Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The Rise of the Independents
Rhodes Cook wrote a compelling piece in last Sunday's Washington Post called Moving On, about the growing percentage of voters who are registered Independents.
What's compelling about this is when it comes to candidate's energizing their base. In the past that has meant throwing a few meaty bones to the base to ensure their backing while the candidate when hunting for a few swing voters to put him/her over the top.
The implications for both Kerry and Bush are monumental.
Another interesting observation is that despite the efforts of Ralph Nader, and The Committee for a Unified Independent Party on his behalf, clearly the large majority of registered Independents don't see themselves as the "base" for whomever claims to represent them. His polling numbers don't come even remotely close to the numbers of registered Independents.
|
"In this starkly partisan era of Red and Blue America, we may need a third color to describe those who formally call themselves neither Republican nor Democrat. When it comes to registering voters, the two major parties can only look in envy -- and dismay -- at the swelling ranks of unaffiliated voters."
What's compelling about this is when it comes to candidate's energizing their base. In the past that has meant throwing a few meaty bones to the base to ensure their backing while the candidate when hunting for a few swing voters to put him/her over the top.
"Since the waning years of the Reagan administration, or basically since the last periodical cicada mating cycle, the number of "other" voters has proliferated. In the 27 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have been registering voters by party since 1987, the Democratic share has plummeted 8 percentage points, declining from an aggregate total of 51 percent to 43 percent. The Republican share has stayed steady at 33 percent. But the proportion of voters who have not identified themselves with either of the major parties has jumped 8 percentage points, from 16 to 24 percent."
"What's so significant about the rise of the unaffiliated? Well, it's one thing to tell a pollster that you consider yourself "independent." No particular consequence arises from that self-identification. But to register as unaffiliated is a stronger statement of preference (or lack of one). Political parties talk about the "base," and how to energize it. These numbers suggest that the base is eroding, or at least is harder to identify and rely on."
The implications for both Kerry and Bush are monumental.
"... the trend line is unmistakable, with the registration figures since the last presidential election being particularly telling. Over the last four years, as election officials have purged their rolls of inactive voters, the Democratic total in the party-registration states has fallen by 1.3 million. The Republicans are down far less, only 170,000 in those states. But the "other" category remains a growth stock, adding more than 600,000 voters since George W. Bush and Al Gore did battle."
Another interesting observation is that despite the efforts of Ralph Nader, and The Committee for a Unified Independent Party on his behalf, clearly the large majority of registered Independents don't see themselves as the "base" for whomever claims to represent them. His polling numbers don't come even remotely close to the numbers of registered Independents.
Howard Dean to debate Ralph Nader
Fox News and Air America News are reporting that Howard Dean and Ralph Nader have agreed to a 90 minute debate on NPR's Justice Talking program. The debate will be on July 9, will be moderated by NPR correspondant Margot Adler and will be before a studio audience.
This should be entertaining!
|
"I am anxious to debate Ralph Nader in order to speak about why he wants to run for president," Dean said in a statement. "This is the most important election in my lifetime and a third party candidate could make a difference — this November and for years to come." - Fox News
This should be entertaining!
Are you better off today than you were with Saddam?
The GAO says Iraqis justifiably can give a resounding "NO" to that question.
In several major areas: electricity, the judicial system and security handed over to Iraqis by the US are worse than they were before the war began according to GAO calculations.
Highlights:
• In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.
• Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with $10 billion more about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.
• The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.
• The new Iraqi civil-defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.
• The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.
Interestingly...Americans can ask themselves this same question in regard to Bush...and give the same answer.
|
In several major areas: electricity, the judicial system and security handed over to Iraqis by the US are worse than they were before the war began according to GAO calculations.
Highlights:
• In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.
• Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with $10 billion more about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.
• The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.
• The new Iraqi civil-defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.
• The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.
Interestingly...Americans can ask themselves this same question in regard to Bush...and give the same answer.
Money makes the world go around...world go around....
Life is a Cabaret
The blogosphere is raising some big bucks for candidates.
Atrios has raised $309k for the DNC, $225k for Kerry and $11k for the DCCC. He's also fundraising for Joe Hoefell of Pennsylvania's 13th..raising $23k.
dKos is at it too. Kos has the DKos8. These 8 folks were voted on and chosen by the Kos community to support.
They've raised for:
Richard Morrison(TX-22)$25,678, Stan Matsunaka (CO-4):$20,833, Jim Stork(FL-22)$19,507,Tony Knowles (AK-Sen):$14,053, Nancy Farmer (MO-SSen):$19,507, Jeff Seemann (OH-16):$10,182, Lois Murphy (PA-6):$6,767, Jim Newberry (MO-7)$5,325. Kos has also raised significant funds for the DNC, DSCC and for Kerry.
These guys are big players...a force to be reckoned with. And they're not the only ones. The blogosphere appears to have the ability to connect enough with it's readership to get them to open their wallets.
There's been some grousing about the fact that these people are being invited to attend the Conventions and other political events. However they don't appear to be doing the fundraising as a part of a quid pro quo...yet. So far it's been what appears to be a very sincere effort to get candidates heard and in office.
|
The blogosphere is raising some big bucks for candidates.
Atrios has raised $309k for the DNC, $225k for Kerry and $11k for the DCCC. He's also fundraising for Joe Hoefell of Pennsylvania's 13th..raising $23k.
dKos is at it too. Kos has the DKos8. These 8 folks were voted on and chosen by the Kos community to support.
They've raised for:
Richard Morrison(TX-22)$25,678, Stan Matsunaka (CO-4):$20,833, Jim Stork(FL-22)$19,507,Tony Knowles (AK-Sen):$14,053, Nancy Farmer (MO-SSen):$19,507, Jeff Seemann (OH-16):$10,182, Lois Murphy (PA-6):$6,767, Jim Newberry (MO-7)$5,325. Kos has also raised significant funds for the DNC, DSCC and for Kerry.
These guys are big players...a force to be reckoned with. And they're not the only ones. The blogosphere appears to have the ability to connect enough with it's readership to get them to open their wallets.
There's been some grousing about the fact that these people are being invited to attend the Conventions and other political events. However they don't appear to be doing the fundraising as a part of a quid pro quo...yet. So far it's been what appears to be a very sincere effort to get candidates heard and in office.
...everything will be alright...if you play along...
Bare Naked Ladies on top....
...tryanny on the bottom.
The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.
Here we go, folks. It begins.
I've had some people tell me that they thought this would come down the pipe...but it seemed way too conspiratorial for me. It seems like tin foil hat stuff. And there it is on AP, big as life.
|
...tryanny on the bottom.
The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.
Here we go, folks. It begins.
I've had some people tell me that they thought this would come down the pipe...but it seemed way too conspiratorial for me. It seems like tin foil hat stuff. And there it is on AP, big as life.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Jessie is a friend..yeah I know he's been a good friend of mine...but lately somethings changed....
Doctor Noah Drake (aka Rick Springfield) is the lyrical inspiration.
The Washington Post has this tacked on to the bottom of their story on the convention lineups:
"I would not have voted for [President Bush's] tax cut, based on what I know. . . . There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit. . . . Too often presidents do things that don't end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won't tell them their actions stink on ice."
-- Former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), in a recent interview with Business North Carolina magazine.
If you lose Jesse...you lose.....?
|
The Washington Post has this tacked on to the bottom of their story on the convention lineups:
"I would not have voted for [President Bush's] tax cut, based on what I know. . . . There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit. . . . Too often presidents do things that don't end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won't tell them their actions stink on ice."
-- Former senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), in a recent interview with Business North Carolina magazine.
If you lose Jesse...you lose.....?
Quote of the day
With all of the frothing and spinning by the right about Farenheit911, Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly offers his review of the film.
Kevin appears to like the film but considers it a rather weak polemic.
What I enjoyed the most from Kevin was this particular insight:
So is Fahrenheit 9/11 unfair, full of innuendo and cheap shots, and guilty of specious arguments? Sure. But that just makes it the perfect complement to the arguments of many in the pro-war crowd itself. Perhaps the reason they're so mad is that they see more than a little of themselves in it.
|
Kevin appears to like the film but considers it a rather weak polemic.
What I enjoyed the most from Kevin was this particular insight:
So is Fahrenheit 9/11 unfair, full of innuendo and cheap shots, and guilty of specious arguments? Sure. But that just makes it the perfect complement to the arguments of many in the pro-war crowd itself. Perhaps the reason they're so mad is that they see more than a little of themselves in it.
Come out Virgina..don't let me wait...you Catholic girls start much too late...
Okay...it's a Billy day, I guess.
Ruy Teixeira at Emerging Democratic Majority has a piece today on the Catholic vote. It seems John Kerry is leading with white Catholics by about one point. Given that Gore lost the white Catholic vote by 7 points (and won the overall by 3), this could be significant.
This does appear that the attempts to go after Kerry by some conservative Catholic bishops isn't working...at least it isn't working the way they hoped.
|
Ruy Teixeira at Emerging Democratic Majority has a piece today on the Catholic vote. It seems John Kerry is leading with white Catholics by about one point. Given that Gore lost the white Catholic vote by 7 points (and won the overall by 3), this could be significant.
This does appear that the attempts to go after Kerry by some conservative Catholic bishops isn't working...at least it isn't working the way they hoped.
Schultz gets to the bottom line
Radio talkshow host Ed Schultz just finished interviewing Move American Forward Chairman Howard Kaloogian about his organization's opposition to the Michael Moore' new movie/documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Kaloogian's group has been pushing for people to contact theater owners and pressure them to not show Fahrenheit 9/11.
Kaloogian just admitted that he's never actually seen the film.
LOL
|
Kaloogian just admitted that he's never actually seen the film.
LOL
There's a place in this world for the angry young man....
Thanks Billy for the title inspiration.
This piece by Alan Elsner in Reuters diagrams how Democrats are tapping into the anger within the electorate against Bush.
Elsner parallels this with the anger the electorate felt toward the left in the early nineties. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media folks tapped into this anger and it set their careers. I also recently read a piece about how FreeRepublic is beginning to wane...while sites like Daily Kos are on the uptick.
Michael Moore and Air America Radio are the new rising stars...tapping into this anger at the right. I've never seen Democrats and the left as a whole so united.
There's a saying about the Arab culture that goes something like, brother against brother, brother and brother against neighbor, brother and neighbor against city, brother and city against country, brother and country against other countries.
It's striking how US citizens have a very similar mentality in a way. We definitely come together as a group against things much more often that we come together for things.
One of Kev's favorite sayings is "Democrats form their firing squads in circles." I've always chuckled when he mentions it because it's so true. This time tho they seem to have finally managed to form a straight line...directed at George W Bush.
|
This piece by Alan Elsner in Reuters diagrams how Democrats are tapping into the anger within the electorate against Bush.
Elsner parallels this with the anger the electorate felt toward the left in the early nineties. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media folks tapped into this anger and it set their careers. I also recently read a piece about how FreeRepublic is beginning to wane...while sites like Daily Kos are on the uptick.
Michael Moore and Air America Radio are the new rising stars...tapping into this anger at the right. I've never seen Democrats and the left as a whole so united.
There's a saying about the Arab culture that goes something like, brother against brother, brother and brother against neighbor, brother and neighbor against city, brother and city against country, brother and country against other countries.
It's striking how US citizens have a very similar mentality in a way. We definitely come together as a group against things much more often that we come together for things.
One of Kev's favorite sayings is "Democrats form their firing squads in circles." I've always chuckled when he mentions it because it's so true. This time tho they seem to have finally managed to form a straight line...directed at George W Bush.
Monday, June 28, 2004
The Supremes lay down the smack...
And this isn't the Diana Ross smack, either.
In a series of decisions, the US Supreme Court has soundly rejected the Bush Administration argument that they have carte blanche with detainees and that they can ignore due process.
Specifically the Justices smacked down the Bush assertion that the Executive could potentially hold detainees indefinitely during a time of war.
The only Justice to agree completely with the Bush argument was Thomas. Even Scalia went with the majority opinion on this one.
There's still some wiggle room for the Executive on how far they can actually go....but they clearly believe that currently the Executive has gone too far.
|
In a series of decisions, the US Supreme Court has soundly rejected the Bush Administration argument that they have carte blanche with detainees and that they can ignore due process.
Specifically the Justices smacked down the Bush assertion that the Executive could potentially hold detainees indefinitely during a time of war.
The only Justice to agree completely with the Bush argument was Thomas. Even Scalia went with the majority opinion on this one.
There's still some wiggle room for the Executive on how far they can actually go....but they clearly believe that currently the Executive has gone too far.
For your wardrobe....
I've just returned from my vacation (I'll blog about the last leg of the trip later) and it seems whacky to be getting ready to leave on vacation...but I am.
In three weeks I'm off to Europe for a short hitch.
I've been in the process of clothes planning for the trip and I may need to pick up this shirt to wear whilst traipsing around England and France.
Kind of a throwback to the post from a few days ago.
|
In three weeks I'm off to Europe for a short hitch.
I've been in the process of clothes planning for the trip and I may need to pick up this shirt to wear whilst traipsing around England and France.
Kind of a throwback to the post from a few days ago.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Do they think we're stupid?
I have two fundamental problems with the whole Nader issue.
First is Nader himself. He keeps saying that his candidacy will siphon more votes from Bush than it will from Kerry. Yet every single bit of objective data contradicts this assertion of his. Every poll that I've seen shows him siphoning more support from Kerry than Bush by at least a roughly two to one margin. Likewise all the data I've seen from his 2000 run shows roughly the same two to one margin. I don't believe for an instant that Nader is too stupid to understand that the facts simply aren't there to back him up. Surely he must know that he's promulgating a lie. To what end? And why would anyone knowingly vote for someone who repeats such an obvious and absurd lie? I'm not talking about protest voters here. They could care less because they're not voting *for* him as much as they are voting *against* the others. I'm talking about his core supporters. Why do they blithly ignore a bald-faced lie?
And then there's the issue of openly conservative groups trying to help Nader qualify for the state ballots in Oregon and Arizona. Nader says he's not bothered by this. Yet isn't it patently obvious that these same groups have no intention of actually voting for Nader? Haven't their spokespersons said as much?
The other problem I have is with the Dems. We've heard over and over how Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. But, the fact of the matter is that Nader can only vote for himself once. The real object of their ire is the voters. Yet even this is misplaced anger in my view. Why are the voters to blame for Dem candidates failing to win their voluntary support via the ballot box? Here are some interesting stats on the 2000 vote: 2000 Results. Note the huge percentage of Nader voters who said they'd have not voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot.
Personally, I think Kerry is playing the whole Nader thing very smartly. Publically at least he has been very clear about respecting Nader's right to run and has focused on swaying voters rather than attacking Nader. I don't think he could play it any better. With Nader failing to win the Green nomination it's looking like he'll be much less of a factor this year anyway. Plus, many of the post-2000 predictions by Greens simply haven't panned out as they expected: AlterNet: Why Nader is NOT to Blame
Your thoughts?
|
First is Nader himself. He keeps saying that his candidacy will siphon more votes from Bush than it will from Kerry. Yet every single bit of objective data contradicts this assertion of his. Every poll that I've seen shows him siphoning more support from Kerry than Bush by at least a roughly two to one margin. Likewise all the data I've seen from his 2000 run shows roughly the same two to one margin. I don't believe for an instant that Nader is too stupid to understand that the facts simply aren't there to back him up. Surely he must know that he's promulgating a lie. To what end? And why would anyone knowingly vote for someone who repeats such an obvious and absurd lie? I'm not talking about protest voters here. They could care less because they're not voting *for* him as much as they are voting *against* the others. I'm talking about his core supporters. Why do they blithly ignore a bald-faced lie?
And then there's the issue of openly conservative groups trying to help Nader qualify for the state ballots in Oregon and Arizona. Nader says he's not bothered by this. Yet isn't it patently obvious that these same groups have no intention of actually voting for Nader? Haven't their spokespersons said as much?
The other problem I have is with the Dems. We've heard over and over how Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. But, the fact of the matter is that Nader can only vote for himself once. The real object of their ire is the voters. Yet even this is misplaced anger in my view. Why are the voters to blame for Dem candidates failing to win their voluntary support via the ballot box? Here are some interesting stats on the 2000 vote: 2000 Results. Note the huge percentage of Nader voters who said they'd have not voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot.
Personally, I think Kerry is playing the whole Nader thing very smartly. Publically at least he has been very clear about respecting Nader's right to run and has focused on swaying voters rather than attacking Nader. I don't think he could play it any better. With Nader failing to win the Green nomination it's looking like he'll be much less of a factor this year anyway. Plus, many of the post-2000 predictions by Greens simply haven't panned out as they expected: AlterNet: Why Nader is NOT to Blame
Your thoughts?
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Greens Spurn Nader
The Green Party today declined to nominate Nader as it's Presidential candidate, going with California Lawyer David Cobb instead. Green Party Refuses to Back Nader for President
Nader hadn't actively sought the Green nomination. But, he had stated his willingness to accept either that or an endorsement. By doing neither, the Greens deny Nader automatic ballot access in 22 states and the District of Columbia which they won on the strength of Nader's 2000 results. This forces Nader to wage a state by state battle to get on each state's ballot for November.
|
Nader hadn't actively sought the Green nomination. But, he had stated his willingness to accept either that or an endorsement. By doing neither, the Greens deny Nader automatic ballot access in 22 states and the District of Columbia which they won on the strength of Nader's 2000 results. This forces Nader to wage a state by state battle to get on each state's ballot for November.
Freudian Slip - Update
The blogosphere is roiling with discussion of the latest Bush/Cheney '04 web ad. Like Jack Bog, I first watched the video with the sound off, which lead to a somewhat distorted perception of it. Upon review I now see that the clips of Hitler fading into a shot of Bush seemingly giving a Nazi salute are intended to give the viewer the impression that Kerry and his supporters are frothing at the mouth with negativity and therefore aren't ready for prime time.
The problem is that the Hitler clips are lifted from a reader-submitted prospective ad in a contest which moveon.org ran some time ago. Moveon.org never endorsed the ad. Indeed they promptly removed the reader-submitted ad from their servers when, quite rightly, outrage was expressed at the content of the prospective ad. Thus the Bush/Cheney ad insinuates a blatent falsehood - that Presidential candidate Kerry is somehow responsible for what any and every opponent of President Bush says or does. That my friends is classic demagoguery. To accept their premise, one would have to also accept that Bush is just as responsible for the ravings of every white supremacist NeoNazi out there who happens to be socially conservative like Bush... which would be all of them. Does anyone believe for a second that Kerry stands to receive a single vote from American white supremacists? Of course not! Does that make Bush culpable for the ravings of American white supremacists? Of course not!
