Spam Record

A new record. 635 spams arrived just since late last night. Today looks to beat the all-day record.

My morning routine is to check my mail, go through it deleting spams (the ISP does have Spam Assassin, which catches most of it, leaving me with "only" 635 this morning) then delete the trash and check mail again to clear the server. BUT by the time I'm checking the mail again I have more spam, so I delete that, empty the trash, and check mail again. Usually by then there's a few more so I repeat the process again.

Only then do I go walk the dogs.

Update - I haven't been keeping track through the day, but I just checked e-mail after clearing it 2 hours ago, and there were 273 new spams.

Update 2 - 257 MORE spams!

Update 3 - 7:45 pm 309 more spams.

I think I know what's going on:

E-mailer wins round against anti-spam firm

E-mail marketer Scott Richter, branded by critics as the ``spam king,'' has won a round in a legal battle with a San Bruno anti-spam company.

A U.S. District Court judge in Oakland on Monday ordered SpamCop to temporarily stop reporting complaints about Richter's company, OptinRealBig.com, to Internet service providers. The order is effective until May 20, when the two parties are due in court.

Owned by IronPort Systems, SpamCop offers people a way to report e-mail messages as suspected spam. SpamCop then forwards that information to ISPs, which can block those e-mails from being delivered to their customers.

Richter has filed suit against IronPort, claiming that SpamCop interfered with OptInRealBig's contracts and business relationships, defamed the company and damaged its potential future earnings.

David Brock's New Book!

Salon has an excerpt from the book today.

A vote for Nader is a vote for ..

Kerry!

Thom Hartmann described yesterday a scheme that might let Ralph run in every state he wants to run in and to run as hard as he can everywhere while actually helping the Democratic nominee. Simply put, Thom suggested that Nader choose Kerry's electors as his own. Thom's idea is not quite good enough for me -- it's just another way for Nader to be marginalized. BUT, if Kerry and Nader agree to a symmetrical arrangement, where the electors are pledged to vote for whichever of the two candidates receives the plurality of the popular votes in their states, then even a die-hard ex-Democrat like me would go for it enthusiastically. A trivial, but greatly effective, form of instant runoff voting.

Nader would of course lose everywhere to Kerry, who would get all the electoral votes, but Ralph (and his supporters) would get the right to say, almost certainly with some truth, that they were the Democrats' margin of victory.

Interesting. Unlikely, but interesting. (The DLC and their ilk would never permit it, of course.)

UPDATE: Thanks to commenters and The Decembrist, it's clear this idea doesn't work. The winner-take-all electoral vote system disallows pooling of electors. The US electoral system once again defeats democracy. Guess I'll just have to throw the election to Bush again. Disappointing.

Shock and Anger

Bush's Backing of Rumsfeld Shocks and Angers Arabs

"Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush's robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation.

[. . .] "After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It's just incredible. I am in total shock," said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.

"Bush's praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States...and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world," he added.

[. . .] "After Mr. Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service," Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. "Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American.

[. . .] A Saudi businessman, who asked not to be named, said keeping Rusmfeld would be seen as Washington's quiet approval of the abuse. "This just confirms that what is happening in Iraq (news - web sites) in general, and especially what is happening in Abu Ghraib is sanctioned by the American administration and that is a hell of a position to be in.

"I see no advantage in keeping Rumsfeld. Bush should be building bridges with the outside world."

For our OWN safety -- Rumsfeld must go. We must show the world that we are making changes. And we must MAKE those changes.

There's a piece in Salon from David Brock's new book The Republican Noise Machine. The most interesting passage is the following, which tells what happens when he tries to talk to people about what he knows about the media:

Those who receive their news from the New York Times and National Public Radio give me blank stares. They are living in a rarefied media culture -- one that prizes accuracy, fairness, and civility -- that is no longer representative of the media as a whole. Those who have heard snippets of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, have caught a glimpse of Bill O'Reilly's temper tantrums on the FOX News Channel, or occasionally peruse the editorials in the Wall Street Journal think I'm a Cassandra. They view this media as self-discrediting and therefore irrelevant. They are living in a vacuum of denial.

This reminds me of dozens of internet arguments I've had with high-minded academic liberals and moderates. They really do not know how slanted the information is that the average man or woman gets these days, and basically they don't care. The stupider and more misinformed the average voter is, the easier it is for these fine people to feel superior.

The same people I'm thinking of are usually also too fastidious to take partisan stands or show any loyalty to the Democratic Party (or as far as that goes, the Green Party either). For them the most important thing is to maintain their self-image of elite independence. They'd infinitely rather lose and lose again than seem uncool.

What brought this on was one more idiot liberal ("David the Obscure") badmouthing Al Franken's Air America on the Calpundit comments board. What he says is stupid enough to be trolling, but I often hear known liberals say this kind of stupid shit, so I'm taking it at face value:

Personally, I'm glad Radio America is defunct. That kind of shrillness will never change anyone's mind. The kind of person who supported the war and Bush and may yet change their minds would probably like to think they arrived at that conclusion on their own, not with a lot of pushing and pinching from the Left.

I don't want to go into how many ways this is wrong. Air America might succeed and it might fail, and it might be well-done or badly-done, but we all have to want it to succeed. It provides a liberal Democratic voice in a market niche which until now has been completely flooded with the worst right wing crap.

David the Obscure and his ilk should find ropes and go hang themselves, instead of stinking up the planet with their jerkish, worthless opinions.

Plantu checks in

Rumsfeld Resignation

It's Monday, and Rumsfeld still has not resigned. Officers are reprimanded and grunts are courtmarshalled. But Rumsfeld gets Bush's support and praise. Support the troops -- go sign the petition.

Al Franken

Al Franken is just craking me up. (Listen online.)

On Rumsfeld's testimony before Congress last week: "I didn't borrow the plate, it was broken in pieces when I borrowed it, and it was in one piece when I returned it."

They Just Lie

Roger Ailes has an excellent post detailing some of the lies we are being told about the Iraq prison scandal. They just lie. They just say when they feel they need to say to provide enough of a smokescreen to confuse the issue and get us all arguing about what they said, instead of keeping our eye on what is really happening. It's all just PR. That's all they know or care about -- PR. They have their goals -- what THEY get -- and they have their PR -- what WE get.

New Poll

There's a new Zogby poll that you can read about here. Also, you can read about what you can get people to think when you control the information they hear:

"Russ Teague, selling lamps at the flea market, could hardly disagree more. 'It's a minor problem,' says Teague, an Air Force veteran, 'a rare anomaly that has nothing to do with the administration and everything to do with six or seven people who did something regrettable.'

In fact, Teague blames the media for much of the uproar, and points out that the Army itself uncovered the abuse - an object lesson for the Middle East in how a transparent democracy deals with miscreants. But Teague also sympathizes with the accused MPs, pointing out that they - unlike the myriad critics and commentators - are actually in a war."

This guy is repeating directly what I heard on right-wing talk radio Friday! Almost word-for-word.

If you read weblogs, you are informed -- unlike at least half of the people in the U.S., apparently.

Orcinus On The Press

Media Revolt: A Manifesto. Excerpt:

"The obvious aspect of this discussion is the way the entire framing of the debate -- as a question of 'character' as opposed to such boring details as policy -- heavily favors the party that relies more on imagery and jingoism, wrapping itself in the flag and pounding its chest about moral superiority: in other words, conservatives. "

Atrios pointed to it, but how many really read the whole thing? Please do. Especially if you are from the press or a blogger.

Ghraib, etc.

There's not much to say about Abu Ghraib. I didn't predict the kinky tabloid details (which are the whole reason the story is getting so much play -- not the photo of the guy who was beaten to death), but when you saw how Guantanamo was set up and how the "illegal combatant" category was defined, you knew what was coming.

So my opinion about Iraq is about the same now as it was a month ago. A few more people seem to be agreeing with me, which is fine. It always surprises me when that happens; I never have any idea why or why not. I thought Enron would be a big deal.

This leads me to the whole issue of premature correctness. There are an enormous number of people in the media making their mea culpas and hedging what they said a couple of years ago, but nobody's been demoted or fired, and those of us who were right all along are still on the outside looking in. The pathological, incompetent, dishonest, slavish media people whose cheerleading helped get us into this mess are still in place. And the Democrats are playing the Iraq issue very, very gingerly.

