No Fear of Freedom
Salty langwich spoke here.
Ya been WARNED!
  
Anti-right rants from an obnoxious lumpen proletarian. Aiming to Arm the Choir.

March 31, 2004

Ah'm A Pledgin' On Outta Here, I Think

These arguments are so long-winded and boring, maja (mine as well as yours), That I don't think they really lend themselves well to the blog format, so I'm thinkin' 'bout makin' this the last one.

OK. Just for your personal info, I was joking about Olson. I mean that you would dare to agree with him. He's still completely wrong of course.

"The mere insertion of the word "god" in the Pledge does not create or even suggest the establishment of a state religion without further modification. If the phrase were to be reworded "under Christ" or "under Buddha" or "praise be to Allah", then Phaedrus would be right."
Does not even suggest the establishment of a religion? I would like for you to explain to me how that's anything other than a statement of pure opinion. Buddhists, atheists, Taoists, and probably ohers don't believe in God. I don't think Muslims take too kindly to calling Allah God. A lot of toes get stepped on, and to what purpose? You can say whatever you want, but you know that this crap is purely about politicians pandering to Christians. Under God in the pledge hasn't got a damn thing to do with the Founding Fathers. The Deists among them would have actually objected to it. If the founders wanted this to be a nation under God, why didn't they mention God in the Constitution?
"God" is a generic term, owned by nobody and by everybody.

God is not a generic term. You're arguing that the word God has no meaning. Merriam-Webster's -- 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Course, you can argue with the dictionary. Most people do when they're desperate to win an argument. God, at the very least, implies monotheism. There's this weird belief, and apparently you hold it, that typically American expressions of religion are totally inoffensive. Well they're not. I know, because I'm offended.

Every religion in the world uses it, and they all mean something different when they do.

That's nonsense too. Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and Taoist, that I know of off-hand, don't use it. Pagans, Hindus, Wiccans, and I don't know who all else, don't use God in the sense of a monotheistic God, and that's clearly how it is used in the Pledge. Ketchup, by the way, is a generic term, but only because it doesn't exclude any ketchups. Under God, on the other nipple, excludes many people's belief's. And I'm amazed you don't see it. Care to disclose the source of your bias?

NO clause in the Consitution prevents public acknowledgement of religion, nor would the Framers have stood for such a clause. Why? Once again, Olson:

Rather, Mr. Olson said, "under God" was one of various "civic and ceremonial acknowledgments of the indisputable historical fact that caused the framers of our Constitution and the signers of the Declaration of Independence to say that they had the right to revolt and start a new country." He said the framers believed "that God gave them the right to declare their independence when the king has not been living up to the unalienable principles given to them by God."

Except the civic and ceremonial? Yeah, and except for me bein' five foot five, I coulda been a hall of fame basketball center. That's a pretty big except. The part that is historical fact has nothing to do with under God in the Pledge, and I don't see how you've established that it does, unless I count repeated, unsupported assertions.

It never occured to them to banish acknowledgement of a deity from governmental discourse, and if it had, they would have rejected it outright.

That may or may not be true, but let me ask you this. Why should anyone give a shit. What's the deal with worshipping largely rich folk-protecting, anti-democratic, dead white men? The Founding Fathers' thoughts and wishes were never intended to govern us more than about 30 years. Now we've turned them into sages for the ages, demi-gods. And that's idolatry.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship...."

But if a Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist kid refuses to participate in the teacher led pledge, there's a good chance he'll have to account for it on the playground, and he'll probably be outnumbered by a bunch of little fundamentalist bully lunatics.

No, of course, the Constitution doesn't prevent public acknowledgement of religion. That would be a violation of the First Amendment. What it forbids is government acknowledging and fostering religion, which is exactly what under God in the Pledge does. Congress passed a law that leads to people being either forced to profess that this is a nation under God or risking being singled out in unpleasant and possibly even dangerous ways. Surely you see that's wrong. I do want to ban the Senate invocation. I want to ban all official government mentions of religion in any form, and arguing, "Oh, geez, it's only tepid religion." Doesn't change a thing for me.

Oh, bull. It's not that confusing, and anyway if the question is asked it's a great lead-in to a discussion of what the Founders believed and how those beliefs affected their decision to break away from England and what kind of country to have once the break was made.

Oh, bull, my ass. It is totally confusing. The only people I hear babbling about this crap are you, Ted Olson, and right wing ideologues -- and they're working from talking points. The vast majority of Americans have never thought "under God" means what you and Ted Olson say it does. They don't think it now. For damn sure the kids we make say it don't think so. Most people, oddly enough, don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the phrase "under God" is code for something completely different than its plain meaning. If most people are confused, and they are, I'd say it's pretty confusing.

I said, If the phrase is included in a National Pledge we must take the reference to be to the word as used by the people who formed the Nation. It cannot rightfully be taken in any other context without violating logic. It is far more illogocal to assume it means something else.

You're gonna have to explain your logic then. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but those statements are plainly deranged, because the plain meaning of under God is under: in or into a condition of subjection, subordination, or unconsciousness; God: one supernatural being. Yet you say we must take it to mean something altogether different from what it plainly means and what it was intended to mean. Justify that must. Remember, what a fool believes he sees, the wise man has the power to reason away. Your seeing something different than most people see, and I suspect it's purely because you want to, though I don't know why.

The weakness in your argument isn't that "god" is primarily a religious word, it's in the assumption that simply saying it establishes an official religion. The onus is on you: How does it do that?

It establishes a limit on personal beliefs by telling people that their beliefs are wrong. Tell me this. Do you believe the government has the right to say atheism, or any other belief, is wrong? That's exactly what the pledge does. Is saying that someone is wrong in their beliefs perfectly OK because it's not an actual establishment of religion? The Constitution protects government expression of religion even to the point of denigrating the beliefs of others, I suppose. Remember, even if you can find a way to technically defend the Constitutionality of the Pledge or government expression of religion, all you're doing is proving to me that the Constitution is wrong, as it is on so many other things. I only care about the Constitution up to a point. I care about right and wrong a lot more.

I'm an agnostic, but I vehemently object to the phrase "under God." The phrase says that the nation is either ruled by or guided by God, as well as saying that God exists. To say we are a nation "under God" is as anti-democratic a statement as I can imagine. We are a nation whose government derives its just power from the will of the people. From the will of the people, damnit. Not through the will of God. That's extremely offensive and dangerous.

You do realize you're playing right into the hands of the theocrats here, right? Those are your biggest allies on this issue. That would make me uncomfortable.

Phaedrus said: I'm gonna take on maja's argument on the Declaration of Independence, but not because it has anything to do with "under God" in the pledge. It doesn't. Maj, how can the Declaration be unconstitutional? It's not a law, it's not part of the constitution, for purposes of American government it doesn't even exist.

Jeez, I hope you're not trying to tell me that the Pledge is. Reality check? If your criteria for unConstitutionality is in the quote above, you just lost the argument.

Oh, my God, maja. You must have some terrible bias here. I can't believe you've said this. If I believe that for something to be declared unConstitutional it has to be a law or have some force in law I've lost my argument? If something has no force in law and is not part of government, it's constitutionality simply isn't at issue. If you think it is, please explain how. Is it your claim that if I'm telling you the Pledge is a law I've lost my argument? If it turns out the Pledge, quite unlike the Declaration, is a law passed by Congress, can I declare that you've lost? Cuz it is, and most people, I think, know that. I notice you didn't even bother to defend your claims that overturning the Declaration (though there's nothing to overturn) would somehow damage the nation.

It doesn't say the govt can't express religious feelings or thoughts or beliefs. It says it can't establish one in preference to others, in other words, a state religion. The words in the Pledge don't establish because they don't single out one religion over the rest. Your problem is that they single out religion over non-religion.

Where in the First Amendment does it state that you can't single out one religion over the rest, but it's OK to select out a group of religions in preference to the rest. I don't see that in the black type, so it must be in the white part. So it shows preference for all monotheistic religions over all non-monotheistic religions. A group over a group. That's OK. Discriminating against Pagans, Wiccans, Buddhists, Taoists (All of whom you've apparently unilaterally declared non-religious.), as well as atheists and agnostics, all that's perfectly OK in the Constitution. Then change the damn Constitution. It's wrong. If government doesn't respect the beliefs of all people, religious and non-religious, we cannot have anything like a democracy. It should guarantee freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, among many other things. If it doesn't, it needs to be changed. It's pretty outdated in general anyway.

Oh, come on. Are we to pass laws now only if they can be understood by children 5-11?

Yes! When the law aims to have them repeat some bit of anti-democratic religious bunkum every day, and under the guise that it means something altogether different from its plain meaning, yes, that should be a criteria. The pledge is meant to indoctrinate kids, but you don't think it matters if they understand? And you say you don't think it should be said in schools. It's hardly said anywhere else, and hardly ever said by anyone but kids.

You'd have to torture the First Amendment to get your interpretation out of it.

If I have to torture the First Amendment to get truth and morality out of it, then I fuckin' well will. It's better than torturing the plain meaning of words like you and Ted Olson. If offending peoples beliefs by government "expression" of religion is Constitutional, then the First Amendment sucks. "Under God" in the Pledge is morally wrong, and I base this on one of the few moral rules that is held by nearly every major religion. Do unto others as you would have others do unto. We're not doing that with the Pledge. And that's my whole position in a nutshell.


posted 8:39 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Just Play The Blues

Enough. Fuckin' right dingers. I'm gonna take a break and play my harmonicas, which I haven't done for a long time. But I got to now. My baby just bought me the finest amp I've ever had. An Epiphone 10 watt class A design all tube amp. I oughta get the sweetest, glassiest tone I've ever had. I jus' hope it's not too loud. Gibson has a retro Les Paul, Jr., 6 watt class A, which I would have rather had, but it was $500. For a 6 watt amp. Oh well. The Epiphone'll arrive any day now. Y'all hold down the fort. I'm sure I'll be back later.

