front-runner, the press is spinning its conventional wisdom that he is a creation of the Internet. This is more of their just not getting it. Saying that the Internet is behind Dean's popularity is like saying that Jerry Brown's 1992 grassroots surge was due to his having an 800 number. Dean's popularity comes from a public hungry for a leader who will take on Bush and the right, challenge the lies, and fight for them against the terrible right-wing assault that is going on. My experience has been that people see Dean's speech to the California Democratic Convention, and they immediately are a Dean supporter. That is not because of the Internet, it is because of the appeal of finally knowing that there is a leader who is on their side. Watch the speech. (Watch it again, it's just great every time.) Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren wrote that "Quite a few of the delegates actually cried as they heard him speak." THAT is why people are supporting Dean - because of what he says and what he stands for. Gov. Dean's campaign is not the usual Washington-based political phenomenon, which leaves many in the "establishment" bewildered. It is an honest grassroots campaign. His appeal is that he seems to understand what is happening in the country, wants to do something about it, and is not "spinning" what he says in an attempt to appeal to some imagined "voting block." There is no sense of a "wink and a nod" as the candidate says something that everyone is supposed to understand he does not really mean, but is saying it so he can get elected. That's how the "game" is supposed to be "played", but he just isn't going along with that. I had met both Gore and Clinton, as well as been to events, and there was a bit of a sense of understanding that there are some things they were saying because they have to, to get elected. Not that it was a bad thing - more of a feeling of a necessary evil. But I have NO sense of that with Dean, yet I come away with a feeling that he CAN (and will) get elected. The cynical mainstream media and politicos say that Dean has "veered left" (as if an A rating from the NRA is a mark of a "leftist.") They say he is "positioning" himself to the left for the primaries, and will "move to the right" for the election. They can not comprehend a candidate who is not spinning, not positioning, not "portraying himself as...," and not saying what he needs to say instead of what he thinks. And they cannot seem to cope with a candidate who can't easily be pigeonholed with a label, like "leftist." Dean's supporters understand that it's not about being a "leftist" or a progressive to say you support "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" - it's about caring about your country, and wanting to stand up and challenge the corporate takeover, and the bush intimidation tactics, and the reluctance to exercise oversight responsibilities, and wondering why the leadership has been compromising with Bush on so many important issues! The establishment also cannot grasp the possibility that Gov. Dean chooses his positions by analyzing the merits of the issues instead of looking at how his answer will make him "appear." So many in the Washington establishment just don't understand this because they are so used to looking for (and using) the gimmick, the "real" agenda, and they can't believe and won't accept that there could be a candidate who isn't doing that. It is outside of their experience. It is not something that is in their worldview. Why are they so blind to what's really going on? I think because of the nature of their position in the media or the political structure they are in a controlled-perception zone. The right has put a great deal of effort into controlling the information environment of these people, because of their position as opinion leaders and their ability to influence legislation. The right knows how to generate "conventional wisdom" and project it to the right people. I wrote about this in Getting Rolled and I think it is a good read to help understand the Washington environment. The phony Republican news events, the "independent" media playing along & following their script, the AM radio 24-hour-a-day Republican drumbeat pounding out the lies, the slurry of misleading or blatantly deceitful op-ed pieces filling the editorial pages, the dittohead letters to the editor (or "astroturf" - phony grassroots letters generated by a marketing firm), the pack of columnists writing according to instructions FAXed over from the Heritage Foundation ) [...], pretty soon all the news stories reflect the Republican line and repeat the Republican falsehoods. It becomes a drumbeat of constant repetition of the same lines over and over and over until they become "conventional wisdom." "Everybody knows that" so-and-so is true so there's no point wasting your energy trying to say it ain't so. Polls then show that the public (deprived of any contrasting information) solidly favors the Republican position. Calls and letters flood in to Congressional offices (from Christian Coalition phone banks). Democrats start to worry about their chances of holding office if they oppose the Republicans on this one vote.Manipulate their information sources and you control what they perceive. So many of the Washington establishment gets their information secondhand instead of being out here where the people are, and listening to what people are saying. When you live your life through the filter of the media world you come to accept the premises of that world as the premises of life. This leads to a simplified way of looking at the world, with a need to place everything in a stereotyped category. Experiencing the rest of America through the TV brings acceptance of the premises of TV - everyone is playing a part, everything follows a preset script, everyone fits neatly into casting department view of how people behave. Well Howard Dean is not a TV show! Get used to it. --- Posted at 7/03/2003 09:25:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Ideologues Has anyone else noticed that the latest tactic of the far-right is to call Democrats "ideologues?" Update - I linked to the wrong article! I really did not intend to link to the DLC piece (that calls Dean supporters ideologues.) I was reading a different article! I'll try to find it. Wow. --- Posted at 7/03/2003 07:40:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/02/2003 Jesse Tafero Support the death penalty? Read The Innocent Are Victims, Too. --- Posted at 7/02/2003 04:34:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Nine Point Seven From this story, Little relief in unemployment expected soon: Furthermore, many of the people who do have jobs are working only part-time. According to the Labor Department, if you add all the workers "marginally attached" to the labor force -- out of work and not looking for work -- to all those working part-time and those unemployed and looking for work, the unemployment rate rises to 9.7 percent. ... Not included in this group are the untold number of people who have had to take lower-paying jobs because they can't find work in their chosen profession.Wow. --- Posted at 7/02/2003 03:28:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