So I expect a few cosmetic changes and a brief moratorium on invasions, but without any major policy change. I'm always glad to be wrong.

(There's more, including my contribution, on this Brad Delong Thread.)

Bush, Rumsfeld Blaming the Troops

We have seen that the Republican Congress refuses to hold the Bush administration accountable for anything. The Congress is controlled by the Republicans, and the Bush administration are Republicans, so they will not investigate or ask questions no matter how serious the abuse of power. And we have seen that the Republican Justice Department also refuses to look into matters that involve the Bush administration, and other Republicans.

Look what's happening with this scandal over abuse of prisoners in Iraq. The Republicans are showing that they do not "support our troops" at all. The Republicans are blaming the troops. The Bush administration and its surrogates and their talk radio and their pundits and their politicians and their whole echo chamber are blaming "a few bad soldiers," leaving all of those serving in the prisons over there hanging out to dry.

Think about that. Do we blame the troops, and stop there? Or do we blame the chain of command? Do we blame the leadership examples? Or do we just push all of this off on the troops on the front lines? And about how this affects our troops in Iraq. They are being SHOWN that THEY will be blamed for failures of policy. They are being shown that their leadership will run and hide when the going gets tough. And worse, they are being shown that when there is a choice between taking a political hit, or stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility and diffusing the ANGER that could lead to an increase in attacks and a decrease in their safety while doing their jobs, their leaders - OUR leaders - run and hide and blame others, and blame them, and blame anyone except those who sent them there and told them what to do.

So it's time to REALLY support the troops. It's time to hold the Bush administration accountable for its failures. It's time to DEMAND accountability. Since the people who are supposed to be holding our leaders accountable are refusing to do their jobs it's time for the people to step up to the plate and demand accountability!

This is a choice between supporting the Republicans who want to blame the troops in a blatantly political attempt to evade responsibilitybecause they are afraid it will cost them votes, and those of us who want to hold leadership accountable.

Blame the troops? Or blame the leadership? Which is it going to be?



Sign the petition. And send e-mail to people you know, asking them to sign the petition. It is time for Rumsfield to go. Blame the people who put the troops there and told them what to do, not the troops.

Joe Conason on Abu Ghaib is a must-read

Joe Conason has solid evidence that the Abu Ghraib problems trace back to political appointees, specifically Doug Feith, rather than to the military. Don't miss it.

"A MOTHER'S PRIDE" BY BARBARA BUSH

Thought you'd be in the mood for a Mother's Day message. Apparently people are saying mean things about Barbara's little boy. Help her feel good about herself by sending out some love, OK? Times have been hard lately.

Her other boys (Jeb, Neil, and the elusive Marvin) all are feeling the pinch too. With your help, they'll all be able to take care of needed tasks such as reroofing their houses, getting electric washing machines, and sending their kids to rehab. Bar really hates those cruel, elitist things that people are always saying. Her kids are just as good as anyone else's.

STF Management


"A MOTHER'S PRIDE" BY BARBARA BUSH

With Mother's Day coming up this weekend, I've been thinking about how proud I am of our children.

And it's with a mother's pride that I'm writing you today to ask you to support our eldest, George W., and his re-election campaign with a donation of $1000, $500, $250, $100 or $50..........

Earlier this week, our son's re-election team announced their "March to a Million" campaign. Never before has a presidential campaign received contributions from over one million supporters. With your help, we'll make history.



www.GeorgeWBush.com/Million/

This election is going to be a tough one. That is why I'm asking for your support. For months the President has been facing negative advertising from John Kerry and all sorts of pro-Kerry groups. I've been particularly disappointed in the personal attacks.

Your donation, no matter what the size, will help advertise the President's positive agenda for America and deliver his compassionate conservative message directly to the voters.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/Million/

America needs a strong leader like George W. Bush. He is the right man to lead America during these challenging times.

Thank you very much for your support today. I hope you and your family enjoy a wonderful Mother's Day.

Sincerely,

Barbara Bush

Our values

Not "The Onion"

AMUSEMENT PARK FALLS TO AMERICANS AFTER HARD FIGHTING

"The second unfolded just after midnight Thursday in this city, when more than 450 soldiers in armored vehicles rumbled into a neighborhood amusement park where Mr. Sadr's militiamen, known as the Mahdi Army, were storing heavy weapons near a ferris wheel and bumper car ride.

At 12:30 a.m., soldiers were drawn into an intense firefight, killing an Iraqi who had been lobbing grenades from the area of the pirate ship ride. The man was carrying identification showing he worked for an American-trained security force, the Facilities Protection Service."

DANES THREATEN WESTERN HEMISPHERE

"Although Narwhal is not specifically aimed at any one country in particular, there is no doubt about for whom the message is intended: that major superpower, which has always represented a threat to world peace -- Denmark."

No Polls

Here's an update to my far-too-subtle post from last night.

(Thanks Cursor.)

Pelosi on Surprise Iraq Funding Request

Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the Bush Administration's $25 billion Supplemental Appropriations request for the war in Iraq:

"By requesting just $25 billion in additional money for our troops in Iraq - when we know that at least twice that amount will be needed - the Bush Administration is once again keeping the true cost of the war from the American people.

"For weeks, despite the increased fighting in Iraq and the continued loss of our brave soldiers, the President and the Secretary of Defense have maintained that an additional funding request could not be submitted before the November election because it was impossible to know the right amount.

"We need to know how the Administration all of a sudden decided that it needed $25 billion since many experts - including the House Budget Committee - have concluded that at least $50 billion in additional funding will be necessary to provide our troops with the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

"We must give the troops what they need to be successful under increasingly risky conditions. And the President must tell the hard truth to the American people about how much longer our troops will remain in Iraq and how much more it will cost."

War Crimes?

I linked to this video before, but can't find the post. (If you know where it is, let me know. Thanks.) It seems a good time to remember it. Warning: graphic, nasty.

Threats

Over at Counterspin Central," it depends on the meaning of what the word "threat" is. If you're reading this, you're probably a threat, too. In other words, if Bush wins this elecion, watch your backs.

Con Man

A line in this story struck me somehow... Oklahoman May Have Infected Nearly 170 Women With HIV:

"'There was just something about him ... that he had the ability to make you feel that you were really special and beautiful, and you were the only woman in the world to him,' she said."

OK, this guy seduces 170 women since 2003 (approx. one every two days?) because he made women think they were "the only woman in the world to him." Somehow I just have to post this because you know what it reminds me of, right? (here, here, here, here)

Digby!

Digby has an important post talking about why David Brock's new organization Media Matters is important. I've been saying here for some time that we should be listening to Rush Limbaugh so we can understand just what Republicans are saying and thinking. Now, Media Matters is transcribing Rush! Digby writes about this:

"But, his ugly talk still operates just a little bit under the radar in terms of specificity. I imagine the majority of people think they know what he is saying, but they don't. Until you see it written down, you really don't get just how vicious and crude it really is. His radio voice serves to make him sound somewhat friendly and funny. People think he is exaggerating for effect. Still, the message gets out, day after day. 'Democrats are not real Americans like you.' This treasonous, unamerican picture of liberalism has seeped into the body politic so thoroughly that even liberals themselves have internalized this distorted version of themselves."

I still say it is important to listen rather than wait for the transcripts, because then you can see the stuff filtering out to the mainstream as it happens. (Read the transcripts, too.)

Bob Somerby on Air America, Thursday, 12:30 Eastern Time

Bob Somerby of the incomparable Daily Howler will be on Al Franken's Air America show Thursday (tomorrow) at 12:30 Eastern Time.

Let's hope that this is a prelude to hiring him. I've never heard Somerby, but he makes his living as a speaker and comedian and he should be good on radio.

More Media Control Of What We See and Hear

Last week one media company called the TV show NightLine traitors and took NightLine of the air rather than show a tribute to the soldiers who have sacrificed their lives for The Party's oil needs. Now we learn a little bit more about the raw politics behind the control of what what we see and hear.


Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush:

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

As the election nears, expect more and more maneuvering by The Party to stay in control. Watch your back.

Another Nasty Kerry Smear

John Kerry's Vietnam Medical Report on National Review Online. The thing is, a doctor talking about a patient like this is unethical, right? Which brings his credibility into question. So how much money has to have changed hands for the doctor to say this?