George Bush, demagoguery is NOT a family value! Nor is it a Christian value.
|
The problem is that the Hitler clips are lifted from a reader-submitted prospective ad in a contest which moveon.org ran some time ago. Moveon.org never endorsed the ad. Indeed they promptly removed the reader-submitted ad from their servers when, quite rightly, outrage was expressed at the content of the prospective ad. Thus the Bush/Cheney ad insinuates a blatent falsehood - that Presidential candidate Kerry is somehow responsible for what any and every opponent of President Bush says or does. That my friends is classic demagoguery. To accept their premise, one would have to also accept that Bush is just as responsible for the ravings of every white supremacist NeoNazi out there who happens to be socially conservative like Bush... which would be all of them. Does anyone believe for a second that Kerry stands to receive a single vote from American white supremacists? Of course not! Does that make Bush culpable for the ravings of American white supremacists? Of course not!
George Bush, demagoguery is NOT a family value! Nor is it a Christian value.
Cheney...I did it and I'm not sorry so neener, neener
Vice President of the "honor and dignity to the White House" set, Dick Cheney, defended his use of the f-bomb to Senator Patrick Leahy.
On Tuesday, Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to "f--- off" or to "go f--- himself".
Cheney essentially said in his interview with Neil Cavuto that Leahy deserved it and he felt better having done it.
Cheney is such a piece of work. They have no honor and they have no shame. They're not interested in working with Democrats or Republicans unless it can further their personal agenda. They're not interested in what's best for the nation or what's best for government.
Cheney owes Leahy an apology. He's obviously too small a man to manage it.
|
On Tuesday, Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to "f--- off" or to "go f--- himself".
Cheney essentially said in his interview with Neil Cavuto that Leahy deserved it and he felt better having done it.
Cheney is such a piece of work. They have no honor and they have no shame. They're not interested in working with Democrats or Republicans unless it can further their personal agenda. They're not interested in what's best for the nation or what's best for government.
Cheney owes Leahy an apology. He's obviously too small a man to manage it.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Lost in translation
I've never been a regular reader of USA Today so perhaps I miss out on some of the more quirky tidbits of information. However since I've been on my vacation the last couple of weeks it's come to the room in the mornings for several of the places where we've been staying.
Today while looking through their Travel section I came across this little story.
A company in Port Angeles, Washington that makes travel gear is encountering a minor controversy over one of their labels.
On the label which normally gives laundry/care instructions (in English and French) for the items the following is in the French:
Nous sommes désolés que notre président soit un idiot. Nous n’avons pas voté pour lui.
The translation:
“We are sorry that our president is an idiot. We did not vote for him.”
The article goes on to say that the owner of the company didn't know if the message was meant to convey that it was Chirac or Bush as the idiot. And the employee in question didn't get into trouble, either.
I can't help but think it's about Bush.
|
Today while looking through their Travel section I came across this little story.
A company in Port Angeles, Washington that makes travel gear is encountering a minor controversy over one of their labels.
On the label which normally gives laundry/care instructions (in English and French) for the items the following is in the French:
Nous sommes désolés que notre président soit un idiot. Nous n’avons pas voté pour lui.
The translation:
“We are sorry that our president is an idiot. We did not vote for him.”
The article goes on to say that the owner of the company didn't know if the message was meant to convey that it was Chirac or Bush as the idiot. And the employee in question didn't get into trouble, either.
I can't help but think it's about Bush.
Another Bush flip-flop
In 1997 then governer Bush allowed to become law, but didn't sign, a bill to let judges and juries, not just internal HMO appeals panels, decide patients' injury claims. Bush praised the law during the 2000 presidential campaign. But, he sent the Justice Dept to argue against that very same law before the Supreme Court. That law was among the 10 state laws struck down by the Supreme Court. Ruling 9-0, the justices said that a 1974 federal law prevents states from legislating on private employers' health-insurance plans.
Speaking to 4,000 Service Employees International Union members yesterday, Kerry said it was "shocking" that "this president sent our Justice Department to attack the same legislation that he used to brag about down in Texas." Bush had "underscored the hypocrisy of this administration and made it clear that's why we need a real patients' bill of rights," Kerry said.
Point to Kerry. For a campaign that likes to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, the Bush/Cheney campaign reveal themselves to be exactly what Kerry called them - hypocrits.
|
Speaking to 4,000 Service Employees International Union members yesterday, Kerry said it was "shocking" that "this president sent our Justice Department to attack the same legislation that he used to brag about down in Texas." Bush had "underscored the hypocrisy of this administration and made it clear that's why we need a real patients' bill of rights," Kerry said.
Point to Kerry. For a campaign that likes to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, the Bush/Cheney campaign reveal themselves to be exactly what Kerry called them - hypocrits.
Freudian slip?
Predictably enough the latest web video ad - The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party - posted on the official George Bush re-election site digs at Kerry. The video which is subtitled, "The Coalition of the Wild-Eyed" starts out with footage of Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Michael Moore speaking. Immediately following those clips it shows several clips of Adolph Hitler... which is what raised the ire of the Kerry campaign.
Phil Singer, spokesman for the Kerry campaign, had this to say on the official Kerry blog about the web video ad:
I have to agree with Singer here. Using shots of Adolph Hitler is definitely beyond the pale. But, that's not the truly strange part about all of this. Bizarrely and inexplicably the ad transitions from the Hitler shots directly to a shot of George W. Bush with his right hand raised in what looks like a Nazi salute.
Freudian slip?
|
Phil Singer, spokesman for the Kerry campaign, had this to say on the official Kerry blog about the web video ad:
"The fact that George Bush thinks it’s appropriate to use images of Adolph Hitler in his campaign raises serious questions about his fitness to spend another four years in the White House. Adolph Hitler slaughtered millions of innocent people and has no place in a campaign that is supposed to be about the future and hope of this nation. The President’s use of these images during a month that evoked the memory of World War II is remarkably insensitive to the sacrifices of the millions of people who lost their lives during Hitler’s reign of terror.
“The Bush Campaign should immediately remove these hateful images from its website and apologize for using them. The use of Adolph Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.”
I have to agree with Singer here. Using shots of Adolph Hitler is definitely beyond the pale. But, that's not the truly strange part about all of this. Bizarrely and inexplicably the ad transitions from the Hitler shots directly to a shot of George W. Bush with his right hand raised in what looks like a Nazi salute.
Freudian slip?
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Michael Moore scores
Another "GOP flacks trying to disguise themselves as nonpartisans who care" (this time known as Citizens United) is trying to get the Farenheit911 ads pulled.
They've filed a complaint with the FEC claiming the ads are a possible campaign violation because they use Bush's image.
I wonder if these folks are somehow affiliated with the Move America Forward GOP group also disgused as nonpartisan?
Moore seems fairly gleeful about the whole thing. You can't buy this kind of incredible publicity. Moore was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this evening offering to send Christmas cards to the various rightwing groups trying to thwart his film.
I look forward to seeing the film when I get home. I plan to pay the full admission price rather than cheapskating a matinee like I usually do.
The movie is kicking ass in New York City.
|
They've filed a complaint with the FEC claiming the ads are a possible campaign violation because they use Bush's image.
I wonder if these folks are somehow affiliated with the Move America Forward GOP group also disgused as nonpartisan?
Moore seems fairly gleeful about the whole thing. You can't buy this kind of incredible publicity. Moore was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this evening offering to send Christmas cards to the various rightwing groups trying to thwart his film.
I look forward to seeing the film when I get home. I plan to pay the full admission price rather than cheapskating a matinee like I usually do.
The movie is kicking ass in New York City.
Vice President F-Bomb
Apparently our Veep has a little trouble taking criticism. According to Reuters, the Vice had a heated exchange with Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate Floor. Aides say Cheney told Leahy to "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."
When interviewed about the incident, Leahy replied, "I think he was just having a bad day."
Indeed.
Cheney's boss may be having a bad day too.
|
When interviewed about the incident, Leahy replied, "I think he was just having a bad day."
Indeed.
Cheney's boss may be having a bad day too.
And they'll know we are Christians by our love...by our love...
I was raised in a very conservative Christian home. Being a generally rebellious spirit by nature that's probably part of the reason I left conservatism and Christianity behind in my early adulthood.
However one of the main reasons I became disenchanted with Christianity was what I saw as the anger and mean-spiritedness of the fundamentalist movement. It became an exclusive club where the rules of admission became more and more stringent and kicking or keeping people out became sort of a sport. Today as I see men like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or James Dobson...with their stuffed shirts and sneering attitudes my decision to leave such things behind is affirmed.
Today however a ray of Christian light crept in. As I sat in the dining lounge of my hotel this morning amidst the business men and tourists..my free copy of USA Today in front of me as I munched my breakfast this caught my eye.
The piece mainly discusses Cameron Strang, a graduate of Oral Roberts University who is capturing the attention of young people with his magazine entitled Relevant. But the story is also about how young people are turned away from the fundamentalist movement. They are unmoved my the rigid constraints of fundamentalism and the meanness of the exclusive club. "God is God, truth is truth, and they're everywhere, so you have to look everywhere". The emphasis is on social Christianity..in a Progressive way. What really struck me as I read through the piece the following passage:
While evangelical leaders, including his father, call for a ban on gay marriage, Strang says Relevant "upholds the same moral standard but questions whether we need the government to enforce our beliefs, our religion, on people who don't adhere to the same faith."
This is great stuff.
The piece also goes on about the magazine parodying "hyperactive believers" and "Bible bullies".
This certainly won't cause me to dive back into Christianity in any way. But after reading this I might be willing to stick a baby toe in.
|
However one of the main reasons I became disenchanted with Christianity was what I saw as the anger and mean-spiritedness of the fundamentalist movement. It became an exclusive club where the rules of admission became more and more stringent and kicking or keeping people out became sort of a sport. Today as I see men like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or James Dobson...with their stuffed shirts and sneering attitudes my decision to leave such things behind is affirmed.
Today however a ray of Christian light crept in. As I sat in the dining lounge of my hotel this morning amidst the business men and tourists..my free copy of USA Today in front of me as I munched my breakfast this caught my eye.
The piece mainly discusses Cameron Strang, a graduate of Oral Roberts University who is capturing the attention of young people with his magazine entitled Relevant. But the story is also about how young people are turned away from the fundamentalist movement. They are unmoved my the rigid constraints of fundamentalism and the meanness of the exclusive club. "God is God, truth is truth, and they're everywhere, so you have to look everywhere". The emphasis is on social Christianity..in a Progressive way. What really struck me as I read through the piece the following passage:
While evangelical leaders, including his father, call for a ban on gay marriage, Strang says Relevant "upholds the same moral standard but questions whether we need the government to enforce our beliefs, our religion, on people who don't adhere to the same faith."
This is great stuff.
The piece also goes on about the magazine parodying "hyperactive believers" and "Bible bullies".
This certainly won't cause me to dive back into Christianity in any way. But after reading this I might be willing to stick a baby toe in.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
The ACLU converts a critic... with a lot of help from the Bush Admin.
Monday's Oregonian ran a piece by Jim Rassmann entitled, Why a former critic of the ACLU decided to join it. Rassmann is one of the veterans working for the Kerry campaign. His story is a very compelling one in and of itself. But, it's beside the point here. Suffice to say that Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor for saving Rassmann.
Rassmann gives some good reasons for his change of heart about the ACLU. Reasons that I agree with. But, at the same time I can identify with being a critic of the ACLU at times. In my opinion they tend to have a pretty clear ideological bias that is sometimes counter productive and which leads them to get involved in cases that don't further or otherwise support civil rights in my view.
Take the case earlier this year where the ACLU sided with two couples suing the city of San Diego to get it's lease of city-owned land to the Boy Scouts overturned. Rather than get into the details here, I'll just add a link to a post on my The Independent Voter message board, here, where I go into the details of the case. The ACLU was dead wrong in that case. I simply don't see any grounds for a church/state violation where neither party received preferential treatment of any kind.
While I certainly can understand Rassmann's change of heart on the ACLU. They certainly don't deserve the negative label that the GOP try to pin on them. But, I think that the prudent choice is to support them where and when I agree with what they're doing... and not to when I don't agree with them.
|
Rassmann gives some good reasons for his change of heart about the ACLU. Reasons that I agree with. But, at the same time I can identify with being a critic of the ACLU at times. In my opinion they tend to have a pretty clear ideological bias that is sometimes counter productive and which leads them to get involved in cases that don't further or otherwise support civil rights in my view.
Take the case earlier this year where the ACLU sided with two couples suing the city of San Diego to get it's lease of city-owned land to the Boy Scouts overturned. Rather than get into the details here, I'll just add a link to a post on my The Independent Voter message board, here, where I go into the details of the case. The ACLU was dead wrong in that case. I simply don't see any grounds for a church/state violation where neither party received preferential treatment of any kind.
While I certainly can understand Rassmann's change of heart on the ACLU. They certainly don't deserve the negative label that the GOP try to pin on them. But, I think that the prudent choice is to support them where and when I agree with what they're doing... and not to when I don't agree with them.
You spin me right round baby...right round......
Media Matters for America is reporting on a Wall Street journal story that falsely states information on the dreaded Florida recount from the 2000 election.
The long and the short of it:
In a June 23 editorial, The Wall Street Journal erroneously stated, "[F]or the record, Mr. Bush won the last election under every single vote recount, including those painstakingly run by the media." The false claim came in response to comments by federal judge Guido Calabresi that "illegitimate acts" by the Supreme Court put George W. Bush into power.
However, Bush did not win "every single vote recount," according to a study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC), as The Washington Post reported on November 12, 2001. The NORC study was organized by a consortium of news organizations that included both the Post and The Wall Street Journal. The researchers "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines" and then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida."
The results: former Vice President Al Gore, not George W. Bush, emerged the winner under four scenarios.
I realize that people start rolling their eyes when the FLA recount comes up as a topic again. But this is the kind of stuff that makes it come back. When the press refuses to report the truth of what went on and why...it inflames folks...and rightfully so.
Sometimes it seems that without blogs (the political pamphlets of the internet)...much of the truth would be lost. It's apparent that much of the media doesn't care to report what really went on or what really goes on.
Conservatives have overrun the media but the tide is turning. Ever so slowly people appear to be awakening to the fact that their nation has been sunk into a wreckless war that shouldn't have been fought. They're seeing that they're now in more danger from terrorists than ever before...and that this President and his cohorts aren't interested in taking care of these problems...they're interested in their own agenda.
|
The long and the short of it:
In a June 23 editorial, The Wall Street Journal erroneously stated, "[F]or the record, Mr. Bush won the last election under every single vote recount, including those painstakingly run by the media." The false claim came in response to comments by federal judge Guido Calabresi that "illegitimate acts" by the Supreme Court put George W. Bush into power.
However, Bush did not win "every single vote recount," according to a study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC), as The Washington Post reported on November 12, 2001. The NORC study was organized by a consortium of news organizations that included both the Post and The Wall Street Journal. The researchers "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines" and then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida."
The results: former Vice President Al Gore, not George W. Bush, emerged the winner under four scenarios.
I realize that people start rolling their eyes when the FLA recount comes up as a topic again. But this is the kind of stuff that makes it come back. When the press refuses to report the truth of what went on and why...it inflames folks...and rightfully so.
Sometimes it seems that without blogs (the political pamphlets of the internet)...much of the truth would be lost. It's apparent that much of the media doesn't care to report what really went on or what really goes on.
Conservatives have overrun the media but the tide is turning. Ever so slowly people appear to be awakening to the fact that their nation has been sunk into a wreckless war that shouldn't have been fought. They're seeing that they're now in more danger from terrorists than ever before...and that this President and his cohorts aren't interested in taking care of these problems...they're interested in their own agenda.
GOPers in "nonpartisan" clothing
The Republican nasties are now after Michael Moore. Somehow I think he'll meet the challenge, tho.
According to PRWatch.org there's a group out there called Move America Forward working to blunt the effects of Moore's new film, Farenheit911. (Move America Forward sounds strangely to me like MoveOn.org. Too much coincidence for comfort?)
According to PRWatch...the organization claims to be nonpartisan. But upon closer review by PRWatch, the staff is a group of "diehard Republicans and anti-tax activists, and former legislative staffers".
This seems achingly close to the dubious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization that's made up of guys who've attacked Kerry didn't actually know Kerry or serve with him. They are also a group of Republican activists who claim to be nonpartisan.
Michael Moore doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'll shrink from these people though. I could actually see him calling them out...kind of like Bush to the terrorists...."Bring it on!"
(from Carla via email)
|
According to PRWatch.org there's a group out there called Move America Forward working to blunt the effects of Moore's new film, Farenheit911. (Move America Forward sounds strangely to me like MoveOn.org. Too much coincidence for comfort?)
According to PRWatch...the organization claims to be nonpartisan. But upon closer review by PRWatch, the staff is a group of "diehard Republicans and anti-tax activists, and former legislative staffers".
This seems achingly close to the dubious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization that's made up of guys who've attacked Kerry didn't actually know Kerry or serve with him. They are also a group of Republican activists who claim to be nonpartisan.
Michael Moore doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'll shrink from these people though. I could actually see him calling them out...kind of like Bush to the terrorists...."Bring it on!"
(from Carla via email)
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.....
Kudos to Bruce Cockburn for lyrical inspiration. I actually first heard this on a Bare Naked Ladies cover.
Today's New York Times reports that a current CIA officer has released a book under the pen name "anonymous". The book outlines how the US Government is screwing up the battle against muslim extremists:
"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."
The book denounces the invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq,"
Talk about stating the obvious.
|
Today's New York Times reports that a current CIA officer has released a book under the pen name "anonymous". The book outlines how the US Government is screwing up the battle against muslim extremists:
"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."
The book denounces the invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq,"
Talk about stating the obvious.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Get your kicks...on Route 66....
The vacation continues....
We've made it to San Jose. 12 hours of driving from the gorgeous Grand Canyon into California...across the Mojave Desert...up to Bakersfield and into San Jose.
Firstly, the Grand Canyon is so absolutely breathtaking I could never do it justice with words. Suffice it to say that it confirms my belief in a Supreme Being. It's so rugged and colorful and majestic. Trying to capture it on film is really frustrating because the pictures just don't manage to really get the Canyon. The other fabulous part was seeing of the wildlife. We saw California Condors flying overhead larger than life. Elk with massive antlers were lying under the trees not 20 yards from the road when we were driving into the local town. Mountain goats ate their lunch right next to the path where we hiked. It was really amazing.
No cell phone, no computer....just the Canyon and it's wonders. I highly recommend it.
The drive today was something else, too. The landscape changes so drastically. Leaving the high desert with it's Ponderosa Pines and Junipers into the vast Mojave Desert (a mild 110 today)was quite an experience. The desert seemed to go on forever...vast miles of barren landscape...a few scraggly palms here and there. We stopped for lunch at in a small town where the 395 intersected with the road we were on. It all ran parallel to Route 66..the famous hwy that runs along the desert southwest. Finally we made the ascent into the Bakersfield area...and the desert was blissfully behind us. And finally into the bustling Silicon Valley where we reside tonight.
Tomorrow is my daughter's 11th birthday. We're going to the Great American theme park.
Hopefully there will be time for an update tomorrow.
|
We've made it to San Jose. 12 hours of driving from the gorgeous Grand Canyon into California...across the Mojave Desert...up to Bakersfield and into San Jose.
