I don't know whether this has been on the national news or not. A pipe bomb exploded on the steps of one of the entrances to the Times Square subway hub on Monday. This is a huge station, perhaps the busiest in New York. The bomb was in a paper bag left on the steps. A policeman was injured. That's all the details we can be sure of at the moment.
At first the report was that this was a bag of fireworks. The people on the street and in nearby buildings were certain they'd heard a bomb. It was a bomb. The suspect is the policeman who discovered the bomb. The bag was on fire, and he says he tried to remove it. He's a suspect because he is about to retire from the police force for psychiatric reasons. He suffers from PTSD because of his service on 9/11.
Plenty of New Yorkers still suffer from PTSD because of 9/11. Whether they were downtown, worked at or near the site, were part of the rescue crew, were among those who took part in cleaning up the debris afterwards, or simply live in the city. I have friends, otherwise reasonably sane people, who still haven't gone downtown at all, ever, since 9/11. They just can't make themselves do it. I live within walking distance of the WTC site. I stood out front with a neighbor and watched the towers fall. Our apartment complex was evacuated. I live on the West Side Highway, and everything removed from the site went by my place. I saw things I'll never try to describe. For months afterward this neighborhood smelled like -- roast pork. No other way to put it. We were breathing in vaporized people, among other horrors. We had no public transportation and had to show identification at check points. I realized that I had to go down to the site as soon as possible or I'd never be able to go down there again. About 1 1/2 weeks after the attack, in a gray drizzle, I walked down there, sneaking around check points, getting as close as possible.
What struck me as I walked down there was how huge the disaster really was -- and at that point I didn't really see all of it. It wasn't just the WTC site that was damaged. I won't go into details, but buildings were damaged for blocks around the site. There is one huge building, draped in black netting, that still has to be torn down. Debris was scattered all across the island, and as far as Brooklyn. I was stepping over cables laid above ground to bring electricity to the area. The infrastructure, sewers, water mains, power, the subway system, were incredibly damaged. The phone company was not only hit by debris that damaged the building but the switching system was flooded out. And of course TV and cell phones were knocked out because the top of the WTC had been the communications hub for the entire area. I managed to sneak close enough to "the pile" to take a good look. You've seen enough photos so I don't have to describe it. This was no joke, not just something you see on TV. Take my word for it, this was Real Life. A friend of mine gave a course in crisis intervention for health professionals. I took it because I was spending most of my time doing crisis intervention. The weeping postman putting mail in the box of the neighbor he knew had been killed, the weeping supermarket manager, the weeping clerks, the weeping neighbors -- somehow my walk down there calmed me and I was the neighborhood comforter. I'd had the guts to face it.
The crisis intervention course I took turned out to be both accurate -- and inaccurate. Nobody seems to have realized that a disaster on this scale leaves scars that don't go away for years afterwards. Yes, that poor policeman who found -- or maybe left -- that bomb at the Times Square station on Monday, probably does still suffer from PTSD. However, I know enough about PTSD to know that it inspires nightmares and timidity, not the building of bombs. I hope they manage to clear the poor guy.
If there's anything this city does not need now it's pipe bombs in the subway system. Remember the anthrax scare? Boil your mail? The fear campaign the Bush administration is conducting is going to bring out the crazies, of course. All these vague "terrorist" threats right before the election. Well, we know how cynically manipulative they can be for the sake of political advantage. These are the same people who insisted the air was safe at the WTC site. Had to keep us suckers working down there, living here, make everything look normal, no matter how many people were going to suffer physical damage for the rest of their lives. Couldn't risk huge clean-up expenses, or shutting down the stock market, could they?
7/21/2004
7/20/2004
Sheesh
Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President':
And what's worse is, this stuff works. They'll eat it up. By August no one will remember Iraq, or the "Axis of Evil." You won't be able to go anywhere without hearing about Bush being the "President of Peace."
"'The enemy declared war on us,' Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids. 'Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president... The next four years will be peaceful years.' Bush used the words 'peace' or 'peaceful' a total of 20 times. "What else can you say, besides, "Sheesh!"?
And what's worse is, this stuff works. They'll eat it up. By August no one will remember Iraq, or the "Axis of Evil." You won't be able to go anywhere without hearing about Bush being the "President of Peace."
Analysis of Kerry's "liberal" label from the Washington Post
The article itself is fairly interesting conventional wisdom, for the most part... a few things that caught my attention:
1. The contention that a "liberal" voting record means a lot less than it used to... because basically speaking, the legislation offered in Congress, on average is more conservative than in the past (at least on economic issues and issues of governmental activism). This would square with a recent analysis (Thomas Frank, Red-State America against Itself) I saw about how the DLC has been pushing the Democrats to "forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues" by "stand[ing] rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation, and the rest of it." (*)
2. A related development, according to the ADA, the average House Democrat earned a rating of 90 out of 100 on a series of twenty important votes. In 1980, the average was 58. Not only is legislation more conservative in general, but it voting is more polarized.
3. But, of most interest to STF readers, is the rather pathetic quote from the ADA's communication's director, Don Kusler - someone needs to tell him that we've identified the source of his problems (and that he should start throwing some of ADA's funding muscle behind organizations like the Commonweal Institute).
No kidding Don. Time for a new communications strategy? I think so.
--Thomas Leavitt
* obligatory poke at my deluded Democrat friends: Can you say John Kerry? I think you can: no on DOMA, yes on welfare reform, yes on NAFTA. To cite three examples. Fits like a glove.
1. The contention that a "liberal" voting record means a lot less than it used to... because basically speaking, the legislation offered in Congress, on average is more conservative than in the past (at least on economic issues and issues of governmental activism). This would square with a recent analysis (Thomas Frank, Red-State America against Itself) I saw about how the DLC has been pushing the Democrats to "forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues" by "stand[ing] rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation, and the rest of it." (*)
2. A related development, according to the ADA, the average House Democrat earned a rating of 90 out of 100 on a series of twenty important votes. In 1980, the average was 58. Not only is legislation more conservative in general, but it voting is more polarized.
3. But, of most interest to STF readers, is the rather pathetic quote from the ADA's communication's director, Don Kusler - someone needs to tell him that we've identified the source of his problems (and that he should start throwing some of ADA's funding muscle behind organizations like the Commonweal Institute).
For his part, Kusler wishes that a word that he regards as having an honorable heritage -- backing civil rights at home and robust human rights policies abroad -- will be one Democratic presidential nominees will again embrace.
Conservatives have "been working on redefining the word 'liberal' for decades, and turning it into a four-letter word," Kusler said. "We don't want to give up the word. We've been losing the fight for the definition."
No kidding Don. Time for a new communications strategy? I think so.
--Thomas Leavitt
* obligatory poke at my deluded Democrat friends: Can you say John Kerry? I think you can: no on DOMA, yes on welfare reform, yes on NAFTA. To cite three examples. Fits like a glove.
MoveOn PAC: The Corporation's choice vs. the People's Choice
MoveOn.Org is attempting to raise $690,000 to air a television advertisement contrasting (in a very simple and direct fashion) the differences between Kerry and Bush.
