Dave has invited me to guest post. I read Seeing the Forest at least daily and rely on it, so I consider this quite an honor! He says I should introduce myself in my first post -- and keep it short. Well, I could say "I'm just that mysterious lady" and let it go at that.
I'm liberal, or progressive, or whatever bleeping old-fashioned out-of-date word we're using today to describe a particular set of shared values, or I wouldn't be here. I'm also deeply conservative, in the old-fashioned meaning of the word, a conservative being someone who wishes to preserve things. In my naive youth I decided to become a conservator, to preserve art and archaeological artifacts, because I felt strongly that in cold war America civilization itself was under threat and it would make sense to try to keep the best of the past available for future generations. Later I worked for the Department of Environmental Protection in New York City; preserving the environment and quality of living is quite a challenge in a city of over 8 million messy people. I'm proud of that department. I also live within walking distance of the World Trade Center site, watched the twin towers fall, and coped with the aftermath, and I'll write about that.
I agree entirely with Dave's point of view and political analysis. These are wildly dangerous times, and there's more going on than just a battle between points of view or belief systems. This is a battle of values, and there's nothing rational about what's going on. The way I see it, the hidden agenda of the radical right is a determination to undo the great secular accomplishments of the enlightenment. In other words, if we aren't careful, we're gonna find ourselves coping, not just with the conditions of the last century, but back somewhere before the 16th century. One of the major accomplishments was the establishment of great collective public works. The huge advances in public health and safety didn't come from medical advances as much as from public, collective engineering projects -- safe water supplies and sewer systems for example. Unglamorous but essential. With all collective public works now labeled "Socialism" even this is under threat, and that's a threat to our health and safety. Just for openers.
- Meryl Johnson
7/17/2004
More you can do: Donate to Kucinich and/or Cobb
I'm still a Green (not to mention broke), and matched my contribution to Dennis with one to the Green Party's nominee for President, David Cobb, but I felt compelled to do something to impact the course of events at the DNC and within the Democratic Party and Kerry campaign in light of the events below.
By sending a donation to Dennis, you send a message to the Democratic Party establishment that the war in Iraq matters (along with all the other progressive efforts and principled positions taken by Kucinich in this campaign). Money talks. Give Dennis the resources to wage an effective campaign for progressive values at the Democratic National Convention. He's the one candidate who hasn't folded up and gone home, and he deserves the thanks of the progressive community for carrying our flag within the Democratic Party.
By sending a donation to David, you send a message to the Democratic Party establishment that the war in Iraq matters (along with all the other progressive efforts and principled positions taken by the Green Party, as outlined in their national platform). Every dollar donated to David drives home the message that there is an alternative to the status quo, and that the Democratic Party does not have a automatic lock on the progressive vote. You do have a choice in November.
--Thomas Leavitt
Payment Information
You have sent a secure payment of $10.00 USD for the eBay items below. You will receive an email receipt for this transaction shortly.
Amount: $10.00 USD
Item Number: [deleted]
Item Title: Cobb/LaMarche Campaign (limit $2,000 per individual)
Your Employer: None
Your Occupation: Unemployed
Quantity: 1
Total Amount: $10.00 USD
Contact Information
Business Name: Cobb/LaMarche Campaign
Contact Email: kaitlin@riseup.net
07/17/2004 12:08 AM (PT)
Kucinich For President
Thomas Leavitt
PO Box 7095
Santa Cruz, CA 95061-7095
Thank you very much for your contribution. Your dollars are crucial to the success of our campaign.
Kucinich for President
http://www.kucinich.us
The following summarizes your contribution:
Total Contribution Amount: $10.00
Reference ID:
Kucinich For President contact information:
Email Address: phil@kucinich.us
[deletia]
By sending a donation to Dennis, you send a message to the Democratic Party establishment that the war in Iraq matters (along with all the other progressive efforts and principled positions taken by Kucinich in this campaign). Money talks. Give Dennis the resources to wage an effective campaign for progressive values at the Democratic National Convention. He's the one candidate who hasn't folded up and gone home, and he deserves the thanks of the progressive community for carrying our flag within the Democratic Party.
By sending a donation to David, you send a message to the Democratic Party establishment that the war in Iraq matters (along with all the other progressive efforts and principled positions taken by the Green Party, as outlined in their national platform). Every dollar donated to David drives home the message that there is an alternative to the status quo, and that the Democratic Party does not have a automatic lock on the progressive vote. You do have a choice in November.
--Thomas Leavitt
Payment Information
You have sent a secure payment of $10.00 USD for the eBay items below. You will receive an email receipt for this transaction shortly.
Amount: $10.00 USD
Item Number: [deleted]
Item Title: Cobb/LaMarche Campaign (limit $2,000 per individual)
Your Employer: None
Your Occupation: Unemployed
Quantity: 1
Total Amount: $10.00 USD
Contact Information
Business Name: Cobb/LaMarche Campaign
Contact Email: kaitlin@riseup.net
07/17/2004 12:08 AM (PT)
Kucinich For President
Thomas Leavitt
PO Box 7095
Santa Cruz, CA 95061-7095
Thank you very much for your contribution. Your dollars are crucial to the success of our campaign.
Kucinich for President
http://www.kucinich.us
The following summarizes your contribution:
Total Contribution Amount: $10.00
Reference ID:
Kucinich For President contact information:
Email Address: phil@kucinich.us
[deletia]
7/16/2004
Something to do in response to Hersh's revelation.
Go to FaithfulAmerica.org, and donate to support their campaign to put this ad, on Arab television. More than ever, the world needs to hear the message that at least some Americans are horrified by the torture in Iraq.
--Thomas Leavitt
07/16/2004 10:38 PM (PT)
True Majority
Thomas and Gunilla Leavitt
PO Box 7095
Santa Cruz, CA 95061-7095
Thank you for endorsing the ad and helping to buy air time on Arabic language television in the Middle East.
Let's make this message truly powerful by getting it endorsed by as many Americans as possible. We're sending you a confirmation email with an action alert that you can forward to people you think might want to get involved.
Your donation is being processed by our partner, TrueMajority.
The following summarizes your contribution:
Total Contribution Amount: $25.00
Reference ID: [deleted]
True Majority contact information:
Email Address: info@faithfulamerica.org
--Thomas Leavitt
07/16/2004 10:38 PM (PT)
True Majority
Thomas and Gunilla Leavitt
PO Box 7095
Santa Cruz, CA 95061-7095
Thank you for endorsing the ad and helping to buy air time on Arabic language television in the Middle East.
Let's make this message truly powerful by getting it endorsed by as many Americans as possible. We're sending you a confirmation email with an action alert that you can forward to people you think might want to get involved.
Your donation is being processed by our partner, TrueMajority.
The following summarizes your contribution:
Total Contribution Amount: $25.00
Reference ID: [deleted]
True Majority contact information:
Email Address: info@faithfulamerica.org
"The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking..."
Excerpted from a "MisLeader.Org" update:
You can hear him for yourself, 1 hour and 30 minutes into the video: "America at a Crossroads," 2004 ACLU Members Conference.
These is what happened to young children of the some of women who were arrested, Hersh says. Clearly, the implication is that this was done to coerce confessions from the women, who must have known about it, perhaps even witnessed it. No wonder they wanted to die. I can't even begin to imagine the horror of it, the pain, the guilt, the sense of helplessness they must have felt.
This is vile and unspeakable. The only appropriate reaction to it is shame and horror. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al have not only dragged our nation's good name through the mud, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process, but he's turned us into a nation of baby-rapers. I feel like throwing up. The shame of it is unbearable. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that I should have lived to see this day, that my nation should have sunk to such depths of infamy. Bush must go. Bush must go, now. Not in November.
If the leader of any other civilized government on the face of this planet had permitted this to happen on his or her watch, that individual would have resigned, immediately, and unconditionally, regardless of whether or not they knew about it, regardless of whether or not any policy of theirs could even vaguely be interpreted as having lead to these events, merely out of respect for him or herself and the people of the nation he or she lead, by taking full responsibility for the actions of those under his or her command.
We should not find out about these events from the press. Our government should not be hiding this information, however horrific, from us. Bush clearly has no shame. He must go. Now. If he won't go, we must hound him from office, he should not be permitted to show his face in public without being confronted about this. Our self-respect as a nation demands nothing less.
Tomorrow, I will spend at least two hours standing on the corner with a sign quoting the words in the header above: "The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking..."
I am overwhelmed with grief.
--Thomas Leavitt
Leading investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has told the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that videotapes were made of young boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison. The Bush administration is holding videotapes of these acts, said Hersh, a regular contributor to the New Yorker and other publications and who spoke this week at the ACLU’s annual membership conference.
"The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," Hersh told the group, adding that there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the
highest command out there, and higher."
You can hear him for yourself, 1 hour and 30 minutes into the video: "America at a Crossroads," 2004 ACLU Members Conference.
These is what happened to young children of the some of women who were arrested, Hersh says. Clearly, the implication is that this was done to coerce confessions from the women, who must have known about it, perhaps even witnessed it. No wonder they wanted to die. I can't even begin to imagine the horror of it, the pain, the guilt, the sense of helplessness they must have felt.
This is vile and unspeakable. The only appropriate reaction to it is shame and horror. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al have not only dragged our nation's good name through the mud, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process, but he's turned us into a nation of baby-rapers. I feel like throwing up. The shame of it is unbearable. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that I should have lived to see this day, that my nation should have sunk to such depths of infamy. Bush must go. Bush must go, now. Not in November.
If the leader of any other civilized government on the face of this planet had permitted this to happen on his or her watch, that individual would have resigned, immediately, and unconditionally, regardless of whether or not they knew about it, regardless of whether or not any policy of theirs could even vaguely be interpreted as having lead to these events, merely out of respect for him or herself and the people of the nation he or she lead, by taking full responsibility for the actions of those under his or her command.
We should not find out about these events from the press. Our government should not be hiding this information, however horrific, from us. Bush clearly has no shame. He must go. Now. If he won't go, we must hound him from office, he should not be permitted to show his face in public without being confronted about this. Our self-respect as a nation demands nothing less.
Tomorrow, I will spend at least two hours standing on the corner with a sign quoting the words in the header above: "The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking..."
I am overwhelmed with grief.
--Thomas Leavitt
Greg Palast before the Civil Rights Commission
Greg Palast, the main man behind the Florida disenfranchisement
idealism vs practicality BUT practical errors
sincere yes but this is bad
Lieberman A Anderson
Nader
more democrats
http://www.gregpalast.com/blog.cfm
http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.newdem.htm
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071604.shtml
To Imus, of course, this all made perfect sense. But Kerry cut him off—and took umbrage:
KERRY: You know, Don, it’s so simple for the president to joke about very serious issues when young kids are dying because he didn’t make a plan to win the peace in Iraq. And I take that very personally as somebody who fought in a war which he chose not to...
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021303.shtml
In The Right Column
Over on the right side of this page, scroll down and you'll see a new news feed below the BuzzFlash news feed. This is the new Media Matters feed. Check it out.
Concert
I heard that Calexico was giving a free concert in San Jose yesterday, and drove down to see them. Visit their website and listen to some of the tunes they have posted there. They're great. I live in a neighborhood that is mostly Spanish-speaking, and the band sounds a bit like the neighborhood. Rock, mariachi, surf and some jazz.
7/15/2004
The Story Behind The Title
Joe Trippi sent me his new book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, with a note on the inside cover saying he is a long-time reader of Seeing the Forest. I haven't read the book yet, but will post about it when I have.
There is an ad for the book over in the right-side column, clicking the ad takes you to a blog for the book. Go visit the blog.
The lyrics to the Gil Scott-Heron tune that names the book are
here.
There is an ad for the book over in the right-side column, clicking the ad takes you to a blog for the book. Go visit the blog.
The lyrics to the Gil Scott-Heron tune that names the book are
here.
The revolution will not be right back after a message
about a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.
Bill Moyers: Get Mad! Do something!
Bill Moyers recently gave a Keynote Address at the Inequality Matters Conference held in NYC. It's a powerful statement that resonates with many of the themes the writers of this blog have been expounding on (our memes are spreading). He even references the Enron Tapes. It is definitely worth reading (it came to me via my mother and an League of Women Voters mailing list).
