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.
Return to Main
