1/15/2005
The Party IS The State Now
This story, Social Security Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision, about the Republicans using the Social Security Administration to scare the pubic into supporting privatization is WAYYY beyond the Armstrong Williams scandal! That was the government using tax dollars to pay journalists to propagandize the public. This is using the government itself to propagandize the public to support the policies of one political party. The Congress will not investigate. The FBI will not. The Justice Department won't. The media will drop it in a day or two. This is bad. The Party has merged with the State.
More on the astonishing Harvard blogging conference
It turns out that Zephyr Teachout's high-minded accusations against Kos and Jerome Armstrong were in some way connected to the astonishing, nearly-blogger-free blogging conference at Harvard which I dissed last week. She was one of the very few bloggers invited, even though her blog is barely a week old.
So anyway, I left a message at their site which I thought I'd share (slightly edited):
So anyway, I left a message at their site which I thought I'd share (slightly edited):
Jesus. I dissed your astonishing conference already a week ago ("Screw Credibility” at “Seeing the Forest"), and it turns out that I didn’t diss it ENOUGH.
What a clown show.
I have an idea, though. Why don’t you get Bill O’Reilly, Bob Novak, Instapundit, and High Hewitt to weigh in on blogging ethics?
Oh, wait – it’s already been done. Well, how about William Safire, George Will, and Judith Miller? Or maybe Richard Mellon Scaife and the Rev. “Jesus’ Big Brother” Moon.
Because you know, our legit media have ethics the way stray dogs have fleas. You can’t even stand close to one of those guys without risking an infestation of ethics.
Fake Blogging-Ethics Crisis
The Wall Street Journal concocts a story, twisting the work of one of its reporters and garbling the statement of a Dean staffer. Then O'Reilly, Novak, Instapundit, and Hugh Hewitt pick up the story, speaking gravely about a crisis in blogging ethics and grossly misrepresenting the facts to millions of people. (The hapless, well-paid Paul Begala goes along for the ride.)
What should Democrats do in a case like this? There are various possible right answers to that question. (It is not an easy one, mostly because of our weak media presence). But the wrong thing to do is to start talking about blogger ethics.
This was a fake story. Rule One should be "Never take fake stories at face value".
Dean, Kos, Jerome Armstrong, bloggers in general, and the Democrats have all been hurt to some degree. The William Armstrong story about the Republican misappropriation of government funds for bribes has been mostly forgotten. And all because of a fake story.
Hasn't this happened before? Aren't people watching for this kind of thing by now? How many more times can Lucy play her trick on the Charlie Brown Democrats?
What should Democrats do in a case like this? There are various possible right answers to that question. (It is not an easy one, mostly because of our weak media presence). But the wrong thing to do is to start talking about blogger ethics.
This was a fake story. Rule One should be "Never take fake stories at face value".
Dean, Kos, Jerome Armstrong, bloggers in general, and the Democrats have all been hurt to some degree. The William Armstrong story about the Republican misappropriation of government funds for bribes has been mostly forgotten. And all because of a fake story.
Hasn't this happened before? Aren't people watching for this kind of thing by now? How many more times can Lucy play her trick on the Charlie Brown Democrats?
1/14/2005
The Dean Blogging Controversy
I've been gone all day at MacWorld Expo. I'm back and I see that this Dean Blogging controversy has . broken . out . all over.
An observation. The "Republican Noise Machine" threw out some trash - this ridiculous story - to get us all talking about something other than who ELSE besides Armstrong Williams was on the take -- AND IT WORKED. DOH! So tomorrow let's all get back on the story about who else the Right is paying, and how much they are paying, and stick with it. It's a big story and it has "legs" with average people, and if we keep at it, it will lead somewhere.
I would like to hear what Dean has to say about it. (Simon Rosenberg blogged about it.) The story is more about Dean and his campaign than about bloggers doing anything wrong. Thinking they could buy bloggers for $3,000? AND NOT EVEN TELLING THE BLOGGERS THEY WERE TRYING TO BUY THEM OFF? Heh.
And if they were tryng to buy off two bloggers, why so cheap? -- on the Right someone as far from the mainstream as Armstrong Williams gets $240,000, and we KNOW that's only the tip of the iceberg even with Williams! That was probably just his payoff for the one year. That says a LOT right there, in my opinion. "Our side" is just too cheap to win anything.
An observation. The "Republican Noise Machine" threw out some trash - this ridiculous story - to get us all talking about something other than who ELSE besides Armstrong Williams was on the take -- AND IT WORKED. DOH! So tomorrow let's all get back on the story about who else the Right is paying, and how much they are paying, and stick with it. It's a big story and it has "legs" with average people, and if we keep at it, it will lead somewhere.
I would like to hear what Dean has to say about it. (Simon Rosenberg blogged about it.) The story is more about Dean and his campaign than about bloggers doing anything wrong. Thinking they could buy bloggers for $3,000? AND NOT EVEN TELLING THE BLOGGERS THEY WERE TRYING TO BUY THEM OFF? Heh.
And if they were tryng to buy off two bloggers, why so cheap? -- on the Right someone as far from the mainstream as Armstrong Williams gets $240,000, and we KNOW that's only the tip of the iceberg even with Williams! That was probably just his payoff for the one year. That says a LOT right there, in my opinion. "Our side" is just too cheap to win anything.
Washngton State Election Story
Preemptive Karma has a post about the Washington gubernatorial situation, Truth and consequences.
Muslims protest Fox's "24"
The Council on American-Islamic Relations has objected to "24"'s? first two episodes Sunday and Monday, according to MediaLife. The show depicted an ordinary Muslim family as terrorists, with the mother killing the son?s non-Muslim girlfriend to shut her up. Fox thinks it can smooth things out by supplying public service announcements sponsored by the Council, but is leaving if and when the spots run up to the local TV stations themselves. Fox is not changing the storyline.
Berkeley prof denied tenure for honest biotec research
Counterpunch details how a Berkeley professor was denied tenure because his study of genetic contamination of Mexican crops angered Monsanto, a major research funder. He was also yelled at by a Mexican official
I think that Brett and I have a similiar understanding of Bush's purposes in Iraq: World War IV, national greatness, an American empire to put the British empire to shame.
When I say so, however, I am called a tinfoil-hat paranoid, since I oppose this grand plan. At this point in history, the way to support Bush's project is to deny that it exists.
Much of Bush's support is from people who believe in him personally without really knowing or caring about any of the details of what he's doing. Conservatives normally oppsoe this kind of cult of personality, except apparently when the object of worship makes a token claim to be a conservative. In that case, they engage in submissive-wetting behavior (as do many Democrats, of course).
In a democracy there is a tremendous cost when a leader's most important initiative is fraudulently justified and sold as a pig in a poke. Democracy-promotion is now our fourth or fifth justification for the war, after WMD, al-Qaeda ties, humanitarian intervention, and the flypaper theory. I have no idea what the next justification will be.
Brett will now to explain to you how Kennedy, Roosevelt, wilson, Lincoln, and Martin Van Buren were Just As Bad As Bush. It's funny how the worst behavior of Democrats has become the Republican goal.
It's also funny how Lincoln always shows up on lists of this kind, as if he were a Democrat. In point of fact, a considerable proportion of (Southern) Republicans absolutely hate Lincoln. It took a tremendous battle to get a Lincoln statue erected on public land in Richmond, Virginia -- I don't think that that hast even been tried yet in Alabama. (Maybe the Alabama democrats should take a shot at it).
1/13/2005
Social Security
Brad DeLong, in Violating the Constitution, points out that Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendement of the Constitution of the United States begins,
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.Shall not be questioned. Remember that the next time you hear a right-winger talking about the bonds that make up the Social Security Trust Fund being somehow different from other government bonds.
"Declaration Banned" Story -- Parents Still Dealing With It
Do you remember the story about the right-wing lie that the Declaration of Independence was banned at a school? (See also eRiposte.) Well, it served the purposes of the Right very well -- according to Google there are about 8200 websites that talk about it.
But the local parents are still dealing with the fallout from this right-wing hit-and-run attack. See the site of We the Parents.
But the local parents are still dealing with the fallout from this right-wing hit-and-run attack. See the site of We the Parents.
Our grassroots organization has come about as a way of responding truthfully to the negative media campaign crafted by a group of lawyers who have filed a lawsuit, which we feel is frivolous, against our school, our principal, Patricia Vidmar, and the Cupertino Union School District board of Education.These are just regular people in a local school district that one day found itself used as a pawn in the Right's game. It's intersting to see how they are responding. Go to the "Parents Pages" and read some of the essays and letters.
Our mission is to clarify the misconceptions created about our school so that we can rescue our reputation as one of the best schools in the area, State, and our Great Nation
Registered Democrat? Companies Don't Want Your Business
Corporate retribution for being a Democrat is moving beyond hiring and firing. See NH Woman Loses Insurance Coverage for Her Politics at Common Dreams.
Update - Nor do doctors. (Thanks to Take Back the Media)
Update - Nor do doctors. (Thanks to Take Back the Media)
1/12/2005
It Has Come To This
Go read Bush's 'Death Squads' at Consortiumnews.com.
Also, this whole thing stinks enough to drive Billmon to surface and post The Salvadoran Option.
Both thanks to Cakewalking on Graves ~ Death Squad 'W' and the Shining City on the Hill by the farmer at corrente.
Also, this whole thing stinks enough to drive Billmon to surface and post The Salvadoran Option.
Both thanks to Cakewalking on Graves ~ Death Squad 'W' and the Shining City on the Hill by the farmer at corrente.
Social Security
I have a new post at American Street, The Alternate Plan Trap. Excerpt:
I think one trap to watch out for is that they have created an unconscious “frame” in people’s minds in which Social Security is the symbol of the Democratic Party. So when anyone talks about Social Security, they’re really talking about the Democrats. So repeating that Social Security is outdated, bankrupt, etc. is really a tactic for framing the Party itself. By the same token, saying Social Security needs changing is saying that the Democratic Party is not serving the public.
So what is really going on here is every time they SAY that Social Security is broken what they are really communicating - and reinforcing in the public mind - is that the Democratic Party is old-fashioned, broken, not worthy of trust and support. This means that if the Democrats respond by offering an alternative “fix” what they are really doing is agreeing that Social Security - and therefore in the public mind the Democratic Party - is “broken.”
Good Book - Confesseions of an Economic Hit Man
I have started reading the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins. I can already tell this is going to be a great read, and an important book. It's about how we get third-world countries to borrow money to build dams or other projects that make a few people rich but hurt most of the population, and then the country owes so much money that they have to knuckle under to the multinational corpocracy. I'll write more about it as I get through the book.
Also, I used to link to books at Amazon, and I'd get a quarter or something if you click through and buy it. I don't do that anymore because BuyBlue.org tells me that Amazon is a company that funds the Republicans. So click on the Donate button in the right column and throw me a couple of hundred dollars instead. Also, I used to have an Amazon Donate button in the right column, and that's gone, too.
Update - Choose The Blue says Amazon's donations are about 50/50. So I have to think this over.
Also, I used to link to books at Amazon, and I'd get a quarter or something if you click through and buy it. I don't do that anymore because BuyBlue.org tells me that Amazon is a company that funds the Republicans. So click on the Donate button in the right column and throw me a couple of hundred dollars instead. Also, I used to have an Amazon Donate button in the right column, and that's gone, too.
Update - Choose The Blue says Amazon's donations are about 50/50. So I have to think this over.
Not One Damn Dime Day
An e-mail I received:
I'm not sure anyone will notice one day of non-spending, and we'll all make up for it the next day so it cancels itself out. I think it is better to target specific companies and never spend any money with them, and publicize the reasons, and make the practice widespread. The old "boycott grapes" and "dolphin-safe tuna" campaigns worked. I think the blue half of the country should make it clear that we do not tolerate corporate funding of fascism.
Update BuyBlue's list is down. Use Choose The Blue.
One thing for sure -- avoid doing business with these companies.
I'm all for the sentiment, and I think attacking the funders of the right economically is a great idea that we should develop. (Don't forget to visit BuyBlue.org!)Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.
On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.
During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Nor toll/cab/bus or train ride money exchanges. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours.
On "Not One Damn Dime Day" please boycott Wal-mart, K-Mart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).
For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.
"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics."Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now over 1,300 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.
There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.
For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.
I'm not sure anyone will notice one day of non-spending, and we'll all make up for it the next day so it cancels itself out. I think it is better to target specific companies and never spend any money with them, and publicize the reasons, and make the practice widespread. The old "boycott grapes" and "dolphin-safe tuna" campaigns worked. I think the blue half of the country should make it clear that we do not tolerate corporate funding of fascism.
Update BuyBlue's list is down. Use Choose The Blue.
One thing for sure -- avoid doing business with these companies.
The Real Question
You'll probably read a lot today about President Bush's interview with the Washington Times. President outlines role of his faith:
The Right uses attacks on credibility to win their arguments. Instead of arguing the facts in Fahrenheit-9/11, for example, they attack Michael Moore, and try to use humiliation and shame as a weapon. As a result, many "centrist" Democrats run from any association with Moore and from the points he makes. Yet right-wingers feel free to say and do the most outrageous things. One of the most outrageous is their relationship with the Moonies.
"'I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person,' Mr. Bush said. 'I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.The REAL question here should be why is the President giving an interview to the Moonies? What is his relationship with the Moonies? Why is he validating their propaganda operation - the paper costs the Moonies $100 million a year - by giving them exclusive interviews?
'On the other hand, I think more and more people understand the importance of faith in their life,' he said. 'America is a remarkable place when it comes to religion and faith. We had people come to our rallies who were there specifically to say, 'I'm here to pray for you, let you know I'm praying for you.' And I was very grateful about that.' "
The Right uses attacks on credibility to win their arguments. Instead of arguing the facts in Fahrenheit-9/11, for example, they attack Michael Moore, and try to use humiliation and shame as a weapon. As a result, many "centrist" Democrats run from any association with Moore and from the points he makes. Yet right-wingers feel free to say and do the most outrageous things. One of the most outrageous is their relationship with the Moonies.
1/11/2005
Joe Trippi Endorses Rosenberg, Not Dean, For DNC
On the day Howard Dean announces his candidacy for Chair of the DNC, Joe Trippi Endorses Simon Rosenberg.
We Need A Blog Drumbeat
Chris, at MyDD, in Armstrong Williams is a Crack in the Matrix:
Beyond direct government payments, who is being paid by the Right's heavily-funded network of "advocacy" organizations to propagandize us? Who is being paid by corporate trade associations to advocate "tort reform?" Who is being paid by oil companies and their fronts to say global warming is not a problem? The Armstrong Williams case opens up a crack in the door to this use of paid propaganda disguised as "news," designed to influence the public to support Republican policies and candidates!
And, this case demonstrates the reach of this practice -- I mean, Armstrong Williams? If they're paying HIM a quarter of a million dollars cash, just imagine who else is getting paid, and just imagine the amounts they are paid!
This is huge. This is the White House again caught red-handed engaging in criminal activities.
Bloggers, keep this story alive!
"The only way that Armstrong Williams can be considered an isolated incident is that he is the rare crack in the matrix of the Republican Noise Machine that actually is now visible to the public.We need a blog drumbeat on this story until the "mainstream press" has to cover it. This is a BIG DEAL. This is our government paying right-wingers to repeat right-wing propaganda. It is a major crime. And it says a lot about what has been happening in this country! WHO ELSE IS BEING PAID? AND WHO IS PAYING?
[. . .] The FOIA requests underway on this matter are an excellent piece of work, but they are not enough. This is perhaps the best chance we have ever had to hold the Republican Noise Machine up to public scrutiny and do real damage to the "liberal media" narrative. We must take immediate action on this story.
[. . .] We do not have a large window on this story, and I have little doubt that many people with a great deal of influence over our national discourse would prefer to see it swept under the rug. However, if we can start the ball rolling on this story before the FOIA requests even come out, it could have a tremendous snowballing effect. We need to act now."
Beyond direct government payments, who is being paid by the Right's heavily-funded network of "advocacy" organizations to propagandize us? Who is being paid by corporate trade associations to advocate "tort reform?" Who is being paid by oil companies and their fronts to say global warming is not a problem? The Armstrong Williams case opens up a crack in the door to this use of paid propaganda disguised as "news," designed to influence the public to support Republican policies and candidates!
And, this case demonstrates the reach of this practice -- I mean, Armstrong Williams? If they're paying HIM a quarter of a million dollars cash, just imagine who else is getting paid, and just imagine the amounts they are paid!
This is huge. This is the White House again caught red-handed engaging in criminal activities.
Bloggers, keep this story alive!
More on Roemer/Mercatus
TAPPED has more info about the Mercatus Center, a right-wing-financed "think tank" where DNC candidate Tim Roemer currently works. (I had a post on this the other day.)
Tapped asks:
Tapped asks:
"Democrats, such as Roemer, who shill for the Mercatus Center are giving bi-partisan cover to an institution that has a long track record of working against much of what the Democratic Party's leadership and interest groups have fought for over the past 35 years. I'd be curious to know what Mercatus paid Roemer to promote their Capitol Hill Campus outreach and education program."I think we should all be asking Tim Roemer why he is running for Chair of the Democratic Party, while working for a right-wing-funded organization that exists for the purpose of persuading Members of Congress to support right-wing proposals!
Blog Ads
I just took a short cruise around the right-wing blogosphere. I noticed that lots of sites have several ads. I don't see this happening, at least not as many, at Progressive blogs with roughly the same level of readership. What's up? Why is the Right ALWAYS more willing to support their own financially?
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/01/the_democratic_.html bad advice
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.sullivan.html consultants
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6803476/site/newsweek/ clinton-bush
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.html evangelical
http://www.cursor.org/
http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_kenmacleod_archive.html#110528827127572642 art
http://www.mltoday.com//Pages/BooksReviews/Review-Saunders.html Art
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0103-26.htm wellstone
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.sullivan.html consultants
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6803476/site/newsweek/ clinton-bush
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.html evangelical
http://www.cursor.org/
http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_kenmacleod_archive.html#110528827127572642 art
http://www.mltoday.com//Pages/BooksReviews/Review-Saunders.html Art
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0103-26.htm wellstone
1/10/2005
I Swear - Now Your Turn, Journalists
I swear that I have never taken money -- neither directly nor indirectly -- from any political campaign or government agency -- whether federal, state, or local -- in exchange for any service performed in my job as a journalist (or commentator, or blogger, or whatever you think I should be called).