--Thomas Leavitt
--Thomas Leavitt
7/14/2004
Richard Dreyfuss: "you can only learn from your bleeps and move on."
[Ashcroftism at work. Bleepin' bleep of a bleep. -Thomas]
PBS watches its mouth rather than pay big fines. Now it's up to the
other networks to fight the FCC.
by Tim Goodmanm, SFGate.com
***
Because of this, a new drama called "Cop Shop" starring Richard Dreyfuss
and other actors who made a sort of creative labor of love on the cheap
for public broadcasting, has been edited to avoid the potential wrath of
the FCC. The cuts prompted executive producer and writer David Black
and Dreyfuss to whip out prepared statements before facing the nation's TV
critics here on Friday.
"Ladies and gentlemen, 'Cop Shop' was never meant to be bleeped," said
Dreyfuss, reading from his prepared statement, via satellite from New
York where he's appearing on Broadway. "David and I agreed to be bleeped
because we were told that KCET, our greatly appreciated allies in this
affair, could be subject to intimidating fines in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. ... And so, more reluctantly than I can describe,
we agreed to be bleeped. But being bleeped is more than it is cracked
up to be. Having now been bleeped, I can only say that it doesn't feel
very good. It feels kind of dirty. But you can never be unbleeped, so you can
only learn from your bleeps and move on."
***
--Thomas Leavitt
PBS watches its mouth rather than pay big fines. Now it's up to the
other networks to fight the FCC.
by Tim Goodmanm, SFGate.com
***
Because of this, a new drama called "Cop Shop" starring Richard Dreyfuss
and other actors who made a sort of creative labor of love on the cheap
for public broadcasting, has been edited to avoid the potential wrath of
the FCC. The cuts prompted executive producer and writer David Black
and Dreyfuss to whip out prepared statements before facing the nation's TV
critics here on Friday.
"Ladies and gentlemen, 'Cop Shop' was never meant to be bleeped," said
Dreyfuss, reading from his prepared statement, via satellite from New
York where he's appearing on Broadway. "David and I agreed to be bleeped
because we were told that KCET, our greatly appreciated allies in this
affair, could be subject to intimidating fines in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. ... And so, more reluctantly than I can describe,
we agreed to be bleeped. But being bleeped is more than it is cracked
up to be. Having now been bleeped, I can only say that it doesn't feel
very good. It feels kind of dirty. But you can never be unbleeped, so you can
only learn from your bleeps and move on."
***
--Thomas Leavitt
Background info on John Ashcroft.
[The article is rather long, but it goes a good way towards explaining Ashcroft's behavior (insanely rigid, morally certain). Ironically, my Mom is from the Springfield, Missouri area as well (most of her family is still back there). This is scary stuff! -Thomas]
Son of a Preacher Man
How John Ashcroft's religion shapes his public service
Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer
Sunday, August 4, 2002
Of all the Bible stories John Ashcroft knows by heart, none mirrors his own life like the Old Testament melodrama of Daniel.
As a Hebrew captive exiled to Babylon, Daniel worked his way into the palace and was promoted to a high-ranking administrative position. The powers- that-be saw him as smart and politically ambitious, but also as a sanctimonious prig. His religious rectitude invited ridicule, as when he refused to "defile" himself by partaking of the rich food and wine of royalty because his God favored a vegetable-and-water diet.
So his critics set him up, persuading King Darius to outlaw worship of anyone else but the king. Daniel kept praying. They dropped him into a den of lions.
This was a lesson that John David Ashcroft absorbed as a Pentecostal minister's son reared in an Assemblies of God congregation in Springfield, Mo. The moral was clear: Never waver, never doubt, never permit skepticism and mockery to deter you from the course you believe is right.
[... continued ...]
--Thomas Leavitt
Son of a Preacher Man
How John Ashcroft's religion shapes his public service
Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer
Sunday, August 4, 2002
Of all the Bible stories John Ashcroft knows by heart, none mirrors his own life like the Old Testament melodrama of Daniel.
As a Hebrew captive exiled to Babylon, Daniel worked his way into the palace and was promoted to a high-ranking administrative position. The powers- that-be saw him as smart and politically ambitious, but also as a sanctimonious prig. His religious rectitude invited ridicule, as when he refused to "defile" himself by partaking of the rich food and wine of royalty because his God favored a vegetable-and-water diet.
So his critics set him up, persuading King Darius to outlaw worship of anyone else but the king. Daniel kept praying. They dropped him into a den of lions.
This was a lesson that John David Ashcroft absorbed as a Pentecostal minister's son reared in an Assemblies of God congregation in Springfield, Mo. The moral was clear: Never waver, never doubt, never permit skepticism and mockery to deter you from the course you believe is right.
[... continued ...]
--Thomas Leavitt
Abraham Lincoln speaks up regarding cancelling elections
[Received this through Dave Farber's Interesting People mailing list. Thought it topically relevant. -Thomas]
From: Joseph Holder
Date: July 14, 2004 3:29:16 AM EDT
Subject: Abraham Lincoln speaks up regarding cancelling elections
Recently, the Bush appointed head of the EAC, Soaries, requested
guidance from Homeland Security regarding the possiblity of cancelling
the upcoming November election in case of a "terror" attack somewhere in
the United States somewhere around that time. It seems that this type of
"crisis" has presented its self before.
In 1864, when Washington, DC, was within five miles of Confederate
General Jubal Early's attacking troops
(http://www.nps.gov/rocr/ftcircle/defense.htm), President Abraham
Lincoln, a Republican, did not even dream of cancelling, or even
postponing, the 1864 elections.
Here's a bit of what Ol' Abe had to say on the subject, taken from
http://www.nps.gov/liho/writer/1864.htm:
"We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion
could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might
fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."
--Thomas Leavitt
From: Joseph Holder
Date: July 14, 2004 3:29:16 AM EDT
Subject: Abraham Lincoln speaks up regarding cancelling elections
Recently, the Bush appointed head of the EAC, Soaries, requested
guidance from Homeland Security regarding the possiblity of cancelling
the upcoming November election in case of a "terror" attack somewhere in
the United States somewhere around that time. It seems that this type of
"crisis" has presented its self before.
In 1864, when Washington, DC, was within five miles of Confederate
General Jubal Early's attacking troops
(http://www.nps.gov/rocr/ftcircle/defense.htm), President Abraham
Lincoln, a Republican, did not even dream of cancelling, or even
postponing, the 1864 elections.
Here's a bit of what Ol' Abe had to say on the subject, taken from
http://www.nps.gov/liho/writer/1864.htm:
"We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion
could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might
fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us."
--Thomas Leavitt
Kerry Campaign: Nuclear Proliferation
One of the less-amusing peculiarities of the Bush administration is their relative lack of interest in nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation is a question in itself, independent of terrorism, but one of the biggest fears about terrorism is that they might get nuclear weapons someday.
Beyond that, nuclear proliferation is intrinsically destabilizing. A world with 12 nuclear nations would be many times more dangerous than a world with the present five-to-seven.
Nuclear proliferation is a wonk issue which isn't going to win any votes in Philadelphia, Mississippi. There are certain countries you want to look at very closely (e.g., Russia, N. Korea, Iran, and our new non-NATO ally Pakistan), and there are others which are not really involved (e.g., as it happens, Iraq.) There are various things you can do about nuclear proliferation, but it's mostly low-profile stuff that doesn't involve blowing shit up.
Furthermore, if you're a national leader who feeds on public hysteria, nuclear proliferation is actually a good thing, sort of like Abu Mussab al-Zarkawi, since it can be used to justify whatever it is that you're planning to do.
So it's not surprising that Bush is not very interested and that Kerry is. Because Bush doesn't have time for that wonk shit, and Kerry does.
The above is my opinion. Go to the link for what the Kerry campaign has to say.
Kerry Press Release and Fact Sheet
Beyond that, nuclear proliferation is intrinsically destabilizing. A world with 12 nuclear nations would be many times more dangerous than a world with the present five-to-seven.
Nuclear proliferation is a wonk issue which isn't going to win any votes in Philadelphia, Mississippi. There are certain countries you want to look at very closely (e.g., Russia, N. Korea, Iran, and our new non-NATO ally Pakistan), and there are others which are not really involved (e.g., as it happens, Iraq.) There are various things you can do about nuclear proliferation, but it's mostly low-profile stuff that doesn't involve blowing shit up.
Furthermore, if you're a national leader who feeds on public hysteria, nuclear proliferation is actually a good thing, sort of like Abu Mussab al-Zarkawi, since it can be used to justify whatever it is that you're planning to do.
So it's not surprising that Bush is not very interested and that Kerry is. Because Bush doesn't have time for that wonk shit, and Kerry does.
The above is my opinion. Go to the link for what the Kerry campaign has to say.
Kerry Press Release and Fact Sheet
Kerry Campaign: What Did Bush Know?
One of the big questions about our president is how much he knows about anything. He seems to prefer to make his decisions on the basis of simple one-page summaries of the evidence, a method which obviously gives control of policy to whomever it is that prepares the summary. However, the Senate Intelligence Committee was unable to get a copy of the briefing on the basis of which we invaded Iraq.
The most recent Bush administration excuse -- "It's the CIA's fault!" -- lies perilously close to an admission that our President is refusing to do his homework.
BUSH REFUSES TO RELEASE ONE-PAGE SUMMARY OF PRE-WAR IRAQ CLAIMS
The New York Times reports today, “The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials. [NYT, 7/14/04]" (Reuters version)
BUSH AND RICE DID NOT READ THE NIE.
A senior administration official who briefed reporters in July 2003 said neither Bush nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice read the NIE in its entirety. “They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document,” said the official, referring to the “Annex” that contained the State Department’s dissent. The official conducting the briefing rejected reporters’ entreaties to allow his name to be used, arguing that it was his standard procedure for such sessions to be conducted anonymously. [Washington Post, 7/19/03] (Boston Globe version).
KERRY PRESS RELEASE
(Note: I recently started getting press releases from the Kerry campaign, some of which I will reprint or excerpt here. Be it noted that Seeing the Forest is completely independent and mostly self-funded, with a little help from advertisers).
The most recent Bush administration excuse -- "It's the CIA's fault!" -- lies perilously close to an admission that our President is refusing to do his homework.
BUSH REFUSES TO RELEASE ONE-PAGE SUMMARY OF PRE-WAR IRAQ CLAIMS
The New York Times reports today, “The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials. [NYT, 7/14/04]" (Reuters version)
BUSH AND RICE DID NOT READ THE NIE.
A senior administration official who briefed reporters in July 2003 said neither Bush nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice read the NIE in its entirety. “They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document,” said the official, referring to the “Annex” that contained the State Department’s dissent. The official conducting the briefing rejected reporters’ entreaties to allow his name to be used, arguing that it was his standard procedure for such sessions to be conducted anonymously. [Washington Post, 7/19/03] (Boston Globe version).
KERRY PRESS RELEASE
(Note: I recently started getting press releases from the Kerry campaign, some of which I will reprint or excerpt here. Be it noted that Seeing the Forest is completely independent and mostly self-funded, with a little help from advertisers).
Madrid bombings - excellent example of media manipulation.
Something that really pisses me off about all the coverage surrounding the issue of postponing federal elections, is the fact that every bleeping story out there repeats the canard that the Madrid train bombings turned the Spanish people against the Anzar government and thus Al-Qaeda managed to manipulate the course of the elections in that country. This is simply not true, what turned people against the Spanish government was the fact that it laid the initial blame for the bombings on the ETA (Basque nationalists) and continued to persist in this even after it became increasingly clear that Al-Qaeda was to blame... the Spanish people reacted very negatively to what they perceived was an attempt by the Anzar government to mislead them (and thus avoid blame for the bombings due to their policy in Iraq), even to the point of mass demonstrations in the streets against the government, two days later, immediately preceding the elections. Thus, it can be credibly argued that what turned the course of the Spanish elections was a FAILED MANIPULATION by the government, NOT a successful one by Al Qaeda. If the government had played it straight with the Spanish people, the outcome might well have been different.
A quote from the article above: "Analysts say the public's anger at the way the government handled the information arising from the investigation, as well as the fact that Spaniards overwhelmingly opposed Spain's support for the U.S.-led war on Iraq, led to the Sunday defeat of the PP."