About The New Ad ===>>>>

I received the following (edited) regarding the new blog ad over in the right column:

I am a long time fan of your blog. I am writing to bring your attention to the blogad which now graces your site. At first glance, I know it might not make much sense for an Arkansas state representative candidate to advertise on a blog that doesn't have a whole lot to do with Arkansas. The Republican in this race, however, has national name recognition and will be able to raise money nationally. He is Tim C. Hutchinson, the son of the former senator of the same name. The elder Hutchinson, you will recall, lost to Mark Pryor here in Arkansas in 2002 and was the only Republican in a contested race to lose. He was also voted as the most conservative Senator in the country.

Now his son is venturing into politics. He is advertising himself as a "law and order" candidate, which is interesting because he has had a bit of a law and order history. When he was in law school, he paid only a $50 fine and $100 in court costs after killing two people in a car crash. He was working on his father's campaign at the time. He walked away with a clean driving record. Check out the full story at:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/mt-tb.cgi/1358

[. . .] This race has national importance because the district is in Benton country, Arkansas, birthplace and headquarters of Wal-Mart. It is the GOP base in Arkansas, and probably the heart of its national base as well. A Rasmussen poll this morning showed Kerry and Bush at 45%-45% in Arkansas. The state is in play, and defeating Hutchinson will help Kerry win here. The Democrat in this race, Robbyn Tumey, is a self-made businesswoman running for office for the first time.

I hope y'all will take a blogging interest in this race, particularly Tim Hutchinson's history. Keep up the good fight.

Click on the ad and send some turkee.

Worst Column Ever: Safire's "The Cruellest Month"

William Safire: "A certain grim logic suggests a turn for the better may be coming this summer."

You have to read it all. It goes on, getting steadily worse and worse, without a scrap of fact or logic anywhere. Innuendos, wishful thinking, wild speculation, weird rhetorical questions, simple misrepresentations of fact, raving free association -- Safire is truly a columnist worthy of George W. Bush.

There's no reason to believe that anyone in this administration is thinking any more rationally than Safire is -- the spin doctors are the policy makers now. Hold on to your hats.

Fighting The Right

The Blogging of the President: 2004 posted this:

David Brock's organization, Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org), is now tracking the right-wing influence on media by writing down what Rush Limbaugh says. Digby has more on why this resource is useful.

[. . .] Is this effective liberal institution building? I wonder what Dave Johnson thinks. What do you think? Will all of this actually matter? Does it substitute for an ideology?

So here's what I think:

I think the announcement of Media Matters is great news. It is one small, essential piece of the answer to the Right's juggernaut. I think this new organization is also important because it (and Center for American Progress) is a sign that "our side" finally is starting to "get it" about building long term institutions designed to affect overall national attitudes, rather than mainly funding short-term, election-oriented efforts to build support around a candidate.

I spent some time with Brock several months ago and we talked about Media Matters, and about the effect of the Right's infrastructure on our politics. The Right has built up this marketing/communications machine with the intention of moving America's opinions to the right. Think about how this affects elections -- the Right has this machine in place pounding out "ideas," telling people lies like "Social Security is going broke," "lawsuits are out of control," "children are trapped in failing public schools," and "tax cuts increase revenue." After hearing this over and over, and hearing the Right's proposed solutions, THEN along comes an election, and the Right can just plug in a generic candidate who spouts the slogans Americans are pre-conditioned to expect.

Meanwhile Progressive candidates have to start FROM SCRATCH, each election cycle, explaining to Americans about things like single-payer insurance and what the term means... and have to do it ALONE, and have to raise the money themselves to communicate to the public... It's a nearly-impossible task when you think about it.

And between elections the Right's huge infrastructure is doing research on marketing techniques, framing language, etc... And the whole time they are pounding out their propaganda all across America, writing books, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, articles, sending out speakers, pundits, talk show guests, etc. all repeating whatever talking points they've decided to use on the public, all with the overall goal of furthering their "movement."

So I think the Right's network of "advocacy organizations" with a marketing/communications focus is the reason we find ourselves in the situation we're in. It's not so much that it's impossible to compete with their machine as that so far we haven’t barely even STARTED competing with it.

Media Matters and Center for American Progress are good beginnings. But they are only beginnings. The Right has over 500 organizations and they are massively funded, and COORDINATED, working together as part of "the conservative movement." It is essential that we understand how the Right operates, and how they are funded, and, especially, how they are affecting American thought. It's not illegal, it's not a conspiracy, it's smart.

So why does the Right have this and "our side" does not? I'll quickly lay down a few reasons I think this is. First, the Right's infrastructure evolved as a response to the 60's "establishment" of scholarly academic-oriented think tanks. That they evolved as a response is a key - the institutions on "our side" were the frogs in the water as it warmed up, not noticing the changing environment until it's too late. They have not evolved. Momentum was in place. Jobs and careers were on the line. Etc. -- we all know how bureaucratic institutions are slow to respond.

The Right's organizations grew up designed, from the start, to CHANGE MINDS AND PERSUADE because moderate and progressive thinking was the dominant paradigm. Historically, moderate and progressive organizations, largely already in place, did not face a need to change minds and persuade ideologically and so they were not designed to do that. The Right's organizations were designed from the start to change minds and persuade, while moderate and progressive organizations were designed from the start to accomplish issue objectives. Now the Right has changed lots of minds, while moderate/progressive orgs are not designed to respond to today's facts on the ground.

Most important I think is the Right's understanding of funding as an investment in ideas and in the results that come from changing minds. The Right provides general operating support to advocacy organizations for the purpose of changing the way Americans think. Moderates and progressives generally DO NOT. They instead tend to fund PROGRAMS and ISSUES. This is a huge difference! This is the KEY problem with building organizations equipped to respond to the Right. It requires an evolutionary change in the way moderate and progressive money sees the world.

Moderate/progressive money works to accomplish specific objectives rather than affect overall public attitudes and politics. The Right's organizations change minds and affect politics, and the result is votes for Republican politicians, who then accomplish the goals of the ideological movement. So all the money that is poured into environmental organizations, for example, is becoming more and more ineffective as the Right's politicians and judges wipe out all the environmental gains. I always use the example of a philanthropist spending $500,000 a year on programs for an old-growth redwood grove. Maybe hiring a biologist, or funding lawsuits to protect from logging... Ten years later a politician might order the area logged "to protect against fires" or one Federalist Society judge might decide that resources should be used for corporate profit -- and the $5 million is WASTED (and the trees are gone.) So the Right's understanding that funding advocacy organizations is an investment pays off.

So I think our work now should be to persuade funders - philanthropists, foundations, etc. - of the need to change the way moderate and progressive organizations are designed, to recognize that there is an ideological war going on, and we need to start persuading the public that progressive values -- community, democracy, sharing, nurturing, investment, responsibility and honesty -- are superior to the right-wing ideology of greed and hate.

We need to start SERIOUSLY funding advocacy organizations for the LONG TERM. The Right is literally spending BILLIONS on this effort and it is time for our side to step up to the plate. Media Matters is a great start but it is one small organization. Center for American Progress is a great start, but it is one small organization. Neither is designed to reach the general public with a marketing/communications focus. We need to grow up 498 MORE organizations now, to fight back and take back our country.

Lottery Winnings

American Joblog:

"I had a daydream yesterday afternoon. It was the best...
I had won the Powerball lottery, and no longer needed to work. So, I set up my own non-profit, which, if necessary, would be funded by generous grants from me. I hired at least one activist and hundreds of interns (paid or not paid, the dream didn't specify) in each state, and our goal was to walk the streets, and inform the citizens in each state about our struggle against offshoring and excessive H1-B/L-1 immigration workers. I would pay these activists a nifty little salary and have a little benefit package so that they loved their mission, and their organization. I could create some jobs for Americans, and fight those that would make Americans jobless."

Where would YOU spend YOUR lottery winnings?

Don't Take the Bait

Over at The Gadflyer, in Laying Out the Bait, Paul Waldman points out the right-wing arguing tactic of changing the subject.

Media Matters for America

Media Matters for America

Atrios and Roger Ailes Break a News Story

Atrios and Roger Ailes have broken a news story about an NPR reporter planting right-wing propaganda in her reports. In this instance the reporter pretended to be interviewing Catholics about whether they think Kerry is a good Catholic because he supports a woman's right to choose instead of outlawing abortion.