OK, UPDATE: I was listenin' to Big Joe Turner's "Shake, Rattle and Roll," and the station mentioned that Turner influenced both Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley, which for me called to mind another of my many pet peeves. In my eternal quest to piss off the widest swath of people possible, I will explain. Elvis Presley was not the King of Rock and Roll. Chuck Berry was. I can give you the easy, but seemingly not quite convincing, arguments. Chuck Berry sang. Elvis Presley sang. Chuck Berry played guitar (And so well that Bob Seger uses the line "All Chuck's children are out there playin' his licks." Which is true. What rock guitarist doesn't use some Berry licks, whether he knows it or not? Elvis sang. Chuck Berry wrote songs. Songs so good I've heard the lyrics talked about in upper division poetry classes. His sense of the rythms of the english language was incredible. And that's probably the language's strongest points. Before the fine, Teutonic culture of the english speaking peoples was corrupted by contact with sissy nations, english poetry was based on rythm, not rhyme. Rhyme is unnatural in english. Oh, yeah, Elvis sang. OK, I admit Elvis was pretty damn cool onstage, especially in the early days. But even here, Chuck ain't exactly a piker. Remember the duck walk?

Now that I've probably driven away all the Elvis fans, let me say, I love Elvis. I grew up on Elvis. My mom played Elvis when I was little. Elvis was a great rocker, certainly a Prince of Rock and Roll. But let's face another ugly fact. Elvis was a Bat Boone that worked. He was a white guy performing black music. It was derivative. He was damn good at it, but it's not the same as being an orginal.

Chuck Berry was an original. So much so that he was a seminal influence in rock and roll. Elvis sure helped spread the word, but Chuck helped to create the word.

Now, I'm really gone for awhile. Discuss amongst yer ownselves.


posted 11:01 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Wisdom(?) Forum Projects Update

Well, this don't look like it's gonna work out. There's a good deal of silliness and not much wisdom but, worse, the right wingers seem to be the same silly asses I've encountered elsewhere. Now I've wasted most of the morning answering the "arguments" of a half-wit right winger. For example:
Right winger, "So the practical reason the status quo is superior is because it is superior to a worse alternative. So it’s better as long as one worse condition can be named? Genius. You make my point, superior is based on a comparison, and an evaluation criteria. Saying the status quo is better simply because it is the status quo is dodging such a comparison."

Me: Are you actually capable of rational thought? You couldn't prove it by me. First, I never said the status quo was superior. It would be an idiotic statement. The status quo *cannot* be superior. It has to be superior *to* something.

Right winger, "So it’s better as long as one worse condition can be named? Genius."

Me: No, and I'll say this slowly for you, that - is - not - genius, - it - is - idiocy. And *you* said it. I never did. Your last sentence is the same thing. Point to where I said, "the status quo is better simply because it is the status quo." Give me a quote. It doesn't have to be the exact words, of course, just show me where you think I said it. And show me what I *said,* don't tell me what you assumed. You know, if you're not going to address things I ask, and if you're going to make up things that I never said in order demonstrate (Hah!) the weakness of my arguments, I don't see how it's possible to have an intelligent discussion with you.
And it just goes on like that. They make claims to authority, like "numerous studies" without citing the studies. Then they claim that studies are of no value, the scientific method is inapplicable to people. They make up what I say, they make up what they say, they use sleazy, insupportable, underhanded arguments, and they think they're the smart ones. Seems like I used to know intelligent conservatives, but it's sure hard finding any these days. I just read Virginia Postrel and Jonah Goldberg. I can easily tear their arguments to pieces. That's almost always the case with right wingers, but why bother? Right wingers don't listen, they believe what they want to believe, and I don't think too many people are dumb enough to listen to them.


posted 10:48 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

March 30, 2004

Any Religion's An Infinite Longshot

Ya know, I reason thusly about religion: I am forced to bet that every religion on earth is wrong. I'm an old poker and horse player. It's simple arithmetic. When you see an overlay, you take it. You have to. So, the math. Say there've been a million different religions here on earth, though I doubt there are more than 50 or 100 right now. But It doesn't matter. You could make it 5 million, 6 billion, it doesn't matter. I told ya. The arithmetic is simple. Watch this part closely: How - many - possible - religions - are - there? That's right. An infinite number. And how many times does a billion go into infinity? Uh-huh. An infinite number of times. That's some overlay. Infinite odds. Ya can't pass that up.

posted 7:15 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Fact Free Reporting Is Killing Democracy

I thought Nedra Pickler of the AP was an evil, biased harpy intent on sandbagging Democratic candidates. Turns out she may only be hopelessly incompetent. The AP Rolls Over And Dies:
As we pointed out yesterday, the AP's Tom Raum and Nedra Pickler let the Kerry camp spin them by declaring that Bush has "lost 3 million jobs" during his term in office. The actual number is either 2.2 million, if you're counting from January 2001, or 2.3 million if you start with the employment numbers from February 2001.
Actually, I think John Kerry could weasel this, and politicians are nothing if not weasels. At one time we were down 3 million jobs under Bush, we just aren't anymore. But campaign reporters aren't 'sposed to get weaseled.


posted 4:35 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Very Superstitious - Nobody Listened To Stevie

"When you believe in things you don't understand you get in trouble. Superstition ain't the way." I stole this story of Angolan insanity from Jeanne at Body and Soul.
"Helena Kufumana makes a pathetic witch.

Far from exuding wickedness, the 13-year-old schoolgirl is nervous and shy. Her "101 Dalmatians" cartoon T-shirt is grubby and doesn't fit. She swings her bare feet beneath her chair in the hyper way that all kids do. And she cries a lot. Especially about the torture.

Last month Helena was accused by her parents of sickening two of her nieces with evil spells. In retaliation, the bewildered girl says, one of her small hands was burned on a red-hot stove. Her meager possessions, including her clothes, were torched. She was choked. And finally, to destroy her reputation in the community, she was beaten in front of a large crowd. Her mother and elder sisters administered these punishments.

"They tell me that if I try to come home they will kill me," sobbed Helena her tears spattering the floor of the church shelter where she has run for safety. "They say I'm cursed."
These people're soft. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18. Wimpy heathens.
The scale and viciousness of the attacks on so-called criancas feiticeiras, or child witches, confounds even hardened human-rights workers in the war-haunted country, and some said the abuse is one of the most disturbing outbreaks of domestic violence seen in Africa in recent years.

[snip]

Sporting immaculate white pants and a colorful shirt stenciled repeatedly with the face of Marilyn Monroe, the most powerful kimbandero, or faith healer, in Uige runs a . . . treatment center for child witches. Others call it a torture chamber.

"He forces them to jump and dance for hours during the hottest part of the day" in order to cleanse them of magical powers, said Leopoldina Neto, a UNICEF child-protection officer in town. "He beats them. He puts chili powder in their eyes and drips boiling palm oil in their ears."
Damn savage. Freakin' witch doctor. See? This is another example of how Western culture is superior. Or not.
Matumona, 51, denied this.

"I cure with love," he said, clutching a Bible at his Provincial Center for Traditional Psychiatry, located in a war-ruined former pastry factory.

Matumona said his services were free but later admitted that he put his stream of young patients to work in his vegetable gardens to pay off their treatment fees -- a commercialization of suffering that makes witchcraft one of the few profitable ventures in postwar Angola aside from oil.
Wimpy evangelical. Must be that pagan influence. He should know better'n to leave 'em alive.

Now, it's true Angola is suffering a society wide case of post-traumatic stress syndrome. Twenty-seven years of civil war can do that to you. But imagine a community of agnostics and atheists suffering the same pain. Something bad might well happen, but it's hard to believe theyd' do something like this. Expressing pain through this particular sort of bizarre violence results from superstition.

Yeah, that's right, I said it. Christianity is superstition. So is Islam. Etc. No different from believing in Norse mythology, or Greek, or Roman, or anything else that was made up by ignorant people. And if you don't think a bunch of nomadic, desert herdsman who lived thousands of years ago were ignorant . . . . Well, I think humans are still ignorant. We still don't know even a significant fraction of all there is to know. But, what we lack in knowledge, we make up for with arrogance.

Some will say that Western Christians, American Christians, are more enlightened. That's true, most of them are. But they're more enlightened only to the extent that they don't take their religion too seriously or the Bible too literally. Here's a funny thing I thought about taking the Bible literally recently. You notice right in the beginning? You know, Genesis, the beginning? Adam and Eve sin by eating the fruit of a tree from which they were forbidden to eat. This little episode's hilarious:
Genesis 3:11
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And how does Adam answer? What's the first fuckin' thing he does? Anybody remember?
3:12
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Thaats right. He rats out Eve. What a fuckin' punk. And women have had our number ever since. So God punishes them, but he doesn't stop there. No. He punishes all mankind.
3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Oh, great. Eve's gonna be ruled over by the same son of a bitch that ratted her out.
3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Got it? Pain, sorrow, suffering for all mankind. Over 6 billion people and counting. Over 6 billion innocents suffering for the crime of the two guilty people. I think it was at least kinda decent a God to do this right at the beginning. He let's us know right outta the gate that we're dealing with an evil monster who intends to spend thousands of years, at least, tormenting us. A fact he goes on to confirm through much of the Old Testament.

