Friday, July 23, 2004
CUIP Out Of Touch With Own Constituency
I get semi-regular email newsletters from the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP). As an Independent I try to keep abreast of what my fellow Independents are thinking and saying. Lately though the CUIP newsletters have basically been little more than unofficial campaign pitches for Nader or on his behalf.
A few days ago I received one which was basically a pitch to read a preview article from the upcoming issue of the Neo-Independent, a subscription magazine produced by the CUIP. There was a URL to the article and a line at the bottom asking for feedback on the article. I should also point out that CUIP likes to point to polling which says that 35% of the voting age electorate are self-identified as independent voters. That'll be relevant to the feedback I gave them on the article.
The article: A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
My feedback: Response to CUIP
|
A few days ago I received one which was basically a pitch to read a preview article from the upcoming issue of the Neo-Independent, a subscription magazine produced by the CUIP. There was a URL to the article and a line at the bottom asking for feedback on the article. I should also point out that CUIP likes to point to polling which says that 35% of the voting age electorate are self-identified as independent voters. That'll be relevant to the feedback I gave them on the article.
The article: A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
My feedback: Response to CUIP
Thursday, July 22, 2004
9/11 Commission Reports
The 9/11 Commission has released it's report in which they urged an intelligence overhaul.
I don't disagree that an intelligence overhaul is needed. But, it begs the question of how much good it'd do if the President and his National Security Advisor can't or won't take the warnings they do get seriously.
At the center of the controversy is the infamous Presdential Daily Brieifing On bin Laden, August 6, 2001
NSA Condi Rice failed (or refused) to connect the dots even many months after the fact: Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission
President Bush was flat out on vacation when the American people needed someone... ANYONE to connect the dots: A Grueling Vacation Schedule
How much good will an intelligence overhaul do if the President and his National Security Advisor can't or won't take the intel seriously?
|
I don't disagree that an intelligence overhaul is needed. But, it begs the question of how much good it'd do if the President and his National Security Advisor can't or won't take the warnings they do get seriously.
At the center of the controversy is the infamous Presdential Daily Brieifing On bin Laden, August 6, 2001
NSA Condi Rice failed (or refused) to connect the dots even many months after the fact: Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission
President Bush was flat out on vacation when the American people needed someone... ANYONE to connect the dots: A Grueling Vacation Schedule
How much good will an intelligence overhaul do if the President and his National Security Advisor can't or won't take the intel seriously?
Be Afraid... Be Very, Very Afraid!
The Dreyfuss Report nails my own take on the reconstituted Committee on the Present Danger, which is nothing more than hysterical McCarthyism retooled for the modern age. Senator Lieberman reveals his true colors by signing onto this transparent extension of NeoCon psycho-babble aimed directly at influencing the upcoming election.
|
Thank God for Halliburton.
Yet more news that Halliburton has screwed the American taxpayer thru incompetence and deliberate over-charging for goods and services.
Of course there is also the latest questions about the Cheney-run Halliburton illegally doing business with Iran. Mind you this was their Cayman Island subsidiary... set up expressely to avoid having to pay ANY taxes that might benefit America.
|
Of course there is also the latest questions about the Cheney-run Halliburton illegally doing business with Iran. Mind you this was their Cayman Island subsidiary... set up expressely to avoid having to pay ANY taxes that might benefit America.
Bush White House Opposes Middle-class Tax Cut Extension
White House Helps Block Extension of Tax Cut. Why? Because they know it would have been supported by Democrats. And they'd rather screw the middle-class than do anything that might help Democrats.
Didn't someone run on the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" theme in 2000?
|
Didn't someone run on the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" theme in 2000?
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Flip-flop... flip-flop...
The Guardian has a very interesting piece on British Alarm at US drift over Middle East It's interesting to compare the rhetoric coming from the American Right about how the poor Iraqi people suffered. But, that seems to be the where the empathy ends. I suppose it's not relevant that Iraq possess vast oil fields and the Palestinians possess none.
|
Shadow boxing with reality
The latest news from the front is that Rumsfeld is apparently using Vigilantes in Afghanistan. I'm wondering if this is another way of getting around international law visa vis war crimes.
Um... didn't someone promise to restore honor and integrity to the White House?
|
Um... didn't someone promise to restore honor and integrity to the White House?
