February 23, 2004
Anger Not An Agenda. Fiscal Irresponsibility Is.
Bush Launches More Aggressive CampaignChanging his campaign tactics, the president said the November election presents "a choice between keeping the tax relief that is moving this economy forward, or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people."Sure, my policies will lead to draconian service cuts and economic disaster, but restoring taxes on the rich -- that's unconscionable.
posted
6:00 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Maybe This Is Why We Elected The Buckpasser-In-Chief
Apparently, Bush has a lot of company. "Making Good" and "The Cheating Culture:"Researchers say we're breeding a nation ofSalon again, butcha only have ta watch the ad once per day.
cheats, scammers, egotists and buck
passers. But when researchers interviewed a
group of young actors, scientists and journalists,
guess who came out looking best?
posted
5:40 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Call Tech Support. Now!
Capitalism's efficiency in action: "We don't support that"We're not here to help fix your computer.It's Salon, so you know the drill.
We just want to get you off the phone.
A tech-support slave tells his hellish tale.
posted
5:17 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Rod Paige Criticizes Teachers Union
Rod Paige Calls NEA "Terrorist Organization"
Jesus H. Christ on a muthafuckin' crutch! Is there no level these bastards won't sink to?Rod Paige Criticizes Teachers Union
Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization" during a private White House meeting with governors on Monday.Oh, it was a joke. Almost as funny as Annie Coultergeist's "jokes." The man who helped destroy, while pretending to improve, Houston's school district made a ha ha.
Democratic and Republican governors confirmed Paige's remarks about the National Education Association.
"These were the words, 'The NEA is a terrorist organization,'" said Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin.
"He was making a joke, probably not a very good one," said Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. "Of course he immediately divorced the NEA from ordinary teachers, who he said he supports."
posted
1:47 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Another Unwashed, Hippie, Peacenik Bitch
An excerpt from an interview with retired Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski:You gave your life to the military, you voted Republican for many years, you say you served in the Pentagon right up to the outbreak of war. What does it feel like to be out now, publicly denouncing your old bosses?Ratboy's Anvil has the whole scooby, and ya better read it, or I'll kick yer ass. You'll thank me, I swear.
Know what it feels like? It feels like duty. That's what it feels like. I've thought about it many times. You know, I spent 20 years working for something that -- at least under this administration -- turned out to be something I wasn't working for. I mean, these people have total disrespect for the Constitution. We swear an oath, military officers and NCOs alike swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. These people have no respect for the Constitution. The Congress was misled, it was lied to. At a very minimum that is a subversion of the Constitution. A pre-emptive war based on what we knew was not a pressing need is not what this country stands for.
What I feel now is that I'm not retired. I still have a responsibility to do my part as a citizen to try and correct the problem.
posted
1:05 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
They write misleading headlines that don't reflect the story, a violation of one of the most basic cannons of journalism. A lot of people just skim the headlines. They write stories where the most important information is buried deep in the last few paragraphs, because most people don't read the whole story. Then there's story placement. During the run-up to the Iraq war, the national papers would regularly place stories that supported the administration's case on the front page while well-reasearched investigative stories that might have undermined the case were placed on pages like A19 and A21. Lots of people don't get that far in the paper.
One of the most common ways to bury a general interest story, though, is to put it in the business section. Mostly only business people and investors read the business section, yet labor stories, which just might be of interest to the average worker who doesn't read the business section, are usually placed there. This is why I always read the business section. This is among the most egregious examples I've found:
Bush to Revisit Changes in Medicaid Rules
Don't believe the NYTimes.com> Washington label at the top. If you go to the home page you'll find it listed in the business section, just as it was in my newsreader. I defy anyone to demonstrate to me that this is legitimately a business story. Ain't a fucking thing in it about business. It's general interest, and important general interest at that. The headline is a subtle lie. It should read "Bush to Revisit Cuts in Medicaid," because that's exactly the effect the "Rules" changes will have.
Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. . .
The Corporate Media: All The News That's Fit To Bury
I been reading newspapers a long time and I've figured out a few of the ways the news is slanted without actual censorship. First, try counting the number of times information is sourced to government officials or right wing think tanks (frequently not labeled as such) or party officials. You'll rarely see any information sourced to liberals or progressives. And they have several methods for burying the news.They write misleading headlines that don't reflect the story, a violation of one of the most basic cannons of journalism. A lot of people just skim the headlines. They write stories where the most important information is buried deep in the last few paragraphs, because most people don't read the whole story. Then there's story placement. During the run-up to the Iraq war, the national papers would regularly place stories that supported the administration's case on the front page while well-reasearched investigative stories that might have undermined the case were placed on pages like A19 and A21. Lots of people don't get that far in the paper.
One of the most common ways to bury a general interest story, though, is to put it in the business section. Mostly only business people and investors read the business section, yet labor stories, which just might be of interest to the average worker who doesn't read the business section, are usually placed there. This is why I always read the business section. This is among the most egregious examples I've found:
Bush to Revisit Changes in Medicaid Rules
Don't believe the NYTimes.com> Washington label at the top. If you go to the home page you'll find it listed in the business section, just as it was in my newsreader. I defy anyone to demonstrate to me that this is legitimately a business story. Ain't a fucking thing in it about business. It's general interest, and important general interest at that. The headline is a subtle lie. It should read "Bush to Revisit Cuts in Medicaid," because that's exactly the effect the "Rules" changes will have.
Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. Don't Believe The Corporate Media. . .
posted
9:30 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 22, 2004
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
I know this is gonna be tuff, what with dealing with ecological disaster compounded by economic collapse an' all, but I hope the people of the future, if there are any people in the future, find a way to bring the dead back to life. Then they can dig up all the right wing scumbag liars and all the lying corporate carbuncles on humanity's ass, and bring 'em back, and then fuckin' kill 'em again. Painfully. Or maybe just force 'em to live in the world they destroyed.
February 22, 2004
So You Think Terrorism's Our Biggest Problem, Huh?
If we are destroyed, the Pukelicans have destroyed us.Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..Well, shit, I'm wrong again. I said before that your kids would be telling your grandkids this but, apparently, it's gonna be you tellin' your kids and grandkids. "Thank the right wingers, like Bush, who denied the problem, kids. Thank the corporations that funded the lies because they placed more importance on money than human life. And don't forget the corporate media, kids, who were complicit in hiding the truth from the people."
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
[snip]
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.
[snip]
As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
[snip]
Already, according to [report authors] Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
[snip]
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said.
[snip]
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.
'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.' [But Bush said we needed an energy plan that encourages consumption.]
I know this is gonna be tuff, what with dealing with ecological disaster compounded by economic collapse an' all, but I hope the people of the future, if there are any people in the future, find a way to bring the dead back to life. Then they can dig up all the right wing scumbag liars and all the lying corporate carbuncles on humanity's ass, and bring 'em back, and then fuckin' kill 'em again. Painfully. Or maybe just force 'em to live in the world they destroyed.
posted
10:46 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives. . . .
You have your assignment, chilluns, now run with it. Spread the word. And now a couple of bumper stickerish suggestions.
Should Workers Vote?
For Cheap Labor Conservatives?
Had Enough Yet?
Of Corporate Feudalism?
UPDATE: Wait, wait, this is better.
Corporate Feudalism.
Had Enough Yet?
OK, maybe someone out there can figger a way to shorten those up. I'm not that great at pithy.
Another Slogan That Should Work
At the ever-expanding risk of proving my own self a fucking idiot, another great slogan for the left has occurred to me. Once again, it's not mine. I don't claim to be an original thinker. This one comes from Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy And Tactics, and if you haven't checked out his site, you should. He used ta be a trial lawyer, he knows how to argue. The man's sharp. I'm gonna try to promote a couple of phrases from his page, DEFEAT THE RIGHT IN THREE MINUTES. Sounds too good to be true, don't it?. . . the right has been pounding their slogans out into the public domain for getting on forty years.I believe he's right, but we gotta be prepared to hammer it, just like corporate media. Here it is:
So you need a really good slogan -- a "counter-slogan" really, to "deprogram" the brainwashed. You need a "magic bullet" that quickly and efficiently destroys the effectiveness of their "drum beat". You need your own "drum beat" that sums up the right's position. Only your "drum beat" exposes the ugly reality of right-wing philosophy -- the reality their slogans are meant to hide. Our slogan contains the governing concept that explains the entire right-wing agenda. That's why it works. You can see it in every policy, and virtually all of Republican rhetoric. And it's so easy to remember, and captures the essence of the Republican Right so well, we can pin it on them like a "scarlet letter".
Is there really a catch phrase -- a "magic bullet" -- that sums up the Republican Right in such a nice easy-to-grasp package. You better believe it, and it's downright elegant in its simplicity.
Cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives, cheap labor conservatives. . . .
You have your assignment, chilluns, now run with it. Spread the word. And now a couple of bumper stickerish suggestions.
Should Workers Vote?
For Cheap Labor Conservatives?
Had Enough Yet?
Of Corporate Feudalism?
UPDATE: Wait, wait, this is better.
Corporate Feudalism.
Had Enough Yet?
OK, maybe someone out there can figger a way to shorten those up. I'm not that great at pithy.
posted
8:25 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
OK, here it is:
Corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media . . . .
The beauty of it is it's true, it's fair, and, because of those two attributes, it'll work. We've kind of already started, but everyone's got to use it constantly, over and over and over. And over. And then some more. Repetition is everything here. Don't get tired, don't get bored, don't go looking for something new to replace it because it's trite. Think as though you have the dull, stubborn mind of a dinger. Relentless as the tarantula.
A Media Slogan We Can Use
I have been a critic of the idea that the left should use the same kinds of bumper stickerish sloganeering, repetition, and P.R. bullshit that has worked so well for the right on the grounds that real life is more complicated than that, plus most such phrases are lies. However, I just popped to a two word phrase we can use to counter a two word lie of the right if everyone will just constantly repeat it. It's certainly not my creation, but I would really like people to bear down and use it constantly in the same way that the right has used liberal media, liberal media, liberal media, liberal media . . . .OK, here it is:
Corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media, corporate media . . . .
The beauty of it is it's true, it's fair, and, because of those two attributes, it'll work. We've kind of already started, but everyone's got to use it constantly, over and over and over. And over. And then some more. Repetition is everything here. Don't get tired, don't get bored, don't go looking for something new to replace it because it's trite. Think as though you have the dull, stubborn mind of a dinger. Relentless as the tarantula.
posted
5:28 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Short version: Repukes are perceived as stronger on defense because of their pronounced, though largely ineffectual, aggression and the fact that they've managed to get at least over 30 times as many Americans killed per year as Democrats over the last 27 years. Oh, yeah, that and hellacious P.R. As usual.
I got a little different take here. The Pukes are saying John Kerry is weak on defense because he voted against gargantuan defense and intelligence budgets. A pretty good chunk of that money is basically corporate pork, of course, but who cares? Gotta have a strong defense, right? What's a little pocket change? Well . . . .
Over the last 41 years, Democratic presidents have averaged deficits of $25 billion a year. Republicans have averaged $131.6 billion a year. Ah, you say, but most of the Republicans have come in recent years when the economy, the government, and, above all, deficits have been bigger. Fair enough. The average deficit through the Raygun, Bush I, and Bush II years has been $191.2 billion a year and it looks like we're facing an average of around $500 billion a year for the next 10 years. Clinton's average deficit was $24.1 billion, lower than the Democratic average, and you can probably lay that at the feet of Raygun and Bush I.
Why all the deficit numbers? Now, ya know I'm gonna tell ya. After the Repukelicans have bankrupted America, how will we pay for defense? Hmm? What I want to say to the Pukes is, "It's still economics, ya dipshits!" Jus' a pleasant thought for a Sunday afternoon.
UPDATE: Found part 1, The Foreign Perception of the Democrats Remains, and it's a great examination of how the media were turned into a propaganda arm by the Booosh administration.
GOP Sez Dems Weak On Defense; Defense=Economy Too
Kevin Hayden at The American Street discusses in depth the Dems vs. Repukes on defense in Foreign Perception of the Democrats, Pt. 2.Short version: Repukes are perceived as stronger on defense because of their pronounced, though largely ineffectual, aggression and the fact that they've managed to get at least over 30 times as many Americans killed per year as Democrats over the last 27 years. Oh, yeah, that and hellacious P.R. As usual.
I got a little different take here. The Pukes are saying John Kerry is weak on defense because he voted against gargantuan defense and intelligence budgets. A pretty good chunk of that money is basically corporate pork, of course, but who cares? Gotta have a strong defense, right? What's a little pocket change? Well . . . .
Over the last 41 years, Democratic presidents have averaged deficits of $25 billion a year. Republicans have averaged $131.6 billion a year. Ah, you say, but most of the Republicans have come in recent years when the economy, the government, and, above all, deficits have been bigger. Fair enough. The average deficit through the Raygun, Bush I, and Bush II years has been $191.2 billion a year and it looks like we're facing an average of around $500 billion a year for the next 10 years. Clinton's average deficit was $24.1 billion, lower than the Democratic average, and you can probably lay that at the feet of Raygun and Bush I.
Why all the deficit numbers? Now, ya know I'm gonna tell ya. After the Repukelicans have bankrupted America, how will we pay for defense? Hmm? What I want to say to the Pukes is, "It's still economics, ya dipshits!" Jus' a pleasant thought for a Sunday afternoon.
UPDATE: Found part 1, The Foreign Perception of the Democrats Remains, and it's a great examination of how the media were turned into a propaganda arm by the Booosh administration.
posted
3:25 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
What Don't The Global Warming Know-it-alls Know?
Great Barrier Reef Faces Major Coral DestructionAustralia's Great Barrier Reef will lose most of its coral cover by 2050 and, at worst, the world's largest coral system could collapse by 2100 because of global warming, a study released on Saturday said.The entire Great Barrier Reef is going to die due to global warming. That's just one of the bad things we know are going to happen. I can virtually gar-own-tee they's bad things gonna happen that we don't know about yet. There's a good chance at least one of them will be really bad. Someday, as they look out over a blighted world, your kids can tell they're grandkids (assuming humans survive that long), "Thank the right wing, corporate apologist nutjobs who just wouldn't listen to the scientists, kids. If only they weren't dead we could put them on trial for crimes against humanity."
The study by Queensland University's Center for Marine Studies, commissioned by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, said that the destruction of coral on the Great Barrier Reef was inevitable due to global warming, regardless of what actions were taken now.
posted
1:25 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Jesus Christ, man, if you wanted so badly to be abused, why the hell dincha go to a dominatrix and leave the rest of us out of it? You got the money.
I'm beginning ta think this muthafucka has gone over ta tha dark side. I have a plan, in case anybody missed it and is intersted: For Progressives: What We're Gonna Do. (3rd post down.)
Naaderrr! You're A Stupid Son Of A Bitch!
Ignoring Democrats' Pleas, Nader Announces Run for White HouseJesus Christ, man, if you wanted so badly to be abused, why the hell dincha go to a dominatrix and leave the rest of us out of it? You got the money.
He said he wanted to challenge what he called the "two-party duopoly" in American politics in which both the Democrats and the Republicans are "ferociously competing to see who's going to go to the White House and take orders from their corporate paymasters."Obviously, this silly fuck doesn't read my blog. Either that or he has the chutzpah not to b'lieve me. You cannot challenge the two-party system without substantially changing the way we elect politcians. We only have two rational choices. 1) Work within the Repukelican party. OK, I think we can write that off as deranged. 2) Work to change the Democratic party back into the party of the people, not the powerful. (Yeah, I know Al said the same thing, but I actually mean it.) "Those aren't our only choices. We can build a third party movement." Yeah. If you know somebody what can walk on water, maybe. Cuz it'll definitely take a miracle.
I'm beginning ta think this muthafucka has gone over ta tha dark side. I have a plan, in case anybody missed it and is intersted: For Progressives: What We're Gonna Do. (3rd post down.)
posted
11:06 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
ACORN has a petition to stop these practices which reads, in part:
Sign the petition and spread the word. Purty please. And have a look see at ACORN. They're doin' good work, and doin' it by organizing.
Jesus said, "Don't Do Nothin' Fer The Poor."
This is from a letter sent to H&R Block by Consumers Union:According to your website, a Refund Anticipation Loan takes approximately two days. If the same consumer filed her taxes electronically and had the funds deposited directly into her bank account, she could receive the funds in approximately ten days. Therefore the consumer pays these high fees to receive her refund eight days earlier. According to a recent report by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) and Consumer Federation of America (CFA), the fee for a RAL for a $1,900 tax return, the average federal tax return in 2000, is $74.95. The interest rate on such a transaction calculated as an annual percentage interest rate is 149.9%.One hundred and fifty percent! Square that with the Bible, dingers. You read the Bible literally until it conflicts with some other dearly held mythology like, f'r instance, capitalism. The H&Rat Bastard tax preparers are plumpin' their profits by fuckin' low wage workers. But iss OK, cuz I remember Jesus sayin, "Screw the least among you, for God don't like 'em much anyways."
ACORN has a petition to stop these practices which reads, in part:
Arranging to loan people the money they are owed back by the government for a week or two at triple digit interest rates is predatory; aggressively promoting products which skim off hundreds of millions of dollars which are supposed to go to low wage workers is unconscionable.I just became the 599th person to sign. We can do better than that, peebles.
Sign the petition and spread the word. Purty please. And have a look see at ACORN. They're doin' good work, and doin' it by organizing.
posted
8:39 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Coming Attraction: Predictable Campaign Lie On Jobs
The Bush-Rove Perpetual Campaign Machine is already revving up the lie that the economy, especially the jobs picture, is much better than it appears. They're going to try to claim that the payroll survey is screwy so we should really trust the household survey. Only a couple a wee problems with that. Two Tales of American Jobs:The puzzle is the enormous divergence between the two surveys that are used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure job creation and unemployment. The payroll survey, which is based on a monthly poll of 400,000 employers, shows a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001. The household survey, based on questions posed to people in 50,000 households, shows an increase of more than 500,000 jobs over the same period.Those employers are big employers with lots of employees. Those households represent very few actual workers, relatively. The payroll survey uses a vastly larger sample. That's probably one reason why a big majority of economists consider the payroll survey more accurate. The Repukes prefer the household survey for a better reason, though. It makes Bush look better.
If the payroll survey is correct, Mr. Bush is on track to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to complete a term in office with fewer jobs than when he started. If the household survey is correct, Mr. Bush can claim credit for creating jobs despite the blows of a recession, terrorist attacks and two wars.The first since Hoobert Heever! Thass purty bad. The payroll survey shows a loss of 2 million jobs under Boosh, the household survey shows a gain of half a million. Did I mention that the household survey is based on self-reporting? You always get the best info that way, cuz peebles always tells the troof. One prominent Republican economist had this to say:
"I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate,'' Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, said in his testimony at a House hearing on Feb. 11. "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.''I bet he does wish it. An' if wishes was fishes . . . The Fed made some adjustments to the household survey, and many of the jobs disappeared.
The good news for the job market is that both surveys are now pointing to increases in employment. The bad news is that, compared with previous economic recoveries, both measures suggest that job growth remains well below par.They worked, dammit! The tax cuts worked! Well, if your rich, anyway. Don'tcha love readin' tha bidness section?
posted
7:32 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Dealing with them in order:
1) The harm argument: Shouldn't opponents have to demonstrate that with significant evee-dense? If they could do that, wouldn't we all have heard about it by now?
2) Religion. Doesn't matter. Ours is a secular government by design. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. Really, it guarantees freedom of belief. So why shouldn't people be free to believe that gay marriage is bang-on, square-up, okey-dokey, fine and dandy without the secular government discriminating against them on religious grounds? Besides, there's no actual religious consensus on the subject, although even if there were, it wouldn't change my argument.
3) Tradition. Dumb argument on at least two grounds. Doesn't surprise me a bit that the far right thinks it's a great argument. Why ya t'ink I calls 'em dingers? Not that tradition is necessarily a bad thing. It should be respected, but it should also be looked at with a critical eye. First, marriage hasn't always been defined as one man and one woman, only mostly. There have been many other forms of marriage. There're still plenty a polygynists in the world today, some in the Middle East, some in Utah, some in other places as well.
Second, monarchy was traditional, feudalism was traditional, the subjection of women was traditional, treating children as property was traditional, slavery was traditional, torture was traditional. Even today, the treatment of women in Muslim country's owes more to tradition than to Islam. I'm pretty sure I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Should we bring back every horror that was once considered traditional?
So where's another rational, logical defense of forbidding gay marriage? Huh? Cuz I sez, bring it, meat! I'll knock that motherfucker right outta tha park!
Attacking Gay Marriage On "Traditional" Grounds
Seem ta me they's only t'ree ways ta attack gay marriage: 1) It causes actual harm. 2) It's against [whoever's] religion. 3) Tradition. Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman.Dealing with them in order:
1) The harm argument: Shouldn't opponents have to demonstrate that with significant evee-dense? If they could do that, wouldn't we all have heard about it by now?
2) Religion. Doesn't matter. Ours is a secular government by design. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. Really, it guarantees freedom of belief. So why shouldn't people be free to believe that gay marriage is bang-on, square-up, okey-dokey, fine and dandy without the secular government discriminating against them on religious grounds? Besides, there's no actual religious consensus on the subject, although even if there were, it wouldn't change my argument.
3) Tradition. Dumb argument on at least two grounds. Doesn't surprise me a bit that the far right thinks it's a great argument. Why ya t'ink I calls 'em dingers? Not that tradition is necessarily a bad thing. It should be respected, but it should also be looked at with a critical eye. First, marriage hasn't always been defined as one man and one woman, only mostly. There have been many other forms of marriage. There're still plenty a polygynists in the world today, some in the Middle East, some in Utah, some in other places as well.
Second, monarchy was traditional, feudalism was traditional, the subjection of women was traditional, treating children as property was traditional, slavery was traditional, torture was traditional. Even today, the treatment of women in Muslim country's owes more to tradition than to Islam. I'm pretty sure I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Should we bring back every horror that was once considered traditional?
So where's another rational, logical defense of forbidding gay marriage? Huh? Cuz I sez, bring it, meat! I'll knock that motherfucker right outta tha park!
posted
6:59 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 21, 2004
February 21, 2004
No Child's Ass Left And Other Unfunded Mandates
'No Child Left Behind' Hurts Schools - DemocratsDemocrats charged on Saturday that President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law is wreaking havoc in U.S. schools by imposing new educational burdens without paying for them.Ain't jus' Democrats, pibbles. I know of Repukes in Utah and other states that are also bitching.
[Arizona Governor Janet] Napolitano said the president's federal budget was pushing billions of dollars in spending requirements onto state and local governments.You get a big ol' tax cut (if your rich) and the tax burden devolves onto the states, nearly all of which have a regressive tax structure that puts the tax burden on the non-rich. Poof, yer tax break's gone. Thankee, baBushka. We the people are so much better off. And we get improved homeland security as well. Be still, my beating heart.
"We are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to rely on the current administration to help us tackle our states' challenges. In fact, the administration often causes them," she said.
She said nearly $1 billion in federal funding for homeland security and bioterrorism response efforts had been cut, leaving local police and firefighters without the training and equipment they need to keep communities safe.
posted
6:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
But putting ailing, suffering people out of their misery at their own request is completely wrong and totally evil and will result in the extinction of the human race.
Prezeedent Boosh Embraces Culture Of Death!
Bush Dog Put to Sleep Due to Health WoesBut putting ailing, suffering people out of their misery at their own request is completely wrong and totally evil and will result in the extinction of the human race.
posted
5:16 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
If you cast a vote for anyone other than a Democrat or a Repuke, because you're too pure of heart to "waste" your vote on a nasty-ass CorporaDem, let me tell ya what you're gonna do. You'll cast half a vote for the Repukelicans and their proto-fascist wings (and I hope that makes you feel as bad as it should), and shoot the other half a vote straight into oblivion. Unless you're a right winger, not voting for the Democrat is worse than wasting your vote.
Ain't gonna be no third party movement creating a paradigm change in American politics. There have been at least a thousand alternative party movements and, best I can recollect, only one ever succeeded in supplanting a major party. And the Whigs fucked up pretty bad. I know the Dems are fuck ups, but it's a mighty thin reed to place all your hopes on the Dems fuckin' up as bad as the Whigs did.
Progressives say, "Oh, but the Dems are awful and the Publicans are worse. Whatever can we do?" Well, first, they've made a key point, though I don't know if they know it. The Repukelicans are worse. I don't want to hear any crap about how if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil. Of course you are, but if you only get two choices, the lesser of two evils is a no-brainer.
So we're stuck with the Demorats. That's the bad news. Here's the good news. The "movement" conservatives who exert such a powerful influence over the GOPukes today started exactly where we are today. In 1964, after Goldwater's crushing defeat, the right wing pseudo-cons were battered, defeated (so we thought), and wandering in the wilderness. They had virtually no power over the more or less honorable GOP of the time. They were right where we are now. Being pseudo-cons, though, they didn't know they were beaten. Their limitless optimism blinded them to the barriers in their path.
The far right pseudo-cons didn't set out to build their own party, they set out to get their hands on the levers of power in the Republican party, and they did. Not overnight, not over a few years, it took decades, but they never quit. Relentless as the tarantula.
Okay, they had advantages we don't have. Dull intellects aren't easily distracted or dissuaded. They had a far right money spigot flowing day and night for all those years. That spigot's still wide open and there is no left wing counterpart.
Nevertheless, they have shown us the way. First, we need to work within the Democratic party. Instead of working to build an alternative, we have to transform the Democrats into an alternative. Don't tell me it can't be done. The pseudo-cons did it.
So how are we gonna do that? First, we rid ourselves of the notion that corruption is the problem. Corruption is the reality, a natural part of politics and therefore gummint. We rid of ourselves of the notion that politicians are corrupt because they're greedy or evil.
Most politicians aren't in it for the money. Most could make more in the private sector. The money from the legal bribery that has become the basis of our political system doesn't, for the most part, wind up in the pockets of politicians. It winds up in their campaign chests. Senators aren't rich because they're Senators, they're Senators because they're rich.
What drives politicians is the need to get elected. Most politicians are in it for the power. That ain't necessarily a bad thing, either.
Here's the story I heard about Huey P. Long, the "Kingfish" of Louisiana. It may not be true, but it illustrates my point. Huey Long was a radical, he wanted desperately to help the common man. Hell, Huey P. was the common man. The first time Huey P. ran for office, he got beat by the corruption of his opponent and he said, "That ain't never gonna happen agin." I don't know if they say agin in Louisiana, but what the hell. Huey decided that from then on he'd be the most corrupt politician in every race, not because he was evil, but because if he didn't get elected he couldn't do what he wanted to do. How'd it work out? There's a verse in a Randy Newman song where the Kingfish says:
Course, the fact we don't have, and we prolly ain't gonna have, that money spigot is a serious obstacle. The way to overcome that obstacle is with numbers.
We can have the people, but to get 'em we're gonna have to become a movement instead of a loose collection of single issue splinters. That means we're gonna have to prioritize issues. That doesn't mean abandoning any important issue, it means putting some issues on the backburner until we have the power to do something about them.
We can have the people, but to get 'em we've got to appeal to them on bread and butter issues, not the boutique issues of the week. Lemme tell ya somethin' 'bout us lower class workin' folk. It's not that we don't care about boutiques, it's that we actively resent and even hate them. Not the boutique itself, and not the boutique issues, either. What we hate is the pretension, and what we resent is that we can't afford it. Bread and butter issues are the only issues the bottom 40% can manage to eke out time or energy enough to care about. And don't tell me what workin' folk should care about. Should is bullshit. I'm tellin' you what is.
That brings up another point. Ya can't talk down ta workin' folk. Tellin' 'em what they should care about is talkin' down. Everybody has a sense of dignity, no matter how hard the bosses try to take it away, and everybody knows their own real needs.
We can have the people and the Democratic party, but it's gonna take a lot of people who are willing to accept reality and willing to work. It's gonna take organizing on the street and organizing within the party, and it's gonna take bringing those two organizing efforts together.
Ya might think it's gonna be awful hard to drag the Democratic party away from the corporate tit. Well, it is gonna be hard, but not as hard as you think. Politicians want to get elected, but they want to get elected because they want power.
What I'm talking about is the Democrats only chance to ever wield power again. If they listen to the DLC and keep trying to beat the corporate Repukes by being corporate Repukes Lite, I guarantee they will condemn themselves to powerless, minority party status from now unto eternity.
What we've got to do is show the Democratic politicians that, though we can't deliver money, we can deliver votes. The only way we can deliver those votes is by organizing, informing, helping and caring about the middle and lower classes. "But the lower classes don't vote." No, why should they? Who represents them? Besides, they're busy. Absentee ballots would help with the last. Representation would take care of the rest. We have to convince that they will be represented.
This is the only way the Democrats will ever have real power again, and the only way non-bread and butter progressive issues will ever be seriously addressed.
A lot of left/liberals and progressives (if there's a difference) are friggin' dilletantes. Many, many say, "Ooo, we must save the snail darter, we must save the spotted owl," and then focus all their energy on that. And it's a terrible mistake.
Am I saying such issues are unimportant? Of course not. I'm saying single issue politics is self-defeating. It splinters the left and dissipates what power we have, and we don't have enough as it is.
We've got to come together as a movement and we have got to learn to prioritize. I think environmental issues are enormous, life-and-death issues. Environmental problems threaten the well-being of all mankind. So the environment should be our number one issue. Eehhhnnnttt. Waayyy wrong. I'll explain.
Why do you think most progressives are affluent (And, like Barbara Ehrenreich, frustrated by what they see in the poor.)? Ya know I'm gonna tell ya.
Take a not entirely proven case that all mankind faces ecological disaster in the not too distant future. Gather up your undeniable facts and figures. Now, sell it to a man who don't know where his next meal is comin' from. If you can do it, get a sales job. You'll surely get rich. Most progressives are affluent because it's the affluent who have the luxury of being progressive.
The economic problems in this country are so severe, and getting worse so fast, that improving the economic situation of the majority has to be our number one priority. Does that sound crass, materialistic, greedy? Eehhhnnnttt. Waayyy wrong again. I'll explain.
If we can subtantially improve the economic lot of the bottom 60% in this country, and limit corporate power in the process, yer gonna be surprised how much easier it will be to deal with all the other issues near and dear to progressives. It's amazing how much more magnanimous people become when their figurative bellies are full. But a starving man around food is about the greediest creature alive. Economic improvement for the majority will be both a good thing in itself, and a means to a multiplicity of ends.
You can quibble with the details, you can quibble with my whole plan. If you think you got a better plan, I got Dumbo ears. I'm listenin'. But I'd think it's pretty obvious by now that what we been doin' ain't workin'.
For Progressives: What We're Gonna Do
Saw a commenter the other day who said, roughly, "If I waste my vote on a Democrat, it will be at the last minute, in the voting booth." This is a big issue. Word is Nader is gonna declare his candidacy Sunday. Listen carefully. If you cast your vote for anyone other than a Democrat in November, or in any other election year, you're insane. Okay, probably not clinically, but practically, you're insane.If you cast a vote for anyone other than a Democrat or a Repuke, because you're too pure of heart to "waste" your vote on a nasty-ass CorporaDem, let me tell ya what you're gonna do. You'll cast half a vote for the Repukelicans and their proto-fascist wings (and I hope that makes you feel as bad as it should), and shoot the other half a vote straight into oblivion. Unless you're a right winger, not voting for the Democrat is worse than wasting your vote.
Ain't gonna be no third party movement creating a paradigm change in American politics. There have been at least a thousand alternative party movements and, best I can recollect, only one ever succeeded in supplanting a major party. And the Whigs fucked up pretty bad. I know the Dems are fuck ups, but it's a mighty thin reed to place all your hopes on the Dems fuckin' up as bad as the Whigs did.
Progressives say, "Oh, but the Dems are awful and the Publicans are worse. Whatever can we do?" Well, first, they've made a key point, though I don't know if they know it. The Repukelicans are worse. I don't want to hear any crap about how if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil. Of course you are, but if you only get two choices, the lesser of two evils is a no-brainer.
So we're stuck with the Demorats. That's the bad news. Here's the good news. The "movement" conservatives who exert such a powerful influence over the GOPukes today started exactly where we are today. In 1964, after Goldwater's crushing defeat, the right wing pseudo-cons were battered, defeated (so we thought), and wandering in the wilderness. They had virtually no power over the more or less honorable GOP of the time. They were right where we are now. Being pseudo-cons, though, they didn't know they were beaten. Their limitless optimism blinded them to the barriers in their path.