You probably won't be surprised to learn that Jeanne's take on this is a bit different. I recommend reading it. Whereas I'm one of the pissed off walking wounded, Jeanne is more of a beautiful soul.


posted 4:15 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Anti-Plutocratic Reform - A Snowball's Chance?

iPundit has some pretty good suggestions in Solution: Campaign Finance Reform.I think this one's the best:
Democracy Dollars Accounts for Federal Candidates - While taking the bundling route is a safer alternative, the Democracty Dollars Accounts(DDA) is downright revolutionary. I'm not sure if it has been proposed before but the idea may save our campaign finance system. Currently checks from individuals go straight to candidates. I'm not suggesting that $2,000 will buy a candidate's support, if it did, we would be in much bigger trouble than we had thought. However, 100 donations from an energy companies employees sent to the candidate can certainly be considered substantial. DDA would be accounts managed by the Federal Government but owned by the candidate. The only difference is that checks would be sent to the DDA in the name of the candidate, the name of the donor(s) would never be disclosed to the candidate.
He says a lot more about it, but the part in bold is key. Candidates would not be allowed to know where their money comes from. I doubt this would solve the plutocratic problem, but it would be a step in the right direction. My only question is, how ya gonna pass something like this when it so obviously will hurt the plutocracy? Whaddaya t'ink dis is? Guvmint a da people?

Thanks to Votelaw.


posted 7:30 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The (Non) Right Neighbors

Man, I don' even know my neighbors, but I'm likin' 'em more all tha time. Thanks to Fundrace 2004 Neighbor Search, you can find out which of the presidential candidates your neighbors have donated to. I thought I knew this neighborhood was OK politically. I found out it's a lot better'n that. Within a radius of about five miles of me, people made 258 donations to presidential campaigns. (I didn't weed out multiple donations from the same person.) Only 31 of those went to Bushwa. Twelve percent. Hah!

And it gets better'n that. The closer you get to me, the more the donations skew Democratic. Twenty-eight donations were made within a one mile radius of me and only one of 'em went to Bush. That's a little over three and a half percent. But it gets better'n that. Most of the support went to Howard Dean, which at least means that, like me, they don't have much love for the mainstream Democratic party. Hope they still donate to Kerry, though. Like him or not, he's all we got.

Getting down to comparing specific zip codes, in my zip people donated $24,832 to Democratic presidential campaigns. One guy gave $2,000 a pop to Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Graham. But he dint give nothin' ta Lieberman. Hah! Bush got a total of $2,200, $2,000 of it from one guy, a CEO.

But I been savin' my very bestest news for lastest. My brother lives behind what we call the Orange Curtain. Orange County, California. Until quite recently the most conservative area in America. Maybe it still is, but it is slippin'. That right wing nut job Bully Bob Dornan thought he had a permanent seat in the House running from Orange County. Dana Rohrabacher, who I'm pretty sure only seems less crazy than Dornan because he's quieter, is another O.C. right winger. O.C. is where the John Birchers went to breed when they discovered they was colored folks in they home towns. Ha-ha!

They made tha move in tha days b'fore Republicans and white people started pretending racism is over, and they were quite open about why they were movin' to O.C. I'm talkin' 'bout people I grew up with here. I know what I'm talkin' about. I've heard a lotta black people say they wish they could be a fly on the wall to hear what white people say about 'em when they're not around. I am that fly on the wall.

When I was a kid the O.C. was mostly orange groves. We used to drive for miles and miles, just orange groves. Now there's hardly an orange grove left cuzza all tha houses they hadda build ta handle tha white flight. My sister-in-law hates ta come over ta here, cuz she's got an irrational fear of crime. I don' like goin' over ta there cuz I always end up listenin' to remarkably ill-informed Repukelicans shootin' their mouths off as though they actually know somethin', an' I can't say a Goddamn thing cuz their my brother's friends. Man, that hurts. I don't know if I'm makin' myself clear here, but the O.C. is definitely not Kucinich country.

Yet, in my brother's zip code, 20 people gave to tha Dems, only 18 ta Bush. Course, because those non-elitist Republicans happen ta be richer than the elitist Democrats, Bush did get more money. But not much. Dem candidates got $19,140, Bushwa got $23,170. Bush got lots of maximum donations of $2,000. That's in the heart of Orange County. That's in Dana Rohrabacher's district. It means Bush is doing terrible in tha land of the rock-ribs. An' that is good news.

I think I could play around with this shit endlessly, And yes, I do know I'm a little unusual.

Tip O'The Tam to Votelaw.


posted 7:07 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Risible Watergate Redux - Maybe

Cul at Ratboy's Anvil republishes this CNN story:

Historian: Kerry FBI files stolen
"It was a very clean burglary. They didn't break any glass. They didn't take anything like cameras sitting by. It was a very professional job," Nicosia said.

"Was it a thrill-seeker who wanted a piece of history? It could be," Nicosia said. "You'd think there was a very strong political motivation for taking those files. The odds are in favor of that."
How many professional burglars would want to steal Kerry's FBI files, and only Kerry's FBI files? What would the motive be? Remember, you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you.


posted 4:31 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

March 29, 2004

Traitors, Traitors Everywhere

Damn. I don't know how I missed this. Thanks to Reuters (Limey bastards.), the right dingers have been able to identify 49 more traitors who hate America.

Retired brass urge delay in U.S. antimissile shield
A group of 49 retired U.S. generals and admirals is urging President George W. Bush to postpone the scheduled deployment this year of a multibillion dollar missile shield and spend the money instead on securing potential terror targets.

In a letter to be released at a news conference Friday, the officers, including retired Admiral William Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1985 to 1989, described the complex technology as untested and a poor use of scarce defense dollars.

"As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction," said the letter made available to Reuters.

As the "militarily responsible course of action," the signers urged funds earmarked for missile defense go instead to bolster nuclear weapons depots and protect U.S. ports and borders against terrorists.
Goddamnit, man. Now even the military has forgotten that true patriotism consists of abject, unquestioning subservience to Fearless Leader. Fuckin' liberals.

Tip O'The Tam to Orcinus.


posted 8:27 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

A Gaze Blank And Pitiless As The Sun

The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

--W. B. Yeats
A vast image out of Yeats' sight has long troubled me. Yet today I feel the stirrings of conviction in the best. The worst, though still full of passion, are now filled also with desperation, panic. It looks more and more likely that this election will stop the movement of Bush's slow thighs. Course, in Bush's case we'd have to say, "A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, and with less flash of intelligence." Is it too much to hope that humanity will stop slouching towards Bethlehem? Probably. But there's hope, there's hope.


posted 7:20 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

'Dead Zones' - Between Right Wingers' Ears

As I unnerstan' it, the right wing theory of "free" market frivolity holds that ev'ything'll be jus' hunkey-damn-dory if we jus' export our incredibly wunnerful capitalist industrialism to ev'y cuntry on tha planet. Sort of a magnanimous rape. Puts me in mind a white man's burden. On'y problem is, can't be done. If we try it, tha human race'll go extinct. Gar-Own-Teed. George Carlin's right, a course. Tha earth'll be jus' fine. Tha earth's gonna shake us off like a bad case a fleas. But we're gonna be wanderin' through tha netherworlds, askin' each other how inna hell we coulda fucked up so bad.

U.N. Warns About Ocean 'Dead Zones'
So-called "dead zones," oxygen-starved areas of the world's oceans that are devoid of fish, top the list of emerging environmental challenges, the United Nations (news - web sites) Environment Program warned Monday in its global overview.

The spreading zones have doubled over the last decade and pose as big a threat to fish stocks as overfishing, UNEP said its Global Environment Outlook Year Book 2003, released at the opening of the agency's 8th summit for the world's environment ministers.

[snip]

The main cause is excess nitrogen run-off from farm fertilizers, sewage and industrial pollutants. The nitrogen triggers blooms of microscopic algae known as phytoplankton. As the algae die and rot, they consume oxygen, thereby suffocating everything from clams and lobsters to oysters and fish.


"Human kind is engaged in a gigantic, global, experiment as a result of inefficient and often overuse of fertilizers, the discharge of untreated sewage and the ever rising emissions from vehicles and factories," UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said in a statement.


"Unless urgent action is taken to tackle the sources of the problem, it is likely to escalate rapidly," Toepfer said.
Ya don' wanna fuck wit' da phytoplankton. They's tha foundation a tha ocean food chain. And they's a huge carbon sink. As in CO2? As in global warming? Gotta tell ya, I don' know too much 'bout phytoplankton, but I do worry 'bout 'em. Really. I do. So are these 'dead zones' gonna be tha death a us? No. I doubt it, anyway.

But let me tell ya somethin', my precious kittens, they are just the tip, the very tip-top a the iceberg when it comes ta environmental problems. Capitalism's jus' tha verah mos' wonnerful thing ta ever troll down tha pike a human hist'ry, 'cording ta tha right wing, an' maybe, jus' maybe, they'd be right if it wasn't fer one little thing. As we practice it, it is completely an' outrageously unsustainable.