I haven't seen a SINGLE blessed article on the issue of postponing elections in the mainstream press that points this out when the Madrid bombings are mentioned.
But, of course, the immediate line taken by the Bush administration, and repeated uncritically by our gullible, lazy and far too easily manipulated mainstream press, was that the Spanish people had let themselves been manipulated by Al Qaeda, which of course serves the Bush administration's political needs then (Anzar's government wasn't defeated by legitimate opposition to the war in Iraq) and now (terrorists might seek to do the same here). One might even wonder if they promoted that interpretation, in the knowledge that later on, they would be proposing a mechanism for post-poning federal elections as the result of a terrorist incident.
I urge everyone reading this to write letters to the editor, and write letters to the journalists in question, pointing out the truth about what turned the Spanish people against their government: not the bombing, but outrage over the government's lies about the bombing. I'm sure that people will connect the dots to the current administration's habits as well.
--Thomas Leavitt
A quote from the article above: "Analysts say the public's anger at the way the government handled the information arising from the investigation, as well as the fact that Spaniards overwhelmingly opposed Spain's support for the U.S.-led war on Iraq, led to the Sunday defeat of the PP."
I haven't seen a SINGLE blessed article on the issue of postponing elections in the mainstream press that points this out when the Madrid bombings are mentioned.
But, of course, the immediate line taken by the Bush administration, and repeated uncritically by our gullible, lazy and far too easily manipulated mainstream press, was that the Spanish people had let themselves been manipulated by Al Qaeda, which of course serves the Bush administration's political needs then (Anzar's government wasn't defeated by legitimate opposition to the war in Iraq) and now (terrorists might seek to do the same here). One might even wonder if they promoted that interpretation, in the knowledge that later on, they would be proposing a mechanism for post-poning federal elections as the result of a terrorist incident.
I urge everyone reading this to write letters to the editor, and write letters to the journalists in question, pointing out the truth about what turned the Spanish people against their government: not the bombing, but outrage over the government's lies about the bombing. I'm sure that people will connect the dots to the current administration's habits as well.
--Thomas Leavitt
7/13/2004
Bush AGAIN Accuses Kerry of Bragging About Abandoning Troops
ABCNEWS.com : Bush: Kerry Brags About Abandoning Troops:
Letting Bush go on saying things like this really makes Kerry look like a wimp. It is working. There really is no other way to deal with this than to smack it down.
I mean, being accused of bragging about abandoning the troops DOES make Kerry angry, doesn't it? But if I don't SEE Kerry getting really angy about this, well, ... maybe it DOESN'T make him angry!
So, Sen. Kerry, what are you going to DO about this? Are you a person who stands up to bullies? That's what the country needs.
"Bush: Kerry Brags About Abandoning TroopsHow long IS Kerry going to let Bush get away with this? It is time for Kerry to SMACK THIS DOWN. It is time for Kerry to look American in the face and say that Bush is LYING, and that THIS is just too important to Kerry to continue to let Bush get away with it.
Bush Tours Midwestern States, Says Kerry Abandoned Support for Troops and Then Bragged About It
Courting conservative voters in Michigan's rural Upper Peninsula, President Bush said Tuesday that rival John Kerry abandoned support for U.S. troops in Iraq and then bragged about it.
"Leaders need to stand up with our military," Bush told a cheering crowd, kicking off a two-day tour of three crucial states that he lost in 2000 to Democratic Vice President Al Gore.
Kerry said Monday that he and running mate John Edwards were proud of the fact that they opposed the $87 billion aid package for Afghanistan and Iraq "when we knew the policy had to be changed." Kerry said the Bush administration should have gotten other allies to help with the war in Iraq.
"He is entitled to his view," Bush said, adding that Kerry should not have gone on to "brag about it."
Letting Bush go on saying things like this really makes Kerry look like a wimp. It is working. There really is no other way to deal with this than to smack it down.
I mean, being accused of bragging about abandoning the troops DOES make Kerry angry, doesn't it? But if I don't SEE Kerry getting really angy about this, well, ... maybe it DOESN'T make him angry!
So, Sen. Kerry, what are you going to DO about this? Are you a person who stands up to bullies? That's what the country needs.
Senator Boxer on Possible Election Delays
STATEMENT BY U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER:
"To even consider postponing our elections, the most ardent symbol of American democracy, because of threats made by terrorists would be nothing short of allowing fear to rule our country. America is too great and too strong and too brave for that.
If this Administration is so concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks disrupting U.S. elections, the priority should be how to best defend against those attacks, not how to close polling places.
We need to pass the Rail Security and Port Security bills, both of which passed unanimously out of the Senate Commerce Committee in April. We need to pass my Homeland Defense Act, legislation authorizing grants for our local first responders so they can purchase interoperable communications systems that will allow them to talk to one another in the event of a terrorist attack. And we need to put more federal dollars toward funding these Homeland Security initiatives, including our local first responders.
We are focusing far too many of our resources abroad trying to bring democracy to others while this Administration seems completely at a loss on how to protect us here at home. All we hear about is fear from them and no plan. It is time to stop the fear-mongering and start protecting our people, our homeland, and our democracy here at home."
7/12/2004
Why we can't let the election be postponed
The main lesson to take home from the recent uproar about postponing the fall elections is that the Democrats have to have an immediate, aggressive political response ready for any terrorist event that might take place. In many respects, the Kerry campaign's ability to respond quickly to events during the campaign will be taken by the voters as an indicator of President Kerry's ability to respond effectively to terrorism. (If Kerry can't beat Bush, he certainly can't beat Osama Bin Laden.)
Recent reports have told us that the Bush administration is trying to schedule Osama's capture in accordance with the Republican Party's political needs. For that reason, it is important that no one in the executive branch should be given the power to postpone the election. Whichever one of them has that power will postpone the election if he thinks that doing so will help Bush, and not otherwise.
The Republican behavior during the Florida recount tells us not to expect them to pull any punches this year either, and we should make systematic preparations to match them tit for tat -- even down to the formation of flying goon squads, on the model of the Brooks Brothers rioters who did such a great job intimidating the Supreme Court in 2000. We should fight for every single point at every stage of the game.
Since we cannot hope for a neutral arbiter this time around (because of the Supreme Court's outrageous Florida decision), this means that the situation we're facing is exceptionally brittle. If I were David Broder I would make some gaseous comments about civility and implore everyone to be nice and play fair, but I'm not David Broder, and we know that the Republicans are not going to play fair.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't want the elections postponed either, mostly because he thinks that a terrorist attack will help Bush. Does this mean that the trial balloon from the virtually unknown DeForest Soaries was a cunning trick to fool the Democrats into opposing any postponement?
I doubt it. Obviously the bad guys need to have a response for every contingency, and Limbaugh is working the no-postponement side. The Kerry campaign has to be ready for anything too, and the no-postponement principle will take a key weapon out of the Bush campaign's hand.
The big job is to make sure that a terrorist attack, if it takes place, does not help George Bush. And indeed, why should his failure work in his favor? The war in Iraq had nothing much to do with fighting terror. If there's another terrorist attack, won't it tell us that Bush has screwed up?
Postponing the Election: Collected Links
Take my $50!
Recent reports have told us that the Bush administration is trying to schedule Osama's capture in accordance with the Republican Party's political needs. For that reason, it is important that no one in the executive branch should be given the power to postpone the election. Whichever one of them has that power will postpone the election if he thinks that doing so will help Bush, and not otherwise.
The Republican behavior during the Florida recount tells us not to expect them to pull any punches this year either, and we should make systematic preparations to match them tit for tat -- even down to the formation of flying goon squads, on the model of the Brooks Brothers rioters who did such a great job intimidating the Supreme Court in 2000. We should fight for every single point at every stage of the game.
Since we cannot hope for a neutral arbiter this time around (because of the Supreme Court's outrageous Florida decision), this means that the situation we're facing is exceptionally brittle. If I were David Broder I would make some gaseous comments about civility and implore everyone to be nice and play fair, but I'm not David Broder, and we know that the Republicans are not going to play fair.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't want the elections postponed either, mostly because he thinks that a terrorist attack will help Bush. Does this mean that the trial balloon from the virtually unknown DeForest Soaries was a cunning trick to fool the Democrats into opposing any postponement?
I doubt it. Obviously the bad guys need to have a response for every contingency, and Limbaugh is working the no-postponement side. The Kerry campaign has to be ready for anything too, and the no-postponement principle will take a key weapon out of the Bush campaign's hand.
The big job is to make sure that a terrorist attack, if it takes place, does not help George Bush. And indeed, why should his failure work in his favor? The war in Iraq had nothing much to do with fighting terror. If there's another terrorist attack, won't it tell us that Bush has screwed up?
Postponing the Election: Collected Links
Take my $50!
Spend Time in the Desert
Everything isn't Under Control:
And Bob Herbert today:
Vote Republican and kill aCommieMuslim for Christ!
"Coalition deaths have now hit 1,000 Why are we fighting again? It was the anthrax right? No wait, the drones. No, no, the nuclear weapons. All the sarin gas aimed at NYC. The smallpox machine gun! Saddam's doomsday device! A moon-raker like scenario with Saddam living in space and killing all human life on earth! No wait, the Iraqis perfected time travel and were going to kill George Washington's grandmother! Those bastards!Found thanks to skippy.
Seriously, cross your fingers and hope you don't get drafted to die in some desert somewhere for reasons unknown. "
And Bob Herbert today:
"A government with even a nodding acquaintance with competence and good sense would have launched an all-out war against Al Qaeda, not Iraq, in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11. After all, it was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, that carried out the sneak attack on American soil that destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon and killed 3,000 people. You might think that would have been enough to provoke an all-out response from the U.S. Instead we saved our best shot for the demented and already checkmated dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.Why not? BECAUSE ALL OUR TROOPS ARE TIED DOWN IN IRAQ!
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda must have gotten a good laugh out of that. Now they're planning to come at us again. On Thursday, the same day Iraqi insurgents killed the five G.I.'s in Samarra, the Bush administration disclosed that bin Laden and his lieutenants, believed to be operating from hideouts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, were directing an effort by Al Qaeda to unleash an encore attack against the United States.
According to Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, the latest effort may well be timed to disrupt the fall elections.
If that happens, I wonder if we'll finally get serious about the war we should be fighting against bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Maybe not. Based on the impenetrable logic of the president and his advisers, a new strike by Al Qaeda might lead us to start a war with, say, Iran, or Syria.
If we know that bin Laden and his top leadership are somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and that they're plotting an attack against the United States, why are we not zeroing in on them with overwhelming force? Why is there not a sense of emergency in the land, with the entire country pulling together to stop another Sept. 11 from occurring?"
Vote Republican and kill a
Postponing the election: a collection of links
Q On Ridge's security warnings, can the President today guarantee Americans that no terrorist attack can upset the U.S. elections this November, that they will go ahead as planned?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ann, I don't think anyone can make guarantees. But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections.
White House non-answer:
"The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections—as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives—has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official".
Newsweek
"U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.
The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine."
CNN
"It was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre..... But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable."
(David Brooks, March 16, 2004)
"The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission. Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel."
(AP, June 25, 2004)
"A steady stream of intelligence, including nuggets from militant-linked Web sites, indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections, federal officials said Thursday."
(AP, July 9, 2004)
"Osama bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies instead. The al Qaeda/Ba'ath Party strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at core, a political one. They seek not just to pull Iraq into chaos, but to defeat President Bush as well."
("Terrorists for Kerry", Dick Morris, NY Post, June 5, 2004)
"'While a political resolution to the election might not be quick and might be a brawl, Souter argued that the nation would still accept it,' Kaplan wrote. Souter tried desperately to get Kennedy to vote with the minority, according to the book, but he wouldn't flip. 'He thought the trauma of more recounts, more fighting — more politics — was too much for the country to endure,' Kaplan wrote." (Kennedy had been intimidated specifically by the "Brooks Brothers Riot" of paid Republican staffers which ended the recount in Miami-Dade County; that was the only actual violence that there had been, though a number of Republicans had stated their unwillingness to accept a result which made would put Gore in the Presidency).