(VIA Atrios)
(VIA Atrios)
The "Conventional Wisdom" Machine
I was having a conversation today about the gap between what blog readers know and the "conventional wisdom" that the "Washington Elite" -- opinion leaders, legislators, their staffs and the circles they associate with -- think they know. It brought to mind an old post (Sept 2002!), Getting Rolled. From that post:
The Armstrong Williams scandal shows us the amounts of money involved in, and the "reach" of this effort. I mean, Armstrong Williams? If Armstrong Williams is getting $240,000 directly from the government, imagine what mainstream opinion leaders are getting from the big-money corporate trade associations, right-wing think tanks, etc. -- over (speaking fees, travel, gifts) and under (bribes, like Williams got) the table.
The amounts of money the Right is putting into their outside-the-election-process propaganda effort -- over $300 million a year just for the think tank/advocacy communication infrastructure -- ought to warn us that most of the traditional channels through which "the leadership elite" get their info are likely targets of this effort.
Marginalizing sources like blogs is one way to scare Washington types away from the info they contain. Reading blogs is a way to break through that bubble.
Update - See also The Conservative Marketing Machine, by Laurie Spivak
How often have Congressional Democrats been rolled by the Republican machine, voted for something they shouldn't have, and then been blamed by the Republicans for the drastic consequences?America's political elite live in an information bubble. It's like the Right has set up a "conventional wisdom machine" that is targeted at opinion leaders, legislators, their staffs and the circles they associate with. Heavily-funded right-wing organizations work to infiltrate their message into the information that these "leadership elite" receive. They achieve this in many ways. One way, of course, is that they have their very own bought-and-paid-for media outlets like Fox, the Washington Times, and most of AM radio. But they also have worked to get the more mainstream opinion leaders under their influence. Influential columnists and reporters receive large speaking fees from corporations and trade associations. They get free "retreats" where they learn about "market solutions." And everyone is certainly afraid of the shame and humiliation should they become the target of the character assassination machine. That acts as a powerful incentive to toe the line and reject "marginalized" information sources -- people like Scott Ritter and Michael Moore, constituents complaining about election fraud, and Progressive online news sources or blogs (those terrible things that leaked the exit polls) -- and stick to "credible" sources.
The events typically follow a pattern. The extremely powerful Republican media machine sets up an environment that convinces the Washington politicians that it will be very difficult politically to vote against them, and makes sure that the vote happens quickly - before opposing forces have time to realize what's going on and rally enough real people on the other side to demonstrate that there really is support for non-Republican positions.
How many times have we seen this process at work? It is the careful creation of a local environment calculated to maximize pressure on the legislators at the best possible moment. The phony Republican news events, the "independent" media playing along & following their script, the AM radio 24-hour-a-day Republican drumbeat pounding out the lies, the slurry of misleading or blatantly deceitful op-ed pieces filling the editorial pages, the dittohead letters to the editor (or "astroturf" - phony grassroots letters generated by a marketing firm), the pack of columnists writing according to instructions FAXed over from the Heritage Foundation (follow the NEA smear for an example) (second NEA smear link here), pretty soon all the news stories reflect the Republican line and repeat the Republican falsehoods.
It becomes a drumbeat of constant repetition of the same lines over and over and over until they become "conventional wisdom." "Everybody knows that" so-and-so is true so there's no point wasting your energy trying to say it ain't so. Polls then show that the public (deprived of any contrasting information) solidly favors the Republican position. Calls and letters flood in to Congressional offices (from Christian Coalition phone banks). Democrats start to worry about their chances of holding office if they oppose the Republicans on this one vote.
Then the vote comes up in the Congress, and enough Democrats - afraid that Rush Limbaugh will say something bad about them, and mired in a Washington "bubble" environment cut off from their constituents - vote with the Republicans to get the issue through and out of the way. Tax cuts, budget cuts, right-wing judges, "compromises" on health care or welfare or energy... and Bush slides it past the voters as a "bipartisan" win for the Republicans.
I call this process "The Forest." We have now seen it happen enough times that we can recognize what's happening and even predict the next move. What's unfortunate is how the Democrats in Washington fall into the same trap every time. Now it's happening on the ultimate issue - war and peace, life and death.
The Armstrong Williams scandal shows us the amounts of money involved in, and the "reach" of this effort. I mean, Armstrong Williams? If Armstrong Williams is getting $240,000 directly from the government, imagine what mainstream opinion leaders are getting from the big-money corporate trade associations, right-wing think tanks, etc. -- over (speaking fees, travel, gifts) and under (bribes, like Williams got) the table.
The amounts of money the Right is putting into their outside-the-election-process propaganda effort -- over $300 million a year just for the think tank/advocacy communication infrastructure -- ought to warn us that most of the traditional channels through which "the leadership elite" get their info are likely targets of this effort.
Marginalizing sources like blogs is one way to scare Washington types away from the info they contain. Reading blogs is a way to break through that bubble.
Update - See also The Conservative Marketing Machine, by Laurie Spivak
Vote For Gonzales == Vote For Torture
From Will the U.S. Senate Endorse Torture?
. . . In the past, Congress has meted out punishments to presidents or their prospective appointees for far lesser transgressions than culpability in torture. For example, President Bill Clinton was impeached—a rarity in American history—by Congress for having sex with an intern and lying about it. Although Clinton was guilty of bad behavior, this breach of ethics nowhere approached the severity of enabling the brutal treatment of prisoners in the government’s custody. Similarly, Congress denied Judge Robert Bork a seat on the Supreme Court, not because his sentencing of prisoners was too harsh, but because it merely viewed his policy views as out of the mainstream.
Although I dislike the term “un-American”—since throughout U.S. history it has often been applied to people who disagreed with whatever war was then the rage—I think the term can safely be applied to torture. Congress should deny high office to anyone who helps create a bureaucratic climate that implicitly endorses such reprehensible behavior. Gonzales has done exactly that.
Jail time for moms who miscarry
That is what HB1677, or the “Report of Fetal Death by mother, penalty” bill, introduced into the Virginia Legislature by Delegate John Cosgrove, would require. If you are a woman and you have a miscarriage--not an abortion--away from a medical center where such things are automatically reported, Cosgrove's bill would require you to report the miscarriage to the police department within 12 hours-- barely enough time to get over the physical pain and exhaustion, the tears with your partner over losing the child you have been prayng for, and the grieving call to your parents and in-laws. Miss that 12 hours by one minute, and you could find yourself facing a self-rightous prosecutor who wants you put you in line for a $2500 fine and a 12 month jail term with the well-know potential for jailhouse rape and beatings. The full story at Democracy for Virgina. An email campaign to Delegate Cosgrove, the author of this attempt to further control women's bodies can be found at mansworldnot.
Credibility
A letter to the editor, NY Times, Online Debate Forums,
As the administrator of the Web site Democratic Underground, I am perplexed as to why you would consider an obscure posting on a busy Internet discussion forum to be worthy of an article ("Myths Run Wild in Blog Tsunami Debate," news article, Jan. 3).But BLOGS don't have credibility. The NY Times and the Washington Post and Armstrong Williams have credibility.
Your article did not make clear that the message in question was posted by a completely anonymous individual, whose identity and political agenda are impossible to determine. The article also did not mention that the posting appeared to be an innocent question from a person guilty of nothing more than ignorance. Indeed, the posting's title (which you did not mention) was "One more dumb question regarding the earthquake in Asia."
Our discussion forum is different from a traditional blog. We get approximately 25,000 messages posted each day, and we cannot possibly check them all for accuracy.
It is fairly common for right-wing Web sites to cherry-pick the most extreme or outlandish posts from our forum in order to paint all liberals as wacky or extreme. I was surprised to see The Times doing it, too.
1/09/2005
What's So Funny?
As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin’ for light in the darkness of insanity.
I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred and misery?
And each time I feel like this inside,
There’s one thing I wanna know:
What’s so funny ’bout peace love & understanding?
And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.
’Cause each time I feel it slippin’ away, just makes me wanna cry.
What’s so funny ’bout peace love & understanding?
So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.
’Cause each time I feel it slippin’ away, just makes me wanna cry.
What’s so funny ’bout peace love & understanding?
No poll
This wicked world
Searchin’ for light in the darkness of insanity.
I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred and misery?
And each time I feel like this inside,
There’s one thing I wanna know:
What’s so funny ’bout peace love & understanding?
And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.
’Cause each time I feel it slippin’ away, just makes me wanna cry.
What’s so funny ’bout peace love & understanding?
So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.
’Cause each time I feel it slippin’ away, just makes me wanna cry.
What’s so funny ’bout peace love & understanding?
Screw Credibility
Recently Digby wrote about an astonishing Harvard conference on political blogging. Of the 43 participants, only about 3 or 4 were free-lance bloggers. Everyone else represented an institution, and while all but two had some internet presence, the majority were best known for their non-internet work.
Bloggers apparently don't have credibility. Judy Fucking Miller has credibility, and William Fucking Safire has credibility, but bloggers don’t. Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum, and Josh Micah Marshall strive for credibility, but they weren't invited. They might as well all have been off in Vegas playing poker with the infamous Bartcop.
The major media has lost the ability to control the political dialogue. No one can say “That’s the way it is” any more. But media people are fighting hard to maintain their status, and that’s why the credibility issue is raised. (In Digby’s comments, the blogger Susan Madrak – once a professional journalist – talks about the fear and hostility she encounters when representing bloggers at journalistic events.)