The far right pseudo-cons didn't set out to build their own party, they set out to get their hands on the levers of power in the Republican party, and they did. Not overnight, not over a few years, it took decades, but they never quit. Relentless as the tarantula.
Okay, they had advantages we don't have. Dull intellects aren't easily distracted or dissuaded. They had a far right money spigot flowing day and night for all those years. That spigot's still wide open and there is no left wing counterpart.
Nevertheless, they have shown us the way. First, we need to work within the Democratic party. Instead of working to build an alternative, we have to transform the Democrats into an alternative. Don't tell me it can't be done. The pseudo-cons did it.
So how are we gonna do that? First, we rid ourselves of the notion that corruption is the problem. Corruption is the reality, a natural part of politics and therefore gummint. We rid of ourselves of the notion that politicians are corrupt because they're greedy or evil.
Most politicians aren't in it for the money. Most could make more in the private sector. The money from the legal bribery that has become the basis of our political system doesn't, for the most part, wind up in the pockets of politicians. It winds up in their campaign chests. Senators aren't rich because they're Senators, they're Senators because they're rich.
What drives politicians is the need to get elected. Most politicians are in it for the power. That ain't necessarily a bad thing, either.
Here's the story I heard about Huey P. Long, the "Kingfish" of Louisiana. It may not be true, but it illustrates my point. Huey Long was a radical, he wanted desperately to help the common man. Hell, Huey P. was the common man. The first time Huey P. ran for office, he got beat by the corruption of his opponent and he said, "That ain't never gonna happen agin." I don't know if they say agin in Louisiana, but what the hell. Huey decided that from then on he'd be the most corrupt politician in every race, not because he was evil, but because if he didn't get elected he couldn't do what he wanted to do. How'd it work out? There's a verse in a Randy Newman song where the Kingfish says:
Who built the highway to Baton Rouge?Power is neither good nor evil, it's a tool. If you're too pure to tolerate any corruption, you need to read Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals.
Who put up your hospitals and built your schools?
Who takes care of shitkickers like you?
The Kingfish do.
Course, the fact we don't have, and we prolly ain't gonna have, that money spigot is a serious obstacle. The way to overcome that obstacle is with numbers.
We can have the people, but to get 'em we're gonna have to become a movement instead of a loose collection of single issue splinters. That means we're gonna have to prioritize issues. That doesn't mean abandoning any important issue, it means putting some issues on the backburner until we have the power to do something about them.
We can have the people, but to get 'em we've got to appeal to them on bread and butter issues, not the boutique issues of the week. Lemme tell ya somethin' 'bout us lower class workin' folk. It's not that we don't care about boutiques, it's that we actively resent and even hate them. Not the boutique itself, and not the boutique issues, either. What we hate is the pretension, and what we resent is that we can't afford it. Bread and butter issues are the only issues the bottom 40% can manage to eke out time or energy enough to care about. And don't tell me what workin' folk should care about. Should is bullshit. I'm tellin' you what is.
That brings up another point. Ya can't talk down ta workin' folk. Tellin' 'em what they should care about is talkin' down. Everybody has a sense of dignity, no matter how hard the bosses try to take it away, and everybody knows their own real needs.
We can have the people and the Democratic party, but it's gonna take a lot of people who are willing to accept reality and willing to work. It's gonna take organizing on the street and organizing within the party, and it's gonna take bringing those two organizing efforts together.
Ya might think it's gonna be awful hard to drag the Democratic party away from the corporate tit. Well, it is gonna be hard, but not as hard as you think. Politicians want to get elected, but they want to get elected because they want power.
What I'm talking about is the Democrats only chance to ever wield power again. If they listen to the DLC and keep trying to beat the corporate Repukes by being corporate Repukes Lite, I guarantee they will condemn themselves to powerless, minority party status from now unto eternity.
What we've got to do is show the Democratic politicians that, though we can't deliver money, we can deliver votes. The only way we can deliver those votes is by organizing, informing, helping and caring about the middle and lower classes. "But the lower classes don't vote." No, why should they? Who represents them? Besides, they're busy. Absentee ballots would help with the last. Representation would take care of the rest. We have to convince that they will be represented.
This is the only way the Democrats will ever have real power again, and the only way non-bread and butter progressive issues will ever be seriously addressed.
A lot of left/liberals and progressives (if there's a difference) are friggin' dilletantes. Many, many say, "Ooo, we must save the snail darter, we must save the spotted owl," and then focus all their energy on that. And it's a terrible mistake.
Am I saying such issues are unimportant? Of course not. I'm saying single issue politics is self-defeating. It splinters the left and dissipates what power we have, and we don't have enough as it is.
We've got to come together as a movement and we have got to learn to prioritize. I think environmental issues are enormous, life-and-death issues. Environmental problems threaten the well-being of all mankind. So the environment should be our number one issue. Eehhhnnnttt. Waayyy wrong. I'll explain.
Why do you think most progressives are affluent (And, like Barbara Ehrenreich, frustrated by what they see in the poor.)? Ya know I'm gonna tell ya.
Take a not entirely proven case that all mankind faces ecological disaster in the not too distant future. Gather up your undeniable facts and figures. Now, sell it to a man who don't know where his next meal is comin' from. If you can do it, get a sales job. You'll surely get rich. Most progressives are affluent because it's the affluent who have the luxury of being progressive.
The economic problems in this country are so severe, and getting worse so fast, that improving the economic situation of the majority has to be our number one priority. Does that sound crass, materialistic, greedy? Eehhhnnnttt. Waayyy wrong again. I'll explain.
If we can subtantially improve the economic lot of the bottom 60% in this country, and limit corporate power in the process, yer gonna be surprised how much easier it will be to deal with all the other issues near and dear to progressives. It's amazing how much more magnanimous people become when their figurative bellies are full. But a starving man around food is about the greediest creature alive. Economic improvement for the majority will be both a good thing in itself, and a means to a multiplicity of ends.
You can quibble with the details, you can quibble with my whole plan. If you think you got a better plan, I got Dumbo ears. I'm listenin'. But I'd think it's pretty obvious by now that what we been doin' ain't workin'.
posted
2:30 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
We're probably headed for some kind of economic crunch. Thanks to Bush's brilliant economic policies, it's gonna be a lot worse than it otherwise would've been. When it comes (I feel less and less need to add "if"), I don't know if it's gonna be a slow-motion or a sudden collapse. If it's sudden, there's gonna be a sudden increase in the number of F-You Boys. If it's sudden, we're talkin' Great Depression or worse. Need I remind that, globally, it was the Great Depression that sparked the greatest eruption of fascism of the 20th century? We could suddenly have an army of Brownshirts on our hands.
We may not be able to prevent economic collapse, but if we can muster the political will and power, we can probably cushion the impact on the middle and lower classes. And we better get busy layin' the groundwork. Sure, it'll piss off the rich, but so what? We can kick their asses.
The Proto-Fascists In The GOP
No, no, no, I'm not calling Bush or the GOP fascist. Not yet. Here we're talking about sub-groups within the GOP. Billmon at Whiskey Bar discusses this in Patriot Games. He quotes some figures from Stanley Greenberg's book, The Two Americas.. . . the number of voters who say they have no religious preference and rarely, if ever, go to church (29% of the electorate) now exceeds the number who say they attend weekly (25%, down from 33% in 1984.)All right, that's one possibly proto-fascist group, but I don't really sweat them at this point. Sure, they're a huge pain in the ass, but they're only 17% of the electorate, and I'm pretty sure they're not all proto-fascists. A good many of them may be, but even among that group, I don't think many have much stomach for a fight. They're good followers, they might make good soldiers, but most won't make good shock troops. Not many berserkers among 'em.
Of course, within that declining fraction, fundamentalist and evangelical sects have steadily gained market share from the more "liberal" mainstream denominations. Which is why white evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants (about 17% of the electorate) have become the most loyal -- mindlessly loyal -- element within the Republican coalition. And as their fear of secular America has grown, their political instincts have become increasingly authoritarian. If one of the central characteristics of any fascist movement is blind obedience to the leader -- the Fuehrerprinzip -- then a lot of these people are already there. Increasingly, their role in the GOP coalition is to believe and do whatever their leaders (pastor and president) tell them to believe and do.
The F-You BoysThese guys are dangerous. They're tough, they're angry, they're violence-prone, and they're armed. They're prototypical Brownshirts. But they're only 6% of the electorate, and Billmon says they're in decline. They're not a problem at the moment either because there just aren't enough of them. But are they really in decline?
But the religious right is only one wing of the emerging fascist movement within the Republican coalition. The other half - the rowdier, less predictable half - is also white, male (or at least, male-dominated) and culturally reactionary. But it's also less church-oriented and more overtly and ferociously racist. Greenberg calls them the "F-You" Boys: downwardly mobile lower middle class or working-class men, largely nonunionized, intensely nationalistic, if not xenophobic, and - above all - angry.
It's an extremely diffuse anger, which may, depending on the topic, be directed at blacks, immigrants, foreigners, educated women, liberals, bureaucrats in Washington - or all of the above. These were the core Perot voters, the Ventura voters. If they could invent a candidate, he would probably look a lot like Arnold Schwartzenegger, except meaner.
These guys are less authoritarian than the Faithful, but just about as gullible, and in some ways even more disoriented by American post-modernism - which has hurt them economically as well as socially. They're also a vanishing breed, down to 6% of the electorate, versus 20% when the first JFK won the presidency.
We're probably headed for some kind of economic crunch. Thanks to Bush's brilliant economic policies, it's gonna be a lot worse than it otherwise would've been. When it comes (I feel less and less need to add "if"), I don't know if it's gonna be a slow-motion or a sudden collapse. If it's sudden, there's gonna be a sudden increase in the number of F-You Boys. If it's sudden, we're talkin' Great Depression or worse. Need I remind that, globally, it was the Great Depression that sparked the greatest eruption of fascism of the 20th century? We could suddenly have an army of Brownshirts on our hands.
We may not be able to prevent economic collapse, but if we can muster the political will and power, we can probably cushion the impact on the middle and lower classes. And we better get busy layin' the groundwork. Sure, it'll piss off the rich, but so what? We can kick their asses.
posted
1:31 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Total Poverty Awareness, an op-ed by David Shipler, a former NY Times correspondent and Pulitzer winner for non-fiction, who spent nine years working on The Working Poor: Invisible in America.
Shipler says services for the poor are scattered, compartmentalized, difficult and time-consuming to access and therefore many of the poor, especially the working poor, don't get benefits.
Immoral Minority Corrupts Majority - On Poverty
Rich Lowry, NRO, wrote:Unless Democrats offer serious solutions to poverty, however, the poor only serve as props for their moral vanity.True, true, all too true. And if the Repukelicans offer false and misleading solutions to poverty, what do the poor serve as?
Total Poverty Awareness, an op-ed by David Shipler, a former NY Times correspondent and Pulitzer winner for non-fiction, who spent nine years working on The Working Poor: Invisible in America.
Some educators and other specialists speak of a "culture of poverty" [And Heritage says the inferior culture of those damned inferior black folks is what's really holdin' down. And how dare you call that racist?] as if it were a collection of mores, values and rituals. But poverty is not a culture. It's more like an ecological system of relationships among individuals, families and the environment of schools, neighborhoods, jobs and government services. Professionals who aid the poor witness the toxic interactions every day. Doctors see patients affected by dangerous housing, erratic work schedules, transportation difficulties and poor child-rearing skills. Teachers see pupils undermined by violence at home and malnutrition.Extrapolate, pibbles. And at least read the op-ed if not the book. This is tip of the iceberg stuff. And the great moral arbiters of the right condemn the poor for not grabbing the chance they were never given. I discuss one of the major falsehoods the Heritage con-Foundation has used create an "everybody knows" mythology about the unwed birthrate in How The Immoral Minority Sells The Republican Agenda. It ain't hardly an isolated case. The technique is always the same. Come up with a lie that people want to hear, usually a lie that justifies greed and selfishness, a lie that focuses hostility on the victims rather than the perpetrators, like the "culture of victimization" lie intended to demonize victims by denying their existence.
About 35 million Americans live below the federal poverty line. Their opportunities are defined by forces that may look unrelated, but decades of research have mapped the web of connections. A 1987 study of 215 children attributed differences in I.Q. in part to "social risk factors" like maternal anxiety and stress, which are common features of impoverished households. Research in the 1990's demonstrated how the paint and pipes of slum housing — major sources of lead — damage the developing brains of children. Youngsters with elevated lead levels have lower I.Q.'s and attention deficits, and — according to a 1990 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine — were seven times more likely to drop out of school.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Then gather a careful selection of facts and statistics taken out of context and twisted to look as though they prove something they emphatically do not, throw in a few juicy anecdotes a la Raygun, and publicize, publicize, publicize. Voila, a new cultural myth is born. The f'right dingers' professional super propagandists should have "egregious" tattooed on their foreheads.
Galbraith, John Kenneth
Shipler says services for the poor are scattered, compartmentalized, difficult and time-consuming to access and therefore many of the poor, especially the working poor, don't get benefits.
One remedy, tried by community action centers created by the War on Poverty, put a variety of specialists under one roof. Their effectiveness unsettled politicians. "Mayors didn't like them because they were doing something that was very good," recalls Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science and sociology at City University of New York. "They were badgering municipal agencies to provide services." The money for the centers eventually dried up.Mayors didn't like them because providing benefits costs more money than pretending to provide benefits. "Those rat bastard mayors!" Not so hasty, now. Pretending to provide benefits has high electoral value. Providing benefits runs into the law of diminishing returns in a hurry. Imagine this next part as a political speech.
We need more than patchwork projects[!] We need a sweeping national program to create what could be called gateways. At private and public institutions that are frequented every day — clinics, schools, food banks, housing projects, police precincts and the like — a person should be able to find easy referrals to child-rearing instruction, drug treatment and whatever other assistance people need[!]And all the pibbles scream, "Yeah! Yeah! What a wonderful man! Let's all vote for Mr. Compassion!
!"[Mr. Compassion then adds, "Of course, all this will require a tax increase."]And all the good pibbles say, "FUCK YOU!!!"
What works is an intensive, holistic approach like the one used by the Maya Angelou Charter School in Washington. The school brings its 100 students in for breakfast and keeps them until after dinner. They have small classes, homework sessions with 75 volunteers and counseling from three full-time social workers and a psychologist. Most students arrive in 10th grade reading at sixth- or seventh-grade levels; three years later 70 percent go to college. The cost isn't low — it runs over $25,000 annually per student — but it is a humane investment, one that is helped in part by donations. With more money, the school could become a platform for supporting whole families.See, we know what works. That ain't the problem. The problem is we don't know what works on the cheap.
posted
12:50 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 20, 2004
February 20, 2004
The Truth Behind The Mask, Ya Ask Me
From Orcinus, an email sent to AWOLBush.comFrom: "Baker, J." [liberalbasher@sbcglobal.net]Yeah, but we're nice to kittens. How did they manage to teach a rabid monkey to type?
To: [webmaster@awolbush.com]
Subject: Comments . . . Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:33:11 -0500
You people are beyond evil. George W. Bush will be re-elected to a second term, and hopefully it will drive die-hard idiotic leftists to commit suicide, that would be the bonus round!
Instead of bitching about how much you hate George W. Bush and how he stole the election and went AWOL from the National Guard, why don't you rotten cocksuckers spend your time and money and offer up a candidate who isn't a god-damned America-hating lunatic?
You people are utterly useless to humanity and wholly better off dead, burning in eternal damnation.
Ya know, I think it's too bad that we can't follow Saddam's model of dealing with opposition - just open up mass graves and start torturing, maiming, and murdering liberals and leftists by the millions - toss them into the ground, and fill the holes up with dirt. I would love to volunteer for such duty!
Eat shit and die, all of you!
J. Baker
Phoenix
posted
9:14 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Thanks to Salon.com.
Bush Campaign Makes Good Decision
Damn, where the hell's the defibrillator? From the WaPo:"Campaign officials said in interviews that they plan substantial positive advertising about the president, focused on his proposals rather than accomplishments, when they begin spending tens of millions of dollars on the airwaves next month."But I guess when your choices for a baBushka campaign are between accomplishments or proposals, it's kind of a no-brainer. Yowsah! Even Bushy's boyos can handle that!
Thanks to Salon.com.
posted
8:38 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Dang! Skinned By F'right Dingers Ultraperceptivity Again!
Kerry rumor tests media's standardsDrudge says "major media ought to be ashamed of themselves" for not pursuing a "red-hot story."So on one of those rare occasions when journalistic ethics actually put in an appearance, and the mainstream press refuse to run with a "story" based on a completely unverified report on the internet by a known right wing hit prick, turns out that it obviously proves left wing media bias. Man, these right wing hit pricks are looking and sounding more and more like evil Toons ta me every day.
Limbaugh says the media are guilty of a double standard. "Just as the White House's denials that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard seemed to raise more questions than they answered in the mainstream press," the denials by Kerry and Polier "raise more questions than they answer" and should be pursued, he says in an e-mail to USA TODAY.
posted
8:27 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
And why are we pretending that all the shit jobs will magically disappear, so no one will get caught at the bottom of the totem pole lickin' ass for a living? I'm gonna ask one more stupid question. Since there are some people who won't be able to acquire the new skills, and some people will certainly get stuck with the shit jobs, what happens to those people? Fuck 'em, they ain't good enough? Is that it? Just fuck 'em?
Ah, geez, sorry ta disturb your educational panacea fantasy. See what happens when you give a lower class asshole a brain?
Man, I'm Really Gettin' Sick A This Answer
Fed Officials Say Jobs on Way EventuallySo-called "outsourcing" of jobs by U.S. corporations aiming to pad profits by shipping work to cheap-labor centers in China and India has struck a nerve with Americans and has emerged as an issue in November presidential elections.Why am I so certain what he really means is, "It is crucial that you losers learn to see it my way?"
Greenspan acknowledged it was an "important and sensitive" issue and it has opened a gulf between those hurt by the phenomenon and economists who back the benefits of free trade.
"It is crucial that this gulf be bridged," he added.
Greenspan said trade protectionism was not the answer to ensuring American jobs and instead recommended "rigorous education and ongoing training" to make sure the skills needed for jobs remained sharp.Why are we all pretending that everyone can absorb "rigorous education and ongoing training" and acquire the skills that will land them these spiffity new jobs that are going to magically appear from nobody will tell us the fuck where? Yeah, I know, they've appeared before, but remember, past performance is no guarantee of future miracles.
And why are we pretending that all the shit jobs will magically disappear, so no one will get caught at the bottom of the totem pole lickin' ass for a living? I'm gonna ask one more stupid question. Since there are some people who won't be able to acquire the new skills, and some people will certainly get stuck with the shit jobs, what happens to those people? Fuck 'em, they ain't good enough? Is that it? Just fuck 'em?
Ah, geez, sorry ta disturb your educational panacea fantasy. See what happens when you give a lower class asshole a brain?
posted
7:07 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
-- Mark Twain
Congressional crime stats via The Common Man via London Class War.
Mark Twain's Timeless And Profound Understanding
Can you imagine an organisation that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."
*29 have been accused of domestic violence
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bouncy cheques
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have served time in prison for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving
Can you guess which organisation this is?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The so-called leaders of the free world.
-- Mark Twain
Congressional crime stats via The Common Man via London Class War.
posted
5:40 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
On top of the general suffering of the Palestinians, on top of the lopsided death toll in the conflict, now loyal, Zionist, elite force combat veterans are refusing to serve. That just doesn't happen if a country's in the right. How can Israel not be in the wrong?
Bring on that anti-semitic bullshit, dingers. It's the kind of cheap, scurrilous, irrational charge typically made by those who know they're in the wrong.
Thanks to The Common Man.
UPDATE: No, I am not saying the Palestinians are blameless. I don't know why I even have to say such shit. People who readily assume the highly improbable deliberately refuse to assume the highly probable.
Israel Is Obviously In The Wrong
Elite Israeli troops reject Gaza violenceThe three men sitting in the corner of a busy cafe are unremarkable as they talk among themselves, sipping coffee and blending with the rest of the customers.The 13 men are elite commandos, men who wanted to give maximum service to their country, men who believe they are giving maximum service to their country by refusing to fight. And they aren't the only ones. I can recall pilots refusing as well. There may have been others, I don't recall.
But they are members of a remarkable group, the Sayeret Matkal, Israel's equivalent of the SAS. And what makes them even more extraordinary in a society that holds its armed forces in such high esteem - in fact, what has earned them damnation from all over the country - is that they told their commanders that they refuse to serve in the Palestinian territories.
They and 10 others wrote to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, saying they could no longer serve, 'out of a deep sense of foreboding for the future of Israel as a democratic, Zionist and Jewish state'. The letter stated that they would not take part in violating the rights of millions of Palestinians or provide a shield for Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. It concluded: 'We have long ago crossed the boundary of fighting for a just cause, and now we find ourselves fighting to oppress another people. We shall no longer cross this line.'
On top of the general suffering of the Palestinians, on top of the lopsided death toll in the conflict, now loyal, Zionist, elite force combat veterans are refusing to serve. That just doesn't happen if a country's in the right. How can Israel not be in the wrong?
Bring on that anti-semitic bullshit, dingers. It's the kind of cheap, scurrilous, irrational charge typically made by those who know they're in the wrong.
Thanks to The Common Man.
UPDATE: No, I am not saying the Palestinians are blameless. I don't know why I even have to say such shit. People who readily assume the highly improbable deliberately refuse to assume the highly probable.
posted
5:05 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Mohaiemen writes that the DLC fired the opening rounds, but the GOP, big media, and the corporations soon joined in to kill Dean's candidacy because he scared them.
The Troika Hit The Trifecta By Destroying Democracy
Saw this article on AlterNet. The Assassination of Howard Dean, By Naeem Mohaiemen.Mohaiemen writes that the DLC fired the opening rounds, but the GOP, big media, and the corporations soon joined in to kill Dean's candidacy because he scared them.
This is where Dean lost a crucial ally - the mainstream media also joined in on the anti-Dean feeding frenzy. In his early days, he had flayed big media for caving in to George Bush on Iraq, and media giants never forgave him for this. In the same week, Time and Newsweek ran "Who is the Real Howard Dean?" stories. One cover showed a face covered in dark shadows, another showed an incomplete jigsaw puzzle! Semioticians take note - bad guys in westerns always have their faces obscured in shadows!Dean also threatened to break up the media monopolies, which I suspect had more to do with it. Notice that Time and Newsweek covers used a form of pictorial sub-rational argument. Most people, including me, don't think, "Hey, that guys got shadows on his face and so do bad guys in westerns, he must be a bad guy." Yet somewhere in the depths of our minds that connection is made, uncritically, and without us even knowing about it. Madison Avenue specializes in this stuff, and you can betchyer ass Time and Newsweek knew what they were doing. It's a bias most people never see, and it's a theft of democracy.
In the end, Dean threatened a troika of powerful institutions. He was a threat to the political parties (because he attacked Democrats' centrist drift), to media (because he criticized their cowardly reporting) and to big business (because he would roll back chummy tax-benefits for corporations). All three institutions responded with venom and destroyed Dean's candidacy.Those three institutions form a larger institution. It's the real government of the USA. Not the one in the Constitution, not the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Just the government that actually runs the show while allowing us the illusion of democracy. It's not a conspiracy. All three institutions (counting the Demopublicans as one) are heavily intertwined and interdependent. The majority of their big interests coincide. For them it comes down to what's more important, power and profit, or democracy? The uniting force is just old-fashioned greed for money and power, not a rigidly ordered conspiracy. Doesn't that make you feel better?
posted
2:55 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The biggest threat to America, sez he, is partisanship. Ehhnnnttt! Throw that man out of tha studio. Thass jus' ridicalous.
The greatest threat facing America today? Oh, it's roughly the same as it's always been, only worse. As Pogo said, "Yep son, we has met the enemy and he is us." Especially those of us who intend to vote for Georgie Whackjob baBushka, because Bush not merely represents, but personifies, the greatest threat to America today.
"Oh, he can't be that bad." The hell he can't. The man has a strong set of airy beliefs and not one fucking clue about the real world. He listens to his advisors on everything, even the news, but hasn't got one fucking clue what a decent advisor looks like.
He has committed us to defeating "evil" in the world. Vanquishing it. Talk aboutcher mission impossible. Evil has existed throughout history. If there is a God, she (Dear heart always tells me, "There is a God, and she's black.) has accepted it. But with George W. Bushy-tail"s mighty, visionary (hallucinatory) leadership, America can do what's never been done, even by God.
I think he gets that shit from the neocons. I strongly recommend Pat Buchanan's review (And don't think that don't feel weird.) of Prince Perle and and Flim-Frum's (The "axis of evil" man.) book for a really sensible (weirder and weirder) critique of the neocons. But I'm still gonna tell ya my half-baked theory.
The narrator in the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, believed that the character he calls Phaedrus, my namesake and the man the narrator used to be, thought his way into insanity. Phaedrus was a brilliant man, IQ maybe 180. I don't know if it's even possible to think your way into insanity, but if it is, I'd think you'd have to be pretty bright to do it. The neocon-artists are intelligent men. How intelligent, I dunno, but they're not dummies.
I believe they have effectively done what Phaedrus may have done. Maybe they didn't think they're way into insanity, but they did think, through "pure" reason and theory unconnected to reality, they're way into insane policies. As General Zinni said, they're academics who know next to nothing about the Middle East and have never had an idea that actually worked on the ground. And Bush listened to 'em. And they've been wrong about nearly everything. They have bolloxed the "war" on terrorism. And they want to do it some more. And Bush has no problem with that. Thass a purty big threat. But it ain't the half of it.
Got this little matter of ee-conomics ta consider. For a little compare and contrast, Brad Delong excerpts the Economist (A respected - sounds weird too, dont' it? - conservative publication. Well, they're not American conservatives.) Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Fools? Part CCCXXVI
We got a $7 trillion dollar deficit today. If Bush's fiscal policies are continued, it'll be more than $12 trillion in 2014 and will have grown substantially as a percent of GDP. Our children and grandchildren will be responsible for every bit of that debt, and they din't even get a vote. And after 2015, as the baby boomers continue to retire and Social Security and Medicare costs explode, things start to get bad.
Unless we get a miracle, like supply-side economics actually turning out to work, meaning over 99% of economists are wrong, I'd say we're swimmin' upstream in a river fulla shit.
Add to all that Bush's arrogance, violations of international law, alienation of long-time allies, suspension of human rights abroad and civil rights at home -- hell, it jus' goes on forever, don't it?
When Bush was "elected" I really thought he'd be the worst president ever. Ehhnnnttt! Wrong again, banana breath. He's turned out waayyy worse than that.
WORST PRESIDENT POSSIBLE!! Or so I fervently hope.
The Greatest Threat To America Today
Read a dinger a week or two ago who said the second greatest threat to America today is terrorism. Ehhnnttt! Not merely wrong, not even within hailing distance.The biggest threat to America, sez he, is partisanship. Ehhnnnttt! Throw that man out of tha studio. Thass jus' ridicalous.
The greatest threat facing America today? Oh, it's roughly the same as it's always been, only worse. As Pogo said, "Yep son, we has met the enemy and he is us." Especially those of us who intend to vote for Georgie Whackjob baBushka, because Bush not merely represents, but personifies, the greatest threat to America today.
"Oh, he can't be that bad." The hell he can't. The man has a strong set of airy beliefs and not one fucking clue about the real world. He listens to his advisors on everything, even the news, but hasn't got one fucking clue what a decent advisor looks like.
He has committed us to defeating "evil" in the world. Vanquishing it. Talk aboutcher mission impossible. Evil has existed throughout history. If there is a God, she (Dear heart always tells me, "There is a God, and she's black.) has accepted it. But with George W. Bushy-tail"s mighty, visionary (hallucinatory) leadership, America can do what's never been done, even by God.
I think he gets that shit from the neocons. I strongly recommend Pat Buchanan's review (And don't think that don't feel weird.) of Prince Perle and and Flim-Frum's (The "axis of evil" man.) book for a really sensible (weirder and weirder) critique of the neocons. But I'm still gonna tell ya my half-baked theory.
The narrator in the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, believed that the character he calls Phaedrus, my namesake and the man the narrator used to be, thought his way into insanity. Phaedrus was a brilliant man, IQ maybe 180. I don't know if it's even possible to think your way into insanity, but if it is, I'd think you'd have to be pretty bright to do it. The neocon-artists are intelligent men. How intelligent, I dunno, but they're not dummies.
I believe they have effectively done what Phaedrus may have done. Maybe they didn't think they're way into insanity, but they did think, through "pure" reason and theory unconnected to reality, they're way into insane policies. As General Zinni said, they're academics who know next to nothing about the Middle East and have never had an idea that actually worked on the ground. And Bush listened to 'em. And they've been wrong about nearly everything. They have bolloxed the "war" on terrorism. And they want to do it some more. And Bush has no problem with that. Thass a purty big threat. But it ain't the half of it.
Got this little matter of ee-conomics ta consider. For a little compare and contrast, Brad Delong excerpts the Economist (A respected - sounds weird too, dont' it? - conservative publication. Well, they're not American conservatives.) Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Fools? Part CCCXXVI
The Economist thinks about George W. Bush's deficits and compares him to Ronald Reagan. The Economist knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of its. And, says the Economist, George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan:Also from Brad: The CBPP Accurately Forecasts the Bush Budget Proposal and The Budget Picture:
First, it is impossible to balance the budget by 2014 simply by cutting spending. Using wish lists of small-government-is-better think tanks such as the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, the analysts tally savings from wiping out business subsidies; eliminating federal spending on K-12 education, housing, worker training, environmental protection and manned space flight; squeezing out waste; raising the Social Security retirement age; and trimming Medicare payments to health-care providers.But it's even more fun than that. The gummint, any US gummint, uses the Social Security fund as a CYA lie about the true deficit. In 2015, the fund switches from surplus to deficit, an' it ain't gonna cover nobody's ass no more.
All of that gets them only three-quarters of the way to the goal; it still takes $134 billion in tax increases during 2014 to balance the budget. You won't read that in Mr. Bush's Feb. 2 budget, which likely will avoid looking beyond the next five years....
Second, undoing all of the Bush tax cuts, as Democratic front-runner Howard Dean proposes, won't be enough to balance the budget either. That yields about $300 billion in 2014. Even if Mr. Dean banked that whole sum and didn't keep his $1 trillion health-care promise, he still would be only 55% of the way to balance.
We got a $7 trillion dollar deficit today. If Bush's fiscal policies are continued, it'll be more than $12 trillion in 2014 and will have grown substantially as a percent of GDP. Our children and grandchildren will be responsible for every bit of that debt, and they din't even get a vote. And after 2015, as the baby boomers continue to retire and Social Security and Medicare costs explode, things start to get bad.
Unless we get a miracle, like supply-side economics actually turning out to work, meaning over 99% of economists are wrong, I'd say we're swimmin' upstream in a river fulla shit.
Add to all that Bush's arrogance, violations of international law, alienation of long-time allies, suspension of human rights abroad and civil rights at home -- hell, it jus' goes on forever, don't it?
When Bush was "elected" I really thought he'd be the worst president ever. Ehhnnnttt! Wrong again, banana breath. He's turned out waayyy worse than that.
WORST PRESIDENT POSSIBLE!! Or so I fervently hope.
posted
1:03 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The neocons claim our mistake in Iraq was not delivering the government immediately to Chalabi. Given what it certainly appears he has done, why would anyone think the Iraqis will be better off under Chalabi than they were under Saddam?
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
Unimportant To Who, Mr. Power Hungry Pissant Chalabi?
The Telegraph quotes Ahmad Chalabi on shaky intelligence provided by the Iraqi National Congress:"As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."You manipulated a nation of 290 million people into a war with false information on behalf of your own power mad dreams, a nation whose soldiers have done the fighting and dying for your selfish purposes, a nation that will bear the consequences of this war waged on your behalf, and you say it's unimportant? Your a remarkable man, Mr. Chalabi. A remarkably evil man.
The neocons claim our mistake in Iraq was not delivering the government immediately to Chalabi. Given what it certainly appears he has done, why would anyone think the Iraqis will be better off under Chalabi than they were under Saddam?
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
posted
9:32 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tip via Uncommon Thought Journal.