The following is based on a comment I left at Ailes' site. Let me speculate a bit... Focus-group and polling research showed that stories about Kerry being a bad Catholic would move some Catholic voters over to the Bush column. (Atrios and others have pointed out how Republicans go against the Church - death penalty, war, etc. but that doesn't go out as NEWS stories!)

Actually I think that story is part of a larger campaign designed to pull religious people into the conservative camp. There are many signs of an organized, planned marketing campaign here... Have you noticed a number of stories about how church-goers vote Republican while people who do not believe or do not regularly attend church are Democrats? I think this is part of the same campaign targeting religious voters and messaging them with reasons they shouldn't trust Democrats. Why are these stories in the news? The data used to support the "news" angle of the story could be presented differently, perhaps to say something like Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and others are NOT voting predominantly Republican while Southern Baptists are, in large numbers. But that wouldn't have the same pro-Republican effect, would it?

And why wouldn't it? Basic marketing - the assumptions of the story serve as a self-identification for the target demographic. Like the sound of a current alternative rock tune at the beginning of a Scion commercial, the target demo self-identifies and tunes in to hear the message. You and I don't tune into Archer Daniels Midland commercials, but I bet fund managers and day-traders do. And once you're tuned in, the message is if you are religious you are supposed to be voting Republican.

Accountability

There is no law. There is only "The Party" and the interests of The Party.

Under Republican rule the Congress won't investigate ANY allegations of wrongdoing against ANY Republicans, the Justice Department will not, and the press will not. (But if a Democrat, like Martha Stewart...) There is no accountability, and we are witnessing (only the beginning of) the consequences of absolute power. There is no law. The Treasury has been looted. All constraints on corporations have been removed. The military is sent of on adventures to seize oil fields.

What else happens where there is no accountability? When "The Party" and its cronies are allowed free reign? Only right-wing ideological operatives are sent to administer U.S. operations in Iraq, and ideologically approved (big bucks to The Party) corporations get huge-money contracts. Here are the results: The Pictures That Lost The War:

"Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two "civilian contract" organizations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration.

California-based Titan Corporation says it is "a leading provider of solutions and services for national security". Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W Bush's Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.

CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping "America's intelligence community in the war on terrorism". Richard Armitage, the current deputy US secretary of state, sat on CACI's board.

No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to "deal with him". One civilian interrogator told army investigators that he had "unintentionally" broken several tables during interrogations as he was trying to "fear-up" detainees.

Lawyers for some accused say their clients are scapegoats for a rogue prison system, which allowed mercenaries to give orders to serving soldiers. A military report said private contractors were at times supervising the interrogations.

Absolute corruption does not just involve stealing money. And while this story is about torture of prisoners, we're hearing stories about insulting regular civilians by writing words like "pig" and "beer" onto the bodies of people returning to Fallujah, and about killing of Iraqi civilians at checkpoints, or when returning fire.

No, absolute corruption inevitably leads to things like this:

"In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called “O.G.A.,” or other government agencies—that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees—was brought to his unit for questioning. “They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away.” The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison’s inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, “and therefore never had a number.”

And, back to the other article (While the following from the article details some British activities, the American activities are just as bad.)

"The British pictures show a hooded Iraqi aged between 18-20 on the floor of a military truck being brutalized. According to two squaddies who took part in the torture, but later blew the whistle, the Iraqi's ordeal lasted eight hours and he was left with a broken jaw and missing teeth. He was bleeding and vomited when his captors threw him out of a speeding truck. No-one knows if he lived or died.

One of the British soldiers said: 'Basically this guy was dying as he couldn't take any more. An officer came down. It was 'Get rid of him - I haven't seen him'.' The other whistle-blower said he had witnessed a prisoner being beaten senseless by troops. 'You could hear your mate's boots hitting this lad's spine ... One of the lads broke his wrist off a prisoner's head. Another nearly broke his foot kicking him.'

According to the British soldiers, the military police have found a video of prisoners being thrown from a bridge, and a prisoner was allegedly beaten to death in custody by men from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment."

What worries me is, at what point does "The Party" feel justified bringing this to American streets? I'm serious. After all, to these ideologues environmental groups, even teacher unions are terrorist organizations. Last night I spent time surfing the right-wing blogs and press, and what I read there was most alarming. More on that later. Watch your back.

Defeat

A year on from 'Mission Accomplished', an Army in Disgrace, a Policy in Tatters and the Real Prospect of Defeat:

"The tide is going out for the US in Iraq. They were not able to use their military strength against Fallujah and Najaf. They have very little political support outside Kurdistan. They can no longer win. It may be one of the most extraordinary defeats in history."

The Agonist: Mission Accomplished?

The Agonist: Mission Accomplished?

Fallujah

War Is The Worst Thing

I'm just back from the Santa Clara County Jefferson Jackson dinner. (Even though I live in San Mateo County... I go with my aunt who lives in the next county south...) This is a yearly Democratic Party event.

One thing I want to comment on. I talked to a lot of people. Everyone has a theory about why we are in Iraq. Some talk about Bush being swayed by neo-cons who control what he hears. Some talk about oil. Others about religious agendas like trying to start the apocalypse because the Evangelicals want to ascend to Heaven as the rest of us perish in a total war. Etc.

My comment is that WE DO NOT KNOW why we are in Iraq, and the reasons put forth by the Republicans are obviously bogus. They laid down a smokescreen, told a bunch of lies, whipped us up into a frenzy of fear and loathing, and got their war on. But no one accepts their reasons for war, and no one understands why we REALLY went to war. So we are left with rumors, conspiracy theories, people trying to piece together logic out of whispers of supposed information from possibly trusted sources... My point being that in a Democracy WE were supposed to decide after digesting all available information, with our government serving us by making that information available so we can be informed in our decision process, and the Congress was supposed to "declare war" only in response to the gravest of emergencies. But this time we were led to war, tricked into it, lied to, and manipulated by people who are masters of marketing but apparently void of basic humanity. But why? All we have to go on is rumor and speculation.

WAR. WAR. My God, we started a WAR! WAR IS THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD and we are at war, and we started it. Yes WE. You and me, our country, we started a war, and now we are starting to see it grow. We are seeing images of soldiers urinating on prisoners with hoods over their heads. We are seeing images of children burned to death, arms missing, mosques exploding, bombs ending lives, coffins returning home...

And worse, we did this while we were already occupied with Afghanistan, with finding the people who attacked us on 9/11, and eliminating their ability to attack us again. We took away from that effort to make this other war.

And NO ONE can really tell us why. THIS is what we have become.

(Yes, I know, a long night. It's late.)

Spam Record

I received 1306 spam messages today. A record, I think.

If you ever send me mail and think I'm not answering, it may have gotten lost in the deluge.

Update - 7 more in the 5 minutes since I posted that.

Update - 359 more this morning.

Bev Harris on the spot

Using the Patriot Act, the Bushies are going after Bev Harris. Another huge story that will be completely ignored by the corporate media.

Still more viewing pleasure

Avedon finds a wonderful capture of Bill Maher putting the boot up Tweetie and Bush. Just a couple minutes. You will love this, I promise.

Bush Wasn't Flying the Plane

I was just watching NBC Nightly News, and they clearly said that Bush landed the airplane on the aircraft carrier one year ago today.

Bush did not land the plane. Bush never learned to land on a carrier, and has not been allowed to fly since he refused to take his flight physical after they instituted drug testing back when he was in the National Guard.

He was a passenger. He had no need to wear the flight suit - it was all for show.

Mercenaries

Awhile back Kos caught an enormous amount of flak because of a harsh remark he made about the four mercenaries who were killed outside Fallujah.

Rather than backing down or pretending it didn't happen, he's stayed on the mercenary question. He's got a bunch of stuff up right now (April 29 and 30).

Using mercenaries is the standard kind of corner-cutting contracting-out that Republicans like to do so much in everything. The mercenaries in Iraq are as well-armed as the troops, at least as well-trained, and much better-paid. They're not under military discipline, but the U.S. is ultimately responsible for everything they do. This is certainly an issue to follow.

Kalamazoo has its doubts about Bush-Cheney 9/11 testimony

Sounds like the simple folk in Kalamazoo haven't learned how to regurgitate the received wisdom yet:

"Still, we continue to be troubled by a number of conditions set by the White House before Bush and Cheney would testify.