(Story: AP/CBS, Sept 10, 2001)
Billmon has something to say
Riba has a lot of interesting stuff
The Left Coaster has a lot of interesting stuff.
Moderate Voice has a lot of stuff
"Memeorandum" has collected a lot of interesting stuff: I II III IV
"Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a die-hard GOP donor who vowed to deliver his state for Bush next year."
(Salon, Sept. 23, 2003)
Black Box Voting I
Black Box Voting II
Black Box Voting III
MR. McCLELLAN: Ann, I don't think anyone can make guarantees. But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections.
White House non-answer:
"The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections—as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives—has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official".
Newsweek
"U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.
The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine."
CNN
"It was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre..... But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable."
(David Brooks, March 16, 2004)
"The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission. Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel."
(AP, June 25, 2004)
"A steady stream of intelligence, including nuggets from militant-linked Web sites, indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections, federal officials said Thursday."
(AP, July 9, 2004)
"Osama bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies instead. The al Qaeda/Ba'ath Party strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at core, a political one. They seek not just to pull Iraq into chaos, but to defeat President Bush as well."
("Terrorists for Kerry", Dick Morris, NY Post, June 5, 2004)
"'While a political resolution to the election might not be quick and might be a brawl, Souter argued that the nation would still accept it,' Kaplan wrote. Souter tried desperately to get Kennedy to vote with the minority, according to the book, but he wouldn't flip. 'He thought the trauma of more recounts, more fighting — more politics — was too much for the country to endure,' Kaplan wrote." (Kennedy had been intimidated specifically by the "Brooks Brothers Riot" of paid Republican staffers which ended the recount in Miami-Dade County; that was the only actual violence that there had been, though a number of Republicans had stated their unwillingness to accept a result which made would put Gore in the Presidency).
(Story: AP/CBS, Sept 10, 2001)
Billmon has something to say
Riba has a lot of interesting stuff
The Left Coaster has a lot of interesting stuff.
Moderate Voice has a lot of stuff
"Memeorandum" has collected a lot of interesting stuff: I II III IV
"Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a die-hard GOP donor who vowed to deliver his state for Bush next year."
(Salon, Sept. 23, 2003)
Black Box Voting I
Black Box Voting II
Black Box Voting III
Election futures III
People say that my original bet was too vague, so I'm tightening it up a bit.
It's still 30-1, my $50 against your $1500. Show your confidence in America!
You are betting that none of the following will happen:
1. Whoever is in office on Jan. 21, 2004 is not there because he's been elected. Either Bush stays in, or a caretaker is appointed.
2. The November election does not take place as scheduled, but is postponed.
3. In a significant number of states (greater than the margin of victory) the vote in the electoral college is not based on a count of the votes (for example, the state legislature intervenes).
4. Some unprecedented intervention decides the election, as in 2000.
5. Major branches of government openly defy President Kerry and refuse to obey his orders.
I've left out the "denial of legitimacy" point because there's a 100% chance that many conservatives will not accept President Kerry's legitimacy.
This supercedes all previous offers. I'll lower the odds until I get a bet. This is not gambling, but a scientific attempt to determine how much confidence the American people have in our electoral system.
It's still 30-1, my $50 against your $1500. Show your confidence in America!
You are betting that none of the following will happen:
1. Whoever is in office on Jan. 21, 2004 is not there because he's been elected. Either Bush stays in, or a caretaker is appointed.
2. The November election does not take place as scheduled, but is postponed.
3. In a significant number of states (greater than the margin of victory) the vote in the electoral college is not based on a count of the votes (for example, the state legislature intervenes).
4. Some unprecedented intervention decides the election, as in 2000.
5. Major branches of government openly defy President Kerry and refuse to obey his orders.
I've left out the "denial of legitimacy" point because there's a 100% chance that many conservatives will not accept President Kerry's legitimacy.
This supercedes all previous offers. I'll lower the odds until I get a bet. This is not gambling, but a scientific attempt to determine how much confidence the American people have in our electoral system.
7/11/2004
Election Futures Market, II
OK, I'll change my bet. Show how much confidence you have in our electoral system!
I'm willing to bet $50 at 30-to-one that we'll see problems in the 2004 Presidential election as bad or worse than those in the 2000 election. Your $1500 says everything will be OK, my $50 says that there will be major problems -- as bad as or worse than 2000.
Everyone's been telling me that the chances of that happening are insignificant, but the best offer I've seen so far is 10-to-1. Not much confidence there, folks!
My definitive bet is here.
Here are some new stories on the possibility of a postponed election, plus links to the original stuff we had up:
Newsweek
CNN
Riba has a lot of good stuff
White House non-answer
Left Coaster
Black Box Voting I
Black Boc Voting II
Black Boc Voting III
Original story here, with links
I'm willing to bet $50 at 30-to-one that we'll see problems in the 2004 Presidential election as bad or worse than those in the 2000 election. Your $1500 says everything will be OK, my $50 says that there will be major problems -- as bad as or worse than 2000.
Everyone's been telling me that the chances of that happening are insignificant, but the best offer I've seen so far is 10-to-1. Not much confidence there, folks!
My definitive bet is here.
Here are some new stories on the possibility of a postponed election, plus links to the original stuff we had up:
Newsweek
CNN
Riba has a lot of good stuff
White House non-answer
Left Coaster
Black Box Voting I
Black Boc Voting II
Black Boc Voting III
Original story here, with links
YOU Can Join A Union
Working America:
"Nonunion workers and retirees are invited to join the people power of America's union movement and help make America work for all of us."Go sign up and be part of the labor movement, even if there is no union where you work!
Goebbels on Hitler as a Speaker
I ran across this while Googling for details to use in my "spoof" of McClennan's statement, earlier today.
Here are the first three paragraphs:
Does this sound like the difference between right and left in this country?
What tactics do Michael Savage and the rest of the 'wingers and wing nuts filling the AM airwaves use, but those straight out of Goebbel's playbook? These folks don't care about reason, logic... all they care about is provoking a reaction. Who are they most populat with? Folks who don't work primarily with reason (to all appearances, judging by way too many of the emails I get at SavageStupidity.com and other sites). Who do progressives hold up as our models? Thinkers, reasoners, theorists...
I gotta wonder if Goebbels is right, if all our high faltin' liberal thinking is just going to get us nowhere, if we oughta just rip up the playbook and get down and dirty, mix it up in the trenches, appeal to people's primeaval passions and fundamental emotions.
Are any of us capable of that? It certainly makes my head hurt to try and think that way... I'm so intensively devoted to the academic model of proving your point by citing sources, facts, studies, statistics, etc. from credible and documented sources, etc. What would a speech formulated in that fashion look like? How would it differ from the typical politicians speech? Here's a Kerry speech (and here's a more recent one)... it doesn't sound too bad to me... how would it change? How about an Edwards speech?
--Thomas Leavitt
Here are the first three paragraphs:
There are two fundamentally different kinds of speakers: those who use reasoning, and those who speak from the heart. They reach two different sorts of people, those who understand through reason, and those who understand through the heart. Speakers who aim for the reason are generally found in parliaments, those who speak from the heart speak to the people.
The speaker who uses reason, if he is to be effective, must command a wide range of statistical and factual material. He must be a master of dialectic as the pianist is master of the keyboard. With ice cold logic, he develops his line of thinking and draws irrefutable conclusions. He is most effective with people who work primarily or exclusively with reason. Big and compelling successes are denied him. He does not understand how to fire up the masses for a great cause. He is limited to educational discourse. Since he is cold, he leaves his listeners cold. At best he persuades people, but never mobilizes them and sets them marching, regardless of their own ideas or the element of personal risk involved.
The speaker from the heart is different. He may have the skills of the master of reasoning. They are however only tools he uses as a true rhetorical virtuoso. He has abilities not found in the reasoning speaker. He combines clear diction with simple argumentation, and instinct tells him what to say and how to say it. Language is united with ideas. He knows the secret corners and aspects of the mass soul and knows how to reach and touch them. His speeches are masterpieces of declamation. He outlines people and conditions; he inscribes his theses on the tablet of the age; with deep and noble passion he explains the pillars of his world view. His voice reaches out from the depths of his blood into the depths of the souls of his listeners. He brings to expression the secrets of the human soul. He rouses the tired and lazy, fires up the indifferent and the doubting, turns cowards into men and weaklings into heroes.
Does this sound like the difference between right and left in this country?
What tactics do Michael Savage and the rest of the 'wingers and wing nuts filling the AM airwaves use, but those straight out of Goebbel's playbook? These folks don't care about reason, logic... all they care about is provoking a reaction. Who are they most populat with? Folks who don't work primarily with reason (to all appearances, judging by way too many of the emails I get at SavageStupidity.com and other sites). Who do progressives hold up as our models? Thinkers, reasoners, theorists...
I gotta wonder if Goebbels is right, if all our high faltin' liberal thinking is just going to get us nowhere, if we oughta just rip up the playbook and get down and dirty, mix it up in the trenches, appeal to people's primeaval passions and fundamental emotions.
Are any of us capable of that? It certainly makes my head hurt to try and think that way... I'm so intensively devoted to the academic model of proving your point by citing sources, facts, studies, statistics, etc. from credible and documented sources, etc. What would a speech formulated in that fashion look like? How would it differ from the typical politicians speech? Here's a Kerry speech (and here's a more recent one)... it doesn't sound too bad to me... how would it change? How about an Edwards speech?
--Thomas Leavitt
Let's start a list...
I'm going to start a collection of quotes from the media regarding the current administration's policies - ones that, under normal circumsstances, would cause any reader to give pause. The goal here is to help assemble the trees into a forest. If you've got ones of your own to contribute, please post a comment with them (citing source, and a URL if possible).
Here's a couple of examples from articles I recently posted to STF:
"Chambers' departure may not garner the same spotlight as those of former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, but it appears to fall into a similar category: officials who leave or are forced out after questioning Bush administration policies." --Ex-chief of Park Police denounces firing, CNN, Saturday, July 10, 2004
"Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points [regarding the local origin of the guerilla warfare in Iraqi -TL], but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity." --Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought, AP, July 8, 2004
I'm looking for stuff that points to a systematic pattern of behavior by the Bush Administration that is contrary to the expected norm by any administration.
As I come across other items of a similar nature, I'll post them here.
--Thomas Leavitt
Here's a couple of examples from articles I recently posted to STF:
"Chambers' departure may not garner the same spotlight as those of former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, but it appears to fall into a similar category: officials who leave or are forced out after questioning Bush administration policies." --Ex-chief of Park Police denounces firing, CNN, Saturday, July 10, 2004
"Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points [regarding the local origin of the guerilla warfare in Iraqi -TL], but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity." --Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought, AP, July 8, 2004
I'm looking for stuff that points to a systematic pattern of behavior by the Bush Administration that is contrary to the expected norm by any administration.
As I come across other items of a similar nature, I'll post them here.
--Thomas Leavitt
Bush to federal employees: "shut up or lose your job".
[I wonder how many other public employees are on "paid administrative leave" (seven months) for daring to talk to the press, on the record, about a disagreement with Bush Administration policies? Only in the Bush Administration would a law enforcement official be fired as a result of asking for more funding for his or her organization! Wouldn't your average American consider this woman's actions patriotic? -Thomas]
Ex-chief of Park Police denounces firing
Chambers: Administration 'silencing' dissenting views
Saturday, July 10, 2004 Posted: 8:56 PM EDT (0056 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after she was fired, former U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers accused the Bush administration Saturday of silencing dissenting views in the rank and file.
Chambers' departure may not garner the same spotlight as those of former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, but it appears to fall into a similar category: officials who leave or are forced out after questioning Bush administration policies.
[...]
"My professional judgment, based upon 27 years of police service, six years as chief of police, and countless interactions with police professionals across the country, is that we are at a staffing and resource crisis in the United States Park Police -- a crisis that, if allowed to continue, will almost surely result in the loss of life or the destruction of one of our nation's most valued symbols of freedom and democracy," she wrote.
A week earlier, Chambers had spoken with a Washington Post reporter about the budget shortfalls, and the article appeared December 2. Three days later, the chief was on administrative leave.
Chambers said her story effectively put a chill on National Park superintendents who were facing their own shortfalls. She said she has spoken with current officials who know the situation but fear for their jobs.