Now I'm Worried. I Agree With Pat Buchanan.
No End to War, Buchanan's review of Prince Perle and his courtier's book begins:On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the "intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy."Wow. Buchanan's a little slow, about 19th century slow, but even he's caught on.
The guru's reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle's new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.
An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, "There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust." "What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained" now menaces "our survival as a nation."I reecommend reading the whole review. It's very good, very sensible, if you discount for a couple of typical Buchanan weirdnesses. I've made about the same arguments myself. Am I losin' it? Is Buchanan gainin' it? What inna fock? Don't see how this can be good for Bushy Bear, though.
But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?
[snip[
To suggest Frum and Perle are over the top is not to imply we not take seriously the threat of terror attacks on airliners, in malls, from dirty bombs, or, God forbid, a crude atomic device smuggled in by Ryder truck or container ship. Yet even this will never "overthrow our civilization."
In the worst of terror attacks, we lost 3,000 people. Horrific. But at Antietam Creek, we lost 7,000 in a day's battle in a nation that was one-ninth as populous. Three thousand men and boys perished every week for 200 weeks of that Civil War. We Americans did not curl up and die. We did not come all this way because we are made of sugar candy.
Germany and Japan suffered 3,000 dead every day in the last two years of World War II, with every city flattened and two blackened by atom bombs. Both came back in a decade. Is al-Qaeda capable of this sort of devastation when they are recruiting such scrub stock as Jose Padilla and the shoe bomber?
In the war we are in, our enemies are weak. That is why they resort to the weapon of the weak -- terror. And, as in the Cold War, time is on America's side. Perseverance and patience are called for, not this panic.
Tip via Uncommon Thought Journal.
posted
1:26 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Employers're gonna love this. Now they can weed out all those heavy drinkin' losers, like Winston Churchill. Ya think prescription drug sales'll go up?
Frabulous News: Soon Drunks Will Have Same Probs As Druggies
New Alcohol Tests to Detect Drinking Over MonthsEmployers're gonna love this. Now they can weed out all those heavy drinkin' losers, like Winston Churchill. Ya think prescription drug sales'll go up?
posted
12:58 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Don't Worry, Your Civil Liberties Are In Good Hands
Oh, great. First I read Adam's post, Cold Wind Blowing, about surveillance of peace groups (Cuz they're the real terrorists, ya know.), then I read FBI Misconduct Report: 'A List of Horrors'The shocking report is a laundry list of horrors," [Republican Senator Charles E.] Grassley said in a letter to the F.B.I., "with examples of agents who committed rape, sexual crimes against children, other sexual deviance and misconduct, attempted murder of a spouse, and narcotics violations, among many others."
posted
12:44 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
She's implying that Bush's service was equivalent to Cleland's. Do I have to mention again that in the Guard, in those days, the chances of being around a live grenade often enough to have any serious chance of being blown up by it were skinnier than Annie after a crash diet? And the chances of coming under fire were, roughly, zilch.
The awesome sleaziness of this bitch continually amazes me. But keep shovelin', Annie. You'll bury the GOPukes yet.
Tip O'The Tam to Sadly, No.
Gotta Admit, She's Plucky - For A Vicious Little Coward
Since Annie the Coultergeist is continuing her nasty lie about Max Cleland, I plucked this from Jack Reed's website:Let me read from the citation he received for the Silver Star, obtained from Senator Miller's Web site.Yet Coulter wrote last week:
Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April, 1968 ..... during enemy attack near Khe Sanh.
When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions.
Continuing to expose himself, Captain Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment, which had been damaged by enemy fire.
His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
"Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam."This week she says,
Liberals are not angry because I "lied"; they're angry because I told the truth.Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.
"Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: '(D)uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade.'All right, some people have gotten the story a little wrong, but Max Cleland was a hero, he did take fire, and he did lose his limbs. Last week she wrote:
Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't 'give his limbs for his country,' or leave them 'on the battlefield.' There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard----He didn't give his limbs for his country? How the fuck does she figger that? If he'd stayed in college or found some other way to avoid the war, the way so many Repuke chickenhawks did, he would have lost them anyway?
She's implying that Bush's service was equivalent to Cleland's. Do I have to mention again that in the Guard, in those days, the chances of being around a live grenade often enough to have any serious chance of being blown up by it were skinnier than Annie after a crash diet? And the chances of coming under fire were, roughly, zilch.
The awesome sleaziness of this bitch continually amazes me. But keep shovelin', Annie. You'll bury the GOPukes yet.
Tip O'The Tam to Sadly, No.
posted
12:05 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 19, 2004
About the author:
But Bush is all about pretending ta be somethin' he ain't. On top of all the lies he's told in the campaign and in office, while pretending to be a man of moral rectitude, he pretends to be a cowboy. He bought that "ranch" shortly before the presidential campaign. Looks very Reaganesque, doncha know. 'Cept Reagan wasn't fakin'. I hear tell Bush is ackshully skeered a horses. Texas cowboy. Or is that Texas goat-roper?
February 19, 2004
Even The Repubs Are Dumpin' On Him
Veterans face conundrum: Kerry or Bush?About the author:
James Webb was secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, and a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam. He also is an author and filmmaker.He don' go easy on Kerry, but he hammers Bush. The actions of both men that some object to took place over 30 years ago. Some say, hasn't the statute of limitations run out? Yeah, actually, I think it has. My problem with Bush, aside from the massive load of other crap he's done wrong, is not what he did 30 years ago. It's him strutting around, talking tough like a hollywood version of a macho war hero. It's him pretending to be something he never was, pretending he went in the Guard to serve his country instead of to keep his wimpy ass out of the line of fire while others did the actual fighting in a war he says he supported. Don't pretend to be somethin' yer not!
But Bush is all about pretending ta be somethin' he ain't. On top of all the lies he's told in the campaign and in office, while pretending to be a man of moral rectitude, he pretends to be a cowboy. He bought that "ranch" shortly before the presidential campaign. Looks very Reaganesque, doncha know. 'Cept Reagan wasn't fakin'. I hear tell Bush is ackshully skeered a horses. Texas cowboy. Or is that Texas goat-roper?
posted
9:58 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
So, lying his ass off to get "elected" president in 2000, no problem!
Lying to the people of New Yawk City about air quality after 9/11, no problem!
Deceiving the American people about the reasons for war, no problem!
Deceiving the people about his tax cut plan, no problem!
Driving everyone's children and grandchildren into the poorhouse by running up massive, long-term deficits whose real pain won't be felt until he is no longer president while swearing up and down he will not leave problems for future administrations or future generations, no problem!
Thousands dead in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction, and no apology, no problem!
Deceiving people about the jobs picture, no problem, but,
"Gay marriage?! Holy shit!"
Prezeedential Spokesliar Scott Mclellan said, "this is an issue where he believes it is important for people to stand up on principle." Suddenly, principle is important. Exactly what principle he's citing, I'm not sure. He wouldn't be claiming that a religious principle should determine law and human rights, would he. Nawww, not baBushka. I think it's probably the "I need to get my sorry ass reelected," principle.
Now He Cites Principle?!!
Bush 'Troubled' by Gay Marriage IssueSo, lying his ass off to get "elected" president in 2000, no problem!
Lying to the people of New Yawk City about air quality after 9/11, no problem!
Deceiving the American people about the reasons for war, no problem!
Deceiving the people about his tax cut plan, no problem!
Driving everyone's children and grandchildren into the poorhouse by running up massive, long-term deficits whose real pain won't be felt until he is no longer president while swearing up and down he will not leave problems for future administrations or future generations, no problem!
Thousands dead in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction, and no apology, no problem!
Deceiving people about the jobs picture, no problem, but,
"Gay marriage?! Holy shit!"
Prezeedential Spokesliar Scott Mclellan said, "this is an issue where he believes it is important for people to stand up on principle." Suddenly, principle is important. Exactly what principle he's citing, I'm not sure. He wouldn't be claiming that a religious principle should determine law and human rights, would he. Nawww, not baBushka. I think it's probably the "I need to get my sorry ass reelected," principle.
posted
6:40 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
JFK said, "Any failures are mine and mine alone."
GWB says, "It's not my fault. I didn't do it, you can't prove I did. The CIA did it, the number-crunchers did it, the stock market crash, 9/11, Iraq war did it. Anybody but me did it." Unless, of course, it's something positive. Then he takes full responsibility.
Personal Responsibility - GOP Style
Give 'em Hell Harry said, "The buck stops here."JFK said, "Any failures are mine and mine alone."
GWB says, "It's not my fault. I didn't do it, you can't prove I did. The CIA did it, the number-crunchers did it, the stock market crash, 9/11, Iraq war did it. Anybody but me did it." Unless, of course, it's something positive. Then he takes full responsibility.
posted
4:08 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
I know not everyone will agree with me on all of this, but it's how I look at things. I can easily respect a man who fought in the Vietnam war. I can respect someone who opposed the war and says so. I can respect someone who opposed the war and avoided military service, or opposed the war and fled to Canada, or opposed and deserted. I can even respect someone who was just afraid to fight and found a way out of it, so long as they admit that. Ya know, Vietnam warn't no WWII. Things weren't so clear cut in those days. I know. I lived through 'em. Just don't pretend to be somethin' ya ain't, is all I ask.
But what am I to think of someone who says they totally supported the war in Vietnam, -- ya know, as long as somebody else did the actual fighting, suffering, and dying?
UPDATE: The prince of darkness (he don't deserve caps) in the CS Monitor:
Disturbing The Chickenhawk Roost
Salon.com has an article analyzing what John Kerry's "Band of Brothers" (the Vietnam vets backing him) have done for his candidacy. Maybe most importantly, they've made a mockery of the chickenhawks false bravado.I know not everyone will agree with me on all of this, but it's how I look at things. I can easily respect a man who fought in the Vietnam war. I can respect someone who opposed the war and says so. I can respect someone who opposed the war and avoided military service, or opposed the war and fled to Canada, or opposed and deserted. I can even respect someone who was just afraid to fight and found a way out of it, so long as they admit that. Ya know, Vietnam warn't no WWII. Things weren't so clear cut in those days. I know. I lived through 'em. Just don't pretend to be somethin' ya ain't, is all I ask.
But what am I to think of someone who says they totally supported the war in Vietnam, -- ya know, as long as somebody else did the actual fighting, suffering, and dying?
. . .as a vet might be tempted to put it: If you're such a great patriot, why didn't you go fight like we did?What can I say about a man who pumps his fist with excitement upon launching yet another war in which he will not actually fight? Who says he supported the Vietnam war, yet avoided it, and who's never done a heroic thing in his life but, nonetheless, decides that it's completely appropriate to put on a flight suit and strut around an aircraft carrier as though he was a war hero? Who responds to the potential for attacks on US soldiers who are braving the risks he never did by saying, "Bring 'em on?" I'd tell ya what I do think of him, but I got a hunch ya already know.
Bush and Co. have been enormously successful in avoiding such questions. We know that Dick Cheney famously "had other priorities," but that's no answer. What does the public know about John Ashcroft's reasons for not serving in Vietnam? Richard Perle's? Paul Wolfowitz's? Not to mention all their comrades in Congress and the right-wing media. Were they all believers in the patriotism of dissent, as draft resisters were? Or did they have some other rationale for their actions? The central question is not whether they did anything illegal to avoid military service. It is how they justified their avoidance in the first place. That so many leaders have given so few answers to such important questions must set some sort of record for a democracy. If so, it's one we shouldn't be proud of.
The rare, reluctant answers that have dribbled out from various neocon stars, in books and interviews and on talk shows, are far from reassuring. Collectively, they sound like this: Vietnam was Johnson's political war, so it was a mess. Besides, I knew the weak-kneed liberals and peaceniks would never let us win it. And as an anti-big-government conservative, I believe the government has no right to force anyone to perform any service against their will. Not to mention my physical condition that for some reason hasn't slowed me down since. And don't forget, I didn't actually break any laws, or at least none that anyone can prove, to avoid military service. I would have gone if called, but I wasn't called, because I was doing other things that by the way made me exempt from the draft. And, last but not least: I didn't do anything Clinton didn't do.
UPDATE: The prince of darkness (he don't deserve caps) in the CS Monitor:
"My worst fear is that ... he will behave as president the way he talks about the issues today. It will lead to a weak and indecisive policy - a policy animated by what appears to have been a searing experience in Vietnam."Is he saying that it's a lot easier to act brave and strong and decisive if you've never faced combat yourself? I imagine it is. That ain't a good thing.
posted
3:12 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Oddball, Commie Scientists Criticize Administration Lies
A group of scientists sez the Bush administration manipulates and suppresses scientific analysis for political purposes. Offering a totally reasonable defense:"The sweeping conclusions of the [Union of Concerned Scientists'] statement go far beyond reasonable interpretations of the issues it recites," said John H. Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "This is a collection of disconnected cases that have rubbed somebody the wrong way."A list of some of the disconnected cases that have rubbed somebody the wrong way:
For example, when claiming that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, thus providing evidence of a weapons program, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at the Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge national laboratories, the scientists said.But the cases are all "disconnected" and the somebodies rubbed the wrong way are only a bunch of no-account Nobel prize and Medal of Science winners. Oh yeah, and a former Republican EPA administrator. So there's no sense in worrying your furry little heads about it.
The report also shines a light on previously low-profile examples of alleged distortions. For instance, James Zahn, a research biologist at the Agriculture Department, said that, on at least 11 occasions, he was prohibited by his superiors from publicizing his research on the potential hazards to human health from airborne bacteria from farm wastes. Zahn left the department convinced that his work was being suppressed to protect agribusiness, the report stated.
The report also cited several examples of scientific information that it said had been altered or suppressed by officials at the CDC when the data seemed to be contrary to the president's positions or policies.
Information on the CDC's website was revised to raise doubts about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, the report said. In another incident, information suggesting a link between breast cancer and abortion was posted on the website despite objections from the CDC's staff.
One stifled study was done by the EPA, documenting the percentage of children who were at risk of developmental problems because of the mercury-laden fish consumed by their mothers when they were in utero. That report, which said that 8% of women of childbearing age had mercury blood levels higher than what the government considered safe for a fetus, sat in a White House review for nine months. It made it to print when an EPA official leaked it to a reporter.
[snip]
On the issue of climate change, the White House made so many alterations to the chapter on that topic in an EPA report last year that then-EPA Administrator Christie Whitman decided to publish the report in June without that section.
The episode sparked criticism from Russell Train, who served as EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford.
"[N]ever once, to my best recollection, did either the Nixon or Ford White House ever try to tell me how to make a decision," Train said in a letter to the New York Times.
posted
2:03 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Private markets will never provide sufficient funding for education, certainly not for the general education necessary to self-government. The incentive just isn't strong enough. With public funding will come some government interference, which is good. I don't think too many of us want our tax money going to support the study of the intricacies of astrology or magical crystal healing methods.
This seems to me to be the problem with ideologies. Ideologies which are rational and internally consistent conflict with other ideologies which are also rational and internally consistent, and they often conflict with real life reason as well.
Libertarians believe in personal liberty regardless of the consequences. They seem to me to believe that coercion is bad, government uses coercion, therefore government is bad and must be held to the absolute minimum. But coercion isn't bad, and it isn't good. It's just a tool, although a dangerous one, to be sure. Like a chainsaw. Strict Libertarians (I don't mean to ascribe strict Libertarianism to anyone who posts on the Volokh Conspiracy. I'm only talking about Libertarianism in general here.) think a starving man should prefer free speech (or other freedoms) to food. That would be an abnormal position for a human being to take.
Utilitarians believe that only consequences matter. They argue that if three children are drowning, one your own, and you can either save your own child or the two who are strangers to you, you should save the two, because that will produce double the utility. Show me the mother who would do that.
Any ideology that conflicts with basic human nature, no matter how rational it seems, ain't gonna work. Libertarians and right wingers seem to believe that communism failed because people are individualists, not collectivists. They're wrong and, because of the way in which they're wrong, they seem determined to fail for the opposite reason. Communism failed because people are not extreme collectivists. Well, they're not extreme individualists either. Most real people live somewhere in between and no one's ever going to eliminate one characteristic or the other. Unfortunately, I despair of eliminating this odd tendency towards dualism as well.
Ideologies, though they have their uses, are always too simple for real life. As the Violent One has pointed out to me, ideology, too, can be just another dangerous tool. A little more on the order of dynamite, though. Life is not bound about by ironclad principles, life is a series of compromises. Like the Stones said, "You can't always get what you want." Here's a good rule of thumb. If you're talking to someone who thinks compromise (as opposed to a particular compromise) is bad, you're talking to an extremist. And an idiot. And ironclad principles don't allow for compromise.
The "Evils" Of Government Coercion
I've been poring over this argument between Jack Balkin of Balkinization, and some posters on the Volokh Conspiracy. David Bernstein posts:"The inevitability of content-based regulation of academic expression on public university campuses suggests a strong civil libertarian case that government should not be in the business of running universities at all."Yeah, mebbe, and that's exactly the problem with extreme civil libertarianism. It's pretty easy to make a strong Utilitarian argument that the public good of education outweighs civil libertarian objections. They're both good points, but I'd say Utilitarianism wins this one.
Private markets will never provide sufficient funding for education, certainly not for the general education necessary to self-government. The incentive just isn't strong enough. With public funding will come some government interference, which is good. I don't think too many of us want our tax money going to support the study of the intricacies of astrology or magical crystal healing methods.
This seems to me to be the problem with ideologies. Ideologies which are rational and internally consistent conflict with other ideologies which are also rational and internally consistent, and they often conflict with real life reason as well.
Libertarians believe in personal liberty regardless of the consequences. They seem to me to believe that coercion is bad, government uses coercion, therefore government is bad and must be held to the absolute minimum. But coercion isn't bad, and it isn't good. It's just a tool, although a dangerous one, to be sure. Like a chainsaw. Strict Libertarians (I don't mean to ascribe strict Libertarianism to anyone who posts on the Volokh Conspiracy. I'm only talking about Libertarianism in general here.) think a starving man should prefer free speech (or other freedoms) to food. That would be an abnormal position for a human being to take.
Utilitarians believe that only consequences matter. They argue that if three children are drowning, one your own, and you can either save your own child or the two who are strangers to you, you should save the two, because that will produce double the utility. Show me the mother who would do that.
Any ideology that conflicts with basic human nature, no matter how rational it seems, ain't gonna work. Libertarians and right wingers seem to believe that communism failed because people are individualists, not collectivists. They're wrong and, because of the way in which they're wrong, they seem determined to fail for the opposite reason. Communism failed because people are not extreme collectivists. Well, they're not extreme individualists either. Most real people live somewhere in between and no one's ever going to eliminate one characteristic or the other. Unfortunately, I despair of eliminating this odd tendency towards dualism as well.
Ideologies, though they have their uses, are always too simple for real life. As the Violent One has pointed out to me, ideology, too, can be just another dangerous tool. A little more on the order of dynamite, though. Life is not bound about by ironclad principles, life is a series of compromises. Like the Stones said, "You can't always get what you want." Here's a good rule of thumb. If you're talking to someone who thinks compromise (as opposed to a particular compromise) is bad, you're talking to an extremist. And an idiot. And ironclad principles don't allow for compromise.
posted
11:58 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
I've met several very intelligent conservatives. A poli-sci professor comes immediately to mind. He had, among other things, three masters degrees and he was brilliant. His arguments affected my thinking on the death penalty for many years. I eventually rejected them, not because they were wrong or illogical, but because, given everything else I know about the death penalty, they weren't reason enough to support it. Volokh himself is another example.
Still, out of all the conservatives you've met, what was the ratio of intellence to stupidity? What sort of people form the backbone of the audiences for Rush Limblewit and Faux News? Would an intelligent person take Limbaugh seriously? My brother's pretty intelligent and, though he was apolitical much of his life, has become an evangeli-fundy and a rock-ribbed Republican. All his friends (It's not a normal sample -- he lives behind the Orange Curtain.) told him, "Ya gotta listen to Rush Limbaugh, ya gotta listen to Rush Limbaugh!" Well, he listens to the radio all day at work anyway, so he listened to a show. His response? "Geez, that guy's an idiot." He never listened again.
It's true that the political positions of what we call "liberals" and "conservatives" change over time, and todays "conservatives" don't hold the same positions as the Conservative party of Mill's day, but I doubt the makeup of their constituencies changes all that much. Stupid people just naturally lean conservative, whatever "conservative" happens to be at the moment. As Mill noted, the fact that they do gives the conservative party enormous power. So, if you're a progressive, you need to accept that it's gonna be an uphill battle, now and forever.
John Stuart Mill On Conservatives And Stupidity
Eugene Volokh, who I respect, believes he has tracked down the accurate version of John Stuart Mill's statement on stupidity and the Conservative party (I use what's probably a corrupted version in my sidebar, but it makes the point.):I desire to make a brief explanation in reference to a passage which the right honourable Gentleman has quoted from a portion of my writings, and which has some appearance of being less polite than I should wish always to be in speaking of a great party. What I stated was, that the Conservative party was, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. ( Laughter .) Now, I do not retract this assertion; but I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid people are generally Conservative. ( Laughter and cheers .) I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any honourable Gentleman will question it. Now, if any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party, I apprehend, must by the law of its constitution be the stupidest party. And I do not see why honourable Gentlemen should feel that position at all offensive to them; for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party. ( Hear, hear .) I know I am liable to a retort, an obvious one enough, and as I do not intend any honourable Gentleman to have the credit of making it, I make it myself. It may be said that if stupidity has a tendency to Conservatism, sciolism and half-knowledge have a tendency to Liberalism. Well, Sir, something might be said for that -- but it is not at all so clear as the other. There is an uncertainty about half-informed people. You cannot count upon them. You cannot tell what their way of thinking may be. It varies from day to day, perhaps with the last book they have read, and therefore they are as likely to prove Conservatives as Liberals, and as likely to be Liberals as Conservatives. They are a less numerous class, and also an uncertain class. But there is a dense solid force in sheer stupidity -- such, that a few able men, with that force pressing behind them, are assured of victory in many a struggle; and many a victory the Conservative party have owed to that force. ( Laughter .) " sciolism ," I'm happy to inform you, is "A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability."Volokh points out that Mill was explicitly talking about the Conservative party, not conservatives as we know them today. I would argue that his statement implicitly includes little c conservatives of any age.
I've met several very intelligent conservatives. A poli-sci professor comes immediately to mind. He had, among other things, three masters degrees and he was brilliant. His arguments affected my thinking on the death penalty for many years. I eventually rejected them, not because they were wrong or illogical, but because, given everything else I know about the death penalty, they weren't reason enough to support it. Volokh himself is another example.
Still, out of all the conservatives you've met, what was the ratio of intellence to stupidity? What sort of people form the backbone of the audiences for Rush Limblewit and Faux News? Would an intelligent person take Limbaugh seriously? My brother's pretty intelligent and, though he was apolitical much of his life, has become an evangeli-fundy and a rock-ribbed Republican. All his friends (It's not a normal sample -- he lives behind the Orange Curtain.) told him, "Ya gotta listen to Rush Limbaugh, ya gotta listen to Rush Limbaugh!" Well, he listens to the radio all day at work anyway, so he listened to a show. His response? "Geez, that guy's an idiot." He never listened again.
It's true that the political positions of what we call "liberals" and "conservatives" change over time, and todays "conservatives" don't hold the same positions as the Conservative party of Mill's day, but I doubt the makeup of their constituencies changes all that much. Stupid people just naturally lean conservative, whatever "conservative" happens to be at the moment. As Mill noted, the fact that they do gives the conservative party enormous power. So, if you're a progressive, you need to accept that it's gonna be an uphill battle, now and forever.
posted
8:31 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
An E-mail I'm Sending Out
How Right Wing Mythology Is Manufactured
Dave Johnson of Seeing The Forest, has done a more comprehensive job of something I've been trying to do, which is explain the breadth and power of the right wing mythology machine and it's role in deceiving the electorate. His rip-roaring, four-part (it's not as long as it sounds) series, How They Do It, links to several important articles and sites that bring many, though not all, of the puzzle pieces together in a coherent way. I can't recommend it too highly. You can also access it from his sidebar. Also I've excerpted a separate post:An E-mail I'm Sending Out
You might agree with me that the information that most Americans receive comes from a rightist to centrist corporate perspective. Example - when is the last time you saw a labor leader interviewed on TV, talking about why people should join unions? This is because you wouldn't expect a corporate-controlled news source to give people information about the advantages of joining unions, and they don't.Just in case you thought you were imagining a corporate media bias, that point kinda sews it up, don't it?
posted
7:35 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 18, 2004
I said a Bush-eye, Bush-eye, oh, baby, now, you gotta go.
Tanx a meelyawn ta TomPaine.common sense.
February 18, 2004
Weepons O'Mass Deception, Conservative Redux
From the Washington Times, fer God sake, via UPI:The dust is not about to settle over the intelligence failure in Iraq. But it has already blurred our vision about weapons of mass destruction. There is still time to remind ourselves they were not the principal reason for going to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq; they were the pretext. And that's why irrefutable evidence was not the standard. Axis of evil regime change was the lodestar.Shame ta have ta turn to a pseudo-con fer the truth. This was not the basis on which we were sold the war. This is fuckin' fraudulent bait and switch. If Bush didn't understand that, then he's a fool who has no business occupying the oval office. If he did understand, then he's a fraud. Even the non-neocon pseudo-cons can see it. Bush is either a buffoon or a patholigical liar. Either way he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
[snip]
When this writer first heard from prominent neo-cons in April 2002 that war was no longer a question of "if" but "when," the casus belli had little to do with WMD.
[snip]
The liberation of Iraq, in the neo-con scenario, would be followed by a democratic Iraq that would quickly recognize Israel. This, in turn, would "snowball" -- the analogy only works in the Cedar Mountains of Lebanon and the Golan Heights in Syria -- through the region, bringing democracy from Syria to Egypt and to the sheikdoms, emirates and monarchies of the Gulf. All these new democracies would then embrace Israel and hitch their backward economies to the Jewish state's advanced technology. And Israel could at long last lower its guard and look forward to a generation of peace. That was the vision. WMDs were weapons of mass deception that became the pretext for the grand design.
[snip]
The principal intelligence failure was in not understanding the state of decay in the Baath party regime that most probably would have fallen of its own accord with another year of anywhere-anytime-intrusive-inspections throughout the country.
A cursory study of Iraqi history would have demonstrated that democracy in Iraq without a strong hand at the helm is a recipe for civil war. One-person-one-vote would quickly give the dominant (60 percent) Shiites the majority and a license to run the country in close partnership with the clerical regime that runs neighboring Iran. But this is clearly unacceptable to the Sunnis (20 percent) and the Kurds (20 percent). The Shiites control the oil of the south and the Kurds can easily take possession of the oil of the north.
[snip]
Was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S. homeland? Of course it wasn't. But hasn't the U.S. occupation of Iraq provided a force multiplier for al-Qaida. Of course it has. And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq.
I said a Bush-eye, Bush-eye, oh, baby, now, you gotta go.
Tanx a meelyawn ta TomPaine.common sense.
posted
9:02 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Best Quote Of The Whole Campaign
"Howard Dean performed the medical procedure of his life by transplanting a backbone to the Democratic Party."And we all oughta be kissin his -- feet.
--Oliver Willis.
posted
5:58 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tip O'The Tam to Oliver Willis.
See The Pics That Will Torpedo Kerry's Candidacy
More Damaging Kerry PicsTip O'The Tam to Oliver Willis.
posted
5:52 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tanx ta Atrios.
Why Conservatives Fear Gay Marriage
From Mark Morford:That is, they are utterly terrified that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope of permissive debauchery that will lead to the utter breakdown of social rules and sexual mores, to people being allowed to marry their dogs, or their own dead grandmothers, or chairs, or three hairy men from Miami Beach.Man, these peeps suffer from a potentially fatal case of irrational dualism. (Thass redundant, idd'n it?) One toenail over the line (wherever that line happens ta be currently and arbitrarily drawn) an' yer slidin' down the icy slope ta hell widdout an ice ax ta yer name.
[snip]
You know, just like how giving blacks the right to own their own land meant we had to give the same rights to house plants and power tools, or how granting women the right to vote meant it was a slippery slope until we gave suffrage to feral cats and sea slugs and rusty hubcaps.
Tanx ta Atrios.
posted
5:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Screwing The Poor, Children, Elderly, And Disabled For Votes
The NYT's editorial gives ya tha facts, but ya gotta read Omnium's take on it, The Bush Budget Cuts Explained. It's brilliant. Ya know, I know nobody wants ta support somebody who's only poor cuz they's lazy, though I seriously doubt thass typically tha case, but how inna fuck d'ya justify screwin' over the children a the workin' poor, the elderly, and the disabled? Specially if yer a "compassionate" conservative. I'd love ta hear it.
posted
3:14 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Today's polished, ubiquitous advertising not only makes sure you know what you don't have, it goes to extremes to create a craving , even a need, for it. If you can't afford that which you crave and even need, do you feel poor? I got sad news for dingers. If you feel poor, you are poor, with all of the adverse psychological and physiological consequences that entails.
The supposedly positive fact that most of the poor in America own televisions actually only worsens their plight.
Poverty's Even More Relative Than Ya Think
I wrote in Right Wing Idiocy About Poverty (2nd post down) that poverty is relative, not, as the dingers would have it, absolute. That is especially true in a modern, Madison Avenue driven consumer culture. People say you don't miss what you've never had, but that's not quite true. You don't miss what you've never had and don't know about.Today's polished, ubiquitous advertising not only makes sure you know what you don't have, it goes to extremes to create a craving , even a need, for it. If you can't afford that which you crave and even need, do you feel poor? I got sad news for dingers. If you feel poor, you are poor, with all of the adverse psychological and physiological consequences that entails.
The supposedly positive fact that most of the poor in America own televisions actually only worsens their plight.
posted
2:16 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
How are you going to achieve monoculturalism in a liberal (in the classic sense) democracy? People in a liberal democracy have individual rights and liberties. They can think and believe whatever the hell they want, and many will no matter what. Even if you could achieve a single culture, what culture would it be? Christian? I get the impression that's what they want, but which Christian culture? The liberal Protestant tradition or the evangeli-fundy, literal belief in the Bible Protestant tradition? Or maybe the Catholic Christian tradition? I'm assuming the Mormons get screwed here no matter what. Along with the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, Ba'hais, Hindus, Pagans, atheists, agnostics, etc.
Of course, culture is not religion alone. It extends to economics, systems of justice, and on and on. Here we get into the flaw in John Rawls Theory of Justice, which he addresses in Political Liberalism.
My granpappy worked for the Post Office for over 30 years. For a while, he was basically a troubleshooter. When a Post Office branch got totally screwed up (which used ta happen fairly often back in tha days a politically appointed Post Masters), they sent him in ta fix it. He would completely take over the joint. He'd tell the Post Master, "Go home. I'm in charge now." An' then he'd commence ta changin' the way the Office did things. Tha complaint he most hated ta hear was, "But we've always done it that way." He'd say, "Yeah, and you've always done it wrong." Thass always a possibility with tradition, ya know.
Today's Right Hates Democracy. . .
. . .but they'll never admit it. Look at the opposition to multiculturalism. The alternative to multiculturalism is monoculturalism. Ain't nothin' in betwixt. If you believe that there is one moral law for all people in all times (another popular right wing idea), and you also believe you have the right to force that law on others, you're pretty much talking monoculturalism. But not democracy.How are you going to achieve monoculturalism in a liberal (in the classic sense) democracy? People in a liberal democracy have individual rights and liberties. They can think and believe whatever the hell they want, and many will no matter what. Even if you could achieve a single culture, what culture would it be? Christian? I get the impression that's what they want, but which Christian culture? The liberal Protestant tradition or the evangeli-fundy, literal belief in the Bible Protestant tradition? Or maybe the Catholic Christian tradition? I'm assuming the Mormons get screwed here no matter what. Along with the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, Ba'hais, Hindus, Pagans, atheists, agnostics, etc.
Of course, culture is not religion alone. It extends to economics, systems of justice, and on and on. Here we get into the flaw in John Rawls Theory of Justice, which he addresses in Political Liberalism.