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Why the Palestinian's matter
This is a little old but remains very relavant. Walter Russell Mead spent five weeks earlier this year traveling thru the Middle East learning Why They Hate Us, Really.
Mead argues persuasively that at the root of the hatred isn't any of the usual suspects that we hear about from the demogogues, like Israel or "our freedom". Rather it is the Palestinians and how our government has handled their plight.
I think it's safe to say that much of the widely popular European opposition to Bush's Iraq policy is rooted in those very same issues, or at least their perception of them. Mead continues,
I'd say Mead is absolutely correct there. But, he doesn't account for xenophobia among Americans who have never stepped foot outside of North America. Nor does he take into consideration the politio-religious dogma of some Protestants that teaches that Israel has to defeat her Arab neighbors in order for end time events to proceed sufficiently for Christ to return. For Americans who believe that doctrine, working towards a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would hinder the second coming of Christ. In my experience these folks are almost universally Conservative and very pro-GOP in the religious conservative sense of "GOP". Those same folks happen to be Bush's political base. Connect the dots...
|
Mead argues persuasively that at the root of the hatred isn't any of the usual suspects that we hear about from the demogogues, like Israel or "our freedom". Rather it is the Palestinians and how our government has handled their plight.
"The Palestinian issue is really what discredits the United States throughout the region," a senior Western diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East told me. Or, as one student after another put it after the university lectures I conducted across the region: "Why do Americans have to be so biased?"
I think it's safe to say that much of the widely popular European opposition to Bush's Iraq policy is rooted in those very same issues, or at least their perception of them. Mead continues,
America's Middle East policy is unnecessarily zero-sum. We can be more pro-Palestinian without being less pro-Israeli. Indeed, to the degree that American policies help create support for compromise among Palestinians, pro-Palestinian initiatives can help Israel too.
I'd say Mead is absolutely correct there. But, he doesn't account for xenophobia among Americans who have never stepped foot outside of North America. Nor does he take into consideration the politio-religious dogma of some Protestants that teaches that Israel has to defeat her Arab neighbors in order for end time events to proceed sufficiently for Christ to return. For Americans who believe that doctrine, working towards a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would hinder the second coming of Christ. In my experience these folks are almost universally Conservative and very pro-GOP in the religious conservative sense of "GOP". Those same folks happen to be Bush's political base. Connect the dots...
Trippin' on the dock of the Bay...
San Francisco blogger Michael Petrelis apparently wasn't satisfied with just being a Nader backer this year. He apparently felt the need to demonstrate his ignorance on a massive scale. So he posted an incredibly deception and very poorly researched rant about how all the media publications that he researched have supposedly given vastly more donations to Democratic candidates than to Republican candidates. Apparently this is supposed to prove the lack of ethics and objectivity in the mainstream media. Petrelis claims that he "pored over recent donations by journalists, reporters, publishers and others who work at print media outlets" by searching Tray.com.
To prove his profound ignorance Petrelis leads off his list with Rupert Murdoch! If his research findings weren't so pathetically off-base it would be a hysterically funny blog post! He goes on to claim, "I limited my searching to the two most recent election cycles, except forTime and Newsweek, and Rupert Murdoch, because of the influence each wields." Clearly he's convinced himself that Rupert Murdoch is the financial Sugar Daddy behind the evil Democratic scheme to defraud Ralph Nader or some such nonsense.
Suspecting that what I was reading from Petrelis wasn't the whole truth I immediately opened opensecrets.org and did a quick search on Rupert Murdoch. Here's what I found: Rupert Murdoch, 2000 thru 2004.
In that time period Murdoch has give a grand total of $6,000 to three Democrats. While he gave $53,044 to 13 Republican candidate or Republican groups.
Clearly Michael Petrelis has a beef with Democrats. I don't begrudge him that in any way. I'm not a big fan of Democrats, myself. But, to try to fabricate a case for the mainstream media giving exclusively to Democrats... which isn't what Petrelis said, but he implies it (IMO)... is just plain silly.
|
To prove his profound ignorance Petrelis leads off his list with Rupert Murdoch! If his research findings weren't so pathetically off-base it would be a hysterically funny blog post! He goes on to claim, "I limited my searching to the two most recent election cycles, except forTime and Newsweek, and Rupert Murdoch, because of the influence each wields." Clearly he's convinced himself that Rupert Murdoch is the financial Sugar Daddy behind the evil Democratic scheme to defraud Ralph Nader or some such nonsense.