Firstly, the Grand Canyon is so absolutely breathtaking I could never do it justice with words. Suffice it to say that it confirms my belief in a Supreme Being. It's so rugged and colorful and majestic. Trying to capture it on film is really frustrating because the pictures just don't manage to really get the Canyon. The other fabulous part was seeing of the wildlife. We saw California Condors flying overhead larger than life. Elk with massive antlers were lying under the trees not 20 yards from the road when we were driving into the local town. Mountain goats ate their lunch right next to the path where we hiked. It was really amazing.
No cell phone, no computer....just the Canyon and it's wonders. I highly recommend it.
The drive today was something else, too. The landscape changes so drastically. Leaving the high desert with it's Ponderosa Pines and Junipers into the vast Mojave Desert (a mild 110 today)was quite an experience. The desert seemed to go on forever...vast miles of barren landscape...a few scraggly palms here and there. We stopped for lunch at in a small town where the 395 intersected with the road we were on. It all ran parallel to Route 66..the famous hwy that runs along the desert southwest. Finally we made the ascent into the Bakersfield area...and the desert was blissfully behind us. And finally into the bustling Silicon Valley where we reside tonight.
Tomorrow is my daughter's 11th birthday. We're going to the Great American theme park.
Hopefully there will be time for an update tomorrow.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
What is the State of the Economy?
While Bush is touting the economy, and we are seeing economic growth numbers, but hearing how bad the economy is by Democrats, the question becomes, what is the state of the economy?
It is true that job numbers are increasing at a solid rate (Heck, 6% unemployment was incredibly low for a recession), and economic growth numbers seem to be in line, but does this tell us everything about our economy? I doubt it quite honestly.
Democrats are right, we are still having a huge amount of jobs going overseas, and the trade deficit is rising. Inflation is rearing its ugly head to about 5% annual rate currently and it is higher if energy prices are factored in, and the fear of them rippling through the economy is significant. While energy prices are in decline again, the odds are that the days of $1.50 per gallon of gas are gone. Greenspan is going to raise rates at least .25 this month, and projections by market analysts predict there will be up to 5 rate increases of .25 to correct the historically too low interest rates that now sit at 1%, leaving little the fed could do if the economy tanked right now.
Congress is running for more tax cuts, but at what cost? Does anyone understand economics? The deficit spending with good growth only means more money must be put into bonds by banks, which means less money to loan you and I for our homes, cars, small and large business investments, etc. And you know who gets priority on those loans... large corporations that are less likely to disappear. It's impact on the economy costs us much more than the marginal impact of $1-300 a year we would have in additional income from tax cuts as interest rates rise and the costs of goods grow.
The only question is... can Kerry take advantage of the economic news that is much softer than it appears if we only look at employment and growth numbers? Inflation, rising interest rates, lower real wages, increased trade deficits... will they impact the economy in time for Kerry to get any gain from it? Most people don't understand economics, can Kerry make them understand to gain footing on GW? Even if Kerry gets elected, does he become a one term President because of the problems GW would leave behind? And can Kerry actually solve those problems with a Republican Congress to prevent him from passing legislation? Only time will tell, but it could make Kerry the second Carter if inflation hits due to energy prices and rate hikes kill the economy while he is in office. Carter's economic woes started before he was elected, Kerry could suffer the same fate of economic factors outside of his control if elected.
|
It is true that job numbers are increasing at a solid rate (Heck, 6% unemployment was incredibly low for a recession), and economic growth numbers seem to be in line, but does this tell us everything about our economy? I doubt it quite honestly.
Democrats are right, we are still having a huge amount of jobs going overseas, and the trade deficit is rising. Inflation is rearing its ugly head to about 5% annual rate currently and it is higher if energy prices are factored in, and the fear of them rippling through the economy is significant. While energy prices are in decline again, the odds are that the days of $1.50 per gallon of gas are gone. Greenspan is going to raise rates at least .25 this month, and projections by market analysts predict there will be up to 5 rate increases of .25 to correct the historically too low interest rates that now sit at 1%, leaving little the fed could do if the economy tanked right now.
Congress is running for more tax cuts, but at what cost? Does anyone understand economics? The deficit spending with good growth only means more money must be put into bonds by banks, which means less money to loan you and I for our homes, cars, small and large business investments, etc. And you know who gets priority on those loans... large corporations that are less likely to disappear. It's impact on the economy costs us much more than the marginal impact of $1-300 a year we would have in additional income from tax cuts as interest rates rise and the costs of goods grow.
The only question is... can Kerry take advantage of the economic news that is much softer than it appears if we only look at employment and growth numbers? Inflation, rising interest rates, lower real wages, increased trade deficits... will they impact the economy in time for Kerry to get any gain from it? Most people don't understand economics, can Kerry make them understand to gain footing on GW? Even if Kerry gets elected, does he become a one term President because of the problems GW would leave behind? And can Kerry actually solve those problems with a Republican Congress to prevent him from passing legislation? Only time will tell, but it could make Kerry the second Carter if inflation hits due to energy prices and rate hikes kill the economy while he is in office. Carter's economic woes started before he was elected, Kerry could suffer the same fate of economic factors outside of his control if elected.
9/11 Commission Calls Administration on Iraq-Al Qaeda Links
While the bipartisian 9/11 commission has reported there are no collaborative links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration continues to argue there are links. To its credit, the Commission has called the Administration on its claims of those links and asked for it to provide proof of such links.
It still begs the question of why didn't the Administration provide that evidence when it testified before the committee? Bush still refers to that "Chech thing" as evidence, referring to the supposed meeting between Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi offical, which the 9/11 commission says is highly unlikely since Atta was on his cellphone in Florida at the time. Cheney has said that he "probably" knows something the commission doesn't.
President Bush is still seeking to find a justification for the Iraqi conflict that the American public will support as his numbers continue to go south on the issue of Iraq. With no WMD found, they are still repeating the "there could still be WMD, we just haven't found them yet" claim in spite of David Kay's statement that they just aren't there. They have used this same argument on the Al Qaeda links too.
This administration is taking possibility as fact in its statements, which could mean that GW is having gay sex with Cheney. There is no proof of it, but it is a possibility as it has never been fully disproven, right? I highly doubt they are having gay sex, but if we treat possibility as fact, as they have with justifications for war, such logic would still apply, and it illustrates the very flaw in their argument. Possibilities are just that, possibilities, not fact. It has never been proven that hot pink crows don't exist, but that doesn't mean they do.
For GW, this is a huge dent in his armor as the "straight shooter" is proving he is anything but a "straight shooter." The question is only, how will this kink in his armor impact November?
|
It still begs the question of why didn't the Administration provide that evidence when it testified before the committee? Bush still refers to that "Chech thing" as evidence, referring to the supposed meeting between Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi offical, which the 9/11 commission says is highly unlikely since Atta was on his cellphone in Florida at the time. Cheney has said that he "probably" knows something the commission doesn't.
President Bush is still seeking to find a justification for the Iraqi conflict that the American public will support as his numbers continue to go south on the issue of Iraq. With no WMD found, they are still repeating the "there could still be WMD, we just haven't found them yet" claim in spite of David Kay's statement that they just aren't there. They have used this same argument on the Al Qaeda links too.
This administration is taking possibility as fact in its statements, which could mean that GW is having gay sex with Cheney. There is no proof of it, but it is a possibility as it has never been fully disproven, right? I highly doubt they are having gay sex, but if we treat possibility as fact, as they have with justifications for war, such logic would still apply, and it illustrates the very flaw in their argument. Possibilities are just that, possibilities, not fact. It has never been proven that hot pink crows don't exist, but that doesn't mean they do.
For GW, this is a huge dent in his armor as the "straight shooter" is proving he is anything but a "straight shooter." The question is only, how will this kink in his armor impact November?
Introducing Myself
My name is Tony. Some of you may know me as Chris Knight from other boards, but IRL, I am Tony. I am a PhD student in political rhetoric (1st year) and a college debate coach in policy debate. I currently reside in Kansas (Go Hawks!) and I am building the elite of political simulations with friends of mine, while working on 9 research projects for the election, including Debate Watch which is sponsored in part by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
I am a Libertarian, but not a partyline Libertarian, and my views on things are quite different than most would expect of a Libertarian. For those who wish to try to figure it out, I call myself a postmodern communitarian libertarian, though most don't want to bother and I can understand why.
My posts may incite some discussion, which would be good, but make sure you read them carefully, because the keys to them are in the details.:-) Now, let's have some fun :-)
What topics do you want to discuss?
|
I am a Libertarian, but not a partyline Libertarian, and my views on things are quite different than most would expect of a Libertarian. For those who wish to try to figure it out, I call myself a postmodern communitarian libertarian, though most don't want to bother and I can understand why.
My posts may incite some discussion, which would be good, but make sure you read them carefully, because the keys to them are in the details.:-) Now, let's have some fun :-)
What topics do you want to discuss?
As the cesspool swirls...
The Leaders of 9/11 Panel Ask Cheney for Reports that would support the White House's assertions that there was a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. In particular they want access to evidence supporting Mr. Cheney's suggestion that one of the hijackers, Mr. Atta, might have met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. Cheney has vociferously objected to the Commissions assertions, based on intelligence reports, that there were no close ties between Saddam's government and al Queda. Naturally the Commission wants something more than bald assertions from the Vice President.
Abu Zubaydah, one of the highest-ranking Qaeda leaders in American custody, told the C.I.A. that Mr. bin Laden rejected the idea of working with Mr. Hussein, a secular leader whom Mr. bin Laden considered corrupt and irredeemable, according to a September 2002 classified intelligence report leaked to The New York Times by a Bush Administration official. Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague (Sorry, I only have an AOL link for this. The piece is by James Risen of the NYT from late 2003.) Separately, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's chief of operations until his capture on March 1, 2003, in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that Al Qaeda never agreed to work with Mr. Hussein.
The initial Czech report of the Atta/Ani meeting is considered very weak because it's based on the allegations of a single member of the Prague Arab community who made the allegation only after 9/11, many months after the meeting supposedly took place. And also because American records indicate that Mr. Atta was actually in Virginia Beach, Va. during the period in which he is alleged to have met with Mr. Ani in Prague. Indeed many Czech officials are now skeptical that the meeting ever took place (see AOL link above).
So, we have Cheney making the press circuit insinuating that the 9/11 Commission's report is wrong... that there was a cozy relationship between Saddam and al Queda. What does he offer to back up his assertions? He conceedes that "we just don't know," whether the meeting took place or not. Which begs the question: Show Us the Proof. Which incidentally is a must-read opinion piece!
It seems that at least once a week I read about some assertion by the Bush Administration which reminds me of talkshow host Ed Schultz's 3rd rule about "Righties" : They think you're stupid. I mean think about this for a second. I could assert that the Moon is made of green cheese and that NASA reports to the contrary are wrong. Does that make me right simply because I insinuate that I'm right and that they're wrong? Of course not! Only a fool would blindly accept my assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary. Ditto for Cheney's assertions and insinuations.
Show Us the Proof!
|
Abu Zubaydah, one of the highest-ranking Qaeda leaders in American custody, told the C.I.A. that Mr. bin Laden rejected the idea of working with Mr. Hussein, a secular leader whom Mr. bin Laden considered corrupt and irredeemable, according to a September 2002 classified intelligence report leaked to The New York Times by a Bush Administration official. Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague (Sorry, I only have an AOL link for this. The piece is by James Risen of the NYT from late 2003.) Separately, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's chief of operations until his capture on March 1, 2003, in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that Al Qaeda never agreed to work with Mr. Hussein.
The initial Czech report of the Atta/Ani meeting is considered very weak because it's based on the allegations of a single member of the Prague Arab community who made the allegation only after 9/11, many months after the meeting supposedly took place. And also because American records indicate that Mr. Atta was actually in Virginia Beach, Va. during the period in which he is alleged to have met with Mr. Ani in Prague. Indeed many Czech officials are now skeptical that the meeting ever took place (see AOL link above).
So, we have Cheney making the press circuit insinuating that the 9/11 Commission's report is wrong... that there was a cozy relationship between Saddam and al Queda. What does he offer to back up his assertions? He conceedes that "we just don't know," whether the meeting took place or not. Which begs the question: Show Us the Proof. Which incidentally is a must-read opinion piece!
It seems that at least once a week I read about some assertion by the Bush Administration which reminds me of talkshow host Ed Schultz's 3rd rule about "Righties" : They think you're stupid. I mean think about this for a second. I could assert that the Moon is made of green cheese and that NASA reports to the contrary are wrong. Does that make me right simply because I insinuate that I'm right and that they're wrong? Of course not! Only a fool would blindly accept my assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary. Ditto for Cheney's assertions and insinuations.
Show Us the Proof!
Friday, June 18, 2004
Gender equality by any other name...
Apparently the members of the New Jersey Assembly have voted unanimously, 78-0, to approve a bill making it legal for bar owners and others to offer special promotions such as charging women different prices for drinks. The Bill was specifically designed to overturn a June 1st Administrative Ruling by the state Division on Civil Rights that forbade the practice as a violation of state civil rights rules.
State Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, a Democrat, said,
Well, duh! But, since when is profit a legitimizing motive for discrimination? It defies common sense to view black slavery as anything other than a way for Southern plantation owners to stay competitive and financially successful. Did that make it okay?
Gov. James E. McGreevey, also a Democrat, led the charge in denouncing the Division on Civil Rights decision, calling it "bureaucratic nonsense."
|
State Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, a Democrat, said,
"It defies common sense to view Ladies Night as anything other than a way for a bar or restaurant owner to stay competitive and successful."
Well, duh! But, since when is profit a legitimizing motive for discrimination? It defies common sense to view black slavery as anything other than a way for Southern plantation owners to stay competitive and financially successful. Did that make it okay?
Gov. James E. McGreevey, also a Democrat, led the charge in denouncing the Division on Civil Rights decision, calling it "bureaucratic nonsense."
Take two of these and call me in the morning.
AKA give me two for the road...
Okay, all puns aside. This is an unscheduled health news update. Health Day reports "Experts See Surge in Teen Breast Implants"
Now, being the product of parochial schools from first grade on up, I suppose I could be pinned with the "sheltered" label... even though those who know what I did during highschool would testify otherwise (LOL). But, I just don't remember girls getting boob jobs when I was 18. As a single parent of 11 and 16 year old daughters I can't imagine giving either of them fake boobs for a present. The very idea is just completely foreign to me. Do you suppose it's a maternal thing? Somehow I'm thinking that Carla wouldn't say that it is.
|
Okay, all puns aside. This is an unscheduled health news update. Health Day reports "Experts See Surge in Teen Breast Implants"
The number of 18-year-old girls getting breast implants has tripled in the last two years, according to experts, and their parents seemingly approve because they give the implants as graduation presents.
The New York Post, citing figures from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, reported that the number of girls that age who got cosmetic implants went from 3,872 in 2002 to 11,326 last year.
"There is a trend in which parents are giving implants as a gift, including as a graduation present," Dr. Stephen Greenberg, who practices in Woodbury, L.I., and New York City, told the Post.
Now, being the product of parochial schools from first grade on up, I suppose I could be pinned with the "sheltered" label... even though those who know what I did during highschool would testify otherwise (LOL). But, I just don't remember girls getting boob jobs when I was 18. As a single parent of 11 and 16 year old daughters I can't imagine giving either of them fake boobs for a present. The very idea is just completely foreign to me. Do you suppose it's a maternal thing? Somehow I'm thinking that Carla wouldn't say that it is.
Whose zooming whom?
The "independent" 9/11 Commission is now telling us that by continuing to read a book to elementary school kids in Florida after being notified that the second Twin Tower had been struck by a plane President Bush was trying to project strength and calm? Really? That same Commission also relates how Vice President Cheney was in a bunker under the White House issuing orders for the military to scramble jets to shoot down one or more of the highjacked jets.
Um... okay. So we have the President and alleged Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces reading childrens books during a time of extreme crisis while the Vice President is the one on the ball issuing orders to those same Armed Forces and generally doing SOMETHING constructively related to said extreme crisis???
Does anyone out there still doubt that Bush is but a figure head President?
UPDATE:
According to the Washington Post Cheney told the Commission that he was acting in response to a phone request from Bush when he authorized the shoot downs of the highjacked planes. The only thing is... there apparently isn't a shred of evidence that Bush ever made the alleged call. Heh... go figure. Must be part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. LOL
|
Um... okay. So we have the President and alleged Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces reading childrens books during a time of extreme crisis while the Vice President is the one on the ball issuing orders to those same Armed Forces and generally doing SOMETHING constructively related to said extreme crisis???
Does anyone out there still doubt that Bush is but a figure head President?
UPDATE:
According to the Washington Post Cheney told the Commission that he was acting in response to a phone request from Bush when he authorized the shoot downs of the highjacked planes. The only thing is... there apparently isn't a shred of evidence that Bush ever made the alleged call. Heh... go figure. Must be part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. LOL
Thursday, June 17, 2004
We never thought we'd get so troubled.....
So our President in his infinite wisdom has decided to trot out the tiredIraq-Al Qaida connection despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission (and pretty much everyone else) says no such link exists.
These people are charlatans and liars. What’s so very disturbing about this is that so many people in the US are still going to vote for Bush. This election is set to be extremely close once again. No matter what evil these people generate…a large percentage of the US population will still vote for them. It feels like an insanity.
The White House would also try to convince us that they didn’t link Iraq and 9/11. But as theDailyKos points out, the White House did as much when it sent it’s letter to Congress to declare war on Iraq:
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
These people are without shame.
|
These people are charlatans and liars. What’s so very disturbing about this is that so many people in the US are still going to vote for Bush. This election is set to be extremely close once again. No matter what evil these people generate…a large percentage of the US population will still vote for them. It feels like an insanity.
The White House would also try to convince us that they didn’t link Iraq and 9/11. But as theDailyKos points out, the White House did as much when it sent it’s letter to Congress to declare war on Iraq:
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
These people are without shame.
Utah, part deux
Day 2 in Utah has come to an end.
Some highlights:
Free buffet breakfast in the hotel lobby this morning. I was expecting fruit and cereal. They had eggs and muffins and cinnamon buns, too. Not to mention several kinds of juices and some really weak coffee. Of course being from Oregon (land of moderate temperatures and rain eight months out of the year) I like my coffee strong and extra hot. What’s good to me is probably motor oil to the layperson…LOL
Temple Square. We drove into Salt Lake City today and walked around the square that includes the massive and impressive Mormon Temple (can’t go in without the official membership card), the Mormon Tabernacle (dome shaped building with a very big and beautiful pipe organ where the famous choir does their thing) and several other Mormon related buildings. It’s a gorgeous place…beautiful and immaculate gardens. We then ventured across the street to an urban mall to grab a quick snack. There I was able to obtain a latte. I told the barista that I was from Oregon and her drink had a lot to live up to. She didn’t dissapoint.