Now the serious problem is this. A modern democratic society is characterized not simply by a pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines, but by a pluralism of incompatible yet reasonable comprehensive doctrines. No one of these doctrines is affirmed by citizens generally. Nor should one expect that in the foreseeable future one of them, or some other reasonable doctrine, will ever be affirmed by all, or nearly all, citizens.In other words, democracy = pluralism = multiculturalism. In a democracy you don't have the right to force your moral law on anyone else. For instance, people should not be able to forbid gay marriage on the grounds that it offends some people's morality. Not even if those some people represent a majority. Public rights cannot depend on the approval of private morality. A right ain't a right if it doesn't apply to everybody. Without basic rights, ya ain't got democracy, ya got mob rule. Course, the right also argues tradition on gay marriage, but thass jus' anudder form of morality. Besides, tradition amounts ta sayin', "Because that's the we've always done it."
My granpappy worked for the Post Office for over 30 years. For a while, he was basically a troubleshooter. When a Post Office branch got totally screwed up (which used ta happen fairly often back in tha days a politically appointed Post Masters), they sent him in ta fix it. He would completely take over the joint. He'd tell the Post Master, "Go home. I'm in charge now." An' then he'd commence ta changin' the way the Office did things. Tha complaint he most hated ta hear was, "But we've always done it that way." He'd say, "Yeah, and you've always done it wrong." Thass always a possibility with tradition, ya know.
posted
1:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Yup, everyt'ings gone jus' the way they said it would, 'cept fer . . . wait, no, the only t'ing 'ats gone tha they said it would was tha swift fall a Baghdad, which no one seriously questioned.
Garner Was Doing Admin's Advance Work
U.S. Commander Sees Troops Staying in Iraq for YearsYup, everyt'ings gone jus' the way they said it would, 'cept fer . . . wait, no, the only t'ing 'ats gone tha they said it would was tha swift fall a Baghdad, which no one seriously questioned.
posted
12:22 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
They Must Think It's A Novel Concept
White House Backs Off Job-Growth Forecast"We are interested in reality," [Presidential Spokespig Scott] McClellan said.
posted
12:09 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Their argument has lots of advantages (for the non-poor) and only one leetle flaw. We have no good reason to believe that it's valid. Isn't it just as plausible that poor people make poor lifestyle choices because their poor? Actually, it's probably more plausible. For one thing, as groups, people are people. If one group behaves differently from another group, it's usually, if not always, because their circumstances are different. For another thing, there is research that indicates that poverty causes poor behavior and poor health, not the other way around.
POOR CHOICE OR NO CHOICE?
Low income a factor in heart disease
More On Right Wing Idiocy About Poverty
A popular conception on the right is that poor people are poor because they make poor lifestyle choices. Poor people drink, they smoke, they use drugs, they don't get and stary married, etc. It seems to make logical sense and it appeals to our natural prejudices. If you can blame the victim, then you can free yourself from any moral obligation to help, from any need for personal sacrifice, from any unpleasant, nagging sense of guilt.Their argument has lots of advantages (for the non-poor) and only one leetle flaw. We have no good reason to believe that it's valid. Isn't it just as plausible that poor people make poor lifestyle choices because their poor? Actually, it's probably more plausible. For one thing, as groups, people are people. If one group behaves differently from another group, it's usually, if not always, because their circumstances are different. For another thing, there is research that indicates that poverty causes poor behavior and poor health, not the other way around.
POOR CHOICE OR NO CHOICE?
But a recent study published in the British Medical Journal provides further evidence that adverse life conditions--not lifestyle choices--are the main contributors to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.'Nother way a puttin' that is, poverty kills. I would think that letting people die cuz ya don't wanta get up off a little bit a money would be an obvious moral wrong. Mebbe 'ats jus' me.
Even more significant, this study relates the risk factors for these diseases in adults to the socioeconomic status they experienced as children.
Many researchers have noted that trying to prevent lifestyle illnesses by changing adult lifestyle behaviour is unlikely to alter the incidence of heart disease and diabetes if no improvement is made in people's economic conditions. Poverty influences health by determining the level of material resources available such as income, shelter, food, etc., stress that threatens bodily functioning, and the adoption of unhealthy coping habits such as poor diet, smoking, and alcohol use.Poverty determines the adoption of unhealthy coping habits, not unhealthy coping habits cause poverty.
Low income a factor in heart disease
Besides suffering actual material deprivation, there are psychological costs associated with not having sufficient income on which to live.Gee whillakers, right wing, authoritarian dad figures, ya think that shit could have anything to do with poor lifestyle choices? Eh, prolly not.
Living on low income creates uncertainty, insecurity and feelings of lack of control over one's life - these are all conditions that have powerful effects on health.
The National Population Health Survey found that among Canadians in the lower third of the income distribution, 47 per cent reported seeing the world as not being meaningful, events as being incomprehensible and life's challenges as being unmanageable.
The comparable figure for the highest third income group was 26 per cent.
posted
11:30 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
And nobody better come on ta me with'at, "Life's not fair," bullshit. Dingers always say that as though they've discovered something new and profound that they must relate to the rest of us, rather than something old and trite that any half-wit coulda figgered out all by his lonesome. They're trying to say, "Life's not fair, so people shouldn't be either," but that's false logic (Whew, there's a surprise). People ain't all of life, they're people. Life, the universe, and everything operates under a broad set of rules. Individual species operate under their own internal sets of rules. F'r instance, people hardly ever devour their mates after sex. Why should people be fair? Because it's the lesson of history, of social experience, of practically every major religion, and because iss tha lesson yer mama shoulda taughtcha, ya dipshit dingers.
Ya wanna tell me people hadn't oughta be fair, oh great moral arbiters of the right? I tell ya watcha do. Ya give me a moral argument, based on tha words a Jesus. Oh, an work da golden rule in, while yer at it.
Take This Job And Love It (Ya Lazy Welfare Bums)
Simple solutions to poverty won't work. The Working Poor: Invisible in America, by David K. Shipler, reviewed in the NYT's Take This Job and Be Thankful (for $6.80 an Hour) , partially explains why. (The reviewer is an asshole, in my angry opinion.) Shipler, a former NYT correspondent and Pulitzer winner, spent six years talking to poor Americans. Compare that to the Propaganda, I mean Heritage, Foundation which, rather than actually getting an up close look at those dirty, nasty poor people, just sifts and manipulates statistics to support it's predetermined "conclusions." (Foreclusions? We don't even have a word for it, it's so stupid.)Among his compelling subjects is Caroline Payne, a hard-working 50-year-old who earns $6.80 an hour stocking shelves and working the cash register at a Wal-Mart superstore in New Hampshire. This is just 80 cents an hour more than she earned more than 20 years earlier. She must cope with four children, including a teenage daughter who has epilepsy and a low I.Q.; bosses who will not let her juggle her schedule to accommodate her daughter's needs; $12,000 in credit-card debt; nagging ailments that go untreated because she cannot afford health insurance; and, not least, the loss of her teeth, which makes her look 10 years older than she is and which causes male managers to pass her over at promotion time.If the solution to poverty is poor people working more, as Rich Lowry and the Heritage ConFoundation claim, then why are these people poor? Why do we even use the term "working poor?" A course, their other solution is that those darned irresponsible single mothers just need to get married. An' if wishes was fishes. . . Never mind that there might be (probably are) perfectly good reasons why they don't. One is a lack of marriageable men. See Few Good Men, Why Poor Women Don't Remarry , by sociologist Kathryn Edin, in The American Prospect. Shipler mentions another serious problem.
As Mr. Shipler notes, Ms. Payne's face captures the insidious, self-reinforcing nature of poverty. "If she had not been poor," he writes, "she would not have lost her teeth, and if she had not lost her teeth, perhaps she would not have remained poor."
Debra Hall, a "welfare mother" in Cleveland forced to seek a job after welfare reform, makes $7 an hour working from 3:30 to 11:30 a.m. in a bakery, "flipping bread on the dreaded garlic line." After a few months her wage jumps all the way to $7.90. After paying the bills and taking care of her two children, one of whom has Down syndrome, she rarely has more than $8 in her bank account. Her fellow workers — some have been at the bakery for years — all seem "trapped in gloom," Mr. Shipler writes, and Ms. Hall seems "doomed to repeat her family's inability to emerge from low wages."
"Even though I never posed the question," he writes, "sooner or later most of the impoverished women I interviewed mentioned that they had been sexually abused as children." Many have trouble trusting men and maintaining families, which makes them more likely to be poor.Somehow the right's "solutions" to problems like racism and poverty typically seem to amount to, "Move along, nothing to see here, it's all the victims' faults, you have no reason to feel guilty and no reason to feel a moral obligation to do anything about it." I guess they learned that from Jesus.
And nobody better come on ta me with'at, "Life's not fair," bullshit. Dingers always say that as though they've discovered something new and profound that they must relate to the rest of us, rather than something old and trite that any half-wit coulda figgered out all by his lonesome. They're trying to say, "Life's not fair, so people shouldn't be either," but that's false logic (Whew, there's a surprise). People ain't all of life, they're people. Life, the universe, and everything operates under a broad set of rules. Individual species operate under their own internal sets of rules. F'r instance, people hardly ever devour their mates after sex. Why should people be fair? Because it's the lesson of history, of social experience, of practically every major religion, and because iss tha lesson yer mama shoulda taughtcha, ya dipshit dingers.
Ya wanna tell me people hadn't oughta be fair, oh great moral arbiters of the right? I tell ya watcha do. Ya give me a moral argument, based on tha words a Jesus. Oh, an work da golden rule in, while yer at it.
posted
9:41 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 17, 2004
Shaken father writes to president
February 17, 2004
Lives Snuffed Out In A Meaningless War
America should demand an explanation.Shaken father writes to president
Burying a child will no doubt be the hardest task that his mother and I shall ever have to do. The one question I have, and the one question I would like you to answer, is, "Why did my son and every other soldier that was killed, maimed and wounded have to suffer settling your vendetta?"Tip O'The Tam to Jim Hightower's Weblog.
My son is gone just when he was laying a strong foundation to build upon for the rest of his life.
Now, President Bush, his life has been snuffed out in a meaningless war.
posted
11:42 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Cleland Responds to Coulter Attack
Max Cleland, war fucking hero, replies to Annie "The Anorexic, Idiotarian, Rott-Goddamn-weiller Half-wit Bitch" Coultergeist.
posted
10:26 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
What A Difference Seven Months Makes
CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was WorkingCIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.Thanks to Webocracy.
posted
9:08 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
George Bush, Make-Believe President
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
Damned Irresponsible Liberal Democrat
Not Qualified, Not Truthful, Not WiseGeorge Bush, Make-Believe President
In 1961, John F. Kennedy -- after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by American-trained Cuban exiles -- didn't point fingers at the CIA or anyone else. Instead, he told the National Security Council that "we're not going to have any search for scapegoats . . . the final responsibilities of any failure is mine, and mine alone."Which is about the way George W. "Honor and Integrity" Bush has played it. Right?
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
posted
8:41 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Death-Qualified Jurors Are More Likely to Convict
Another Reason To Oppose The Death Penalty
I mean aside from the fact that justice shouldn't mean Just Us.Death-Qualified Jurors Are More Likely to Convict
There's even more to it than that, and Talk Left's post has the documentation.As a result, the jury selection process includes a unique procedure, "death qualification," that is designed to ensure that the jury is qualified for the sentence phase. Most jurors who are strongly opposed to the death penalty, and some who are strongly in favor, are excluded at the outset. fn 108 Many studies have shown that these exclusions make the jury more likely to convict.
posted
8:17 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Lies, Damn Lies, And Murderous Lies
Reuters reports Swiss Study Predicts Scorching Euro SummersThe heat wave that killed more than 10,000 people across Europe last summer is only a taste of things to come as the planet becomes steadily warmer, a Swiss expert predicted on Tuesday.Hold yer breath waitin' fer the US media ta tell ya tha truth. The US has delayed far too long, and coninues to delay, in doing something about global warming, largely because corporations and their captive parties, the Democraps and the Repukelicans, have worked tirelessly to prevent the American people from realizing the truth. (I s'pose I gots ta point out that, though I think both parties suck, the GOPukes are far worse than the Jackasses. And they're our only options.)
[snip]
Most climate scientists agree that the world is steadily warming and human industrial activity is mostly to blame.
posted
7:26 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Be sure to check out the post above it, as well, on how the government allows staggering tax ripoffs by the rich. This guy is good.
Mad Ave Marketing Of Politics Won't Work For Left
Omnium (2nd post, Feb. 17) delivers a response to Seeing The Forest's The Arrogance of the Informed which is far better than mine.We have argued ad infinitum whether or not we should stoop to their level, steal their tricks, sink as low as they do. The answer is an emphatic NO, and for one simple reason: IT WON'T WORK.But that's not our problem, as maja ably explains. Our problem is selling people on the idea that they can actually have what they want.
[snip]
The Republican problem is the same as that of the proponderance of Mad Ave clients: convincing us to buy something we don't want, something that may even go against our own basic self-interest. This is precisely the problem marketing techniques were designed to solve.
Basic human dignity. Fairness, justice, tolerance.Real American values.
Be sure to check out the post above it, as well, on how the government allows staggering tax ripoffs by the rich. This guy is good.
posted
6:44 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
We could try eating the rat bastards of the far right (just the leaders, ya know), but I bet they'd taste nasty-bitter.
Solution To F'right Dinger Population Problem?
Report: Cambodians Resort to Eating RatsWe could try eating the rat bastards of the far right (just the leaders, ya know), but I bet they'd taste nasty-bitter.
posted
5:10 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
So, thanks ta George W. Rove's reelection plans, we got a tad more'n four months ta hand over power to the new Iraqi government. We got no idear what kinda gummint iss gonna be, or how iss gonna be selected, but however the fuck it turns out, we're handin' off on June 30. Iss amazin' how de-mock-racy has spontaneously blossomed in Iraq. Tol' ya id be a piece a (yellow)cake.
Best-Laid Plans Of Mice & Imperialist Dopes
US election plan in Iraq foundersSo, thanks ta George W. Rove's reelection plans, we got a tad more'n four months ta hand over power to the new Iraqi government. We got no idear what kinda gummint iss gonna be, or how iss gonna be selected, but however the fuck it turns out, we're handin' off on June 30. Iss amazin' how de-mock-racy has spontaneously blossomed in Iraq. Tol' ya id be a piece a (yellow)cake.
posted
4:54 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Eugene Volokh has a thoughtful post on why he doesn't think San Francisco's Newsom should be condemned in the same way as Moore, at least not yet. That's what I like about Volokh, he's a thinking conservative. Conservative is not necessarily synonymous with stupid. It only seems that way because far right (f'right) dingbats (dingers) keep calling themselves conservative.
Instapundit disagrees. Whip me wacky with a pussywillow. I hate a man with a brain who uses it to defend brainless ideology.
Newsom, SF, Gay Marriage - Not Another Knee-Jerk Jerk
Mayor Gavin Newsom and ex-Chief Justice Roy MooreEugene Volokh has a thoughtful post on why he doesn't think San Francisco's Newsom should be condemned in the same way as Moore, at least not yet. That's what I like about Volokh, he's a thinking conservative. Conservative is not necessarily synonymous with stupid. It only seems that way because far right (f'right) dingbats (dingers) keep calling themselves conservative.
Instapundit disagrees. Whip me wacky with a pussywillow. I hate a man with a brain who uses it to defend brainless ideology.
posted
4:31 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Seeing The Forest and Daily Kos comment on DC Democrat insiders. Yet, consider the alternative.
Maybe They Really Are Democraps
The Whiniest People in the CountrySeeing The Forest and Daily Kos comment on DC Democrat insiders. Yet, consider the alternative.
posted
4:02 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Perception, Reality, What's The Difference?
Prosecutor in Terror Case Sues AshcroftThe Justice Department has exaggerated its performance in the war on terrorism, interfered with a major terror prosecution and compromised a confidential informant, a federal prosecutor has alleged in an extraordinary lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft.Idd'n 'at basic to tha Republican ethos?
[snip]
Convertino says he complained repeatedly to the Justice Department in Washington that it placed "perception" over "reality" to the serious detriment of the war on terror.
posted
3:33 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
MoveOn is now over two million people strong in the United States. That's a huge number: the organization we've built together is bigger than the Christian Coalition at its peak. To put it another way, one in every 146 Americans is now a MoveOn member. And we're still growing fast.
And what we're doing together is even more exciting. For decades, parts of our political system have been sold to the highest bidder, with corporate donors winning out over the public interest. But on Friday, we finished our $10 million Voter Fund grassroots fundraising campaign without a dime from corporations or special interests. In the end, over 170,000 people opened their checkbooks and contributed an average of about $60 to put ads on the air that challenge Bush and his corporate backers. The impact of this campaign shouldn't be underestimated: it clearly demonstrates that real people still matter in American politics. And the folks in Washington know it.
Political giving is almost always a quid-pro-quo business: corporate lobbyists trade money for policy, the wealthy trade money for access to politicians. MoveOn members aren't asking for anything but their democracy back, and that kind of generosity is pretty rare. When we hear about the families who saved up to make a $25 donation, or think of the thousands of folks who mailed in $5 checks, we know this is something amazing and new that we're a part of.
And money's only part of the equation: our phone calls and emails helped win a real victory last week. After CBS rejected our Voter Fund's Super Bowl ad, we learned that the White House was being allowed to air an advocacy ad about Medicare. We told you about it, and in just a few days over 50,000 MoveOn members called and emailed to complain. On Friday, CBS pulled the ad, stating that it had violated their policy. It's a big win, and a powerful blow to the Bush Administration's campaign to cover up its Medicare sellout.
This tidal wave of engagement and activism isn't exclusive to MoveOn, of course. Every leader of every organization we run into sees the same thing. Across the country, from labor unions like the SEIU to Greenpeace to the ACLU, people are standing up and getting active. President Bush told us he was a uniter, and he was right: he's uniting people across America to fight back for our country.
As this movement gains momentum and visibility, many of these organizations will inevitably become targets for Republican attacks. We've already seen some of the smear tactics the right will use. When their situation becomes even more dire, we know they'll strike hard at MoveOn and the groups we stand with –- a campaign of intimidation fueled by President Bush's $150 million war chest.
But this new democratic groundswell draws its strength from the hopes of millions of people, standing up and taking action for a better country and a better world. We simply refuse to let lobbyists, attack politics and fear-mongering destroy our democracy. And against the courage and conviction of real people, even Karl Rove and $150 million can't do much.
Thank you for your hope, your generosity, and your willingness to speak out. Together, we're taking our country back.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
February 16th, 2004
How Many People Know That MoveOn Is Affiliated With Grassroots Democracy?
Dear MoveOn member,MoveOn is now over two million people strong in the United States. That's a huge number: the organization we've built together is bigger than the Christian Coalition at its peak. To put it another way, one in every 146 Americans is now a MoveOn member. And we're still growing fast.
And what we're doing together is even more exciting. For decades, parts of our political system have been sold to the highest bidder, with corporate donors winning out over the public interest. But on Friday, we finished our $10 million Voter Fund grassroots fundraising campaign without a dime from corporations or special interests. In the end, over 170,000 people opened their checkbooks and contributed an average of about $60 to put ads on the air that challenge Bush and his corporate backers. The impact of this campaign shouldn't be underestimated: it clearly demonstrates that real people still matter in American politics. And the folks in Washington know it.
Political giving is almost always a quid-pro-quo business: corporate lobbyists trade money for policy, the wealthy trade money for access to politicians. MoveOn members aren't asking for anything but their democracy back, and that kind of generosity is pretty rare. When we hear about the families who saved up to make a $25 donation, or think of the thousands of folks who mailed in $5 checks, we know this is something amazing and new that we're a part of.
And money's only part of the equation: our phone calls and emails helped win a real victory last week. After CBS rejected our Voter Fund's Super Bowl ad, we learned that the White House was being allowed to air an advocacy ad about Medicare. We told you about it, and in just a few days over 50,000 MoveOn members called and emailed to complain. On Friday, CBS pulled the ad, stating that it had violated their policy. It's a big win, and a powerful blow to the Bush Administration's campaign to cover up its Medicare sellout.
This tidal wave of engagement and activism isn't exclusive to MoveOn, of course. Every leader of every organization we run into sees the same thing. Across the country, from labor unions like the SEIU to Greenpeace to the ACLU, people are standing up and getting active. President Bush told us he was a uniter, and he was right: he's uniting people across America to fight back for our country.
As this movement gains momentum and visibility, many of these organizations will inevitably become targets for Republican attacks. We've already seen some of the smear tactics the right will use. When their situation becomes even more dire, we know they'll strike hard at MoveOn and the groups we stand with –- a campaign of intimidation fueled by President Bush's $150 million war chest.
But this new democratic groundswell draws its strength from the hopes of millions of people, standing up and taking action for a better country and a better world. We simply refuse to let lobbyists, attack politics and fear-mongering destroy our democracy. And against the courage and conviction of real people, even Karl Rove and $150 million can't do much.
Thank you for your hope, your generosity, and your willingness to speak out. Together, we're taking our country back.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
February 16th, 2004
posted
2:44 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Thanks to Uncommon Thought Journal.
Listing The Lies Of Our Trustworthy President
Bush Administration Officials' Lies about Iraq's Supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Their Own WordsThanks to Uncommon Thought Journal.
posted
2:31 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
Champions Of (white, male, rich Republican) Freedom
US terror laws 'damage human rights'The United States' "war on terror" has been "extremely damaging" for human rights, and has been used as an excuse by totalitarian regimes to impose oppressive laws, a leading think tank said yesterday.It was necessary to -- Ah, fuckit.
[snip]
"US national security officials have also been reported as using techniques outlawed under the 1984 Convention Against Torture ... which the US signed in 1994, in their interrogation of al- Qa'ida suspects. US authorities have returned or sent a number of prisoners for further interrogation to countries where there are strong grounds to suspect they will be tortured."
"It is ... important to note that the credibility of America's externally directed human rights message has been damaged by US curtailment of the rights of its own citizens and non-citizens."
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
posted
2:12 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Poor Prezeedent Wonnerful. All them long-haired, left-wing hippie friggin' peaceniks jus' keep a criticizin' him. Ya know, like former weapons inspectors, former national security officials, Vince Cannistraro. Fuckin' commies.
Tanx ta Salon.com.
Lies, Lies, Lies - Wait. Maybe Jus' Misrepresentations, Misrep . . .
Weapons 'capacity' of Iraq challengedPrewar Iraq was highly unlikely to produce a device that could easily inflict mass casualties -- despite President Bush's current assertion that Saddam Hussein had the "capacity" to make a weapon of mass destruction, former weapons inspectors and former national security officials say.Kay added:
[snip]
"David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons," Bush said. "Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons."
But Kay did not describe Iraq's production capacity so clearly in either his interim public report last fall or in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 28.
[snip]
Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of the CIA's counterterrorism unit and a former director of intelligence for the National Security Council, noted that Bush has been accused of exaggerating intelligence before the war by taking shards of analysis that included conditions and hedged suspicions about what Iraq might be harboring -- then representing it as a certainty.
Cannistraro said Bush's description of Kay's postwar findings is also a questionably aggressive interpretation of the evidence.
"It's not as flatly wrong, but it is misleading," Cannistraro said.
"With chemical and nuclear, it would take them years to rebuild production capacity. In biological, they had the production infrastructure because of dual-use technology, but they didn't necessarily have the capacity for weaponization."To answer the dingers who say, "How can Kay know Iraq didn't have WMDs. Iraq's as big as California. How could he search every square foot?" Simple, dingers, just like you. If Iraq didn't have the ability to produce WMDs, then there are no WMDs to hide. A suitcase full of anthrax, by-de-by, ain't no WMD.
Poor Prezeedent Wonnerful. All them long-haired, left-wing hippie friggin' peaceniks jus' keep a criticizin' him. Ya know, like former weapons inspectors, former national security officials, Vince Cannistraro. Fuckin' commies.
Tanx ta Salon.com.
posted
12:52 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Moderate conservatives (by which I mean people who don't know how far right they are) keep telling me what a smart guy Dennis Praeger is, presumably because he doesn't sound like an obvious raving lunatic like, say, Rush Limbloviator or Michael "It's an insult to call me" Savage -- an insult to savages. Ya gots ta listen a leetle more closely, pibbles.
Thoughtful Cons, Like Praeger, Make No Sense Either
I know all there is to know about the Dennis GameThanks to feminist doctrines that pervade education from kindergarten through graduate school, men and women increasingly believe that the sexes are largely identical. Therefore, the arenas wherein women can feel and demonstrate their feminine distinctiveness have narrowed appreciably.Or so Dennis Praeger writes, and he's right. Incredibly stupid men and women increasingly believe that the sexes are largely identical. Those with functioning brains think the sexes are equal, not identical. But why confuse the issue?
Moderate conservatives (by which I mean people who don't know how far right they are) keep telling me what a smart guy Dennis Praeger is, presumably because he doesn't sound like an obvious raving lunatic like, say, Rush Limbloviator or Michael "It's an insult to call me" Savage -- an insult to savages. Ya gots ta listen a leetle more closely, pibbles.
posted
9:38 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Oh, Please, Please, Please, Please
LowdownNow the incorrigible Larry Flynt says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine - in a book to be published this summer by Kensington Press.Via Political Wire via Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal.
posted
9:12 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Isn't that what the evangeli-fundies always do? Georgia's trying to pass an anti-gay rights amendment, or in different words, an anti-civil rights amendment, though they turned down an amendment to ban remarriage. And I coulda swore Jesus was pretty clear on that.
As usual, the right is decrying "activist" judges who threaten to overturn the sacred will of the people. Just like they did when they were fighting desegregation. S'funny, cuz I din't know that civil rights were supposed to be subject to the electorate's whims in a constitutional democracy. I thought it was the proper purview of the courts to interpret the constitution. I shoulda paid more attention to the lies they tol' me in school. But now I see that if we don't rein in these activist judges, everybody in America could end up with equal rights. And that would be wrong. And un-American.
Champions Of The (straight, white, male Republican) People
Applying the Bible SelectivelyIsn't that what the evangeli-fundies always do? Georgia's trying to pass an anti-gay rights amendment, or in different words, an anti-civil rights amendment, though they turned down an amendment to ban remarriage. And I coulda swore Jesus was pretty clear on that.
As usual, the right is decrying "activist" judges who threaten to overturn the sacred will of the people. Just like they did when they were fighting desegregation. S'funny, cuz I din't know that civil rights were supposed to be subject to the electorate's whims in a constitutional democracy. I thought it was the proper purview of the courts to interpret the constitution. I shoulda paid more attention to the lies they tol' me in school. But now I see that if we don't rein in these activist judges, everybody in America could end up with equal rights. And that would be wrong. And un-American.
posted
8:22 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tip via Atrios.
Oh, Please Be True, Please Be True, Please Be True
Dredge ReportI happen to know that several major news organizations have for some time been looking into claims about portly conservative moralizer William Bennett and a leather-bound dominatrix bodybuilder in Las Vegas, a woman who has some very interesting narratives to recount. What news organizations? The top five that come to your mind are on the list. Some reporters have even traveled far and wide on this story.Nobody's nailed it down yet, dammit!
Tip via Atrios.
posted
7:50 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Ohio Town's Water at Last Runs Past a Color Line
Tip O'The Tam to Atrios.
Racism's, Racism's, Rac . . . Ah, Hell, Cut The Bullshit.
There's a name for the intellectual leaders and opinion makers of the right: Huge, lying sacks of diarrheal porker-shit. "The End Of Racism," avers Dinesh D'Shmooza. "Racism's over," cry the pampered members of the WASP elite. And those who complain are told they're part of a culture of victimization.Ohio Town's Water at Last Runs Past a Color Line
For years, decades really, residents of the hollow had been asking local officials to extend water lines down their narrow, twisting roads. Not enough water pressure, they were told. Too expensive. Too hilly.And most a tha peebles in prison're innocent. Jus' ast 'em.
Yet just up the hill, not 200 yards away, homeowners have had running municipal water for years. One new homeowner even installed a hot tub and routinely sprinkled his lawn, something residents of the hollow could never do with their 1,000-gallon cisterns, which were constantly running dry.
Almost all the people living at the top of the hill are white. Almost all the people in the hollow are racially mixed: white, black and American Indian. And it increasingly seemed to residents of the hollow that this had something to do with their plight.
"The water stopped where the black folks started," said Saundra McCuen . . .
[snip]
The [Ohio Civil Rights C]ommission concluded there was probable cause to believe that the city, county and local water authority had "failed to provide the complainants with access to public water service because of their race."
[snip]
Government officials say race had nothing to do with the lack of water service in the hollow.
Tip O'The Tam to Atrios.
posted
7:30 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The War Against Reason - And Reasons
This is brilliant. Keeping track of the Perpetual Wars is a verititable cornucopious of links and issues ranked (as in level of odoriferousness) on the color-coded alert system.
posted
7:10 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 16, 2004
February 16, 2004
Maybe You Should Skip Bob Herbert's Column
Promises, PromisesWorking Americans are caught in a terrific squeeze. Jobs are not being created in substantial numbers. The slow pace of job growth has dampened wage growth. Millions of Americans are underemployed, working at jobs for which they are overqualified, or working part time because they can't find full-time work, and so forth. Benefits are being scaled back. And the shipment of upscale jobs overseas is expected to accelerate.I've been feeling a little demoralized about the chances of defeating GOP States of America, Inc., since reading The Arrogance of the Informed at See The Forest. I mean, if we have to become the marketing (read "lying") masters to defeat the marketing masters, how is that a victory? But now that I've read Herbert I feel much better.
This is all happening in an expansion. What can we expect from the next recession?
posted
7:11 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
First they came for lowest class workers, the janitors and other service workers,
and the middle class didn't give a shit, because they thought they were better than service workers;
Then they came for the unions and the factory workers,
and the middle class didn't give a shit, because they thought they were better than union and factory workers;
Then they came for the programmers and software engineers and their $70 & 80,000 salaries,
and the middle class said, "Holy shit! Is it getting hot around here, or is it just me?"
Depends Whose Ox Is Gettin' Gored
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-- Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for lowest class workers, the janitors and other service workers,
and the middle class didn't give a shit, because they thought they were better than service workers;
Then they came for the unions and the factory workers,
and the middle class didn't give a shit, because they thought they were better than union and factory workers;
Then they came for the programmers and software engineers and their $70 & 80,000 salaries,
and the middle class said, "Holy shit! Is it getting hot around here, or is it just me?"
posted
1:20 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
How To Manage The Media 101.
Brad Delong posts on how White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard was misleading both the president and reporters on the effects of deficits, but I was struck by this:The reporters would then write their stories, most of them headlined: "Opinions About Effects of Deficits Differ." Most of them, I think, were under deadline and did not have time to listen to and think about explanations--offered by me, by Peter Orszag, by Bill Gale, by Bog Greenstein, by Bob Reischauer, and many, many others--that we were answering the "multi-year deficit" question, that Glenn Hubbard was answering the "one-year deficit" question, and that ours was the relevant answer because the administration was planning multi-year deficits. Some reporters were thick as mud and barely understood what a deficit was, and weren't too interested in learning. Some reporters understood very well, but thought that appearing to contradict White House sources was a career-limiting move. And a few actually tried to explain what was going on to their readers.Liberal media my ass.
posted
12:48 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Democratic Underground reports that The Left Was Right on Iraq. But you knew that.
Finally, this is so sad my voice broke when I tried to read it to my honey. No parent should ever have to say something like this. Fallen soldier's mother says her son 'died for absolutely nothing.'
Roundup Of Other Webocracy Must Reads
The scandal of lost U.S. votes. In St. Louis and Florida, at least, disproportionately black, Democratic votes. Prolly jus' a coinkydink.Democratic Underground reports that The Left Was Right on Iraq. But you knew that.
Finally, this is so sad my voice broke when I tried to read it to my honey. No parent should ever have to say something like this. Fallen soldier's mother says her son 'died for absolutely nothing.'
posted
11:56 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Former Iraq administrator sees decades-long U.S. military presence
Is Jay Garner doing the advance work for the administration? I remember before the war when the dingers were insisting we'd be in and out of Iraq in 90 days, six months tops, and calling me a stupid liberal for suspecting otherwise. History, even very recent history, doesn't seem to mean a damn thing anymore. Down the memory hole.
Thanks to Webocracy.