Suspecting that what I was reading from Petrelis wasn't the whole truth I immediately opened opensecrets.org and did a quick search on Rupert Murdoch. Here's what I found: Rupert Murdoch, 2000 thru 2004.
In that time period Murdoch has give a grand total of $6,000 to three Democrats. While he gave $53,044 to 13 Republican candidate or Republican groups.
Clearly Michael Petrelis has a beef with Democrats. I don't begrudge him that in any way. I'm not a big fan of Democrats, myself. But, to try to fabricate a case for the mainstream media giving exclusively to Democrats... which isn't what Petrelis said, but he implies it (IMO)... is just plain silly.
Monday, July 19, 2004
The Man Behind The Curtain
What exactly can we deduce from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report about President Bush's role in pushing faulty Iraq intelligence? Because the Senate isn't taking up the question of how the intelligence was used, many are saying the report neither indicts or exonerates the president. Not exactly, says Prados, an analyst at the NSA. He points to several facts that show the intelligence used to sell the war was an afterthought for the White House. TomPaine.com - The Man Behind The Curtain
That's a teaser for a very good piece by John Prados, a senior analyst with the National Security Archive. Prados gives some background information which helps explain why President Bush was so eager to get into Iraq without finishing up business with Osama bin Laden.
I think it's completely relevant to review Bush's statements about Osama bin Laden:
"The important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number One priority and we will not rest until we find him!" George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
There is no doubt in my mind that Bush was being 100% honest when he said that he didn't care where bin Laden was. I don't think he's changed his mind since then. And that is at the very top of the list of reasons why I won't... why I can't vote for George W. Bush. I want a President who damn well cares about bringing to justice a madman who callously ordered the murder of thousands of innocent people here in America and elsewhere.
What the rightwing talking heads don't want Americans to understand is that a great many of us have never had a problem with the idea of going in after Saddam. But first things first! First we deal with sworn enemies who are directly responsible for murdering thousands in cold blood. Then when that's dealt with we can turn our attention to non-imminent threats like Saddam was.
Minimum Wage Can Stand Some Maximizing
The Economic Policy Institute has a really good opinion piece by Amy Chasanov called Minimum Wage Can Stand Some Maximizing. She talks about the need to raise the minimum wage and does a fair job of cutting thru the "he said, she said" charges coming from both sides about whether and why to do that. I particularly like the way she handles this one,
What she doesn't point out there is that it is absolutely fundamental to any capitalist free market economy that an employer will pay an employee the least amount of money that it takes to get the employee to do the job productively. In entry level low skill jobs there is zero incentive for employers to pay any more than they absolutely have to. That's an inherant attribute of a capitalist economy! So, right there the "classist" argument is revealed for the psycho-babble that it is. Which once again reminds me of Ed Schultz's third rule about righties - "they think you're stupid."
|
Opponents have recently argued that it's "classist" to believe that entry-level and low-wage workers cannot get a raise without a minimum wage increase.
Unfortunately, recent research shows that for some low-wage workers-particularly women, minorities, and the least-educated-the minimum wage affects not just their current earnings, but also their lifetime earnings potential. A nontrivial fraction of workers spend significant portions of their first 10 post-school, working years in jobs paying at or near minimum wage, so their current and future wages are intricately linked to the minimum wage.
What she doesn't point out there is that it is absolutely fundamental to any capitalist free market economy that an employer will pay an employee the least amount of money that it takes to get the employee to do the job productively. In entry level low skill jobs there is zero incentive for employers to pay any more than they absolutely have to. That's an inherant attribute of a capitalist economy! So, right there the "classist" argument is revealed for the psycho-babble that it is. Which once again reminds me of Ed Schultz's third rule about righties - "they think you're stupid."
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Vacationing....
I'm on vacation and without access to the blog until August 3.
Kevin and (hopefully) some guests will be blogging for the next two weeks without me.
I'll see you when I get back.
|
Kevin and (hopefully) some guests will be blogging for the next two weeks without me.