Next we piled into the van and drove to Lagoon.It’s a pretty decent amusement park all on it’s own…but it also includes a water park. We spent the first part of the day going on rides (a couple of kick butt roller coasters included) and bided our time until the sun finally peeked out. We then went on to amusement park water based rides and proceeded to get soaked. After that it was off to the water park. Unfortunately our weather didn’t hold out especially great…so we spent about an hour and a half at the water park and called it a day.
Tomorrow we’ll be taking the drive to the Grand Canyon. I’m not expecting any free wireless service so there may be no blogging me for awhile.
|
Some highlights:
Free buffet breakfast in the hotel lobby this morning. I was expecting fruit and cereal. They had eggs and muffins and cinnamon buns, too. Not to mention several kinds of juices and some really weak coffee. Of course being from Oregon (land of moderate temperatures and rain eight months out of the year) I like my coffee strong and extra hot. What’s good to me is probably motor oil to the layperson…LOL
Temple Square. We drove into Salt Lake City today and walked around the square that includes the massive and impressive Mormon Temple (can’t go in without the official membership card), the Mormon Tabernacle (dome shaped building with a very big and beautiful pipe organ where the famous choir does their thing) and several other Mormon related buildings. It’s a gorgeous place…beautiful and immaculate gardens. We then ventured across the street to an urban mall to grab a quick snack. There I was able to obtain a latte. I told the barista that I was from Oregon and her drink had a lot to live up to. She didn’t dissapoint.
Next we piled into the van and drove to Lagoon.It’s a pretty decent amusement park all on it’s own…but it also includes a water park. We spent the first part of the day going on rides (a couple of kick butt roller coasters included) and bided our time until the sun finally peeked out. We then went on to amusement park water based rides and proceeded to get soaked. After that it was off to the water park. Unfortunately our weather didn’t hold out especially great…so we spent about an hour and a half at the water park and called it a day.
Tomorrow we’ll be taking the drive to the Grand Canyon. I’m not expecting any free wireless service so there may be no blogging me for awhile.
Grrrr....
As a few of you know, we've been trying to switch from Blogger to MovableType. I waited until MT 3.0 was released and purchased it. Then, since I don't know diddly squat about CGI scripts, I chose to go with a paid installation by the Movable Type crew.
That was about 3 weeks ago. There was quickly a hitch in that an error message was being generated which seemed to have the installer stumped. She said she checked with the crew who wrote the program for MT 3.0 and they didn't know what to make of it either. So, I tried to get our domain host to help out with it. Turns out they don't offer support for installed scripts. I've been going round and round with the Movable Type installer for the last three weeks trying to do whatever I could to facilitate fixing the problem.
I finally gained access to my CGI error log and passed that on to the MT installer. She says that it's no help and that it looks like we'll have to make do with the older MT 2.66 weblog program since it installed without any problems.
Out of frustration I decided that I had nothing to lose and did a Google search using "CGI, errors" as the search criteria. The very first hit that I opened was on debugging common CGI errors. The friggin' second most common CGI error listed and the second most common cause of that error was friggin' exactly the error message that the Movable Type programmers supposedly were stumped by! Mind you we are paying Movable Type to install this program. This wasn't some favor they decided to do for us. And I, the guy who doesn't know jack about CGI scripts, find the problem and the fix listed on the open web within literally 30 seconds of looking!?!
I'm still convinced that the Movable Type platform is superior in virtually every way to the free Blogger one we've been using. But, it would be an understatement to say that I'm disappointed in the competence exhibited by the "professional" (by definition since we're paying them for the install) folks at Movable Type.
|
That was about 3 weeks ago. There was quickly a hitch in that an error message was being generated which seemed to have the installer stumped. She said she checked with the crew who wrote the program for MT 3.0 and they didn't know what to make of it either. So, I tried to get our domain host to help out with it. Turns out they don't offer support for installed scripts. I've been going round and round with the Movable Type installer for the last three weeks trying to do whatever I could to facilitate fixing the problem.
I finally gained access to my CGI error log and passed that on to the MT installer. She says that it's no help and that it looks like we'll have to make do with the older MT 2.66 weblog program since it installed without any problems.
Out of frustration I decided that I had nothing to lose and did a Google search using "CGI, errors" as the search criteria. The very first hit that I opened was on debugging common CGI errors. The friggin' second most common CGI error listed and the second most common cause of that error was friggin' exactly the error message that the Movable Type programmers supposedly were stumped by! Mind you we are paying Movable Type to install this program. This wasn't some favor they decided to do for us. And I, the guy who doesn't know jack about CGI scripts, find the problem and the fix listed on the open web within literally 30 seconds of looking!?!
I'm still convinced that the Movable Type platform is superior in virtually every way to the free Blogger one we've been using. But, it would be an understatement to say that I'm disappointed in the competence exhibited by the "professional" (by definition since we're paying them for the install) folks at Movable Type.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
....oh we've got trouble my friends...right here in River City...
Joe Gandleman over at The Moderate Voice has an interesting piece today on how the Reagans are getting pissed at the Bushes.
My good buddy Manny also emailed me on this story. Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
I don't see how anyone who isn't an entrenched Bush supporter thinks it's a good idea for Bush to wrap himself up in Reagan. The differences are so stark. It also smacks of Bush being desperate.
|
My good buddy Manny also emailed me on this story. Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
I don't see how anyone who isn't an entrenched Bush supporter thinks it's a good idea for Bush to wrap himself up in Reagan. The differences are so stark. It also smacks of Bush being desperate.
...Utah is the place where I wanna be...
Greetings from Utah!
There happens to be free wireless internet in my hotel :) The kids are all tucked into bed for the night so....
We left Oregon yesterday afternoon...and drove to Boise, Idaho. It's about 440 miles.
Then this morning we drove to Utah. The striking thing about the Utah landscape is that it's definitely not Idaho or Oregon. Oregon is very green with lots of different types of trees. You can see beautiful snowy mountain peaks and lots of water. Idaho (Boise to the Utah border) is agricultural..flat for the most part with a few mountains in the distance...but small ones. Barely any snow. Boise is also one giant strip mall. I haven't been to Salt Lake City but I hear it's kind of like that too.
Tonight we drove to Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake. There are buffalo, antelope, deer, all sorts of birds and apparently coyote and fox. We saw the buffalo and the antelope and the birds...and a gazillion bugs. I've never seen so many bugs in my life. I guess they dig the salt marshes.
Tomorrow we're off to a nearby amusement park.....and the Grand Canyon on Friday.
Next time I get wireless...I'll blog again if I can.
Be good to each other and be nice to Kevin, please.
|
There happens to be free wireless internet in my hotel :) The kids are all tucked into bed for the night so....
We left Oregon yesterday afternoon...and drove to Boise, Idaho. It's about 440 miles.
Then this morning we drove to Utah. The striking thing about the Utah landscape is that it's definitely not Idaho or Oregon. Oregon is very green with lots of different types of trees. You can see beautiful snowy mountain peaks and lots of water. Idaho (Boise to the Utah border) is agricultural..flat for the most part with a few mountains in the distance...but small ones. Barely any snow. Boise is also one giant strip mall. I haven't been to Salt Lake City but I hear it's kind of like that too.
Tonight we drove to Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake. There are buffalo, antelope, deer, all sorts of birds and apparently coyote and fox. We saw the buffalo and the antelope and the birds...and a gazillion bugs. I've never seen so many bugs in my life. I guess they dig the salt marshes.
Tomorrow we're off to a nearby amusement park.....and the Grand Canyon on Friday.
Next time I get wireless...I'll blog again if I can.
Be good to each other and be nice to Kevin, please.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Open Thread
Y'all have the floor. What's on your mind? Read a good book lately? Tell us about it! Got a political pet peeve that you are itching to get off your chest? Tell us about it!
|
Vacation...all I ever wanted...
I'm off on vacation with the family until June 29.
I am taking the laptop but I don't know how much access I'll have to wireless so I have no plans to post any blogs.
Kevin will be doing most of the blogging...along with (hopefully) a couple of guest bloggers.
Be nice to him until I get back. :)
|
I am taking the laptop but I don't know how much access I'll have to wireless so I have no plans to post any blogs.
Kevin will be doing most of the blogging...along with (hopefully) a couple of guest bloggers.
Be nice to him until I get back. :)
Monday, June 14, 2004
...couldn't happen to a nicer guy....
The left (and apparently a lot of other folks) have apparently had it with Tom DeLay.
Congressman Chris Bell (D-TX) is filing an complaint with the House Ethics Committee against DeLay.
Bell's complaint accused DeLay of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.
This is a precedent setting action as House members have had a seven year basic, unwritten rule not to file ethics violations against one another. Ethics complaints before that time had previously brought down two speakers.
DeLay is also defending his seat from a strong challenge by Richard Morrison. Morrison has caught the eye of quite a few grassroots political organizations who are helping raise money and gain exposure. According to polling by a private organization (see Morrison's website) only 36 percent of folks in the district plan to vote for DeLay.
Getting rid of DeLay is a high priority for a lot of people...and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
|
Congressman Chris Bell (D-TX) is filing an complaint with the House Ethics Committee against DeLay.
Bell's complaint accused DeLay of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.
This is a precedent setting action as House members have had a seven year basic, unwritten rule not to file ethics violations against one another. Ethics complaints before that time had previously brought down two speakers.
DeLay is also defending his seat from a strong challenge by Richard Morrison. Morrison has caught the eye of quite a few grassroots political organizations who are helping raise money and gain exposure. According to polling by a private organization (see Morrison's website) only 36 percent of folks in the district plan to vote for DeLay.
Getting rid of DeLay is a high priority for a lot of people...and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
We'll get em next time...
The US Supreme Court dismissed today the case involving athiest Michael Newdow and the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
The case was dismissed on a technicality regarding Newdow's ability to speak in his daughter's stead. By dismissing the case, the Court left open the possibility that a different case about the "under God" phrase of the Pledge could be brought back to them in the future.
Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly thinks the court copped out. But having had this discussion with a lawyer friend of mine via email, I disagree.
He says that the concept of legal custody in the state of California might be completely screwed up if a father is allowed to speak for his daughter's wishes. It's a good decision by the USSC.
|
The case was dismissed on a technicality regarding Newdow's ability to speak in his daughter's stead. By dismissing the case, the Court left open the possibility that a different case about the "under God" phrase of the Pledge could be brought back to them in the future.
Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly thinks the court copped out. But having had this discussion with a lawyer friend of mine via email, I disagree.
He says that the concept of legal custody in the state of California might be completely screwed up if a father is allowed to speak for his daughter's wishes. It's a good decision by the USSC.
Oh Bill...I love you so...I always will....
Title Inspiration
The King is back.
Former President Bill Clinton is set up for his rock tour of book events to promote his new biography My Life.
John F Harris of the Washington Post takes a look at the coming tour and reflects on Clinton's legacy.
David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times talks about what Clinton will do while on the book tour and how Clinton plans to support and campaign for John Kerry...without overshadowing him.
I don't know if Clinton is planning a trip out this way to schlep is book...but if so...I'll be going. I loved the guy when he was President..and I believe his legacy will bear the very good things Clinton did while President. His work on peace in Ireland, thwarting terrorism, working for unity between nations (which we can really see now in stark contrast to Bush) and his masterful handling of the US economy are all a tribute to his Presidency.
Just as the GOP has spent the last week beatifying Ronald Reagan...they will spend the next week thrashing on Clinton. Giving their loud, obnoxious and overwhelming voices in the media...it will be difficult to rise above the din. But Clinton will manage it. He's too charismatic and too good with the media not to.
I love this guy. LOL
|
The King is back.
Former President Bill Clinton is set up for his rock tour of book events to promote his new biography My Life.
John F Harris of the Washington Post takes a look at the coming tour and reflects on Clinton's legacy.
David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times talks about what Clinton will do while on the book tour and how Clinton plans to support and campaign for John Kerry...without overshadowing him.
I don't know if Clinton is planning a trip out this way to schlep is book...but if so...I'll be going. I loved the guy when he was President..and I believe his legacy will bear the very good things Clinton did while President. His work on peace in Ireland, thwarting terrorism, working for unity between nations (which we can really see now in stark contrast to Bush) and his masterful handling of the US economy are all a tribute to his Presidency.
Just as the GOP has spent the last week beatifying Ronald Reagan...they will spend the next week thrashing on Clinton. Giving their loud, obnoxious and overwhelming voices in the media...it will be difficult to rise above the din. But Clinton will manage it. He's too charismatic and too good with the media not to.
I love this guy. LOL
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Hit the road Jack...don'tcha come back no more....
In honor of the great Ray Charles, who died this week.
The lyrical inspiration is also appropriate for the feelings of a group known as Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change. This group of 26 retired US diplomats and military officers are working to convince Americans that the Bush Administration needs to go.
The group includes 20 ambassadors appointed by both Dem and GOP presidents. It also includes former State Department officials and military leaders.
Member William C Harrop is a former Ambassador to Israel under Bush 41 and before that to four African countries. Harrop says he is an independent but usually votes Republican:
"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential,"
"The group does not endorse Kerry, although it more or less goes without saying in the statement,"
Other prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.
I can't remember a time when in the months leading up to an election we had groups of former prominent officials coming out advocating for the voting out of a sitting President. I know there was a lot of rank and file vitriol on the GOP side for Clinton but I can't remember groups of prominent former officials coming out for his ouster in 1996.
|
The lyrical inspiration is also appropriate for the feelings of a group known as Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change. This group of 26 retired US diplomats and military officers are working to convince Americans that the Bush Administration needs to go.
The group includes 20 ambassadors appointed by both Dem and GOP presidents. It also includes former State Department officials and military leaders.
Member William C Harrop is a former Ambassador to Israel under Bush 41 and before that to four African countries. Harrop says he is an independent but usually votes Republican:
"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential,"
"The group does not endorse Kerry, although it more or less goes without saying in the statement,"
Other prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.
I can't remember a time when in the months leading up to an election we had groups of former prominent officials coming out advocating for the voting out of a sitting President. I know there was a lot of rank and file vitriol on the GOP side for Clinton but I can't remember groups of prominent former officials coming out for his ouster in 1996.
Oh how the mighty have fallen....
Perrenial Presidential Candidate and consumer activist Ralph Nader is running up against a possible ethics violation.
According to today's Washington Post, Nader has been running his campaign offices out of the same building that until April housed a public charity that he created.
Apparently Nader's charity, Citizen Works has several connections to his presidential campaign. The charity's listed president,Theresa Amato,is also Nader's campaign manager. The office housing the campaign, the charity and other sub tenets has the same common receptionist for greeting visitors. FEC records show that Nader's campaign has paid rent to Citizen Works and Citizen Works' landlord.
The Post story cites several legal and campaign finance experts that voice skepticism that the arrangement is legal. The Nader campaign claims no wrongdoing.
Nader has trumpeted himself as the champion of consumers and the "anti-Dem/GOP". He's claimed to be the guy who has the integrity and the honesty that the other candidates and the parties don't have. If one of the other candidates had done something like this I have a tough time believing Nader wouldn't have used it to point out that he's better and different.
This story reminds me a little of the maladies of Rush Limbaugh, although not to the same degree. Both scream about certain "values" and "virtues" that people must adhere to..but in the end are just hypocrites.
|
According to today's Washington Post, Nader has been running his campaign offices out of the same building that until April housed a public charity that he created.
Apparently Nader's charity, Citizen Works has several connections to his presidential campaign. The charity's listed president,Theresa Amato,is also Nader's campaign manager. The office housing the campaign, the charity and other sub tenets has the same common receptionist for greeting visitors. FEC records show that Nader's campaign has paid rent to Citizen Works and Citizen Works' landlord.
The Post story cites several legal and campaign finance experts that voice skepticism that the arrangement is legal. The Nader campaign claims no wrongdoing.
Nader has trumpeted himself as the champion of consumers and the "anti-Dem/GOP". He's claimed to be the guy who has the integrity and the honesty that the other candidates and the parties don't have. If one of the other candidates had done something like this I have a tough time believing Nader wouldn't have used it to point out that he's better and different.
This story reminds me a little of the maladies of Rush Limbaugh, although not to the same degree. Both scream about certain "values" and "virtues" that people must adhere to..but in the end are just hypocrites.
..and my head I'd be scratchin'...while my thoughts were busy hatchin'...if I only had a brain...
Just in case you've found the real Bush campaign website wanting...this site should fill in any blanks..and make you laugh while doing it.
If you're not easily offended by people parodying rightwing Christian rhetoric...this site will make you positively fall out of your chair laughing.
|
If you're not easily offended by people parodying rightwing Christian rhetoric...this site will make you positively fall out of your chair laughing.
Urgent Action Alert - Update
I think the GOP attempt to legalize electioneering from the pulpit (see Urgent Action Alert or scroll down the page to it) needs a little context. This attempt by Hastert and DeLay hasn't happened in a vacuum. This is a premeditated and deliberate campaign by certain factions of the GOP to do an end run around the Constitutional separation of Church and State.
Having been exposed in Pennsylvania, the Bush/Cheney04 strategists appear to have taken a two-pronged approach to getting around the Constitutional obstacle.
1. Rewrite Federal tax law to allow politicking from the pulpit. This was the subject of the NCC's Urgent Action Alert.
2. Steve at I like to write points us to a recent report in the National Catholic Reporter:
This at a time when some American Catholic Bishops are already engaged in partisan politics by publically focusing attention on whether Catholics who publically support gay marriage and abortion ought to receive the Eucharist while glibly ignoring those Catholics who publically support the Death Penalty - which the Vatican is formally opposed to. In fact this very same Pope appealed to, then Texas Governor, George W. Bush to spare the life of convicted murderer and Death Row inmate Karla Fay Tucker. Not only did Bush decline the Pope's appeal, but he went on to publically mock Tucker's appeal for clemency. As the New York Press notes, in Kerry's a Bad Catholic, there are many more issues which the Vatican strongly and very publically support which Bush and most Republicans just as strongly and just as publically oppose.
In an opinion piece published by the National Catholic Reporter, Joan Chittister seeks to answer the question: Is John Kerry a good Catholic?. Citing six different Popes and a formal Bishop's position paper, Joan Chittister forcefully yet eloquently demolishes the argument that Catholics can't in good conscience vote for John Kerry.
|
A plan by the George W. Bush reelection campaign to enlist 1,600 "friendly" houses of worship in Pennsylvania is a misguided attempt to build a church-based political machine that should be dropped immediately, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Americans United asserts that the plan jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of churches and could divide congregations with partisan politics. Bush Campaign Attempting To Forge Church-Based Political Machine
Having been exposed in Pennsylvania, the Bush/Cheney04 strategists appear to have taken a two-pronged approach to getting around the Constitutional obstacle.
1. Rewrite Federal tax law to allow politicking from the pulpit. This was the subject of the NCC's Urgent Action Alert.
2. Steve at I like to write points us to a recent report in the National Catholic Reporter:
During his June 4 visit, Bush asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
A Vatican official told NCR June 9 that in his meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, “Not all the American bishops are with me” on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism.
Other sources in the meeting said that while they could not recall the president’s exact words, he did pledge aggressive efforts on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican’s help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken.