People who promote Judith Miller, but fire Robert Parry, really need to shut up about credibility. “Credibility” is just the conventional wisdom -- if you disagree with it, you’re not credible. (Scott Ritter knew as much about the facts of Iraqi WMD as anyone did, and he was right when almost everyone else was wrong, but do you see him on TV any more, or read him in the NYT? No. Not credible.)
Two things are happening here. First, there is no middle any more. This is mostly because the hard right is trying to take over the country by any means necessary, and destroying moderates (including Republican moderates) is part of their game. They have many plants in the media itself -- especially at the relatively-anonymous high levels, including ownership – and rightwing activists outside the media have learned that if they complain all the time about everything, often they’ll get their way. (This accounts for a supposed paradox: why do both liberals and conservatives hate the media? It’s because the conservatives are faking it. They know as well as liberals do that Dan Rather wasn’t really a liberal, but they can win by lying and smearing, so they do it.)
The second thing is more positive. Faceless copyeditors and other behind-the-scenes pros try to control the spin of news by highlighting some stories, downplaying others, and hardening or softening the main point. Various tricks can be used to suppress a story: putting it on page 16 with a small, misleading headline and burying the point of the story in the 9th paragraph sum up the most common ones.
With the internet, this arbiter function is lost. Every man can be his own I.F. Stone now. Stone used to say that you could always find the truth in the newspapers, but it would often be in a short paragraph on page sixteen. Most of the damage that bloggers do to the established media doesn’t come from independent reporting, but from displacing the copy editors by highlighting stories the editors wanted to downplay.
I’ve talked about this before, and I’ll have lot more to say later. For right now, I’ll just say that the Democratic Party’s timidity about bloggers is a good example of the way that Democrats’ institutional, bureaucratic commitments cripple them, and that the quest for credibility is not worth bothering with, since Rove, Norquist, Bush, and Cheney are out to destroy us any way they can. There's no middle any more.
P. S. Note that I didn't even mention Armstrong Williams.
1/08/2005
Payolagate
Oliver Willis is blogging up a storm over the news that the Bush administration has been illegally paying journalists and PR firms big bucks to sway the public toward their policies. (Never mind the speaking fees, free travel, etc. that corporations and trade associations give to journalists...)
So it seems like a good time to remind readers of this story. The Bushies awarded the contract to supply oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to one of the core funders of the Right. What a coincidence! At a time when oil prices are higher than ever, many have questioned why the government wouldn't at least put a hold on oil purchases -- not to mention pumping some oil OUT of the reserves to lower demand. But that would mean that Koch gets less of our money to put to use funding the Right! Well, it isn't about the interests of the people of the country, it's about the interests of The Party.
So it seems like a good time to remind readers of this story. The Bushies awarded the contract to supply oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to one of the core funders of the Right. What a coincidence! At a time when oil prices are higher than ever, many have questioned why the government wouldn't at least put a hold on oil purchases -- not to mention pumping some oil OUT of the reserves to lower demand. But that would mean that Koch gets less of our money to put to use funding the Right! Well, it isn't about the interests of the people of the country, it's about the interests of The Party.
Local Boy Makes Really, Really, Really, Really Good!
Blogger Tom Burka, in NY Times, The New York Times > Opinion >Washington Week in Revue. It's a humor column, so you serious, serious Seeing the Forest regulars will probably want to skip it.
Torture Is So Last Year -- Now It's Death Squads
Pentagon May Use Death Squads in Iraq:
"Now, Newsweek has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration's battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported 'nationalist' forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers.I'm actually too upset to comment on this. I keep writing something, deleting it. It's fear. Laws just don't matter. ALL the checks and balances have been removed. And if they are willing to do it there ...
[. . .] Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions.
[. . .] The interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is said to be among the most forthright proponents of the Salvador option."
Freedom?
Iran Government Censors Blogs:
Correction - Oops. I screwed up. I mistook IraN for IraQ. Well at least I didn't invade and kill tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of people and destroy America's credibility.
"Friends in Iran, journalists and technicians, are saying that judiciary officials have ordered all major ISP to filter all blogging services including PersianBlog, BlogSpot, Blogger, BlogSky, and even BlogRolling."What were our troops fighting for, again?
Correction - Oops. I screwed up. I mistook IraN for IraQ. Well at least I didn't invade and kill tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of people and destroy America's credibility.
1/07/2005
Washington Democrats
I think I've found a pretty good definition of what some of us characterize as "Washington Democrats." Tim Grieve, in Salon's Not with a bang but a whimper sums up what it is about the "Washington Democrats" that bothers me:
I think the problem is that many of these Representatives and Senators probably don't KNOW how so many people they represent feel about issues like this! My recommendation is that the DNC have someone on staff who writes up a daily digest that is delivered to Congressional offices? They could start with the Daou Report.
Update - I have heard the argument that this only gives Republicans an opening to overturn election results next time should a Democrat win while Republicans still control the Congress. This is what I call the "Democrats who are afraid that Rush Limbaugh will say something bad about them" syndrome. If the Republicans are going to try to overturn a Democratic win, they're going to -- it's what they do, and they don't do the things they do in reaction to Democrats. They do them because they are pursuing an aggressive offense strategy, and it is working.
"And the Republicans weren't the only ones who seemed to give the protest short shrift. Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, took to the floor to criticize Boxer for facilitating the protest, saying she would undermine the country's confidence in its democracy if the protest were to succeed and the election were thrown to the House of Representatives. And while Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid ultimately spoke of the need for election reform, he spent much of the protest debate on the other side of the aisle, kibitzing with Santorum and a few other Republican senators.It doesn't matter where you stand on whether the Ohio vote produced legitimate results. When a substantial block of your party feels strongly about something like this, you don't mock them, you treat them with respect and take the issue seriously. The grassroots and the "netroots" don't feel that we are taken seriously by the "Washington Democrats."
When it came time for the roll call, Boxer was the only senator to vote for the protest; John Kerry, who had announced Wednesday that he wouldn't take part in any protest, conveniently found himself on a mission to Baghdad. In the House, 31 Democrats voted to support the objection. Eighty-eight House Democrats voted against it, and 80 of them didn't bother to vote at all. For their efforts, Rep. John Conyers and the others who pursued an investigation in Ohio got neither a serious debate over the voting irregularities nor a commitment from Republicans even to think about electoral reform."
I think the problem is that many of these Representatives and Senators probably don't KNOW how so many people they represent feel about issues like this! My recommendation is that the DNC have someone on staff who writes up a daily digest that is delivered to Congressional offices? They could start with the Daou Report.
Update - I have heard the argument that this only gives Republicans an opening to overturn election results next time should a Democrat win while Republicans still control the Congress. This is what I call the "Democrats who are afraid that Rush Limbaugh will say something bad about them" syndrome. If the Republicans are going to try to overturn a Democratic win, they're going to -- it's what they do, and they don't do the things they do in reaction to Democrats. They do them because they are pursuing an aggressive offense strategy, and it is working.
Government Paying Journalists To Promote Right-Wing Policies! Are They Paid To Promote Bush, Too?
"Our" government is paying big money to journalists to promote right-wing legislation. Think about that for a minute.
White House paid commentator $240,000 to promote No Child Left Behind
This humble blogger wants to know, what OTHER payoffs to journalists are being handed out by the Bush administration? Did journalists receive money from the government to promote the Iraq war? To help the Swift Boat Vets smear Kerry? This $240,000 was a direct payoff from the government itself. But what about other kinds of payoffs? Corporate and trade association speaking fees are payoffs. Exclusive retreats are payoffs. Gifts, dinners, travel ... there are may ways to pay people off.
Government payments to journalists is obviously, flatly, blatantly illegal. But is there a chance that the Bush Justice Department will investigate? Is there a chance that the Republican Congress will investigate? The Republican FBI? And here is the real laugher -- with $240,000 payoffs to journalists in the air, how many "journalists" will look into this? We'll have to wait and see.
Because this government payoff story places all journalists under suspicion I think it would be a good idea for all journalists to disclose whether they have received speaking fees, gifts, travel, etc. from any interest group of any kind. But that's just me.
White House paid commentator $240,000 to promote No Child Left Behind
"...the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the [NCLB] law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."This $240,000 bribe is ON TOP of what the guy makes for his show, speaking fees, OTHER bribes, etc.
The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."MAY be illegal? Is there any question about it? The government is giving money to journalists to promote legislation that is before Congress? And with that kind of money being handed out I wonder if this journalist - or any other journalists receiving or hoping to receive payoffs will EVER question anything Bush does? This explains a LOT!
This humble blogger wants to know, what OTHER payoffs to journalists are being handed out by the Bush administration? Did journalists receive money from the government to promote the Iraq war? To help the Swift Boat Vets smear Kerry? This $240,000 was a direct payoff from the government itself. But what about other kinds of payoffs? Corporate and trade association speaking fees are payoffs. Exclusive retreats are payoffs. Gifts, dinners, travel ... there are may ways to pay people off.
Government payments to journalists is obviously, flatly, blatantly illegal. But is there a chance that the Bush Justice Department will investigate? Is there a chance that the Republican Congress will investigate? The Republican FBI? And here is the real laugher -- with $240,000 payoffs to journalists in the air, how many "journalists" will look into this? We'll have to wait and see.
Because this government payoff story places all journalists under suspicion I think it would be a good idea for all journalists to disclose whether they have received speaking fees, gifts, travel, etc. from any interest group of any kind. But that's just me.
1/06/2005
Tucker Carlson to be ousted from CNN
Apparently CNN’s viewers have had it with right wing shouter Tucker Carlson and “shout shows” in general. TV insider blog Cynopsis reported this morning that the bow-tied Carlson has been told his contract will not be renewed, and that his program vehicle, Crossfire, will be canceled. Crossfire itself is getting tired and Carlson's conservative rants and half-truths have not pulled viewers away from Fox to boost its slumping Nielsen viewership ratings. Carlson, who had to eat his words on air when his prediction that Hillary Clinton’s book would bomb bombed, has been petulantly complaining about his TV exposure and rumors are that he will move to the more right-wing friendly MSNBC to fill Deborah Norville's spot at 9 pm at the end of the month. A bad trade for MSNBC viewers but a good one for the CNN audience. Now if only he would vacate PBS. Email PBS CEO Pat Mitchell at viewer@pbs.org and suggest that if Carlson is not good enough for CNN, he is darn sure is not good enough for PBS.
Congressional Ethics
The other day I wrote that the media had been fooled again - that the Republican "reversal" on ethics rules actually wasn't. It was a trick. The new rule -- the supposed "reversal" -- does the following:
Dismisses any complaint when the evenly split Ethics Committee has a tie vote. This measure provides an effective 'veto' of any complaint filed against a Republican.
Eliminates the 45-day deadline for action on a complaint. This change enables the Republicans to "bury" ethics complaints indefinitely.
Rules Committee member Louise Slaughter of New York (Democrat) says,
Rules Committee member Louise Slaughter of New York (Democrat) says,
"This package represents a very serious and grave threat to the credibility and integrity of this institution. And sadly, is being forced upon the Congress and the American people for the benefit and protection on one man, Tom DeLay."The rules package is set to be debated before the full House this afternoon. A vote for adoption will follow. If you live in a Republican district, call your representative today and complain about this! If they think the public is paying attention, it could make a difference!
"The Republican Party has already gone to extraordinary lengths to cover for and protect Mr. Delay from his long pattern of unethical behavior. Now they are changing standing rules of the House to gut the ethics process, a shameful business for the Majority to be involved in."
DNC Candidate Roemer, Please Explain
Tim Roemer is one of the candidates for DNC Chair. Here's something I came across, Roemer's bio at the Mercatus Center:
Explanation, please!
Update - I was rushing out the door when I wrote that. I think I should explain in greater detail why I think this is important, so I'll try to do that in this update. What I probably should do is write a new post from scratch...
At Seeing the Forest I write about the Right's network of organizations, and how they influence our politics by influencing public attitudes as well as setting up channels to influence politicians themselves. Some of these organizations are set up to "educate" opinion leaders and public officials on why they think right-wing ideology offers better solutions to public policy problems. (I'm trying to paraphrase typical right-wing wording...) Without going into detail, let me just say that their solutions are not always what you and I would consider to be in the best interest of the public-at-large. For example, their "market solutions" often translate to "one-dollar-one-vote" corporate-oriented policies -- as compared with boring, old-fashioned, democratic "one-person-one-vote" solutions that require such pesky oversight provisions as transparency, accountability, public consensus, equal opportunity, serving all citizens equally, etc. -- all those things the Right calls "inefficient" and "bureaucratic..."
The Mercatus Center, for example, at George Mason University describes itself as promoting the
As I wrote above, before this update, Tim Roemer is "a distinguished scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University." Roemer's bio at Mercatus also says,
Here are some things that this humble blogger would like to know. What will be going on at this "retreat?" What kind of "sound economic thinking" is a right-wing-funded organization going to be promoting at the retreat? What sort of "Social Security, tax and pension reform" is a right-wing-funded organization going to be promoting to Democratic Chiefs of Staff? Who is funding this retreat (and why?)? And, most important to me, what is a candidate for head of the Democratic Party doing working for this crowd? Anyone interested in the race to become head of the Democratic National Committee deserves answers to these questions, and a full explanation.
I would also be interested in knowing if any Democratic Chiefs of Staff have accepted the invitation!
For those interested in more infomation about the right-wing organizational infrastructure see the tables of contents of reports here and here. While these reports are written for trial lawyers and teacher unions, their intent is to describe the Right's infrastructure of advocacy/communication organizations, who is funding it, what their goals are, and looking at what we might do to counter this effort and recover our democracy. See also: A collection of links to articles, reports and resources for learning about the right-wing movement, its history, how it is funded and how it operates.
(This update was revised at 5:30pm PST.)
Tim Roemer is a distinguished scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and president of the Center for National Policy.Is that THIS Mercatus Center and George Mason University? (Also, see this and this.)
Explanation, please!
Update - I was rushing out the door when I wrote that. I think I should explain in greater detail why I think this is important, so I'll try to do that in this update. What I probably should do is write a new post from scratch...
At Seeing the Forest I write about the Right's network of organizations, and how they influence our politics by influencing public attitudes as well as setting up channels to influence politicians themselves. Some of these organizations are set up to "educate" opinion leaders and public officials on why they think right-wing ideology offers better solutions to public policy problems. (I'm trying to paraphrase typical right-wing wording...) Without going into detail, let me just say that their solutions are not always what you and I would consider to be in the best interest of the public-at-large. For example, their "market solutions" often translate to "one-dollar-one-vote" corporate-oriented policies -- as compared with boring, old-fashioned, democratic "one-person-one-vote" solutions that require such pesky oversight provisions as transparency, accountability, public consensus, equal opportunity, serving all citizens equally, etc. -- all those things the Right calls "inefficient" and "bureaucratic..."
The Mercatus Center, for example, at George Mason University describes itself as promoting the
"use of market-based tools and analysis to discover workable solutions to pressing economic and governmental problems"And just look at who is funding them, as well as the amounts! (Click here, and see the reports linked at the end of this post, for some background on who these funders are and what they stand for. Carthage Foundation is a Richard Mellon Scaife (more here) foundation, for example.)
As I wrote above, before this update, Tim Roemer is "a distinguished scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University." Roemer's bio at Mercatus also says,
"Roemer is a key spokesperson for the Mercatus Center's Capitol Hill Campus outreach and education program, which seeks to improve public policy outcomes by teaching economics and policy analysis to congressional staff."One of the ways the Right "educates" public officials, opinion leaders,etc., is to send them to expensive "retreats" at exclusive resorts, nice hotels, etc. where they are wined and dined and treated to first-class amenities. (This is not unlike the technique of giving free trips to people to attend presentations for time-share retreats or condos.) For example, the Right sponsors retreats for judges that have caused some controversy when reported. (See also here, here, here and here.) Following is the text of an e-mail Roemer recently sent out to Congressional Chiefs of Staff, inviting them to a retreat:
Subject: 2005 Chief of Staff RetreatA flyer for the retreat says:
Dear Fellow Democrats,
I would like to encourage you to join me in Philadelphia on February 4th and 5th, 2005 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel for the 2005 Chief of Staff Retreat. This Retreat is probably the best opportunity of the year for gathering with other senior-level
congressional staff both from our party but also with our colleagues across the aisle.
The Retreat is hosted by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. I have been affiliated with this organization for the past two years in an effort to promote sound economic thinking that leads to a more prosperous and fiscally responsible America. The Mercatus Center is a non-profit and non-partisan group that seeks to educate congressional staff about markets, global prosperity for the poor and economics as they relate to the issues you are working on in your congressional or committee office.
This year's program is highly relevant to the issues facing the 109th Congress. We will discuss topics ranging from drug reimportation to Social Security, tax and pension reform, to understanding learning disparities between black and white children. I will be there to discuss national security and intelligence reforms. While we have made important progress in modernizing our intelligence system, there are several important issues confronting congress.
At a time of partisan divide, this is an opportunity to share thoughts and ideas. Any time that you can get away from the Hill to view issues from different angles, you should do it. I look forward to seeing you there.
If you are interested in learning more, or registering, please click here:
http://www.mercatus.org/capitolhillcampus/article.php/933.html
Best regards,
Tim Roemer
The Mercatus Center provides lodging and meals for all Retreat participants and their guests. In addition, we will provide complimentary transportation to/from Philadelphia via select Amtrak trains. Information on these trains will be posted here as the retreat draws closer.I'm not saying there is anything illegal here. But I am saying that this sounds suspiciously like other activities of the Right that have come to light, designed to spread right-wing ideological influence.
Here are some things that this humble blogger would like to know. What will be going on at this "retreat?" What kind of "sound economic thinking" is a right-wing-funded organization going to be promoting at the retreat? What sort of "Social Security, tax and pension reform" is a right-wing-funded organization going to be promoting to Democratic Chiefs of Staff? Who is funding this retreat (and why?)? And, most important to me, what is a candidate for head of the Democratic Party doing working for this crowd? Anyone interested in the race to become head of the Democratic National Committee deserves answers to these questions, and a full explanation.
I would also be interested in knowing if any Democratic Chiefs of Staff have accepted the invitation!
For those interested in more infomation about the right-wing organizational infrastructure see the tables of contents of reports here and here. While these reports are written for trial lawyers and teacher unions, their intent is to describe the Right's infrastructure of advocacy/communication organizations, who is funding it, what their goals are, and looking at what we might do to counter this effort and recover our democracy. See also: A collection of links to articles, reports and resources for learning about the right-wing movement, its history, how it is funded and how it operates.
(This update was revised at 5:30pm PST.)
1/05/2005
Happening Here
Orcinus worries about where things could go:
The leadership of the Right certainly isn't asking them to tone it down or to stop. Have you heard Bush condemn such talk - ever?
From a comment following the Orcinus post I discovered this piece at the Libertarian Lew Rockwell site:
"My very clear impression of the rank-and-file American right is that many if not most of them, at the behest of their leaders, now believe that opposing George W. Bush and the Iraq War, as well as his handling of the War on Terror, is an act of genuine treason worthy of the ultimate social condemnation, including incarceration and execution. They feel not only vindicated but profoundly empowered by the election result, empowered to silence their opposition, by force if need be."I've been noticing this in the tenor of posts and comments at right-wing sites but especialy on the radio, saying us Progressives hope America loses in Iraq and siding with Saddam or bin Laden, that we hope our troops get killed, that we are helping undermine troop morale... If you have relatives or friends in Iraq, and you believe this stuff, what is it encouraging you to do?
The leadership of the Right certainly isn't asking them to tone it down or to stop. Have you heard Bush condemn such talk - ever?
From a comment following the Orcinus post I discovered this piece at the Libertarian Lew Rockwell site:
"Year's end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.This from the head of a Libertarian think tank! There's more there, worth reading. So go read. An alliance between Progressives and Libertarians to fight the Republicans?
This huge shift has not been noticed among mainstream punditry, and hence there have been few attempts to explain it – much less have libertarians thought much about what it implies. My own take is this: the Republican takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian movement into a statist one.
[further down, talking about increasingly violent right-wing rhetoric] ... I'm actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth – not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.
Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act, egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act. It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous community of native-born patriots.
[. . .] In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism."
At American Street
I have a post up at American Street, titled The Gap, about the information gap that exists between boggers, blog-readers, and Washington Democrats.
And it is surprising how so many Washington Democrats seem so ill-informed about so many of the issues, or so out of touch with things that every single Progressive blogger and blog-reader understands. How many of them understand that the Republican Social Security proposal phases out Social Security? But webloggers and their readers know this.
1/04/2005
Journalists challenge Fox, threatened with $1 million legal bill
TV Spy’s ShopTalk reported Monday that two TV journalists have challenged the license renewal of WTVT Fox-13, charging that it deliberately broadcast false news reports about Monsanto’s secret use of potentially cancer-causing growth hormones in milk. Reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson filed the petition Monday against Fox’s Tampa station after a Florida Appeals Court overturned a $425,000 jury award to them and then ordered them to pay court costs and issued rullings allowing Fox to seek $1 million in legal costs from them for defending itself against their Whistleblower lawsuit. The court said broadcasting false news reports is not a crime, striking grounds for their suit. The journalists are appealing.
Their petition to the Federal Communications Commission to deny the station's license renewal includes evidence that the station’s managers repeatedly ordered them to distort a series of news reports about Monsanto’s secret use of the artificial hormone in dairy cattle throughout Florida and nationally. The reporters charge that station executives demanded their news stories be falsified to avoid a lawsuit by Monsanto and potential loss of advertising from the dairy industry. The petition also charges WTVT violated federal rules by removing complaints about the hormone story from its files.
Progressives should jump in and help because (1) the Appeals Court’s finding that it is not illegal for Fox or any other TV outlet to broadcast news that is patently false gives all corporate media an on-the-record license to lie, and (2) the Court's ruling that Whistleblowers who lose a suit can be sued for huge legal bills by the companies they are suing shuts down a powerful tool for kicking corporate media in the teeth when they do lie. This is a big-stakes case and these two have been fighting it mostly alone for years. (They received a Goldman Prize in 2001 for reporting the story and fighting Fox and Monsanto.) They need money, volunteers, and moral support. If they lose this one, Monsanto can poison us all it wants and Fox can fool us with impunity. Full details of their case, the Appeals Court order for them to pay, their challenge to Fox 13’s license renewal, and how you can help can be found here.
Clear Channel Stations' enlarge your breasts contest
Radio giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. ran a Christmas contest in which stations granted breast enlargement surgeries to women in four cities. In the "Breast Christmas Ever" contest, 13 women were awarded the procedure after writing essays to the stations explaining why they wanted larger breasts. Click here to add your complaints to those going to the FCC.
Media Fooled Again
By now you're read that the Repubicans "backed down" on their ethics rule changes. Well, no. They changed the rules to prevent ANY ethics probes of ANY Repubicans, ever:
"Five members of each party serve on the House ethics panel and under the current system, a tie vote would launch an ethics probe. Under the new rule, a tie or failure to make a decision within 45 days would mean no action would be taken."
Why Not Oppose Gonzales?
The Bush administration has nominated Alberto Gonzales to be our Attorney General. Gonzales is one of the people behind the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also asserts that "quaint" international law does not apply to the United States, and that United States law does not apply to President Bush. From Gonzales Torture Memo Controversy Builds:
OK, I know that some of you, and some on your staffs, read Seeing the Forest. Here's what I don't get: What do you get out of failing to oppose Gonzales' nomination? Is it that you're afraid that Rush Limbaugh is going to say bad things about you if you oppose him? Are you worried about how the media will portray you, maybe say you are "obstructionist?" Are you afraid that you'll be portrayed as "anti-Hispanic?"
Here's what I think YOU don't get: THIS IS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO! Rush Limbaugh IS going to say bad things about you. The Right-wing echo-chamber WILL portray you as obstructionist. They WILL portray you as anti-Hispanic. THEY WILL DO AND SAY THESE THINGS NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO! And, the irony is, these past several years have shown that the more you cozy up to their side, the more they will do this to you, because it shows them that you think you are vulnerable and afraid of your constituents. This is their strategy of strategic lies, and the way you are going to get past it is by embracing truth and righteousness instead of worrying about how you will be "portrayed." The "portrayal game" is over and you lost. Get past that. Start doing the RIGHT thing and the truth of your righteous acts will shine through the fog. Your constituents want "tough and principled."
The Justice Department in 2002 asserted that President Bush's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties like the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales, while at the White House, also wrote a memo to President Bush on January 25, 2002, arguing that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."The article says, "The Democrats have not yet decided whether to try to block Gonzales' confirmation."
OK, I know that some of you, and some on your staffs, read Seeing the Forest. Here's what I don't get: What do you get out of failing to oppose Gonzales' nomination? Is it that you're afraid that Rush Limbaugh is going to say bad things about you if you oppose him? Are you worried about how the media will portray you, maybe say you are "obstructionist?" Are you afraid that you'll be portrayed as "anti-Hispanic?"
Here's what I think YOU don't get: THIS IS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO! Rush Limbaugh IS going to say bad things about you. The Right-wing echo-chamber WILL portray you as obstructionist. They WILL portray you as anti-Hispanic. THEY WILL DO AND SAY THESE THINGS NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO! And, the irony is, these past several years have shown that the more you cozy up to their side, the more they will do this to you, because it shows them that you think you are vulnerable and afraid of your constituents. This is their strategy of strategic lies, and the way you are going to get past it is by embracing truth and righteousness instead of worrying about how you will be "portrayed." The "portrayal game" is over and you lost. Get past that. Start doing the RIGHT thing and the truth of your righteous acts will shine through the fog. Your constituents want "tough and principled."
A "West Wing" for the Pentagon
NBC ordered a pilot from Jerry Bruckheimer called E-Ring (Warner Bros. TV) yesterday, focusing on the inner workings at the Pentagon. The idea was created by David McKenna, who wrote the script, and Ken Robinson a former Green Beret who consults for CNN on terrorism and military intelligence. McKenna also wrote S.W.A.T., Blow, and Get Carter. NBC describes "E-Ring," as a" West Wing" set at the Pentagon . Robinson has been fairly even-handed at CNN, once telling Wolf Blitzer that , “…we can't treat al Qaeda like it's the boogeyman and stop living. But there has to be vigilance.” The show could be an opportunity for Progressives to ramp down the fear and claims of endless war on terror trumpeted by the Administration and the Conservative echo chamber, or it could devolve into a “desert western” with good guys catching Muslim terrorists by trampling civil rights. Progressives with
1/03/2005
More on Americans missing in the tsunami
Some trolling Rethuglicans jumped on me for my cynicism about Administration motives in not preparing the American people for traumatic casualty counts in the tsunami. Get a life, one advised. I'd be curious as to how such folks would have reacted to the suggestion, Get a life, after 9-11.
Well, Powell, one of the few grown-ups in the Administration, has touched this political hot potato.
"The number of private citizens or citizens unaccounted for still lingers around 4-5000," he said, adding the figure was based on phone calls from relatives or friends inquiring about their whereabouts.
Mr Powell said this did not mean they were necessarily casualties in the catastrophe.
But he added: "We can't ignore the very distinct possibility that there are Americans within this number who have lost their lives. We just don't know that".
Recall there has only been one missing victim recovered alive in the last 24 hours.
Well, Powell, one of the few grown-ups in the Administration, has touched this political hot potato.
"The number of private citizens or citizens unaccounted for still lingers around 4-5000," he said, adding the figure was based on phone calls from relatives or friends inquiring about their whereabouts.
Mr Powell said this did not mean they were necessarily casualties in the catastrophe.
But he added: "We can't ignore the very distinct possibility that there are Americans within this number who have lost their lives. We just don't know that".
Recall there has only been one missing victim recovered alive in the last 24 hours.
Is It Time?
It might be the right time to start another Mac software company. What would you like to see on a Mac? Would you pay actual money for it?
When Good Empires Go Bad
In The Left Coaster: Successful Societies, Mary writes about why societies fail. Then in More on Declining Empires, soccerdad adds ... more. Good reads.
1/02/2005
From this astonishingly dishonest Washington Post story:
The most obvious solution is to increase taxes on the rich to pay back what was taken from your retirement money and given TO the rich. Duh. So instead smoke, sand, dust, fog and anything else they can think of are being thrown into the air to keep you from realizing what has happened to your retirement money.
"In just 14 years, the nation's Social Security system is projected to reach a day of reckoning: Retiree benefits will exceed payroll tax receipts, and to pay its bills the system will have to begin redeeming billions of dollars in special Treasury bonds that have piled up in its trust fund. To redeem those bonds, which represent money taken in years when Social Security ran a surplus and used for other government operations, the federal government would likely have to cut other programs, raise taxes or borrow more money."Let me translate this into "regular people" terms:
In just 14 days your bank faces a day of reckoning: your mortgage payment is due. You have spent the money, so the bank must lay people off, cut vacations and eliinate health insurance in order to reduce their financial requirements."What's REALLY happening? In just fourteen years, the full impact of Bush's tax cuts become clear. The money that paid for these tax cuts -- which went primarily to the rich -- was supposed to be saved for your retirement. That retirement money came from taxes on incomes below $75,000-$85,000 (depending on the year). A tax on the middle class and poor, that was handed to the rich.
The most obvious solution is to increase taxes on the rich to pay back what was taken from your retirement money and given TO the rich. Duh. So instead smoke, sand, dust, fog and anything else they can think of are being thrown into the air to keep you from realizing what has happened to your retirement money.
Santa Cruz
Spent the day in Santa Cruz. One great thing about Santa Cruz is you can listen to KPIG on the radio. KPIG is a country/ reggae/ Grateful Dead/ folk/ rock/ bluegrass/ hippie/ dope-smoking-redneck-hippie kind of station -- playing music that you just will not hear on the kind of corporate Clear Channel-style station that saturates most "markets." (You're a "market," not a person.)
KPIG was the very first radio station on the internet but had to stop when the new royalty rules killed free online radio simulcasts. More on that here. (You can listen online if you have AOL or RealAudio RealPass.)
While we were driving home they played this song by James McMurtry, "We Can't Make It Here"
KPIG was the very first radio station on the internet but had to stop when the new royalty rules killed free online radio simulcasts. More on that here. (You can listen online if you have AOL or RealAudio RealPass.)
While we were driving home they played this song by James McMurtry, "We Can't Make It Here"
Vietnam Vet with a cardboard signYou can download this song here for free!
Sitting there by the left turn line
Flag on the wheelchair flapping in the breeze
One leg missing, both hands free
No one's paying much mind to him
The V.A. budget's stretched so thin
And there's more comin' home from the Mideast war
We can't make it here anymore
That big ol' building was the textile mill
It fed our kids and it paid our bills
But they turned us out and they closed the doors
We can't make it here anymore
See all those pallets piled up on the loading dock
They're just gonna set there till they rot
'Cause there's nothing to ship, nothing to pack
Just busted concrete and rusted tracks
Empty storefronts around the square
There's a needle in the gutter and glass everywhere
You don't come down here 'less you're looking to score
We can't make it here anymore
The bar's still open but man it's slow
The tip jar's light and the register's low
The bartender don't have much to say
The regular crowd gets thinner each day
Some have maxed out all their credit cards
Some are workin? two jobs and livin? in cars
Minimum wage won't pay for a roof, won't pay for a drink
If you gotta have proof just try it yourself Mr. CEO
See how far 5.15 an hour will go
Take a part time job at one of your stores
Bet you can't make it here anymore
High school girl with a bourgeois dream
Just like the pictures in the magazine
She found on the floor of the laundromat
A woman with kids can forget all that
If she comes up pregnant what'll she do
Forget the career, forget about school
Can she live on faith? live on hope?
High on Jesus or hooked on dope
When it's way too late to just say no
You can't make it here anymore
Wow I'm stocking shirts in the Wal-Mart store
Just like the ones we made before
'Cept this one came from Singapore
I guess we can't make it here anymore
Should I hate a people for the shade of their skin
Or the shape of their eyes or the shape I'm in
Should I hate 'em for having our jobs today
No I hate the men sent the jobs away
I can see them all now, they haunt my dreams
All lily white and squeaky clean
They've never known want, they'll never know need
Their shit don't stink and their kids won't bleed
Their kids won't bleed in the damn little war
And we can't make it here anymore
Will work for food
Will die for oil
Will kill for power and to us the spoils
The billionaires get to pay less tax
The working poor get to fall through the cracks
Let 'em eat jellybeans let 'em eat cake
Let 'em eat shit, whatever it takes
They can join the Air Force, or join the Corps
If they can't make it here anymore
And that's how it is
That's what we got
If the president wants to admit it or not
You can read it in the paper
Read it on the wall
Hear it on the wind
If you're listening at all
Get out of that limo
Look us in the eye
Call us on the cell phone
Tell us all why
In Dayton, Ohio
Or Portland, Maine
Or a cotton gin out on the great high plains
That's done closed down along with the school
And the hospital and the swimming pool
Dust devils dance in the noonday heat
There's rats in the alley
And trash in the street
Gang graffiti on a boxcar door
We can't make it here anymore
What about American Tsunami Casualties?
Well the Swedes have declared a day of mourning for the Swedes who died in the tsunami. The Germans are preparing their citizens for the worst. The American government, concerned as always more about image than death and suffering, has acknowledged 12 American dead, and advises the thousands of Americans missing to call Mom as soon as possible.
Yeah, right. Why does this picture remind me of the Administration allergy to the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq? Cover up the bad news as much as possible. Keep voters from the truth, so the Rethuglicans and friends can keep their lock on power and continue looting the country.
When are we going to have a government that gives a d*mn about the American people?
It's a shame, a real shame.
Yeah, right. Why does this picture remind me of the Administration allergy to the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq? Cover up the bad news as much as possible. Keep voters from the truth, so the Rethuglicans and friends can keep their lock on power and continue looting the country.
When are we going to have a government that gives a d*mn about the American people?
It's a shame, a real shame.
1/01/2005
Deal With It
The Bush administration likes to hand us "facts on the ground." They do what they need to do to create a situation the way THEY want it, and tell everyone to deal with the way things are now rather than concern themselves with how they got that way. As Chalabi said, when asked if he regrets helping to mislead us into war, "We are in Baghdad now." Deal with it.
And here we are. In Iraq, Militants issue threat on voting:
Meanwhile, Iraqi women are becoming afraid to go out in public without head covering:
Here is what I think: Bush is right, we are there now, and we have to deal with it. But things are not going the way Bush expected, and the "we broke it we own it" rule applies. So regardless of how we got into this mess, now we have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to secure Iraq and bring law, order and justice to their society. I am sure that MOST of the people there just want to have a normal government and a normal life, but the ethnic, religious, cultural and geopolitical fractures -- and armed theocrats -- that Bush has unleashed aren't going to allow that if they can get control. We should never have started this, but we did, and now we have to fix it. We have to deal with it.
We have to send enough troops to Iraq to secure the country, bring order and protect the people. We literally have to put armed forces on every streetcorner in the country until it is safe for anyone -- even women without headcoverings -- to go to school or shopping, be a policeman or a judge, etc. We have to make Iraq safe for everyone to express their opinion, vote, worship according to their OWN choices or not, etc. This means literally hundreds of thousands more troops and that probably means we need a draft, and soon. We owe it to the people there, we have an obligation to do this, and in the longer term it has to happen for our own protection. We can't just go over there, kill a lot of people, stir everyone up, and then have just enough troops there to be targets, but not enough to secure the country. But that is what we are doing.
It is only for domestic political reasons that the Republicans refuse to send enough troops to Iraq -- it would be an admission of the failure of their policies. And they know that a draft would drive home the effect of their policies now and harm their political agenda. Problems that show up later are not problems. Deficits are paid for by our children, wars by the volunteers, the falling dollar will cause inflation later --all allowing Republicans to use lies and short memories to hold power. Especially never mind real national security, and never mind what happens if something starts up somewhere else, like Korea -- the Republicans like to talk the national security talk, but they won't walk the walk. They won't increase taxes to pay for it and they won't increase troop levels to provide the needed numbers.
If we are not willing to provide security to Iraqis, then we must turn Iraq over to the UN. The rest of the world is not interested in participating in this nightmare as long as their entry must be on Bush's terms. We control the resources of Iraq and dictate its policies. We refuse to hand any of this over to others (including the Iraqis.) Our offer has been "come here and die so American corporations can benefit," and they see through this. For some reason they aren't taking that deal.
That's what I think. Deal with it.
And here we are. In Iraq, Militants issue threat on voting:
"The radical Ansar al-Sunna Army and two other insurgent groups issued a statement Thursday warning that democracy was un-Islamic. Democracy could lead to passing un-Islamic laws, such as permitting gay marriage, if the majority or people agreed to it, the statement said.Sounds remarkably similar to the views of America's Christian Right, no? And it also sounds notably similar to those of Bush's favorite Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who writes of the "tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government".
"Democracy is a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit," said the statement. "This concept is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God -- Muslims' doctrine."
Meanwhile, Iraqi women are becoming afraid to go out in public without head covering:
This is the new reality for many women in Iraq, Muslims and Christians alike. As the months have passed since the U.S.-led invasion, fewer women are daring to venture out without wearing a traditional Muslim head scarf, called a hejab in Arabic. In Baghdad, moderate Muslim women used to feel they had a choice whether to wear the scarf, even as religious oppression under Saddam Hussein grew over the past decade. Now, in many neighborhoods, it is hard to find a woman outdoors without a head scarf.We (America, us) have created a terrible situation in Iraq. Iraqis do not feel safe and secure, and this is entirely our fault. If we let things continue on their current path the resulting civil war and rise of theocratic Islamic government will mean misery and chaos for the people there, and means we will not be safe here at home.
Here is what I think: Bush is right, we are there now, and we have to deal with it. But things are not going the way Bush expected, and the "we broke it we own it" rule applies. So regardless of how we got into this mess, now we have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to secure Iraq and bring law, order and justice to their society. I am sure that MOST of the people there just want to have a normal government and a normal life, but the ethnic, religious, cultural and geopolitical fractures -- and armed theocrats -- that Bush has unleashed aren't going to allow that if they can get control. We should never have started this, but we did, and now we have to fix it. We have to deal with it.
We have to send enough troops to Iraq to secure the country, bring order and protect the people. We literally have to put armed forces on every streetcorner in the country until it is safe for anyone -- even women without headcoverings -- to go to school or shopping, be a policeman or a judge, etc. We have to make Iraq safe for everyone to express their opinion, vote, worship according to their OWN choices or not, etc. This means literally hundreds of thousands more troops and that probably means we need a draft, and soon. We owe it to the people there, we have an obligation to do this, and in the longer term it has to happen for our own protection. We can't just go over there, kill a lot of people, stir everyone up, and then have just enough troops there to be targets, but not enough to secure the country. But that is what we are doing.
It is only for domestic political reasons that the Republicans refuse to send enough troops to Iraq -- it would be an admission of the failure of their policies. And they know that a draft would drive home the effect of their policies now and harm their political agenda. Problems that show up later are not problems. Deficits are paid for by our children, wars by the volunteers, the falling dollar will cause inflation later --all allowing Republicans to use lies and short memories to hold power. Especially never mind real national security, and never mind what happens if something starts up somewhere else, like Korea -- the Republicans like to talk the national security talk, but they won't walk the walk. They won't increase taxes to pay for it and they won't increase troop levels to provide the needed numbers.
If we are not willing to provide security to Iraqis, then we must turn Iraq over to the UN. The rest of the world is not interested in participating in this nightmare as long as their entry must be on Bush's terms. We control the resources of Iraq and dictate its policies. We refuse to hand any of this over to others (including the Iraqis.) Our offer has been "come here and die so American corporations can benefit," and they see through this. For some reason they aren't taking that deal.
That's what I think. Deal with it.
12/31/2004
Not Theirs to Give
I wonder if they feel the same way about corporations giving money to right-wing think tanks.
12/30/2004
Tsunami Blogs
American Street has Tsunami Blogs you can rely on and Tsunami Blogs you can rely on, Pt. 2.
Privacy
The blogs are writing about today's Washington Post story comparing Democrat and Republican election tactics. Bloggers like Kos and MyDD wrote about how money received by Democratic consultants affected their ad-placement decisions.
The article also talked about how Republicans used a "data mining" technique "enabling Bush to identify and target potential voters with pinpoint precision." Alice at GOTV asks a good question in her post, The means determines the ends, TargetPoint Consulting:
The article also talked about how Republicans used a "data mining" technique "enabling Bush to identify and target potential voters with pinpoint precision." Alice at GOTV asks a good question in her post, The means determines the ends, TargetPoint Consulting:
"What do you think the chances are that politicians who are elected by such means are going to protect our privacy?"Go read.
Think It Through
A Letter to the Editor in today's San Jose Mercury News (responding to a Pat Buchanan op-ed saying we should get out of Iraq) states the Bush position:
Actually I agree with the premise that democracies do not commit aggression. But I would add to that. I would say that informed democracies don't commit aggression, and make rational decisions. The fact that America did commit aggression says more about what America has become than about anything else. We are no longer an informed democracy, which I think means we are no longer a democracy at all. America went to war because we were told that there was an imminent danger of an attack against us by Iraq. We were told that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons and was ready to either use them against us or give them to al-Queda to use against us. This was a lie. It was a lie designed to get us to support war.
A simple test - ask 100 people why we went to war against Iraq and why we are there now, and you will get almost 100 different answers. We - the public - still do not know why we are at war. Think THAT through.
"Dinosaur Buchanan doesn't get itThink this through. "Democracies don't commit aggression on others" therefore our aggression on Iraq is justified because (this week's) reason for attacking that country was to make them become a democracy.
Democracies don't commit aggression on others, and if they resort to force sometimes, even pre-emptively, it is only as a last recourse in legitimate self-defense or in defense of others, particularly the weak.
For example, Germany, Italy and Japan -- which in their history knew almost nothing about effective democracy before World War II -- haven't committed aggression against others since then. Therefore, and in the light of Sept. 11, democratizing Afghanistan and Iraq -- and eventually the rest of the Muslim world -- is America's best insurance against organized mass-murdering Islamist terrorism. The ultra-isolationist, dinosaur ortho-con (orthodox conservative) Patrick Buchanan can't see it."
Actually I agree with the premise that democracies do not commit aggression. But I would add to that. I would say that informed democracies don't commit aggression, and make rational decisions. The fact that America did commit aggression says more about what America has become than about anything else. We are no longer an informed democracy, which I think means we are no longer a democracy at all. America went to war because we were told that there was an imminent danger of an attack against us by Iraq. We were told that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons and was ready to either use them against us or give them to al-Queda to use against us. This was a lie. It was a lie designed to get us to support war.
A simple test - ask 100 people why we went to war against Iraq and why we are there now, and you will get almost 100 different answers. We - the public - still do not know why we are at war. Think THAT through.
Tsunami Aid
From Oxfam America:
Click the banner to go directly to the donations page:
I am writing on behalf of the Asian Earthquake Response Team at Oxfam America. We are currently working around the clock to provide assistance and assess the needs of the affected regions. A brief and updated summary of our efforts can be found at: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/emergencies/asian_floods_2004Oxfam America
I wanted to ask if you would write or link to Oxfam’s relief efforts on your blog. Also, we are hoping for banner space donations to begin as soon as possible and run for the duration of the crisis. Raising money quickly is key to aiding these victims and preventing the death toll from rising needlessly.
Click the banner to go directly to the donations page:
12/29/2004
Bloggers
Are you on Seeing the Forest's comprehensive "blogroll"? If not, and you want to be, let me know. (Put Seeing the Forest on yours first.)
Do you want to get on my blogger e-mail list? This is the list of bloggers to whom I send notices of special STF postings. I don't do this very often. If you want to be on this list, send me an e-mail.
You can find out from where people are referred to your blog. Do all of your SiteMeter referrals say "unknown?" From SiteMeter's Help:
Do you want to get on my blogger e-mail list? This is the list of bloggers to whom I send notices of special STF postings. I don't do this very often. If you want to be on this list, send me an e-mail.
You can find out from where people are referred to your blog. Do all of your SiteMeter referrals say "unknown?" From SiteMeter's Help:
My reports do not show any data or only show "unknown" for the visitor referrals. What could be the problem?Non-bloggers, there are a lot of great blogs out there. Go click on some of the links in the left column.
You've probably added the non-javascript version of the Site Meter HTML to the pages of your site. You'll need to add the javascript version to your pages to track the referrals of your visitors. To get the javascript version of the Site Meter HTML, login to your account on Site Meter and select the "HTML Code" link from the MANAGER page of your account.
12/28/2004
Bully
By now you've heard about this: UN Official Backs Down: Rich Nations Not 'Stingy'. Here's my take on it. You've got millions of screaming desperate people, and you've got one of the nastiest, most uncaring, petty, vengeful leaders in history in charge of the "wealthiest" (borrowed money) nation. Everyone knows he is entirely capable of withholding aid because of this one guy's remark.
So what do you do? You back down and hope that your honest "stingy" remark -- $40 million for aid, $50 million for his inaugural party -- doesn't keep him from helping all those people. It has to be about them. (That's not how Bush will see it. Maybe we can convince Bush this happened because God wants the world to see how great a leader Bush is... like 9/11. Maybe that would get him to do something to help.)
Ok, I don't like the guy. Sue me.
Meanwhile, Clinton is filling the leadership vacuum while Bush clears brush in Crawford.
Update - It turns out that the origin of reports that a UN representative said the U.S. was being "stingy" with relief aid was just a lie, made up by the Moonie newspaper, spread by Drudge and echoed through the right-wing media as part of their anti-UN strategic lie campaign. (Thanks to Atrios for the link.)
So what do you do? You back down and hope that your honest "stingy" remark -- $40 million for aid, $50 million for his inaugural party -- doesn't keep him from helping all those people. It has to be about them. (That's not how Bush will see it. Maybe we can convince Bush this happened because God wants the world to see how great a leader Bush is... like 9/11. Maybe that would get him to do something to help.)
Ok, I don't like the guy. Sue me.
Meanwhile, Clinton is filling the leadership vacuum while Bush clears brush in Crawford.
Update - It turns out that the origin of reports that a UN representative said the U.S. was being "stingy" with relief aid was just a lie, made up by the Moonie newspaper, spread by Drudge and echoed through the right-wing media as part of their anti-UN strategic lie campaign. (Thanks to Atrios for the link.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)