[...]
--Thomas Leavitt
Ex-chief of Park Police denounces firing
Chambers: Administration 'silencing' dissenting views
Saturday, July 10, 2004 Posted: 8:56 PM EDT (0056 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after she was fired, former U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers accused the Bush administration Saturday of silencing dissenting views in the rank and file.
Chambers' departure may not garner the same spotlight as those of former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, but it appears to fall into a similar category: officials who leave or are forced out after questioning Bush administration policies.
[...]
"My professional judgment, based upon 27 years of police service, six years as chief of police, and countless interactions with police professionals across the country, is that we are at a staffing and resource crisis in the United States Park Police -- a crisis that, if allowed to continue, will almost surely result in the loss of life or the destruction of one of our nation's most valued symbols of freedom and democracy," she wrote.
A week earlier, Chambers had spoken with a Washington Post reporter about the budget shortfalls, and the article appeared December 2. Three days later, the chief was on administrative leave.
Chambers said her story effectively put a chill on National Park superintendents who were facing their own shortfalls. She said she has spoken with current officials who know the situation but fear for their jobs.
[...]
--Thomas Leavitt
Reichskanzlei won't guarantee elections in November
Press Briefing by Dr. Joseph Goebbel:
[O.K., so I'm in a lousy mood.]
--Thomas Leavitt
"Q On Colonel-General von Brauchitsch's security warnings, can the Fuehrer today guarantee the German people that no terrorist attack can upset the German elections this November, that they will go ahead as planned?
DR. GOEBBEL: Ann, I don't think anyone can make guarantees. But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections. I don't know specific information related to election day or any other of the high profile events that we have coming up. What we can guarantee to the German people is that we will continue to take strong steps to make sure that we are doing a better job every day of protecting the fatherland, Heil Hitler!, and enhancing protective measures in certain areas of the country. And we will continue waging the war on communism, on the offensive, to defeat the communists! Heil Hitler! That's what we will continue to do.
These are threats that we need to take seriously, and that's why it's important to keep the German people informed. Heil Hitler!"
[O.K., so I'm in a lousy mood.]
--Thomas Leavitt
7/10/2004
NRA vs. Hunters
NathanNewman.org picked up an interesting split forming between the NRA and hunters. Go read.
A Question for Kerry
The Bush campaign said this in an ad back in March:
My question is, why doesn't Kerry come out and say that Bush is LYING? I mean, look straight at the camera, use that word, make it a big challenge. Obviously this has not been effectively answered, since Bush still feels free to say this. And obviously this is a huge opening for Kerry to challenge Bush on this issue. BUSH SAID IT HIMSELF YESTERDAY.
What Washington campaign strategery is going on with the Kerry campaign, allowing Bush to get away with repeating that Kerry is against funding our troops? Is it the usual Washington Democrat cowering, because they are afraid that Rush Limbaugh will say bad things about them if they fight back?
Bush personally lied about Kerry when he said that Kerry is against funding our troops in the battlefield. Kerry continues to let him get away with this. This makes Kerry look weak, and Bush look strong. AND IT IMPLIES THAT BUSH IS TELLING THE TRUTH!
Kerry should say Bush is lying and that he will not tolerate Bush lying about THIS. Especially not THIS.
What is Kerry afraid of? That Rush might say something bad about him?
Update - Kerry did say this:
NASCAR-dad-style.
"The 30-second ad labels Kerry "wrong on defense" and says the Massachusetts senator did not support bills that would have ensured troops had body armor and earned higher combat pay, and that would have given reservists and their families better health care."Bush is STILL saying this:
"On issue after issue, from funding our troops who are on the battlefield, to involving parents in important decisions of their minor daughters, to supporting faith-based and community organizations that are helping those in need, the senator is out of step with the mainstream values that are so important to our country."Bush himself said this.
My question is, why doesn't Kerry come out and say that Bush is LYING? I mean, look straight at the camera, use that word, make it a big challenge. Obviously this has not been effectively answered, since Bush still feels free to say this. And obviously this is a huge opening for Kerry to challenge Bush on this issue. BUSH SAID IT HIMSELF YESTERDAY.
What Washington campaign strategery is going on with the Kerry campaign, allowing Bush to get away with repeating that Kerry is against funding our troops? Is it the usual Washington Democrat cowering, because they are afraid that Rush Limbaugh will say bad things about them if they fight back?
Bush personally lied about Kerry when he said that Kerry is against funding our troops in the battlefield. Kerry continues to let him get away with this. This makes Kerry look weak, and Bush look strong. AND IT IMPLIES THAT BUSH IS TELLING THE TRUTH!
Kerry should say Bush is lying and that he will not tolerate Bush lying about THIS. Especially not THIS.
What is Kerry afraid of? That Rush might say something bad about him?
Update - Kerry did say this:
"The value of truth is one of the most central values in America and this administration has violated it", Kerry said in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Friday. "Their values system is distorted and not based on truth."and this
"We have not stood up and attacked our opponents in personal ways," Kerry said.And that is my point. The first is said Kerry-style. Haughty. My point is that the particular people that Bush is playing to with his accusation are even MORE turned off to Kerry by this kind of response. Kerry should look straight into the camera and say that Bush is LYING, and lying about supporting the troops is too important to allow the miserable coward to get away with, and he'd better stop it.
NASCAR-dad-style.
Questions at The Left Coaster, Too
The Left Coaster: Will Bush/Cheney Use Terrorism Once Again For Political Gain?:
We're ALL wearing tin foil hats, now.
"So it should be troubling to see that Ted Olson is leaving his job as Bush’s Solicitor General to return to his law practice (the same firm from which he argued Bush’s case to shut down the recount). But note from this Washington Post piece today that both Olson and Miguel Estrada are working at the same firm, and in the Crisis Management team and constitutional law area of the firm. Are they getting ready their arguments for a Supreme Court hearing to suspend the election and seek extraordinary powers for the Executive Branch in a time of national emergency this fall?"My comment: "Is it that a terrorist attack might happen - or that a fanatical CHRISTIAN is going to be talked into driving a truck full of explosives into the Dem. convention, to save The One Chosen By GOD from the Liberal Evildoers?"
We're ALL wearing tin foil hats, now.
A "See the Forest" Exercise
OK class, here's a classic exercise in seeing the forest -- seeing the big picture and ignoring the distractions. From today's news, Bush snubs NAACP, cites leaders' remarks.
Trees -- distractions:
So, are we going to get distracted and argue about whether the NAACP is mean to the poor guy? Or are we going to ignore the cover story and see what's going on here. And that is that this President considers himself to be the President of The Party. Everyone else can, as Vice President Dick Cheney says, ... well, you know what he says.
And, of course, in ANY story about - or action by - the Bush administration, there are the lies:
Trees -- distractions:
"President Bush ... said Friday he did so because of harsh statements about him by leaders of the venerable civil rights group."Forest -- big picture:
"He is the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the group."He also refuses to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus.
So, are we going to get distracted and argue about whether the NAACP is mean to the poor guy? Or are we going to ignore the cover story and see what's going on here. And that is that this President considers himself to be the President of The Party. Everyone else can, as Vice President Dick Cheney says, ... well, you know what he says.
And, of course, in ANY story about - or action by - the Bush administration, there are the lies:
"White House officials initially said scheduling conflicts prevented Bush from making the journey to Philadelphia or addressing the conference via satellite, as he did Thursday to the League of United Latin American Citizens convention San Antonio."
Election futures market, trial run
OK, here it is. I am willing to bet five different people $10 that this fall, one of the following will take place:
1. The voting doesn't take place as scheduled in one or more states, or the votes are not counted.
2. Kerry is elected, but is not able to take office as scheduled in January.
3. The election is decided by some sort of borderline-legal fiat (as in 2000).
4. Many in the conservative movement, including some in significant official positions, refuse to accept the legitimacy of President-elect Kerry.
I'll keep lowering the odds every week until I get five takers. (Eventually we'll have to choose a judge for #3 and #4, which might end up being judgment calls.)
Any takers at 1,000-1: my $10 against your $10,000? Easy money, guys!
My definitive bet is here.
1. The voting doesn't take place as scheduled in one or more states, or the votes are not counted.
2. Kerry is elected, but is not able to take office as scheduled in January.
3. The election is decided by some sort of borderline-legal fiat (as in 2000).
4. Many in the conservative movement, including some in significant official positions, refuse to accept the legitimacy of President-elect Kerry.
I'll keep lowering the odds every week until I get five takers. (Eventually we'll have to choose a judge for #3 and #4, which might end up being judgment calls.)
Any takers at 1,000-1: my $10 against your $10,000? Easy money, guys!
My definitive bet is here.
7/09/2004
Will there be an Election? (Part III)
OK, here come the clarifications and waffling:
My point earlier was not to predict a dire event. What I was saying was that, to begin with, we need to shoot down a raft of trial balloons. We have to get the commitment that McClellan was not willing to make: that we're going to have an election this fall even if there's a terrorist attack. In Israel the elections go ahead regardless, and we should follow their model on this.
Second, we have to get a public concession from everyone that if Kerry is elected, the election is still legitimate -- regardless of the circumstances of his election. The thinking behind David Brooks' column delegitimizing the Spanish election has to be publicly rejected.
Third, the Democrats have to suck up their guts and get the message out that next time, we're going to demand that things be done right. The Brooks Brothers goon squads and the Scalia court cannot be allowed to steal another election.
And my fourth point is just to say that I do indeed believe, based on what happened in 2000 and what I've seen of this administration since then, that the Bush team is capable of anything.
One correspondent offered to bet me $100 that the election would take place as scheduled this fall. Since I had never predicted that it wouldn't -- what I did was to send out a warning and propose preventative action -- his response was not completely appropriate.
But it got me thinking. My feeling is that a 10-1 bet against the election taking place wouldn't be a good one, but that a 100-1 bet probably would be. Perhaps this is a time to start a futures market.
My point earlier was not to predict a dire event. What I was saying was that, to begin with, we need to shoot down a raft of trial balloons. We have to get the commitment that McClellan was not willing to make: that we're going to have an election this fall even if there's a terrorist attack. In Israel the elections go ahead regardless, and we should follow their model on this.
Second, we have to get a public concession from everyone that if Kerry is elected, the election is still legitimate -- regardless of the circumstances of his election. The thinking behind David Brooks' column delegitimizing the Spanish election has to be publicly rejected.
Third, the Democrats have to suck up their guts and get the message out that next time, we're going to demand that things be done right. The Brooks Brothers goon squads and the Scalia court cannot be allowed to steal another election.
And my fourth point is just to say that I do indeed believe, based on what happened in 2000 and what I've seen of this administration since then, that the Bush team is capable of anything.
One correspondent offered to bet me $100 that the election would take place as scheduled this fall. Since I had never predicted that it wouldn't -- what I did was to send out a warning and propose preventative action -- his response was not completely appropriate.
But it got me thinking. My feeling is that a 10-1 bet against the election taking place wouldn't be a good one, but that a 100-1 bet probably would be. Perhaps this is a time to start a futures market.
Crooked Timber: At a suitable level of abstraction ...
Crooked Timber: At a suitable level of abstraction ...:
"The big advantage of the "he's implying this without saying it" critique, and the main reason I use I myself so often, is that since he isn't saying it, you can chosse for yourself what you want to claim he's implying."
I think that we should have a Presidential election this year
Note - see also Election futures market, trial run, and Election Futures Market, II
While we're working to win the election, we should also takes steps to make it more likely that we'll have one. There have been lots of trial balloons put up about cancelling an election in the event of terrorism, and lots of suggestions that al Qaeda plans to disrupt the election, and suggestions that al Qaeda wants Kerry to win. Furthermore, even without al Qaeda, the Diebold mess is a disaster waiting to happen, as is the wrongful disenfranchisement of supposed felons in Florida and probably elsewhere.
Democrats should put the Republicans and the media on notice that this time around we will fight just as hard as the Republicans do. We should assemble squads of staffers to go to problem areas to agitate if necessary -- just as the Republicans did in Florida last time. Everyone should know that we will not accept an unfair count this year, and that we are prepared to respond if we don't get one.