Halliburton's Cookin' Up A Storm In Iraq
Operation Sweatshop IraqI ate uneasily remembering an NBC news report that the Pentagon repeatedly warned Halliburton that the food it served to US troops in Iraq was "dirty," as were the kitchens it was served in. The Pentagon reported finding "blood all over the floor," "dirty pans," "dirty grills," "dirty salad bars" and "rotting meats ... and vegetables" in four of the military messes the company operates in Iraq.But at least they do it cheap.
Indeed even the mess hall where Bush served troops their Thanksgiving dinner was dirty in August, September and October, according to NBC. Halliburton promises to improve "have not been followed through," according to the Pentagon report that warned "serious repercussions may result" if the contractor did not clean up.
For the kind of cash that the government is spending ($28 a day per soldier) the soldiers could be eating at the White Palace, one of the best restaurants in Baghdad, fancied by Paul Bremer, the United States ambassador who oversees the occupation authority in Iraq.The private sector does do everything better. At least we shouldn't be over there too much longer.
[snip]
In December Halliburton estimated that it had served 21 million meals so far to the 110,000 troops at 45 sites in Iraq, according to numbers provided to an NBC reporter. But in recent weeks military auditors have started to suspect that the company may be cooking the numbers and over-charging the government by millions of dollars.
The Wall Street Journal reported in early February that Halliburton may have overcharged taxpayers by more than $16 million for meals to U.S. troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom for the first seven months of 2003. In July 2003 alone Halliburton billed for 42,042 meals a day but served only 14,053 meals daily.
Former Iraq administrator sees decades-long U.S. military presence
Is Jay Garner doing the advance work for the administration? I remember before the war when the dingers were insisting we'd be in and out of Iraq in 90 days, six months tops, and calling me a stupid liberal for suspecting otherwise. History, even very recent history, doesn't seem to mean a damn thing anymore. Down the memory hole.
Thanks to Webocracy.
posted
11:34 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
In OUTSOURCING IS GOOD FOR YOU, economist Max Sawicky begins an explanation of why it ain't necessarily so.It is easy to rest on the notion that employment always recovers from job losses due to outsourcing. This is tantamount to the idea that a country always recovers from aerial bombing. For families directly affected by outsourcing, there may be no recovery. Families have finite resources and working lives. A financial reversal can have permanet effects. Over and against this, there is the benefit of some minute change in consumer prices. As consumers we stand together, but as wage-earners we hang separately.Worth the read to get a (largely) contrarian view.
[snip]
Consumer welfare is a liberal trip. People do not subsist on low consumer prices; they live off wages. Doesn't one translate to the other, you might logically ask? No, it doesn't.
posted
10:30 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tip O'The Tam to The Right Christians.
Maybe This Explains The GOP's Success
Most in US 'believe bible stories'Overall, 64 per cent of those canvassed believed the story of Moses parting the Red Sea was "literally true, meaning it happened that way word for word".I don't think it's a secret that those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible are much more likely to be right of center politically. Seems ta me that the right regularly says to the left, "We are perfectly capable of believing astonishing things in the absence of hard evidence, and we're more rational than you." Seems ta me that, in fact, much of the right is actually practicing faith-based politics as well as religion. If Fearless Leader says it, it must be so. Why would I need any steenking evidence?
And 61 per cent felt the same way about creation.
Tip O'The Tam to The Right Christians.
posted
10:03 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Dammit, Son! Don'tcha Know Racism's Over?
Race, Justice Go on Trial in Sex Case. Eighteen-year-old Marcus Dixon is black. He is serving a mandatory 10 year sentence for, in essence, statutory rape of a white classmate. It's a little more complicated than that, so if you want the details read the story and my previous post on the case, Racism's Over! Get Over It! Did Dixon get an excessively harsh sentence because he's black? I think so, but that's not my point in this post. My point is about racial attitudes in the "new" South (and elsewhere). Dixon, hoping to win a scholarship, moved into the home of a white family, the Jones's, in a predominantly white community.The boy's arrival in Lindale caused friction. Kenneth Jones' brother, who opposed racial mixing, said Dixon was not welcome in his house.See? Racism's better hidden. I mean over. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT! LA, LA, LA, LA . . . .
[snip]
Josh Pilgrim, who played sports with Dixon from the age of 8, said Dixon's race was not an issue at Pepperell — but there were limits. Most local people dislike the idea of interracial dating or marriage, said Pilgrim, adding that he feels that way himself.
[snip]
Race was not an issue "as far as the dudes I hung out with. The girls' parents didn't accept the fact that they were hanging out with a black guy," Dixon said. According to Dixon, the girls would say, "You can't call, but we can talk on the computer."
posted
8:40 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
This Twisted World
Once again, a little reality check from This Modern World. (Watch the ad. It's worth it.)
posted
8:07 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
But What Is It Turns A Liberal Into A Reactionary?
From Quotes of the Day:"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
posted
7:20 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
According to the Brookings Institution, though 70% of Medicaid's beneficiary's are poor children and adults, 73% of Medicaid's vendor payments go for the care of the elderly and disabled. So who's it gonna be? Who gets the ax? The poor, the elderly, the disabled? All of the above? Ya save more on the elderly and disabled, but that's gonna be a bitch to explain to the voters, so my guess is the poor get fucked. Again. If you're a hard-hearted bastard who wants to fuck over the poor, the elderly or the disabled, fine. You gotta right. But say so. Say it out loud, ya sonuvabitch! Quit hidin' behind "principle."
The "Fuck The Poor" GOP Hides Behind "Principle"
U.S. Nears Clash With Governors on Medicaid CostThe Bush administration is headed for a confrontation with states over the financing of Medicaid, the nation's largest health program, as federal officials crack down on arrangements used by many states to shift costs to the federal government.See, those damn states aren't doing things the "right" way, and it's terribly important to always do things the "right" way. So the good GOP wants to put a stop to all this wrongdoing.
The federal action comes as states, struggling with severe fiscal problems, are cutting benefits and restricting eligibility for the program, which serves 50 million low-income people each year.
Federal officials and auditors contend that states use creative bookkeeping and other ploys to obtain large amounts of federal Medicaid money without paying their share.
In one example described by Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, county nursing homes borrowed $1.5 billion from a commercial bank. The money was transferred to a state account, then to the counties, which paid the loan. The state, which Secretary Thompson did not name, claimed it had spent the full amount on medical care and drew down more than $800 million in federal payments.Damn right! That's why they call him "do the right thing Don." Only trouble is, doing the "right" thing has consequences in the real world, and I'm just the kind of dumb bastard who thinks consequences are more important than process or principle. The Bushies' proposals, in the real world, will cut Medicaid, a cut that will affect the most vulnerable among us. Gotta make up those big-ass tax cuts for the rich somewhere. The consequences of "doing the right thing" will be reduced care for some or all, no care for some or, in some cases, reduced and less effective yet far more expensive care because people will wait until their problems are acute and then go to emergency rooms. As a result, you'll pay less in taxes but a lot more in insurance premiums. That's OK though, cuz at least that moves it into the hallowed private sector.
Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said: "I am outraged at this practice. It needs to be stopped."
According to the Brookings Institution, though 70% of Medicaid's beneficiary's are poor children and adults, 73% of Medicaid's vendor payments go for the care of the elderly and disabled. So who's it gonna be? Who gets the ax? The poor, the elderly, the disabled? All of the above? Ya save more on the elderly and disabled, but that's gonna be a bitch to explain to the voters, so my guess is the poor get fucked. Again. If you're a hard-hearted bastard who wants to fuck over the poor, the elderly or the disabled, fine. You gotta right. But say so. Say it out loud, ya sonuvabitch! Quit hidin' behind "principle."
posted
7:11 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Liars or Dumb Bastards? It's So Tiring Trying To Decide
Matthew Iglesias takes on the WaPo editorial writers' over Kerry's "Inconsistencies" on Iraq. One example of the WaPo's argument:Got basically this same argument from a dinger who thinks he's a centrist (amazing how that can happen):In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies.The Post is being disingenuous here. The actions being contemplated -- limited air strikes against military and WMD targets -- were nothing like the actions being contemplated four years later.Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies.
Any idea the Right comes up with the Left is against. Even if it is something that a few years ago the left was pushing for.So when Kerry, or the left, take different positions on different issues, it proves their inconsistency and despicable partisanship. Game, set, match. Nuance is lost on a lot of people, mostly extremists and dullards. This, however, isn't even nuance. These are almost radically different situations. How hard can that be to figure out? What's the WaPo editorialists' excuse?
The war in Iraq is a prime example. When Clinton was President every Democrat in the country was trumpeting how dangerous Saddam was, how his WMD were a threat to the US. How we need to do something. INCLUDING most of the Dem presidential candidates!
posted
6:03 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 15, 2004
February 15, 2004
We Must Destroy Freedom In Order To Save It
U.S. again brands Canada terrorist havenCanada has been branded a "favoured destination for terrorists and international criminals" by the research arm of the U.S. Congress.
[snip]
Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees questioned the quality of the report's research, calling it one-sided and "laughably amateurish."
She said its themes are "chilling" and "virtually totalitarian" given the study's association of broad civil liberties with the cultivation of terrorism.
posted
6:44 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Norquist seems to look forward gleefully to the destruction of both public and private unions and the complete emasculation of the Democratic Party. In other words, toward the future GOP States of America, a one party state in which liberal "evil" has been stamped out forever. Final victory.
I'd like to see both parties move left a bit, but I don't want to eliminate the right. I certainly don't want a one party state, hell, I don't think two parties are enough. I don't know of any real democracy where unions are considered inherently evil or wrong. I believe the hard right is so mistaken that they are effectively evil, but I don't think they're intentionally evil. I don't think they're evil incarnate. I don't think they all deserve to die. I sure hope this isn't a battle of ultimate good vs. ultimate evil, and I don't think it is. But if a political movement is out to eliminate me and those who think like me, I have to try to eliminate that movement's power.
I don't want to eliminate the right and I don't want a final victory, but I do want to stop the hard right eliminationists. Cornered rats do fight hard, but nowhere near as hard as cornered men and women. If yer lookin' to destroy us, muthafuckas, then pray for luck. Yer gonna need it.
Right to Left: Prepare To Be Eliminated
Or get up on your hind legs and fight. Dave Neiwert, Orcinus, posts Disturbing undercurrents at The American Street. He has several disturbing links. There's the story behind this: "I hate all you f*ing Democrats. You f*ng deserve to be die. Hopefully we can kill the f*ing bunch of you soon..." The tale of a driver threatened, several times, because of a mild bumpersticker. Peggy Nooner's peptalk. And, perhaps most disturbing of all, Grover Norquist's "Cornered Rats Fight Hard."Norquist seems to look forward gleefully to the destruction of both public and private unions and the complete emasculation of the Democratic Party. In other words, toward the future GOP States of America, a one party state in which liberal "evil" has been stamped out forever. Final victory.
I'd like to see both parties move left a bit, but I don't want to eliminate the right. I certainly don't want a one party state, hell, I don't think two parties are enough. I don't know of any real democracy where unions are considered inherently evil or wrong. I believe the hard right is so mistaken that they are effectively evil, but I don't think they're intentionally evil. I don't think they're evil incarnate. I don't think they all deserve to die. I sure hope this isn't a battle of ultimate good vs. ultimate evil, and I don't think it is. But if a political movement is out to eliminate me and those who think like me, I have to try to eliminate that movement's power.
I don't want to eliminate the right and I don't want a final victory, but I do want to stop the hard right eliminationists. Cornered rats do fight hard, but nowhere near as hard as cornered men and women. If yer lookin' to destroy us, muthafuckas, then pray for luck. Yer gonna need it.
posted
5:29 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
Lying Terrorist Found In White House - Code Named: POTUS
Scant months after the 9/11 attacks traumatized America, President (God, I hate calling him that.) Bush deliberately stoked the fears of an already frightened people in his 2002 State Of The Union Speech:Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.Bush was lying. Again. Or maybe it was just another "mistake" in his incredibly long string of "mistakes" for which he has never taken responsibility. Greenpeace has posted a copy of this Wall Street Journal story:
Monday night, the White House defended the warnings about Islamic extremist intentions, but said the concerns highlighted by Mr. Bush were based on intelligence developed before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, and that no plant diagrams were actually found in Afghanistan. "There's no additional basis for the language in the speech that we have found," a senior administration official said.Oh, but probably it was just an innocent little mistake, a mild exaggeration. After all, why on earth would good President Bush lie to the people?
[snip]
Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said Monday night that rather than being based on actual diagrams that were actually found in Afghanistan, the president's warning about nuclear plants grew from information collected by the U.S. intelligence community.
While in custody during the Nuremberg trials, Nazi war criminal Hermann Goerring was interviewed by a psychologist named Dr. Gustave Gilbert, as recounted in the new book "Weapons of Mass Deception" by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy.Have we had enough yet? Can we impeach the sonuvabitch yet? WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
"Of course, the people don't want war," Goerring said. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war... . That is understood. After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a Fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship," Goerring said.
Gilbert responded: "There's one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives. And in the United States only Congress can declare wars." Spoken like a true believer.
You can almost hear the snicker in Goerring's retort. "Oh, that is all well and good. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--From Common Dreams
Tip O'The Tam to Webocracy.
posted
1:24 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Chalabi ran a mini-Wurlitzer on the CIA, representing single sources as multiple sources, spinning the Agency. Maja's right, Chalabi's one of the great conmen of all time.
UPDATE: A correction from Maja:
Cons got Conned While Conning The Rest Of Us
Maja at Omnium links to Maureen Dowd's column today. Short Mo Dowd: The US paid Ahmad Chalabi to propagandize -- wait for it -- the US. The right wing in the US runs a Mighty Wurlitzer (a CIA concept) which uses a multitude of sources to repeat false information -- thinktanks, op-ed columns, public relations, astroturf (including fake letters to the editor), talk radio, Faux News, politicians, and the Republican Party -- because if you keep hearing the same thing from different sources, you tend to think it must be true.Chalabi ran a mini-Wurlitzer on the CIA, representing single sources as multiple sources, spinning the Agency. Maja's right, Chalabi's one of the great conmen of all time.
UPDATE: A correction from Maja:
But he didn't spin the CIA, that's the point. They checked out his stories and told Cheney they were bogus. Cheney responded by having Feith set up the OSP so Chalabi wouldn't have to go through the CIA--or any other professional intelligence agency. That's what "the stovepipe" was all about: by-passing the IC because the IC kept insisting that Ahmad and the INC were frauds, their information useless or wrong. and that isn't what Cheney wanted to hear.Chalabi only tried to spin the CIA. They were too smart for him.
Chalabi didn't spin the CIA or anybody else in the IC. He spun the amateurs in the neocon entourage, and let them spin the IC. By force. It was a brilliant, 2-level con: spin Level 1 and get Level 1 to spin Level 2 for you.
posted
11:01 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Anyone with more than the most superficial understanding of the budget knew he was lying, because it couldn't be done. But most people didn't have even a superficial understanding. Besides, Arnie's a movie star with big muscles. He must be a great leader.
Schwarzenegger also said he wouldn't be beholden to special interests the way Davis was because he had plenty of money of his own, which brings us to today's story in the LA Times, Governor Is Raising Funds Faster Than Davis:
Say you have two groups in a total electorate of 100 people. Group A has 10 rich people in it, group B has 90 people of average income. Group A wants something that happens to be bad for group B. They shop around for a candidate who agrees with them, who will not be comprimising his principles in any way by doing what they want, and they back him with a ton of money.
The money buys polling, focus groups, public relations campaigns including astroturf, advertising, speech writers; all the accoutrements of a major campaign. There are 41 people in group B who can be manipulated by such a campaign, and on election day they vote for the candidate of group A. The candidate was not corrupted by the money. He wasn't bribed, he didn't need to be. Nevertheless, the minority wins, the majority loses, and money made it happen.
Here's To The New Boss - Same As The Old Boss
Probably even worse. This may seem like a California story. It's not. Nobody liked Governor Gray Davis. I didn't like him, I don't know anyone who liked him, I'm not even sure his wife and kids like him. So California had a recall. During the campaign they called Davis our coin-operated governor. The money goes in, the favors come out. People voted for the guy who told them what they wanted to hear, Arnie der SchwarzenWhopper, the biggest liar in the campaign. He said he'd balance the budget by cutting out the waste and fraud, no tax increases, no service cuts.Anyone with more than the most superficial understanding of the budget knew he was lying, because it couldn't be done. But most people didn't have even a superficial understanding. Besides, Arnie's a movie star with big muscles. He must be a great leader.
Schwarzenegger also said he wouldn't be beholden to special interests the way Davis was because he had plenty of money of his own, which brings us to today's story in the LA Times, Governor Is Raising Funds Faster Than Davis:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is collecting money to promote his March 2 ballot measures at a clip of $121,313 a day -- far outpacing Gray Davis at the height of the former governor's fundraising.The money goes in, the favors are gonna come out. The kind of people who can throw a politician a 500 grand "donation" don't spend money for nothin'.
[snip]
Because the contributions are not going to his reelection account, they are not subject to restrictions on the size of donations, one of several ways the fundraising illustrates gaps in the laws regulating donations and disclosure.
Schwarzenegger aides are soliciting contributions of as much as $500,000 to attend a private dinner with the Republican governor later this month.
[snip]
Several of the major donors to date are regulated by state officials or affected by their decisions.
"It is absurd to think that a $500,000 contribution to his issue campaign would not produce the same level of gratitude as would a $500,000 donation to his candidate committee," said USC law professor Elizabeth Garrett, an expert on campaign donations. "This is a...way to evade the contribution limits."
Experts on campaign finance law say the theory behind the limits goes like this: Direct donations to candidates' campaign accounts can be capped, since individuals can be corrupted by large gifts, or at least voters might believe that big money can sway politicians' decisions.This is a key problem. People need to stop thinking of money in politics purely in terms of its corrupting influence. Money is used to buy more favorable government by those who can afford it, but this need not involve corruption on the part of candidates or of uncorruptable ballot measures.
But because ballot measures are not individuals, they cannot be corrupted. As a result, donors can give unlimited sums to campaigns for or against ballot propositions.
Say you have two groups in a total electorate of 100 people. Group A has 10 rich people in it, group B has 90 people of average income. Group A wants something that happens to be bad for group B. They shop around for a candidate who agrees with them, who will not be comprimising his principles in any way by doing what they want, and they back him with a ton of money.
The money buys polling, focus groups, public relations campaigns including astroturf, advertising, speech writers; all the accoutrements of a major campaign. There are 41 people in group B who can be manipulated by such a campaign, and on election day they vote for the candidate of group A. The candidate was not corrupted by the money. He wasn't bribed, he didn't need to be. Nevertheless, the minority wins, the majority loses, and money made it happen.
posted
7:42 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 14, 2004
February 14, 2004
We Are The Oppressed Majority
Omnium points to a Bernie Sanders piece in The Progressive, We Are The Majority, that really sums things up. The massively unfair distribution of wealth and income in this country, how the right wing divides working people in order to win elections while representing only two percent of the people, how they've convinced the majority that it's the "fringe," and what we can do about it. I strongly recommend reading it. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. I'm not a socialist, I'm looking for a middle way. But if I have to choose between a socialist and the corporate swine who don't care who gets hurt as long as it's good for the bottom line . . . . Well, whadda you think?
posted
5:31 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
What's scary is more Bush
Thanks to Webocracy.
Is That A Terrorist In The White House?
It might be, if anybody still believed Bush. He's trying to scare you into voting for him, but:What's scary is more Bush
By the time NBC's Tim Russert finished interviewing President Bush last Sunday, viewers were either frightened or flabbergasted or both.UPDATE: Mark Morford has more on the manipulative uses of fear. What Are You So Afraid Of? Sex? Gays? Terrorists? God? In BushCo's fear-drunk world, only one question really matters
Frightened because Bush -- announcing himself a "war president" -- used variations of the words "war," "terror," "kill" and "danger" more than 70 times in an interview that lasted less than an hour.
Thanks to Webocracy.
posted
4:05 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Another Dumbass Bush Campaign Ploy
The Bushies have attacked John Kerry as a captive of special interests. Today's WaPo Editorial says He Ought to Know. Duh-yup.According to the Center for Responsive Politics, whose figures are cited in the Bush campaign video, Mr. Bush has raised more than four times as much from lobbyists during the 2004 race as Mr. Kerry has -- $960,000 for Mr. Bush to $235,000 for Mr. Kerry. During the 2000 contest, the Bush campaign assigned an industry code to givers so it would know precisely how much it was beholden and to whom. As electric utility lobbyist Thomas Kuhn explained in a 1999 letter to fundraisers, putting the code on the check "does ensure that our industry is credited, and that your progress is listed among the other business/industry sectors." Mr. Kuhn's progress may well have been noted; he met at least 14 times with Vice President Cheney's energy task force.How d'ya figger they like it? Lliving in a shattered glass house, I mean.
"Nominations and donations coincided"? You wonder what possessed the Bush people to bring that up. Of Mr. Bush's Pioneers -- those who raised at least $100,000 in the 2000 campaign -- 21 snagged ambassadorships, and these weren't hardship postings. Checks from "HMOs, telecoms, drug companies"? Mr. Bush has swamped Mr. Kerry in all three sectors during this campaign, raking in 10 times as much from donors connected to the pharmaceutical industry ($585,000 to $58,000) and telecommunications ($578,000 to $58,000). The liberal group Public Citizen counted 53 registered lobbyists among the current Pioneers and Rangers (the $200,000-and-up crowd.) Total amount bundled by lobbyists? At least $6.5 million this time around. Ka-ching. Ka-ching. Ka-ching.
posted
2:40 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
In Welfare Reform and the Death of Marriage, Rectum cites "America's No. 1 social problem: the catastrophic rise of illegitimacy." What's wrong with that? I'll let Political Research Associates explain:
I'm a foul-mouthed motherfucker, and I might just have one or two other, whatcha might call, vices. But I would never deliberately take a statistic out of context and twist its meaning beyond any relationship reality in order to tell a humongous, racist lie to the American people just to further my paymasters' agenda. Robert Rectum has done exactly that, and you can't trust a word he speaks or writes.
How The Immoral Minority Sells The Republican Agenda
Rich Lowry, in his column at National Review Online, Poor Props, Two America talk, says:Unless Democrats offer serious solutions to poverty, however, the poor only serve as props for their moral vanity.Yeah. And that's so much more evil than using the poor as scapegoats to further the right wing agenda.
We know what causes poverty. It has nothing to do with corporations, and little to do even with other, more-relevant economic factors, such as wage rates.Hot damn! We know the cause of the problem and, thank God, it's definitely not the corporations or low wages. Cuz otherwise the right's two most sacred cows might be headed for the barbeque grill. So what is the problem, Rich?
Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility.
According to the Heritage Foundation's welfare expert, Robert Rector, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work annually, or about 16 hours a week. This number holds in good economic times and bad, because it is a factor of attitudes toward work rather than the availability of jobs.Uh-oh. I don't know what the real facts are, but I'm pretty sure these aren't them, Richie boy. See, the problem with relying on "welfare expert" Robert Rector is, he's a stinking, disgusting professional con-man and liar dedicated to perpetrating fraud upon the American people. Much like yourself.
In Welfare Reform and the Death of Marriage, Rectum cites "America's No. 1 social problem: the catastrophic rise of illegitimacy." What's wrong with that? I'll let Political Research Associates explain:
Central to the Right's current success on cornering the welfare "debate" is the selling of the American public on the notion that dramatic increases in illegitimacy is a central problem in the US, particularly among African Americans, and that the existence of AFDC is largely responsible. The "selling" has been led in large part by Charles Murray, notably in his influential op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This argument gave the Right a cover to discuss race:The "catastrophic rise of illegitimacy" is a hoax, and a deliberately racist hoax. There's no good evidence that AFDC ever had anything to do with unmarried birth rates, though there is good reason to believe that it did not.
Within the black community, the increase in the proportion of births to single mothers has been particularly dramatic: from 23 percent in 1960 to 28 percent in 1969, to 45 percent in 1980, to 62 percent at the beginning of the 1990s.
Yet as Michael Lind, in his recent book Up From Conservatism, has pointed out, this portrayal of illegitimacy statistics produces a deceptive impression. Census Bureau data documents that four-fifths of the increase in the proportion of illegitimate births result from married, employed African American women deciding to have fewer children, and that "the rate of babies being born to unwed black teenagers- about 80 per 1,000 unmarried teen-agers- remained virtually the same from 1920 through 1990."
I'm a foul-mouthed motherfucker, and I might just have one or two other, whatcha might call, vices. But I would never deliberately take a statistic out of context and twist its meaning beyond any relationship reality in order to tell a humongous, racist lie to the American people just to further my paymasters' agenda. Robert Rectum has done exactly that, and you can't trust a word he speaks or writes.
posted
2:11 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Save Me, For You Are My God!
Allen at The Right Christians posts on "free" market idolatry. The comments are interesting too. I think markets are a good idea. In fact, I don't see how you could argue otherwise, but much of the right's talk of "free markets" amounts to nothing more than magical thinking. Yo, Christians, you cannot worship both God and Mammon.
posted
10:51 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Coulter claims it could have happened at Fort Dix. Once again I have to ask, does the right know anything about the military. I was in the infantry during the Vietnam war. (I was not sent to Vietnam.) I've never been to Fort Dix, but I've been to Fort Ord, Fort Polk (the armpit of the Army), Fort Benning, and to an infantry battalion near the DMZ in Korea. I rarely saw live ammo except at the firing range. I can't recall ever seeing a live grenade anywhere but on the grenade range (where it's fairly easy to avoid having your limbs blown off even if there's an accident).
So, yeah, I suppose it could've happened at Fort Dix, but the actual chances of its happening fall somewhere between Ann-"Hey, who let that skeleton out of the closet?"-Coulter slim, and skinnier than a split hair.
The Republicans love to cry "partisanship" these days. I'm certainly a partisan, but I have never once denigrated the military service of John McCain, or any other Republican war veteran, though some Republicans have. We know how low Coulter is willing to sink. Is the rest of the right willing to sink just as low?
Will somebody please tell Annie she doesn't have a penis, and that a woman acting macho is even more ridiculous than a man doing so. At least a man has an excuse: testosterone poisoning.
Thanks to Skippy at The American Street.
Will The Right Repudiate The Evil Bitch Coultergeist Now?
If not, I don't see how they can claim any credibility. The Anorexic Rottweiler writes:Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.The Watchful Babbler at Doxagora rebuts Coulter's libel of a grievously wounded Vietnam Vet. I haven't been able to independently confirm all of the Babbler's story, but this much seems certainly true. Captain Max Cleland was a hero before that grenade went off. He received the Silver Star for gallantry in action, action which took place four days prior to the grenade accident. The grenade that tore Cleland's body apart went off during a mission in Vietnam, essentially a friendly fire incident. He lost his limbs in service to his country in a war zone. Apparently, none of that cuts any moostard with the far right -- unless you're a Republican, of course.
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman -- or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.
Coulter claims it could have happened at Fort Dix. Once again I have to ask, does the right know anything about the military. I was in the infantry during the Vietnam war. (I was not sent to Vietnam.) I've never been to Fort Dix, but I've been to Fort Ord, Fort Polk (the armpit of the Army), Fort Benning, and to an infantry battalion near the DMZ in Korea. I rarely saw live ammo except at the firing range. I can't recall ever seeing a live grenade anywhere but on the grenade range (where it's fairly easy to avoid having your limbs blown off even if there's an accident).
So, yeah, I suppose it could've happened at Fort Dix, but the actual chances of its happening fall somewhere between Ann-"Hey, who let that skeleton out of the closet?"-Coulter slim, and skinnier than a split hair.
The Republicans love to cry "partisanship" these days. I'm certainly a partisan, but I have never once denigrated the military service of John McCain, or any other Republican war veteran, though some Republicans have. We know how low Coulter is willing to sink. Is the rest of the right willing to sink just as low?
Will somebody please tell Annie she doesn't have a penis, and that a woman acting macho is even more ridiculous than a man doing so. At least a man has an excuse: testosterone poisoning.
Thanks to Skippy at The American Street.
posted
9:02 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 13, 2004
February 13, 2004
It's Not Like He Lied About A Blowjob
Far as we know. When credibility becomes an issue. Time magazine analyzes mighty Bushwa's current problems (may they last through November):Five years ago, when a President was fighting for his political life, his defenders struggled to keep his sins in perspective.Faith and hubris get in the way of rationality? Perish the notion.
All he did was lie about sex, they said of Bill Clinton's breach of trust--it's not as if he had been fooling around with matters of war and peace. Imagine how ugly a debate like that could become over the issues that matter most, matters of life and death.
(snip)
Belief runs so strong in this White House that when the President found himself with a suddenly serious credibility problem, his faithful were among the last to see it. "The White House's biggest problem is that there's been too much hubris," says [Republican Representative Christopher] Shays. "It's getting in the way of being rational."
posted
11:58 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
All Hail Fearless Leader
The incredibly partisan (the right's latest pretend dirty word) Paul Krugman's at it again:By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.I used to drive a cab. Sometimes a weird name or address would come over the radio and a driver would question the dispatcher about it. The dispatchers always replied, "We don't make 'em up, sir." Krugman ain't makin' this up either, although you'd a thunk he'd a had to.
It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.
(snip)
In fact, those 27 photos grace one of the four most dishonest budgets in the nation's history -- the other three are the budgets released in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Just to give you a taste: remember how last year's budget contained no money for postwar Iraq — and how administration officials waited until after the tax cut had been passed to mention the small matter of $87 billion in extra costs? Well, they've done it again: earlier this week the Army's chief of staff testified that the Iraq funds in the budget would cover expenses only through September.
posted
11:36 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Democrats Are Dirty And Evil Campaigners
From Salon.com:Republicans also planted a photo from a 1970 anti-war rally in various media outlets, showing Kerry sitting feet behind Jane Fonda, in an attempt to associate Kerry with Fonda's controversial trip to Hanoi two years after the photo was taken. (Another photo, of Kerry and Fonda next to each other, was mentioned in today's New York Times, but turns out to be a doctored image. Thanks to Atrios for pointing it out.)And Ed Gillespie of the Republican National Committee is quoted in the article, saying:
It's only February and they [Editor's emphasis] have made clear they intend to run the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics.The bluesmen was right. Ya got to laugh ta keep from cryin'.
posted
1:29 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
If Conservatives Are Smart, Explain This Shit
Bush pushes abstinence-only educationThe Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.And how come they don't know the Heritage Foundation is staffed by professional liars masquerading as reasearchers?
A study by researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on declining birth and pregnancy rates among teenagers concludes that prevention programs should emphasize abstinence and contraception.
(snip)
In Minnesota, a study found that sexual activity doubled among junior high school students taking part in an abstinence-only program.
(snip)
Advocates of comprehensive sex education said the shift, coupled with the additional money, is part of Bush's election-year appeal to conservatives.
They said the administration's proposal flies in the face of research that credits both abstinence and contraception with reducing the teenage birth rate by 30 percent in the past decade to historic lows.
posted
10:05 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Weirdly, Volokh's Readers Make Liberals' Case On Stupidity
I say weirdly because I would have expected Volokh Conspiracy readers to be pretty sharp. No doubt this involves a small sample, though. Eugene Volokh writes:Prof. Robert Brandon, chair of the philosophy department at Duke, is quoted as saying:It's a premise one can easily argue with and Volokh goes on to ably do so. However, in a subsequent post,
"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.
"Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."
Stupidity, conservativism, and math: Several readers objected to the logic of Prof. Brandon's argument, and not just to its factual underpinnings or the accuracy of its paraphase of John Stuart Mill. Even if "stupid people are generally conservative," the readers argue, this doesn't mean that conservative people are especially likely to be stupid -- and, they say, that's a pretty basic error for a philosophy professor to make.Volokh goes on to carefully explain to his offended, though surely brilliant, complaining readers, with examples and formulas, that on that point they appear stupid. (My words, not Volokh's.) You could click the link to see the explanation, but I'm bettin' most lefties can figger it out on their own.
posted
9:38 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
You Can Always Trust Corporations
Halliburton Accused of Wasting Tax MoneyHighlighting their campaign against Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s former company, Democratic lawmakers say two former Halliburton employees have evidence the company routinely wasted U.S. taxpayers' money.And cost plus contracts are a helluva good idea.
(snip)
According to Waxman and Dingell, Bunting and the unidentified whistleblower contend:
_Top Halliburton officials frequently told employees that high prices charged by vendors were not a problem because the U.S. government would reimburse the costs and then pay the company an additional fee.