It was troubling that Bush and Cheney insisted on being questioned together. What did the White House fear about the two men being questioned separately? That they wouldn't get their stories straight separately? That Bush might go off the reservation and say something Cheney didn't want him to?

We also are troubled by the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney were under oath when they answered questions. Granted, it is precedent-setting that a president and vice president would testify before a legislatively created body, but the refusal to answer questions under oath certainly must leave the public wondering.

Finally, we are very troubled by the White House's demand that no recording, no official transcript, of the interview be made. Certainly we in the media live and die by the official record. Video, audiotapes, transcripts are what those who report the proceedings go on. Ditto for historians a generation from now. Even if today the testimony were classified and sealed from the public, someday an accurate record of what was said at Thursday's meeting would be invaluable for writers of history trying to understand this era.

Why would the White House make such a demand?........

And their testimony, which we hope was totally truthful, may do much to help the commission, Congress and the White House reach some concrete conclusions about how to prevent another attack on American soil."

(My emphasis).

The Kalamazoo Gazette

Republican Pedophiles, etc.

Over at my other site I sometimes try to beat the Republican creeps at their own game, for example on my Republican Sex Criminals page. I just received a link to an even better page which specializes in Republican Child Molesters -- 26 of them.

I've always wanted to do a piece on my home state's indigenous brand of Republican sex criminals, adulterers, drug abusers, and scofflaws, but I've never gotten around to it. The list starts with the well-known Sen. Bob Packwood and includes Joe Lutz of the Moral Majority (serial adultery), Multnomah County Commissioner Gordon Shadburne (a homophobe who put his boyfriend on the country payroll), Drew Davis (drugs, porn, Jesus), Kelly Clark (legislator, stalker) and Wes Cooley (no known sex or drugs, but lied under oath too often even for the Republicans).

We will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

This is really depressing

According to the White House, major combat operations in Iraq ended a year ago.*

But this month has been the worst month so far.

And now we're hiring Saddam's generals to do the fighting for us.

*FOOTNOTE: Originally the White House simply reported that ALL combat operations had ended, but when that statement became embarrassing they doctored their website.

Accusing Nightline of TREASON!

If you think for a MINUTE that the owners of the media are not far-far-far right wing, read this. Sinclair Broadcast Group owns a bunch of TV stations. They are ordering them not to show Nightline, because Nightline is paying tribute to the soliers who have died. Here's what they say about it: Sinclair to Preempt `Nightline' on ABC Stations, Cites Politics :

"...the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

Is this extreme enough for you? Accusing Nightline of TREASON for showing the names of dead soldiers?

I missed something

[NOT POSTED BY DAVE]

So what's up with Atrios? I missed something.

He's talking about Nader voters as "greenshirts". Wonder what that is supposed to mean? We're going to be storming through the streets breaking the windows of Democrat-owned shops? Or what?

And his passionate commitment to free expression on blogs didn't last very long. He's back linking to Kerry's campaign cash register already. I assume he made some statement about the undelinking of the Kerry campaign from his site. But I can't find it. He was right the first time -- the Kerry campaign's caving to the wingnuts' false outrage in l'affaire Kos was cowardly and contemptible. (Not untypical for Democrats. Ooops, better change my shirt before I say stuff like that!)

Again

"Our military commanders will take whatever action is necessary to secure Fallujah on behalf of the Iraqi people," he [Bush] said.
- Bush: Most of Fallujah returning to "normal''

"We had to destroy the village to save the village."
- Unknown lieutenant during the Vietnam War

"That's What They Do In Their Mosques"

I just heard Rumsfield on CNN, holding up a picture of some people in a mosque with weapons, saying "That's what they do in their mosques."

Is this as bad as calling it a "crusade?" Are we going after "those people" now?

Shit is going to hit the fan.

Didn't They Use This Smear On Clinton?

Yes, they did, and it worked. So they're dragging it out and using it on Kerry, too.

$1000 HAIRCUT? KERRY FLIES IN HAIRDRESSER FOR TOUCH-UP BEFORE 'MEET THE PRESS':

"On the Friday before his MEET THE PRESS appearance, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry flew his Washington, DC hairdresser to Pittsburgh for a touch-up, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Cristophe stylist Isabelle Goetz, who handles Kerry's hair issues, made the trek to Pittsburgh, campaign sources reveal.

'Her entire schedule had to be rearranged,' a top source explains.

A Kerry campaign spokesman refuses to clarify if Goetz flew by private jet on April 16 or on the official Kerry For President campaign plane.

The total expense for the hair touch-up is estimated to be more than $1000, insiders tell DRUDGE."

Expect another lie in an hour. It's what they do. They lie. They just lie.

Red-Baiting

Clicking through the channels (I'm male) I landed on MSNBC for a few minutes where they were having a discussion about Senator Hillary Clinton bad-mouthing Bush "in the Arab press." Since these things usually come in orchestrated patterns, I checked, and sure enough the same story is running at Scaife's NewsMax, "Hillary Blasts Bush in Arab Press". They're implying she committed treason for saying bad things about Bush to Arabs. (Remember how they accused Clinton of "protesting against his government on foreign soil"?)

This is the kind of Red-baiting that Republicans are known for, except it isn't Reds now, it's Arabs.

"Sen. Clinton delivered the unprecedented attack in an interview with the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat on Monday, with newspapers from Tehran to Islamabad picking up her harsh words almost immediately."

This "news report" concludes with

"In comments that could only encourage the Iraqi insurgency, the top Democrat complained that "the United States was in trouble because it could not abandon Iraq, nor provide enough manpower to run the country, nor gather world allies willing to provide the necessary assistance for the gigantic task," according to Mehr's translation."

OK, I'll go after some Trees for a minute, as long as we remember the Forest: They lie. They just lie. Never forget.

Trees:

1) The interview was with a London-based news organization.

2) Arabs are not our enemies. Arab newspapers are not enemy organizations. (In fact, we're "helping" the Iraqis by "freeing" them, remember?) (No, don't look a the pre-9/11 plans to seize the Iraqi oil fields, look over THERE!)

3) Arabs are completely capable of reading American newspapers, and they even have the Internet in the Middle East, too. Newspapers "from Tehran to Islamabad" can even pick up stories from the Washington Times. And Islamabad might SOUND like an enemy if you're as ignorant as the Republicans clearly expect the consumers of their lies to be -- (Islam Bad) -- but it's actually on our side. And Iran has been helping against al-Queda as well.

4) It does not "encourage the Iraqi insurgency" to state the obvious. They have eyes. They can see the mess Bush has gotten us into.

I know better, but I just can't stop myself...

More viewing pleasure

Here's another archived stream at C-SPAN you might enjoy watching. (If that direct link fails for you, go here and follow the first "WATCH" link.)

It's a panel discussion (really a debate) from last weekend's Los Angeles Times Festival of Books:

Panel: U.S. and Iraq One Year Later: Right to Get In? Wrong to Get Out?
Watch 2 hrs.

* Christopher Hitchens, "A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq"
* Mark Danner, "The Massacre at El Mozote"
* Michael Ignatieff, "The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror"
* Robert Scheer, co-author, The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq"
* Steve Wasserman, Los Angeles Times Book Review editor—Moderator

Hitchens is looking much more prosperous (and sober even) since his Big Right Turn. But of course.

Wasserman is as always somewhere between a weasel and a blowhard, but, except for some extremely long-winded (I did say it was Wasserman, right?) questions, is mercifully quiet.

Hitchens makes you want to scream and throw things at the screen. Ignatieff always reminds me of the worst sort of self-promoting academic smart-fool, and he does not disappoint here. Danner is good on our side, but Scheer simply hands Hitchens his head on several occasions, especially during the last few minutes when he suckers both Hitchens and Ignatieff into some faux outrage and then raises the stakes to such a level that they are left literally breathless and staggered. It is one of the best moments I've seen on television in years. Watch the last ten minutes or so, or watch the whole thing if such discussions appeal to you.

What America Knows III

A letter to the editor in today's San Jose Mercury News show a lot of what is going on in this election, and in America today:

"The Democrats and their sycophants in the media criticized George W. Bush for using pictures of 9/11 in his campaign ads. However, they seem to have no problem with using the issue of photographs of coffins of American soldiers in their attempt to damage the president politically for the war in Iraq. Look up hypocrite in the dictionary, and it will say, 'See Democrat, also Media.' "

The news runs pictures of coffins coming back from Iraq -- that's news, no way around it. But to this Republican, those pictures make Bush look bad, and therefore news outlets showing such pictures must be biased against Bush.

Let's go a bit deeper into what he is saying. I think this letter reflects the thinking of a typical "movement conservative." He's probably a Rush listener. Maybe he reads National Review, or visits Free Republic. To him, news is entirely about the political images that are projected to the public - entirely about whether the things told to the public help or hurt the right-wing movement. This Republican lives in a world engaged in an ideological war, so it is beyond comprehension that a news outlet would show something just because it is "news." The reality factor - the "news" - is not an issue, nor is it supposed to be, for him. Whether what is shown helps or hurts the movement is the only issue that matters. Everything is about helping move the cause forward. Anything that does not move the cause forward is an enemy.

So look at what this means for traditional news outlets. An honest news outlet is going to report, on occasion, things that do not help the cause of the Republican Party. So to these committed conservatives, this means that regular news outlets are, by definition, "against" them! If an image is shown that hurts Bush, the outlet must be "liberal," or else they wouldn't show it. (This is why we are all so surprised when a "news" outlet like Fox discusses news that might be seen as unfavorable to Bush.)

This writer KNOWS that the Republicans are lying when they say it is out of respect for the families of the soldiers that they refuse to let the media take photos and is complicit. To him it is clearly about images that harm Bush. He respects them for lying, because it furthers the movement. He understands the need to provide a cover story. He does not see it as lying and certainly there is no respect lost for those telling the cover story. He knows that it is part of the way things are done.

THIS is what is going on now in America. The "conservatives" see themselves as part of a "movement" and understand their part. Listen to Rush, as they phone in and discuss the nuances of PR strategies. It is all about furthering the cause, defeating the enemy -- which, by the way, is you and me. Watch your back.

51% of the people, all of the time

People joke that the Bush Administration has been using Lincoln's quip as their game plan, but the joke isn't very funny any more.

It's starting to look as if the Bush strategists are planning to win re-election by targeting two groups only: the fanatics of the Republican core constituency, and the people who aren't really paying attention.

A majority of Americans still believe that Saddam had MWD, actively supported al Qaeda, and was probably involved in 9/11. No evidence for any of this has surfaced.

The attacks on Kerry's supposed "anti-defense" votes don't hold water either -- Rumsfeld and Cheney held similiar views at various times in the past. As Republicans say about everything else but defense, "You can't solve a problem by throwing money at it", and some weapons systems just aren't needed. (The one person people really should be looking at in this regard is Rumsfeld, who sent an undermanned and underequipped army to Iraq).

The flap about Kerry's service records is even worse. The best you can say about Bush's military performance is that he served stateside and got permission to leave the service early with an honorable discharge. (This is the absolute minimum standard of acceptable military service). The worst you can say about Kerry is that he was a decorated combat veteran who got permission to leave the service early with an honorable discharge.

Kerry comes out far ahead by all non-pacifist standards, and people have asked why the Bush people are even raising the issue. The answer is that they are targetting people who aren't really paying attention -- airhead centrist whim voters who vote on the basis of buzz.

"Well, there were questions about Bush's military service, and there were questions about Kerry's service too, so basically it's a wash". That sounds shrewd and maybe even wise, right? Nobody's going to fool this guy! He doesn't even have to read the articles to figure out what's going on!

I blame the drug culture. During the Sixties a lot of people came to believe that they could get the real truth by intuiting vibes and reading auras, and that nit-picky left-brain attention to fact and detail is useless, if not harmful. Some of those people are still around today, and they seem to have had kids.

The present Bush campaign can only succeed if it gets active collaboration from the media. The most routine professional, fact-based coverage of the Bush campaign would blow it completely out of the water. But for whatever reason, even some non-partisan journalists have accepted a definition of "neutrality" which (like the worst forms of affirmative action that the Republicans rail against) requires equality of outcome. If, on a particular issue, the Bush people lie and the Kerry people tell the truth, the media will not tell us about it. (What they actually do is really worse than simply fake neutrality, of course -- most what we see about the election in the media is paid advertising for which ultimately do not take any responsibility at all.)

The possibility that Bush might be reelected to an irresponsible lame-duck term without the support of any well-informed voters at all is terrifyng. To me that sounds like a carte blanche to run wild and trash the place worse than he has already.

As always, I end up making a plea to people who never come to my site: the libertarians and the semi-mythical rational conservatives and moderate Republicans. None of them really have any reason to support Bush (key words: Patriot Act, little government, fiscal responsibility, and "sliming John McCain"). But it's possible that many of them will do so anyway, saying "At least he's not a Democrat!" Even the ones who don't vote for Bush will probably just slink down to the polling place and take advantage of the secret ballot.

I'm really hoping that a few of the big names will stand up in the last few weeks of the campaign and announce publicly that they're voting for Kerry. If they don't, the consequences could be appalling.

(No, I don't think that the Democrats will be able to pull it off on their own.)

Campaigns, blogs, marketing and reality

Watch this at C-SPAN.

If the link doesn't work for you, go to C-SPAN.org and search down the "LATEST VIDEO" list for "TechnologyPolitics Summit on Politics & the Internet (04/26/2004)".

The first presentation concerns progressive talk radio, but more interesting is a terrific talk by David Weinberger (a Dean Campaign Internet advisor). This starts about 57 minutes into the clip and runs for about 45 minutes.

Magic Spells

From the story referenced below, something on a completely different topic. Can anyone tell me what the difference is between this: ..."years before, Wallace was just about dead at the bottom of a swimming pool and that the only thing that brought him back to life was the power of people praying for him to live." and the belief that you can cast a magic spell?

What Americans Know II

My earlier post was obliterated by Blogger after being up for a few days. The post started with the news that most Americans STILL think Iraq was behind 9/11. Among other things I said it's crucial for us to listen to Limbaugh in order to understand what Republicans are thinking and what so many Americans think is reality. Today a Washington Post story covers this territory.

Some people get their information from the TV networks or the paper. Stein starts with the Drudge Report Web site, where he scans the headlines and clicks on one that says, "Rallying Cry For Dems: Vote Bush Out of Rove's Office." "This is the kind of stuff that pisses me off," he says. "They don't give Bush the respect he deserves. Not only because he's president, but because he's a helluva good man."

Next he goes to a Web site called WorldNetDaily.com. He clicks on an article that says, "Poll: Bush's Approval Sinking," but dismisses it as untrustworthy when he sees the poll was done by CBS. "Of course I have a suspicion of CBS," he says. "Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw -- they don't have any credibility with me."

Next he goes through a site called FreeRepublic.com, which calls itself "the premier conservative news forum," and then moves on to a site called sftt.org. "Soldiers for the Truth," he says, scrolling through another list of articles and watching a video of what the site says is a U.S. Apache helicopter targeting and obliterating three Iraqis. "Another guy moving right there," one voice on the video says, all business. "Good. Fire. Hit him," another voice says.

"It's amazing, the military, the men and women who are serving us," Stein says. "You think about the sacrifices, the idea of spending Christmas in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in West Africa, in these hellholes. In the civilian world, they get some injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, and they want to go sue their employers, and these guys . . . I'm so proud of them. I'm so glad they're on our side."

Next he goes to Military.com, where there's a photograph of an American soldier holding a wild-haired Saddam Hussein on the ground moments after his capture. "Look at the contrast," Stein says. "There's the American soldier coming to liberate the country, and there's the tyrant who ran the rape rooms and the children's prisons. That inspires me."

Next he goes to AmericanRhetoric.com, where he has listened to an "awesome" speech by Bush, an "amazing" speech by Reagan, and a "great" speech by Martin Luther King Jr. from a time before "things got so distorted," and then he goes to townhall.com, which calls itself a "conservative news and information" site, where he begins hopscotching from Pat Buchanan to Robert D. Novak to Ann Coulter.

This is how Stein gets his information, along with watching Fox News and skimming the local paper, to which he once canceled his subscription because he was so offended by an opinion column about Bush that began, "The Boy Emperor picked up the morning paper and, stunned, dropped his Juicy Juice box with the little straw attached." He recognizes that the information he seeks out reinforces his beliefs rather than challenges them, but "I feel I'm more informed than most people," he says. "Most people don't read all of this."