This has to go beyond one funky little website. The idea has to circulate widely, and ultimately elected officials and Party leaders will have to be involved. If we allow the election to be stolen again, it will be.
(Be sure to also read Dave Johnson's post immediately below this one: "White House Won't Guarantee Elections in November."
"It was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre..... But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable."
(David Brooks, March 16, 2004)
"The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission. Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel."
(AP, June 25, 2004)
"A steady stream of intelligence, including nuggets from militant-linked Web sites, indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections, federal officials said Thursday."
(AP, July 9, 2004)
"Osama bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies instead. The al Qaeda/Ba'ath Party strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at core, a political one. They seek not just to pull Iraq into chaos, but to defeat President Bush as well."
("Terrorists for Kerry", Dick Morris, NY Post, June 5, 2004)
"'While a political resolution to the election might not be quick and might be a brawl, Souter argued that the nation would still accept it,' Kaplan wrote. Souter tried desperately to get Kennedy to vote with the minority, according to the book, but he wouldn't flip. 'He thought the trauma of more recounts, more fighting — more politics — was too much for the country to endure,' Kaplan wrote." (Kennedy had been intimidated specifically by the "Brooks Brothers Riot" of paid Republican staffers which ended the recount in Miami-Dade County; that was the only actual violence that there had been, though a number of Republicans had stated their unwillingness to accept a result which made would put Gore in the Presidency).
(Story: AP/CBS, Sept 10, 2001)
"Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a die-hard GOP donor who vowed to deliver his state for Bush next year."
(Salon, Sept. 23, 2003)
While we're working to win the election, we should also takes steps to make it more likely that we'll have one. There have been lots of trial balloons put up about cancelling an election in the event of terrorism, and lots of suggestions that al Qaeda plans to disrupt the election, and suggestions that al Qaeda wants Kerry to win. Furthermore, even without al Qaeda, the Diebold mess is a disaster waiting to happen, as is the wrongful disenfranchisement of supposed felons in Florida and probably elsewhere.
Democrats should put the Republicans and the media on notice that this time around we will fight just as hard as the Republicans do. We should assemble squads of staffers to go to problem areas to agitate if necessary -- just as the Republicans did in Florida last time. Everyone should know that we will not accept an unfair count this year, and that we are prepared to respond if we don't get one.
This has to go beyond one funky little website. The idea has to circulate widely, and ultimately elected officials and Party leaders will have to be involved. If we allow the election to be stolen again, it will be.
(Be sure to also read Dave Johnson's post immediately below this one: "White House Won't Guarantee Elections in November."
"It was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre..... But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable."
(David Brooks, March 16, 2004)
"The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission. Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel."
(AP, June 25, 2004)
"A steady stream of intelligence, including nuggets from militant-linked Web sites, indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections, federal officials said Thursday."
(AP, July 9, 2004)
"Osama bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies instead. The al Qaeda/Ba'ath Party strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at core, a political one. They seek not just to pull Iraq into chaos, but to defeat President Bush as well."
("Terrorists for Kerry", Dick Morris, NY Post, June 5, 2004)
"'While a political resolution to the election might not be quick and might be a brawl, Souter argued that the nation would still accept it,' Kaplan wrote. Souter tried desperately to get Kennedy to vote with the minority, according to the book, but he wouldn't flip. 'He thought the trauma of more recounts, more fighting — more politics — was too much for the country to endure,' Kaplan wrote." (Kennedy had been intimidated specifically by the "Brooks Brothers Riot" of paid Republican staffers which ended the recount in Miami-Dade County; that was the only actual violence that there had been, though a number of Republicans had stated their unwillingness to accept a result which made would put Gore in the Presidency).
(Story: AP/CBS, Sept 10, 2001)
"Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a die-hard GOP donor who vowed to deliver his state for Bush next year."
(Salon, Sept. 23, 2003)
White House Won't Guarantee Elections in November
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan:
"Q On Ridge's security warnings, can the President today guarantee Americans that no terrorist attack can upset the U.S. elections this November, that they will go ahead as planned?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ann, I don't think anyone can make guarantees. But the full intention is to move forward and hold those elections. I don't know specific information related to election day or any other of the high profile events that we have coming up. What we can guarantee to the American people is that we will continue to take strong steps to make sure that we are doing a better job every day of protecting the homeland and enhancing protective measures in certain areas of the country. And we will continue waging the war on terrorism, on the offensive, to defeat the terrorists. That's what we will continue to do.
These are threats that we need to take seriously, and that's why it's important to keep the American people informed. "
Blog Hero Award - Brad DeLong
A much-coveted Seeing the Forest Blog Hero Award to Brad DeLong:
"And this whole 'working for the government' shtick.... On my way in, I passed local government at work: three police cars in front of a house, a serious road repair and reconstruction crew, and our local public school. It looked like they were all working hard. And I'm not working for them: they are working for me. "Good for Brad.
Destruction of military records enrages White House.
The White House responded furiously when it was found that some of Bush's long-sought military service records had been destroyed. These records would have verified beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush had completed his military service satisfactorily.
"We will get to the bottom of this if we have to put the whole FBI on the case. Just who destroyed those records? This cannot be an accident -- it had to have been someone who was trying to harm our President during this election year", said Scott McClellan, in an unaccustomed burst of frankness. "While we all know that there never was a real problem, we were counting on those records to lay the issue to rest for good."
In other news, O.J. reports that he's still looking for the real killer.
Pentagon reports that microfilm records of Bush's service were destroyed (July 7, 2004)
"Associated Press Assistant General Counsel Dave Tomlin told me yesterday that AP reporters began trying to get the documents back in February, but hit roadblock after roadblock. Tomlin said the AP has been informed that the microfilm in question does indeed exist. Tomlin said that because paper records can vanish and be tampered with, the microfilm "would erase any questions". (June 25, 2004)
"We will get to the bottom of this if we have to put the whole FBI on the case. Just who destroyed those records? This cannot be an accident -- it had to have been someone who was trying to harm our President during this election year", said Scott McClellan, in an unaccustomed burst of frankness. "While we all know that there never was a real problem, we were counting on those records to lay the issue to rest for good."
In other news, O.J. reports that he's still looking for the real killer.
Pentagon reports that microfilm records of Bush's service were destroyed (July 7, 2004)
"Associated Press Assistant General Counsel Dave Tomlin told me yesterday that AP reporters began trying to get the documents back in February, but hit roadblock after roadblock. Tomlin said the AP has been informed that the microfilm in question does indeed exist. Tomlin said that because paper records can vanish and be tampered with, the microfilm "would erase any questions". (June 25, 2004)
STF'rs ancient and creaky (at least relative to the rest of the blogosphere)?
According to an article on SiliconValley.com, "Teenagers turn Internet blogs into a new social scene where they can hang out, flirt and share their thoughts":
I think this is the survey in question: "The Blogging Iceberg - Of 4.12 Million Hosted Weblogs, Most Little Seen, Quickly Abandoned"
Do the math: that means that of us over thirty (and I'm pretty sure that this includes all four of us writing for STF) consist of approximately 8% of the total blogosphere. We're dinosaurs. :)
In terms of sheer numbers, the blogosphere is dominated by teens and young adults. According to the research firm Perseus, 52 percent of all bloggers are teenagers, and an additional 40 percent are in their 20s.
I think this is the survey in question: "The Blogging Iceberg - Of 4.12 Million Hosted Weblogs, Most Little Seen, Quickly Abandoned"
Do the math: that means that of us over thirty (and I'm pretty sure that this includes all four of us writing for STF) consist of approximately 8% of the total blogosphere. We're dinosaurs. :)
7/08/2004
"political opposition from the Bush administration"
AP has an article entitled "Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought".
Highlights:
A few excerpts:
[...]
[...]
These is seriously disturbing information. The President and his closest refusing to even acknowledge information provided by the military and intelligence communities about the true nature of the conflict in Iraq, for purely political reasons -- the effect of which is to undermine the conduct of the war (or, it could be argued, a peaceful resolution). You might even say that they have effectively provoked elements of the American government to engage in a "rebellion" of their own! What else can you call it when people are forced to resort to anonymous interviews with the press in order to get their point of view heard? Makes me wonder where this could eventually lead...
--Thomas Leavitt
Highlights:
- this is not a "Jihadist" war
- the folks fighting it are not foreign to Iraq
- the primary objection of these folks is to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq
- there are a lot more of them (up to 20,000 full and part time fighters) than we've been lead to believe
- the fighters consist of a much broader cross-section of Iraqi society than Baathists alone
- the official line from the Bush Administration has nothing to do with reality (but we knew that, didn't we?)
A few excerpts:
The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state.
[...]
Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners — usually al-Zarqawi.
The official said many car bombings bore the "tradecraft" of Saddam's former secret police and were aimed at intimidating Iraq's new security services.
Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points, but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.
Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists.
Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops.
[...]
These is seriously disturbing information. The President and his closest refusing to even acknowledge information provided by the military and intelligence communities about the true nature of the conflict in Iraq, for purely political reasons -- the effect of which is to undermine the conduct of the war (or, it could be argued, a peaceful resolution). You might even say that they have effectively provoked elements of the American government to engage in a "rebellion" of their own! What else can you call it when people are forced to resort to anonymous interviews with the press in order to get their point of view heard? Makes me wonder where this could eventually lead...
--Thomas Leavitt
Ken Lay : Bush's best friend
Enron's Kenneth Lay, just indicted for fraud and conspiracy, was George W. Bush's biggest supporter over the years. I've gathered a lot of stuff about Bush, Lay, and Enron here.
AP, today:
US President George W. Bush walks away from a briefing with the media, refusing to answer questions after he was asked about Enron and the reported indictment of former CEO Kenneth Lay, who was a close adviser and fund-raiser for Bush and his father, earning him the presidential nickname of 'Kenny Boy.'
Who's Ken Lay? Bush barely even knew him.
A video exists of both Bushes at a wild Enron party.
Facsimiles of the Bush-Lay correspondence.
What Lay knows about Bush.
The Financial Times on the Lay indictment.
Forbes: Lay is doomed.
Forbes: Lay fights back.
The Enron people seemed to enjoy burning "Grandma Millie".
Jason Leopold on the "Grandma Millie" tapes.
Much more on Enron and "Grandma Millie".
HISTORY
Rep. Waxman was already on the case in 2001.
In 2002 Waxman was stonewalled when he tried to get information.
Democrats had tried to slow down the deregulatory rush leading to the Enron collapse.
In 2002 the Republicans tried to blame Clinton, of course.
Blaming Clinton II.
Sam Parry's Enron summary.
COLLECTIONS
The Houston Chronicle's collected Enron coverage -- comprehensive and searchable.
Enron Chronology.
Bear Left's collection of Enron Links.
AP, today:
US President George W. Bush walks away from a briefing with the media, refusing to answer questions after he was asked about Enron and the reported indictment of former CEO Kenneth Lay, who was a close adviser and fund-raiser for Bush and his father, earning him the presidential nickname of 'Kenny Boy.'
Who's Ken Lay? Bush barely even knew him.
A video exists of both Bushes at a wild Enron party.
Facsimiles of the Bush-Lay correspondence.
What Lay knows about Bush.
The Financial Times on the Lay indictment.
Forbes: Lay is doomed.
Forbes: Lay fights back.
The Enron people seemed to enjoy burning "Grandma Millie".
Jason Leopold on the "Grandma Millie" tapes.
Much more on Enron and "Grandma Millie".
HISTORY
Rep. Waxman was already on the case in 2001.
In 2002 Waxman was stonewalled when he tried to get information.
Democrats had tried to slow down the deregulatory rush leading to the Enron collapse.
In 2002 the Republicans tried to blame Clinton, of course.
Blaming Clinton II.
Sam Parry's Enron summary.
COLLECTIONS
The Houston Chronicle's collected Enron coverage -- comprehensive and searchable.
Enron Chronology.
Bear Left's collection of Enron Links.
Timing II
As I said before, in politics timing is everything!
Watching CNN, the news of this new "terror threat" followed a new Bush commercial, talking about the terror threat and Bush's magnificent God-like leadership, and INTERRUPTED a story about Edwards' work for injured victims before running for the Senate.