_Higher than necessary prices were paid for ordinary vehicles, leased for $7,500 a month, and for furniture and cellular telephone service.
_Halliburton tried to keep as many purchase orders as possible below $2,500 so its buyers could avoid the requirement to solicit quotes from more than one vendor.
_Supervisers provided buyers with a list of preferred Kuwaiti vendors, including companies that charged excessive prices. Buyers were not encouraged to identify alternative vendors
posted
8:46 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
It has, ya know. I think it was back about the 3rd century when a local priest said to the neighborhood scribe, "No w'n c'n undoorstahnd what y'r babblin' aboot, ya grrreat, hairy Grrrendel! Put summa this shite in there: ;,.:?!;,.:?!;,.:?!
I know "conservatives" have a big thing about tradition an' all, but c'mon, guys, let the past go. Make the leap into the 4th century.
Maybe John Stuart Mill Was Right
As I tour around the blogosphere, there's one thing I find on right blogs that I've never encountered on left blogs. Even on the right, it only shows up on a tiny minority blogs, but it still strikes me as odd. People who are apparently unaware that punctuation has been invented.It has, ya know. I think it was back about the 3rd century when a local priest said to the neighborhood scribe, "No w'n c'n undoorstahnd what y'r babblin' aboot, ya grrreat, hairy Grrrendel! Put summa this shite in there: ;,.:?!;,.:?!;,.:?!
I know "conservatives" have a big thing about tradition an' all, but c'mon, guys, let the past go. Make the leap into the 4th century.
posted
8:03 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
D'ya 'spose Bush says shit like that cuz he really thinks he has nothing to hide, then when he gets back home ta the White House, his aides jump his ass with the truth?
"You sure as hell do have something to hide, Bonzo! D'we have to get you a muzzle?"
Odd Wonderings - Bush Folder
Host Tim Russert asked, "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush replied, "Yes, absolutely."D'ya 'spose Bush says shit like that cuz he really thinks he has nothing to hide, then when he gets back home ta the White House, his aides jump his ass with the truth?
"You sure as hell do have something to hide, Bonzo! D'we have to get you a muzzle?"
posted
7:40 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Mebbe, but it sure looks like we're wearin' that welcome out.
Iraq Shi'ites Warn of Problems if Polls Delayed, Reuters:
Iraqi Irony: Who Is It Wants Democracy?
President Bush [to Russert]: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq.Mebbe, but it sure looks like we're wearin' that welcome out.
Iraq Shi'ites Warn of Problems if Polls Delayed, Reuters:
The United Nations (news - web sites) sent a team to Iraq to gauge differences between Washington, which wants to hand over power to Iraqis by mid-year without holding polls first, and the country's majority Shi'ites, led by Sistani, who insist on a democratic election.We fought a war to bring Iraq democracy (depending on the explanation of the week), now the Shiites are threatening a war against us . . . . . . to bring Iraq democracy. See? Irony's not dead. How can it be dead when it keeps demanding out attention with a two-by-four?
(snip)
"If the United Nations and Americans do not fulfil the wish of our religious scholars then fatwas (religious edicts) will follow," Sheikh Rida Hamdani, a Sistani follower, said.
"At first there will be demonstrations or civil disobedience and finally armed struggle."
"We are all behind Sistani, and Shi'ites all have arms," Hussein Khalifa, a 43-year-old community elder, said.
"The ball is in the United Nation's court...if they do not achieve our goals we will open a front against them. What is this talk that conditions are not ready for elections?...Are the only conditions ready the ones that allow Americans to move about and do what they want freely in Iraq?"
posted
7:10 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Salon.com:
Bush Still Hiding Something & He Knows It
Host Tim Russert asked, "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush replied, "Yes, absolutely."Salon.com:
Bad news for Bush: As a rule, military pilots don't take it upon themselves to decide when they're going to stop flying, or whether they want to take a required annual physical. "There is no excuse for that," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver Jr. told the Boston Globe. He's the former director of the Air National Guard. "Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals." By failing to take a physical and thereby losing his flying status, Bush should have been subject to a disciplinary review, copies of which would be contained in Bush's military file. But those sorts of documents are considered private under provisions of the Privacy Act, and Bush would have to authorize their release. To date, the White House has refused to do so. Aside from the lone Alabama dental record, the White House has also refused to release Bush's military medical records.Bad news for dingers: Despite your pathetic attempts at logic, no one's asking Bushwa to prove a negative. We're asking him to authorize the release of the records he told Russert he'd release, the same kinds of records presidents and presidential candidates routinely release. What's the problem dingbats? Explain it to me.
posted
6:48 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 12, 2004
The human mind is a fascinating thing, ain't it? Fifty-two percent think Bush is "honest and trustworthy," but 54% think he lied or exaggerated. The ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time may be a sign of intelligence, but it's not a sign rationality.
On the basis of this poll we can draw one firm conclusion: at least 31% of Americans don't know that lie and exaggerate are synonyms.
February 12, 2004
Bad News, Bushies, The Public's Catching On
Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq WarA majority of Americans believe President Bush (news - web sites) either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq (news - web sites) possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.And we've still got eight and a half months of damaging revelations to come. Eight and a half months for the public to catch up to facts already revealed that they're not yet aware of.
(snip)
Barely half -- 52 percent -- now believe Bush is "honest and trustworthy," . . .
(snip)
. . .54 percent thought Bush exaggerated or lied about prewar intelligence.
(snip)
While 21 percent believe that Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq, a larger number -- 31 percent -- thought he exaggerated but did not lie.
The human mind is a fascinating thing, ain't it? Fifty-two percent think Bush is "honest and trustworthy," but 54% think he lied or exaggerated. The ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time may be a sign of intelligence, but it's not a sign rationality.
On the basis of this poll we can draw one firm conclusion: at least 31% of Americans don't know that lie and exaggerate are synonyms.
posted
11:05 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Tip O'The Tam to Eschaton.
Campaign '04 - The Last Man Flaccid Wins
Matt Sludge has "broken" a story (by which I mean, "unsubstantiated rumor") of infidelity involving John Kerry. The tale has been picked up by a publication of equal journalistic repute, The National Perspirer. The Perspirer, though has also picked up a tale of GW Boner's, I mean Bonehead's, infidelity. Ain't politics a hoot? Life, death and the really important stuff: illicitly dipped dicks. Strangely, the Perspirer is often accurate on this kind of thing.Tip O'The Tam to Eschaton.
posted
7:24 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Kristof touts the same "solution" to American income and employment problems that has been touted for decades now. Clinton was real big on it too. More education, better education, education for the jobs of the 21st century. But a well-educated American still expects, and needs, a much higher salary than his counterparts in China or India.
Worse, only about one of four adults has a college degree. Only 52% have any education beyond high school. That's not likely to change dramatically. If you're saying that the only way to make a decent living is to get more and better education, you're saying that at least half of all Americans will never make a decent living. Is that acceptable?
SOTS - Same Old, Tired "Solution" To Jobs Problem
Oops. I meant to say, "Same ol' shit." In Nick Kristof's column yesterday:The topic today is the growing furor over the outsourcing of jobs to India -- and, more broadly, educational lapses here. One reason for the jobless recovery in the U.S. is that it doesn't make much sense to have an American radiologist, say, examine your X-ray when it can be done so much more cheaply in New Delhi.What has the one got to do with the other? We aren't losing Information Technology jobs to India because we don't have enough well-educated people here to do them. We have people out of work who used to do those jobs because Indians work a hell of a lot cheaper, not because Indians are better educated.
Indeed, why should computer software be written, taxes prepared, pathology specimens examined, financial analysis done or homework graded in the U.S., when all of that can be done more cheaply in Bangalore? I.B.M. is moving thousands of jobs to India and China, and Reuters says it will have Indian reporters cover some U.S. companies from there.
(snip)
Yet, as an Indian friend, Sunil Subbakrishna, pointed out to me, there is one step we should take in response to this wave of outsourcing: bolster our second-rate education system.
Kristof touts the same "solution" to American income and employment problems that has been touted for decades now. Clinton was real big on it too. More education, better education, education for the jobs of the 21st century. But a well-educated American still expects, and needs, a much higher salary than his counterparts in China or India.
Worse, only about one of four adults has a college degree. Only 52% have any education beyond high school. That's not likely to change dramatically. If you're saying that the only way to make a decent living is to get more and better education, you're saying that at least half of all Americans will never make a decent living. Is that acceptable?
All in all, [Mr. Subbakrishna] says, the average upper-middle-class child in Bangalore finishes elementary school with a better grounding in math and science than the average kid in the U.S.He's comparing cowflops to roadapples, here. The average upper-middle-class kid there to the average kid here. Didn't Kristof notice that? Eh, I guess that's why he gets the big bucks and I do this for free.
posted
5:21 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Always The Whole Truth - Always
Ex-officer: Bush file's details caused concernTwo forms in Bush's publicly released military files - his enlistment application and a background check - contain blacked-out entries in response to questions about arrests or convictions. Bush acknowledged in biographies published in 1999 that he was arrested twice before he enlisted in the Air National Guard: once for stealing a wreath and another time for rowdiness at a Yale-Princeton football game.All this honesty and integrity is jus' makin' me swoon.
The nature of what was blacked out in Bush's records is important because certain legal problems, such as drug or alcohol violations, could have been a basis for denying an applicant entry into the Guard or pilot training. Admission to the Guard and to pilot school was highly competitive at that time, the height of the Vietnam War.
The National Guard cited privacy as the reason for blacking out answers. The full, unmarked records have never been released. Bartlett did not respond Wednesday to a request to release the records with nothing blacked out, which Bush could do as the subject of the records.
(snip)
In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Bush said he fulfilled his Guard commitment and offered to make his records public. Host Tim Russert asked, "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush replied, "Yes, absolutely."
Since then, White House officials have released only documents concerning whether Bush fulfilled his service obligations. White House statements have not addressed the release of any papers that could show disciplinary actions, medical exams, legal scrapes and the like.
posted
2:40 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Ahh, but you know what Bush bug said, with mock distress, "International Law? I better call my lawyer!"
Hahaha, hahaha, hahaha. Doh!
Fire Sale of Iraq Assets Illegal
Last Day of My Life has a well sourced post on US corruption and how it works, election fixing, the looting of Iraq and how it incites hatred of Americans, and blatant violations of both international law -- in the forms of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions -- and Iraqi law, which is recognized by both the world and (supposedly) the US.Ahh, but you know what Bush bug said, with mock distress, "International Law? I better call my lawyer!"
Hahaha, hahaha, hahaha. Doh!
posted
1:50 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Before anybody starts laying that personal responsiblity bullshit on me, let me tell ya a li'l tale. I got a guy in my building who's carrying $17,000 dollars in credit card debt on an income of around $900 a month. He's never going to pay that money back. Well, he should have known better than to run up that kind of debt. Yeah. Shoulda, shoulda, shoulda. He's on disability because he's mentally ill. Just last night he told me, "Did you know that only one person in 10,000 is productive?"
I asked, "So, in other words, the vast, vast majority of the human race is incapable of survival?"
"Yes," he said. He also believes everyone should build model boats. The world would be a better place if everyone would only build model boats.
He shoulda had better sense 'n ta borrow all that money. Uh-huh.
Credit Cards And Corporate Irresponsibility
Omnium has a detailed post on the fuck-the-poor bankruptcy deform bill making its way through Congress. It contains 100 new restrictions on failing bankruptcy. Virtually none of them affect corporations or the rich, for some odd reason.Before anybody starts laying that personal responsiblity bullshit on me, let me tell ya a li'l tale. I got a guy in my building who's carrying $17,000 dollars in credit card debt on an income of around $900 a month. He's never going to pay that money back. Well, he should have known better than to run up that kind of debt. Yeah. Shoulda, shoulda, shoulda. He's on disability because he's mentally ill. Just last night he told me, "Did you know that only one person in 10,000 is productive?"
I asked, "So, in other words, the vast, vast majority of the human race is incapable of survival?"
"Yes," he said. He also believes everyone should build model boats. The world would be a better place if everyone would only build model boats.
He shoulda had better sense 'n ta borrow all that money. Uh-huh.
posted
1:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Experts say US too soft, foreign media often too hard.
I think all rational people would stipulate that we'd prefer media coverage to be accurate and fair (though it absolutely should not be balanced). But if they're gonna make a mistake I would far rather it be in an adversarial direction. The media are supposed to be the watchdogs of government, never, never the cheerleaders.
From the Monitor article again:
Some will say the US media must support the government in time of war. They will say the military must do all it can to shape and dominate information, that it is necessary, in war, to do everything in our power to win. "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin around. . ."
All I can say is, "It was necessary to destroy democracy in order to save (or establish) it."
The Big Lie: The "Liberal" Media Opposed The War
Media knocked for Iraq war coverageExperts say US too soft, foreign media often too hard.
I think all rational people would stipulate that we'd prefer media coverage to be accurate and fair (though it absolutely should not be balanced). But if they're gonna make a mistake I would far rather it be in an adversarial direction. The media are supposed to be the watchdogs of government, never, never the cheerleaders.
In a piece in the New York Review of Books, Michael Massing, a contributing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review who writes frequently on the press and foreign affairs, notes that many media outlets are currently rushing to expose the Bush administration's prewar failings on Iraq. And he asks "Where were you before the war?" He notes that beginning in the summer of 2002, "the 'intelligence community' was rent by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iraq. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it." He also says American journalists were too eager to use Iraqi dissidents as unnamed sources, often printing their claims without checking them.This Monitor article references a Guardian piece, The domination effect:
This points to a larger problem. In the period before the war, US journalists were far too reliant on sources sympathetic to the administration. Those with dissenting views -- and there were more than a few -- were shut out. Reflecting this, the coverage was highly deferential to the White House. This was especially apparent on the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the heart of the President's case for war. Despite abundant evidence of the administration's brazen misuse of intelligence in this matter, the press repeatedly let officials get away with it. As journalists rush to chronicle the administration's failings on Iraq, they should pay some attention to their own.
In the past, propaganda involved managing the media. Information dominance, by contrast, sees little distinction between command and control systems, propaganda and journalism. They are all types of "weaponized information" to be deployed. As strategic expert Colonel Kenneth Allard noted, the 2003 attack on Iraq "will be remembered as a conflict in which information fully took its place as a weapon of war".It's good to have tame reporters.
(snip)
According to US army intelligence there are already 15 information dominance centres in the US, Kuwait and Baghdad.
(snip)
An MoD-commissioned commercial analysis of the print output produced by embeds [reporters] shows that 90% of their reporting was either "positive or neutral".
"Unfriendly" information must be targeted. This is perhaps best illustrated by the attack on al-Jazeera's office in Kabul in 2001, which the Pentagon justified by claiming al-Qaida activity in the al-Jazeera office. As it turned out, this referred to broadcast interviews with Taliban officials. The various attacks on al-Jazeera in Kabul, Basra and Baghdad should also be seen in this context.
(snip)
The collapse of distinctions between independent news media and psychological operations is striking.
From the Monitor article again:
. . .the BBC got into trouble with the Hutton inquiry (even though, as Edward Wasserman points out in the Miami Herald, the BBC's story about how the Blair government was "sexing up" pre-war intelligence was basically correct).So the evil Beeb was horribly over critical of the government except for, ya know, they were right.
Some will say the US media must support the government in time of war. They will say the military must do all it can to shape and dominate information, that it is necessary, in war, to do everything in our power to win. "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin around. . ."
All I can say is, "It was necessary to destroy democracy in order to save (or establish) it."
posted
11:52 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Penis Cheney's Committee to save California consumers recommends building nuclear plants in earthquake country (Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root builds nuke plants), drilling in the ANWR (California doesn't burn oil for electrictiy, but Commerce Secretary Don Evans was CEO of oil and gas giant Tom Brown Inc.), etc.
I wonder how the Bush 2000 campaign was able to raise astonishing, record demolishing sums of money? Enron, TXU, Reliant, Dynegy and El Paso corporation gave $4.1 million for the Republican Presidential campaign cycle.
Ya know, everyday for 20 years, I pick up a rock. I open my hand, it falls to the ground. I got a theory gravity's involved, but I can't prove anything.
Corporations always have a reason for spending, and it's to make money. I love these pibbles who really believe that voluntary (Clear Skies Initiative) pollution controls will work. If controlling pollution costs one thin dime that won't produce a maximum profit, a corporation not only won't spend it, it can't spend it. To do so would be a failure of fiduciary responsibility, the duty of a corporation to maximize profits for its shareholders. Other than pretending to obey the law, it's the only responsibility of a corporation. If people sicken or die as a result, so be it, so long as it doesn't affect the bottom line. And people do sicken and die. Controllable pollution has already killed more people in this country than terrorists ever will.
Tip O'The Tam to Attorney General Asscroft. (Ya find this stuff in the strangest places.)
Smells Like Corporatocracy
A little sampling of political reality drawn, for the most part, from a vintage piece (May 20, 2001) by investigative reporter Greg Palast, SMELLS LIKE TEXAS:Penis Cheney's Committee to save California consumers recommends building nuclear plants in earthquake country (Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root builds nuke plants), drilling in the ANWR (California doesn't burn oil for electrictiy, but Commerce Secretary Don Evans was CEO of oil and gas giant Tom Brown Inc.), etc.
Former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower told me, "They've eliminated the middle man. The corporations don't have to lobby the government any more. They are the government." Hightower used to complain about Monsanto's lobbying the Secretary of Agriculture. Today, Monsanto executive Ann Venamin is the Secretary of Agriculture.
I wonder how the Bush 2000 campaign was able to raise astonishing, record demolishing sums of money? Enron, TXU, Reliant, Dynegy and El Paso corporation gave $4.1 million for the Republican Presidential campaign cycle.
They didn't have long to wait before their investment - excuse me, donation - paid off big time. Just three days after his inauguration, Bush swept away Clinton's orders directing controlled power sales to California.Lanell Anderson, real estate agent collects air samples to send to the EPA.
Hunting killer fumes is a heck of hobby. LaNell began after learning she had a rare immune system disease associated with chemical pollution. Her mom and dad died young of lung disease and cancer. She grew up and lives near the [Houston] ship channel.They puts they money in, they gets enormous favors out, and the dingers (In this case I'm referring to any half-way informed person who clings to the notion that the US has not become a corporate plutocracy.) say, "That doesn't prove anything."
I didn't have the heart to tell her that she might as well chuck away her buckets. Quietly tucked into President Bush's new budget, is a big fat zero for the key EPA civil enforcement team. This has no connection whatsoever to the petrochemical industry dumping $48 million into the Republican campaign.
Ya know, everyday for 20 years, I pick up a rock. I open my hand, it falls to the ground. I got a theory gravity's involved, but I can't prove anything.
Corporations always have a reason for spending, and it's to make money. I love these pibbles who really believe that voluntary (Clear Skies Initiative) pollution controls will work. If controlling pollution costs one thin dime that won't produce a maximum profit, a corporation not only won't spend it, it can't spend it. To do so would be a failure of fiduciary responsibility, the duty of a corporation to maximize profits for its shareholders. Other than pretending to obey the law, it's the only responsibility of a corporation. If people sicken or die as a result, so be it, so long as it doesn't affect the bottom line. And people do sicken and die. Controllable pollution has already killed more people in this country than terrorists ever will.
Tip O'The Tam to Attorney General Asscroft. (Ya find this stuff in the strangest places.)
posted
9:28 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Appetite for Destruction, an article in The American Conservative, is an interesting discussion from the so-called paleo-conservative point of view of the current pseudo-conservative passion for spreading "universal" truth (no sucha thing), "defeating" evil (can't be done), and spreading "democracy" with the bidness end of a gun (morally no better and, practically, less likely than spreading communism with a gun).
Man, I'd love to go back to arguing with the paleo- (read "genuine") conservatives. At least when arguing with them, we're talking about the same murky reality while disagreeing about how to deal with it. We're not dealing with a world of ideological purity, universal truth and Platonic "reality." Never did like Plato. "Idea" of horse. It's a friggin' horse, idiot, and I hope it shits on yer shoes.
Hey, Look, Conservative Anti-Semitism
Just kidding. Unless you're one of those toadying, right wing sheeple who actually believe the spin that criticizing Israel's policies in Palestine or criticizing Neo-con arrogance in the US automatically constitutes anti-semitism. In which case, go away. Sub-rational persuasion is somebody else's department.Appetite for Destruction, an article in The American Conservative, is an interesting discussion from the so-called paleo-conservative point of view of the current pseudo-conservative passion for spreading "universal" truth (no sucha thing), "defeating" evil (can't be done), and spreading "democracy" with the bidness end of a gun (morally no better and, practically, less likely than spreading communism with a gun).
Man, I'd love to go back to arguing with the paleo- (read "genuine") conservatives. At least when arguing with them, we're talking about the same murky reality while disagreeing about how to deal with it. We're not dealing with a world of ideological purity, universal truth and Platonic "reality." Never did like Plato. "Idea" of horse. It's a friggin' horse, idiot, and I hope it shits on yer shoes.
posted
4:16 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 11, 2004
George Orwell, you pissant piker, the mighty GOP goes far beyond you're wildest, drug-addled nightmares. Listen, assholes, you drank the CIA Kool-aid in the 60s and 70s, and not the cool Kool-aid either, the electric Kool-aid. How the hell would you know if we're telling the truth or not?
February 11, 2004
Help Build a Better Tomorrow for America
You can be a part of the team working with President Bush and a Republican Congress to fully enact our compassionate conservative agenda.No shit. They really say that. I follied a Google ad on my blog. As if they haven't taken napalm, C4, blasting caps and acetylene torches to the compassionate part. The conservative part, too, come ta think about it.
George Orwell, you pissant piker, the mighty GOP goes far beyond you're wildest, drug-addled nightmares. Listen, assholes, you drank the CIA Kool-aid in the 60s and 70s, and not the cool Kool-aid either, the electric Kool-aid. How the hell would you know if we're telling the truth or not?
posted
5:21 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
"News" people, even "news personalities" oughta have sources, they oughta at least read. I knew Gotdamn good and well Bush was lyin' before the war. How could O'Leilly and the rest a the media elves have been fooled?
Bartenders Musta Threatened Ta Cut Him Off
Pundit O'Reilly Now Skeptical About Bush. Hey, when a even a great festering boil on a rabid sewer rat's butt like O'Leilly says it, I gotta believe Bush bug's in trouble."News" people, even "news personalities" oughta have sources, they oughta at least read. I knew Gotdamn good and well Bush was lyin' before the war. How could O'Leilly and the rest a the media elves have been fooled?
posted
3:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
When Boy George talks it's like watchin' a livin' Salvador Dali sculpture. It unhinges small but important sections of the mind. He's got about the morals ya'd expect in a livin' Dali sculpture, too.
Surrealism Has Superceded Reality
Please extinguish all cats, remove your feet and place them in the overhead lockers. Thanks to the Violent One via Making Light, I caught the John Stewart take on Meet the Prez. My jaw didn't just drop, it drilled a hole clear to the fiery core of the earth (which stung some), when the Prez said, "Containment doesn't work with a madman." Ahh, fuck me. I must a walked into a door frame an' knocked my silly ass into a alternate reality again, cuz back where I come from there was substantial evidence that containment had worked.When Boy George talks it's like watchin' a livin' Salvador Dali sculpture. It unhinges small but important sections of the mind. He's got about the morals ya'd expect in a livin' Dali sculpture, too.
posted
12:21 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
For them what thinks they ain' no difference 'tween Dems an' Repukes:
Restore Workers' Rights To Free Association
Cleaning up the email. The AFL-CIO writes:The Employee Free Choice Act will:In short, it would restore a true right to organize in the US, a right taken for granted in most democracies. Ya know, the workers and the country did pretty damn well from the 30s to the 60s, when unions were strong and the broad middle class was created. Then the unions went into decline and workers' wages stagnated. Prolly jus' a coinkydink.
Allow employees to freely choose whether to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.
Provide mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes.
Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first contract negotiations.
EFCA: New Momentum and New ResourcesPetition your elected leaders to support this legislation.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is now up to 152 co-sponsors in the House and 26 in the Senate. Last week alone, eight new co-sponsors signed on, including another Republican, Rep. Jack Quinn from New York.
Lori Gay Tells Members of Congress Her StoryI've been through a union organizing campaign. So has my sweetie, though she was a disloyal member of management at the time. Every campaign is the same as the story Gay tells. The company always breaks the laws. There's no serious enforcement. Even if they get a slap on the wrist years down the line, it's cheaper than dealing with a union.
Lori Gay, a registered nurse for 18 years at Salt Lake Regional Medical Center in Utah currently trying to form a union with United American Nurses, joined two other workers in telling their stories in front of the Democratic House Caucus in Homestead, Va., last week. Gay is trying to form a union to win job security, improved working conditions, the ability to provide improved patient care and a sense of control and respect on the job.
Two hundred registered nurses at the medical center voted, but the ballots remain uncounted 21 months later. According to Gay's remarks, workers faced incredible anti-worker tactics: Workers were fired, bribed, harassed, forced to endure long captive meetings, numerous one-on-one meetings and threatened hospital closure.
For them what thinks they ain' no difference 'tween Dems an' Repukes:
All Democratic Presidential Candidates Support EFCAMore union workers would mean more support for pro-worker candidates, more opposition to the corporate agenda. It would mean more democratic government and it would be good for every American who works for a living. That's most of us folks.
According to the Detroit Free Press in an article published Feb.7 the EFCA and the freedom to form unions is supported by "all of the Democratic presidential aspirants-from front-runner Sen. John Kerry on down."
posted
10:20 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Help Greg out if you can. The possibility of democracy may hang in the balance.
Whatever Happened To Investigative Reporting?
Just got this e-mail from gregpalast.com:We badly need your help and we're throwing a party to get it. Friday, February 27, 8:30 pm, CBGB's Gallery, 313 Bowery @ Bleecker, NYC, $20 cover (advance purchases).Libel laws are much less restrictive in the US than in Britain but, here as there, even if you win you face huge legal bills when sued by deep-pocketed corporations. How come ya never hear the cons screamin' 'bout frivolous libel suits by corporations? Investigative reporting is expensive for a paper in other ways as well. Advertiser cancellations, subscription cancellations. Even if you believe that the corporate media really have any interest in investigating the powerful, for them to do so is bad for the corporate bottom line, and I gar-own-tee they got no interest in that.
Party with Amy Goodman. Performances by subversive cartoonist TOM TOMORROW and Britain's top comic, ROB NEWMAN.
This is an emergency. Legal assaults on Greg's investigative reports threaten to bring our work to a halt. Greg's chosen to fight on - and reach out to his friends for support.
Tickets are only $20 in advance and proceeds go to the Palast Investigative Fund - a charitable foundation. Your tickets are tax deductible.
VERY limited space - buy tickets at www.GregPalast.com/store.htm with a check, credit card or PayPal. Can't make it to New York that night? Then, dammit, DONATE at www.GregPalast.com/store.htm. Give more than $50 and get Greg's New CD, signed, "Weapon of Mass Instruction - Palast Live and Uncensored."
Want more info? Read on ...
We first planned the party to release "Weapon of Mass Instruction" from Jello Biafra's Alternative Tentacles. Then the suits hit the fan...
... Ever wonder why investigative reporting is dying in the USA? It's risky business ... Poppy Bush's former gold mining company sued to block Greg's reports. We beat Bush's Goldfinger buddies but bills remain. And now along comes Mario Cuomo (!) suing Greg for $15 million.
Palast is under attack. We need you to party in defense of the First Amendment - and the investigative reporter who Noam Chomsky says, "Upsets all the right people."
No money will go to the lawyers. 100% will go to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund to support the research staff.
And joining Amy and Greg ... special guests LAURA FLANDERS, author of the must-read book, Bushwomen, and CHARLES LEWIS, author of the smash New York Times bestseller, The Buying of the President 2004.
We've got MUSIC by Stephan Smith (Ween), Et-Cet-Era, plus The John Casper Band.
Pass this on. Bring a friend. Bring an enemy. BUY YOUR TICKETS NOW - at www.gregpalast.com/store.htm.
And if you can't make it to the Big Apple on Feb 27, then keep Palast's investigative reporting team in action with your tax deductible donations - ($50 or more gets Greg's the new CD, "Weapon of Mass Instruction - Palast Live and Uncensored" - signed.)
Thanks a million for your support. We'll enjoy your company if you can come and we will be honored by yourdonations if you can't.
Help Greg out if you can. The possibility of democracy may hang in the balance.
posted
9:46 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Evangeli-Fundies want homosexuality outlawed. They want a constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage from gay folks. I can't figger who or what homosexuality hurts, or how gay marriage threatens straight marriage, but I damn sure know who wickedly high-interest credit cards and payday loans hurt. It's a lot a people, including people I know. All of 'em are people I care about. Are they victimized, in part, by their own poor decision making? Sure. Some of them aren't capable of making good decisions consistently. But it's okay, for the Lord said, "Behold, there's a sucker born every minute. Go forth and sheer such sheep." I'm pretty sure that's in the Bible somewhere.
Our entire financial system is based on usury in the Biblical sense. How come no constitutional amendment to end loaning money at interest? Or at least ban usury in the modern sense?
From Jubilee USA:
Quoted him before. Can't quote him enough. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
For those who're gonna say I'm a bigot, that I hate Evangeli-Fundies, that would include my brother and his family, as well as a good many of my in-laws. I don't hate 'em. I want 'em to wake up. Prioritize, peebles!
Evangeli-Fundies - Selective Biblical "Literalism"
T'other day I saw some photos of "Bible-believing Christians" protesting churches that weren't sufficiently anti-gay for them. This was in the liberal stronghold of Lubbock. Well, as I read Leviticus, it does condemn homosexuality, but I'm sure no Biblical scholar. I've seen reasonable arguments that it really doesn't. Let's say it does. Is that all the Bible condemns?Psalms 15:1Archaic. That's what it meant in biblical times. Lending money at interest, any interest.
Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
Psalms 15:5
He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: usury
1 archaic : INTEREST
Evangeli-Fundies want homosexuality outlawed. They want a constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage from gay folks. I can't figger who or what homosexuality hurts, or how gay marriage threatens straight marriage, but I damn sure know who wickedly high-interest credit cards and payday loans hurt. It's a lot a people, including people I know. All of 'em are people I care about. Are they victimized, in part, by their own poor decision making? Sure. Some of them aren't capable of making good decisions consistently. But it's okay, for the Lord said, "Behold, there's a sucker born every minute. Go forth and sheer such sheep." I'm pretty sure that's in the Bible somewhere.
Our entire financial system is based on usury in the Biblical sense. How come no constitutional amendment to end loaning money at interest? Or at least ban usury in the modern sense?
From Jubilee USA:
In the Jubilee Year as quoted in Leviticus, those enslaved because of debts are freed, lands lost because of debt are returned, and community torn by inequality is restored. Today international debt has become a new form of slavery. Debt slavery means poor people working harder and harder in a vain effort to keep up with the interest payments on debts owed to rich countries including the US and international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.Most of the third world poor who are enslaved by debt never made a decision to go into debt. They are personally blameless. ". . .nor taketh reward against the innocent." The Jubilee year comes from Leviticus, same book that calls homosexuality an abomination. Where are the Evangeli-Fundies when demonstrable harm, in addition to sin, is being done?
Psalms 10:2How come no constitutional amendment to establish a Jubilee Year? It would involve that dirty word, redistribution, I know, but whose word is more important to the Evangeli-Fundies? God's, or the pseudo-laissez fairies?
The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
Quoted him before. Can't quote him enough. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
CHRISTIAN, n.Although I would say, I think more accurately, ". . .in so far as they are not inconsistent with the sins he wants to commit."
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
For those who're gonna say I'm a bigot, that I hate Evangeli-Fundies, that would include my brother and his family, as well as a good many of my in-laws. I don't hate 'em. I want 'em to wake up. Prioritize, peebles!
posted
7:15 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
11:00 PM
Riverside cop travels across the country to molest boys.
Baby's body found in dump.
Man kills 12 year old son.
Compton, CA, mayor convicted for misusing a few thousand bucks in city funds.
The fifth story down: 25 killed by car bomb in Baghdad.
Clark bows out of race. Kerry wins two more states. Edwards bizarrely proclaims he's going all the way. Why?
Forgot this story faster than I watched it. Could'n a been too big a deal.
11:08 PM
San Francisco mayor favors gay marriage. Slap me silly with a wet wonton noodle.