Use ta know a guy in the pool business (swimmin' pools) that use ta tell peebles 'bout repairs they needed but dint wanna pay fer, "Pay me now or pay me later. It's gonna cost more later." An' that's where we're at. Oh, sweet muthafuckin' Jesus, are we evah gonna pay later.


posted 3:26 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The Freaky-Deak Faithful

Texas Woman Who Stoned Sons Set for Trial

Two young boys gruesomely murdered. A 14-month-old recovering from a fractured skull. She fucking stoned them! One would have to assume the poor woman's mentally ill, but even that wouldn't ordinarily explain someone stoning their sons to death.
Laney, 39, a deeply religious woman who home-schooled her children in the tiny town of New Chapel Hill, 100 miles southeast of Dallas, called 911 just after midnight on May 10 and told a dispatcher: "I've just killed my boys."
Oh-oh. I think I'm gettin' warm here.
She said God ordered her to do it.
Shit! Damnit! I knew it! I keep tellin' people. When you talk to God, that's called prayer. When God talks to you, that's called Schiz-O-Phreenia. Some might think I'm joking here. I'm not. I wouldn't joke about something like this.

I've been around and known a lot of mentally ill people in my life. I've seen a lot of -- interesting -- things. I really do worry about people who think God communicates with them, and that includes people in my family. That shit Freaks. Me. Out. And one of the reasons is shit like this.

I'll bet there was every kind of sign that this poor woman was dangerously mentally ill, but because she masked it as religious fervor nobody did anything. If she had seen or heard devils or wood nymphs or whatever, maybe somebody would've seen to it that she got the help she needed. But many devout Christians, and actually many people not so devout, feel that they have to pretend that hearin' God talkin' to ya is normal. It is not normal. It is schizophrenia. Or psychosis. Damnit!


posted 1:59 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

MoveOn The Bookseller!

Smells a lot like democracy to me.
MoveOn's new book has hit the streets and is already at #2 on Amazon. Can we push it to #1 at all booksellers? All royalties go to support our work together. The book is called MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country: How to Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change. With introductions by Al Gore, Gail Sheehy, Nancy Pelosi, and the MoveOn team, the book focuses on the best fifty personal stories amongst thousands submitted by MoveOn members. These uplifting stories demonstrate the power of the individual, with tips and resources to turn inspiration into action. They're about ordinary citizens changing laws, getting out the vote, hosting meet ups, and much more.
Trade paperback, only $10.95. I'm linking to Powell's Books now whenever I can because I hear they treat their workers better than Amazon does. Have to vote with your dollars as well as your ballot.


posted 1:07 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Hey, Kerry: Christianity's A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of The GOP

Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry's Bible Quote
Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech Sunday at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at "our present national leadership." Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?"


"The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Kerry said. "When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?"
Sounds like a good question to me. Where are the works of our most famously "compassionate" conservative?
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's comment "was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack."
Now, I'm jus' wonderin', where are the bounds of acceptable discourse? And more importantly, how are they marked? Chalk, paint, police tape, what? We'd all like to know, I'm sure. Even if I'm gonna spend most of my time outside the bounds, I'd still like to know when I cross 'em.


posted 11:40 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Government By Initiative - Hell, The Legislature Don't Work No More

To Raise Taxes, Some Pin Hopes on State Ballot Box

They's ackshully at least three initiatives to raise taxes fer specific services in California, but I'll stick with my pet cause here.
A tax on millionaires to pay for expanded mental health services.
That's us, that's the Campaign for Mental Health, right over there near tha top a tha sidebar.
Organizers of the proposed mental health expansion recently submitted their petition to the secretary of state's office with twice as many signatures as required to qualify for the ballot.

[snip]

"The public doesn't like tax increases on the ballot just to line the pockets of special interests," said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce.
The homeless mentally ill are a "special interest?" I bet they don't feel all that special.
A recent [Public Policy Institute of California] poll in Los Angeles County showed that 68% of likely voters would support a tax on millionaires to pay for mental health programs.

The November measure would raise roughly $600 million from a new 1% tax on every dollar earned over $1 million.

Opponents believe voter enthusiasm will fizzle.

"Californians are getting to the point where they understand that taxing somebody else is a failed policy because it ends up coming around to bite you sooner or later," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. "Why punish our most innovative and entrepreneurial citizens? They can just move out of state."
I like that. Rich folks are wonderful, superior beings, far more valuable than regular folk. If all a tha rich folk died by tha end a tha week from, I don't know, a bug transmitted only by extremely expensive caviar, maybe, the world would be doomed. We'd have no idea how to feed ourselves. We'd have no one ta change our diapers. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth, right up till we split up all their money.

And Repukes accuse Dems of elitism. Any rich fuck who leaves the state over this tax (And they ain't gonna be many. The backers specifically polled the people who would have to pay the tax and they said no problem.), any rich fuck that leaves, all I gotta say is, don't let tha door hitcha in tha ass on yer way out. An' I ain't worried 'bout yer ass.


posted 8:39 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Credibility In Tatters - As If It Wasn't Already

Hah. Ya know, the White House ain't 'sposed ta be as amusin' as a Three Stooges short. Richard Clarke said Bushwa yanked him 'n the gang inta tha situation room on 9/12/2001, and told 'em, "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." Well, the White House denied it. No, wait, they just wanted you to think they'd denied it. Government by inuendo, ya know.
Last week, the White House said it had no record that Mr. Bush had even been in the Situation Room that day and said the president had no recollection of such a conversation. Although administration officials stopped short of denying the account, they used it to cast doubt on Mr. Clarke's credibility as they sought to debunk the charge that the administration played down the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks and worried instead about Iraq.
But now:

President Asked Aide to Explore Iraq Link to 9/11
The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.
Musta run outta ways ta plausibly deny it. And when Repukelicans demanded the declassification of Clarke's testimony before a Congressional committee, bet they weren't expecting this response from Clarke:
He said declassifying his testimony -- as well as other memorandums and materials from Ms. Rice and the administration -- would show he had long complained that the Bush administration failed to take aggressive action against Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11 attacks.

In particular, he urged the administration to make public a memorandum on counterterrorism initiatives that he wrote just days after Mr. Bush took office, as well as a counterterrorism plan that the White House ultimately approved more than seven months later, a week before the attacks.

"Let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't," he said. "And what we'll see when we declassify what they were given on Jan. 25 and what they finally agreed to on Sept. 4 is that they are basically the same thing, and they wasted months when we could have had some action."

[snip]

Republican leaders have responded in force, suggesting that Mr. Clarke's testimony last week was at odds with the closed testimony he gave before the joint Congressional panel in 2002 and that he may have lied in one or both appearances.

But intelligence officials familiar with his classified briefing said they were aware of no obvious contradictions. [Commission member] Mr. Ben-Veniste said he thought Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony should be declassified to resolve any dispute, but he added that "it is not my recollection that there were any notable or substantive differences in testimony."

[snip]

Mr. Clarke's assessment last week is also generally consistent with journalistic and Congressional accounts of the early Bush administration's approach to terrorism.
As somebody, I think Josh Marshall, said, Clarke's charges aren't even particularly controversial. The stuff he's saying was already part of the public record. So why all the hoopla all of a sudden? Cuz Bushwa's down to exactly one issue that might win him this election. His reputation as the Great and Wonderful Terror Slayer. (Pay no attention to that fraud behind the curtain.) Any other issue or combination of issues, Kerry wins handily. Bush absolutely cannot afford to lose his aura as a "war-time" president. I don't like his chances.
Mr. Clarke said the administration is intent on attacking him personally through a "character assassination campaign" rather than debating the arguments he has raised about Mr. Bush's prosecution of the campaign against terrorism.

"After 9/11, I say that by going into Iraq he has really hurt the war on terrorism," he said. "Now, because I say that, the administration doesn't want to talk on the merits of that. They don't want to talk about the effect on the war on terrorism of our invasion of Iraq."
I'm takin' bets, right here, right now. Whose credibility winds up in tatters ya think?


posted 5:49 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Socialists, Socialists I Tell You, Resurgent In France!

Spain, too, come ta think about it. "We best ta run fer the hills, granny." Just assume the falsetto voice, OK?

French voters dump Chirac party

And they dumped 'em for socialists. The horror!
The socialists and their allies won 50% of the second-round votes, leaving Mr Chirac's centre-right governing UMP party trailing on 36.9%.
Well, actually, they're not socialist. None of the social democratic parties of Europe are socialist anymore, and I wonder how many people in the US are confused about this. I'm sure most of the right wingers are. From Wikipedia:
Mitterand was the last elected national leader in Europe to attempt to carry out a socialist program.

[snip]

In 1984 Mitterand and his second Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, made a sharp change of course and abandoned any further socialist measures. Since then the Socialists have been in practice a moderate social democratic party.
So what's a moderate social democratic party? More Wikipedia:
Social Democratic parties are among the largest parties in most countries in Europe. Some studies claim that globally, more people share the basic ideals of Social Democrats than of any other political movement. They are seen as centre left
Now remember that, dingers, next time you go claimin' liberals're outside the mainstream.
Nowadays, Social Democrats are in favor of a capitalist market economy, but with a strong and large government. Many Social Democratic parties are also shifting emphasis from the traditional goal of creating a Socialist economy to human rights and environmental issues.
They sure ain't socialists no more. They're really more similar to what we think of as liberal Democrats. Unless you truly think Kerry is a liberal Democrat. They're a little to the left of center. Kerry's not. Very confusing. The general lesson here, though, could be that the left has moderated while the right has grown more extreme.
It should be noted that Karl Marx didn't think well of social democrats and similar groups. In Communist Manifesto of 1848 he stated that workers should seize the control of means of production from the capital owners and form a state dictatorship of working class. This is in sharp contrast to social democratic ideas, such as workers' unions and employers' unions debating over the wages of the workers to better the working people's living conditions, while control of the means of production would remain in the hands of capitalists.
So dingers should quit claimin' socialism and communism're the same thing, but I know they won't. Ignorant and proud.
Through the 20th century, few of the policies instituted by any Social Democratic government have been successfully repealed by successors: an income tax, universal medical insurance, tuition-free university education, are seemingly permanent features of most European nations, and increasingly so in more conservative nations such as the United States. The services may vary in quality but never seem to be withdrawn completely - the gains made by Social Democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods.
But right wingers're right and the public is wrong. Such a democratic attitude.


posted 5:00 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

And Democracy Continues To Blossom

Iraqi outcry as US bans newspaper
Hundreds of Iraqis have protested in Baghdad after a Shia newspaper was banned for allegedly inciting violence against the US-led coalition.
That's right, piss-off some more Iraqis. It worked in Vietnam.


posted 3:54 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

March 28, 2004

Defending Luddites And Liberals

Somethin's never sounded right ta me 'bout the Luddites' story. They've always been presented to me basically as people who opposed labor-saving technology cuz they were, ya know, jus' crazy and stupid. They just had groundless fears. And that never made sense to me. For good reason. Turns out they had very well grounded fears.