'Bring Them On' President Bush wants Iraqis to continue to attack Americans. 'Bring Them On', says the cowboy. I wonder if this phrase was tested by focus groups for maximum effect on the voting public? --- Posted at 7/02/2003 10:36:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Commonweal Institute News Peter Coyote has joined Commonweal Institute's Board of Advisors. There are other items of interest at Commonweal's What's New page. Check out Commonweal's collection of articles and reports discussing problems with electronic voting machines, and their collection of links to articles, reports and resources for learning about the right-wing movement, its history, how it is funded and how it operates. These are great resources for studying these issues. Sign up for Comonweal Institute's free newsletter. The latest issue can be read here. --- Posted at 7/02/2003 09:10:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
7/01/2003 Screwing with Army Times? Democratic Veteran might have caught the administration screwing with the Army Times for political purposes. An editorial that was critical of the Bush administration has disappeared from the Army Times website. --- Posted at 7/01/2003 09:35:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
It's A Lie When will the press call Bush on this, and call it what it is: a big, fat LIE? Dana Milbank wrote the story for the Washington Post, and he IS the press, and he IS pointing this out. Good for him! Thanks to Thinking It Through. --- Posted at 7/01/2003 07:59:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Prospect Gets It The American Prospect Gets It. This is the first press story about Dean that I have seen that "gets it." Maybe its because the writer did some actual research - reading the comments at Dean's blog. --- Posted at 7/01/2003 07:40:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Bush Snubs Mandela President Bush becomes the first world leader to visit South Africa and not visit Nelson Mandela. --- Posted at 7/01/2003 04:08:00 PM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Coulter's Book In the Washington Post today Richard Cohen writes about Ann Coulter's book, "Treason", that he is "happy" that the book is so far over the edge: My glee in reporting that Coulter is daft is predicated on the prediction that her book, like her previous one, will be a bestseller. [...] It is also good news for liberals. It suggests that the right, at least the hard right, has finally dumbed out. This is the predictable cycle for all movements. They start with a genuine grievance and proceed from there to the totally ridiculous -- or, in some cases, to the downright macabre.Cohen doesn't get it about the right. He ALMOST gets it in the next paragraph, In some ways, the nutso American brand of archconservatism mirrors traditional anti-Semitism. Jew-haters proclaim that Jews control the media, international finance and almost everything else of importance -- but, somehow, Jews have accumulated a 2,000-year history of expulsions, pogroms and, finally, the mass murder of the Holocaust.Meanwhile, I'm listening to Thom Hartmann's radio show, and he DOES get it. He says this book is "dangerous." and I agree completely. He says the book reminds him of "Mein Kampf," and he draws a parallel between how the right talks about "Liberals" and how Germany's right talked about Jews. The right has destroyed the civility of our society. They have made it OK to be nasty, insulting, mocking and dismissive of more than half of all Americans. And they are proud of it. Now this book takes their anti-civility campaign a lot further. The book accuses everyone left of the Christian Coalition of hating and conspiring to destroy America. The title of the book is "Treason." And what is the punishment for treason? As I type this, a caller on the Hartmann show asks, "Quite frankly, what are they going to do with all of us treasonous liberals?" --- Posted at 7/01/2003 11:48:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
A New Poll Poll Says Most Believe Saddam-9/11 Link : Seven in 10 people in a poll say the Bush administration implied that Iraq (news - web sites) and its leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States. And a majority, 52 percent, say they believe the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization. The number that believes this country has found weapons of mass destruction is 23 percent, down from 34 percent in May, according to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Prewar assertions by the Bush administration about al-Qaida's ties to the Iraqi government have not been proven, and weapons of mass destruction have not been found since the invasion of Iraq.In case I haven't mentioned it, it's obvious that people who get their news from the Internet - namely us - are getting a very different picture of reality. People who get their news from the corporate media - namely most of America - are not getting accurate information. This does not serve democracy. --- Posted at 7/01/2003 11:04:00 AM by Dave Johnson Link to this | | | | e-mail this post
Copyright © 2002-05. |
Blogger's RSS feed 
Please help Seeing the Forest meet expenses. You can contribute using Paypal or Amazon by clicking either of the following buttons. Thanks! I took out the Amazon "donate button" because they are a red company, helping fund the right. Archives 
|
|||