According to sources, Sodano did not respond to the request. Source: The Word From Rome June 4, 2004
This at a time when some American Catholic Bishops are already engaged in partisan politics by publically focusing attention on whether Catholics who publically support gay marriage and abortion ought to receive the Eucharist while glibly ignoring those Catholics who publically support the Death Penalty - which the Vatican is formally opposed to. In fact this very same Pope appealed to, then Texas Governor, George W. Bush to spare the life of convicted murderer and Death Row inmate Karla Fay Tucker. Not only did Bush decline the Pope's appeal, but he went on to publically mock Tucker's appeal for clemency. As the New York Press notes, in Kerry's a Bad Catholic, there are many more issues which the Vatican strongly and very publically support which Bush and most Republicans just as strongly and just as publically oppose.
In an opinion piece published by the National Catholic Reporter, Joan Chittister seeks to answer the question: Is John Kerry a good Catholic?. Citing six different Popes and a formal Bishop's position paper, Joan Chittister forcefully yet eloquently demolishes the argument that Catholics can't in good conscience vote for John Kerry.
Stupid is as stupid does...
J at Value Judgement has a commentary on a piece from the New York Times about Kerry's habits on the road while campaigning.
What sticks out to me from J's comments and the piece is the offense some people take at others being smart and/or intellectual. When did it become an albatross to be articulate? Why is it cute and endearing to not be able to fashion a coherent sentence?
One of the things I really liked about Clinton was his ability to talk to people in an eloquent way. Gore did it too but he was slammed for it. Shouldn't our Presidents be well informed and sharp? Have we become so dumbed down that we will now not vote for someone who can articulate their positions intelligently?
Admittedly Kerry has a high minded way of speaking. He uses multisyllabic words. He sounds very Senatorial sometimes. This is supposed to be a bad thing, according to some. Apparently the United States of America might be too afraid to hire a President who's smarter than the average US citizen.
There's your scary thought for the day.
|
What sticks out to me from J's comments and the piece is the offense some people take at others being smart and/or intellectual. When did it become an albatross to be articulate? Why is it cute and endearing to not be able to fashion a coherent sentence?
One of the things I really liked about Clinton was his ability to talk to people in an eloquent way. Gore did it too but he was slammed for it. Shouldn't our Presidents be well informed and sharp? Have we become so dumbed down that we will now not vote for someone who can articulate their positions intelligently?
Admittedly Kerry has a high minded way of speaking. He uses multisyllabic words. He sounds very Senatorial sometimes. This is supposed to be a bad thing, according to some. Apparently the United States of America might be too afraid to hire a President who's smarter than the average US citizen.
There's your scary thought for the day.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Ev'ry time it rains..it rains...pennies from Heaven
Charles P Pierce of The American Prospect has a letter he expects Ronald Reagan would write from his Heavenly perch. The letter would be addressed to Peggy Noonan, Reagan's former speech writer. Ms Noonan spent the bulk of last week falling all over herself to make sure Reagan was placed on par with Jesus himself. Reagan's letter seeks to disabuse "Dear Peg" of this notion.
An excerpt:
They'd like you all to love each other. They'd like you all to treat each other as equals. They're really serious about you all being stewards of the world you were handed, so watch out for the rivers and the ozone layer. They don't spend a lot of time worrying about rap music and the Internet. Even in eternity, there's no time to waste on the knucklehead stuff. And I've looked everywhere, Peg, and there aren't any stem cells here. No embryos, either. If you can pass the word, Peg -- nobody here wants anybody to die of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. It's not part of anyone's plan. If you can cure something down there, you should cure something.
I'm a Deist but I have a deep respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ. This piece is one of the few that's moved me spiritually to the point of thinking Christ himself must have smiled on this author as he wrote it.
|
An excerpt:
They'd like you all to love each other. They'd like you all to treat each other as equals. They're really serious about you all being stewards of the world you were handed, so watch out for the rivers and the ozone layer. They don't spend a lot of time worrying about rap music and the Internet. Even in eternity, there's no time to waste on the knucklehead stuff. And I've looked everywhere, Peg, and there aren't any stem cells here. No embryos, either. If you can pass the word, Peg -- nobody here wants anybody to die of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. It's not part of anyone's plan. If you can cure something down there, you should cure something.
I'm a Deist but I have a deep respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ. This piece is one of the few that's moved me spiritually to the point of thinking Christ himself must have smiled on this author as he wrote it.
You take the high road...and I'll take the low road...
In another major foreign policy problem/disaster for the Bush Administration, Iran is giving them the finger on nukes.
Iran's foreign minister said that Iran won't accept any new internationally imposed restrictions on it's nuclear program and that the world must recognize Iran as a nuclear capable nation.
In a predictable move, the Bush Administration is pushing the Interational Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)to go to the UN Security Council and impose sanctions on Iran for violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
It doesn't occur to these guys that they've squandered the United States' moral high ground on nuclear proliferation since Bush is pushing for a new generation of nukes himself. In fact they've squandered our moral authority in general as well by the dismissal of the Geneva Conventions and attacking a sovereign nation that didn't attack us.
How is it that Bush thinks he can expect other nations to take the high road when he's not willing to do it himself?
|
Iran's foreign minister said that Iran won't accept any new internationally imposed restrictions on it's nuclear program and that the world must recognize Iran as a nuclear capable nation.
In a predictable move, the Bush Administration is pushing the Interational Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)to go to the UN Security Council and impose sanctions on Iran for violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
It doesn't occur to these guys that they've squandered the United States' moral high ground on nuclear proliferation since Bush is pushing for a new generation of nukes himself. In fact they've squandered our moral authority in general as well by the dismissal of the Geneva Conventions and attacking a sovereign nation that didn't attack us.
How is it that Bush thinks he can expect other nations to take the high road when he's not willing to do it himself?
Urgent Action Alert
Fellow Oregon blogger Chuck Currie alerts us to an imminent threat from our trusty pals, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his sidekick, House GOP Leader, Tom DeLay.
The National Council of Churches USA has released the following Urgent Action Alert:
This seems as good a place as any to mention Richard Morrison's blog, Taking on Tom DeLay. Morrison is the Democrat seeking to forcefully retire Representative Tom DeLay by winning the Texas 22nd District Congressional seat this November. Morrison is one of the dKOS 8, one of the original Dean Dozen and is strongly supported by my favorite radio talkshow host, Ed Schultz.
|
The National Council of Churches USA has released the following Urgent Action Alert:
Despite overwhelming opposition from nearly two dozen religious denominations, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom Delay have ordered a version of Rep. Walter Jones's "Houses of Worship" Political Speech Restoration Act to be included on page 379 of a 398 page tax bill (H.R. 4520, American Jobs Creation Act of 2004).
Entitled the "Safe Harbor for Churches" bill, the legislation would radically change the nation's historic tradition of separation of church and state and "raise moral questions about the actions of religious leaders and their congregations and disrupt the political process itself," said Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. A statement from Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance said: "The bill encourages willful ignorance of the law by houses of worship, amending the tax code to permit churches, and only churches, to engage in political campaigns while maintaining their status as tax-exempt organizations."
Under the legislation, Gaddy noted, houses of worship would be allowed to "accidentally" endorse political candidates up to three times in an election cycle without losing their coveted tax-exempt status. While the bill purports to draw a distinction between intentional and unintentional violations of political activity, it is silent on what constitutes an "unintentional" violation, leaving religious leaders and institutions free to claim ignorance of the law as reasoning for an "unintentional" breach.
It is expected that the House Ways and Means Committee will be voting on the Safe Harbor for Churches provision on Monday, June 14. NCC is urging concerned citizens to call their Members of Congress and raise their concerns about the measure, and to urge legislators to vote for a Ways and Means amendment by Rep. John Lewis of Georgia which would remove the proposed "Safe Harbor for Churches" provision (Section 692) from the tax bill. Phone calls to Members of Congress (202-225-3121), faxes, or e-mail messages (via the Congressional E-mail Center) are important, because many will be caught off guard by the provision, as it was quietly inserted in the bill during a national week of mourning.
This seems as good a place as any to mention Richard Morrison's blog, Taking on Tom DeLay. Morrison is the Democrat seeking to forcefully retire Representative Tom DeLay by winning the Texas 22nd District Congressional seat this November. Morrison is one of the dKOS 8, one of the original Dean Dozen and is strongly supported by my favorite radio talkshow host, Ed Schultz.
Tweedledee versus Tweedledum?
Charley Reese, a seasoned journalist and apparent conservative (Independent?), gives a solid arguement for why he won't vote for Bush's re-election in Vote for a Man, Not a Puppet.
But then he follows it up with a masterful critique of why he doesn't see Kerry as much of an alternative in No Real Choice.
You can read more of Charley Reese's writings at Charley Reese: Archives
|
Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war – Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers.
I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.
It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.
But then he follows it up with a masterful critique of why he doesn't see Kerry as much of an alternative in No Real Choice.
What about those Americans who don't share President Bush's goals? What about those who don't think we should have a policy of pre-emptive war? What about those who think we should just pull out of Iraq now? What about those who think free trade is a fraud? What about those who think America's borders should be sealed? What about those who believe we should be fair-minded in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue instead of giving Israel a blank check? What about those who believe that outsourcing American jobs should be brought to an abrupt halt?
Well, too bad. You can stay home. Once more, the Democratic Party is proving that it is not really a party of opposition, but rather a tweedledee to the Republican tweedledum. I had some hope and faith in Howard Dean, but unfortunately Kerry has decided to run on the platform "I am not Bush."
You can read more of Charley Reese's writings at Charley Reese: Archives
Friday, June 11, 2004
D-I-V-O-R-C-E
Rush Limbaugh is divorcing wife number 3...aka Marta.
It's a good thing we have Rush to show us the sanctity of marriage. All of those gay marriages are ruining everything.
|
It's a good thing we have Rush to show us the sanctity of marriage. All of those gay marriages are ruining everything.
Junior on Junior
For liberals who've had to endure this week's attempts by the Bush Campaign to wrap Bush Jr in the same cloth as Reagan ...your tonic awaits.
At his father's eulogy this evening, Ron Reagan Jr offers up these words of wisdom...and as Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly describes, " a shot across the bow of the current occupant of the Oval Office"(transcript approximate):
He was a man of unabashed faith, but he didn't make the mistake that some politicians do of wearing his religion on his sleeve. True, after he was shot, he came to believe he had been spared by God in order to do good, but he took this as a responsibility — not a mandate.
Ronald Reagan didn't shove his faith down our throats. He didn't use it to brow beat. He didn't claim Jesus as his "favorite philospher" and didn't appear to look at the world as a set up for the Rapture.
I have a feeling Ron Reagan Jr isn't done rocking W's boat. Drum points out the interview Reagan gave to Salon last year in which Ron utters the now somewhat famous, "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush".
Fasten your seatbelts. It's gonna be a bumpy campaign.
|
At his father's eulogy this evening, Ron Reagan Jr offers up these words of wisdom...and as Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly describes, " a shot across the bow of the current occupant of the Oval Office"(transcript approximate):
He was a man of unabashed faith, but he didn't make the mistake that some politicians do of wearing his religion on his sleeve. True, after he was shot, he came to believe he had been spared by God in order to do good, but he took this as a responsibility — not a mandate.
Ronald Reagan didn't shove his faith down our throats. He didn't use it to brow beat. He didn't claim Jesus as his "favorite philospher" and didn't appear to look at the world as a set up for the Rapture.
I have a feeling Ron Reagan Jr isn't done rocking W's boat. Drum points out the interview Reagan gave to Salon last year in which Ron utters the now somewhat famous, "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush".
Fasten your seatbelts. It's gonna be a bumpy campaign.
Let go your heart..let go your head..and feel it now...Babylon
David Gray:title inspiration
Just how badly are we going to mess up the "cradle of civilization" while we're occupying Iraq?
Paul Bremer and Ricardo Sanchez are finding out after the fact, of course. They've launched a probe into whether US-led coalition activity has wrecked any archeological treasures in Babylon.
Shouldn't we have been paying attention to that BEFORE we did activities in Babylon?
|
Just how badly are we going to mess up the "cradle of civilization" while we're occupying Iraq?
Paul Bremer and Ricardo Sanchez are finding out after the fact, of course. They've launched a probe into whether US-led coalition activity has wrecked any archeological treasures in Babylon.
Shouldn't we have been paying attention to that BEFORE we did activities in Babylon?
To everything...turn...turn...turn...there is a season....turn..turn...turn...
...and a time to every purpose..under Heaven.
That song has been rattling around in my head today as I watch snippets of Reagan's funeral. Today (thankfully) is the final day of mourning. As I wrote right after Reagan's death we must be careful not to canonize Reagan but to see the whole of his legacy and his life. This week has been a time that most have gushed and glowed over the positives of Ronald Reagan. In the coming years history will most certainly offer us a much more balanced and whole view.
The New York Times has published several outstanding pieces this week on Reagan, his legacy and his life.
RW Apple has this on Reagan's legacy. He notes:
The "Reaganauts," as one of them said, have been out all week seeking to burnish their man's legacy on television and in print. But hagiography will not determine their leader's ultimate standing, and whether he is entitled to be called "great." Only what the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called "the cool eye of history" will do that, many years hence.
The NYT editorial staff also offers insight into attempts to paste Reagan's name and image on currency. They rightfully note the egregious slight to Alexander Hamilton, founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury.
And finally an editorial on what I think is the best way to honor Reagan: embryonic stem cell research.
The "Paper of Record" stepped up to the plate this week. Well done.
|
That song has been rattling around in my head today as I watch snippets of Reagan's funeral. Today (thankfully) is the final day of mourning. As I wrote right after Reagan's death we must be careful not to canonize Reagan but to see the whole of his legacy and his life. This week has been a time that most have gushed and glowed over the positives of Ronald Reagan. In the coming years history will most certainly offer us a much more balanced and whole view.
The New York Times has published several outstanding pieces this week on Reagan, his legacy and his life.
RW Apple has this on Reagan's legacy. He notes:
The "Reaganauts," as one of them said, have been out all week seeking to burnish their man's legacy on television and in print. But hagiography will not determine their leader's ultimate standing, and whether he is entitled to be called "great." Only what the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called "the cool eye of history" will do that, many years hence.
The NYT editorial staff also offers insight into attempts to paste Reagan's name and image on currency. They rightfully note the egregious slight to Alexander Hamilton, founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury.
And finally an editorial on what I think is the best way to honor Reagan: embryonic stem cell research.
The "Paper of Record" stepped up to the plate this week. Well done.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
I'm leaving...on a jet plane....
Another day....another Bush Administration lie.
Tampa Internation Airport is now verifying that two days after 9/11, three Saudis were picked up by a small jet at their airport and flown out. One is believed to be a member of the Saudi royal family.
The government has been denying all along that this flight took place.
Author Craig Unger reported in his book House of Bush, House of Saud about this flight. Unger has been eviscerated by the rightwing media machine for at least a year about this accusation.
This type of flight was extremely unusual on September 13. Most flights were empty airliners being ferried about after quick landings on 9/11. Private nonrevenue flights weren't happening then.
It's pretty clear these guys were given clearance at the highest levels to get out of the country.
|
Tampa Internation Airport is now verifying that two days after 9/11, three Saudis were picked up by a small jet at their airport and flown out. One is believed to be a member of the Saudi royal family.
The government has been denying all along that this flight took place.
Author Craig Unger reported in his book House of Bush, House of Saud about this flight. Unger has been eviscerated by the rightwing media machine for at least a year about this accusation.
This type of flight was extremely unusual on September 13. Most flights were empty airliners being ferried about after quick landings on 9/11. Private nonrevenue flights weren't happening then.
It's pretty clear these guys were given clearance at the highest levels to get out of the country.
So I said...three strikes, you're out...
Californians are apparently ready to reform their Three Strikes Law.
According to a poll by the Field Institute, 76% of likely voters said that would vote for a November ballot iniative that would soften the law. 14% were opposed.
Convicted felons would only be eligible for the "Third Strike Law" to kick in if the third offense is violent or serious. Then the individual would be eligible for 25 years to life.
California is the only state with three-strikes language that doesn't require a third felony conviction be violent or serious to trigger the harshest sentence.
Congratulations to my southern neighbors for having good sense.
|
According to a poll by the Field Institute, 76% of likely voters said that would vote for a November ballot iniative that would soften the law. 14% were opposed.
Convicted felons would only be eligible for the "Third Strike Law" to kick in if the third offense is violent or serious. Then the individual would be eligible for 25 years to life.
California is the only state with three-strikes language that doesn't require a third felony conviction be violent or serious to trigger the harshest sentence.
Congratulations to my southern neighbors for having good sense.
Just call me Lucifer...'cause I'm in need of some restraint...
Props to the Stones for today's inspirational title Sympathy for the Devil
Today's LA Times has a very interesting article on McCarthyism and it's downfall.
With the 50th Anniversary of the McCarthy hearings this week, Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly has some interesting thoughts on the phrase uttered by Joseph Welch that brought down Joe McCarthy:
"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Drum also ponders whether or not National Review will use the anniversary to try and tell us that Joe wasn't so bad.
Frankly...anyone that parrots Ann Coulter is doing the work of the Dark Side of the Force. I'm hopeful that liberals in America will continue to ask the Welchesque question of those who try to sell the notion that Joe McCarthy was a decent and good guy who has merely been sullied. Not only is that an outright lie it's an insult to history.
|
Today's LA Times has a very interesting article on McCarthyism and it's downfall.
With the 50th Anniversary of the McCarthy hearings this week, Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly has some interesting thoughts on the phrase uttered by Joseph Welch that brought down Joe McCarthy:
"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Drum also ponders whether or not National Review will use the anniversary to try and tell us that Joe wasn't so bad.
Frankly...anyone that parrots Ann Coulter is doing the work of the Dark Side of the Force. I'm hopeful that liberals in America will continue to ask the Welchesque question of those who try to sell the notion that Joe McCarthy was a decent and good guy who has merely been sullied. Not only is that an outright lie it's an insult to history.
Video killed the radio star...
The DailyKos has an interesting piece today about how people get their news...and how it's reflected in polling.
According to polling by New Democratic Network polling appears skewed based on where people get their news (no surprise there, obviously).
The numbers are interesting tho:
Television: 52 percent
Kerry 47
Bush 47
Newspaper: 21 percent
Kerry: 53
Bush: 41
Radio: 12 percent
Kerry: 46
Bush: 52
Internet: 10 percent
Kerry: 50
Bush: 42
Other highlights from this poll....
Swing Voters Logging on for News. While television is still the dominant source of news, this poll shows that the Internet has emerged as major source of news, comparable in reach to radio. Indeed, among swing voters, 11 percent say that the Internet is their major source of news compared with 7 percent who say radio. Nationally, 12 percent say radio is their main source of news.