The Luddites
Tens years into the new century things had begun to change. The English economy was suffering due to the war in Europe with the French. France's military leader, Napoleon, enacted the Continental System, which prohibited English goods from entering the continent. The blockade led to a drop in England's exports of some 33 1/3 percent by 1811(20). In due course, the decline in exports induced a widespread financial panic which ended in many bankruptcies and bank failures. These two events had the net effect of lowering wages about 50 percent in 1811. While on the average the prices of goods, which had been continuously rising from 1790, were 87 percent higher.
Uh, I make that to be a real cut in their pay of as much as 73%. Anybody out there think they could, ya know, fit that inta the budget? Just kinda adapt, right? Tell you what, 'bout tha only adaption I could afford ta make is tha one that takes ya ta tha great beyond. I mean, times were kinda haarrd, ya know?
Another contributing factor was that for some time the working classes had been aware that if business was allowed to progress the way it was there would be terrible inequalities between them and the wealthier classes.
Ah, but there's nothin' wrong with terrible inequalities, ya know, 'cept for the terrible part. But they don't bother rich folks a bit and if they can manage to be so stoic, I don't see why the workers can't also.
By 1811 The frameknitters of the Midlands were being forced to rent the frames they worked on by the manufactures, hosiers. A year later mass production was being introduced by the use of wide knitting frames. These frames made the work less labor intensive, because the stockings were made of a one cut piece of material, which was called a "cut-up." Consequently, stockings were cheaper to manufacture. The knitters felt that these methods of manufacturing were displacing skilled labor and that the deterioration in quality, due to the cheaper production practices, was producing the decline in the purchase of stockings. There were many manufactures who agreed with the knitters but the practice was becoming so common that the only way for them to compete was to follow their competitors lead.
An early example of capitalism destroying quality. But I think the economists are right on this. We choose it. Most of us prefer cheap to good. Or do we? Actually, an awful lot of us don't get a real choice. We can only afford cheap, even if we think good is better. Right about now yer askin', "What's with that shit in the title about liberals?" I'm gettin' there. I'm gettin' there.
The manufacturers, having found profit saving methods, began to employ various methods to either lower or to defraud the knitters, weavers, and croppers of their earnings. They were able to do this because there were no laws in place to control the amount or method of payment for wages. Many manufacturers would just simply not display schedules of prices for work, this way they could pay their workers whatever they felt like paying them. In some instances workers were paid with store credit, which was only good for purchasing items at a company store. This was tough on the workers because most of the items were over priced. If a manufacture did not use either one or both of these methods to cheat their workers he would pay them in "truck" payments. By adopting this practice they could pay the workers with goods instead of money.
The manufacturers, with new profits in hand, were content to share tha new bounty with their workers because . . . . Wait, no, that's not what was said. No, instead they cheated the workers, and there was none a that damned evil regulation ta stop 'em. Falsetto now and, preferably, dancing on tippy-toe, say, "Let the market decide, let the market decide!" Don't be afraid to show your enthusiasm. I think the right actually depends on our crummy schools. If most people actually learned some history, they wouldn't fall for that "let the market decide" bullshit.
At that time petitions, from the cotton districts, began to pour into Parliament for relief of the unjust practices of the manufacturers. But Parliament dismissed their pleas and the workers knew that any continued political outcry would be met either with death or with banishment to one of the colonies. As Duvall noted in his text:

"Most people in 1811 and 1812 found it difficult to appreciate the value of new machinery economizing labour at a time when goods were a glut upon the market and when there was, in any case, a surplus of labour available."

With such thoughts in their minds the working classes were becoming very discontent during 1811.
Wellnofuckin'shit. I would think freakin'-fuckin'-frothin'-at-tha-mouth pissed OFF would be more like it.

On March 11th a crowd of framework knitters gathered in the market place at Nottingham. The crowd was so large and volatile that town officials called in the militia to disperse them. That same day during the evening some 60 knitting frames were broken in Arnold. The frames which were broken were only those that belonged to hated manufacturers.
I don't think they were specifically pissed off at tha machines.
The initial success of the Luds led E. P. Thompson to write, "'[w]e have an impression of active moral sanction given by the community to all Luddite activities short of actual assassination.'"
Active moral sanction -- among tha salt a the earth. You know tha manufacturers were wrong.
However, one of the most poignant examples of one of the reasons that may have motivated these people to revolt is from an anonymous man from Manchester speaking of his plight:

"I have five children and a wife. The children all under 8 years of age, I get 9d. clear(per week)... I work sixteen hours a day to get that.... It will take 2d. per week coals, 1d. per week candles. My family live on potatoes chiefly and we have one pint of milk per day."
Once again with fervor now, "Let the market decide, let the market decide." Ya know, before capitalism and other coercive systems people didn't have to work as hard to live. They didn't have to make somebody else a profit. Progress.

Now to the liberals. Easy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress, if they had been in charge, would have prevented the Luddites rebellion. The Luddites had very real grievances. They were suffering. What made the manufacturers think they could inflict that on large numbers of people and suffer no consequences themselves? People will kill you to protect their families. I've always found that an endearing quality.

Sure, the new technology would've unavoidably caused disruption, but there was no reason for all of the pain to fall on the workers and their families. FDR woulda got in there an' taxed tha manufacturers ta provide unemployment, welfare, workfare, soup kitchens, public works, and nobody would've gotten hurt, nobody would've had to die, no machines would've been destroyed. The only 'harm' that would've resulted is that tha manufacturers would've been a little less rich. I bet tha dead ones woulda taken that trade if they could. I don' know why dingers always gotta make things worse than they hafta be.


posted 6:07 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The WINC

The Wounder in Chief. I've been slow to comment on this, probably because I think humor is a field fraught with mines. It's pretty easy to have a joke blow up on you. But now that I've thought about it awhile, it's just wrong. And humor is no excuse.

If someone you loved died or was seriously wounded in Iraq, and we're talking about many thousands of people here, in a war George W. Bush justified on the basis of WMDs that weren't there, and you heard that Bush was making jokes about not being able to find the WMDs, how would you feel?

I know how I'd feel, and if comedy isn't pretty, how I'd feel is ugly beyond belief. George Bush had to have hurt many people quite badly with his jokes about WMDs, and none of 'em were me. But you know us bleedin' heart liberals, we just don't understand that the only person worth caring about is #1.

I don't think this was evil. I do think the Bush Administration is evil, but not because of this. This was something else, something frighteningly typical of this administration. It was thoughtless. I mean, you ask yourself, what could they have been thinking? And you have to answer, obviously they weren't thinking. I'm sure Bush didn't come up with the jokes himself. So somebody thought 'em up, somebody approved 'em, Bush told 'em, and nobody along the way ever thought, "Hey, you 'spose jokes like this could be hurtful to anybody?" Or if anybody did think of it, that somebody didn't care. An' I'm bein' kind. David Corn puts it this way:
Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."

Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display.


posted 12:53 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

I'm Extremist? What The Hell's The Right?

OK, finally, it was Krugman I was tryin' ta get to. The Medicare Muddle.
In 1997 Congress tried to take a big step in that direction, requiring Medicare to pay per-person fees to private health plans that accepted Medicare recipients. There was much talk about the magic of the marketplace: private plans, so the theory went, would be far more efficient than government bureaucrats, offering better health care at lower cost.

[snip]

The only thing that kept this "reform" from being a fiscal disaster was the fact that after an initial rush into the Medicare business, many H.M.O.'s pulled out again. It turns out that private plans are much less efficient than the government at providing health insurance because they have much higher overhead. Even with a heavy subsidy, they can't compete with traditional Medicare.

There's a lesson in this experience. Sometimes there's no magic in the free market -- in fact, it can be a hindrance. Health insurance is one place where government agencies consistently do a better job than private companies.
My "extremism" on economics consists of thinking that everyone should benefit from our economy and that we should rely on markets, where markets get the best results, and government, where government gets the best results. In other words, I'm a heretic. Burn him!

Health insurance ain't one a the areas where markets work best. That's why Kerry's health plan is stupid. Too expensive, doesn't do enough. Single payer is the only sensible solution. But Kerry's not allowed to say that in the land of "free" market theology, our real state religion. In the land of "free" market theology you must accept that markets work best all the time, no matter what, regardless of experience or the facts. And if you don't have absolute faith in the magic of markets, everywhere, all the time, you're an extremist. And up is down, black is white, and cows can jump over the moon.


posted 8:58 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Defending "Under God" In The Pledge

William Safire states:
The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right.
Oh, geez, if that's all he's got goin', he should shutup and leave the rest of us alone. Where'd anybody get the silly idea that bein' right mattered?
President Bush has written that the current pledge is a way of "humbly seeking the wisdom and guidance of divine providence."
Uh, maja, the Prez seems to be unaware of or, more likely, unable to understand your abstruse theory on the meaning of "under God" in the pledge. He seems to think it's a religious expression. Though it pains me to agree with Bushwa, he's right, it is a religious expression.

Since in my first attack on "under God" in the pledge I didn't have any of the "liberal" arguments in favor at my fingertips, I hereby print a John Kerry quote via Safire:
John Kerry said on Boston television in 2002 that the Ninth Circuit ruling holding "under God" in the pledge unconstitutional was "half-assed justice . . . the most absurd thing. . . . That's not the establishment of religion."
Now, can anyone tell me the difference between that statement and, "Because I said so, that's why?" That statement never worked on me as a kid, and I was immune to spankings, so you can guess what a fun time my folks had. I haven't changed all that much, but I'm really not all that obstreperous either. Not if you explain the whys and wherefores satisfactorily. But nobody dictates to me. Nobody.


posted 8:31 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Bafflin' 'em With Bullshit

David Brooks has got to be today's most visible practitioner of the art. One Nation, Enriched by Biblical Wisdom seems intended to say nothing whatsoever. At least, nothing useful.
According to Chappell, there were actually two camps within the civil rights movement. First, there were the mainstream liberals, often white and Northern. These writers and activists tended to have an optimistic view of human nature. Because racism so fundamentally contradicted the American creed, they felt, it would merely take a combination of education, economic development and consciousness-raising to bring out the better angels in people's nature.

The second group, which we might today call the religious left, was mostly black and Southern. Its leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., drew sustenance from a prophetic religious tradition, and took a much darker view of human nature.
See? Black civil rights activists had a better understanding of the darker side of human nature because they were religious. It didn't have a fuckin' thing ta do with havin' been enslaved, beaten, raped, lynched, falsely imprisoned, deprived of the right to vote or even use the same facilities as whites, and generally treated as less than human by for generations. Nobody would ever get a dark view of human nature from that. That could only have come from the Bible. Obviously. Truth is, if your life experience has led you to believe that all people are by nature good, you've led an awfully sheltered life. But if the Bible is the source of the right wing belief that all people are by nature bad, then the Bible's fulla shit. According to Brooks, it is.
Because the experiences of the Hebrew prophets had taught them to be pessimistic about humanity, the civil rights leaders knew they had to be spiritually aggressive if they wanted to get anything done.
Yeah. It was the Hebrew prophets what taught black folks ta be pessimistic 'bout humanity. And what inna hell good can come from being pessimistic about humanity? Social progress? Nope, not possible. People are just no good. That's why we've never in human history made any social progress whatsoever, and why I'm king of Middle Earth.
If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.
Right. Stupid liberals. Except . . . I don't know of any liberals sayin' people shouldn't bring religous values into politics. Joe Lieberman wants to wear a yarmulke on the campaign trail, I don't know anybody's got a problem with that. What's more, Brooks knows Goddamn good and well that the complaints are about religion in government, such as coercing people to profess a faith that ours is a nation under God. This is a typical right wing strategy. Invent an argument similar enough that it can be easily mistaken for the argument your opponents are making, but different enough that it can be easily attacked as silly or stupid or evil, then act as if you've refuted you opponents argument even though you haven't ever actually addressed it.
The lesson I draw from all this is that prayer should not be permitted in public schools, but maybe theology should be mandatory. Students should be introduced to the prophets, to the Old and New Testaments, to the Koran, to a few of the commentators who argue about these texts.
I, too, would favor the teaching of theology in the schools. Not being a right wing nutfuck, however, I wouldn't limit it to the Bible and the Koran. What, the Buddhists, Confucianists, Taoists, Hindus, Bahais an' all got nothin' to say? Why?
From this perspective, what gets recited in the pledge is the least important issue before us. Understanding what the phrase "one nation under God" might mean -- that's the important thing. That's not proselytizing; it's citizenship.
I'm thinkin 'bout offerin' a prize ta anyone can explain that last paragraph. Understanding what the phrase means? What the hell does Brooks think it means? What's "citizenship," not "proselytizing?" What inna fuck is this Yin-Yang on about?


posted 8:07 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood

And then on the more lunatic side, my friggin' neighbor was just at my door. At 5:15 AM. It's still fucking dark outside. He babbled 'bout wanting ta go ta church, an' how that's why he's all dressed up, an' he needs someone ta tell his troubles to. I'm thinkin', 'Not me, Goddamnit.' He ast me do I go ta church. Huh. I went ta church for a while not too long ago. Unitarian-Universalist. Could'n take it. Too religious. I'm just waitin' for him to ask me fer money so I can tell him no an' get him an' his boomin' voice away from my door. I don' want him to wake Honey Punkin'. She don' keep fisherman's hours. He really was babblin'. I think he's a speed freak. Somethin', for sure.

If he had woken Honey Punkin', woulda been his ass. Honey's lit inta him b'fore 'bout wakin' her up that time a day. It's always fascinated me how the sweetest woman I've ever known can instantly turn into a flaming bitch from hell if ya cross her. She only does it ta people who richly deserve it, though. You'd like Honey Punkin'. I ain't goin' out on no limb ta say that. Everybody likes Honey Punkin'. Even the people she's torn a new asshole. It's amazin'.

Uh-oh. Honey Punkin' just rolled over an' mumbled groggily, "Tell Barry if he comes over here yellin' this early again, I'm gonna kick his ass." Oh well. He's been warned before.


posted 5:41 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

The Electoral College - Intended To Undermine Democracy

And doin' a damn fine job of it. CJR's Campaign Desk, in Spin Buster, takes a look at how the media discuss swing states. Depending on who you read or listen to, this election will be decided by a little more than half the population of 10 to 20 states. What that means is, as in 2000, no one will be campaigning for the votes of Texicans, Californians, New Yorkers, hell, probably 60% or more of the country. All they have to do is pander to the voters they need in "battleground" states. They need the votes of citizens equal to the total number of voters in anywhere from about 5 1/2 states to 10 1/2 states. Pander to the few, govern the many. That's what I call democracy.

How does such a terrible thing happen? Hell, I can't remember the last time a Californian's vote mattered in a presidential election. How does that happen? The Electoral College. It was designed to be undemocratic, and they sure got it right. All the right dingers've been totally defending the College ever since their boy lost the popular vote and still got in. But c'mon, we all know dingers. The first time it goes the other way, they'll be screaming to get rid of it. I don't believe they have a shred of intellectual honesty in 'em.


posted 5:10 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Why The Right Is Hard To Beat

"You get fifteen democrats in a room, and you get twenty opinions."
--Senator Patrick Leahy
And, oddly enough, you get fifteen Tom DeLay-type Republicans in a room, you get only one opinion, but it's a really strong opinion.
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure."
--Mark Twain
And the two so often go hand in hand.

Thanks to Quotes of the Day.


posted 4:48 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

March 27, 2004

Parsing The Pledge - The Debate

All right. Maja at Omnium has taken exception to my post, Parsing The Pledge - Right Wingers Do It Oddly, (2nd post)(Hot damn, a real argument.) saying "under God" in the pledge is obviously unconstitutional. Maja says something really unforgivable: "But Olson is quite right." Taking Ted Olson's side. I tell ya. Here's what Olson said at the Supreme Court:
Solicitor General Olson told the justices that the appeals court misunderstood the pledge. The phrase "under God" did not place the pledge in the category of religious expressions that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional, he said, for example "state-sponsored prayers, religious rituals or ceremonies, or the requirement of teaching or not teaching a religious doctrine."

Rather, Mr. Olson said, "under God" was one of various "civic and ceremonial acknowledgments of the indisputable historical fact that caused the framers of our Constitution and the signers of the Declaration of Independence to say that they had the right to revolt and start a new country." He said the framers believed "that God gave them the right to declare their independence when the king has not been living up to the unalienable principles given to them by God."
And Olson's right? Right about what? That "under God" in the pledge is not a religious statement? Nearly everyone who's recited it thought it was. Ya know, it wasn't added by the Founding Fathers. It was added in 1954, and lawmakers fully intended it as a religious statement.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge.
But now we're gonna pretend otherwise. Maja claims it doesn't matter what was intended in 1954. It really doesn't, because any way you look at, including maja's way, it's an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

And how about this? If it's not meant as a profession of faith, if it's really there to honor the faith of our Founding Fathers, how 'bout we change to something a little more accurate and drop even the appearance of a profession of faith? Something like, ". . . one Nation, acknowledging the beneficial beliefs of the Founding Fathers . . ." Eh, I know we got a poet somewhere who could put it better 'n that, but I mean, if "under God" really honors the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, shouldn't we say that. What the hell is this, a guessing game? "Bobby, what do you think 'under God' means in the pledge?" There, that should satisfy everyone. Whadda ya mean it won't? Why the hell not?

Would Jefferson, the Deist, have approved of "under God?" Well:
Deists believe that God exists, created the universe, wound it up, let it go, departed and hasn't been seen since. Thus, they believe that we are not "under God" because God isn't around any more.
Eehhhnnntt! Sorry, trick question. Nobody knows, so it doesn't make a fuck. I don't know what the fuck it is these days with people saying (Deepish voice, projecting through the nose [kinda like milk, when you were a kid]), "We must follow the intent of the Founding Fathers." What? Have we discovered that psychics can contact the dead? Cuz that's the only way you're gonna know. Anything else, letters, diaries, notes, you still don't know. Conservatives, for some reason, think living in the past is not only a good idea, but actually possible. It isn't. Who inna hell makes this shit up, anyway?
On the first Sunday in February 1954, a Presbyterian minister, Rev. George Macpherson Docherty presented an idea to his congregation. He came upon the idea independently and apparently not realizing any other effort was underway. From his pulpit that faithful day, he explained, "It struck me [while talking with my son about the Pledge] that it [the pledge] didn't mention God,". "I was brought up in Scotland, and in Scotland, we sang, 'God save our gracious king.' It was everybody's belief that God was part of society." President Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the front pew of the 1,400-seat sanctuary.

"This is a nation built on the principle that there is a God, but it doesn't define it," Docherty said. "It could be the Christian God. It could be the Judeo God. It could be the Buddhan god, it could the Mohammedan God. But it's built on a vertical relationship with God."
Thass pretty cute. There is no "Buddhan" God. And not all Americans think God is part of society. Thomas Jefferson didn't. How is Olson right? Did he present any evidence that the phrase "under God," which, as normally defined in english, is clearly a religious statement, was only intended as a "civic and ceremonial" phrase without religious meaning. The only evidence I'm seeing says otherwise.

I'm gonna take on maja's argument on the Declaration of Independence, but not because it has anything to do with "under God" in the pledge. It doesn't. Maj, how can the Declaration be unconstitutional? It's not a law, it's not part of the constitution, for purposes of American government it doesn't even exist. But let's say "the Declaration of Independence, and the underpinnings of the Philosophy that justified the Revolution, brought about the creation of the United States as a political entity apart from Britain, and mandated the Constitution" were declared unconstitutional. (They can't be destroyed. Just not possible.) Say they were. Now, what changes? How does American government and American life change? Answer: It doesn't. Because none of that stuff has any force in American law.
Jefferson's brand of Unitarianism did not differ much from Deism. In his scheme, God was the creator of the universe, of man, and of morality; but the idea that God was an active presence in the world he dismissed as mere superstition. As for Jesus, although he was the greatest moral teacher, he was not divine, nor was he the anointed servant of the divine. Not surprisingly, the adult Jefferson never uttered a word in prayer.
Whoa-oh. Still doesn't sound like Jefferson would have agreed with "under God." An' I bet Christians wouldn't be too thrilled if he did. Maja writes:
"Under god" in the Pledge must be taken to mean their god, the Deist god, the god from whom our rights flow, not as a gift but as part of our nature, as much a part as our limbs, our eyes, our voices or our minds--the god of the Declaration. You don't have to believe in that god--or any god--because that is your right, too, as a human being. But the men who wrote the Constitution did, and that is the "god" that's in the Pledge. A god that tolerant, I don't have a problem with.
Why "must" it be taken to mean their God? I see no evidence whatever that it was intended to mean their God, and even if it was, the very same Founding Fathers provided for freedom of religion in the first amendment. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. If I accept maja's argument, then Congress, in 1954, made a law establishing Deism as the religion of the United States. They must, as you put it, have established some religion, unless they understood the phrase "under God" to have no meaning at all. Somehow I doubt that.

Even if "under God" "must" be taken to mean the God of the Founding Fathers, how does that make it OK? Government is professing faith in the God of the Founding Fathers. That's an establishment of religion. The only dog that should count in this fight is the Godless Constitution. How in the world can it be constitutional to inflict upon people a profession of faith and to ascribe to the government a submission to faith. Under God. It means subjugation to God. And it is, without a doubt, unconstitutional to make it a part of government.
There's a legitimate reason for those words to be there. It may not be the reason intended when the words were inserted in 1954, but it exists nonetheless, and it should not be ignored. Those words are a recognition of the reason the people who risked their lives and property took those risks. It is a recognition of the forces and convictions that created us and without which we wouldn't exist.
Those words have nothing to do with all that stuff. You wanta honor that stuff, fine, but make yourself clear. Don't use a phrase most people understand to mean something completely different. There is no legitimate reason for those words to be there. "Under God" simply does not say or imply any of the things which you say justify its presence. You wanna put an honorific in about the Founding Fathers' beliefs, I got no problem with that. But you are not honoring the Founding Father's beliefs when you profess their belief's. You're professing their beliefs, which is a religious act. Suppose you and me go around asking every kid in America between the ages of 5 and 11 what they think "under God" in the pledge means, how many are gonna give us your spiel about the Founding Fathers? Hell, if we ask every American over the age of 5, how many? It's ridiculous, and it's a kind of legalistic Jiu Jitsu, to claim that a phrase means something no one would guess, rather than what it plainly means. It's plainly a religious expression and plainly unconstitutional.

Sorry, buddy, but you were almost half right. It's not just a slam dunk, it's a Shaquille O'Neil Monster Jam/Thunder Dunk that shatters the backboard.


posted 5:23 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Wisdom Can't Be This Easy. Can it?

Well, here I go again. I've joined a discussion forum. I'd kinda hoped this blog would lead to more discussion, but it turns out just about all the discussions I get involved in here are with people who agree with me on the issues, we only disagree on tactics or nuances. Trolls flame by, but they don't argue or discuss. They hit and run, never to return. I wouldn't mind being insulted. How could I mind, as insulting as I am to them? But I mind not hearing a reasonable argument.

Course, most of the real right wingers, arguin' with them's like tryin' ta teach a pig ta sing. They have no interest in any ideas they don't already agree with, they're not open to any criticism of their ideas, they reject any facts that don't totally support what they already b'lieve, and they use the ADI method of argument: Make an Assertion, Demand others accept it, call anyone who doesn't an idiot. The very basis of fact free argument.

But this outfit's been advertising at the top of my blog, The Wisdom Project, and I like their idea.

How the Wisdom Project Works (Excerpt)

The Question:

If you had the power and influence to change the USA, what would you do to solve the problem of so many people and children without health insurance? Or, do you believe the current health care systems and policies are the best solution?

Now, the Wisdom Project machine begins to go to work. Let’s suppose 100 people submit solutions to the problem of health insurance. Some ideas are socialist, some are brutally capitalist, others are a mixture in between. Some people argue that people should pay for their own health insurance, and they would be able to do that if we lowered taxes and helped stimulate the economy. Others believe it is the duty of the state to provide free health insurance to all citizens. Others believe children should be guaranteed health insurance while adults should fend for themselves. Etc…Etc…the debate rages on. Yet, with one exception: Every time someone posts a solution, poses a question, or responds to a criticism, their post can and is rated by many of the passionate people participating in the debate.

The debate rages on and on for a couple of weeks. People don’t just post solutions, but they post criticisms and responses. They discuss their ideas, some people change their minds, others hold fast. People find common ground and identify fundamental differences in political ideology. Some people gain respect and admiration for the depth of their argument, others are found vacuous. After a few weeks of intense dialogue, what do we have? We will have a powerful list of solutions, thanks to the post rating system.

At the end of the debate, we will be able to extract a list of the highest rated Solutions to our problem. But what solutions will be the highest rated? Well, this is part of the experiment, but I predict you will always find the highest rated solutions are indeed the most well thought out, the most well defended, and those championed by people who are the most considerate and open minded.
The whole explanation is longer, but that's kinda the gist of it. So I thought I'd participate. Might learn sumpin', ya know? But I don't have high hopes so far. Right wingers. Assert, Demand acceptance, call anyone who doesn't accept an Idiot.

Fer instance, where do right wingers get the idea that government has no right to take their money through taxes and use it for any purpose that doesn't directly benefit them? They assert it all the time, but what's the basis for it? What constitution is that right enshrined in? Is it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is there a government anywhere in the world that guarantees that right to its citizens? And if there is, have they let the guy who designed it out of the insane asylum yet? ADI. But I'll try it.


posted 12:57 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Full Panic Boogie - The People Don't Even Need A Beat

Leaders of G.O.P. Try to Discredit a Critic of Bush

But they don't do a very good job.
Republican Congressional leaders said Friday that they would seek to declassify past Congressional testimony from Richard A. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, in an effort to demonstrate that the former aide had lied this week about Mr. Bush's record.
Oh, my, big ol' scary threat. And it is meant as a threat. Some small probs, though:
A senior Democratic Congressional aide said Democratic staff members from both the Senate and House intelligence committees reread Mr. Clarke's 2002 testimony on Friday and that they believed he had been "fully consistent" in his views.
And:
[Former Senator Bob] Graham said he supported the request to declassify Mr. Clarke's testimony. But he said it should be released in its entirety and that the White House should declassify other documents integral to Mr. Clarke's testimony, including his January 2001 plan for action against Al Qaeda. Mr. Graham has also sought to release 27 pages of the report examining the involvement of foreign nations in support of the 19 hijackers.
When you threaten to do something and your opponents say, "Oh, yes. That is a good idea, please do!" It's not a good sign for your side. The Greedy Old Party is doin' a full panic boogie right now, cuz they know it's try anything time. They know that, short of a miracle, this one's gonna take 'em down.


posted 8:01 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Stupid Is As Stupid Does - 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Taxes, Jobs . . .

So I'm readin' Digby at Hullabaloo when I snap to exactly what makes Bush-bubba the worst president ever, to a factor of at least two. Maybe ten. Digby says it, but too politely.
But, the bigger issue, I think, is that this illustrates once again what a grave mistake it is to have a president who is arrogant yet intellectually incurious and whose inexperience in life and government makes him manipulable by others.
But that is it, that's the fundamental problem with Booshie-Booshie. He's an arrogant man who has nothing to be arrogant about. If he had something to be arrogant about, at least he'd be a man of some ability. If he wasn't arrogant, however minimal his actual capabilities, he wouldn't be nearly so bad. I believe America would be better off with a bacterium as president, but that's only because a bacterium can only fail to do good. It can do no actual harm. (As president. It might be kinda hard on your intestines, I don't know.) That would be an improvement over Bush.

This is a man exceedingly proud of his own bravery, though he's never done anything to demonstrate bravery. A man proud of his wartime leadership, though I'm certain Churchill and FDR would both sneer and snarl at his incompetence. A man with supreme confidence in his gut instincts. Even he can't believe in his powers of reason. But he doesn't believe he needs reason, either. He knows in his gut that the death penalty is a deterrent, so pay no attention to those pesky scientific studies. Apparently, he feels about the same way about global warming, shit, about everything. Bush looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and claimed to have seen Putin's soul. It seemingly never occurred to him that maybe when you look into the eyes of a KGB man, you see what he wants you to see.

I don't care if you're a Bush defender these days, or an attacker. Both sides are saying Bush is incompetent. Listen to Bush's defenders. A whole string of people one would've thought would be loyal to Bush are saying bad things about him. And his defenders say they're all disgruntled, disloyal, political hacks, most of whom were "out of the loop" and incompetent. On top of that, it's pretty obvious now that, though still loyal, Condi and Cheney are incompetents. (C'mon, Dick, Clarke was "out of the loop?" On terrorism? I think you better have that heart equipment checked out. I don't think you're gettin' enough oxygen to the brain.) OK, Bush defenders. Who was responsible for the hiring of this motley crew? Not that he necessarily made the direct hiring decisions, but ultimately, in the White House, who's responsible? As Digby says:
The bigger lesson in all of this, and one which I'm sure will go inheeded by many, is that you should not elect stupid people to the presidency. Smart ones can screw up, but it's not guaranteed that they will. But, a stupid yet arrogant president is bound to fail. The job is just too complicated for someone like that.
I know, I know, Bush is not a stupid person. Even Molly Ivins says so, and I happen to agree. Bush is not a stupid person, but he sure inna fuck is a stupid president. Who inna hell really thinks the average NASCAR fan is qualified to be president? The good news is I really think Bush is going to lose. Both candidates have framed the presidential race as a contest of machismo. Well one of 'em is macho, and one of 'em thinks he's good at acting macho. If you're gonna get into a pissing contest (hands allowed), it's best if you got a real dick. (Cheney not allowed.)


posted 6:31 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

March 26, 2004

Faux Gnus - No Journalistic Ethics Allowed

"Our weapons are powerless!"
Aside: I'm outraged that Fox approached the White House with this background briefing tape. According to McClellan, "it was Fox News who yesterday came to us and said they had a tape of this conversation with Mr. Clarke." If that's true, then a news organization that was included in a briefing with the agreement that it was on background -- that is, with no quotes and the briefer not be identified -- approached a source's former employer and offered to give up apparently conflicting words that the employer could use against the source. (I read the transcript. It's not particularly contradictory, frankly, and can easily be read as how Clarke characterized it.) This is a major journalistic no-no. When I was at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, we were taught to go to jail before you give up your sources. And you sure as hell don't approach someone you're supposed to be covering and offer to help them out against someone.

But back to Fox. Anyone who still thinks Fox is "fair and balanced" should really have their head examined. If you like it because it's a right-wing attack network, more power to you. At least you're honest with yourself. But if you really think it's working for anything but Bush's re-election, you really need to get out more.
Bastards have forfeited the right to be called a news station, even derisively. Hence: Gnus.


posted 12:59 PM by Phaedrus | Link | |

Speakin' A Proven Liars

"We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001"
[Former FBI wiretap translator Sibel] Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."
But if Rice contradicts Richard Clarke then, obviously, Clarke's lying. Mm-hmm.

UPDATE: For a point-by-point analysis of Condi's proven and outrageous lying ways, see Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap. In fact, ya jus' need to read the Progress Report from 9/11 - Bush Admits Negligence on. Unbelievable. I just want the name of whoever delivers the electric kool-aid to the White House and, just outta curiosity, how mucha that stuff Condi drinks.

RE-UPDATE: (I'm calling the next one ad nauseam, I swear.) White House Fights Clarke Fire With Fire
Administration officials were so intent on mobilizing every possible argument that some of their points seemed contradictory. Collectively, they said Clarke was responsible for counterterrorism but out of the loop, claimed he was obsessed with which meetings he could attend but refused to go to some meetings, and argued both that his book was published too soon and too late.
Shit. Could'n get their ducks in a row after all, but they say Clarke is untrustworthy.


posted 10:23 AM by Phaedrus | Link | |

How Far America Has Moved To The Right

A large segment of Barry Goldwater's supporters in 1964 were considered right wing nuts. Yet when Goldwater was defeated, by a landslide, because he was percieved as too right wing, that segment went to work on taking over the Republican. Nobody thought they had a chance. Nobody was right and everybody else was wrong. It took 'em a while, but their first big national success came with Ronnie Raygun. That success was only partial. The GOP wasn't in their control yet. But they kept working.

Today, they have control. Bush/Rove bends to their will. DeLay and Hastert are part of the "movement." In all the time they've been working to get control of the party, these people who were thought to be wingnuts in 1964 have steadily moved farther to the right, so much so that Goldwater disowned them long ago.

I try to tell people that and they look at me like I'm crazy. Say something that conflicts with the conventional wisdom, no matter how true, and you must be crazy. Well feast on this:
Yet in his older years the founding father of conservatism gazed out upon his works and recoiled. It was not, after all, what he had had in mind. In his plainspoken manner, indifferent to what anyone else thought, he railed against the right's intolerance, sanctimony and bullying. Mr. Conservative, author of its early seminal manifesto, "The Conscience of a Conservative," took to calling himself in public a "liberal." He spared no words in denouncing the right as the enemy of liberty.

"Barry was always a social liberal," Susan Goldwater Levine, his widow, keeper of the flame, told me at her home, high in the hills above Phoenix, watching a pastel sunset, in 70 degree winter weather. "Barry believed that people should be allowed to do whatever they wanted in their own homes." When Goldwater observed the right trying to use government to enforce private morality, he spoke up for women's right to abortion and for gay rights. His wife insisted that his convictions had remained unaltered, but that the movement for which he was the avatar had become warped. "He hated it that the right-wing zealots took over the party," she said. "Barry hated the right wing."
And the Republican right has moved even farther to the right since then. Now for the good news.

Republicans for Kerry?
After enduring a sustained offensive from conservatives, Republican moderates are quietly mounting a counterattack against Bush, DeLay & Co.


I'm gettin' a good feelin' 'bout this election I never thought I'd have. I thought Bush was a lock. I even half-thought four more years of Bushit might be good for the nation. Ya know, shock therapy. (That thought never would of stopped me from working for Bushwa's defeat, though.) Now I'm afraid any more shock therapy might kill the patient. The nation at least needs a break from this insanity, and a surprising group may agree with me.

Looks like moderate Republicans are rebelling. I know moderate Republican sounds like an oxymoron, but it isn't. Not quite. Not yet. Only 80% of Republicans identify themselves as conservatives. That's the Repukelican wing. So maybe there arent' a lot of moderate Republicans, but Bush can't afford to lose any Republicans, for two reasons. One, Bush can't afford to lose any Republicans. Two, if he does, it almost certainly means he'll take a pounding among the independents. If either happens, he probably loses. If both happen . . . well, ya know.










AddMe.com, free web site submission and promotion to the search engines Submit Site to Search Engine
I also post at
From the Trenches
but it's a good blog anyway.



Contribute Here.
Give Early, Give Often.


Sign Columbine father's petition to extend the assault weapons ban.



Help California's homeless mentally ill. Help yourself.

Search this site
Use Edit|Find to scan page.

My Manifesto
"For Progressives: What We're Gonna Do"
A blueprint for progress
while confined to a
two-party system.



Fat Poppa's (Phaedrus')
Political Ditties (mp3s)

Me on the harp and vocals

"We must not confuse
dissent with disloyalty."

"There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility."
Edward R. Murrow


"Conservatives are not
necessarily stupid,
but most
stupid people
are Conservatives."
John Stuart Mill

And if ya listen ta
Rush Dimbulb . . . .



Im Translator, Online translator, spell checker, virtual keyboard, cyrillic decoder


Archives


The Samizdata



Credits
design by maystar
powered by blogger

Atom XML/RSS
Site Feed



Subscribe with Bloglines

Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
the best pretty good okay pretty bad the worst help?


Listed on Blogwise

c'mon, li'l help
itopik.com.. it's about what your writing.
Search4Blogs


The Me What I Am

I took the name Phaedrus from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Not that I'm as smart as that Phaedrus, but I am a ghost. Sort of.

I started doing odd jobs at a motel when I was 14.
I lasted one day at a McDonald's, quit,
lasted a lot longer at Taco Bell.
I've been a gas station attendant,
janitor, die cast production worker,
day laborer,
course maintenance at a miniature golf course,
warehouse, union janitor,
cabbie, statistical clerk,
pool cleaner, working homeless
for a few weeks
(day labor),
and several other things I can't remember.
And I've survived.
Sort of.
I'm not a Marxist, but I am a genuine member of the lumpen proletariat.






Largely paraphrasing the secular saint Woody Guthrie: "This shit is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 000000 (cuz this part's not true), for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught using it without my permission, will be considered mighty good friends o' mine, cause I don't give a dern. Publish it. Twist it. Rewrite it. Swing to it. I wrote it, that's all I wanted to do."


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.