There's so much more in this article. Read it. Start listening to Limbaugh. Start in small, 5-minute doses. Don't break your radio. Work up to a full half hour. It is CRUCIAL to understand what Americans are being told. You will not BELIEVE what they're telling people! But this is the core of Republican thought. What you hear here is repeated in various forms and dilutions on the mainstream news. It sets the agenda. People BELIEVE that cutting taxes or the rich increases government revenue! People BELIEVE that Christians are persecuted in America. People BELIEVE that "the government" is some separate entity that takes money from regular working people and just keeps it for "themselves." They are told that Republicans are "people like us" and Democrats drive "limousines" and "drink wine and eat French cheeses" and that they hate Christians. Over and over they are told these things.

And they are told, over and over again, not to listen to mainstream media, not to trust anything "Liberals" say, not to trust their facts, not to believe anything they hear except from the far right. And it works.

Republicans understand how people get their information, and they take advantage of it. They spread little (untrue) stories about ridiculous lawsuits on music radio stations, they send out (untrue) chain e-mail stories about Kerry insulting people, they call talk shows with (untrue) stories about Kerry pushing his way to the front of lines in drug stores saying, "Do you know who I am?" They plant (untrue) stories about people (meaning Jews) persecuting Christians. Fox News reports Iraq stories under the banner "War on Terrorism" as if Iraq had anything to do with Terrorism...

Jinxed

Looks like I'm saving the data from the hard drive. It just came up again, and I'm copying everything to a new drive, hoping it lasts long enough.

Meanwhile something has screwed up the Seeing the Forest site, starting with the deletion of part of the What America Knows post, and leaving everything after that in bold. I'm leaving it alone in case Blogger fixes it...

Hard Drive Help

I've got a 30gb Quantum Fireball in my Mac G4 that suddenly won't spin up. The Drive Setup doesn't see it. Does anyone have any suggestions? Am I going to have to spend a huge amount to get the data recovered? Thanks in advance for any help.

Update - It does spin up, but the Mac won't see it. So maybe it's some kind of failure in the circuitry of the drive.

What Americans Know

You probably have seen this poll reported on other blogs. I don't tend to post things I have also seen elsewhere, but this one really, really needs repeating.

"A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave 'substantial support' to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that 'clear evidence' was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).

[. . .] among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush."

To understand Bush's support, you have to unde


Well, I don't know where the rest of this post went. It was up for a few days, and then this happened to it. Thanks, Blogger.

An e-mail I received:

TEXAS TRUTH TOO GOOD NOT TO PASS ON

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher (whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle), the doctor and the old man struck up a conversation about George W. Bush being in the White House. The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road an you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle." The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb bastard get down!"

Bush the Post Turtle.

Bush had his chance to win it. Get him out of there before he screws up again.

Diana Moon, has pointed out that Bush and his surrogates are 100% sure to blame the Democrats for his Iraq disaster. (Tinker Bell died because we didn't believe hard enough). The title above is my first try at what I think we should be saying.

For 32 years now Democrats have been running away from the McGovern Curse, which the DLC has interpreted to mean "No Democrat ever can oppose any war anywhere". That has to change. Democrats have to suck up their guts and go on the attack.

It'll be a rough sell. Bush's rabid core constituency is 30% of the electorate, Bush's team has close to a billion dollars to blow, the media are shallow, spineless, and venal, and many "centrists" are just airheads. It will be like the Alamo or Thermopylae -- the few and the proud, defending human civilization against the ravening Republican horde. (Take that, Samuel Huntington! Take that, Victor Davis Hansen!)

As I've been saying for a couple of years, this election will be decided by the rational conservatives and the intelligent centrists (if there are any). If they stick with Bush, we are doomed. There are plenty of signs that they're starting to shift, but I'm not counting on it. George W. Bush may be allowed to run the world off a cliff just because certain people couldn't force themselves to vote for the party of unions, affirmative action, and (gasp!) gay marriage. (The horror! The horror!)

Why Chalabi?

Digby has one very good answer.

A Hero

I don't know anything about this guy, except that after 9/11 he gave up a $3.6 million NFL football contract and enlisted in the army. He was "an exceptional student with a 3.84 grade point average through college and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in marketing" who died yesterday in Afghanistan. This was just announced and there isn't much news yet about what happened.

I don't know if he was a rabid right-winger, or a Democrat, and it doesn't matter. (I guess it does matter because if he was a Democrat the Republicans are going to start smearing him now.)

Osama Bin Laden Captured!!

Not really. There's a spam email going around saying so, though. If you clink on the link in the email, you get a nice computer parasite. (Story here).

Investigators are hot on Osama's trail, though. My sources tell me is that the latest tip is that Osama has apparently figured out that if you want to disappear from view, the Texas Air National Guard is the best place to go.

Buy Books, Help Pay For STF Bandwidth

Click on the book cover, buy the book, support Seeing the Forest!

Voting Machines Story

Maryland Group Sues to Upgrade E-Voting Machines:

"A Maryland voters' group said on Wednesday it planned to force the state to add printers to electronic voting machines to ensure they can be double-checked after a disputed election, such as the 2000 presidential vote. "

The CPA Institution

Josh doesn't often crack me up, but this is funny.

Stealing an Election

Bruce Schneier offers a back-of-the-envelope estimate of what we're up against.

In 2002, all the Congressional candidates together raised over $500M. As a result, one can conservatively conclude that affecting the balance of power in the House of Representatives is worth at least $100M to the party who would otherwise be losing. So when designing the security behind the software, one must assume an attacker with a $100M budget.

Conclusion: The risks to electronic voting machine software are even greater than first appears.

Brush off the Polack Jokes

Apparently Poland is thinking of leaving Iraq and joining Old Europe.

What's the correct term for those guys, anyway -- "piroshki-eating Holocaust monkeys"?

Our club has become even more exclusive.

Update: This is a developing story, with different people saying different things, and there's a change of government coming up soon too.

Link

Chimpeach

Chimpeach

They Know

Sunday

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the administration is expected to nominate John Negroponte to be our first ambassador to postwar Iraq, to take up residence in what will be the world's largest embassy after June 30.

Monday:

In a blow to President Bush and his coalition partners in Iraq, Honduras followed Spain on Monday in announcing it will pull its troops out of the country.

The Hondurans know.

What OTHER Election-Manipulation Deals?

Woodward's book reveals that Bush made a deal with Saudi Arabia to reduce oil prices as an election-manipulation tactic. So the question is, WHO ELSE? What OTHER countries, corporations, etc. have Republicans made deals with to manipulate our elections? And in exchange for what?

When the Republicans started accusing Kerry of making deals with foreign governments, we should have known...

Bandar Bush is in the driver's seat

The two stories below are so flagrant that I have trouble believing them myself. I find it unbelievable that there has been so little media outcry, and that Bush supporters still are able to believe anything that the man says. These guys are tough when confronting France, but are meek and obedient with the Saudis.

Colin Powell was not told about our Iraq War plans until Bandar had approved them. Bandar wasn't easily pleased, but ultimately we got his approval for what we wanted to do.

More recently, when OPEC (led by the Saudis) decided to cut production and raise oil prices, Bandar kept Bush on a string for awhile before he agreed to increase Saudi production in time for the elections. I don't know what his quid pro quo was, but we can be sure that he got it.

(If you just tuned in, the 9/11 attackers and sponsors were mostly Saudis, and there was quite possibly no Iraqi involvement at all. We've spent several years now scouring the earth for little specks of evidence that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, while ignoring warehouses of evidence that high-level Saudis were implicated.)

BANDAR BUSH TELLS US WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN IRAQ

"And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, ‘So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?’ And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: ‘Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.’"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, “I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn’t enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. “Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, ‘Their message is my message,’” says Woodward."

Excerpt

Transcript

BANDAR PROMISES TO KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN

"Bush, who campaigned in 2000 on a pledge to persuade the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to keep oil supply plentiful, has been under fire in this election year after Saudi Arabia, the cartel's largest producer, led a push to cut OPEC output by 1 million barrels per day from April.....

Adel Al-Jubeir, foreign affairs adviser to the Saudi crown prince, told reporters in a telephone conference call that global oil inventories were at a reasonable level and blamed oil market speculators for driving up the crude price.

Joe Barnes of the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Texas said Riyadh was more than willing to help Washington balance energy prices by raising stocks in an emergency, like after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Right now, "the Saudis do not believe current oil prices are an emergency," he told Reuters.'

UPDATE:
A more recent story:

"Woodward, discussing his new book, Plan of Attack, on the Bush Administration's preparations for the Iraq war, told CBS television that Prince Bandar pledged the Saudis would try to fine-tune oil prices to prime the US economy for the election - a move they understood would favour Mr Bush's re-election.

Questioned about his claim at a time when oil prices are nearing a 13-year high, Woodward, a senior editor at The Washington Post, said: 'They're high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.'"

Update

Story I

Story II

Guardian

Bandar Bush

Democrats and Liberals

Below I've argued that if you want to be part of the mainstream establishment you cannot be a dove. This is just part of a more general rejection of "liberalism".

Steve Teles, a Brandeis political science professor, has said that the only thing all conservatives have in common is a hatred of "liberals". Many reasonably moderate voters would never vote for a Democrat because they think the Democratic Party is liberal.

If you ask them what they mean by "liberals", however, they'll often point to pot-smoking bisexual tree-hugging pacifist ecoterrorist vegans. But these people are not Democrats: they're Greens, if anything.

In other words, the people who killed Gore by voting for Nader also hurt Gore by causing moderates to vote for Bush. Everyone knows that life isn't fair, but this particular lose-lose proposition is an especially nasty one.

The Democrats have been bullied into driving away their fringe constituency, while the Republicans have succeeded in keeping theirs on board. And the Republican fringe is plenty nasty: neo-Confederates, Armageddon Christians, "nuke'em all" warmongers, and anti-tax anarchists.

In 2000 Nader got 2.7% of the vote and Buchanan and Browne combined got 0.79% of the vote. You know that there are a lot more racists and libertarians than that out there. That's only 3.5% of the vote altogether, but suppose the proportions were switched (.79% Green votes, 2.7% Buchanan and Libertarian votes).

Gore would have got almost 2% more votes, Bush would have got almost 2% fewer, and Gore (who already had a .5% advantage in the popular vote) would have defeated Bush solidly, 50.3% to 46%. The Electoral College and the Supreme Court couldn't erase that margin.

The Democrats have to stop running away from their fringe voters.

House of Bush, House of Saud

The New York Times just ran a stupid review of Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud. I strongly recommend Unger's book, but Tepperman's Times review is worth reading too, just for a glimpse at the way the establishment group mind works.

Unger points out that the Bushes have long-established ties to the Saudis and that the Saudis have donated over a billion dollars to Bush-sponsored causes. He speculates that this may have caused the Bushes to be friendlier to the Saudis than they should have been. There's nothing really extreme about this conclusion.

But Tepperman frames the book as a "conspiracy theory" in order to dismiss Unger's main points. He actually concedes many of Unger's facts (though one fact which he does not mention is that the 9/11 attack was manned, funded, and organized by Saudis.) He concludes his review by explaining that we are slaves of the Saudis and have little choice other than to do pretty much whatever they want us to do.

Tepperman is the senior editor of the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs, which makes his mediocre dishonesty (and his hopelessness about our relationship with the Saudis) seem a bit more more alarming.

More on the Bush-Saudi connection.

Would we have been better off leaving Saddam in power?

My irascible friend Diana Moon (no link, scroll to "Sunday Morning") has asked the question: "Do you think that we would have been better off leaving Saddam in power?"

This is not actually an outrageous question. What it amounts to asking is whether George Bush the First was right to leave Saddam ("a force for stability") in power after the First Iraq War. But the very fact that it can be asked at all speaks very poorly of the younger Bush's Second Iraq War. Coming up with something better than Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been that hard.

From the American point of view, we have confirmed (at a very high cost) that Iraq never had any WMD. As for the terrorist threat, it has certainly become worse: more Islamic militants have been created, whereas nothing at all has been done to reduce terrorism (and resources have even been diverted from the real war on terror.) The war has severely stressed most of America's diplomatic relationships and has also been costly both economically and in terms of casualties.

Are the Iraqis themselves better off? At this point no one in the world has any idea who will be governing Iraq in a year's time. (As far as that goes, no one in the world knows who will be governing Iraq two months from now). But the most likely possibilities are a militant Shiite theocracy, a long civil war, and an extended American occupation. None of these are necessarily better than Saddam's rule.

We're frequently told that we've liberated the Iraqi women, but that's just because you always have to talk about the ill-treatment of women when you talk about Islam. Iraqi women, per se, were better off under Saddam than they are now under the mullahs, just as they were better off in Afghanistan under Communism than they have been since the Communists were overthrown. (No, this doesn't justify either Saddam or Communism, but the secular governments were much better about educating women and letting them work).

And democracy now looks like the longest of long shots, with a real risk of getting an anti-American, anti-Israeli democracy.

This is not the war we were sold, and we will not be able to make a success of it without a long, costly, and probably brutal occupation. Hawks assure us that we have no other choice, but most of what they told us last time turned out not to be true.

Bush's war has been a complete failure unless its whole purpose was to get the U.S. involved in a longer and wider war.

Not A Political Statement

Now KPIG's playing Reggae Accident:

This is not a political statement
Nor is it a farce
In the land of the great bald bird
The rasta man is sparse

He does not like our urban jungle
Or our capitalistic nightmare
He does not believe in auto insurance
Mon I don't believe that is fair

It was a reggae accident
Four rastas in a rambler
A reggae accident
They came from out of nowhere
A reggae accident
They were smoking some spliff cigars
A reggae accident
They totaled out my car

I lost the case that sealed my fate
Last week in municipal court
The judge ruled for rasta restitution
Of a most peculiar sort

Now there's four stoned faces at my dinner table
And my wife wonders how come
She does not mind the extra mouths to feed
As much as she minds those after dinner drums

We sing was a reggae accident
Four rastas eating pasta
A reggae accident
Pass the parmesan please
A reggae accident
How does a rasta spell relief
A reggae accident
No problem mon, pass the spliff

Oh reggae down...

Now the sun shines on the isle of Jamaica
As it's done since time began
No problem says the rasta mon
When I asked to join his band

You see I sold my house I quit my job
I left that narrow-minded wife
And I moved to the island of Jamaica ya
Just to live that rasta life

Another KPIG favorite is Warren Zevon's Lawyers, Guns and Money, which is now the Bush theme song (along with "If I Only Had A Brain").

Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this

and

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain

For a Sunday afternoon.

Why there was no moderate anti-war movement

Matt Yglesias (April 17 and 18, "Were Anti-War Arguments Wrong", no permalinks) has recently published a piece admitting that he was wrong when he initially supported the Iraq war. He distinguishes his own confession of error from the expected flood of weaselly fake mea culpas, of which David Brooks' supremely weaselly piece is presumably only the first. ("I was wrong but I was right anyway": Matt's paraphrase).

Matt, who is anti-dove, then asks why mainstream anti-war voices were so few before the war. His own answer and those of his commenters miss the point, however.

Since the end of the Vietnam War, or 1980 at the latest, not being a dove has been one of the criteria for being part of the mainstream at all. Before the decision on Iraq War II had been definitively made, there was in fact a great deal of mainstream anti-war opinion (look here and here.) But when crunch time came, those opponents all folded -- because if they had not done so, they would have become pariahs. (As Scott Ritter and, more recently, Richard Clarke have seen).

This consensus also probably accounts for a great deal of the media's writing-to-a-script, as repeatedly exposed by Bob Somerby. Up-and-coming young journalists learn what kinds of things they must say in order to continue to be up-and-coming.

Nothing has changed. The policy-makers and opinion-leaders who were wrong are still in place. No one either in the media or in government has lost his job or suffered a demotion because of his mistakes. So you should plan to see the same old opinion-leaders, in endless parade, passing the buck and covering their butts at a dollar a word.

But don't even hope to hear from the ones who were right all along.

"Bring It On"

This NY Times story includes this line: "Yet the killing will almost certainly have political consequences..."

But actions that inflame the entire Arab world have other, more immediate consequences if you are a family with someone serving in Iraq: Report: 11 U.S. Troops, Dozens of Iraqis Killed.