A NOTE ON NADER
Ralph Nader likes to say that he’s just as likely to draw Republican votes as Democratic and hence is not a real threat to cost John Kerry the election. This simply is not true. Without Nader on the ballot, Kerry has a tiny lead, 47 percent to 46 percent. With Nader on the ballot, Kerry is losing 43 percent to 45 percent (with Nader drawing 6 percent). Nader is drawing his votes from independents and Democrats, the majority of whom
would otherwise be voting for Kerry. Without Nader on the ballot, Nader voters prefer Kerry over Bush 58 percent to 22 percent.
Democrats appear to be on the uptick according to this polling..which isn't surprising giving that the GOP have both chambers and the Executive.
|
According to polling by New Democratic Network polling appears skewed based on where people get their news (no surprise there, obviously).
The numbers are interesting tho:
Television: 52 percent
Kerry 47
Bush 47
Newspaper: 21 percent
Kerry: 53
Bush: 41
Radio: 12 percent
Kerry: 46
Bush: 52
Internet: 10 percent
Kerry: 50
Bush: 42
Other highlights from this poll....
Swing Voters Logging on for News. While television is still the dominant source of news, this poll shows that the Internet has emerged as major source of news, comparable in reach to radio. Indeed, among swing voters, 11 percent say that the Internet is their major source of news compared with 7 percent who say radio. Nationally, 12 percent say radio is their main source of news.
A NOTE ON NADER
Ralph Nader likes to say that he’s just as likely to draw Republican votes as Democratic and hence is not a real threat to cost John Kerry the election. This simply is not true. Without Nader on the ballot, Kerry has a tiny lead, 47 percent to 46 percent. With Nader on the ballot, Kerry is losing 43 percent to 45 percent (with Nader drawing 6 percent). Nader is drawing his votes from independents and Democrats, the majority of whom
would otherwise be voting for Kerry. Without Nader on the ballot, Nader voters prefer Kerry over Bush 58 percent to 22 percent.
Democrats appear to be on the uptick according to this polling..which isn't surprising giving that the GOP have both chambers and the Executive.
Do you really want to hurt me....do you really want to make me cry?
Today's dose of outrage is a heaping tablespoon...
For anyone who hasn't read the torture memo that's been reported by the Wall Street Journal...it's an interesting read.
Prepare to be pissed off.
|
For anyone who hasn't read the torture memo that's been reported by the Wall Street Journal...it's an interesting read.
Prepare to be pissed off.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Dick Cheney, Vice Flip-Flopper in Chief
Vice President Cheney memorialized the 40th President, Ronald Reagan, today on Capital Hill with kind words. But, those words stand in stark contrast to Cheney's sharp criticisms of Reagan while he was President and Cheney was a leading Republican in Congress.
Last week, Cheney said, "during the decisive years of the Cold War, I saw the conviction and the moral courage of Ronald Reagan". Yet it was Cheney who, as a top leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, said Reagan was "tolerating a decision-making process in the upper reaches of the Administration that lacked integrity and accountability"[National Journal, 8/08/87].
Congressman Cheney also harshly criticized Reagan's defense policies - the very same policies that conservatives now proclaim as Reagan's enduring legacy. At the height of the Cold War Cheney said that if Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town." Cheney urged Reagan to cut defense spending, saying, "the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible," and told the White House that "you've got to hit defense"[Washington Post, 12/16/84].
Later, as Secretary of Defense under Bush 41, Cheney walked the walk by changing the same Reagan policies that he now touts. In 1990, he bragged to Congress that as Defense Secretary he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He highlighted, "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze"[Congressional Testimony, 2/1/90].
Props to Misleader.org for having compiled the quotes.
|
Last week, Cheney said, "during the decisive years of the Cold War, I saw the conviction and the moral courage of Ronald Reagan". Yet it was Cheney who, as a top leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, said Reagan was "tolerating a decision-making process in the upper reaches of the Administration that lacked integrity and accountability"[National Journal, 8/08/87].
Congressman Cheney also harshly criticized Reagan's defense policies - the very same policies that conservatives now proclaim as Reagan's enduring legacy. At the height of the Cold War Cheney said that if Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town." Cheney urged Reagan to cut defense spending, saying, "the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible," and told the White House that "you've got to hit defense"[Washington Post, 12/16/84].
Later, as Secretary of Defense under Bush 41, Cheney walked the walk by changing the same Reagan policies that he now touts. In 1990, he bragged to Congress that as Defense Secretary he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He highlighted, "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze"[Congressional Testimony, 2/1/90].
Props to Misleader.org for having compiled the quotes.
I'm rubber and you're glue....
Vice President Dick Cheney has a history of giving nasty political speeches. As Kevin has noted Cheney seems to have changed his tune on Reagan now that it's politically expedient.
John Kerry has been the latest beneficiary of Cheney's politically laced barbs:
"The Patriot Act has been crucial to many of our successes. Yet Senator Kerry has chosen this moment, after these victories, to share his second thoughts on the Patriot Act,"
Cheney fails to note that the changes Kerry supports to the Patriot Act are also supported by some Republicans.
Cheney has also accused Kerry of wanting to have massive tax increases.
What Cheney doesn't tell the crowd is that Kerry has advocated for eliminating the Bush Tax Cut for only the top 2%.
>Cheney has also chided Kerry for voting against certain weapons and weapons systems.
But when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he worked to close bases and eliminate weapons systems. Oops.
Hmm....so Cheney goes after Reagan at the jugular when it was convenient...but all of a sudden now Reagan is the best thing since sliced bread. Given that Kerry has been blasted by Cheney as well...we can certainly expect a loving tribute to Kerry in the near future, too.
|
John Kerry has been the latest beneficiary of Cheney's politically laced barbs:
"The Patriot Act has been crucial to many of our successes. Yet Senator Kerry has chosen this moment, after these victories, to share his second thoughts on the Patriot Act,"
Cheney fails to note that the changes Kerry supports to the Patriot Act are also supported by some Republicans.
Cheney has also accused Kerry of wanting to have massive tax increases.
What Cheney doesn't tell the crowd is that Kerry has advocated for eliminating the Bush Tax Cut for only the top 2%.
>Cheney has also chided Kerry for voting against certain weapons and weapons systems.
But when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he worked to close bases and eliminate weapons systems. Oops.
Hmm....so Cheney goes after Reagan at the jugular when it was convenient...but all of a sudden now Reagan is the best thing since sliced bread. Given that Kerry has been blasted by Cheney as well...we can certainly expect a loving tribute to Kerry in the near future, too.
The B-I-B-L-E...yes that's the book for me...I stand alone at the word of God...the B-I-B-L-E!
I knew those Sunday School classes would pay off some day. Lyrics for my titles.....
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ban on Bible classes in public schools.
|
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ban on Bible classes in public schools.
I need a hero...I'm holding out for a hero til the end of the night...
(I just loved the movie Footlose. I've been trying to find a way to work that one in...yay Bonnie Tyler)
Where have all the good men gone and where are all the gods?
Where's the streetwise Hercules to fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed..
Ladies and gentlemen..I give you Senator John McCain, my hero for today (I agree with him ideologically on almost nothing...but I admire the hell out of him).
Senator McCain along with three other Republican dissidents are holding the conservative pork laden budget hostage.
Senators McCain,Chaffee(Rhode Island),Snowe(Maine) and Collins(Maine) will not support the five year plan unless it provides a "pay as you go" provision. They insist that spending cuts happen along with tax cuts.
Profiles in courage.
|
Where have all the good men gone and where are all the gods?
Where's the streetwise Hercules to fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed..
Ladies and gentlemen..I give you Senator John McCain, my hero for today (I agree with him ideologically on almost nothing...but I admire the hell out of him).
Senator McCain along with three other Republican dissidents are holding the conservative pork laden budget hostage.
Senators McCain,Chaffee(Rhode Island),Snowe(Maine) and Collins(Maine) will not support the five year plan unless it provides a "pay as you go" provision. They insist that spending cuts happen along with tax cuts.
Profiles in courage.
...c'mon baby light my fire....
The rite of Spring for conservatives is back (aka the Flag Burning Amendment).
The Citizens Flag Alliance has managed to convince the House of Representatives to once again pass an anti-flag burning amendment. The Senate is expected to take up the vote soon.
From my perspective this is a basic issue of property rights. And it's antithetical to the notion of small government, which conservatives continually preach for...but never seem to truely want.
|
The Citizens Flag Alliance has managed to convince the House of Representatives to once again pass an anti-flag burning amendment. The Senate is expected to take up the vote soon.
From my perspective this is a basic issue of property rights. And it's antithetical to the notion of small government, which conservatives continually preach for...but never seem to truely want.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Pigs are a-flyin'
I never EVER thought I'd be posting something from Bill O'Reilly and Matt Drudge in the same day. Actually I figured snowcones would be served in Hell before I ever quoted something from Drudge.
But if this story is true it's going to make the Wellstone thing look like mighty small potatoes.
For those of you that don't recall, the rightwing spin machine howled for days about Paul Wellstone's funeral being nothing more than a campaign stump for Democrats. This was, of course a blatant lie.
If what Drudge is reporting is true (always a question worth asking), then the GOP could be turning Reagan's funeral into a campaign stump for GW Bush.
Given that the Bush/Cheney campaign website has already whored Reagan's death, this would not be a surprise.
|
But if this story is true it's going to make the Wellstone thing look like mighty small potatoes.
For those of you that don't recall, the rightwing spin machine howled for days about Paul Wellstone's funeral being nothing more than a campaign stump for Democrats. This was, of course a blatant lie.
If what Drudge is reporting is true (always a question worth asking), then the GOP could be turning Reagan's funeral into a campaign stump for GW Bush.
Given that the Bush/Cheney campaign website has already whored Reagan's death, this would not be a surprise.
a long hot summer....
A lot of folks are eagerly anticipating the release of Michael Moore's new movie Farenheit911,but there's another documentary on it's way out soon.
The Hunting of the President was supposed to be released this weekend but has been postponed to Friday, June 18 out of respect for the passing of President Reagan.
The film was made by Harry Thomason and is based on the book by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons of the same title. It's essentially a record of interviews and stories about the rightwing efforts to go after Bill Clinton.
It's going to be an interesting Summer indeed.
|
The Hunting of the President was supposed to be released this weekend but has been postponed to Friday, June 18 out of respect for the passing of President Reagan.
The film was made by Harry Thomason and is based on the book by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons of the same title. It's essentially a record of interviews and stories about the rightwing efforts to go after Bill Clinton.
It's going to be an interesting Summer indeed.
"..are you better off today...?"
Columnist and blogger David Sirota offers up a speech for John Kerry to give as voters prepare to head to the polls in November. Ironically it's a speech delivered by Ronald Reagan in 1980:
OCTOBER 28, 1980: "All of you will go to the polls and stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago?Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? If you answer all of those questions 'yes,' why, then, I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you'd like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."
I'd venture to say most Americans would give a hearty "no" to the standing questions.
|
OCTOBER 28, 1980: "All of you will go to the polls and stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago?Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? If you answer all of those questions 'yes,' why, then, I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you'd like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."
I'd venture to say most Americans would give a hearty "no" to the standing questions.
Hey Bungalow Bill.....
Imagine my surprise today while perusing the various columnists and coming across this opinion piece by nattering nabob of negatism Bill O'Reilly.
Normally O'Reilly is a strident Bush apologist. He also has a tendency to stretch the truth into behemothly unrecognizable portions. Today's ditty, while couched in his regular antiliberal rhetorical bias, gives the Bush Administration/Campaign a zing:
While the media is partially to blame for using Abu Ghraib as a hammer to bludgeon the Bush administration, thereby inserting a political agenda in the middle of an important news story, the president is to blame as well. Clearly, something is very wrong when inexperienced, poorly trained military reservists are allowed to run wild and abuse prisoners. Clearly, something is wrong when enormous mistakes are made in the occupation of a country whose defeat was a foregone conclusion. I mean everybody knew the USA would defeat Saddam, so why was the aftermath of the war so screwed up? Is this another intelligence failure? Is this a strategic failure on the part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team? We don't know because Mr. Bush rarely holds anyone publicly accountable for doing his or her job poorly.
|
Normally O'Reilly is a strident Bush apologist. He also has a tendency to stretch the truth into behemothly unrecognizable portions. Today's ditty, while couched in his regular antiliberal rhetorical bias, gives the Bush Administration/Campaign a zing:
While the media is partially to blame for using Abu Ghraib as a hammer to bludgeon the Bush administration, thereby inserting a political agenda in the middle of an important news story, the president is to blame as well. Clearly, something is very wrong when inexperienced, poorly trained military reservists are allowed to run wild and abuse prisoners. Clearly, something is wrong when enormous mistakes are made in the occupation of a country whose defeat was a foregone conclusion. I mean everybody knew the USA would defeat Saddam, so why was the aftermath of the war so screwed up? Is this another intelligence failure? Is this a strategic failure on the part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team? We don't know because Mr. Bush rarely holds anyone publicly accountable for doing his or her job poorly.
Wanted: Leadership
Today's Washington Post has a very good piece on the upcoming G8 summit. The thrust of the article is how the G8 needs to step up to the plate on keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. The G8 has been great at lip service...but slow on action.
The piece was written by Sam Nunn former Dem senator from Georgia and Michelle Flournoy from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
|
The piece was written by Sam Nunn former Dem senator from Georgia and Michelle Flournoy from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Monday, June 07, 2004
...stuck...between a rock and a hard place....
What's a poor, rightwing Christian panderer to do?
Bush has been working to not allow new lines of stem cells to be created for research.
With the likes of Nancy Reagan advocating for more aggressive embryonic stem cell research...it would appear poor George W Bush is stuck.
And now Fifty Eight US Senators including 14 Republicans have come out for looser stem cell rules. Several of the Republicans are of the more conservative variety, including Orrin Hatch and Lamar Alexander.
|
Bush has been working to not allow new lines of stem cells to be created for research.
With the likes of Nancy Reagan advocating for more aggressive embryonic stem cell research...it would appear poor George W Bush is stuck.
And now Fifty Eight US Senators including 14 Republicans have come out for looser stem cell rules. Several of the Republicans are of the more conservative variety, including Orrin Hatch and Lamar Alexander.
Bush Hispanic Support Getting Shaky
Apparently Bush's Hispanic support is perhaps starting to erode.
The liberal media that's been spending 24/7 steeping us in the coverage of the death of Ronald Reagan managed to take a breather and make note of it.
To wit:
Florida's population has grown by more than 1 million since the last presidential election, a 6.5 percent increase from 2000 to July 2003 that could transform the state's electorate. From April 2000 to July 2002, nearly half of those new residents were Hispanic, according to the most recent numbers from the Census Bureau (news - web sites).
South Florida's Cuban-American community of about 600,000 is divided over the Bush administration's policies, with some hard-line exiles complaining that Bush has failed to take a tougher stance against Castro. A younger generation of Cubans who were born in the United States — or raised here most of their lives — are more likely to support engagement with Cuba. They are not knee-jerk Republicans like their parents.
|
The liberal media that's been spending 24/7 steeping us in the coverage of the death of Ronald Reagan managed to take a breather and make note of it.
To wit:
Florida's population has grown by more than 1 million since the last presidential election, a 6.5 percent increase from 2000 to July 2003 that could transform the state's electorate. From April 2000 to July 2002, nearly half of those new residents were Hispanic, according to the most recent numbers from the Census Bureau (news - web sites).
South Florida's Cuban-American community of about 600,000 is divided over the Bush administration's policies, with some hard-line exiles complaining that Bush has failed to take a tougher stance against Castro. A younger generation of Cubans who were born in the United States — or raised here most of their lives — are more likely to support engagement with Cuba. They are not knee-jerk Republicans like their parents.
...onward Christian soldiers...marching as to war....
Over at Washington Monthly there's a very disturbing piece on the Texas GOP Party platform.
According to their platform..the US is a "Christian" nation and the Ten Commandments are part of the cornerstone of Western legal tradition.
What's really scary is that this is the state that foisted GW Bush upon us and is the second largest state in the Union.
|
According to their platform..the US is a "Christian" nation and the Ten Commandments are part of the cornerstone of Western legal tradition.
What's really scary is that this is the state that foisted GW Bush upon us and is the second largest state in the Union.
Heroes falling to the ground...like Hell's magnet..pulls me down
TomPaine.com has an awesome piece on the attempted canonization of Ronald Reagan...and why it diminishes Reagan's legacy.
Atrios is also on this one today noting that the press is going out of there way to accomdate conservatives on this matter.
Over at Slate there's also a piece on Reagan..well worth a look.
Thanks to the B52's for the title inspiration.
|
Atrios is also on this one today noting that the press is going out of there way to accomdate conservatives on this matter.
Over at Slate there's also a piece on Reagan..well worth a look.
Thanks to the B52's for the title inspiration.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
....we're the sultans of swing...
Swing voters are apparently not impressed with Bush. According to Annenberg Public Policy Center Bush's overall approval rating stands at 44% with this group. Interestingly, Kerry's net approval rating with this group is no higher.
However, this group of voters may be ones that Kerry can close the deal with. Compared with the public at large, this group is less likely to describe themselves as conservative, less likely to be Republicans, less likely to attend church on a regular basis and less likely to be a gun owner.
Gallup also has an interesting new survey out:
In the most recent Gallup Poll, conducted May 21-23, 47% of Americans approve and 49% disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. That rating is characterized by a wide gulf in the views of Republicans and Democrats -- 89% of Republicans approve of Bush, but just 12% of Democrats do. That 77 percentage-point gap is the highest of Bush's presidency, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has been 70 points or higher since mid-February.
But the really interesting number is with political independents. According to Gallup Bush approval rating is at 40%. It's been hovering there since the first part of May. If this trend isn't reversed...this could be the Bush Administration's death knell.
|
However, this group of voters may be ones that Kerry can close the deal with. Compared with the public at large, this group is less likely to describe themselves as conservative, less likely to be Republicans, less likely to attend church on a regular basis and less likely to be a gun owner.
Gallup also has an interesting new survey out:
In the most recent Gallup Poll, conducted May 21-23, 47% of Americans approve and 49% disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. That rating is characterized by a wide gulf in the views of Republicans and Democrats -- 89% of Republicans approve of Bush, but just 12% of Democrats do. That 77 percentage-point gap is the highest of Bush's presidency, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has been 70 points or higher since mid-February.
But the really interesting number is with political independents. According to Gallup Bush approval rating is at 40%. It's been hovering there since the first part of May. If this trend isn't reversed...this could be the Bush Administration's death knell.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Goodbye President Reagan
I was sixteen years old when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States. I remember hearing that he was the oldest person to ever take the oath of office...and worrying that he might not be able to fulfill his duties. I remember thinking Nancy Reagan was much too thin.....and that Reagan, despite his age, really looked good with the flag in the background. He was the picture of patriotism to my young eyes.
I have three especially strong memories of Reagan's time in office. The first, and probably the most positive, is the speech he gave after the Challenger space shuttle blew up in front of the eyes of so many Americans. I was in college at the time and I heard about the shuttle explosion during my first class of the day. I was an Elementary Education major and we'd all been following Christa McCauliffe's journey. Her loss was devastating to us. When I watched Reagan give his speech about the disaster I had tears streaming down my face. I can still hear his voice in my head...the comforting words of a grandfatherly voice saying, "We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God."
I also remember the summit at Reykjavik, Iceland with then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. I watched with dread in my heart when reports of the summit began to emerge. The treaty they were trying to hammer out was held up when Reagan would not acquiese on the Star Wars Defense Initiative program. The missile defense shield was a sticking point for Gorbachev and he wouldn't relent. Neither would Reagan. At the time it was frightening....but in the end it turned out to be the breaking point for a struggling Soviet Union.
And then there was The Iran/Contra Scandal. Reagan was clearly struggling to deal with his falling approval ratings and perhaps the onset of his illness. I remember watching him give his speech to the American people on television:
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake.
As a political liberal, I disagree with many of Reagan's policies. I also disagree strongly with those on the right who seek to canonize Reagan...to whitewash his record and to keep the whole truth of his life and his Presidency from being told.
I believe that Reagan will be remembered first as "The Great Communicator". I think he would want that most of all. Reagan was a man who, like President Bill Clinton, charmed his way into office and even managed to charm his most vehement foes. I hope that in a few years that it will finally be okay to remember Reagan as a whole...and not just the parts that come across as positive. He presided over a complex, difficult and great time for the US. His life and his Presidency should be remembered in that way as well.
Rest in peace, Mr. President
|
I have three especially strong memories of Reagan's time in office. The first, and probably the most positive, is the speech he gave after the Challenger space shuttle blew up in front of the eyes of so many Americans. I was in college at the time and I heard about the shuttle explosion during my first class of the day. I was an Elementary Education major and we'd all been following Christa McCauliffe's journey. Her loss was devastating to us. When I watched Reagan give his speech about the disaster I had tears streaming down my face. I can still hear his voice in my head...the comforting words of a grandfatherly voice saying, "We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God."
I also remember the summit at Reykjavik, Iceland with then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. I watched with dread in my heart when reports of the summit began to emerge. The treaty they were trying to hammer out was held up when Reagan would not acquiese on the Star Wars Defense Initiative program. The missile defense shield was a sticking point for Gorbachev and he wouldn't relent. Neither would Reagan. At the time it was frightening....but in the end it turned out to be the breaking point for a struggling Soviet Union.
And then there was The Iran/Contra Scandal. Reagan was clearly struggling to deal with his falling approval ratings and perhaps the onset of his illness. I remember watching him give his speech to the American people on television:
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake.
As a political liberal, I disagree with many of Reagan's policies. I also disagree strongly with those on the right who seek to canonize Reagan...to whitewash his record and to keep the whole truth of his life and his Presidency from being told.
I believe that Reagan will be remembered first as "The Great Communicator". I think he would want that most of all. Reagan was a man who, like President Bill Clinton, charmed his way into office and even managed to charm his most vehement foes. I hope that in a few years that it will finally be okay to remember Reagan as a whole...and not just the parts that come across as positive. He presided over a complex, difficult and great time for the US. His life and his Presidency should be remembered in that way as well.
Rest in peace, Mr. President
Kerry: A healthcare plan for all Americans
Senator John Kerry has outlined part of his plan to get health insurance all Americans.
Kerry's plan seeks to attack the greatest cost of rising health insurance: catastrophic claims. These claims account for roughly 1% of all claims but approximately 20% of the costs.
From the cited article:
At the center of Kerry's ideas is his proposal to have the federal government reimburse employers 75 percent of medical bills over $50,000 that a worker runs up in a year. The reimbursement would, in effect, make the government a secondary insurer and ease costs for employers, workers and private insurers.
In exchange for the benefit, Kerry would require employers to offer insurance to every worker and to provide health programs that detect and manage chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure early enough to prevent the diseases from worsening.
Response from critics, including the Bush Campaign, is predictable:
Because he intends to pay for the voluntary program by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000, analysts such as Jack A. Meyer call it a "surcharge on the rich."
But the Kerry team as well as several independent analysis of the plan believe it will save the country as a whole billions of dollars:
Emory University health economist Kenneth E. Thorpe estimates the reinsurance program would save businesses and employees $288 billion in premiums over a decade but cost the government $257 billion because of administrative reductions. His computer model projects the catastrophic proposal alone would result in 3 million of the 44 million uninsured Americans getting coverage.
Hubbard and two colleagues calculate that for each percentage-point rise in the price of health insurance, the number of uninsured increases by 300,000.
Kerry's plan is the only new healthcare plan being proposed by either Presidential camp.
This would also offset the problems from the meager new jobs being created lately. Given that the sectors with the most job growth are in service and retail (low wage and no health insurance), this plan would at least offset the cost to some degree for middle to low wage workers.
|
Kerry's plan seeks to attack the greatest cost of rising health insurance: catastrophic claims. These claims account for roughly 1% of all claims but approximately 20% of the costs.
From the cited article:
At the center of Kerry's ideas is his proposal to have the federal government reimburse employers 75 percent of medical bills over $50,000 that a worker runs up in a year. The reimbursement would, in effect, make the government a secondary insurer and ease costs for employers, workers and private insurers.
In exchange for the benefit, Kerry would require employers to offer insurance to every worker and to provide health programs that detect and manage chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure early enough to prevent the diseases from worsening.
Response from critics, including the Bush Campaign, is predictable:
Because he intends to pay for the voluntary program by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000, analysts such as Jack A. Meyer call it a "surcharge on the rich."
But the Kerry team as well as several independent analysis of the plan believe it will save the country as a whole billions of dollars:
Emory University health economist Kenneth E. Thorpe estimates the reinsurance program would save businesses and employees $288 billion in premiums over a decade but cost the government $257 billion because of administrative reductions. His computer model projects the catastrophic proposal alone would result in 3 million of the 44 million uninsured Americans getting coverage.
Hubbard and two colleagues calculate that for each percentage-point rise in the price of health insurance, the number of uninsured increases by 300,000.
Kerry's plan is the only new healthcare plan being proposed by either Presidential camp.
This would also offset the problems from the meager new jobs being created lately. Given that the sectors with the most job growth are in service and retail (low wage and no health insurance), this plan would at least offset the cost to some degree for middle to low wage workers.
Friday, June 04, 2004
USS Olympia and the immoral Rightist fringe
In response to the City of Olympia's vote to draft a resolution disinviting the USS Olympia from taking shore leave in their city, Dennis Olson, "Chief Curmudgeon" at the TimeBomb2000 Pol/Gov forum, responded in a way that I, sadly, don't find surprising. He purportedly wrote an email to the Olympia City Council expressing his views on the matter. I say purported because all I have is his claim to have done so. But, let's take him at his word. Well... poor choice of words there on my part. LOL how 'bout we take what he said at face value?
As Olson openly admits, he predicated his email on a lie. Apparently thinking that it'd be taken more seriously by the City Council, he claimed to be a former Washington resident. Actually, he characterizes it as "Kind-of a fib." But, it's a bald-faced lie no matter how he mischaracterizes it.
But, Mr. Olson isn't content to express his unrighteous indignation. Oh no! He does it with a government computer where he works. Another member of the Olympia City Council, Curt Pavola, writes back.
To which Mr. Olson responds by ignorantly claiming that Mr. Pavola is trying to squelch Olson's First Amendment rights. And then he complains about how Pavola's pointing out the very real ethical problems inherant in misusing government property is nothing more than Pavola trying to "get back" at him.
For lying thru his teeth and misusing government property, Mr Olson gets my Morally Bankrupt Rightwinger award.
|
As Olson openly admits, he predicated his email on a lie. Apparently thinking that it'd be taken more seriously by the City Council, he claimed to be a former Washington resident. Actually, he characterizes it as "Kind-of a fib." But, it's a bald-faced lie no matter how he mischaracterizes it.
But, Mr. Olson isn't content to express his unrighteous indignation. Oh no! He does it with a government computer where he works. Another member of the Olympia City Council, Curt Pavola, writes back.
Mr. Olson,
Your e-mail (on government time, i presume) about the community conversation that Olympia, WA, citizens are having about the safety and appropriateness of extaordinary visits to our community by nuclear submarines during a time of hightened terrorist threats is out of line and uninformed. As a government employee myself who LIVES UP TO ethics laws about inapporpriate use of resources and equipment to voice personal (and stupid...) comments, I'll ask you to keep your opinions to yourself. Your actions are disgraceful. Find out what the issues are before mouthing off on public time.
-- Olympia Councilmember Curt Pavola
To which Mr. Olson responds by ignorantly claiming that Mr. Pavola is trying to squelch Olson's First Amendment rights. And then he complains about how Pavola's pointing out the very real ethical problems inherant in misusing government property is nothing more than Pavola trying to "get back" at him.
For lying thru his teeth and misusing government property, Mr Olson gets my Morally Bankrupt Rightwinger award.
USS Olympia and the lunatic Leftist fringe
On Tuesday, May 18, the Olympia (Washington) City Council voted to draft a resolution opposing the impending visit by the nuclear sub USS Olympia - which is named after the city apparently. Councilman TJ Johnson made the motion and drafted the resulting resolution ostensibly out of concerns for the city's safety and secrecy surrounding the sub's visit. Indeed the draft of the resolution is all about those reasons and doesn't seem too terribly disconnected with reality, although I doubt I would have voted for it. But, in making the motion to draft the resolution, Councilman TJ Johnson made an incredible statement that belies his real reason for opposing the shore leave visit by the USS Olympia.
The Olympian quotes him as saying, "It is a publicly financed killing machine; there is no other way to look at this." This during the meeting where the Council voted 4 - 3 to draft the resolution.
Now let's examine that statement of Johnson's. I've looked and can't find anywhere that Councilman Johnson has ever called for a resolution to prevent Olympia City Police officers from bringing their guns to work with them each morning. Yet, the guns worn by police officers absolutely are "publically financed killing machines." I wonder if the City Council were to, God forbid, be taken hostage by a madman threatening to blow them all to kingdom come with a bomb, if Councilman Johnson would want the SWAT team to show up minus any "publically financed killing machines?"
What just blows me away about Johnson's statement is the kind of totally befuddled logic underpinning it. One can only hope that the Olympia City Police Department isn't part of his portfolio.
Olympia City Councilman TJ Johnson gets my Lunatic Fringe award for talking first and thinking later.
|
The Olympian quotes him as saying, "It is a publicly financed killing machine; there is no other way to look at this." This during the meeting where the Council voted 4 - 3 to draft the resolution.
Now let's examine that statement of Johnson's. I've looked and can't find anywhere that Councilman Johnson has ever called for a resolution to prevent Olympia City Police officers from bringing their guns to work with them each morning. Yet, the guns worn by police officers absolutely are "publically financed killing machines." I wonder if the City Council were to, God forbid, be taken hostage by a madman threatening to blow them all to kingdom come with a bomb, if Councilman Johnson would want the SWAT team to show up minus any "publically financed killing machines?"
What just blows me away about Johnson's statement is the kind of totally befuddled logic underpinning it. One can only hope that the Olympia City Police Department isn't part of his portfolio.
Olympia City Councilman TJ Johnson gets my Lunatic Fringe award for talking first and thinking later.
Tell me lies...tell me sweet little lies....
The more I read about Ahmed Chalabi, Bush, Tenet and the Iran situation...the weirder it gets.
The Washington Post is reporting that the CIA knew as far back as 1995 that Chalabi was connected with the Iranians:
The 1995 incident arose at a time when Chalabi was in northern Iraq, working with CIA backing against Hussein. The CIA case officer working with Chalabi at the time was Robert Baer.
Exactly who came up with the assassination idea is subject to some dispute. One U.S. official interviewed yesterday, who was familiar with the event, credited Baer with pushing the plan.
Baer has denied this. In his book "See No Evil: the True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism," published in 2001, he wrote that the plot to kill Hussein was phony, concocted by Chalabi in hopes of enticing Iranian support for his Iraqi opposition efforts.
To prove to the Iranians he had Washington's support to go after Hussein, Chalabi forged a letter on U.S. National Security Council stationery that asked him to contact the Iranian government for help, Baer wrote. The letter said Washington had dispatched to northern Iraq an "NSC team" headed by Robert Pope, a fictitious name.
In a meeting with Iranian intelligence officers, Chalabi left the letter on his desk while he took a phone call in another room, knowing the Iranians would read it, Baer wrote.
What happened next has not been previously reported.
The Iranian intelligence officers sent an encrypted message to Tehran about Chalabi's supposed plot, officials said yesterday. The United States intercepted the transmission. U.S. intelligence had broken Iran's secret communications codes during that period as well.
The contents of the 1995 intercept became the basis of a report that circulated fairly widely in Washington intelligence and law enforcement circles, an official recalled. The result was not only deep distrust within the CIA for Chalabi but also an FBI investigation of Baer.
It's pretty clear that the CIA in general didn't trust Chalabi. I can't imagine that Tenet as the head of the CIA trusted Chalabi either. Yet the media and the talk tv circuit (as well as rightwing talk radio) are proclaiming that Tenet left because of all of the intelligence foibles in the CIA. This would include the intelligence information on Iraq.
We had several organizations gathering information on Iraq in advance of our invasion. The CIA was one of them, most certainly. But we also had military intelligence including the Office of Special Plans within the Pentagon. The Office of Special Plans is the group that worked the most closely with Chalabi, according to reports. It's my understanding that the material Chalabi gave to intelligence sources was relied upon fairly heavily when it came to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Tenet may deserve some of the heat for intelligence failures in the lead up to 9/11 (along with the FBI,NSA,INS, etc). But why is he the one apparently falling on his sword for everything? It's pretty clear that the Iraq intelligence failures don't rest heavily on the shoulders of George Tenet (though he does bear some responsibility).
And why is Tenet resigning over this in the middle of an election year...? Why announce it when Bush is out of the country? And why on the same news cycle as Bush retaining counsel for the Plame case?
|
The Washington Post is reporting that the CIA knew as far back as 1995 that Chalabi was connected with the Iranians:
The 1995 incident arose at a time when Chalabi was in northern Iraq, working with CIA backing against Hussein. The CIA case officer working with Chalabi at the time was Robert Baer.
Exactly who came up with the assassination idea is subject to some dispute. One U.S. official interviewed yesterday, who was familiar with the event, credited Baer with pushing the plan.
Baer has denied this. In his book "See No Evil: the True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism," published in 2001, he wrote that the plot to kill Hussein was phony, concocted by Chalabi in hopes of enticing Iranian support for his Iraqi opposition efforts.
To prove to the Iranians he had Washington's support to go after Hussein, Chalabi forged a letter on U.S. National Security Council stationery that asked him to contact the Iranian government for help, Baer wrote. The letter said Washington had dispatched to northern Iraq an "NSC team" headed by Robert Pope, a fictitious name.
In a meeting with Iranian intelligence officers, Chalabi left the letter on his desk while he took a phone call in another room, knowing the Iranians would read it, Baer wrote.
What happened next has not been previously reported.
The Iranian intelligence officers sent an encrypted message to Tehran about Chalabi's supposed plot, officials said yesterday. The United States intercepted the transmission. U.S. intelligence had broken Iran's secret communications codes during that period as well.
The contents of the 1995 intercept became the basis of a report that circulated fairly widely in Washington intelligence and law enforcement circles, an official recalled. The result was not only deep distrust within the CIA for Chalabi but also an FBI investigation of Baer.
It's pretty clear that the CIA in general didn't trust Chalabi. I can't imagine that Tenet as the head of the CIA trusted Chalabi either. Yet the media and the talk tv circuit (as well as rightwing talk radio) are proclaiming that Tenet left because of all of the intelligence foibles in the CIA. This would include the intelligence information on Iraq.
We had several organizations gathering information on Iraq in advance of our invasion. The CIA was one of them, most certainly. But we also had military intelligence including the Office of Special Plans within the Pentagon. The Office of Special Plans is the group that worked the most closely with Chalabi, according to reports. It's my understanding that the material Chalabi gave to intelligence sources was relied upon fairly heavily when it came to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Tenet may deserve some of the heat for intelligence failures in the lead up to 9/11 (along with the FBI,NSA,INS, etc). But why is he the one apparently falling on his sword for everything? It's pretty clear that the Iraq intelligence failures don't rest heavily on the shoulders of George Tenet (though he does bear some responsibility).
And why is Tenet resigning over this in the middle of an election year...? Why announce it when Bush is out of the country? And why on the same news cycle as Bush retaining counsel for the Plame case?
.... with a little help from my friends....
It's not all that often that I run across an organization I consider so worthwhile that I'd be willing to stand on a corner and ask folks to give money.
The Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund is one such organization that I believe deserves the kind of funding usually reserved for building missile defense shields.
Families who lose a soldier in current operations recieve regular military benefits such as funeral costs, $12,000 death benefit, a continued payment of portion of salary,health care, short term base housing, etc. However often that isn't enough to meet the demands of some families, especially in the long term.
The Intrepid Fallen Heros Fund provides $10,000 grants to each dependent family plus $5,000 grants for each child. 100% of the public money raised goes to military familes. Adminstrative costs are absorbed through The Intrepid Foundation.
This a most worthwhile cause. Please consider a gift to these folks.
You can donate online here or call 1-800-340-HERO.
|
The Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund is one such organization that I believe deserves the kind of funding usually reserved for building missile defense shields.
Families who lose a soldier in current operations recieve regular military benefits such as funeral costs, $12,000 death benefit, a continued payment of portion of salary,health care, short term base housing, etc. However often that isn't enough to meet the demands of some families, especially in the long term.
The Intrepid Fallen Heros Fund provides $10,000 grants to each dependent family plus $5,000 grants for each child. 100% of the public money raised goes to military familes. Adminstrative costs are absorbed through The Intrepid Foundation.
This a most worthwhile cause. Please consider a gift to these folks.
You can donate online here or call 1-800-340-HERO.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Long beautiful hair...Shining, gleaming...flaxen, waxen...give me down to there...hair
As a nod to Don King...the title includes lyrics from the musical Hair
In an effort to court the black vote, RNC Chair Ed Gillespie is now touring the country with boxing promotor Don King
Now I admit to being a bit cynical when it comes to Republicans...but DON KING? Couldn't they get Colin Powell or Condi Rice to schelp votes with Gillespie? They had to get a guy with a long rap sheet and a history of being a con man to promote the President?
It's rather odd to promote the President as tough on the bad guys when the Chairman of his party is touring the country with one.
|
In an effort to court the black vote, RNC Chair Ed Gillespie is now touring the country with boxing promotor Don King
Now I admit to being a bit cynical when it comes to Republicans...but DON KING? Couldn't they get Colin Powell or Condi Rice to schelp votes with Gillespie? They had to get a guy with a long rap sheet and a history of being a con man to promote the President?
It's rather odd to promote the President as tough on the bad guys when the Chairman of his party is touring the country with one.
...what a fool believes.....
As most of you are no doubt aware, Bob Woodward asserted in his book that the Bush Administration secretly diverted $700 million of money earmarked to fight the war in Afghanistan against Al Qaida to Iraq War planning.
Apparently the adage fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me isn't lost on Congress.
The Boston globe is reporting that the Senate voted 95-0 to give the White House the $25 million they requested for Iraq and Afghanistan. This time however, there are strings attached. Bush wanted to be able to shift monies at will to the different regions without consulting lawmakers. The Senate has restricted this amount to $2.5 billion as discretionary funds that can be shifted.
The House has an even more stringent restriction, requiring the President to consult lawmakers for amounts exceeding $1 billion. The House plan also allows for another $2 billion to be discretionary with the consent of lawmakers.
The White House is warm to the Senate plan but wants to negotiate with the House.
|
Apparently the adage fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me isn't lost on Congress.
The Boston globe is reporting that the Senate voted 95-0 to give the White House the $25 million they requested for Iraq and Afghanistan. This time however, there are strings attached. Bush wanted to be able to shift monies at will to the different regions without consulting lawmakers. The Senate has restricted this amount to $2.5 billion as discretionary funds that can be shifted.
The House has an even more stringent restriction, requiring the President to consult lawmakers for amounts exceeding $1 billion. The House plan also allows for another $2 billion to be discretionary with the consent of lawmakers.
The White House is warm to the Senate plan but wants to negotiate with the House.
...take this job and shove it....
George Tenet resigned today as CIA Director citing "personal reasons". Bush accepted his resignation.
The resignation takes effect in mid-July at which time Deptuy Director John McGlaughlin will take the reigns.
It will be interesting to see how this ends up playing out. I've often maintained that Tenet wasn't fired because he had dirt on some of the players involved in the current and former administrations.
|
The resignation takes effect in mid-July at which time Deptuy Director John McGlaughlin will take the reigns.
It will be interesting to see how this ends up playing out. I've often maintained that Tenet wasn't fired because he had dirt on some of the players involved in the current and former administrations.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
ENRON tapes are damning
CBS has released some audio tapes of ENRON energy traders gloating about how they'd basically raped the California energy market in 2001.
I'm not even going to bother recreating it all here. Joe over at The Moderate Voice has a superb post on it already. Go read his piece and then ask yourself: Why in the name of God did the Justice Department try to block CBS from airing those audio tapes??? ENRON trying to block them I can easily see. They've got a horse in the race, so to speak. But, why the Justice Dept.?
|
I'm not even going to bother recreating it all here. Joe over at The Moderate Voice has a superb post on it already. Go read his piece and then ask yourself: Why in the name of God did the Justice Department try to block CBS from airing those audio tapes??? ENRON trying to block them I can easily see. They've got a horse in the race, so to speak. But, why the Justice Dept.?
Bush hires a mouthpiece
I can't say this better than Wonkette so I'm going to blatantly cut and paste her comments:
So President Bush has "consulted" a lawyer about the investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name to press. Everyone's been very careful to note that it doesn't mean Bush is target in the probe. Well. We wish him luck, because it's really hard to seem like an evil-fighting man of the people when you've got a criminal attorney on retainer.
CNN:Bush Consults Lawyer in CIA Leak Case
And check out this story which I found in the comments on this topic at Centerfield:
Bush Knew About CIA Operative Leak
|
So President Bush has "consulted" a lawyer about the investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name to press. Everyone's been very careful to note that it doesn't mean Bush is target in the probe. Well. We wish him luck, because it's really hard to seem like an evil-fighting man of the people when you've got a criminal attorney on retainer.
CNN:Bush Consults Lawyer in CIA Leak Case
And check out this story which I found in the comments on this topic at Centerfield:
Bush Knew About CIA Operative Leak
Brookings Institute: How to win in Iraq?
The Brookings Institute has a couple of articles out right outlining plans for Iraq.
The first is a piece by Philip H Gordon (Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
) and James Dobbins (Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, Rand Corporation). This piece suggests that in order for the US to regain some sufferance from Iraqis, our military strategies must be adjusted to meet the political/diplomatic goals it has set forth:
Henceforth, American forces cannot afford to destroy villages to save them. They cannot afford to use artillery, gunships and ordnance from fixed-wing aircraft in populated areas, regardless of the provocation. They cannot afford to sacrifice innocent Iraqi civilians to reduce American casualties. They cannot afford to sweep up, incarcerate and hold for months thousands of Iraqis—many of them innocent—to apprehend a smaller number of guilty ones. They cannot afford to use pain, privation or humiliation to secure information.
Whether such actions are consistent with the laws of armed conflict is not the relevant criterion. What matters most is that such actions are inconsistent with the treatment of an allied population upon whose sufferance and support this mission depends.
James Steinberg and Michael O'Hanlon, also of the Brookings Institute have outlined a three point plan for getting the US out of Iraq:
First, we must make clear that our military presence in Iraq is designed to permit the Iraqis to freely choose their own future -- even if it is not fully to our liking. We should indicate not just that we will leave if asked but that we will ourselves plan to end the deployment of coalition forces following the election of an Iraqi government and the adoption of a new constitution next year. We should make clear that we (as part of a wider international coalition) would be prepared to stay beyond that time -- but only at the request of the new Iraqi government, and as part of a new, U.N.-sponsored mandate on terms that are acceptable to the new Iraqi government and to us.
Second, we must be clear about our legitimate security interests in Iraq. We have a right to insist that a new Iraqi government not threaten peace and security -- by developing weapons of mass destruction, harboring terrorists or attacking other nations. And we should certainly seek to use our influence to encourage a tolerant, pluralist society. But because this is a responsibility Iraq owes to all, not just us, we should shift the focus away from the United States as the enforcement arm of the international community to Iraq's neighbors and others that share these interests, including NATO and the United Nations. We should begin by convening a major international summit on Iraq, involving not only Western allies but also Arab leaders and Iraqis, at the time of the NATO summit next month in Istanbul. And we should invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to play a role in ensuring that a new Iraqi government does not pursue weapons programs.
Third, we should accelerate the training and equipping of new security forces for Iraq. Less than 10 percent of the necessary numbers of soldiers and police have been properly trained to date. Filling this vacuum is critical to the success of this strategy, because indigenous forces are far more likely than foreign forces to succeed in defeating the residual Baathist and foreign fighters in Iraq. If Arab countries and NATO devoted just 10 percent of their police and military training capacity to Iraqi forces, we could complete an intensified training process by next year.
I have not been a supporter of the efforts in Iraq. I've thought that we were wrong from the outset to go in and do what we did...but we're there. The important thing is that we clean up our mess and get out as soon as possible. I think those ideas outlined above are a very good start toward that goal.
|
The first is a piece by Philip H Gordon (Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
) and James Dobbins (Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, Rand Corporation). This piece suggests that in order for the US to regain some sufferance from Iraqis, our military strategies must be adjusted to meet the political/diplomatic goals it has set forth:
Henceforth, American forces cannot afford to destroy villages to save them. They cannot afford to use artillery, gunships and ordnance from fixed-wing aircraft in populated areas, regardless of the provocation. They cannot afford to sacrifice innocent Iraqi civilians to reduce American casualties. They cannot afford to sweep up, incarcerate and hold for months thousands of Iraqis—many of them innocent—to apprehend a smaller number of guilty ones. They cannot afford to use pain, privation or humiliation to secure information.
Whether such actions are consistent with the laws of armed conflict is not the relevant criterion. What matters most is that such actions are inconsistent with the treatment of an allied population upon whose sufferance and support this mission depends.
James Steinberg and Michael O'Hanlon, also of the Brookings Institute have outlined a three point plan for getting the US out of Iraq:
First, we must make clear that our military presence in Iraq is designed to permit the Iraqis to freely choose their own future -- even if it is not fully to our liking. We should indicate not just that we will leave if asked but that we will ourselves plan to end the deployment of coalition forces following the election of an Iraqi government and the adoption of a new constitution next year. We should make clear that we (as part of a wider international coalition) would be prepared to stay beyond that time -- but only at the request of the new Iraqi government, and as part of a new, U.N.-sponsored mandate on terms that are acceptable to the new Iraqi government and to us.
Second, we must be clear about our legitimate security interests in Iraq. We have a right to insist that a new Iraqi government not threaten peace and security -- by developing weapons of mass destruction, harboring terrorists or attacking other nations. And we should certainly seek to use our influence to encourage a tolerant, pluralist society. But because this is a responsibility Iraq owes to all, not just us, we should shift the focus away from the United States as the enforcement arm of the international community to Iraq's neighbors and others that share these interests, including NATO and the United Nations. We should begin by convening a major international summit on Iraq, involving not only Western allies but also Arab leaders and Iraqis, at the time of the NATO summit next month in Istanbul. And we should invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to play a role in ensuring that a new Iraqi government does not pursue weapons programs.
Third, we should accelerate the training and equipping of new security forces for Iraq. Less than 10 percent of the necessary numbers of soldiers and police have been properly trained to date. Filling this vacuum is critical to the success of this strategy, because indigenous forces are far more likely than foreign forces to succeed in defeating the residual Baathist and foreign fighters in Iraq. If Arab countries and NATO devoted just 10 percent of their police and military training capacity to Iraqi forces, we could complete an intensified training process by next year.
I have not been a supporter of the efforts in Iraq. I've thought that we were wrong from the outset to go in and do what we did...but we're there. The important thing is that we clean up our mess and get out as soon as possible. I think those ideas outlined above are a very good start toward that goal.
...just put up your dukes..let's get down to it....
Being a self-confessed liberal and a bit of a contrarian I enjoy a debate now and then with my compadres on the other side of the ideological aisle. I have always enjoyed sparring with folks whose beliefs are opposed to my own.
I'm starting to think that this is a liberal trait and not a conservative one, for the most part. A few months ago when I posted views contrary to the ones on their message boards, Free Republic pulled my posts (to be fair I've been told that Democratic Underground does that too although I've never seen it done, personally). Then recently I posted at a proBush blog three or four times...very careful not to be strident but to be moderate...and the owner of the blog banned me. I can only assume it was because I wasn't towing the party line.
Then a few days ago Dean's World had a blog thread up about the war in Iraq. The premise was that Iraq was going great and that liberals were just mad and the liberal media was just trying to give the President a black eye. So I posted a contrary view and argument...and being me I backed it up with statistics and polls. Yesterday I go to post over there...and they've banned me. LOL
Now I realize that folks have every right to remove posts or block people from posting. It's their blog...most of them probably pay for the service they use. But what's the big deal with dissent? Why do so many people (especially conservatives, it seems) have such a difficult time with views that are different from their own?
|
I'm starting to think that this is a liberal trait and not a conservative one, for the most part. A few months ago when I posted views contrary to the ones on their message boards, Free Republic pulled my posts (to be fair I've been told that Democratic Underground does that too although I've never seen it done, personally). Then recently I posted at a proBush blog three or four times...very careful not to be strident but to be moderate...and the owner of the blog banned me. I can only assume it was because I wasn't towing the party line.
Then a few days ago Dean's World had a blog thread up about the war in Iraq. The premise was that Iraq was going great and that liberals were just mad and the liberal media was just trying to give the President a black eye. So I posted a contrary view and argument...and being me I backed it up with statistics and polls. Yesterday I go to post over there...and they've banned me. LOL
Now I realize that folks have every right to remove posts or block people from posting. It's their blog...most of them probably pay for the service they use. But what's the big deal with dissent? Why do so many people (especially conservatives, it seems) have such a difficult time with views that are different from their own?
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Kerry: An actual plan to deal with terrorism
John Kerry is offering his plan to deal with terrorism.
Some highlights:
Kerry called for an end to the Bush Administration's plan to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. Kerry proposes that the US take the lead in curbing nuclear proliferation.
Kerry proposes to have a presidential coordinator to secure nuclear weapons from countries like Russia...as well as work to to keep nuclear attacks from occuring. Kerry proposes working closely with countries like Russia to accelerate reductions in nuclear arsenals.
This is a crucially important proposal. It goes to the heart of US credibility in the world. We have no moral authority when it comes to nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran while at the same time developing new bunker busting bombs and new generations of nukes.
In my view..this is one of the main differences between Kerry and Bush. Kerry wants to negotiate from a position of credibility and strength when dealing with US foreign policy issues. Bush wants to force nations into doing what he says when he says it...or threaten them. It's a "do as I say not as I do" position.
|
Some highlights:
Kerry called for an end to the Bush Administration's plan to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. Kerry proposes that the US take the lead in curbing nuclear proliferation.
Kerry proposes to have a presidential coordinator to secure nuclear weapons from countries like Russia...as well as work to to keep nuclear attacks from occuring. Kerry proposes working closely with countries like Russia to accelerate reductions in nuclear arsenals.
This is a crucially important proposal. It goes to the heart of US credibility in the world. We have no moral authority when it comes to nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran while at the same time developing new bunker busting bombs and new generations of nukes.
In my view..this is one of the main differences between Kerry and Bush. Kerry wants to negotiate from a position of credibility and strength when dealing with US foreign policy issues. Bush wants to force nations into doing what he says when he says it...or threaten them. It's a "do as I say not as I do" position.
Bush is #1
Remember how the Republicans complained about President Clinton ripping off the taxypayers by flying Air Force One all over the place while campaigning? Well, turns out Bush has set the new record for ripping off the taxpayers via... you guessed it - using Air Force One for campaigning.
Tom at Backup Brain is where I first read this story. According to his short blurb about it, it costs the taxpayers $57,000 per hour to operate Air Force One. But, by law the President is only required to reimburse a fraction of that. And even then only if he doesn't claim that the trip is official business. According to the ABC piece that Tom cites, "But of the more than $203 million Bush has raised for his re-election, less than 1 percent has gone to reimbursing the government for travel costs this year."
So, we have the President who has broken all records raising campaign funds, for a primary season in which he was unopposed by any serious candidate no less, also breaking all records for using Air Force One for campaigning... during that same unopposed primary season, of course.
Rush Detector Correcting the Record AGAIN: Rush Limbaugh already tried to spin this issue back in March.
|
Tom at Backup Brain is where I first read this story. According to his short blurb about it, it costs the taxpayers $57,000 per hour to operate Air Force One. But, by law the President is only required to reimburse a fraction of that. And even then only if he doesn't claim that the trip is official business. According to the ABC piece that Tom cites, "But of the more than $203 million Bush has raised for his re-election, less than 1 percent has gone to reimbursing the government for travel costs this year."
So, we have the President who has broken all records raising campaign funds, for a primary season in which he was unopposed by any serious candidate no less, also breaking all records for using Air Force One for campaigning... during that same unopposed primary season, of course.
Rush Detector Correcting the Record AGAIN: Rush Limbaugh already tried to spin this issue back in March.
Judge finds "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" unconstitutional
A federal judge in California has declared the ThePartial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional.
The judge ruled that the Act created an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose an abortion.
Two other cases filed by Planned Parenthood are awaiting rulings.
|
The judge ruled that the Act created an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose an abortion.
Two other cases filed by Planned Parenthood are awaiting rulings.
Let...the sunshine...let the sunshine in....
It seems to me that we're making a really big mistake in our handling of Cuba.
The Bush Administration, over objections in Congress, has made travel restrictions more stringent to Cuba and continues to enforce heavy sanctions against the island nation. This appears to be less about Cuba being a Communist nation or a tryannical leader and more about the heavily Republican Cuban vote in Florida. This policy in my opinion is counterproductive.
China is also Communist nation with tyrannical leaders. Yet we can't get over their fast enough. China is growing by leaps and bounds US corporations are trying to market goods there like crazy. The Chinese have begun to embrace parts of capitalism. They're markets are slowly opening and the Chinese are slowly being exposed to American ideals of democracy and freedom.
Cuba remains a much more closed society...especially for Americans. Our sanctions against Cuba have done nothing over the years to get rid of Castro. In fact he's basically entrenched. The US should stop pandering to the Cuban community in Florida and begin to take proactive steps to market American goods and services in Cuba. Our citizens should go to Cuba for vacations and expose the Cuban people to American ideals of freedom and democracy. And maybe while we're there we could learn a few things from the Cubans...like how to provide good healthcare for all of our citzens, for example.
|
The Bush Administration, over objections in Congress, has made travel restrictions more stringent to Cuba and continues to enforce heavy sanctions against the island nation. This appears to be less about Cuba being a Communist nation or a tryannical leader and more about the heavily Republican Cuban vote in Florida. This policy in my opinion is counterproductive.
China is also Communist nation with tyrannical leaders. Yet we can't get over their fast enough. China is growing by leaps and bounds US corporations are trying to market goods there like crazy. The Chinese have begun to embrace parts of capitalism. They're markets are slowly opening and the Chinese are slowly being exposed to American ideals of democracy and freedom.
Cuba remains a much more closed society...especially for Americans. Our sanctions against Cuba have done nothing over the years to get rid of Castro. In fact he's basically entrenched. The US should stop pandering to the Cuban community in Florida and begin to take proactive steps to market American goods and services in Cuba. Our citizens should go to Cuba for vacations and expose the Cuban people to American ideals of freedom and democracy. And maybe while we're there we could learn a few things from the Cubans...like how to provide good healthcare for all of our citzens, for example.
I'm crazy for trying....and crazy for crying......
Al Gore has pissed the GOP off enough to now officially be labeled "unstable". Gore's speech last week that was sponsored by MoveOn.org seems to have created quite a stir. The thrust of Gore's speech was that Bush had brought dishonor to our nation with his handling of the Iraq situation...and that Bush has betrayed basic American values.
WorldNetDaily gets in on the action by referring to Gore as "psycho".
Those bastions of good journalism (rolling eyes) at NewsMax say about Gore and the Democrats,"This is a party that at its core believes that evil can be seduced or at least convinced to only eat one of your arms and legs.
The Boston Herald(the newspaper in Boston that carries the rightwing torch and is cited in Bush ads against Kerry all the time) is indignant that Gore would call Bush "incompetent. They call Gore a "disgrace" and "repugnant".
And finally...the rightwing birdcage liner New York Post says Gore is "insane" and his speech the "single craziest political performance" of the writer's lifetime. I guess "Bring it on" doesn't count.
As I read through each of these pieces I'm struck that none of them actually rebut anything Gore says. They smear Gore as a psycho. This is one of the consistent tactics used by the right and by the White House to attempt to dismiss criticism from individuals both outside and within.
|
WorldNetDaily gets in on the action by referring to Gore as "psycho".
Those bastions of good journalism (rolling eyes) at NewsMax say about Gore and the Democrats,"This is a party that at its core believes that evil can be seduced or at least convinced to only eat one of your arms and legs.
The Boston Herald(the newspaper in Boston that carries the rightwing torch and is cited in Bush ads against Kerry all the time) is indignant that Gore would call Bush "incompetent. They call Gore a "disgrace" and "repugnant".
And finally...the rightwing birdcage liner New York Post says Gore is "insane" and his speech the "single craziest political performance" of the writer's lifetime. I guess "Bring it on" doesn't count.
As I read through each of these pieces I'm struck that none of them actually rebut anything Gore says. They smear Gore as a psycho. This is one of the consistent tactics used by the right and by the White House to attempt to dismiss criticism from individuals both outside and within.
Return to Main