I'll see you when I get back.
As Evangelical as an Oak Tree
I'm one of those people who constantly does self reflection when it comes to my spiritual beliefs. Perhaps it was my early exposure to fundamentalist Christian notions and the rigid responses I would receive as a child when questioning those trying to teach me their theologies. As a child it was not for us to question our minister or Sunday School teacher. It was our job to listen and believe. Period.
Our Pastor was very big on Jerry Falwell. He preached about Falwell and his mission from the pulpit. When the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart had his "sin" with a prostitute and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had a run in with their accounting books...our Pastor preached about how squeaky clean Jerry Falwell was.
Falwell is to me now the essence of what is wrong with the Christian movement today. Rigid, extreme, fundamentalist, mean and prideful encompass much of what I see in Falwell's words and demeanor. Falwell is what he claims to hate: a pharisee.
Nowhere have I seen this more highlighted than this piece by Jim Wallis.
|
Our Pastor was very big on Jerry Falwell. He preached about Falwell and his mission from the pulpit. When the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart had his "sin" with a prostitute and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had a run in with their accounting books...our Pastor preached about how squeaky clean Jerry Falwell was.
Falwell is to me now the essence of what is wrong with the Christian movement today. Rigid, extreme, fundamentalist, mean and prideful encompass much of what I see in Falwell's words and demeanor. Falwell is what he claims to hate: a pharisee.
Nowhere have I seen this more highlighted than this piece by Jim Wallis.
Watch Tx-19 and WA-5...and kick Murray.
PK's inside the beltway source tells us another race in Texas that's got good vibes for the Dems is Charlie Stenholm. Stenholm is running in Texas-19 against Randy Neugebauer. We recommend keeping an eye on polling in this race.
Our source also tells us that "Washington is buzzing" about the very real possibility that the GOP could lose one of their crown jewels in the House: Washington-5. As you may recall, this seat was the emerald of the Republican Revolution in 1994 with Republican George Nethercutt defeating then Speaker of the House Tom Foley. There are three Republican candidates for this seat. None has been able to raise even $150,000 in the last 3 months. Our source refers to them as "the gang that can't shoot straight, or more accurately, at all". These three candidates must square off in the very late September 14 Washington Primary. The candidate that emerges victorious will then face DemocratDon Barbieri. Barbieri is the former CEO of West Coast Hotels. Barbieri's campaign chest is more than the three GOP candidates combined. In the end, a very broke GOP candidate will be running against a very well funded centrist (not conservative) Democrat.
On the flip side, a red flag race for the Dems is the Washington Senate seat of Patty Murray. There's concern that Murray's campaign appears very disorganized this election season. Some in Washington believe Murray isn't paying close enough attention to her campaign. The ironic "cherry on the cake" for this race is Murray's opponent: George Nethercutt. Noone is going so far yet as to say Ms Murray will lose the seat..but there's definitely some worry. The blogosphere might need to start pressing Ms. Murray to get her act together....
|
Our source also tells us that "Washington is buzzing" about the very real possibility that the GOP could lose one of their crown jewels in the House: Washington-5. As you may recall, this seat was the emerald of the Republican Revolution in 1994 with Republican George Nethercutt defeating then Speaker of the House Tom Foley. There are three Republican candidates for this seat. None has been able to raise even $150,000 in the last 3 months. Our source refers to them as "the gang that can't shoot straight, or more accurately, at all". These three candidates must square off in the very late September 14 Washington Primary. The candidate that emerges victorious will then face DemocratDon Barbieri. Barbieri is the former CEO of West Coast Hotels. Barbieri's campaign chest is more than the three GOP candidates combined. In the end, a very broke GOP candidate will be running against a very well funded centrist (not conservative) Democrat.
On the flip side, a red flag race for the Dems is the Washington Senate seat of Patty Murray. There's concern that Murray's campaign appears very disorganized this election season. Some in Washington believe Murray isn't paying close enough attention to her campaign. The ironic "cherry on the cake" for this race is Murray's opponent: George Nethercutt. Noone is going so far yet as to say Ms Murray will lose the seat..but there's definitely some worry. The blogosphere might need to start pressing Ms. Murray to get her act together....
Return to Main