A sea lion got shot.
Atkins of the Atikins Diet was fat and had a bad heart when he died. Fans say it proves nothing. Whad you do with that wonton noodle?
11:13 PM
Fire at natural foods store in Burbank. Breaking news.
Ya might be able ta recover yer stolen goods, if ya think they wound up in Aliso Viejo.
Weather. Like the way the weatherman sashays around like an idiot. Mildly amusing.
Arkansas criminal recaptured.
11:20 PM
Burbank fire update -- still burning.
Rick Dees (DJ) is off the air.
NYPD Blue too sexy. More Hollyweird crap.
11:26 PM
Burbank fire update -- still burning.
Sports.
11:34
The end. Merciful God be praised.
Yokey-dokey, ready to go out and do my dem-o-cratic du-tay. They tell me 89% of Americans get their news roughly this way. In other words, 89% of Americans get almost no useful news at all. It's all distraction. Or misdirection. Ya know, like a magician? No wonder this country's goin' ta hell. I guess it coulda been worse. I coulda watched Faux News. Insteada tellin' me nothin', they woulda lied ta me.
I didn't think Russert was that bad in the Bush interview, although he's always tougher on Dems, but a lot of people I respect thought he was awful. Okay. I know analyzing interviewers isn't one a my strong points. But compared to News At Eleven, Timmy is Substance In The Sky With Diamonds.
News??? At 11:00 On ABC-7
I rarely watch the news, shit, I rarely watch TV, but tonight, for no sane reason, I did.11:00 PM
Riverside cop travels across the country to molest boys.
Baby's body found in dump.
Man kills 12 year old son.
Compton, CA, mayor convicted for misusing a few thousand bucks in city funds.
The fifth story down: 25 killed by car bomb in Baghdad.
Clark bows out of race. Kerry wins two more states. Edwards bizarrely proclaims he's going all the way. Why?
Forgot this story faster than I watched it. Could'n a been too big a deal.
11:08 PM
San Francisco mayor favors gay marriage. Slap me silly with a wet wonton noodle.
A sea lion got shot.
Atkins of the Atikins Diet was fat and had a bad heart when he died. Fans say it proves nothing. Whad you do with that wonton noodle?
11:13 PM
Fire at natural foods store in Burbank. Breaking news.
Ya might be able ta recover yer stolen goods, if ya think they wound up in Aliso Viejo.
Weather. Like the way the weatherman sashays around like an idiot. Mildly amusing.
Arkansas criminal recaptured.
11:20 PM
Burbank fire update -- still burning.
Rick Dees (DJ) is off the air.
NYPD Blue too sexy. More Hollyweird crap.
11:26 PM
Burbank fire update -- still burning.
Sports.
11:34
The end. Merciful God be praised.
Yokey-dokey, ready to go out and do my dem-o-cratic du-tay. They tell me 89% of Americans get their news roughly this way. In other words, 89% of Americans get almost no useful news at all. It's all distraction. Or misdirection. Ya know, like a magician? No wonder this country's goin' ta hell. I guess it coulda been worse. I coulda watched Faux News. Insteada tellin' me nothin', they woulda lied ta me.
I didn't think Russert was that bad in the Bush interview, although he's always tougher on Dems, but a lot of people I respect thought he was awful. Okay. I know analyzing interviewers isn't one a my strong points. But compared to News At Eleven, Timmy is Substance In The Sky With Diamonds.
posted
12:01 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 10, 2004
You need flashplayer 5 or higher to view the cards. If you don't have it, you can download it here free.
February 10, 2004
This Is Very Cool
Vote Your Conscience has animated e-cards. They're little commercials about Bush that you can e-mail. Amuse and inspire your enlightened friends and acquaintances, drive your dinger friends (You have dinger friends?) to distraction.You need flashplayer 5 or higher to view the cards. If you don't have it, you can download it here free.
posted
9:27 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush report lauds 'outsourcing' jobs
The American economy was greatly enriched over the last 30 years. Why should those of us in the bottom 60% care? Ya know, the majority of Americans? Those in the narrow midlle class, the middle quintile, maybe got enough extra in their pay checks to throw a beer bust with the neighbors once a year if the price a kegs don't go up. The rest of us lost, a small amount in absolute terms, a huge amount in relative terms. It's the relative that matters the most in America.
Ronnie the Raygun was tellin' us all twenty-odd years ago that a rising tide lifts all boats. Not only ain't necessarily so, ain't happened, an' they're still sellin' us the same ol' Bushwa.
Oh, yeah.
Loss Of Best Jobs A Good Thing
That's what the Bushies say, and they may very well be right. Whatcha might want ask, though, is, "Good for who?" Eschaton tipped me to this story and Atrios posts informatively on it. Li'l more high-falutin' than me, ya know, but good stuff.Bush report lauds 'outsourcing' jobs
The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said Monday.They say that like regular should give a shit. Tell it to the folks who lost their decent paying factory jobs and are now filling tacos or cleaning toilets or playing stupid little pep rally games at Wal-mart.
The American economy was greatly enriched over the last 30 years. Why should those of us in the bottom 60% care? Ya know, the majority of Americans? Those in the narrow midlle class, the middle quintile, maybe got enough extra in their pay checks to throw a beer bust with the neighbors once a year if the price a kegs don't go up. The rest of us lost, a small amount in absolute terms, a huge amount in relative terms. It's the relative that matters the most in America.
Ronnie the Raygun was tellin' us all twenty-odd years ago that a rising tide lifts all boats. Not only ain't necessarily so, ain't happened, an' they're still sellin' us the same ol' Bushwa.
Oh, yeah.
[The report] asserts that the last recession began in late 2000, before the president took office, not March 2001, as certified by the official recession-dating panel of the National Bureau of Economic Research.The truth is whatever we say it is. Now shaddup.
posted
8:59 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Is the American right made up of cartoon characters? Cuz I'm gettin' this surreal feelin'. Annie even looks like a Toon. So does Bush. And Cheney. AAHhhhhh!!!
Liberals Love Right Wing Extremists
That's what Annie the Coultergeist sez. No shit. She says liberals love Al Qaeda in particular and Muslim fundamentalists in general. Al Qaeda and the fundamentalists are right wing. Think about it. They want to turn back the clock, impose religious government, harshly enforce social mores, subjugate women -- everything liberals fervently believe in.Is the American right made up of cartoon characters? Cuz I'm gettin' this surreal feelin'. Annie even looks like a Toon. So does Bush. And Cheney. AAHhhhhh!!!
posted
7:58 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Here's what I was thinkin' 'bout, though. Early on they had a problem with people not showing up on time, not showing up ready to work (high, etc.), and not enough people showing up to fill the order for workers. So the workers got together and decided among themselves that the company should tell the workers that the start time for a job was an hour earlier than it really was. No more on time problems. Then they said, if a job calls for 20 workers, send out twenty-five. That way, if not all of them show up, or some aren't ready to work, we can still fill the order. If too many show up, send the extras home with two hours show-up pay.
Well, if my fellow workers decided that, even if I disagreed, I could comfortably live with it. I got ta have my say, an' it was democratically decided. So be it. But if top down management imposed the very same solution, I'd resent the holy shit out of it.
The first decision is dignified and fitting for human beings. The second solution, the very same solution, because it's imposed from above and I have no say, is the worst kind of wage slavery. Humans prefer to be free.
Democracy's Different
I read about this in William Greider's The Soul of Capitalism. In Baltimore, they got a day labor temp agency, Solidarity, where the employees consist almost entirely of inner-city ex-cons and recovering narcotics addicts. Those employees own the company and participate in decision making. They make more money than at other agencies, they get health insurance, which is rare, and they get bonuses at the end of the year based on profits, often thousands of dollars each.Here's what I was thinkin' 'bout, though. Early on they had a problem with people not showing up on time, not showing up ready to work (high, etc.), and not enough people showing up to fill the order for workers. So the workers got together and decided among themselves that the company should tell the workers that the start time for a job was an hour earlier than it really was. No more on time problems. Then they said, if a job calls for 20 workers, send out twenty-five. That way, if not all of them show up, or some aren't ready to work, we can still fill the order. If too many show up, send the extras home with two hours show-up pay.
Well, if my fellow workers decided that, even if I disagreed, I could comfortably live with it. I got ta have my say, an' it was democratically decided. So be it. But if top down management imposed the very same solution, I'd resent the holy shit out of it.
The first decision is dignified and fitting for human beings. The second solution, the very same solution, because it's imposed from above and I have no say, is the worst kind of wage slavery. Humans prefer to be free.
posted
7:33 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
"I'm goin' down to Lose-iana, get me a mojo hand."
They also have liberals, celebrities, etc., but, based on tha pitchers, they look kinda cheesy and expensive ta me.
Jus' What Y'all Been Lookin' Fer
Conservative Voodoo Dolls fer those that go in fer that sorta thing."I'm goin' down to Lose-iana, get me a mojo hand."
They also have liberals, celebrities, etc., but, based on tha pitchers, they look kinda cheesy and expensive ta me.
posted
7:11 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Thanks to ill-sorted ephemera.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Paul Krugman explains the ins and outs of why this economy still sucks no matter what Boy (King) George says.Thanks to ill-sorted ephemera.
posted
2:25 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Not only Bush, but all the dingbat sheeple that are his biggest supporters as well keep insisting that his honorable discharge proves Bush did everything spiffy-clean-nice-nice and never did nothin' wrong. "Doesn't anyone on the left know anything about military service?" That's an actual quote from a dinger.
Cohen says the Guard was all screwed up in those days. I can't unnerstan' it. I joined the Army a year after Cohen was discharged, an' it was runnin' like a top. A drunken, drug-addled top. I went AWOL from the Oakland Repo-Depot (it rhymes), an' I was never even charged. Near as I can figger, somebody jus' dropped the ball. Besides, you can go AWOL, get caught, get punished, an' still get an honorable. I spent time as a legal clerk, I saw it happen more than once.
What The Left Knows About Military Service
Richard Cohen tells the truth about his own National Guard service during the Vietnam war: From Guardsman . . .Not only Bush, but all the dingbat sheeple that are his biggest supporters as well keep insisting that his honorable discharge proves Bush did everything spiffy-clean-nice-nice and never did nothin' wrong. "Doesn't anyone on the left know anything about military service?" That's an actual quote from a dinger.
Cohen says the Guard was all screwed up in those days. I can't unnerstan' it. I joined the Army a year after Cohen was discharged, an' it was runnin' like a top. A drunken, drug-addled top. I went AWOL from the Oakland Repo-Depot (it rhymes), an' I was never even charged. Near as I can figger, somebody jus' dropped the ball. Besides, you can go AWOL, get caught, get punished, an' still get an honorable. I spent time as a legal clerk, I saw it happen more than once.
posted
2:06 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Building a better Bush
UPDATE: Fortuitously, Adam the Violent posts a goodly excerpt of Umberto Eco on what he calls Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. This section seemed apropos:
Right Uses "liberal" The Way Hitler Used "Jew"
But at least they haven't started killing us -- yet. Another finest kind article in Salon.com, this one excerpted from the book, Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You , for their new "Bush-of-the-Month Club" feature. It reveals the artifice involved in obscuring GW's elitism and the general strategy of the GOP in obscuring it's own.Building a better Bush
In 1953, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote, "Anti-intellectualism has long been the anti-Semitism of the businessman," by which he meant that those at the top of the heap use intellectuals as a scapegoat to distract people from the societal inequities that actually affect their lives: those of wealth and power. Intellectuals are posited as both sinister and powerful, conspiratorially undermining the values of ordinary people.I may be a intellekshul (A dinger once dismissed my arguments by calling me an "intellectualist." He meant it as an insult.), but I'm on the average American's side cuz, basically, I are one. Ya e'er notice the right regularly argues both sides of the same issue. If ya don't study hard an' get a good education, ya deserve ta be poor, but intellekshuls're evil.
(snip)
The conservative media apparatus is an integrated system in which stories circulate between talk radio, conservative magazines and newspapers and the Fox News Channel, generating momentum and pushing their way into more mainstream news outlets. The most enthusiastic goal of this media machine is locating and publicizing foolish things said by liberals, no matter how obscure or inconsequential the speaker may be, to inspire mainstream contempt for liberals. The idea that the words of some random professor or student are more important than the actions of the country's leaders may be farcical, but by giving endless attention to these alleged outrages, conservatives sustain the image of liberals as powerful and elitist and conservatives as persecuted and victimized. Were they so inclined, liberals could no doubt find conservative citizens who say stupid things too. But no one is paying them to undertake the search.
UPDATE: Fortuitously, Adam the Violent posts a goodly excerpt of Umberto Eco on what he calls Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. This section seemed apropos:
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
posted
9:34 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Those who forced the Magna Carta on the King. Whiners and complainers. Those who forced the creation of a parliament in Britain. Whiners and complainer. The Founding Fathers. Hell, they were so fuckin' bitchy they started a damn war. Those who demanded universal suffrage for white males. The abolitionists. Big time whiners and complainers. Those who fought for women's suffrage. The early 20th century progressives who gave us the FDA, among many other boons. The union activists. The civil rights activists. Thass just off the top o' my haid. I'm leavin' lotsa whiners and complainers out.
I'd like to hear somebody tell me what self-saitisfied pig who spent his time boasting about how wonderful things are, just as they are, can be given any credit for any social progress whatsoever.
Yeah, the right calls me a whiner and complainer. And I say, tanx for de compleement. Puts me in pretty good company.
More insight inta this cat's character:
WHAT YOU OWE
Dissatisfaction Drives Progress
From EjectEjectEject,The whole point of the style of that series was to poke a stick in the eyes of those whiny, joyless, professional complainers.HEY! I resemble that remark. I get that kind of accusation from right wingers all the time, so I thought I'd mention a few other whiners and complainers.
Those who forced the Magna Carta on the King. Whiners and complainers. Those who forced the creation of a parliament in Britain. Whiners and complainer. The Founding Fathers. Hell, they were so fuckin' bitchy they started a damn war. Those who demanded universal suffrage for white males. The abolitionists. Big time whiners and complainers. Those who fought for women's suffrage. The early 20th century progressives who gave us the FDA, among many other boons. The union activists. The civil rights activists. Thass just off the top o' my haid. I'm leavin' lotsa whiners and complainers out.
I'd like to hear somebody tell me what self-saitisfied pig who spent his time boasting about how wonderful things are, just as they are, can be given any credit for any social progress whatsoever.
Yeah, the right calls me a whiner and complainer. And I say, tanx for de compleement. Puts me in pretty good company.
More insight inta this cat's character:
WHAT YOU OWE
So let's talk about what you owe. Nothing soaring and abstract this time. I mean, specifically: what you owe me. What, do you suppose, do you owe me for all of the essays and entries over the past year or so? Brass tacks: how much, in cash, do you think you've gotten from this website, in terms of time well spent?To be fair, he's actually asking for donations to a good cause, money to help our soldiers. But on the basis of what his readers owe him for reading his freely accessible blog? What an arrogant dipwad.
Can we say $5.00? Minimum? Does that seem fair? If you've been coming here a lot over the weeks and months, and if you've read most of the SILENT AMERICA essays, do you think that might be worth perhaps $10.00? No more than $20.00, certainly -- that's what I was going to charge for the as yet unfinished book. So, can we agree, you owe me somewhere between $5.00 and $20.00 dollars? That seem about right?
posted
6:36 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush is doin' his union bustin' best as president, crackin' on the ILWU (Longshoreman - tell them unions don't do you any good.), crackin' on government employee unions. And in Southern California, 70,000 grocery workers have been on strike for four months. Both sides expect the strike to continue for several more months. When it began, ta give ya an example of management lies and how the media runs right home and reports them, lotta peebles was tellin' me how silly the workers were to strike over only $5 a week in increased insurance payments.
So who's the generally agreed upon culprit in all this?
Bush & Wal-mart, Sittin' In A Tree
Labor Raises Pressure on California SupermarketsBush is doin' his union bustin' best as president, crackin' on the ILWU (Longshoreman - tell them unions don't do you any good.), crackin' on government employee unions. And in Southern California, 70,000 grocery workers have been on strike for four months. Both sides expect the strike to continue for several more months. When it began, ta give ya an example of management lies and how the media runs right home and reports them, lotta peebles was tellin' me how silly the workers were to strike over only $5 a week in increased insurance payments.
About the only thing that union and management can agree on is that the dispute is exacting deep pain from both sides. The companies -- Safeway, Albertsons and Kroger -- have lost nearly $2 billion in sales at their 852 Southern California stores. Several union locals involved in the dispute have had to mortgage their headquarters to finance strike benefits, which, with related expenses, have on occasion amounted to $10 million a week.Workers are losing their homes, their cars, their health coverage. The markets have lost $2 billion in sales. Is there some semi-rational person somewhere who honestly believes that either side would put themselves through such misery over $5 per week per worker? The proposed health care cuts are much bigger than that, but they ain't all:
The 70,000 workers receive no unemployment benefits, and their employer-paid health coverage ran out on Dec. 31. The insurer has offered a two-month extension for $400, which many workers have paid, some with help from the union. But others are now without coverage.
Many also complain that their strike benefits have been cut to $125 a week from $240, and are telling of being evicted and losing their cars to repossession. Isabel Valles, a cashier for 18 years, has left her $650-a-month apartment and moved in with her mother. Maria Benancio, a cashier for nine years, is feeling so much stress that she has started taking antidepressants.
Management has also proposed a lower wage tier for new workers. Top wages currently range from $7.40 an hour for grocery baggers to $17.90 for cashiers; under the companies' proposal, top cashiers' pay would be $15.10.Hmm. Isn't that $112 a week, on top of reductions in health care benefits, calculated over a 40 hour week? Lot more than 5 bucks, ain't it. We call this a two tier wage structure, and it benefits management in at least four ways. First, it reduces labor costs immediately. Second, it results in a permanent reduction in wages over time, since new hires will eventually be the only hires left. Third, it creates a situation where management gains if they can find a way to force out or fire the top tier workers. Fourth, and probably most importantly, it's a union busting tactic. Say you're a new hire. How you gonna feel 'bout the higher paid workers who sold you out? How you gonna feel about the union, which also sold you out? How you gonna feel about payin' union dues? How you gonna feel about solidarity?
So who's the generally agreed upon culprit in all this?
Paul Clark, a Penn State labor relations professor who edited a recent book on trends in collective bargaining, said the dispute could have nationwide repercussions.Everybody means everybody, pibbles, not just union workers. A management win here will depress wages throughout the labor market. Unions raise wages for all workers, but not a huge amount, because unions barely exist in the US. Only Western Democracy you can say that about. Wonder why?
"If the union loses this and has to give back a significant portion of their health benefits," Professor Clark said, "you're really moving down the road to everybody beginning to be a Wal-Mart worker with low wages and low benefits."
The chains say they need to cut costs -- deeply and soon -- because Wal-Mart plans to open 40 combined discount stores and supermarkets in Southern California over the next five years. Grocery executives say they will not be able to compete because Wal-Mart and other nonunionized companies often pay their workers $8 an hour less in combined wages and benefits than union workers receive.Most workers who take an $8 an hour cut in compensation are gonna slip right out of the middle class. Didja think the broad middle class was a good idea? Unions and the "socialist" policies of FDR's New Deal were the major factors in creating it. Now the corporatists and the pseudo-conservatives want to turn back the clock. Try to take something away from the economic elite, they fight like tigers to keep it. Try to take something away from the workers and -- what? Are we gonna let 'em? Are we gonna go gentle into that fetid, sticky night?
posted
5:06 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 09, 2004
Long William Saletan here. It involves Plato, Aristotle and science -- all that stupid thinking crap.
Saletan quotes Bush from the Russert Interview, "But I'm not going to change because of polls. That's just not my nature."
Yeah, God knows, it would be wrong to pay any attention to what the people think. Whaddaya think this is, a friggin' democracy?
February 09, 2004
The Bushitization Of Reality
Short William Saletan: Clinton had a difficult relationship with the truth. Bush has a difficult relationship with reality. Which worries you more?Long William Saletan here. It involves Plato, Aristotle and science -- all that stupid thinking crap.
Saletan quotes Bush from the Russert Interview, "But I'm not going to change because of polls. That's just not my nature."
Yeah, God knows, it would be wrong to pay any attention to what the people think. Whaddaya think this is, a friggin' democracy?
posted
3:58 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Newman also discusses the revolving door bribery of public officials by the health industry.
Universal Healthcare "Impossible"
And it doesn't make economic or humanitarian sense and Repukes don't love porkbarrel spending, either. Nathan Newman posts about this:The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, said on Friday that "it is impossible" to have all Americans covered by health insurance, but he predicted that Congress would take incremental steps to expand coverage this year.Last I heard impossible meant, "can't be fuckin' done." Since a great many countries have done it, wouldn't that make Doc Billy a more blatant liar than even Bush? I know all politicians lie, but it's these constant, Repukelican, black-is-white-and-never-mind-yer-damn-lyin'-eyes lies that kill me.
Newman also discusses the revolving door bribery of public officials by the health industry.
posted
2:51 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Just sign the petition.
Censure Bush!
MoveOn sez that over 250,000 people have joined their call to censure Bush.Tomorrow, we'll present our campaign to Congress at a press conference in Washington. We'll be joined by former top intelligence officers and by parents whose children have been injured and killed while serving in the military in Iraq.True Majority, Working Assets, and the Win Without War coalition are also in on this deal. You can be too.
Just sign the petition.
posted
1:57 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Now, I know, it's wrong to make unsupported assertions, so I thought I'd provide maybe a couple a resources. Bush lies, CAP's Claim vs. Fact: The President on Meet The Press, Buzz Flash's Bush Lied And Our Soldiers Died, PBS Frontline, One Thousand Reasons and their specific Honesty.pdf, Mother Jones, the Price of Loyalty - the Bush Files, US officials knew in May Iraq possessed no WMD, the Carnegie Endowment's report WMDs in Iraq (pdf). This is not an exhaustive list.
UPDATE: MaxSpeak explains why Bush's budget is basically a four inch thick book of lies in STUPID BUDGET TRICKS.
World's Stupidest Question
At least in the last couple a days. Time Magazine asks Does Bush Have A Credibility Gap? Does a bore shit truffles? It's more like a credibility chasm. Why not call the Grand Canyon a wee crack in the ground?Now, I know, it's wrong to make unsupported assertions, so I thought I'd provide maybe a couple a resources. Bush lies, CAP's Claim vs. Fact: The President on Meet The Press, Buzz Flash's Bush Lied And Our Soldiers Died, PBS Frontline, One Thousand Reasons and their specific Honesty.pdf, Mother Jones, the Price of Loyalty - the Bush Files, US officials knew in May Iraq possessed no WMD, the Carnegie Endowment's report WMDs in Iraq (pdf). This is not an exhaustive list.
UPDATE: MaxSpeak explains why Bush's budget is basically a four inch thick book of lies in STUPID BUDGET TRICKS.
posted
1:29 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Brad DeLong had suggested that Russert ask Bush this question: "Mr. President, all this fuss about your military service could be ended in an hour if you would--like all other presidents and candidates--release your military service records, isn't that right?"
"Like all other presidents and candidates . . ." Anyone not a complete idiot could figure out that Bush is almost surely hiding something. That's probably why f'right dingers have such a hard time figuring it out.
Air Guard - As Usual, Bush Is Hidin' Sumpin'
A Violently Executed Blog, which links to a site with many FOIA documents related to this issue, tipped me to a CalPundit post containing documents that appear to show that Bushwa spent a good chunk of his Reserve service with a punishment unit. Be sure to see the Bush was warned link. It's a pretty damning, if hard to make out, document.Brad DeLong had suggested that Russert ask Bush this question: "Mr. President, all this fuss about your military service could be ended in an hour if you would--like all other presidents and candidates--release your military service records, isn't that right?"
"Like all other presidents and candidates . . ." Anyone not a complete idiot could figure out that Bush is almost surely hiding something. That's probably why f'right dingers have such a hard time figuring it out.
posted
10:10 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Hallucinations On The Right
One of the things that makes me think a significant portion of today's right wing is delusional is their continuing obsession with the dangers of communism. Out of all the thousands of people you've met, no matter how casually, over the last 25 years (so we clear the 60s and early 70s), how many have been communists? In my case, it might be as many as a half dozen, and I often traveled in left of center and union circles. Most "leftists" today, I'm convinced, are anti-authoritarian. Yeah, communism is a big threat in the USA. So are elephant stampedes. That's why I carry a little yellow rock in my pocket that wards off elephants.
posted
9:05 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Leftists just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives need evidence..
An Australian blogger with a Ph.D. who seems to think he has a full understanding of politics because in his youth he made a tour of extremist groups while acting as a police informant. Never mind that most of politics is not extreme. Note his position on leftists vs. conservatives. Everyone left of center is completely irrational, but conservatives are completely rational. I admit, I consider diehard supporters of today's GOP largely irrational, but certainly not everyone right of center. I also get the impression that he defines all leftists as extremists.
He's a big promoter of the Hitler was an authoritarian socialist idea. (I'm assuming he thinks Hitler was authoritarian.) I don't know why he doesn't just call it communism. Socialists aren't necessarily authoritarian. Yet he compares Hitler's economic policies to those of FDR (HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST). So FDR was a socialist too? Not likely, and only the fairly extreme right (and beyond) thinks so.
There are two things going on with the right's desperate attempts to portray Hitler as a socialist. One is their dualistic world view, which I find extremely irritating. You're either a total laissez fairy, or your a total command and control socialist, as if no other positions exist. The second is that they want to portray all evil authoritarianism as left wing in order to bolster their self-flattering portrayal of the right as the incomarable champions of freedom and good. I wonder how many would defend Augusto Pinochet?
Near as I can tell, Hitler was economically close to the center, but I don't actually care. If you're an extreme authoritarian in power, I don't care if your name is Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, or Joey Dumbfuck, you need to die. I hate authoritarians. I try not to hate too many people, but authoritarians are the evil enemies of human freedom that we've been battling for thousands of years. They are that rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem.
One example of the wisdom of a "conservative" who needs evidence:
Dissecting A Dissector Of The Left
Dissecting Leftism.Leftists just KNOW what is good for us. Conservatives need evidence..
An Australian blogger with a Ph.D. who seems to think he has a full understanding of politics because in his youth he made a tour of extremist groups while acting as a police informant. Never mind that most of politics is not extreme. Note his position on leftists vs. conservatives. Everyone left of center is completely irrational, but conservatives are completely rational. I admit, I consider diehard supporters of today's GOP largely irrational, but certainly not everyone right of center. I also get the impression that he defines all leftists as extremists.
He's a big promoter of the Hitler was an authoritarian socialist idea. (I'm assuming he thinks Hitler was authoritarian.) I don't know why he doesn't just call it communism. Socialists aren't necessarily authoritarian. Yet he compares Hitler's economic policies to those of FDR (HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST). So FDR was a socialist too? Not likely, and only the fairly extreme right (and beyond) thinks so.
There are two things going on with the right's desperate attempts to portray Hitler as a socialist. One is their dualistic world view, which I find extremely irritating. You're either a total laissez fairy, or your a total command and control socialist, as if no other positions exist. The second is that they want to portray all evil authoritarianism as left wing in order to bolster their self-flattering portrayal of the right as the incomarable champions of freedom and good. I wonder how many would defend Augusto Pinochet?
Near as I can tell, Hitler was economically close to the center, but I don't actually care. If you're an extreme authoritarian in power, I don't care if your name is Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, or Joey Dumbfuck, you need to die. I hate authoritarians. I try not to hate too many people, but authoritarians are the evil enemies of human freedom that we've been battling for thousands of years. They are that rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem.
One example of the wisdom of a "conservative" who needs evidence:
Because I went straight from being a fundamentalist Christian to complete atheism in my late teens, one type of belief I have never taken the slightest interest in is the "The Occult".Course, he was young, but he doesn't mention ever turning away from atheism. At the risk of offending the atheists out there, there isn't a bit of logic underlying real atheism. I doubt God's existence myself, but it is impossible to know that God (or Gods) doesn't exist. Looks like this "conservative" may need evidence, but not logic. You can't prove a negative.
posted
8:29 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 08, 2004
If you're to the right of the Democrats, you're clearly right wing. If you support Bush, you're either a right wing looney or you're unaware of the facts. Bush can hardly go a day without lying. He lied throughout the campaign and he's lied throughout his presidencey. Worst of all, he lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Even if you accept that the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do, lying to the people about the reasons for war is anti-democratic, unacceptable and reprehensible.
UPDATE: If you think Clinton was a leftist, you're definitely well right of center. My mistake was calling you a liar. You're actually, shall we say, unknowledgeable.
February 08, 2004
Reply To A "Centrist" Bush Supporter
From Common Sense Isn't (Who proves it by saying things like, "I only recently became aware that some people "blame" Jews for killing Jesus." Geez, pal, welcome to the world.):From the comments sectionYou appear to think "centrism" is splitting the difference between the Dems and the Repubs. If so, then you lack an understanding of the political spectrum. Try taking the Political Compass test. The test places every candidate for president except Kucinich and Sharpton in the right/authoritarian quadrant, which is about right.
"Phaedrus:
Centrist, huh? More lying, right wing horseshit."
Yes Phaedrus, I consider myself a centrist, or at least an independent.
If you're to the right of the Democrats, you're clearly right wing. If you support Bush, you're either a right wing looney or you're unaware of the facts. Bush can hardly go a day without lying. He lied throughout the campaign and he's lied throughout his presidencey. Worst of all, he lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Even if you accept that the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do, lying to the people about the reasons for war is anti-democratic, unacceptable and reprehensible.
Of course right now the popular hype/lie is that if you support the war in Iraq you are a right wing loonie.I don't think supporting the war in Iraq makes someone a looney. Mistaken, maybe. And there are quite a few liberal and left supporters of the war. But I take it, from your "Jews" comment, that you're not real well-informed.
I've a question for you.You're questions are silly. If you've assumed I'm an idiot or a lunatic, why ask them? If you haven't made such an assumption, then you know my answer.
Is everytihing the left does rational and sound?
Is everything the right does loonie?
If you answer yes to that then you need to rethink.
And I would say the same to someone who answered yes to the following questions.
Is everytihing the left does loonie?
Is everything the right does rational and sound?
I mentioned in a earlier blog that the War on Terror is the SECOND most important issue of our time.Ooo, partisanship. I bet there's never been partisanship in any democratic country ever except until the last few years in America. Not real aware of American political history, are you? Candidates have had gunfights on stages, fistfights were common, the partisan press was far more vicious than anything seen today, except for maybe in the far right publications. Partisanship is not only survivable, it's normal. Whadda ya want, a one party state? Anyway, the Republicans don't leave anyone much choice. They're idea of compromise is to tell the Dems politely, "Do it our way or hit the highway."
What is the first?
Political partisonship.
Right now in this country I see both parties putting a much higher vallue on their party than on America.
Any idea the Right comes up with the Left is against. Even if it is something that a few years ago the left was pushing for.
The same can be said of the Right.
The war in Iraq is a prime example. When Clinton was President every Democrat in the country was trumpeting how dangerous Saddam was, how his WMD were a threat to the US. How we need to do something. INCLUDING most of the Dem presidential candidates!We must have been living in two different countries back then. I don't remember any clamor to invade Iraq in violation of international law on the basis of nonexistent, flimsy, or exaggerated evidence. I was here in the US. Where were you?
Now that a Replubican President has done something about Saddam, it's the worst thing in the world.
UPDATE: If you think Clinton was a leftist, you're definitely well right of center. My mistake was calling you a liar. You're actually, shall we say, unknowledgeable.
Why?Actually, they do act like adults. I know they don't act the way we would like adults to behave, but the world is not as we like it. The world is as it is, and accepting that, and working within that context, is mature behavior. But you just keep sittin' around exhorting politicians to be non-partisan. I'm sure they're gonna hear ya and change ta suit ya any day now. You, sir, ain't no centrist. A true centrist could not support Bush. Take the test, you'll see.
Because they can't say nice things about anything done by a Republican. That would give power to the other side.
It would be the same if a Democrat were President. Every Republican in the country would be pointing fingers.
What America needs is for our elected representatives to act like adults. To sit down and run this country in a way that is good for America. NOT in a way that is good for their own party.
Put America and the American People first.
posted
9:36 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Thanks to GwaDBlog.