The Bush campaign strategy is becomming clearer and clearer. Ken Lay indicted just as Edwards is chosen. (Don't expect a conviction.) Expect big news during the Democratic convention. And, of course, in October watch your backs.
Watching CNN, the news of this new "terror threat" followed a new Bush commercial, talking about the terror threat and Bush's magnificent God-like leadership, and INTERRUPTED a story about Edwards' work for injured victims before running for the Senate.
The Bush campaign strategy is becomming clearer and clearer. Ken Lay indicted just as Edwards is chosen. (Don't expect a conviction.) Expect big news during the Democratic convention. And, of course, in October watch your backs.
Bush declares Edwards "unqualified"
No, that's not an "Onion" headline.
Has there ever been a less-qualified President than George W. Bush? He spent a couple of years as the governor of a weak-governor state, he was a silent partner in successful baseball franchise, and he started several business ventures which his father's friends ended up having to bail out. That's his whole record, unless you count giving up booze, dope and whores when he turned forty.
I really don't know much about Coolidge or Harding, but every President after them had had quite an extensive political or administrative career by the time they took office. Bush even makes Reagan look experienced.
The boggling thing is that they had Bush deliver the message himself. If it had been Cheney, people might not have made the connection.
Has there ever been a less-qualified President than George W. Bush? He spent a couple of years as the governor of a weak-governor state, he was a silent partner in successful baseball franchise, and he started several business ventures which his father's friends ended up having to bail out. That's his whole record, unless you count giving up booze, dope and whores when he turned forty.
I really don't know much about Coolidge or Harding, but every President after them had had quite an extensive political or administrative career by the time they took office. Bush even makes Reagan look experienced.
The boggling thing is that they had Bush deliver the message himself. If it had been Cheney, people might not have made the connection.
7/07/2004
Michael Moore says, "Elect a Green"
"OK, I'VE SEEN THE MOVIE NOW WHAT DO I DO?"
last on the list:
Elect a Green
Sometimes when the Democrats suck, they really, really suck. And sometimes, you gotta teach 'em a lesson. And hey, it's not like the Republicans would be overjoyed either. We can crack the two party system.
***
Michael then goes on to endorse Pat Gray, who is running against Tom Lantos, a conservative, pro-war Democrat in the SF Bay Area that I've heard people of all stripes describe as "horrid", and Bob Kinsey, who took on Republican Marilyn Musgrave (sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the House) after Colorado's state Democratic Party organization wrote off the race as unwinnable and appeared likely to not even bother fielding a candidate!*
Moore describes these two races thusly:
"Here are some elections where the Democrats have all but surrendered to their opponents or are equally conservative, leaving you the option of voting your conscience without feeling guilty."
Do you buy that? If not, why - and at exactly what point does this logic become valid (if ever)?
--Thomas Leavitt
* Here's a case of the Democrat's "spoiling" a race, and "splitting" the vote... Kinsey was doing well enough that local Democratic clubs were even inviting him to speak at party events and trying to discourage the state from running a Democratic candidate. So what do they do? Convince a reluctant retread (he lost by 25,000 votes last go around) to run again.
last on the list:
Elect a Green
Sometimes when the Democrats suck, they really, really suck. And sometimes, you gotta teach 'em a lesson. And hey, it's not like the Republicans would be overjoyed either. We can crack the two party system.
***
Michael then goes on to endorse Pat Gray, who is running against Tom Lantos, a conservative, pro-war Democrat in the SF Bay Area that I've heard people of all stripes describe as "horrid", and Bob Kinsey, who took on Republican Marilyn Musgrave (sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the House) after Colorado's state Democratic Party organization wrote off the race as unwinnable and appeared likely to not even bother fielding a candidate!*
Moore describes these two races thusly:
"Here are some elections where the Democrats have all but surrendered to their opponents or are equally conservative, leaving you the option of voting your conscience without feeling guilty."
Do you buy that? If not, why - and at exactly what point does this logic become valid (if ever)?
--Thomas Leavitt
* Here's a case of the Democrat's "spoiling" a race, and "splitting" the vote... Kinsey was doing well enough that local Democratic clubs were even inviting him to speak at party events and trying to discourage the state from running a Democratic candidate. So what do they do? Convince a reluctant retread (he lost by 25,000 votes last go around) to run again.
Over at Drudge
Headline: Couple have sex on stage during concert ** Warning Graphic Photos**...
Do you think it got any hits?
And no, I WON'T provide a link to Drudge.
Do you think it got any hits?
And no, I WON'T provide a link to Drudge.
Hamilton Burger doesn't like Kerry/Edwards
The legal profession as a whole always bats .500. There are two sides to every legal case, and one side always loses.
The way these statistics worked themselves out, Perry Mason won every single time, and Hamilton Burger never did. (What are the chances of that!)
One imagines that Burger did not like Perry Mason very much. And a lot of corporate lawyers don't like John Edwards, either. Strange, eh?
Perry Mason vs. Hamilton Burger: let's run with it!
Kerry/Edwards vs. all the fat, whining corporate lawyers in the world.
A great big cold greasy overcooked hamiltonburger on a stale bun doused with rancid ketchup sitting out overnight for the cockroaches..... well, maybe I've had a little too much coffee.
The way these statistics worked themselves out, Perry Mason won every single time, and Hamilton Burger never did. (What are the chances of that!)
One imagines that Burger did not like Perry Mason very much. And a lot of corporate lawyers don't like John Edwards, either. Strange, eh?
Perry Mason vs. Hamilton Burger: let's run with it!
Kerry/Edwards vs. all the fat, whining corporate lawyers in the world.
A great big cold greasy overcooked hamiltonburger on a stale bun doused with rancid ketchup sitting out overnight for the cockroaches..... well, maybe I've had a little too much coffee.
Two Wrongs Make a Right
I'm a big "two wrongs make a right" guy. So let me explain.
First of all, Moore is less dishonest than Bush and Cheney themselves are, and much less dishonest than the Republican surrogates who kept the Clinton impeachment going. He's got a few howlers in there (statistics, dates) and a few stretches (Afghan pipeline). But he doesn't have any equivalent of "The Clinton Death List" or "Hitlery the lesbian killed her lover Vince Foster."
And remember -- that stuff wasn't just seen in marginal sources; it percolated up to Safire, the Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, et. al. Of those involved, almost no one has been punished or repudiated. The most vicious surrogates (e.g. Ann Coulter, Gary Aldrich) are still well-paid and hard at work. Pat Robertson remains a central Republican figure. And Newt Gingrich, who I think played the biggest single role in the debasing of American political discourse, revolutionized American politics and ended up as Speaker of the House.
To return to Moore: as I've said, Moore's film is impressionistic and insinuating, and does not make a logical, factual argument the way a Chomsky film, for example, would have (and in fact, the ZNET people have already denounced it). But to me this is a good thing. Moore's film reaches people whom wouldn't otherwise have been reached, and whom the Republicans have been flim-flamming for decades. The main reason for the screams of rage you're hearing is the fact that Moore's film has been very effective.
There is such a thing as "prevailing community standards" or "the way the game is played", and Moore's work is comfortably within those standards. These have been so low for so long that almost nothing could really violate them except physical brownshirt attacks on the opposition.
Now let's try another way of making my point: who has standing to protest against Moore's movie? I don't see how any Republican can say anything. During the worst days of Gingrich, when the Republicans used the most abhorrent tactics to gain control of the House and the Senate, no major Republican (except Jeffords) ever stood up and said "This has to stop". Not all of them played the game, but only a single Senator ever publicly opted out.
The same goes for media people who helped the Republican slime operations along, or who sat quietly and watched. That means almost all of them, including the SCL New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN. All of them have relayed Republican smears and lies, usually without ever retracting them, and their protests against Republican dishonesty, inaccuracy, and viciousness have been extraordinary feeble and few.
That leaves the nice, high-minded liberals who've been slamming Moore. Maybe some of them are as good as they think they are. But there's a big pre-defeated anti-populist streak in the Democratic Party, and I think that that's what we're looking at here.
High-mindedness has not worked. Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore all stated their intention of talking sense to America and treating Americans as adults, and they all lost. The impressionistic Boston Harbor / Morning in American / Willie Horton strategy has been triumphant. (Clinton was just a speed-bump, and he gave away half the farm anyway).
The uproar about civility, polarization, and "lies" only started when Democrats started fighting back by playing the game that the Republicans have been playing for ten years or more. It's really too late for the bought, intimidated referees to say anything. And frankly, I think that the high-minded liberals should be ever-so-politely elbowed out of the way.
Only after the defeated Republicans have been forced to renounce their nastiest operatives should we start talking about civility.
(Developed from a comment on Matt Yglesias. 10:42 PDT: Please forget earlier premature postings.)
First of all, Moore is less dishonest than Bush and Cheney themselves are, and much less dishonest than the Republican surrogates who kept the Clinton impeachment going. He's got a few howlers in there (statistics, dates) and a few stretches (Afghan pipeline). But he doesn't have any equivalent of "The Clinton Death List" or "Hitlery the lesbian killed her lover Vince Foster."
And remember -- that stuff wasn't just seen in marginal sources; it percolated up to Safire, the Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, et. al. Of those involved, almost no one has been punished or repudiated. The most vicious surrogates (e.g. Ann Coulter, Gary Aldrich) are still well-paid and hard at work. Pat Robertson remains a central Republican figure. And Newt Gingrich, who I think played the biggest single role in the debasing of American political discourse, revolutionized American politics and ended up as Speaker of the House.
To return to Moore: as I've said, Moore's film is impressionistic and insinuating, and does not make a logical, factual argument the way a Chomsky film, for example, would have (and in fact, the ZNET people have already denounced it). But to me this is a good thing. Moore's film reaches people whom wouldn't otherwise have been reached, and whom the Republicans have been flim-flamming for decades. The main reason for the screams of rage you're hearing is the fact that Moore's film has been very effective.
There is such a thing as "prevailing community standards" or "the way the game is played", and Moore's work is comfortably within those standards. These have been so low for so long that almost nothing could really violate them except physical brownshirt attacks on the opposition.
Now let's try another way of making my point: who has standing to protest against Moore's movie? I don't see how any Republican can say anything. During the worst days of Gingrich, when the Republicans used the most abhorrent tactics to gain control of the House and the Senate, no major Republican (except Jeffords) ever stood up and said "This has to stop". Not all of them played the game, but only a single Senator ever publicly opted out.
The same goes for media people who helped the Republican slime operations along, or who sat quietly and watched. That means almost all of them, including the SCL New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN. All of them have relayed Republican smears and lies, usually without ever retracting them, and their protests against Republican dishonesty, inaccuracy, and viciousness have been extraordinary feeble and few.
That leaves the nice, high-minded liberals who've been slamming Moore. Maybe some of them are as good as they think they are. But there's a big pre-defeated anti-populist streak in the Democratic Party, and I think that that's what we're looking at here.
High-mindedness has not worked. Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore all stated their intention of talking sense to America and treating Americans as adults, and they all lost. The impressionistic Boston Harbor / Morning in American / Willie Horton strategy has been triumphant. (Clinton was just a speed-bump, and he gave away half the farm anyway).
The uproar about civility, polarization, and "lies" only started when Democrats started fighting back by playing the game that the Republicans have been playing for ten years or more. It's really too late for the bought, intimidated referees to say anything. And frankly, I think that the high-minded liberals should be ever-so-politely elbowed out of the way.
Only after the defeated Republicans have been forced to renounce their nastiest operatives should we start talking about civility.
(Developed from a comment on Matt Yglesias. 10:42 PDT: Please forget earlier premature postings.)
7/06/2004
$10,000 Reward For Factual Errors in F-911?
Maybe soon. CNN.com - The world according to Michael:
"He also hired the former chief of fact checking at the New Yorker magazine to comb the film for inaccuracies. 'There's lots of disagreement with my analysis of these facts or my opinion based on the facts. But,' he insists, 'there is not a single factual error in the movie. I'm thinking of offering a $10,000 reward for anyone that can find a single fact that's wrong.'"Analysis, opinion - but no factual errors.
Cnn Says Kerry Lies
I just got to the hotel - and I do have a broadband connection!
So I turn on CNN Headline News, and they just said that Kerry lied by saying he waited until today to make up his mind. 6:06pm Boston time.
So I turn on CNN Headline News, and they just said that Kerry lied by saying he waited until today to make up his mind. 6:06pm Boston time.
The Right Guy -- Gone For A Few Days
Kerry picked the right guy.
I'll be gone for three days, to speak at the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) convention in Boston. So I probably won't be posting, unless the hotel has a broadband line in the room. (Kerry is scheduled to speak, too. Maybe that will change...)
I'll post my remarks after I get back so you, too, can know what trial lawyers know!
I'll be gone for three days, to speak at the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) convention in Boston. So I probably won't be posting, unless the hotel has a broadband line in the room. (Kerry is scheduled to speak, too. Maybe that will change...)
I'll post my remarks after I get back so you, too, can know what trial lawyers know!
7/05/2004
Go Get Mad
Here's a right-winger's web page saying that Moore's movies is full of lies, Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911, and here is the first in the list of lies:
Guess what, this guy is a professional. The end of his web page says:
So go get mad and learn what the Right is about.
"Fahrenheit 911 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown the Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida."Well, do you know ANYONE who thought this showed Gore "celebrating his victory in Florida?"
Guess what, this guy is a professional. The end of his web page says:
"Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute and an NRO columnist."The Independence Institute is funded by Coors and Koch, AND the guy works for National Review.
So go get mad and learn what the Right is about.
Another Letter-to-the-Editor Complaining About Unions
This is from a a letter-to-the-editor today, titled, How about real world pensions?,
HEY BONEHEAD! Instead of complaining about how people in unions have it so much better than other workers, and saying they shouldn't, WHY DIDN'T YOU JOIN A UNION!
Bonehead.
"[ . . . ] I have worked as an electrical engineer for over 40 years and when I retired a year ago it was without any pension and just my 401(k) money that I had saved. I would love to be living now with 85 percent of my salary every month.I thought engineers were supposed to be smart.
The pensions these people get are just called greed."
HEY BONEHEAD! Instead of complaining about how people in unions have it so much better than other workers, and saying they shouldn't, WHY DIDN'T YOU JOIN A UNION!
Bonehead.
Your Tax Dollars Promoting Bush!
I came across this today, while looking for budget documents that will tell me for the amount of interest that we pay on the national debt each year. (They have made this number very hard to find, and now report "net" interest, which subtracts all the interest the government receives from all sources, which makes the impact of Bush's borrowing look less severe.)
Here is the headline at the House Budget Committee's web page. Tell me if you think this is using our tax dollars to POLITICIZE our government, to the benefit on one political party? House Budget Committee: "Yes, America is Better Off Today."
When you click this link, you get this:
Here is the headline at the House Budget Committee's web page. Tell me if you think this is using our tax dollars to POLITICIZE our government, to the benefit on one political party? House Budget Committee: "Yes, America is Better Off Today."
When you click this link, you get this:
Yes, America is Better Off TodayThis is entirely a (dishonest) campaign document, posted on a government website, created by a Congressional committee. Someone should go to jail for this.Today – in 2004 – we are better off than we were at the end of 2000.
Homeland Security: Since 2000, we've greatly strengthened our homeland security. Today, America is better prepared to prevent, disrupt, and respond to terrorist attacks than ever before.
We've more than doubled funding for Homeland Security since September 11th, 2001.
We created the Department of Homeland Security.
With the improved resources, we've increased presence at key foreign ports, improved visa and inspection processes, strengthened seaport security, and improved security technology at airports and border crossings.
The BioWatch program now protects many large U.S. cities by monitoring the air for biological agents that could be released by terrorists. Additionally, Project BioShield is developing and acquiring more advanced vaccines and treatments for biological agents.
Over 500,000 first responders have been trained in weapons of mass destruction awareness and response since September 11th, 2001.
Defense: Over the past three years, we've made great strides in correcting the defense deficit begun in the early 1990s, and continuing , including:
Increasing the Department of Defense annual budget by over $110 billion to prosecute the global war on terrorism and carry out military transformation.
Greatly improving military quality of life issues: we've increased basic pay alone by 21 percent. Out of pocket housing expenses for the troops will reduce to zero in 2005.
International Terrorists on Defense – Not Offense: In 2000, the Taliban and Saddam were free to aid international terrorism through their despotic regimes.
Today, the Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein no longer rules Iraq. These former sources of international terrorism are under Coalition control.
Even Libya – a long-time supporter of terrorism – recently renounced aid to terrorism.
Libya is now working in partnership with the United States and United Kingdom to implement a commitment to eliminate all of its ballistic missiles and chemical and nuclear development programs.
Economy: The economy is growing strongly now in 2004 - the best in 20 years - not on the verge of a recession as in 2000.
Real GDP growth is at its highest pace in 20 years; in contrast, over the last 6 months of 2000, real GDP grew at an annual rate of less than 1 percent and even declined 0.5 percent in the third quarter of 2000.
Payroll employment is growing strongly now - up over 1.1 million jobs over the past 8 months, and up by 867,000 over the first 4 months of this year. Over the last 4 months of the Clinton Administration, payroll jobs growth was slowing as the economy was entering recession, up only 284 thousand jobs.
Manufacturing jobs are increasing now - up 37,000 over the past 3 months. Over the last 3 months of the Clinton Administration, manufacturing payroll employment fell by 120,000 jobs.
The unemployment rate is falling now - down 0.7 percentage point from June of last year to April of this year. In contrast, 4 years ago, from January 2000 to January 2001, the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage points as the economy was on the verge of recession.
Housing markets are the strongest in 20 years - and housing values are at record highs.
Unemployment insurance claims are falling, recently down to as low as 318,000; 4 years ago, in the last week of 2000, unemployment insurance claims were up to 350,000 and rising toward 400,000 as the economy entered recession.
Michael Moore One More Time
I'm on a mission to keep saying this everywhere, even though I realize that I have become a monomaniac. A lot of people still haven't seemed to have gotten the word.
In the political game as it is played today (and really, during every period) you need to have some way of getting your message out to intuitive gut thinkers who don't pay close attention to facts and logic. You know, the salt of the earth types and the fuckups.
Michael Moore is able to do that, whereas the Democratic party itself has been pitifully weak in this regard.
The Republican machine, including its surrogates, has been masterful at this job: this is one of the defining factors of the last 25 years or so of American political life.
Conservatives have profited enormously from the Republicans' impressionistic propaganda. Whether or not they listen to the Republican surrogates, and whether or not they praise them, conservatives are all implicated with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and any number of other equally sleazy but less famous characters. (Not to mention the egregious William Safire and George Will -- but that's a different story).
When conservatives make high-minded statements of outrage about Moore, unless they can point to a track record of consistent rejection of the comparable Republican flaks, they show themselves to be partisans pure and simple, and they discredit themselves -- except as more or less effective political operatives.
"Two wrongs doesn't make a right", they say. Yes it does, in a competitive sport. Both sides get to play by the same rules. If reaching in or pushing off or palming the ball or travelling or standing in the lane is allowed for one team, it has to be allowed for the other.
Michael Moore's film is impressionistic, propagandistic, polemical, and not really fair. It is NOT especially dishonest or inaccurate. His film should be very effective in convincing a lot of ill-informed whim voters.
I.e., voters the Republicans thought they owned.
Versions of this rant were posted in the comments on Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum.
In the political game as it is played today (and really, during every period) you need to have some way of getting your message out to intuitive gut thinkers who don't pay close attention to facts and logic. You know, the salt of the earth types and the fuckups.
Michael Moore is able to do that, whereas the Democratic party itself has been pitifully weak in this regard.
The Republican machine, including its surrogates, has been masterful at this job: this is one of the defining factors of the last 25 years or so of American political life.
Conservatives have profited enormously from the Republicans' impressionistic propaganda. Whether or not they listen to the Republican surrogates, and whether or not they praise them, conservatives are all implicated with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and any number of other equally sleazy but less famous characters. (Not to mention the egregious William Safire and George Will -- but that's a different story).
When conservatives make high-minded statements of outrage about Moore, unless they can point to a track record of consistent rejection of the comparable Republican flaks, they show themselves to be partisans pure and simple, and they discredit themselves -- except as more or less effective political operatives.
"Two wrongs doesn't make a right", they say. Yes it does, in a competitive sport. Both sides get to play by the same rules. If reaching in or pushing off or palming the ball or travelling or standing in the lane is allowed for one team, it has to be allowed for the other.
Michael Moore's film is impressionistic, propagandistic, polemical, and not really fair. It is NOT especially dishonest or inaccurate. His film should be very effective in convincing a lot of ill-informed whim voters.
I.e., voters the Republicans thought they owned.
Versions of this rant were posted in the comments on Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum.
7/04/2004
Pandagon: "Just Sickening"
Ezra writes about a new Bush ad, titled, "Yakuza." Go see it. Ezra writes,
To spend 30 seconds bashing Kerry's book The New War because it doesn't mention bin-Laden or Al-Qaeda without admitting that it was written in 1997 and was about organized crime is just absurd. It's like criticizing a book on obcenity from 1998 for ignoring Janet Jackson who, as we know, bared her breast in 2004.The background is that Kerry had pointed out that back in 1997 he had referred in his book to terrorism as a major problem. He did, it's in the book. Also Kerry did refer to Arafat as a "statesman" -- after he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994..
Middle-Class Estate Tax is 100%
This story in today's NYTimes got me thinking. As Bills Mount, Debts on Homes Rise for Elderly:
Meanwhile there is huge prescription drug, medical bill and nursing home tax.
These add up to huge - maybe 100% - taxes on the elderly. But the government is not collecting these taxes. These taxes go to the banking or drug or nursing home corporations.
"As a result, the cushion that could provide financial security for older people -- their homes -- is no longer so secure. People reaching retirement age are now less likely to own their homes free and clear than their predecessors, according to an analysis of government housing and Census data."So the low interests rates old people receive on their savings have forced them to take out reverse mortgages for money to live, meaning they've handed their homes to the banks.
Meanwhile there is huge prescription drug, medical bill and nursing home tax.
Why is this happening, given that over all the elderly are financially better off today than in any previous generation? In various consumer surveys and bankruptcy studies, heavy health care expenses are consistently cited. "It's always medical bills - and credit cards to pay for medical bills," said Barbara May, a consumer bankruptcy lawyer in Arden Hills, Minn., and a board member of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.And if you have a parent who has been through this, you really know what I am talking about. If you end up in a nursing home your assets are taxed at 100% -- every penny you ever saved, and your house, and everything else goes away to pay the nursing home.
She described one of her current cases, involving an elderly couple who have amassed $44,000 in credit card debt largely for medications to treat heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, among other ailments. Ms. May described the couple's adult son weeping in her office.
These add up to huge - maybe 100% - taxes on the elderly. But the government is not collecting these taxes. These taxes go to the banking or drug or nursing home corporations.
Union Bosses
This letter was in yesterday's San Jose Mercury News:
The power of big unionsI sent a letter in response:
Thanks for insightful reporting into abuses of the California prison guard union. For all those who bemoan the corruption of "big business," let's remember there is just as much corruption in "big union." For every Enron, there is a California prison guard union. For every Republican in the pocket of some capitalist fat cat, there's a Democrat beholden to a union boss.
Editors,Let's hope they publish my letter.
Scott Abramson complains (Saturday, July 3) about "big union" corruption. He writes, "For every Republican in the pocket of some capitalist fat cat, there's a Democrat beholden to a union boss."
Let me explain the difference. The result of Republican politicians being in the pocket of corporate fat cats has been that working people LOSE their pensions and health care. The results of Democrat politicians being beholden to unions has been that millions of people GET pensions, and health care, and raises, and weekends, and overtime pay, and vacations, etc.
Sincerely,
Dave Johnson
A Simple Question
I have a simple question, probably get me in a lot of trouble.
Bush Extols American 'Values' in West Virginia:
And what is the definition of a "terrorist," anyway?
OK, two questions. Both cause a lot of trouble. Never ask questions. 4th of July.
Bush Extols American 'Values' in West Virginia:
"Bush described the United States as 'the world's foremost champion of liberty' and said 'terrorists' cannot be negotiated with."Why not?
And what is the definition of a "terrorist," anyway?
OK, two questions. Both cause a lot of trouble. Never ask questions. 4th of July.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)