Now, as a Green and former Nader voter, I have to admit that the ad spawned giggles, rather than convincing me of anything, but hey - if the Democrats want to hijack Nader's rhetoric in the belief that it will win them votes in November, all power to 'em.
Apparently the ad was so effective that it moved the numbers 6% in Kerry's favor. This might explain why the Democrats are so desperate to keep Nader off the ballot, out of the debates, and out of the news. Imagine if a candidate (like the Green Party's David Cobb), who really believed in this stuff had a chance to make his or her case to the American public -- things might never be the same. :)
But again, what the hell... I'm interested in the end result, not the process. If the Democrats notice that MoveOn's rhetorical strategy moves the numbers, and decide to pursue it more often, then maybe they might even decide to actually carry out policy along these lines, and encourage more candidates who wanted pro-people policies enacted to run for office. I might then actually be able to vote for a Democrat running for higher office for once in my life. What a concept?
--Thomas Leavitt
Now, as a Green and former Nader voter, I have to admit that the ad spawned giggles, rather than convincing me of anything, but hey - if the Democrats want to hijack Nader's rhetoric in the belief that it will win them votes in November, all power to 'em.
Apparently the ad was so effective that it moved the numbers 6% in Kerry's favor. This might explain why the Democrats are so desperate to keep Nader off the ballot, out of the debates, and out of the news. Imagine if a candidate (like the Green Party's David Cobb), who really believed in this stuff had a chance to make his or her case to the American public -- things might never be the same. :)
But again, what the hell... I'm interested in the end result, not the process. If the Democrats notice that MoveOn's rhetorical strategy moves the numbers, and decide to pursue it more often, then maybe they might even decide to actually carry out policy along these lines, and encourage more candidates who wanted pro-people policies enacted to run for office. I might then actually be able to vote for a Democrat running for higher office for once in my life. What a concept?
--Thomas Leavitt
A Must-Read
I recommend everyone read The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here".
"In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here," a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American. When Windrip becomes President, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.
As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary [of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy." And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,' which nickname was generally used."
I Was Wrong
I was wrong. I have been saying that the Bush Justice Department simply will not investigate ANY top administration officials. But they ARE investigating a top administration official.
Former Clinton Adviser Target of Justice Dept. Probe.
Former Clinton Adviser Target of Justice Dept. Probe.
7/19/2004
An argument to be postponed until later
Recently Brad DeLong said that having Barbara Ehrenreich writing for the New York Times will be a waste of ink and paper. When Ehrenreich wrote a piece a few days later renouncing Ralph Nader, DeLong wrote another piece telling her how irrational she had been ever to have voted for Nader in the first place. Over the next few days Henry Farrell and Kevin Drum came to Ehrenreich's defense, Matt Yglesias posted twice, first ambivalently and then scornfully, and finally Digby weighed in with a ferocious post which Matt Stoller mostly endorsed. (And don't let be forget Max).
After a couple of cooling-off timeouts, now it's my turn.
First of all, I agree with everyone named (including Ehrenreich) that no one should vote for Nader this year, or the Green candidate either. I also have agreed for some time, as Ehrenreich probably doesn't, that it was wrong to support Nader in 2000. Mea maxima culpa.
But is this really the right time for score-settling? Ehrenreich's piece very clearly renounced Nader and was clearly designed to persuade other ex-Nader voters not to vote for him. Isn't that a good thing? [Three lines of heavy sarcasm deleted]. After Nov. 3 we should have plenty of time to work out our differences.
Rather than make a detailed response to the various posts, I'll just make a few main points.
First, when people call the Democrats wimps, it's not just a right-wing slander. In Florida 2000, in particular, Gore, Lieberman, and Christopher were massacred by Bush, Cheney and Baker. The whole Republican campaign was ruthless, down to goon squads intimidating election officials, and the Democrats were timid. At every point the Republicans grabbed, and the Democrats hesitated. Particular examples were the overcautious request for a partial recount, the failure to contest the postdated military ballots, and above all the refusal even to touch the charges that black voters were wrongly excluded from voting by the inaccurate felon list and otherwise.
Yes, it's true that the Congressional minority has to pick its battles, but I don't see how that was true in Florida.
I have come to believe that voters take the resourcefulness and ruthlessness of a campaign as a proxy for the military effectiveness of the candidate, and that the Democrats failed that test. (As the infamous Bartcop asks, how can the Democrats protect the American people when they can't even protect themselves?)
Incidentally, a recent report makes it clear that Kerry will be prepared this time around. Good for him.
Second, while Clinton really did do a lot of good, his results were mixed. Somewhere DeLong said that the Clinton program enacted was really only part one of a two-part plan. Unfortunately, only the first, Republican part got enacted (with Republican votes, and in defiance of the Democrats in Congress). And I think that it is reasonable to believe that the damage Clinton did the Democrats by this had something to do with the eventual loss of Congress.
Third, to my memory it was not the leftists (except for the egregious Hitchens) who abandoned and double-crossed Clinton during the fraudulent impeachment attempt. It was moderates like Lieberman, who was rewarded with the vice-presidential nomination.
Finally, I wish I agreed with Digby about this: "It's good to remind ourselves that our internecine battle is, and always has been, about the right strategy to get where we all agree we want to".
During the DLC ascendency I have frequently found myself running into Democrats who are completely uninterested in, or hostile to, questions of equality or economic democracy, and who talk harshly about "pandering to the core constituency" and "outmoded zero-sum class warfare politics". (Matt Yglesias is a little that way, though far from the worst). Many DLC Democrats, probably including Clinton, were simply dealing realistically with the political realities, but there are others who really, truly are Republicans Lite. (And as I keep saying, the Democrats might have been able to make an issue of Enron if Lieberman hadn't been Arthur Anderson's main man.)
While voting for Nader was the wrong choice, there were good reasons why people had their doubts about Clinton and Gore. When I read the comments of some of the rising lights of the Democratic party about this episode, I get a definite feeling that they believe that the Clinton accomodations should define political reality from here on out, and that either they have no idea whatsoever why some Democrats have their doubts about Clinton's accomplishment, or else that they completely disagree about these doubts.
"Hats Off to Matt Stoller who is trying to do God's work in bringing the fractious Democrats together," concludes Digby. I do hope that this turns out to be what happening. I must say that I think that the beginning could have been a bit more graceful.
DeLong I
Farrell
Drum
Max
Yglesias I
Delong II
Yglesias II
Digby
Stoller
After a couple of cooling-off timeouts, now it's my turn.
First of all, I agree with everyone named (including Ehrenreich) that no one should vote for Nader this year, or the Green candidate either. I also have agreed for some time, as Ehrenreich probably doesn't, that it was wrong to support Nader in 2000. Mea maxima culpa.
But is this really the right time for score-settling? Ehrenreich's piece very clearly renounced Nader and was clearly designed to persuade other ex-Nader voters not to vote for him. Isn't that a good thing? [Three lines of heavy sarcasm deleted]. After Nov. 3 we should have plenty of time to work out our differences.
Rather than make a detailed response to the various posts, I'll just make a few main points.
First, when people call the Democrats wimps, it's not just a right-wing slander. In Florida 2000, in particular, Gore, Lieberman, and Christopher were massacred by Bush, Cheney and Baker. The whole Republican campaign was ruthless, down to goon squads intimidating election officials, and the Democrats were timid. At every point the Republicans grabbed, and the Democrats hesitated. Particular examples were the overcautious request for a partial recount, the failure to contest the postdated military ballots, and above all the refusal even to touch the charges that black voters were wrongly excluded from voting by the inaccurate felon list and otherwise.
Yes, it's true that the Congressional minority has to pick its battles, but I don't see how that was true in Florida.
I have come to believe that voters take the resourcefulness and ruthlessness of a campaign as a proxy for the military effectiveness of the candidate, and that the Democrats failed that test. (As the infamous Bartcop asks, how can the Democrats protect the American people when they can't even protect themselves?)
Incidentally, a recent report makes it clear that Kerry will be prepared this time around. Good for him.
Second, while Clinton really did do a lot of good, his results were mixed. Somewhere DeLong said that the Clinton program enacted was really only part one of a two-part plan. Unfortunately, only the first, Republican part got enacted (with Republican votes, and in defiance of the Democrats in Congress). And I think that it is reasonable to believe that the damage Clinton did the Democrats by this had something to do with the eventual loss of Congress.
Third, to my memory it was not the leftists (except for the egregious Hitchens) who abandoned and double-crossed Clinton during the fraudulent impeachment attempt. It was moderates like Lieberman, who was rewarded with the vice-presidential nomination.
Finally, I wish I agreed with Digby about this: "It's good to remind ourselves that our internecine battle is, and always has been, about the right strategy to get where we all agree we want to".
During the DLC ascendency I have frequently found myself running into Democrats who are completely uninterested in, or hostile to, questions of equality or economic democracy, and who talk harshly about "pandering to the core constituency" and "outmoded zero-sum class warfare politics". (Matt Yglesias is a little that way, though far from the worst). Many DLC Democrats, probably including Clinton, were simply dealing realistically with the political realities, but there are others who really, truly are Republicans Lite. (And as I keep saying, the Democrats might have been able to make an issue of Enron if Lieberman hadn't been Arthur Anderson's main man.)
While voting for Nader was the wrong choice, there were good reasons why people had their doubts about Clinton and Gore. When I read the comments of some of the rising lights of the Democratic party about this episode, I get a definite feeling that they believe that the Clinton accomodations should define political reality from here on out, and that either they have no idea whatsoever why some Democrats have their doubts about Clinton's accomplishment, or else that they completely disagree about these doubts.
"Hats Off to Matt Stoller who is trying to do God's work in bringing the fractious Democrats together," concludes Digby. I do hope that this turns out to be what happening. I must say that I think that the beginning could have been a bit more graceful.
DeLong I
Farrell
Drum
Max
Yglesias I
Delong II
Yglesias II
Digby
Stoller
Friendly poll: Green or Democrat or neither?
Based on the comments I've seen posted, STF seems to have a very diverse audience. I'm curious to see if there aren't more Greens here than I'd otherwise expect. Cast your vote in the comments section, and let us know where you're coming from. Also, if you've changed from a Green to a Democrat as a result of postings on this blog, or vice versa, or something else, let us know.
My gut instinct is that the Green/Democrat flame wars are pretty ineffective at recruiting for each side, but maybe I'm flat out wrong.
--Thomas Leavitt
P.S. Trivia time: name the one presidential ticket with a woman on it(*). I know the answer. :)
Update: Hey, one of the comments prompted another couple of trivia questions: a) name two parties that have not had a woman on their presidential ticket in 1996, 2000, and 2004; b) name a party that has had a woman on the ticket in the last three elections. I know what my answers are. :) And the Prohibition Party is not among them. :)
* among the 6 that Ballot Access News estimates will qualify for enough ballot lines to theoretically win in November
My gut instinct is that the Green/Democrat flame wars are pretty ineffective at recruiting for each side, but maybe I'm flat out wrong.
--Thomas Leavitt
P.S. Trivia time: name the one presidential ticket with a woman on it(*). I know the answer. :)
Update: Hey, one of the comments prompted another couple of trivia questions: a) name two parties that have not had a woman on their presidential ticket in 1996, 2000, and 2004; b) name a party that has had a woman on the ticket in the last three elections. I know what my answers are. :) And the Prohibition Party is not among them. :)
* among the 6 that Ballot Access News estimates will qualify for enough ballot lines to theoretically win in November
Greens, Democrats, and Multiparty Democracy in a Winner Take All system
[Note: the bulk of this essay was written before Dave's posting below.]
First of all, a bit of political trivia: both Canada and the United Kingdom have an electoral system that is more or less similar to ours - candidates for national, regional and local office (with some newly created exceptions in Britain) run for office under a winner take all system.
What's the trivia here? Citizens of the United States may be surprised to learn (given the alleged anti-third party bias of a system like ours) that both Canada and Britain, for many many years, have sustained significant third parties (i.e. ones that regularly win seats in Parliament, and that have controlled legislative bodies and governed at the regional level).
In fact, there has not been a single election in the last hundred years in which no "non-major" party failed to receive a seat in the British Parliament, and since 1983, the "third party" (the Liberal Democrats or their predecessor coalition) has received over 15% of the vote every time.
Canada, in 1997 and 2001, had no less than *four* national parties (plus a 5th regional/nationalist party receiving seats in Parliament) - and in no election since 1930, has the "third" (or "fourth" in many cases) party failed to receive a seat in Parliament. Since 1984, the third parties have consistently received between 15 and ~40% of the vote (more in recent elections).
In Britain, there are currently three major parties with a reasonable hope of becoming the governing party of the entire nation - the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats (historically a "third party"). Beyond them, there are a HOST of regional parties and other third parties with members elected to major offices (such as the United Kingdom Independence Party, which has 17 members in the European Parliament after the most recent election to that body). In a recent "by-election" no less than FOUR parties (including a anti-war protest party, "Respect") obtained more than 10% of the vote for their candidate. In a second such election, the fourth candidate obtained 6% (pushing, with other candidates, the total "minor party" vote to over 10%), within striking distance of the lowest "major party" candidate's 17%.
In Canada, there are three major parties (one of which is a combination of a former major party that collapsed, and it's replacement), a very strong regional/nationalist party in Quebec, and a host of smaller parties that have at one point or another obtained and or controlled regional office or have prospects of doing so. Including the Green Party, which is the only party other than the "big three" to qualify for federal funding of $1.75 (Canadian) per vote received in the most recent election (the threshold for this, by the way, was set at 2%, the Greens got 4%... and this was the first election under which a party could quality for federal funding, so they did it without funding).
On a side note: the success of third parties in Britain has lead to the establishment of regional legislatures for Scotland and Wales which use "proportional representation", a system under which the number of seats in parliament is more or less equivalent to the percentage of the vote received by a party - win 8% of the vote, you win 8% of the seats up for grabs. In Canada, several regional governments are seriously considering such systems as well.
So, Dave - here's my answer to your claim that "There is simply no way that the Green party - or any third party - can make a positive contribution within the confines of our political system. The country is designed around a two-party system."
Look North, Dave. Look North. :)
Green since 1990. Green till 2090 (or later), yours truly...
--Thomas Leavitt
First of all, a bit of political trivia: both Canada and the United Kingdom have an electoral system that is more or less similar to ours - candidates for national, regional and local office (with some newly created exceptions in Britain) run for office under a winner take all system.
What's the trivia here? Citizens of the United States may be surprised to learn (given the alleged anti-third party bias of a system like ours) that both Canada and Britain, for many many years, have sustained significant third parties (i.e. ones that regularly win seats in Parliament, and that have controlled legislative bodies and governed at the regional level).
In fact, there has not been a single election in the last hundred years in which no "non-major" party failed to receive a seat in the British Parliament, and since 1983, the "third party" (the Liberal Democrats or their predecessor coalition) has received over 15% of the vote every time.
Canada, in 1997 and 2001, had no less than *four* national parties (plus a 5th regional/nationalist party receiving seats in Parliament) - and in no election since 1930, has the "third" (or "fourth" in many cases) party failed to receive a seat in Parliament. Since 1984, the third parties have consistently received between 15 and ~40% of the vote (more in recent elections).
In Britain, there are currently three major parties with a reasonable hope of becoming the governing party of the entire nation - the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats (historically a "third party"). Beyond them, there are a HOST of regional parties and other third parties with members elected to major offices (such as the United Kingdom Independence Party, which has 17 members in the European Parliament after the most recent election to that body). In a recent "by-election" no less than FOUR parties (including a anti-war protest party, "Respect") obtained more than 10% of the vote for their candidate. In a second such election, the fourth candidate obtained 6% (pushing, with other candidates, the total "minor party" vote to over 10%), within striking distance of the lowest "major party" candidate's 17%.
In Canada, there are three major parties (one of which is a combination of a former major party that collapsed, and it's replacement), a very strong regional/nationalist party in Quebec, and a host of smaller parties that have at one point or another obtained and or controlled regional office or have prospects of doing so. Including the Green Party, which is the only party other than the "big three" to qualify for federal funding of $1.75 (Canadian) per vote received in the most recent election (the threshold for this, by the way, was set at 2%, the Greens got 4%... and this was the first election under which a party could quality for federal funding, so they did it without funding).
On a side note: the success of third parties in Britain has lead to the establishment of regional legislatures for Scotland and Wales which use "proportional representation", a system under which the number of seats in parliament is more or less equivalent to the percentage of the vote received by a party - win 8% of the vote, you win 8% of the seats up for grabs. In Canada, several regional governments are seriously considering such systems as well.
So, Dave - here's my answer to your claim that "There is simply no way that the Green party - or any third party - can make a positive contribution within the confines of our political system. The country is designed around a two-party system."
Look North, Dave. Look North. :)
Green since 1990. Green till 2090 (or later), yours truly...
--Thomas Leavitt
Teddy Roosevelt on the importance of criticizing the President
Something to respond back to people who complain about
criticism of Bush as being unpatriotic.
"The President is merely the most important among a large
number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed
exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct
or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering
loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a
whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there
should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and
this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he
does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other
attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To
announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be
spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more
important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about
him than about any one else."
-Theodore Roosevelt
--Thomas Leavitt
criticism of Bush as being unpatriotic.
"The President is merely the most important among a large
number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed
exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct
or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering
loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a
whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there
should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and
this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he
does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other
attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To
announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be
spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more
important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about
him than about any one else."
-Theodore Roosevelt
--Thomas Leavitt
Hate Mail From Greens
I get a lot more hate mail from Greens than from right-wingers. Sometimes it's pretty serious stuff, too. Funny how that works.
I used to be a Green, and two of the bloggers here are Greens. I stopped being a Green because I realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere - that there was no point. There is simply no way that the Green party - or any third party - can make a positive contribution within the confines of our political system. The country is designed around a two-party system. Third parties can only make a destructive contribution, as we saw in 2000. They can't win, they can only cause those who are closest to them in political ideals to lose, thus defeating their supposed reason to exist. I mean, someone tell me how George Bush and the Right in charge is BETTER for anyone or anything that Greens care about!?
And this is about the things I care about. My political involvement is based on actually getting things done, and actually helping people & protecting the environment. Maybe this is because I once was a Chief Steward with AFSCME, during a time of turmoil, strikes, actions, etc. for people who were making little more than the minimum wage and trying to support families. ACTUALLY accomplishing things can take a lot more work than just making statements. But ACTUALLY accomplishing things makes a HUGE difference for those at the margins of our society.
If Gore had won we would have a higher minimum wage, people in unions would be earning more and receiving rather than losing health benefits, the environment would be protected, and we certainly would not have invaded Iraq, killing tens of thousands of them and hundreds of us. Those are ACTUAL things that matter.
Additionally I have decided that the Green's analysis is flawed. The Democratic Party is nothing more than the people who show up and vote. And it is not the PARTY'S job to lead the people. Parties, by definition, respond to the voters. The Right has accomplished what they have by changing public attitudes and their candidates ride that wave. The Republican Party is not funding the hundreds of think tanks and advocacy organizations but it's (farthest right) candidates are benefitting from it. It is not the Democratic Party's fault that the Right has set up this network that is changing public attitudes. And it is not the Party's fault that moderate and progressive funders haven't yet caught on to what is happening to them.
I think it is past time for the Greens to wake up and realize that they are hurting the very things they profess to care about. Even Ralph Nader is making fun of them.
Update - I meant to add that I was a Green because of my frustration and anger with the rightward movement of the Dems, and the DLC types, and the wimpiness of the national party, and the number of Dems that were actually JOINING Republicans and voting for tax cuts, war, etc. And I was really, really angry about it! Still am! But I decided that splitting up the Demcorat coalition, built over decades, was not the answer. The coalition was built the hard way, by the working people, to fight the moneyed interests, and the only way it wins is by people sticking together, That's what solidarity means. That's what the word UNION means! If anyone should leave it's the corporate DLC types! (And Zell. Good riddance to Zell.)
I used to be a Green, and two of the bloggers here are Greens. I stopped being a Green because I realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere - that there was no point. There is simply no way that the Green party - or any third party - can make a positive contribution within the confines of our political system. The country is designed around a two-party system. Third parties can only make a destructive contribution, as we saw in 2000. They can't win, they can only cause those who are closest to them in political ideals to lose, thus defeating their supposed reason to exist. I mean, someone tell me how George Bush and the Right in charge is BETTER for anyone or anything that Greens care about!?
And this is about the things I care about. My political involvement is based on actually getting things done, and actually helping people & protecting the environment. Maybe this is because I once was a Chief Steward with AFSCME, during a time of turmoil, strikes, actions, etc. for people who were making little more than the minimum wage and trying to support families. ACTUALLY accomplishing things can take a lot more work than just making statements. But ACTUALLY accomplishing things makes a HUGE difference for those at the margins of our society.
If Gore had won we would have a higher minimum wage, people in unions would be earning more and receiving rather than losing health benefits, the environment would be protected, and we certainly would not have invaded Iraq, killing tens of thousands of them and hundreds of us. Those are ACTUAL things that matter.
Additionally I have decided that the Green's analysis is flawed. The Democratic Party is nothing more than the people who show up and vote. And it is not the PARTY'S job to lead the people. Parties, by definition, respond to the voters. The Right has accomplished what they have by changing public attitudes and their candidates ride that wave. The Republican Party is not funding the hundreds of think tanks and advocacy organizations but it's (farthest right) candidates are benefitting from it. It is not the Democratic Party's fault that the Right has set up this network that is changing public attitudes. And it is not the Party's fault that moderate and progressive funders haven't yet caught on to what is happening to them.
I think it is past time for the Greens to wake up and realize that they are hurting the very things they profess to care about. Even Ralph Nader is making fun of them.
Update - I meant to add that I was a Green because of my frustration and anger with the rightward movement of the Dems, and the DLC types, and the wimpiness of the national party, and the number of Dems that were actually JOINING Republicans and voting for tax cuts, war, etc. And I was really, really angry about it! Still am! But I decided that splitting up the Demcorat coalition, built over decades, was not the answer. The coalition was built the hard way, by the working people, to fight the moneyed interests, and the only way it wins is by people sticking together, That's what solidarity means. That's what the word UNION means! If anyone should leave it's the corporate DLC types! (And Zell. Good riddance to Zell.)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html
"agree" 6 No difference 1
Bush Gore debate "I agree"
"agree" 6 No difference 1
Bush Gore debate "I agree"
Fighting Back!
Digby at Hullabaloo writes about a new Kerry ad that finally DOES put it in Bush's face. He also has a link to the ad so you can see it.
Update - Digby got me good. I posted before I watched the ad. Go see for yourself how he got me.
Update - Digby got me good. I posted before I watched the ad. Go see for yourself how he got me.
Curiouser
Apparently Newsweek has the Allawi story, but with interesting twists. NEWSWEEK: New Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi Reportedly Cut Off Suspect's Hand With Ax, Shot Captive Terrorists, According to Stories Circulating in Baghdad:
"Since Ayad Allawi became prime minister of Iraq's interim government last month, stories circulating on the streets of Baghdad include reports that he ordered two suspected insurgents shot in front of him, shot seven captive terrorists himself and personally chopped off the hand of a suspect with an ax, ..."The actual Newsweek story words this a bit differently:
"Baghdad's streets are as mean as any in the world, and since Ayad Allawi took office, the stories people tell in them are even meaner. Soon after he became prime minister of the interim government last month, many Iraqis whisper, he ordered two suspected insurgents shot in front of him. Or, goes another account, he shot seven captive terrorists himself, one after another. Or he personally chopped off the hand of a suspect with an ax."Here is Allawi's response:
"Asked by NEWSWEEK if he had killed anyone since taking office, Allawi chuckled and said, "This is a big lie, this is not true, I deny it categorically, No. 1. No. 2, we will spare no effort to secure our people.""Since?" Of course he "chuckled" at the question. Wink, wink, nod, nod. He denies killing anyone since taking office. And goes on to say he will spare no efforts? Yes, this question used the word "since" (wink, nod), but of course he knew that the report said he did this before taking office.
7/18/2004
Getting our point across...
I've been thinking about this for a while now. Every time I talk to someone about this issue (how we progressives have had the political rug pulled out from underneath us by a bunch of ultra-rich, ultra-conservative ideologues), I flail around for a few minutes and then wind up saying, "Go to the Commonweal Institute web site, and read the information there about how the right wing has manipulated the media and public consciousness... spend two or three hours reading some of the reports, and you'll never look at a news article the same way again."
This obviously limits the potential audience for the ideas and information we're trying to communicate. Reading Dave's speech prompted some thoughts, and I thought I'd share them. Basically, it seems to me that we are victims of the standard liberal disease of making everything just too damn complex for your average harried human to follow. You get 10 seconds or less to make your case when someone hits your web page, and if you don't manage it within that time, they're gone.
If you want an excellent example of this, take a look at the Commonweal Institute's website - click on "learn more" on the home page, and you get this (not too bad, four bullet points, four paragraphs of exposition) - but click one more level down, and you get an entire essay's worth of exposition on each point - most people will bail immediately.
Dave's information page on that same site is another example. It's an incredibly valueable resource - but you have willing to take the time to dig down and read a score of multi-page reports to get anything from it. How many people are going to do that?
Even STF doesn't have a single, clear exposition of our core position. We have Dave's posting, "How to Fight Back", but even that is (a) buried and (b) too long -- a new vistor to this blog would have no idea what our core value proposition is, or what the title, "Seeing The Forest" refers to. We need an "About This Blog" link, right above the "About The Authors" one. And it needs to be short and sweet. And visible.
But we need more than that. As organizers, we need the basic communications tools to make our case to the public, the media, and potential funders. I spent several years over the hill, at a VC-funded start-up that went through several rounds of funding and learned quite a bit in the process. In the following essay, I talk about the tools entreprenuers use to convince investors to fund their companies, and how they can be applied to our needs.
The first step in getting any company funded is "the elevator pitch". If you can't communicate the essence of your idea in 30 seconds or less, you haven't refined your core pitch enough to persuade anyone to even let you in the door to speak with them, let alone get funded.
What's our elevator pitch? If we have one, it isn't visible. It should be the first thing anyone visiting STF, Commonweal, or any of our own personal sites sees. It should be the first thing any one of us says when we raise this issue in a conversation. I see pieces of it on the Commonweal site, but nothing I could easily lift out and repeat to someone in under thirty seconds, that would convince someone that we've got something new and different that could level the political playing field.
Once you've gotten your foot in the door you need to convince someone to let you walk through it. That's where the next tool in the entreprenuer's bag of tricks comes in: the business plan and executive summary. You expect people to read the executive summary - you don't expect people to read the business plan.
The executive summary lays out your case for why your company is worth funding in one or two pages (at most). It boils your argument down to something that can be read and processed well inside ten minutes. It describes the opportunity available, your plan for capitalizing on it, and why you and your team are the people to make it happen. Put another way: people, market, product.
What's our equivalent? Where have we laid out our complete case in as concise a fashion as possible, such that someone could read it, and nothing else, and come away convined that we're on the right track?
I looked around on STF for something like this, and the closest thing I was able to find was Dave's "How To Fight Back" posting, and even that is too long (as I said above) and complicated. I don't think we can honestly expect even someone who is seriously interested what we have to say to read through that whole thing if we sent it to them in email. Seems to me that we have a business plan without an executive summary, which means that most likely, our most valueable work will never get read.
Strike two. Not doing so well, eh? But, hey, this is fixable. We just need to write this up. :)
Now that you've gotten in the door, you've got thirty minutes or less to convince an incredibly busy, highly skeptical and extremely financially conservative professional to invest in your company. Oh yeah, did I mention that they're are looking for reasons to say no, and focused on finding the flaws in your argument? We had a highly trained, throughly experienced CEO at my last company, and even he was hard put to keep on message when confronting a potential investor.
How do you prepare for this? Focus. Refine. Simplify. Repeat. And then repeat again.
What does every entreprenuer walk into this meeting with? A PowerPoint presentation (along with a copy of their executive summary and business plan, to leave behind when they're done).
About that PowerPoint presentation:
1. It consists of not more than ten pages.
2. Each page has no more than three or four high level bullet point points.
3. It doesn't last longer than twenty minutes (at most).
This (and the presentation around it) is your basic selling tool. More than anything else, how well this presentation goes over determines whether or not your company gets funded. Creating it is an extremely valueable exercise - it forces you to refine your ideas to their essence, and discard anything even slightly extraneous or distracting from your core message.
What's our equivalent? A short web based presentation that walks a new visitor through the core elements of our presentation (and their underlying rationales) in five minutes or less. Someone needs to walk away from having clicked through a half dozen pages with a solid grip on our entire case.
Of course, we also need a script to go along with it, for in person presentations to groups and individuals, and for those wanting to dig deeper, later on.
Do we have this? Doesn't look like it. Strike three. No wonder we're losing the battle. We're the smart ones on our side (since we see the forest), and we still haven't managed to put the basic communications tools in place to make our case with. 'cause you're all too damn smart, I guess, and haven't needed our help to figure things out.
But, we can fix this. See tomorrow's posting for some thoughts on how to refine things down to meet these requirements.
This obviously limits the potential audience for the ideas and information we're trying to communicate. Reading Dave's speech prompted some thoughts, and I thought I'd share them. Basically, it seems to me that we are victims of the standard liberal disease of making everything just too damn complex for your average harried human to follow. You get 10 seconds or less to make your case when someone hits your web page, and if you don't manage it within that time, they're gone.
If you want an excellent example of this, take a look at the Commonweal Institute's website - click on "learn more" on the home page, and you get this (not too bad, four bullet points, four paragraphs of exposition) - but click one more level down, and you get an entire essay's worth of exposition on each point - most people will bail immediately.
Dave's information page on that same site is another example. It's an incredibly valueable resource - but you have willing to take the time to dig down and read a score of multi-page reports to get anything from it. How many people are going to do that?
Even STF doesn't have a single, clear exposition of our core position. We have Dave's posting, "How to Fight Back", but even that is (a) buried and (b) too long -- a new vistor to this blog would have no idea what our core value proposition is, or what the title, "Seeing The Forest" refers to. We need an "About This Blog" link, right above the "About The Authors" one. And it needs to be short and sweet. And visible.
But we need more than that. As organizers, we need the basic communications tools to make our case to the public, the media, and potential funders. I spent several years over the hill, at a VC-funded start-up that went through several rounds of funding and learned quite a bit in the process. In the following essay, I talk about the tools entreprenuers use to convince investors to fund their companies, and how they can be applied to our needs.
The first step in getting any company funded is "the elevator pitch". If you can't communicate the essence of your idea in 30 seconds or less, you haven't refined your core pitch enough to persuade anyone to even let you in the door to speak with them, let alone get funded.
What's our elevator pitch? If we have one, it isn't visible. It should be the first thing anyone visiting STF, Commonweal, or any of our own personal sites sees. It should be the first thing any one of us says when we raise this issue in a conversation. I see pieces of it on the Commonweal site, but nothing I could easily lift out and repeat to someone in under thirty seconds, that would convince someone that we've got something new and different that could level the political playing field.
Once you've gotten your foot in the door you need to convince someone to let you walk through it. That's where the next tool in the entreprenuer's bag of tricks comes in: the business plan and executive summary. You expect people to read the executive summary - you don't expect people to read the business plan.
The executive summary lays out your case for why your company is worth funding in one or two pages (at most). It boils your argument down to something that can be read and processed well inside ten minutes. It describes the opportunity available, your plan for capitalizing on it, and why you and your team are the people to make it happen. Put another way: people, market, product.
What's our equivalent? Where have we laid out our complete case in as concise a fashion as possible, such that someone could read it, and nothing else, and come away convined that we're on the right track?
I looked around on STF for something like this, and the closest thing I was able to find was Dave's "How To Fight Back" posting, and even that is too long (as I said above) and complicated. I don't think we can honestly expect even someone who is seriously interested what we have to say to read through that whole thing if we sent it to them in email. Seems to me that we have a business plan without an executive summary, which means that most likely, our most valueable work will never get read.
Strike two. Not doing so well, eh? But, hey, this is fixable. We just need to write this up. :)
Now that you've gotten in the door, you've got thirty minutes or less to convince an incredibly busy, highly skeptical and extremely financially conservative professional to invest in your company. Oh yeah, did I mention that they're are looking for reasons to say no, and focused on finding the flaws in your argument? We had a highly trained, throughly experienced CEO at my last company, and even he was hard put to keep on message when confronting a potential investor.
How do you prepare for this? Focus. Refine. Simplify. Repeat. And then repeat again.
What does every entreprenuer walk into this meeting with? A PowerPoint presentation (along with a copy of their executive summary and business plan, to leave behind when they're done).
About that PowerPoint presentation:
1. It consists of not more than ten pages.
2. Each page has no more than three or four high level bullet point points.
3. It doesn't last longer than twenty minutes (at most).
This (and the presentation around it) is your basic selling tool. More than anything else, how well this presentation goes over determines whether or not your company gets funded. Creating it is an extremely valueable exercise - it forces you to refine your ideas to their essence, and discard anything even slightly extraneous or distracting from your core message.
What's our equivalent? A short web based presentation that walks a new visitor through the core elements of our presentation (and their underlying rationales) in five minutes or less. Someone needs to walk away from having clicked through a half dozen pages with a solid grip on our entire case.
Of course, we also need a script to go along with it, for in person presentations to groups and individuals, and for those wanting to dig deeper, later on.
Do we have this? Doesn't look like it. Strike three. No wonder we're losing the battle. We're the smart ones on our side (since we see the forest), and we still haven't managed to put the basic communications tools in place to make our case with. 'cause you're all too damn smart, I guess, and haven't needed our help to figure things out.
But, we can fix this. See tomorrow's posting for some thoughts on how to refine things down to meet these requirements.
More news on Enron: quid-pro-quo fundraising.
AP reports that internal emails from Enron show that the No. 2 leader in the House, ultra-conservative Republican Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, was intimately involved with efforts to raise funds from Enron and that Enron viewed their donations as very practical investments for which it expected a tangible return.
--Thomas Leavitt
--Thomas Leavitt
American Media and Hersh's speech to the ACLU re: sodomized child prisoners in Iraq.
I wss going to post this as a comment on the "Something Is Wrong" item, but it turned into something more comprehensive. Something IS wrong. Very wrong... the total and complete silence of the U.S. news media, AT EVERY LEVEL, from the local paper and TV news, up to the networks and national papers. No one in the media appears willing (or able) to break the silence on major events, ANYWHERE. No one (except progressive/independent news media who source international publications - which is where I found out about the alleged summary execution of prisoners by the Iraqi Prime Minister).
Why is it that, today, a search on Google News for Seymour Hersh reveals ONE major publication has mentioned it on their web site... the Washington Times, for God's sake! And probably not intentionally and not in print, at that (it appears via the UPI breaking news section). Add the ACLU as a modifier, and even that disappears!
The article in question only re-emphasizes the bizarre nature of this phenomenon - it is datalined Baghdad, Iraq and cites Aljazeera.net as the source and doesn't even mention that he made the speech before the ACLU! This for a speech made before a nationally prominent and credible organization in the United States for which video has been made available over the 'net, and which has been widely publicized via moveon.org via misleader.org, and in the blogosphere. Why did they need Al-Jazeera to break the story for them?
The Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram ran a feature article (in the Living section) on Hersh's return to prominence, on July 18th, and mentioned NOTHING about his speech before the ACLU or what it revealed. NOTHING.
How can this be? No journalist or editor, anywhere, in the entire United States, feels this is worth commenting on? Is EVERY local paper corporate owned? Are there no iconoclasts left in the entire American media ownership or editorial structure?
The summary execution story STILL has yet to really break in the U.S. Google News reveals that Bloomberg has covered it (via Australian reporters), and apparently UPI (via Australian reporters) has also picked it up (ironically enough, once again, it appears first in the U.S. media via the UPI breaking news section of the Washington Times web site), but this has resulted in exactly ONE article in a U.S. paper (as least as far as I can tell) - the Philadelphia Daily News.
Again, I ask: How can this be? No one in the U.S. media is willing to take the risk to "break" either of these stories? What happened to the capitalist being willing to sell you the rope to hang him, if he can make money?
Postscript: I just discovered that Newsweek references the summary execution story briefly in their latest issue... and then asks the wrong question: had he killed anyone SINCE taking office? (the alleged executions happened 1 week before he assumed office). And they play the story as one of a series of rumors, and even quote unnamed U.S. officials as saying they believe the stories are planted by Allawi himself as a P.R. tactic aimed at the Iraqi people's desire for security.
Update: William Rivers Pitt of truthout.org (hallelujah for him, and a big raspberry to the DMCA and copyright fascism) has an editorial on the absence of coverage of this story... it ends this way:
"Where is the American news media? Where are the pictures? Who is responsible for this abomination? Torturing children in the name of freedom? Is this what we have become?"
I have these same questions, myself, and no answers.
--Thomas Leavitt
Why is it that, today, a search on Google News for Seymour Hersh reveals ONE major publication has mentioned it on their web site... the Washington Times, for God's sake! And probably not intentionally and not in print, at that (it appears via the UPI breaking news section). Add the ACLU as a modifier, and even that disappears!
The article in question only re-emphasizes the bizarre nature of this phenomenon - it is datalined Baghdad, Iraq and cites Aljazeera.net as the source and doesn't even mention that he made the speech before the ACLU! This for a speech made before a nationally prominent and credible organization in the United States for which video has been made available over the 'net, and which has been widely publicized via moveon.org via misleader.org, and in the blogosphere. Why did they need Al-Jazeera to break the story for them?
The Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram ran a feature article (in the Living section) on Hersh's return to prominence, on July 18th, and mentioned NOTHING about his speech before the ACLU or what it revealed. NOTHING.
How can this be? No journalist or editor, anywhere, in the entire United States, feels this is worth commenting on? Is EVERY local paper corporate owned? Are there no iconoclasts left in the entire American media ownership or editorial structure?
The summary execution story STILL has yet to really break in the U.S. Google News reveals that Bloomberg has covered it (via Australian reporters), and apparently UPI (via Australian reporters) has also picked it up (ironically enough, once again, it appears first in the U.S. media via the UPI breaking news section of the Washington Times web site), but this has resulted in exactly ONE article in a U.S. paper (as least as far as I can tell) - the Philadelphia Daily News.
Again, I ask: How can this be? No one in the U.S. media is willing to take the risk to "break" either of these stories? What happened to the capitalist being willing to sell you the rope to hang him, if he can make money?
Postscript: I just discovered that Newsweek references the summary execution story briefly in their latest issue... and then asks the wrong question: had he killed anyone SINCE taking office? (the alleged executions happened 1 week before he assumed office). And they play the story as one of a series of rumors, and even quote unnamed U.S. officials as saying they believe the stories are planted by Allawi himself as a P.R. tactic aimed at the Iraqi people's desire for security.
Update: William Rivers Pitt of truthout.org (hallelujah for him, and a big raspberry to the DMCA and copyright fascism) has an editorial on the absence of coverage of this story... it ends this way:
"Where is the American news media? Where are the pictures? Who is responsible for this abomination? Torturing children in the name of freedom? Is this what we have become?"
I have these same questions, myself, and no answers.
--Thomas Leavitt
What's the Point?
Over at DailyKOS they are Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'.
I have two comments on this.
1) During the Clinton years, how many right-wing sites, magazines, pundits, etc. spent time publicly debating about other right-wing media were "getting their facts right" about the Clintons, or being fair to the other side, etc.? Is that where they spent their time and energy? And now they have the White House, the House, the Senate, the Courts, and every other lever of power.
2) The post itself identifies the site they are spending time arguing about as funded by "the usual suspects." Why aren't we awake enough to just dismiss what they say BECAUSE THEY JUST LIE?
The TREES are the lies, cover stories, excuses, smokescreens, PR, weasel words, and all the other tricks they use to keep you from seeing what is going on.
The Forest is WHAT IS GOING ON.
SEE THE FOREST!
I have two comments on this.
1) During the Clinton years, how many right-wing sites, magazines, pundits, etc. spent time publicly debating about other right-wing media were "getting their facts right" about the Clintons, or being fair to the other side, etc.? Is that where they spent their time and energy? And now they have the White House, the House, the Senate, the Courts, and every other lever of power.
2) The post itself identifies the site they are spending time arguing about as funded by "the usual suspects." Why aren't we awake enough to just dismiss what they say BECAUSE THEY JUST LIE?
The TREES are the lies, cover stories, excuses, smokescreens, PR, weasel words, and all the other tricks they use to keep you from seeing what is going on.
The Forest is WHAT IS GOING ON.
SEE THE FOREST!
Something Is Wrong At Orcinus
Orcinus - "Something is wrong here":
Why is this not a huge story?
Update - (Thanks to Atrios.) This is so serious that media in other countries are asking why US media is ignoring this story. Iraq's Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin is investigating. In the UK former foreign secretaryRobin Cook is also calling for an investigation.
"If ever one needed evidence that there is a real problem with the American press' handling of the occupation of Iraq, one need look no further than the fact that it is impossible to find anywhere in the American press -- outside of, apparently, Bloomberg News and the Washington Times (!) -- the report that Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi summarily executed six Iraqi detainees by shooting them in the head."
Why is this not a huge story?
Update - (Thanks to Atrios.) This is so serious that media in other countries are asking why US media is ignoring this story. Iraq's Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin is investigating. In the UK former foreign secretaryRobin Cook is also calling for an investigation.
Credibility
C.I.A. Sends Terror Experts to Tell Small Towns of Risk:
"In part, the briefings are a direct response to rising fears of a Qaeda attack sometime this year and reflect the government's willingness to take previously untried steps to detect and possibly deter an attack. This week, the country's new acting intelligence chief, John E. McLaughlin, was the latest senior administration official to warn that the threat of terrorist attack on the United States is more significant than at any other time since Sept. 11."
Here's the problem. The Bush administration has politicized the issue and used terror alerts for political purposes. We were subjected to numerous terror alerts leading up to the war, for the purpose of terrifying the public to get them to support invading Iraq -- and then the alerts stopped after the invasion! Do you remember the fear? The warnings about smallpox? The warnings about possible nuclear attacks?
The Bush people have SAID they are going to campaign based on their "war on terror." Just last week Bush said people should vote for him because they would be safer than if they vote for Kerry.
So there is no credibility when they tell us their is a new threat. It could mean there is a threat - or it could mean this is part of a political campaign. And we have no way of knowing which it is.
Jeeze, what if there WAS a real threat? Or what if it was discovered that a country like North Korea or Iran really WAS about to do something to us? No one would believe it! Event the Republicans would assume it was a campaign ploy - and approve. The idea of actual governance, or the good of the country isn't even in the equation! It is entirely about The Party.
Spy for God -- Laura's Cookies
Because I want to know what the other side's up to, I signed up to receive e-mail from the Bush campaign. What are they up to? Pretty much a carbon copy of what we're doing -- "copy" being the right word, since whenever the Kerry campaign comes up with something innovative the Bush campaign copies it. A few days ago I got an e-mail from Laura Bush, talking about Meetup-style activities and how much she enjoys them, asking me to volunteer. In a PS she mentioned that I might like her recipe for chocolate chip oatmeal cookies, now posted in her dear husband's make-believe Blog.
A cookie recipe? I'm supposed to believe that Laura Bush actually bakes cookies? What are the odds that this woman has ever baked a cookie in her life? What's the sinister meaning behind this PR push for cookies? At first glance this looks like a pitch to all those soccer moms out there who just might vote Republican. Picture it. The fragrant kitchen, the pans of warm cookies fresh from the oven, Mommie in her fresh white apron offering them to the freshly scrubbed kiddies. So folksy and so cute. A portrait of Family Values in action. Actually a perfect portrait of soccer mom guilt. You just can't do enough for those kiddies. Gotta rush home from all those errands -- probably, loaded with guilt, home from that job you wish the neighbors didn't know you must have now to keep your middle class status -- and try out Laura's recipe for chocolate chip oatmeal cookies! Can't let those 50s values slip. Gotta pretend your family's just like the Brady Bunch. It's also a swipe at feminist values -- feminists don't bake cookies, do they?
Now, I know cookies. I can bake a really mean cookie that could stack up against anybody's cookies and win. I decided to deconstruct Laura's cookie recipe and expose it for the political ploy it wants to be. I'm a cookie purist, and this is a bastard cookie. I have a copy of the original Toll House Cookbook with the original Toll House cookie recipe in it. No wonder chocolate chip cookies won the hearts of Americans everywhere! This was a truly inspired creation! That other great American cookie, the oatmeal cookie, is a completely different creation; spicy, flat, and crisp, more like breakfast, packed with raisins and maybe walnuts or pecans. Keeping in mind that Laura's cookie is probably a PR invention, what's the political purpose behind combining chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies into one horrific recipe? A vision of a united America? I can tell what a recipe will taste like by reading it. I'd never bake this cookie. This is not a successful political cookie baking ploy. There's even a political conflict of interest involved. We're being told by the Bush administration's public health officials that America's kiddies are suffering an epidemic of obesity -- more soccer mom guilt -- so why isn't Laura pushing carrot sticks instead of a cookie recipe that contains THREE STICKS OF BUTTER AND THREE EGGS?
If by chance this is a genuine Laura Bush cookie recipe, maybe it explains that dazed look on GW's face. I'd assumed it came from all those years of booze, but maybe his arteries are all plugged up and blood is no longer circulating in that dim brain! I can tell you what should be done with this cookie. Serve it at every Republican event and assure that Republicans will die young!
Meryl
A cookie recipe? I'm supposed to believe that Laura Bush actually bakes cookies? What are the odds that this woman has ever baked a cookie in her life? What's the sinister meaning behind this PR push for cookies? At first glance this looks like a pitch to all those soccer moms out there who just might vote Republican. Picture it. The fragrant kitchen, the pans of warm cookies fresh from the oven, Mommie in her fresh white apron offering them to the freshly scrubbed kiddies. So folksy and so cute. A portrait of Family Values in action. Actually a perfect portrait of soccer mom guilt. You just can't do enough for those kiddies. Gotta rush home from all those errands -- probably, loaded with guilt, home from that job you wish the neighbors didn't know you must have now to keep your middle class status -- and try out Laura's recipe for chocolate chip oatmeal cookies! Can't let those 50s values slip. Gotta pretend your family's just like the Brady Bunch. It's also a swipe at feminist values -- feminists don't bake cookies, do they?
Now, I know cookies. I can bake a really mean cookie that could stack up against anybody's cookies and win. I decided to deconstruct Laura's cookie recipe and expose it for the political ploy it wants to be. I'm a cookie purist, and this is a bastard cookie. I have a copy of the original Toll House Cookbook with the original Toll House cookie recipe in it. No wonder chocolate chip cookies won the hearts of Americans everywhere! This was a truly inspired creation! That other great American cookie, the oatmeal cookie, is a completely different creation; spicy, flat, and crisp, more like breakfast, packed with raisins and maybe walnuts or pecans. Keeping in mind that Laura's cookie is probably a PR invention, what's the political purpose behind combining chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies into one horrific recipe? A vision of a united America? I can tell what a recipe will taste like by reading it. I'd never bake this cookie. This is not a successful political cookie baking ploy. There's even a political conflict of interest involved. We're being told by the Bush administration's public health officials that America's kiddies are suffering an epidemic of obesity -- more soccer mom guilt -- so why isn't Laura pushing carrot sticks instead of a cookie recipe that contains THREE STICKS OF BUTTER AND THREE EGGS?
If by chance this is a genuine Laura Bush cookie recipe, maybe it explains that dazed look on GW's face. I'd assumed it came from all those years of booze, but maybe his arteries are all plugged up and blood is no longer circulating in that dim brain! I can tell you what should be done with this cookie. Serve it at every Republican event and assure that Republicans will die young!
Meryl
7/17/2004
My Talk at the ATLA Convention
I was invited to speak at the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) national convention last week in Boston. I talked about the Right's communications machine, and how it affects the "tort reform" debate. I encouraged trial lawyers to fund advocacy/communication organizations to counter the Right.
I have posted my remarks online here.
I have posted my remarks online here.
Introducing Me
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)