The Biblical Curse Generator
Often find yourself hardup for a witty putdown? Never Again. Sample Curse:Woe unto thee, O ye Mesopotomian harlot, for you will be as welcome as a fart in the queen's bedchamber!Man, you can't buy shit like that (well, actually, you can), but you can get it free here.
Thanks to GwaDBlog.
posted
7:29 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Thanks to the Political Compass, Iconochasm quiz. Very interesting, a lot of icons don't come off so well.
For Dingers Who Claim To Follow Adam Smith
Q: Who urged suspicious attention to any proposed new law or regulation that comes from businessmen, because they have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public?Thanks to the Political Compass, Iconochasm quiz. Very interesting, a lot of icons don't come off so well.
posted
5:51 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Obviously They Have Something To Hide
In Search of Utopia posts on the frustration of the 9/11 Commission panel members' frustration with "maddening" White House restrictions on access to documents. Dave says:I have long been a believer in the "get out in front of the story," school of thought. If there is nothing to hide, cooperate, resolve and move on.Now, that's accepted political wisdom these days (even if you do have something to hide, within reason). It's not the scandal that gets ya, it's the coverup. Yet the White House is not following the accepted political wisdom. What's that tell ya?
posted
2:41 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Center For American Progress has a full, documented analysis of the interview, Claim vs. Fact.
"I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."
Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq
"We looked at the intelligence."
Questions Swirl Around WMD Charges
I don't care how this war comes out, I don't care how necessary it may or may not have been, I don't care if, as a result of this war, democracy and peace blossom throughout the world (I ain't holdin' my breath, though). It was still wrong and still evil and still anti-democratic and it still is unacceptable to lie to the people about the reasons for war.
More On Bush-Russert Lie Fest
Believe it or not, I'm getting tired of calling George Bush a liar, and I imagine anyone who reads this blog is getting tired of reading. Gotta tell ya, though, peebles, I actually think that's the GOP strategy. Tell enough lies often enough that you wear down, and discredit, the opposition.The Center For American Progress has a full, documented analysis of the interview, Claim vs. Fact.
"I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."
Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq
"We looked at the intelligence."
Questions Swirl Around WMD Charges
"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field.""I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."
Separately, the chief of the Pentagon's intelligence agency said it had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them. The assessment suggests a higher degree of uncertainty about the immediacy of an Iraqi threat, which was the main justification for war.
While the President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America."And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out."
David Kay didn't say we haven't found the stockpiles of chemical weapons because they are destroyed, hidden or transported to another country. Kay said that they were never produced and hadn't been produced since 1991. As he said, "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections." [Kay Testimony, 2004]I'd think that would be enough, but there's much more in the CAP analysis. I don't believe Bushwa could tell the truth if ya paid him a million dollars for it.
I don't care how this war comes out, I don't care how necessary it may or may not have been, I don't care if, as a result of this war, democracy and peace blossom throughout the world (I ain't holdin' my breath, though). It was still wrong and still evil and still anti-democratic and it still is unacceptable to lie to the people about the reasons for war.
posted
2:22 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Stoopid British Lieberal
A Toast to the University Club of Toronto[He was] becoming increasingly disenchanted with the elitism of Tory social policies that protected the prerogatives of the upper classes at the numbing disadvantage of the poor.The "he" in the piece was Winston Churchill, and I find it hilarious that modern "conservatives" claim him as a hero. Churchill would have had little in common with the far right pseudo-conservatives who currently claim the mantle of conservatism.
(snip)
When asked why he left the Conservative Party, he retorts that he did not leave the Conservative Party or his principles. Rather, the Conservative Party deserted its principles and left him.
(snip)
"We know perfectly well what to expect ... [the Tory Party] has become the party of great vested interest; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; trickery of tariff juggles, tyranny of party machine; sentiment by the bucketful, patronage by the pint; openhand at the public exchequer; open door at the public house; dear food for the millions ... and ... cheap labour by the millions...'
(snip)
'Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. There is a great gulf fixed. It is not a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. ... Socialism seeks to pull down wealth. Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference ... Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital, Liberalism attacks monopoly."
(snip)
As President of the Board of Trade, he organized labour exchanges to prevent sweat labour. He first established unemployment insurance in England. He led attacks against the House of Lords when it defeated a Liberal budget - the famous "People's Budget" - which led to the first reform of the Lords.
He wrote articulate books - radical in their time - entitled Liberalism and the Social Problem and The People's Rights, defining a sweeping social agenda of reform that only became accepted public policy decades later.
He railed against property speculation and contrasted wealth built on real estate as "Plunder"' compared to 'production" of goods as being in the public interest. He advocated public works in times of unemployment (public jobs in reforestation and road building). He promoted legislation restricting eight-hour work days for coal miners and restrictions on child labour. He repeatedly advocated a 'safety net" to protect the victims from the ravages of competition. While he believed in Free Trade and competition, he also believed in offering some protection to those who simply could not compete.
He declaimed on public platforms that the biggest threat to the cause of peace came not from abroad but the crisis at home: the gap between rich and poor, obsolete laws protecting inherited property and the vested interests. He argued repeatedly for 'minimum standards of life and work" to attain domestic civility.
Viscount Simon, a close and lifelong contemporary, wrote of him: 'At the root of his many sided nature ... remains the essence of Liberalism. His tolerance, his sympathy with the oppressed and the underdog, his courage in withstanding clamour, his belief ... in the individual ... all derive from a heart, a head [and] made him a Liberal statesman ... his Liberal views were not a mere pose, so that he has carried his Liberal temper with him throughout his life..."
Other colleagues noted that a major theme of his life was individual rights and his unswerving belief in the liberty to work out, as one civil servant wrote, one's own salvation, to follow one's own star. So Churchill wished to afford equal freedom for others to do likewise. 'I stand for Liberty" he proudly proclaimed more than once. This was his lifelong Liberal theme. He vehemently opposed Bolshevism and Communism because he believed each was, at its very roots, opposed to individual liberty. He carried over this belief in the essence of liberty as the foundation for relations between states that so informed all his foreign policy principles.
posted
1:06 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
--Sir William Drummond
From Quotes of the Day.
Bigots, Fools And Slaves
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.--Sir William Drummond
From Quotes of the Day.
posted
11:20 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
OK. The big, tattooed biker down the street acts in a hostile and threatening manner. There's no doubt in my mind that he's dangerous and that he's a threat to me. So, since I have to deal with threats before they become imminent, I shoot him dead. Does the jury let me off? Was my action morally defensible? I'd have to say no. Course, I'm not King a tha World like Bush is.
Bush again brought up Resolution 1441. Much of the administration's case for war, and much of the right wing's justification of the war, has rested on Saddam's violations of 1441. In other words, he justified the US breaking international law (A preemptive war in the absence of an imminent threat is a clear violation of international law.) on the basis that Iraq broke international law. Everybody knows two wrongs make a right.
Also, 1441 called for "serious consequences." Nowhere did it say, "Do it or the US and their lapdog, the UK, will kick your ass!" How was it up to Bush to unilaterally determine the consequences? Further, UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq, doing their jobs, just prior to the war, despite Bush's fantasies to the contrary. War was not the only way to control the threat of Iraq producing WMDs.
Bush said he was not surprised by the level of resistance in Iraq. He expected it. His administration never told the American people that they expected this level of resistance. Either he lied by omission before the war, or he lied in the interview.
Russert asked, you didn't volunteer for service in Vietnam? Bush answered, no I didn't. Funny. Among the questionable claims in Mr. Bush's [1999 campaign] autobiography is that he tried to volunteer for service in Vietnam "to relieve active-duty pilots." Did he lie in the interview, or in the "autobiography" (he didn't write it). Ya only get one guess. Should be all you'll need.
An' thass jus' hittin' tha highlights.
Russert Interview Of Bush - Lies Just Keep On Comin'
Saddam was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world, Bush said. To some degree, that's certainly true. We have to deal with threats before they become imminent, Bush said.OK. The big, tattooed biker down the street acts in a hostile and threatening manner. There's no doubt in my mind that he's dangerous and that he's a threat to me. So, since I have to deal with threats before they become imminent, I shoot him dead. Does the jury let me off? Was my action morally defensible? I'd have to say no. Course, I'm not King a tha World like Bush is.
Bush again brought up Resolution 1441. Much of the administration's case for war, and much of the right wing's justification of the war, has rested on Saddam's violations of 1441. In other words, he justified the US breaking international law (A preemptive war in the absence of an imminent threat is a clear violation of international law.) on the basis that Iraq broke international law. Everybody knows two wrongs make a right.
Also, 1441 called for "serious consequences." Nowhere did it say, "Do it or the US and their lapdog, the UK, will kick your ass!" How was it up to Bush to unilaterally determine the consequences? Further, UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq, doing their jobs, just prior to the war, despite Bush's fantasies to the contrary. War was not the only way to control the threat of Iraq producing WMDs.
Bush said he was not surprised by the level of resistance in Iraq. He expected it. His administration never told the American people that they expected this level of resistance. Either he lied by omission before the war, or he lied in the interview.
Russert asked, you didn't volunteer for service in Vietnam? Bush answered, no I didn't. Funny. Among the questionable claims in Mr. Bush's [1999 campaign] autobiography is that he tried to volunteer for service in Vietnam "to relieve active-duty pilots." Did he lie in the interview, or in the "autobiography" (he didn't write it). Ya only get one guess. Should be all you'll need.
An' thass jus' hittin' tha highlights.
posted
10:39 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 07, 2004
Right wing thinktanks heavily funded by right wing foundations and corporations. The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are not right-leaning members of the political mainstream. They are cushy homes for far right whackos who coudn't make it in academia, but who've managed to create the impression that they're part of the mainstream.
All the facts mentioned below were drawn from this website. They footnote their work, and the same facts can be found elsewhere.
In the 80s, Supply-side economics was all the rage and taken quite seriously by a great many people. It still is taken seriously by a fairly large number of people. Think dingers. Yet, in the early 80s The American Economic Association, the economic branch of the National Academy of Sciences, had 18,000 scholar members. A total of 12, .067%, called themselves supply-siders. How could supply-side economics ever have been taken seriously?
A lot of people believe blacks are dumb. "Conservatives" wanted to prove it, for some odd reason. Charles Murray, pushed by the Bradley Foundation, took up residence at the American Enterprise Institute and, along with Mr. Herrnstein, produced The Bell Curve. Bypassing peer review, the book, which purports to show (Surprise!) that blacks are dumber than whites, was presented directly to the public in a well-finance media (PR) campaign. A whole year later, well after it had worked its way into the public mind, the "science" underlying the book's claims was denounced by the National Academy of Sciences as fraudulent. (This one almost fooled me, by-de-by. I try to remain open to the facts, even when I don't like the facts. And I didn't know as much about thinktanks in those days.)
In addition, in 1993, the Hoover Institute lied about how caps on welfare benefits affected the birth rates of welfare mothers in New Jersey. In 1994, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation lied to Congress about how much the nation had spent on welfare benefits (he claimed many times as much as was actually spent) and claimed that the poverty rate had remained unchanged. In fact, that's one of the favorite claims of the far right (By which I mean the GOP) is that the war on poverty failed. In fact, between 64 and 73 the poverty rate fell from 19% to 11%. Doesn't sound like a failure to me. In 1996, the Cato Institute lied about how welfare benefits exceeded the pay from a minimum wage job. And all of this combined is less than the tip of the iceberg.
The dingers are never gonna hear a word I say. Facts that don't support their prejudices bounce off them like bullets off a Superman. "Don't you think it goes both ways?" No, I definitely do not. Not nearly to the same degree. In the political arena we're battling fanatics. Our only hope is to get the much larger number of relatively rational people out from under their sway. We have to counter the highly funded lies and super propaganda.
February 07, 2004
Liars, Frauds And Lunatics - Right Wing Thinktanks
Right wing thinktanks have had a huge impact on political debate in this country over the last 25-30 years. Anyone who's not a right winger has had a right winger, or even some relatively sane person, throw "facts" in his face that "prove" that liberals and centrists are wrong. How do they do that? How do they keep coming up with "facts" that conflict so drastically with the facts you know?Right wing thinktanks heavily funded by right wing foundations and corporations. The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are not right-leaning members of the political mainstream. They are cushy homes for far right whackos who coudn't make it in academia, but who've managed to create the impression that they're part of the mainstream.
All the facts mentioned below were drawn from this website. They footnote their work, and the same facts can be found elsewhere.
Think tanks are ideal for . . . salesmanship [lying], because they lack many of the checks and balances that keep academia honest. Consider their differences in method:However, thinktanks have money to promote their "findings" that academia does not. Consider these frauds:
In academia, the peer-reviewed journal and the scientific conference are two important tools for keeping research honest. They allow scholars to confront their opponents and argue out their differences in sometimes brutal and extensive debate. No such policy exists for think tanks. Think tanks must be debated in the media, a severely limited forum (dealing in sound bites) which provides them with a great deal of intellectual cover.
In academia, scholars have an important arbiter in the National Academy of Sciences, which comprises many of the nation's --- indeed, the world's -- most respected scientists. Think tanks, on the other hand, submit their work to the general public, who are usually unqualified to give an expert critique of the study.
Public universities promote diversity of thought as an official policy, by rotating different-minded professors in and out of teaching assignments. There is no diversity of thought in a think tank, where researchers are hired because they already agree with the foundation's political philosophies.
Academics conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second -- if they don't, they'll catch hell at peer review. But think tanks do this exactly backwards: they reach their conclusions first and conduct their research second.
The sheer size of academia also works to keep research more accurate. There are over 3,600 higher academic institutions in the U.S., but only a few dozen think tanks. Academia therefore has a vastly larger talent pool and considerably greater research facilities than think tanks.
In the 80s, Supply-side economics was all the rage and taken quite seriously by a great many people. It still is taken seriously by a fairly large number of people. Think dingers. Yet, in the early 80s The American Economic Association, the economic branch of the National Academy of Sciences, had 18,000 scholar members. A total of 12, .067%, called themselves supply-siders. How could supply-side economics ever have been taken seriously?
A lot of people believe blacks are dumb. "Conservatives" wanted to prove it, for some odd reason. Charles Murray, pushed by the Bradley Foundation, took up residence at the American Enterprise Institute and, along with Mr. Herrnstein, produced The Bell Curve. Bypassing peer review, the book, which purports to show (Surprise!) that blacks are dumber than whites, was presented directly to the public in a well-finance media (PR) campaign. A whole year later, well after it had worked its way into the public mind, the "science" underlying the book's claims was denounced by the National Academy of Sciences as fraudulent. (This one almost fooled me, by-de-by. I try to remain open to the facts, even when I don't like the facts. And I didn't know as much about thinktanks in those days.)
In addition, in 1993, the Hoover Institute lied about how caps on welfare benefits affected the birth rates of welfare mothers in New Jersey. In 1994, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation lied to Congress about how much the nation had spent on welfare benefits (he claimed many times as much as was actually spent) and claimed that the poverty rate had remained unchanged. In fact, that's one of the favorite claims of the far right (By which I mean the GOP) is that the war on poverty failed. In fact, between 64 and 73 the poverty rate fell from 19% to 11%. Doesn't sound like a failure to me. In 1996, the Cato Institute lied about how welfare benefits exceeded the pay from a minimum wage job. And all of this combined is less than the tip of the iceberg.
The dingers are never gonna hear a word I say. Facts that don't support their prejudices bounce off them like bullets off a Superman. "Don't you think it goes both ways?" No, I definitely do not. Not nearly to the same degree. In the political arena we're battling fanatics. Our only hope is to get the much larger number of relatively rational people out from under their sway. We have to counter the highly funded lies and super propaganda.
posted
6:25 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Just a sampling:
The bad news for Bush in this poll is both deep and wide, as I read it. But it's still early, the campaign hasn't really started.
Tip via Omnium via Donkey Rising.
Bush Support Dropping Like A Stone
AP Poll: Bush's public support has dropped sharply since JanuaryJust a sampling:
Bush's 47 percent approval rating is the same as his father's at this stage in his presidency 12 years ago before he lost to Bill Clinton.The DLC argues that Democrats need to run toward the middle (By which they mean less far right than Repugs.) to pick up those independent voters. Sounds to me like the middle is running to the Democrats. Of course, that's more due to Bush's failures than to Democrat successes, but it still seems to knock a hole in the GOP contention that they truly represent the majority. (Unless they want to claim that Bush doesn't truly represent the GOP.)
Democrats are now as intensely opposed to Bush as Republicans are intensely supporting him. By a 2-1 margin, political independents were more likely to say they would definitely vote against him than definitely support him.
The bad news for Bush in this poll is both deep and wide, as I read it. But it's still early, the campaign hasn't really started.
Tip via Omnium via Donkey Rising.
posted
4:06 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The right also argues that there's some terrible danger that everyone will turn into a homosexual, cease reproducing, and the race will die out. Not only does that strike me as hysterical, it also makes me wonder about the sexual fantasies of the right. I'm not afraid I'm gonna turn Gay. And now there's this:
Does anything in the article prove that homosexuality is natural, acceptable, maybe even beneficial in humans? No. But it seems to me the burden of proof runs the other way. If you want to ban or restrict a behavior in society, it should be incumbent upon you to prove that it's harmful or dangerous. It shouldn't be up to anyone to prove that it's not. The burden of proof is always on the positive.
A little sidelight on using animal behavior to support your prejudices: My brother once said to me, on the subject of racial integration, " I don't know, I think segregation is natural. Animals stick to their own kind." My reply was, "Yeah, but you don't see black cats avoiding white cats."
I've heard the same argument from several other people, though not recently, and it is such a sad argument. Such people actually think (due to serious misunderstanding of the terms) that people of a different race (which is merely a social construct) are also of a different species (which is a biological reality). There is only one human species. All humans are my "kind."
Tip O'The Tam to Amy's New York Notebook.
Animals Do Do it, And Humans Are Animals
Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name, NYTIn 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.)All my life I've been hearing, "Homosexuality is not natural. Animals don't do it." Now we're gonna hear, "People aren't animals." Yah-Okay, jus' so long as it's understood that whatever argument is used has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with supporting a preconceived notion.
The right also argues that there's some terrible danger that everyone will turn into a homosexual, cease reproducing, and the race will die out. Not only does that strike me as hysterical, it also makes me wonder about the sexual fantasies of the right. I'm not afraid I'm gonna turn Gay. And now there's this:
Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.Well, well. Homosexuality could ensure the survival of the species.
Does anything in the article prove that homosexuality is natural, acceptable, maybe even beneficial in humans? No. But it seems to me the burden of proof runs the other way. If you want to ban or restrict a behavior in society, it should be incumbent upon you to prove that it's harmful or dangerous. It shouldn't be up to anyone to prove that it's not. The burden of proof is always on the positive.
A little sidelight on using animal behavior to support your prejudices: My brother once said to me, on the subject of racial integration, " I don't know, I think segregation is natural. Animals stick to their own kind." My reply was, "Yeah, but you don't see black cats avoiding white cats."
I've heard the same argument from several other people, though not recently, and it is such a sad argument. Such people actually think (due to serious misunderstanding of the terms) that people of a different race (which is merely a social construct) are also of a different species (which is a biological reality). There is only one human species. All humans are my "kind."
Tip O'The Tam to Amy's New York Notebook.
posted
11:13 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The pro-lifers say human life begins at conception. Others say no, human life begins with higher brain activity. Still others say human life doesn't begin until the child takes its first breath. I'm sure there are more variations. Science cannot possibly decide the question. I can see some logic in all three of those positions, but no science in any. I don't like the last one much, but that's me. If a moral issue truly approaches black/white duality, I can probably see making a law about it. But on abortion, there's a whole range of opinion, not just in society at large, but even among Christians.
However I feel personally, I can't support a law to force others to do what I think's right unless there is a strong, nation-wide consensus that it's basically a black and white issue, or a compelling social (not religious) reason to do so.
S Dakota Thinks They've Found Roe v Wade Loophole
Alas, A Blog reports:South Dakota's legislature is considering "a bill making abortion a crime unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother."And dissects the logic of supporters of the bill. Here, from the bill (which Alas links to), is the relevant "loophole:"
Section 2. The Legislature finds that since neither constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision has resolved the question of the beginning of life, it is within the proper sphere of state legislative enactment to determine the question in light of the best scientific and medical evidence. The Legislature therefor finds that unborn human life begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.Here's the problem, though. While the beginning of life is a scientific question, the beginning of human life remains a theological/philosophical question.
The pro-lifers say human life begins at conception. Others say no, human life begins with higher brain activity. Still others say human life doesn't begin until the child takes its first breath. I'm sure there are more variations. Science cannot possibly decide the question. I can see some logic in all three of those positions, but no science in any. I don't like the last one much, but that's me. If a moral issue truly approaches black/white duality, I can probably see making a law about it. But on abortion, there's a whole range of opinion, not just in society at large, but even among Christians.
However I feel personally, I can't support a law to force others to do what I think's right unless there is a strong, nation-wide consensus that it's basically a black and white issue, or a compelling social (not religious) reason to do so.
posted
10:16 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The majority thought they were in the minority. Think about that.
I strongly suspect it's true on a whole range of issues. When people are asked about healthcare, minimum wage, aid for the poor (Though not "welfare." The word, but not the concept, has been successfully demonized, like "liberal."), and many other issues, their answers fall well to the left/libertarian side of what's thought to be the center in this country. We as a people have been somehow convinced that the "center" is actually the center, when in fact it's well to the right of center, and that most Americans lean to the right of that artificial "center."
I don't know for sure what effects that has on our politics and elections, but I doubt they're good. And what does it say about the successful propagandizing of the American people? Effectively, the corporatists have marginalized the majority in a (so-called) democracy.
They's Sumpin' Wrong Here
I saw a poll where people said they were willing to forego X amount of income in order to improve the environment. (Shit I shoulda saved and din't. I can't find it now.) A majority said they were willing to give up a fair (but not a lot) of money. But the pollsters asked an interesting follow-up question. Seems the people who said they were willing to give up the money also believed that they were in the minority, that most people would not be willing.The majority thought they were in the minority. Think about that.
I strongly suspect it's true on a whole range of issues. When people are asked about healthcare, minimum wage, aid for the poor (Though not "welfare." The word, but not the concept, has been successfully demonized, like "liberal."), and many other issues, their answers fall well to the left/libertarian side of what's thought to be the center in this country. We as a people have been somehow convinced that the "center" is actually the center, when in fact it's well to the right of center, and that most Americans lean to the right of that artificial "center."
I don't know for sure what effects that has on our politics and elections, but I doubt they're good. And what does it say about the successful propagandizing of the American people? Effectively, the corporatists have marginalized the majority in a (so-called) democracy.
posted
8:52 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
February 06, 2004
February 06, 2004
CBS' Hypocrisy Grows More Outrageous
Dear MoveOn member,Ya don't have ta be a member to take action.
We didn't think the hypocrisy at CBS headquarters could get any worse. But it just did.
As you know, CBS refused to run MoveOn Voter Fund's "Child's Pay" ad -- perhaps the most tasteful and uncontroversial advocacy ad in history -- during the Super Bowl. CBS executives claimed they had a blanket policy against all so-called "issue" ads.
Yesterday, we learned that the network plans to broadcast an ad promoting the Bush Medicare prescription drug law. This is part of a $13 million taxpayer-financed TV campaign to take the heat off the White House for pushing through a drug plan that benefits drug companies and insurance companies more than Medicare recipients.
If that isn't a controversial issue ad, we don't know what is. But since CBS appears to be changing its policy, our Voter Fund has submitted our own Medicare ad which exposes the facts behind this spin campaign to run on CBS. So far, we haven't heard back. Please give CBS a call today to let them know that they need to either pull the White House ads or run ours.
You can reach CBS at:
Phone:
CBS Comment Line
(212) 975-3247
Email:
newmediasales@cbs.com
Web form.
We have no quarrel with CBS News or any CBS journalists, who have actually given fair coverage to CBS Corporate's unfair decision. Please don't call the CBS news desk.
There's another issue involved here that needs to be taken very seriously: if Bush's Medicare ad is intended to function as a campaign ad (and that clearly appears to be the case) then this may constitute a criminal election law violation. In fact, the ad company which made the ad which will air on CBS also works for the Bush/Cheney re-election committee. We've put in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Health and Human Services to begin the process of establishing the facts in this case.
For now, help us hold CBS accountable by asking them to stop running the Bush Medicare ad -- or to accept ours.
posted
6:52 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bushed Commission To Investigate Intel Failures
Orcinus has the bent poop on co-chair Lawrence Silberman:He's not merely a conservative. He's a jurist who has a proven track record of making decisions, and enforcing policy, based not on the law, reason or basic principles of fair play, but purely on how they will benefit or harm the Republican party. "Rabidly partisan" is an understated description.And Dan Conley's Journal tells the crooked tale on "moderate Democrat" Chuck Robb:
Leave it to George W. Bush to appoint the dumbest Democrat in America as co-chair of his WMD commission, former Senator Chuck Robb of Virginia. Robb, one of the founders of the DLC, has had more "intelligence failures" in his political life than the CIA has had in the past 20 years.I'm purty sure that "moderate Democrat" is officially defined as: Right wing ass-licker.
posted
6:18 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Your Memories Are No Longer Valid
"Revisionist history" is spreading. Paul Krugman notes:Recently Mr. Bush said that war had been justified because Saddam "did not let us in." And this claim was repeated by Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Why on earth didn't [Saddam] let the inspectors in and avoid the war?"And:
The fiscal 2005 budget report admits that this year's expected $521 billion deficit belies the rosy forecasts of 2001. But the report offers an explanation: stuff happens. "Today's budget deficits are the unavoidable result of the revenue erosion from the stock market collapse that began in early 2000, an economy recovering from recession and a nation confronting serious security threats." Sure, the administration was wrong — but so was everyone.There is no objective reality. True reality is whatever we tell you it is. This week.
The trouble is that accepting that excuse requires forgetting a lot of recent history. By February 2002, when the administration released its fiscal 2003 budget, all of the bad news — the bursting of the bubble, the recession, and, yes, 9/11 — had already happened. Yet that budget projected only a $14 billion deficit this year, and a return to surpluses next year. Why did that forecast turn out so wrong? Because administration officials fudged the facts, as usual.
posted
5:40 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Proportional Representation - An End To "Safe" Districts
What in tha hell is proportional representation and why should anyone care? Mount Holyoke College has an extensive online collection, the PR Library, about proportional representation. A brief overview via excerpts from their beginning readings:First, [PR] uses multi-member districts. Instead of electing one member of the legislature in each small district, PR uses much larger districts that elect several members at once, say five or ten. Second, which candidates win the seats in these multi-member districts is determined by the proportion of votes a party receives. If we have a ten-member PR district in which the Democratic candidates win 50% of the vote, they would receive five of those ten seats. With 30% of the vote, the Republicans would get three seats. And if a third party received the other 20% of the votes, it would get the remaining two seats.Presto change-o, no more safe districts, no more need for redistricting fights.
At first glance, this voting process might seem a bit strange to many Americans. We are used to our single-member district system, in which we elect one candidate in each legislative district, with the winner being the candidate with the most votes. But while we view this winner-take-all system as "normal," in reality our approach to elections is increasingly at odds with the rest of the world. The vast majority of Western democracies see American-style elections as outmoded and unfair and have rejected them in favor of proportional representation. Most of Western Europe uses PR and a large majority of the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have chosen PR over our form of elections. The United States, Canada, and Great Britain are the only Western democracies that continue to cling to winner-take-all arrangements.According to Freedom House, "Electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 62.5 percent of the world’s population." I don' know how many qualify as Western democracies, but it's gotta be quite a few. We're seriously in the minority here.
The Problem with Single-Member District ElectionsI think it's a great idea, and most of the democratic world agrees. So when's the US gonna catch up? Check it, peebles. They got lots more on the subject.
The single-member district voting system has been on the wane worldwide because it has a number of serious drawbacks. It routinely denies representation to large numbers of voters, produces legislatures that fail to accurately reflect the views of the public, discriminates against third parties, and discourages voter turnout. All of these problems can be traced to a fundamental flaw in our system: only those who vote for the winning candidate get any representation. Everyone else -- who may make up 49% of the electorate in a district -- gets no representation.
We are all familiar with this problem. If you are a Democrat in a predominately Republican district, or a Republican in a Democratic one, or an African-American in a white district, then you are shut out by our current election system. You might cast your vote, but it will be wasted on a candidate that can not win. In the 1994 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, more than 26 million Americans wasted their votes on losing candidates, and so came away from the voting booth with no representation. Under single-member district rules we may have the right to vote, but we don't have the equally important right to be represented.
(snip)
Proportional representation has been widely adopted because it avoids an outcome in which some people win representation and the rest are left out. Under proportional representation rules, no significant groups are denied representation. Even political minorities, who may constitute only 10-20 per cent of the voters, are able to win some seats in these multi-member districts. In PR systems, nearly everyone's vote counts, with 80-90 per cent of the voters actually electing someone, compared to 50-60 per cent in most U.S. elections. Under PR, we can also be sure that our legislatures will accurately reflect the voting strength of the various parties. If a party receives 40 per cent of the vote, it will get 40 per cent of the seats, not 20 percent or 60 percent as can happen now with our system.
More Choices for Voters
The unfairness of winner-take-all elections and the advantages of proportional representation are particularly obvious when we consider the situation of third parties in the U.S. Voters are increasingly dissatisfied with the offerings of the two-major parties and recent surveys indicate that over 60 per cent of Americans would now like to see other parties emerge to challenge the Democrats and Republicans.
Voters are showing increasing interest in alternatives such as the Reform party, the Libertarian party, the Greens, and the New Party.. But under our current rules, none of these parties stands a realistic chance of electing their candidates. Winner-take-all elections require candidates to receive a majority or plurality of the vote to win, and minor party candidates can rarely overcome that formidable barrier. This plurality barrier explains why even though we have had over a thousand minor parties started in the U.S. during the last two hundred years, virtually all have died out relatively quickly.
posted
5:03 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
My scores:
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
My reading list would include Howard Zinn, George Monbiot, Joseph Stiglitz, George Orwell, Thomas Paine, Ralph Nader, Greg Palast, J. K. Galbraith. Sounds about right ta me.
I took the test again, this time answering the way I think a right winger would:
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.74
Extreme right on the economic scale, and pretty damn authoritarian. Not as bad as Stalin or Hitler, but pleny bad enough as far as I'm concerned. His reading list would include Patrick J. Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Margaret Thatcher. Yup, I hate all those people. A woman once said to me, "Don't you think Pat Buchanan is just wonderful?" 'Bout lost my lunch right there. No Mein Kampf, though. Seems Hitler was only a little to the right economically.
Interestingly, to me anyway, I've argued for years that virtually all of American politics is right/authoritarian to some degree. There is no real left in America. Now looky chere at how they plot tha preseedential primary candidates:
For comparison, my scores are both more left and more libertarian than Kucinich and Sharpton. At best, American politics runs all the way from the far right to almost the center. If you're in the American mainstream, you fall to the right/authoritarian side of center.
The Political Compass - I Love This Test
Stumbled on this test while trying to figure out what a social libertarian is. Ta my mild surprise, turns out I are one. They use a horizontal line for left-right, which measures your position on economics, and a vertical line which runs from libertarian to authoritarian, to plot your position on a grid. The economic scale runs from -10, communist, a totally controlled economy, on the left, to 10, ultimate free marketeer (their example is Pinochet) on the right. The libertarian/authoritarian scale is numbered the same way, with Hitler coming pretty close to a ten, and nobody coming close to a -10 libertarian. Apparently nobody believes in that much freedom.My scores:
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
My reading list would include Howard Zinn, George Monbiot, Joseph Stiglitz, George Orwell, Thomas Paine, Ralph Nader, Greg Palast, J. K. Galbraith. Sounds about right ta me.
I took the test again, this time answering the way I think a right winger would:
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.74
Extreme right on the economic scale, and pretty damn authoritarian. Not as bad as Stalin or Hitler, but pleny bad enough as far as I'm concerned. His reading list would include Patrick J. Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Margaret Thatcher. Yup, I hate all those people. A woman once said to me, "Don't you think Pat Buchanan is just wonderful?" 'Bout lost my lunch right there. No Mein Kampf, though. Seems Hitler was only a little to the right economically.
Interestingly, to me anyway, I've argued for years that virtually all of American politics is right/authoritarian to some degree. There is no real left in America. Now looky chere at how they plot tha preseedential primary candidates: