Tuesday, August 31, 2004
More evidence that GW is, uh, cracking up....?
NASHUA, N.H. — President Bush, who had hoped for a triumphant, gaffe-free entrance to the Republican National Convention, instead has spent the past few days giving rhetorical ammunition to Sen. John Kerry.
In an interview aired yesterday on NBC's "Today" show, Mr. Bush said of the war against terrorism: "I don't think you can win it." In other recent interviews, he called Operation Iraqi Freedom a "catastrophic success" and his postwar plan a "miscalculation."
It's been one slip up after another. Perhaps I will tune in to his big speech after all; who knows what we might hear at this point.
Stumble It!
|
NASHUA, N.H. — President Bush, who had hoped for a triumphant, gaffe-free entrance to the Republican National Convention, instead has spent the past few days giving rhetorical ammunition to Sen. John Kerry.
In an interview aired yesterday on NBC's "Today" show, Mr. Bush said of the war against terrorism: "I don't think you can win it." In other recent interviews, he called Operation Iraqi Freedom a "catastrophic success" and his postwar plan a "miscalculation."
It's been one slip up after another. Perhaps I will tune in to his big speech after all; who knows what we might hear at this point.
Here they go again, tossing science to the wind. From today's Washington Post:
A bureaucratic shuffle within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has prompted a political firestorm among experts in worker health and safety and has reignited questions about the Bush administration's commitment to sound science.
At the center of the storm is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the institute within the CDC that conducts research on workplace illnesses, injuries and deaths.
<…>
But the move has drawn protests from virtually every occupational health and safety organization in the country, including some representing labor and others more aligned with corporate management -- groups that usually are at policy loggerheads but that have shared interests in good science.
Opposition also crosses party lines. Letters opposing the change have been signed by every living former NIOSH director back to the Nixon administration and by assistant secretaries for labor and health from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
"This may be the first issue in the last decade that all the worker safety and health stakeholder groups agree on," said Frank White, a Reagan administration labor official who is now vice president of Organization Resources Counselors Inc., an international management and human resources consulting firm that advises on occupational health issues for 150 large corporations. "It's hard to see a reorganization like this making NIOSH more effective."
<…>
Each day, an estimated 9,000 U.S. workers sustain disabling injuries on the job, 16 die of work-related injuries and 137 die of work-related diseases, resulting in tens of billions of dollars in direct costs and hundreds of billions in indirect costs, according to government statistics.
Yet NIOSH has often struggled to ensure its independence and at times its survival -- as in the mid-1990s, when the Republican House tried to kill it. Some corporate interests chafe at NIOSH's right to enter workplaces without a warrant when called in by employees to investigate safety issues.
<...>
Others suggested the move is part of a larger administration effort to politicize science -- a concern exacerbated by the significant role Kent C. "Oz" Nelson played in designing the Futures Initiative. Nelson is chairman of the CDC Foundation's board of directors and former chief executive of United Parcel Service, which fought the Clinton administration's efforts to set ergonomics standards for preventing workplace musculoskeletal injuries.
Stumble It!
|
A bureaucratic shuffle within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has prompted a political firestorm among experts in worker health and safety and has reignited questions about the Bush administration's commitment to sound science.
At the center of the storm is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the institute within the CDC that conducts research on workplace illnesses, injuries and deaths.
<…>
But the move has drawn protests from virtually every occupational health and safety organization in the country, including some representing labor and others more aligned with corporate management -- groups that usually are at policy loggerheads but that have shared interests in good science.
Opposition also crosses party lines. Letters opposing the change have been signed by every living former NIOSH director back to the Nixon administration and by assistant secretaries for labor and health from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
"This may be the first issue in the last decade that all the worker safety and health stakeholder groups agree on," said Frank White, a Reagan administration labor official who is now vice president of Organization Resources Counselors Inc., an international management and human resources consulting firm that advises on occupational health issues for 150 large corporations. "It's hard to see a reorganization like this making NIOSH more effective."
<…>
Each day, an estimated 9,000 U.S. workers sustain disabling injuries on the job, 16 die of work-related injuries and 137 die of work-related diseases, resulting in tens of billions of dollars in direct costs and hundreds of billions in indirect costs, according to government statistics.
Yet NIOSH has often struggled to ensure its independence and at times its survival -- as in the mid-1990s, when the Republican House tried to kill it. Some corporate interests chafe at NIOSH's right to enter workplaces without a warrant when called in by employees to investigate safety issues.
<...>
Others suggested the move is part of a larger administration effort to politicize science -- a concern exacerbated by the significant role Kent C. "Oz" Nelson played in designing the Futures Initiative. Nelson is chairman of the CDC Foundation's board of directors and former chief executive of United Parcel Service, which fought the Clinton administration's efforts to set ergonomics standards for preventing workplace musculoskeletal injuries.
"What, oh, what did I say? Oh, I'm sorry, I meant we WILL win the war!"
Bush scrambles to cover for his slip of the truth, or as Michael Kinsley tagged it, a "gaffe" (when a politician tells the truth).
Too late GW! We heard it.
Stumble It!
|
Bush scrambles to cover for his slip of the truth, or as Michael Kinsley tagged it, a "gaffe" (when a politician tells the truth).
Too late GW! We heard it.
Gag-me-with-a-spoon quote of the evening:
"Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.'" -- Rudy Giuliani
Gads, how this guy has lost all credibility. Then he infers that Bush = Churchill and Saddam = Hitler.... And he wants us to seriously believe he's not shilling for a GOP slot (US Senator in 2006, or presidential run in 2008) at some point down the road -- yeah, right.
Stumble It!
|
"Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.'" -- Rudy Giuliani
Gads, how this guy has lost all credibility. Then he infers that Bush = Churchill and Saddam = Hitler.... And he wants us to seriously believe he's not shilling for a GOP slot (US Senator in 2006, or presidential run in 2008) at some point down the road -- yeah, right.
Noam Scheiber’s recent commentary in The New Republic mentions two terrific points:
1) He points out how some of the polls in the country may be deceptive, pending on what sample population is being used. He mentions a poll in Ohio which had Kerry ahead of Bush by a two point margin. HOWEVER, when the pool was widened to include not just those who voted in 2000 but to include ALL registered voters, Kerry’s lead expanded to a 10 point margin. One would think that this difference would have extra significance for this election as many indications point to voter turnout being greater than in 2000 (highly polarized country, many feel much is at stake, many learned from Florida 2000, etc.). In that case, this and any other poll should likely use ALL registered voters as the more accurate sample pool. One could also make the case that net-net, a person voting this November that did not vote in 2000 is most likely to be a Kerry voter (if they chose not to vote for Bush in 2000, what are the odds they will vote for him in 2004?).
2) Noam unfortunately points out another grim fact: for those states with an anti-gay marriage initiative to be decided, such an item on the ballot will almost certainly motivate more resolute right-wing conservatives to get out and vote than it would more moderate types. Ohio has an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot.
Stumble It!
|
1) He points out how some of the polls in the country may be deceptive, pending on what sample population is being used. He mentions a poll in Ohio which had Kerry ahead of Bush by a two point margin. HOWEVER, when the pool was widened to include not just those who voted in 2000 but to include ALL registered voters, Kerry’s lead expanded to a 10 point margin. One would think that this difference would have extra significance for this election as many indications point to voter turnout being greater than in 2000 (highly polarized country, many feel much is at stake, many learned from Florida 2000, etc.). In that case, this and any other poll should likely use ALL registered voters as the more accurate sample pool. One could also make the case that net-net, a person voting this November that did not vote in 2000 is most likely to be a Kerry voter (if they chose not to vote for Bush in 2000, what are the odds they will vote for him in 2004?).
2) Noam unfortunately points out another grim fact: for those states with an anti-gay marriage initiative to be decided, such an item on the ballot will almost certainly motivate more resolute right-wing conservatives to get out and vote than it would more moderate types. Ohio has an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot.
Managing expectations for political gain:
Not surprisingly, Bush strategist Matthew Dowd, who predicted that Kerry would have a 15-point lead in August, has said -- for whatever mysterious reasons -- he does not expect Bush to get any convention bounce. (Ryan Lizza)
Stumble It!
|
Not surprisingly, Bush strategist Matthew Dowd, who predicted that Kerry would have a 15-point lead in August, has said -- for whatever mysterious reasons -- he does not expect Bush to get any convention bounce. (Ryan Lizza)
Scary stuff from Speaker of the House Hastert:
HASTERT: You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where — if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I...
WALLACE: Excuse me?
HASTERT: Well, that's what he's been for a number years — George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there.
WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?
HASTERT: I'm saying I don't know where groups — could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know. The fact is we don't know where this money comes from.
(again, thank you to talkingpointsmemo.com)
You can see where Hastert has DeLay roots. He's both dumb AND without scruples. Soros is one of the most recognized billionaires in the world, having made his money from his hedge fund activities. It's highly doubtful he needs to tap the resources of the drug underworld. And of course, Hastert operates according to the RNC playbook: insinuate, accuse, offer no facts or evidence, just leave it hanging out there, let the media do the rest.
As further evidence just how stupid this guy is, it wasn't too long ago (this past May) that Hastert publicly questioned John McCain's credentials as a Republican. McCain is a featured speaker at the GOP Convention.
Stumble It!
|
HASTERT: You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where — if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I...
WALLACE: Excuse me?
HASTERT: Well, that's what he's been for a number years — George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there.
WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?
HASTERT: I'm saying I don't know where groups — could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know. The fact is we don't know where this money comes from.
(again, thank you to talkingpointsmemo.com)
You can see where Hastert has DeLay roots. He's both dumb AND without scruples. Soros is one of the most recognized billionaires in the world, having made his money from his hedge fund activities. It's highly doubtful he needs to tap the resources of the drug underworld. And of course, Hastert operates according to the RNC playbook: insinuate, accuse, offer no facts or evidence, just leave it hanging out there, let the media do the rest.
As further evidence just how stupid this guy is, it wasn't too long ago (this past May) that Hastert publicly questioned John McCain's credentials as a Republican. McCain is a featured speaker at the GOP Convention.
Bush’s 8,347th flip-flop:
"We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world."
-- George W. Bush, July 30th 2004
"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”
-- George W. Bush, Aug. 29th, 2004
(thanks talkingpointsmemo.com)
Imagine what they would've done to Kerry if he did this as President....
Stumble It!
|
"We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world."
-- George W. Bush, July 30th 2004
"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”
-- George W. Bush, Aug. 29th, 2004
(thanks talkingpointsmemo.com)
Imagine what they would've done to Kerry if he did this as President....
Monday, August 30, 2004
Business Week interviews stock market strategist Barry Ritholtz for his insights on the upcoming election and how the market may influence it. A key exchange:
Q: Who do you think will win the election?
A: I'm a numbers geek at heart, so I watch four quantitative factors that have had a strong historical correlation with incumbent electoral victory, regardless of party. The first is job creation, second is Presidential approval rating, third is percentage saying the country is going in the right or wrong direction, and the fourth is the Dow Jones industrial average performance in the first half of the election year.
The polls are saying this is a very close race, but all four of the above data points suggest the incumbent is in deep trouble. Over a four-year term, when job creation is less than 5%, studies have shown it's a huge negative for the occupant in the White House. As of last month, we were at a negative 0.8%.
We see recent surveys showing the incumbent polling less than a 50% job-approval rating, and for the "right/wrong direction" question, only 36% are answering "right direction." These are big negatives. The Dow started the year at 10,450. It has come up off the lows but is still down for the year. It's a minor negative.
Stumble It!
|
Q: Who do you think will win the election?
A: I'm a numbers geek at heart, so I watch four quantitative factors that have had a strong historical correlation with incumbent electoral victory, regardless of party. The first is job creation, second is Presidential approval rating, third is percentage saying the country is going in the right or wrong direction, and the fourth is the Dow Jones industrial average performance in the first half of the election year.
The polls are saying this is a very close race, but all four of the above data points suggest the incumbent is in deep trouble. Over a four-year term, when job creation is less than 5%, studies have shown it's a huge negative for the occupant in the White House. As of last month, we were at a negative 0.8%.
We see recent surveys showing the incumbent polling less than a 50% job-approval rating, and for the "right/wrong direction" question, only 36% are answering "right direction." These are big negatives. The Dow started the year at 10,450. It has come up off the lows but is still down for the year. It's a minor negative.
Zogby and Knight Ridder are out with results to an interesting poll, one that focuses strictly on the so-called "undecided" voters.
Favoring Bush: most get their news from Fox (40.4%), most drive domestic cars (57.9%), and they're more pro-gun (49.8%) than not (32.4%).
Favoring Kerry: not many are NASCAR fans (12.9%), and when asked if they would vote for the Tin Man or the Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, the Tin Man won in a landslide (48.7% vs. 13.3%). This is significant because it was framed that the Tin Man represented "all brains and no heart" and the Scarecrow vice-versa. Of the two, I would say Kerry represents the Tin Man (!); Zogby concurs.
Perhaps the biggest thing favoring Kerry (and I've mentioned it here before) is the fact that undecided voters overwhelmingly vote non-incumbent. Zogby points out that in 2000, these undecided voters went with Bush over Gore by a 58.7% to 24.7% margin. Given they are now "undecided," by definition Bush has not maintained their allegiance, putting the odds in Kerry's favor that they will swing his way.
Stumble It!
|
Favoring Bush: most get their news from Fox (40.4%), most drive domestic cars (57.9%), and they're more pro-gun (49.8%) than not (32.4%).
Favoring Kerry: not many are NASCAR fans (12.9%), and when asked if they would vote for the Tin Man or the Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, the Tin Man won in a landslide (48.7% vs. 13.3%). This is significant because it was framed that the Tin Man represented "all brains and no heart" and the Scarecrow vice-versa. Of the two, I would say Kerry represents the Tin Man (!); Zogby concurs.
Perhaps the biggest thing favoring Kerry (and I've mentioned it here before) is the fact that undecided voters overwhelmingly vote non-incumbent. Zogby points out that in 2000, these undecided voters went with Bush over Gore by a 58.7% to 24.7% margin. Given they are now "undecided," by definition Bush has not maintained their allegiance, putting the odds in Kerry's favor that they will swing his way.
Bill Maher likely has the best talk show on TV right now. It's almost always interesting and revealing.
He recently had on former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart:
MAHER: Nice to see you here. Listen, I want to start off by showing you – I hope you can see this – it’s a headline from the Montreal Gazette from September 6th, 2001, five days before we were attacked. And it says: “Terror Risk Real: Hart – Thousands in U.S. Will Die.” No wonder Joe Lieberman called you the “Paul Revere” of our age. You were the guy who said, “The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming!” Because you were part of this Hart-Rudman committee that put out this report. Tell us how that committee came into being, what it said, and what has been done about it since.
HART: First of all, there were 13 others, so it shouldn’t be personalized. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans appointed in the fall of 1998 by then President Clinton, with the concurrence of the congressional leadership, to do something that hadn’t been done since 1947, and that is a complete review of U.S. national security, in this case, post-Cold War. And we were to report to the next president of the United States, whomever that might be, which we did, January 31st, 2001. And although he would not see us personally, we met with senior cabinet officials. We urged them to create a department of homeland security because we had concluded two years before that the nation was going to be attacked by terrorists, and that thousands of Americans would die.
Wow.
Stumble It!
|
He recently had on former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart:
MAHER: Nice to see you here. Listen, I want to start off by showing you – I hope you can see this – it’s a headline from the Montreal Gazette from September 6th, 2001, five days before we were attacked. And it says: “Terror Risk Real: Hart – Thousands in U.S. Will Die.” No wonder Joe Lieberman called you the “Paul Revere” of our age. You were the guy who said, “The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming!” Because you were part of this Hart-Rudman committee that put out this report. Tell us how that committee came into being, what it said, and what has been done about it since.
HART: First of all, there were 13 others, so it shouldn’t be personalized. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans appointed in the fall of 1998 by then President Clinton, with the concurrence of the congressional leadership, to do something that hadn’t been done since 1947, and that is a complete review of U.S. national security, in this case, post-Cold War. And we were to report to the next president of the United States, whomever that might be, which we did, January 31st, 2001. And although he would not see us personally, we met with senior cabinet officials. We urged them to create a department of homeland security because we had concluded two years before that the nation was going to be attacked by terrorists, and that thousands of Americans would die.
Wow.
I caught some of Giuliani on "Meet The Press" and it appears near certain that Rudy has been properly indoctrinated with the RNC talking points (he's now a "Stepford Republican"). Example:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with the president on stem cell?
MR. GIULIANI: I agree with the president in the sense that the president is the first one to put any money at all, and significant amounts of money, into stem cell research.
I've heard other Republicans use this stupid statement when discussing stem cell and I was a bit surprised to witness the normally-intelligent-sounding Giuliani agree to dumb himself down enough to utter this nonsense. He must know that the only reason GW is the "first one" is because stem cell research is that new! For all intensive purposes, there was no stem cell research going on prior to Bush's administration, at least not anywhere near the scale of today. So, duh, he's the first because it didn't exist for Carter, FDR, or even Clinton to act on.
Another example:
MR. RUSSERT: But on that point--on that point, Mr. Mayor, too often, if the president says he's a hero and has service more heroic than his own, and you say he's a hero, should the Swift Boat Veterans stop ads on TV that say he was a coward and a liar?
MR. GIULIANI: They should and all the 527s should stop.
Again, this is the RNC endorsed response, repeated incessantly by Bush. Don't condemn the Swift Boat liars, but rather call for ALL 527s to cease. Weave and dodge. For shame Rudy.
Stumble It!
|
MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with the president on stem cell?
MR. GIULIANI: I agree with the president in the sense that the president is the first one to put any money at all, and significant amounts of money, into stem cell research.
I've heard other Republicans use this stupid statement when discussing stem cell and I was a bit surprised to witness the normally-intelligent-sounding Giuliani agree to dumb himself down enough to utter this nonsense. He must know that the only reason GW is the "first one" is because stem cell research is that new! For all intensive purposes, there was no stem cell research going on prior to Bush's administration, at least not anywhere near the scale of today. So, duh, he's the first because it didn't exist for Carter, FDR, or even Clinton to act on.
Another example:
MR. RUSSERT: But on that point--on that point, Mr. Mayor, too often, if the president says he's a hero and has service more heroic than his own, and you say he's a hero, should the Swift Boat Veterans stop ads on TV that say he was a coward and a liar?
MR. GIULIANI: They should and all the 527s should stop.
Again, this is the RNC endorsed response, repeated incessantly by Bush. Don't condemn the Swift Boat liars, but rather call for ALL 527s to cease. Weave and dodge. For shame Rudy.
On the eve of the Republican Convention, I stand by my August 5th post where I simply wonder aloud why Bush/Cheney don't just promise the world, and then some, concerning campaign pledges. They have a well-documented record of going back on SEVERAL of their campaign 2000 promises (the internet is filled with web sites offering fairly comprehensive lists, such as, and here). When it comes to accountability, not only do they weave and dodge to escape any appearance of flip-flopping, but the media has conveniently allowed them to do so, hardly ever taking them to task on any of these flagrant say-one-thing-do-another violations.
So again, I ask, why don't they just go all the way and promise everything but the kitchen sink to the idiot masses? This time around they have no reelection concerns to serve as even a remote checks-and-balance.
I guess they have to at least offer up the appearance that they're credible and responsible.
Stumble It!
|
So again, I ask, why don't they just go all the way and promise everything but the kitchen sink to the idiot masses? This time around they have no reelection concerns to serve as even a remote checks-and-balance.
I guess they have to at least offer up the appearance that they're credible and responsible.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Over at WashingtonMonthly.com, Amy Sullivan is making a point I've made here before. She's discussing how when it comes to abortion, Republicans demand (in the name of the Lord!) and expect absolute compliance from some, and yet grant a free pass on this issue to others.
She writes:
Look at the line-up for next week's Republican Convention. On three out of the four evenings, the primetime programming stars a high-profile Republican Catholic who also happens to be pro-choice. Between Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Pataki, their states are responsible for 35 percent of the abortions performed in the U.S. And yet you'll hear nary a peep of protest about this from the conservative Catholic League, a supposedly "non-partisan" organization that has been frothing in continuous outrage over John Kerry's pro-choice leanings.
<...>
What they do care about is defeating Democrats. Some of them don't even try to gloss over that fact. Deal Hudson (the now-disgraced and resigned former head of Catholic outreach for the Bush/Cheney campaign) told the Washington Post last spring that "he believes the denial of Communion should begin, and end, with Kerry."
So they're hypocrites, you say. Thanks for the newsflash, brainiac.
<...>
How many reporters do you think are going to ask Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki or Arnold Schwarzenegger if they should refrain from taking communion? Or will call up the bishops of these men and ask whether these PCRCs should be denied communion? Shouldn't it be a story that Republicans get a pass for the sole reason that they are Republicans? And that certain conservative Catholic organizations only care about abortion when they can use the issue to knock around Democrats?
The silence coming out of the Catholic League regarding the prominence of a bunch of heretical babykillers at the GOP Convention is simply deafening.
I wrote about this same observation on July 22nd:
Finally, it's no surprise that Santorum is very much pro-life, a real zealot when it comes to the abortion issue. However, note that like Bush, when it came to the closely contested race in PA between the pro-choice Specter and pro-life Toomey, guess who Santorum endorsed? Yup, like Bush, he endorsed pro-choice Specter. Again, as I wrote at the time about Bush, politics will be politics and anyone that believes these guys truly care about the issues over their political skins is a fool, plain & simple. As I understand it, the abortion issue is supposed to override all politics, and yet when GW and Rick buckle under political pressures, the pro-life folks are silent.
So these guys will stoop so low as to use religion for political purposes. Surprise! How righteous! Is it any wonder several credible voices have come out saying if Jesus were alive today, he certainly would NOT be a Republican? But beyond that, if one is a devout pro-life Catholic (or Christian) where is the strongly-voiced outrage? I've come across more than one practicing Republican Catholic who has vented venom towards a pro-choice candidate (100% of the time a Democrat) and yet has never said a peep about this blatant hypocrisy within their party.
I could be wrong, but I believe there is more than one passage about hypocrisy in the Bible (most of them in the New Testament!).
Stumble It!
|
She writes:
Look at the line-up for next week's Republican Convention. On three out of the four evenings, the primetime programming stars a high-profile Republican Catholic who also happens to be pro-choice. Between Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Pataki, their states are responsible for 35 percent of the abortions performed in the U.S. And yet you'll hear nary a peep of protest about this from the conservative Catholic League, a supposedly "non-partisan" organization that has been frothing in continuous outrage over John Kerry's pro-choice leanings.
<...>
What they do care about is defeating Democrats. Some of them don't even try to gloss over that fact. Deal Hudson (the now-disgraced and resigned former head of Catholic outreach for the Bush/Cheney campaign) told the Washington Post last spring that "he believes the denial of Communion should begin, and end, with Kerry."
So they're hypocrites, you say. Thanks for the newsflash, brainiac.
<...>
How many reporters do you think are going to ask Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki or Arnold Schwarzenegger if they should refrain from taking communion? Or will call up the bishops of these men and ask whether these PCRCs should be denied communion? Shouldn't it be a story that Republicans get a pass for the sole reason that they are Republicans? And that certain conservative Catholic organizations only care about abortion when they can use the issue to knock around Democrats?
The silence coming out of the Catholic League regarding the prominence of a bunch of heretical babykillers at the GOP Convention is simply deafening.
I wrote about this same observation on July 22nd:
Finally, it's no surprise that Santorum is very much pro-life, a real zealot when it comes to the abortion issue. However, note that like Bush, when it came to the closely contested race in PA between the pro-choice Specter and pro-life Toomey, guess who Santorum endorsed? Yup, like Bush, he endorsed pro-choice Specter. Again, as I wrote at the time about Bush, politics will be politics and anyone that believes these guys truly care about the issues over their political skins is a fool, plain & simple. As I understand it, the abortion issue is supposed to override all politics, and yet when GW and Rick buckle under political pressures, the pro-life folks are silent.
So these guys will stoop so low as to use religion for political purposes. Surprise! How righteous! Is it any wonder several credible voices have come out saying if Jesus were alive today, he certainly would NOT be a Republican? But beyond that, if one is a devout pro-life Catholic (or Christian) where is the strongly-voiced outrage? I've come across more than one practicing Republican Catholic who has vented venom towards a pro-choice candidate (100% of the time a Democrat) and yet has never said a peep about this blatant hypocrisy within their party.
I could be wrong, but I believe there is more than one passage about hypocrisy in the Bible (most of them in the New Testament!).
Saturday, August 28, 2004
A few brief stem cell items:
"Some people believe that they are saving embryos by opposing embryonic stem cell research. Stopping embryonic stem cell research does not save these embryos. Thousands of frozen eggs are discarded every year by fertility clinics. These eggs are not wanted by their parents and many have been frozen too long to be usable. However, these frozen fertilized eggs can provide stem cells for research and therapy." -- Wise Young, Ph.D., M.D., Professor II & Chair, Dept. of Cell Biology & Neuroscience, W. M. Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience
Q: Where do scientists get the embryos they use?
A: If the mother becomes pregnant and has a baby, she may not want to use the remaining frozen embryos. Then she and her husband can give doctors permission to throw them away, or give them to scientists to use for stem cell research. -- Dr. Aman Shah, WebMD Medical News
"The reality today is that each year thousands of embryos are routinely destroyed. Why shouldn't embryos slated for destruction be used for the benefit of mankind?" -- pro-life U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
The majority who believe that stem cell research should be allowed has increased from 61% to 21% in favor in 2001 to 73% to 11% in favor now. This majority support for stem cell research includes almost all Democrats with opinions (80% to 5%) and Independents (83% to 7%) and a large, if smaller, majority of Republicans (60% to 18%). -- The Harris Poll®, August 18, 2004
Do you need more proof to show just how out of touch Bush & Co. are on this issue -- and many others for that matter? It's one thing to be principled and make the tough decisions, but it's quite another to just be out of step with the general public and rule in a way that's unaccountable. Bush/Cheney and the crew are certainly of the latter.
Stumble It!
|
"Some people believe that they are saving embryos by opposing embryonic stem cell research. Stopping embryonic stem cell research does not save these embryos. Thousands of frozen eggs are discarded every year by fertility clinics. These eggs are not wanted by their parents and many have been frozen too long to be usable. However, these frozen fertilized eggs can provide stem cells for research and therapy." -- Wise Young, Ph.D., M.D., Professor II & Chair, Dept. of Cell Biology & Neuroscience, W. M. Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience
Q: Where do scientists get the embryos they use?
A: If the mother becomes pregnant and has a baby, she may not want to use the remaining frozen embryos. Then she and her husband can give doctors permission to throw them away, or give them to scientists to use for stem cell research. -- Dr. Aman Shah, WebMD Medical News
"The reality today is that each year thousands of embryos are routinely destroyed. Why shouldn't embryos slated for destruction be used for the benefit of mankind?" -- pro-life U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
The majority who believe that stem cell research should be allowed has increased from 61% to 21% in favor in 2001 to 73% to 11% in favor now. This majority support for stem cell research includes almost all Democrats with opinions (80% to 5%) and Independents (83% to 7%) and a large, if smaller, majority of Republicans (60% to 18%). -- The Harris Poll®, August 18, 2004
Do you need more proof to show just how out of touch Bush & Co. are on this issue -- and many others for that matter? It's one thing to be principled and make the tough decisions, but it's quite another to just be out of step with the general public and rule in a way that's unaccountable. Bush/Cheney and the crew are certainly of the latter.
Co-author of the "Unfit for Command" book, Jerome Corsi, has these wonderful quotes to his credit:
"Islam is a peaceful religion -- just as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered and the infidels are killed."
"So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it."
"Who are the Frogs going to cry to when the ragheads destroy the Eiffel Tower?"
"JaneFondaKerry is being heavily funded by Iranians -- check out how Gore was funded by the Chinese in 2000."
And he has acknowledged all of these, and then some, stating they were meant as a joke (Ha-Ha! As if he had to tell us! They're obviously quite witty and humorous!!).
But of course, when it comes to his 256-page book, we're all supposed to embrace that "fact"-filled volume with the utmost of seriousness.
Stumble It!
|
"Islam is a peaceful religion -- just as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered and the infidels are killed."
"So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it."
"Who are the Frogs going to cry to when the ragheads destroy the Eiffel Tower?"
"JaneFondaKerry is being heavily funded by Iranians -- check out how Gore was funded by the Chinese in 2000."
And he has acknowledged all of these, and then some, stating they were meant as a joke (Ha-Ha! As if he had to tell us! They're obviously quite witty and humorous!!).
But of course, when it comes to his 256-page book, we're all supposed to embrace that "fact"-filled volume with the utmost of seriousness.
While unfortunately a sizeable portion of the public still believes 1) Iraq has WMD, and 2) Iraq had Al Qaeda ties prior to 9-11, at least it appears they're wise enough to at least gradually realize the truth regarding this Swift Boat nonsense:
Almost half in a poll taken this week say they think the president's campaign is behind the ads that try to undercut Kerry's medals for heroism while just over a third think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an independent group, the National Annenberg Election Survey found.
The public's belief that Kerry did not earn his medals grew to 30 percent when the attack ads got widespread publicity on cable news networks. But that number has dropped to 24 percent now.
Odds are Karl Rove is burning the midnight oil in search of something else baseless.... Hey, it's what he does.
Stumble It!
|
Almost half in a poll taken this week say they think the president's campaign is behind the ads that try to undercut Kerry's medals for heroism while just over a third think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an independent group, the National Annenberg Election Survey found.
The public's belief that Kerry did not earn his medals grew to 30 percent when the attack ads got widespread publicity on cable news networks. But that number has dropped to 24 percent now.
Odds are Karl Rove is burning the midnight oil in search of something else baseless.... Hey, it's what he does.
Excellent editorial in The New Republic. Segments:
Just how dishonest must a smear campaign be for American journalists to say so plainly or, better yet, to ignore altogether? That's the only real question still unanswered in the controversy sparked by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth over John Kerry's service in Vietnam--although even to use the word "controversy" affords the issue's protagonists too much dignity. The veterans featured in the organization's TV ad claim to have "served with Kerry," but none actually served on the same boat. (Yes, we've been reduced to arguing over what the definition of "with" is.) Several of the charges are based on recollections by veterans who, years earlier, had praised Kerry for the very same actions.The accusation that Kerry faked one of his injuries turns out to come from a thirdhand account. Most important of all, the surviving crewmembers from Kerry's boat--as well as Navy records--back Kerry's version of events.
<...>
The effect was to spread lies rather than scrutinize them, in a precise perversion of journalism's supposed purpose. More than half of the respondents to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center said they had seen or heard of the Swift Boat ad, which initially ran in only three swing states. And the polling firm HCD Research found that 27 percent of independent voters who saw the ad and "who [had] planned to vote for Kerry or leaned pro-Kerry" were "no longer sure they'd back" him.
Journalists, in short, became accomplices to fraud. And they should have known better. In 2000, Bush and his right-wing allies learned that the way to win political arguments is to launch rhetorical attacks based only loosely--if at all--on the facts and then depend on reporters to spread them as credible perspectives on the truth. And, ever since, this White House has conducted its business the very same way, shamelessly peddling lies about everything from budget projections to weapons of mass destruction without the slightest fear of retribution.
Stumble It!
|
Just how dishonest must a smear campaign be for American journalists to say so plainly or, better yet, to ignore altogether? That's the only real question still unanswered in the controversy sparked by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth over John Kerry's service in Vietnam--although even to use the word "controversy" affords the issue's protagonists too much dignity. The veterans featured in the organization's TV ad claim to have "served with Kerry," but none actually served on the same boat. (Yes, we've been reduced to arguing over what the definition of "with" is.) Several of the charges are based on recollections by veterans who, years earlier, had praised Kerry for the very same actions.The accusation that Kerry faked one of his injuries turns out to come from a thirdhand account. Most important of all, the surviving crewmembers from Kerry's boat--as well as Navy records--back Kerry's version of events.
<...>
The effect was to spread lies rather than scrutinize them, in a precise perversion of journalism's supposed purpose. More than half of the respondents to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center said they had seen or heard of the Swift Boat ad, which initially ran in only three swing states. And the polling firm HCD Research found that 27 percent of independent voters who saw the ad and "who [had] planned to vote for Kerry or leaned pro-Kerry" were "no longer sure they'd back" him.
Journalists, in short, became accomplices to fraud. And they should have known better. In 2000, Bush and his right-wing allies learned that the way to win political arguments is to launch rhetorical attacks based only loosely--if at all--on the facts and then depend on reporters to spread them as credible perspectives on the truth. And, ever since, this White House has conducted its business the very same way, shamelessly peddling lies about everything from budget projections to weapons of mass destruction without the slightest fear of retribution.
My running email exchange with a Naderite friend....
She wrote, "I find myself in good company. Both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are voting for Nader."
I replied:
More later, but in meantime this:
NOAM CHOMSKY
“…there are differences (between Kerry and Bush). In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." - professor, author
JIM HIGHTOWER
"But all of that aside, now we face the reality of an Administration that is absolutely nutty. There's that old country song, "It felt so good when it stopped hurting." So we've got to stop the pain. But in doing so, we should not fool ourselves that we have gained some progressive victory. What we will have done is to get us back to a ground level where we can build again for a progressive victory that is several years down the road."
- November, 2003
MICHAEL PARENTI
"These guys (Bush administration) are playing for keeps. They're breaking every rule in the book. They carry out role call votes where they'll hold a vote open for 15 hours to shift it over to their way. They're redoing census and gerrymandering in states at any time they want. They're stealing elections. So, we're really facing a...very dangerous enemy. And I think Ralph's presence...is not what we need right now."
- Democracy Now! February 23, 2004
Finally, I'm sorry to say that when you say you're in good company with Chomsky & Zinn, you didn't dig enough to find out some revealing facts re nuances to their intentions. If you did, you'd find out they would be very sympathetic to MY cause. This:
But in response to an email query from this reporter, Chomsky wrote,
“Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush.”
Chomsky lives in Mass. and he makes it absolutely clear that the ONLY reason he's voting Nader is because of the 50 states, Mass. is an absolute mortal lock for Kerry! That's a huge difference than how you posed it, as if he was voting for Nader with no qualifications.
And now, on to Zinn (another Mass. resident):
In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, “I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in ‘safe states’ should not vote for Kerry.” He also notes, “I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance.”
I rest my case.
Stumble It!
|
She wrote, "I find myself in good company. Both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are voting for Nader."
I replied:
More later, but in meantime this:
NOAM CHOMSKY
“…there are differences (between Kerry and Bush). In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." - professor, author
JIM HIGHTOWER
"But all of that aside, now we face the reality of an Administration that is absolutely nutty. There's that old country song, "It felt so good when it stopped hurting." So we've got to stop the pain. But in doing so, we should not fool ourselves that we have gained some progressive victory. What we will have done is to get us back to a ground level where we can build again for a progressive victory that is several years down the road."
- November, 2003
MICHAEL PARENTI
"These guys (Bush administration) are playing for keeps. They're breaking every rule in the book. They carry out role call votes where they'll hold a vote open for 15 hours to shift it over to their way. They're redoing census and gerrymandering in states at any time they want. They're stealing elections. So, we're really facing a...very dangerous enemy. And I think Ralph's presence...is not what we need right now."
- Democracy Now! February 23, 2004
Finally, I'm sorry to say that when you say you're in good company with Chomsky & Zinn, you didn't dig enough to find out some revealing facts re nuances to their intentions. If you did, you'd find out they would be very sympathetic to MY cause. This:
But in response to an email query from this reporter, Chomsky wrote,
“Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush.”
Chomsky lives in Mass. and he makes it absolutely clear that the ONLY reason he's voting Nader is because of the 50 states, Mass. is an absolute mortal lock for Kerry! That's a huge difference than how you posed it, as if he was voting for Nader with no qualifications.
And now, on to Zinn (another Mass. resident):
In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, “I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in ‘safe states’ should not vote for Kerry.” He also notes, “I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance.”
I rest my case.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Florida Judge Susan Kirkland has ruled that state law clearly contemplates "that manual recounts will be done on each certified voting system, including the touchscreen voting systems."
However, Florida's Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who issued legislation preventing manual recounts in touchscreen counties, may appeal this ruling. Yes, you heard this correctly, the Secretary of State of Florida may appeal a judge's decision that manual recounts be made possible to comply with existing state law.
Still think "FLA 2000" can't repeat? Read this.
Stumble It!
|
However, Florida's Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who issued legislation preventing manual recounts in touchscreen counties, may appeal this ruling. Yes, you heard this correctly, the Secretary of State of Florida may appeal a judge's decision that manual recounts be made possible to comply with existing state law.
Still think "FLA 2000" can't repeat? Read this.
Ben Stein is one of those barely-a-celebrity who shows up on political talk shows to serve as lighter-hearted right-wing voice. Most of the time, he's simply annoying.
Read this make-you-want-to-gag piece he recently wrote for the Wall Street Journal opinion page. As he put it, an "editor asked me what I would say to make the wives feel appreciated while their husbands are in Iraq. This is what I wrote to one soldier's wife."
Here's what the NY Observer thought concerning his letter:
What twaddle. In the pose of speaking as an average American, Mr. Stein betrays his ingrown elitism: Not everyone in America can "buy whatever" they want, nor do most Americans have the good luck to "wake up to the sounds of birds"; nor do they wake up in Beverly Hills, as Mr. Stein does. He would have readers believe that the men and women overseas have made his lush life possible. In his letter, he doesn’t mention that he was raised in a wealthy Republican home, the son of the free-market economist Herbert Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. His own education (Columbia and Yale Law) as well as his scattered career—speechwriter for Richard Nixon, law professor at Pepperdine University, part-time actor, advertising pitchman—also receives no mention.
Continuing his everyman’s pitch to the Army wife, Mr. Stein proceeds—apparently without irony—to tell her what the life of a military wife is like: They "go to sleep tired and lonely, wake up tired and lonely, and go through the day with a smile on their faces." Ben Stein knows that the wives go through "desperate hours when the plumbing breaks and there is no husband to fix it, and the even more desperate hours after the kids have gone to bed … and the wives realize that they will be sleeping alone—again, for the 300th night in a row." We began to gag when we saw that he’d signed the letter, "Love, and I do mean Love, Ben."
It appears Mr. Stein thinks that when military wives read his letter, they will feel comforted by the thought of Ben Stein waking up to birds chirping, and feel reaffirmed in the cause their husbands are fighting for. When the truth is, many of their husbands are dying and being horribly wounded for reasons no one in the Bush administration has been able to articulate. And one can only imagine what long-term psychological and economic impact the war will have on their husbands and families. Look at what George W. Bush’s war has done to America: We have alienated the entire world, and provided an effective recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
But Ben Stein doesn’t want the Army wives to dwell on those unpleasant facts. Rather, they should take heart from the fact that he and his loved ones can buy whatever they want. Surely they will rush to thank him for putting it all in perspective.
I couldn't agree more.
Stumble It!
|
Read this make-you-want-to-gag piece he recently wrote for the Wall Street Journal opinion page. As he put it, an "editor asked me what I would say to make the wives feel appreciated while their husbands are in Iraq. This is what I wrote to one soldier's wife."
Here's what the NY Observer thought concerning his letter:
What twaddle. In the pose of speaking as an average American, Mr. Stein betrays his ingrown elitism: Not everyone in America can "buy whatever" they want, nor do most Americans have the good luck to "wake up to the sounds of birds"; nor do they wake up in Beverly Hills, as Mr. Stein does. He would have readers believe that the men and women overseas have made his lush life possible. In his letter, he doesn’t mention that he was raised in a wealthy Republican home, the son of the free-market economist Herbert Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. His own education (Columbia and Yale Law) as well as his scattered career—speechwriter for Richard Nixon, law professor at Pepperdine University, part-time actor, advertising pitchman—also receives no mention.
Continuing his everyman’s pitch to the Army wife, Mr. Stein proceeds—apparently without irony—to tell her what the life of a military wife is like: They "go to sleep tired and lonely, wake up tired and lonely, and go through the day with a smile on their faces." Ben Stein knows that the wives go through "desperate hours when the plumbing breaks and there is no husband to fix it, and the even more desperate hours after the kids have gone to bed … and the wives realize that they will be sleeping alone—again, for the 300th night in a row." We began to gag when we saw that he’d signed the letter, "Love, and I do mean Love, Ben."
It appears Mr. Stein thinks that when military wives read his letter, they will feel comforted by the thought of Ben Stein waking up to birds chirping, and feel reaffirmed in the cause their husbands are fighting for. When the truth is, many of their husbands are dying and being horribly wounded for reasons no one in the Bush administration has been able to articulate. And one can only imagine what long-term psychological and economic impact the war will have on their husbands and families. Look at what George W. Bush’s war has done to America: We have alienated the entire world, and provided an effective recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
But Ben Stein doesn’t want the Army wives to dwell on those unpleasant facts. Rather, they should take heart from the fact that he and his loved ones can buy whatever they want. Surely they will rush to thank him for putting it all in perspective.
I couldn't agree more.
The number of Americans in poverty rose by 1.3 million to 35.9 million, or one in eight people. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 1.4 million to 45 million, or 15.6% of the population. Both sets of figures rose for the third-straight year.
Stumble It!
|
Gads, who's running the show in the White House? I always assumed it was Cheney, or even Rove, but now I might have to reconsider.... In today's NY Times:
On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.
The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's press secretary, said later that the administration was not changing its position on global warming and that Mr. Bush continued to be guided by continuing research at the National Academy of Sciences.
OK, so now there's the chance Scott McClellan is deciding policy, as he helped to clarify matters for the confused and befuddled GW.
Stumble It!
|
On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.
The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's press secretary, said later that the administration was not changing its position on global warming and that Mr. Bush continued to be guided by continuing research at the National Academy of Sciences.
OK, so now there's the chance Scott McClellan is deciding policy, as he helped to clarify matters for the confused and befuddled GW.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Great points from Tim Dickinson over at RollingStone.com:
This Swift Boat idiocy is enough to make you want to pull the plug on your cable or convert your satellite dish into a urinal. With Najaf under siege, and the Plame case coming to a head, with the Abu Grhaib scandal now reaching to the highest levels of the Pentagon brass, and with overtime for millions getting the ax, all the dunderheads at the cable networks seem to care about is the Swifties. They're lying. Navy documents prove it. Get over it.
There are, however, a few lessons to be learned from this ridiculousness: 1) outrageous falsehoods get more attention than honest debate, 2) the TV media in the slow news month of August couldn't be happier than to be used as a partisan echo-chamber, 3) John Edwards has revealed his biggest weakness: his inability as the Sunshine candidate to go all Cujo-Attack-Dog against the GOP's dirty tricksters, and 4) Kerry's lack of agility in defending himself from such a predictable below-the-belt blow should worry Democrats.
Stumble It!
|
This Swift Boat idiocy is enough to make you want to pull the plug on your cable or convert your satellite dish into a urinal. With Najaf under siege, and the Plame case coming to a head, with the Abu Grhaib scandal now reaching to the highest levels of the Pentagon brass, and with overtime for millions getting the ax, all the dunderheads at the cable networks seem to care about is the Swifties. They're lying. Navy documents prove it. Get over it.
There are, however, a few lessons to be learned from this ridiculousness: 1) outrageous falsehoods get more attention than honest debate, 2) the TV media in the slow news month of August couldn't be happier than to be used as a partisan echo-chamber, 3) John Edwards has revealed his biggest weakness: his inability as the Sunshine candidate to go all Cujo-Attack-Dog against the GOP's dirty tricksters, and 4) Kerry's lack of agility in defending himself from such a predictable below-the-belt blow should worry Democrats.
The LA Times reports that Bush has pulled ahead in its poll for the first time all year, yet other fairly current predictors do not confirm this recent revelation.
As an example, on the web site electoral-vote.com, an electoral vote map is shown that is updated daily based on state-derived polls. Here, Kerry maintains an electoral vote lead by a 280-238 margin. "Which to believe?" is my main question.
In addition, note that in the map graphic, 142 votes are deemed "Strong" for Bush as compared to Kerry's 109 in that category. That makes sense given the well-documented lock Bush has on his base. However, for those votes categorized as "Weak" or "Barely," when summing those two together, Kerry leads by a 171-96 count. What makes that interesting is that it tends to confirm a fairly well understood fact that during elections, undecided ("swing") voters tend to eventually vote non-incumbent. Nonpartisan political analyst Charlie Cook (of The Cook Political Report) has reported that over the last 30 years, over 60% of the undecided vote went to the challenger on Election Day.
Let's hope 2004 is not the exception to this rule.
Stumble It!
|
As an example, on the web site electoral-vote.com, an electoral vote map is shown that is updated daily based on state-derived polls. Here, Kerry maintains an electoral vote lead by a 280-238 margin. "Which to believe?" is my main question.
In addition, note that in the map graphic, 142 votes are deemed "Strong" for Bush as compared to Kerry's 109 in that category. That makes sense given the well-documented lock Bush has on his base. However, for those votes categorized as "Weak" or "Barely," when summing those two together, Kerry leads by a 171-96 count. What makes that interesting is that it tends to confirm a fairly well understood fact that during elections, undecided ("swing") voters tend to eventually vote non-incumbent. Nonpartisan political analyst Charlie Cook (of The Cook Political Report) has reported that over the last 30 years, over 60% of the undecided vote went to the challenger on Election Day.
Let's hope 2004 is not the exception to this rule.
Last week: Marc Racicot, the Bush campaign chairman, insisted "there is no connection of any kind whatsoever'' between the campaign and the Swift boat group.
Today: Top lawyer for U.S. President Bush's re-election campaign, Ben Ginsberg, resigned after disclosing he has been providing legal advice to a group that accuses Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record. He was the second person to quit the Bush campaign over ties to the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Can this become any MORE of a lie? Will there be public outrage over this? How will O'Reilly and Hannity spin this one?
Stumble It!
|
Today: Top lawyer for U.S. President Bush's re-election campaign, Ben Ginsberg, resigned after disclosing he has been providing legal advice to a group that accuses Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record. He was the second person to quit the Bush campaign over ties to the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Can this become any MORE of a lie? Will there be public outrage over this? How will O'Reilly and Hannity spin this one?
Regarding the environment, I ask: when this administration trots out the explanation that what they’re trying to do is legitimately streamline, update, and make MORE effective existing regulations, how can any reasonable person believe it when we know that corporate personnel (lobbyists, executives, etc.) are actually and literally doing the updating & streamlining? With a straight face, they expect us to check our brains at the door and just assume that these obviously-conflicted parties will indeed do what’s best for the American public, and NOT those who pay them.
Any logical, reasonable person would conclude that this farce is simply the fox protecting the hen house! And even if they wanted us to believe this load of absurdity, you’d think they’d at least allow environmental groups to participate in the process (and then just ignore everything they had to say) but they don’t even do that! It’s documented just how willfully exclusionary they’ve been against such non-corporate-backed groups. To simply buy-in to this laughable explanation is to just be a fool.
Stumble It!
|
Any logical, reasonable person would conclude that this farce is simply the fox protecting the hen house! And even if they wanted us to believe this load of absurdity, you’d think they’d at least allow environmental groups to participate in the process (and then just ignore everything they had to say) but they don’t even do that! It’s documented just how willfully exclusionary they’ve been against such non-corporate-backed groups. To simply buy-in to this laughable explanation is to just be a fool.
This from our next CIA head honcho?(!):
Goss also came to Bush's aid a few months earlier, during the Joseph Wilson-Valerie Plame scandal. One would think that a former CIA spy might be appalled by reports that a White House official had publicly exposed the identity of an undercover agent, especially as an act of political retaliation against the agent's spouse. The blatant politicization of intelligence is, or should be, anathema to any professional spy—or prospective CIA director.
But Goss waved off the whole business. In an interview with his hometown paper, the Herald-Tribune of southwestern Florida, Goss said the uproar was the result of "wild and unsubstantiated allegations, which are being obviously piled on by partisan politicians during an election year." There was no need to mount an investigation, he said, because there was no evidence of "willful disclosure" (though how he reached that conclusion without an investigation, he didn't say). Then, in a jab against Bush's favorite target, Bill Clinton, Goss cracked, "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation." -- Fred Kaplan, Slate.com
Stumble It!
|
Goss also came to Bush's aid a few months earlier, during the Joseph Wilson-Valerie Plame scandal. One would think that a former CIA spy might be appalled by reports that a White House official had publicly exposed the identity of an undercover agent, especially as an act of political retaliation against the agent's spouse. The blatant politicization of intelligence is, or should be, anathema to any professional spy—or prospective CIA director.
But Goss waved off the whole business. In an interview with his hometown paper, the Herald-Tribune of southwestern Florida, Goss said the uproar was the result of "wild and unsubstantiated allegations, which are being obviously piled on by partisan politicians during an election year." There was no need to mount an investigation, he said, because there was no evidence of "willful disclosure" (though how he reached that conclusion without an investigation, he didn't say). Then, in a jab against Bush's favorite target, Bill Clinton, Goss cracked, "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation." -- Fred Kaplan, Slate.com
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
More bad environmental news, this time mercury. Kudos to the USA Today for reporting it. Alarming: "States issued warnings for mercury and other pollutants in 2003 for nearly 850,000 miles of U.S. rivers — a 65% increase over 2002 — and 14 million acres of lakes. The warning level is the highest ever reported by the EPA."
And what has Bush Inc. done to at least attempt to alleviate this growing, serious problem? Click here, and here for a story out just three weeks ago.
Oh, and the LA Times has a front-page story about how Bush Inc. is pushing hard to drill for oil and gas in Rocky Mountain states.
Just get a load of this:
The administration has pressed for approval of new drilling permits across the Rocky Mountains and lifted protections on hundreds of thousands of acres with gas and oil reserves in Utah and Colorado. In the process, it has targeted a number of places prized for their scenery, abundant wildlife and clean water, natural assets increasingly valuable to the region's changing economy.
Soon after taking office in 2001, the Bush White House set up a little-known task force that acts as a complaint desk for industry, passing energy company concerns directly to federal land management employees in the field. Although the creation of White House task forces is commonplace, experts on the executive branch say it is unusual to have one primarily serving the interests of a single industry.
In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has been pushed to issue drilling permits at a record pace for three of the last four years, an increase of 70% since the Clinton administration.
Internal memos and interviews show senior administration officials have directed federal employees to be responsive to industry, commended offices that approved large numbers of drilling permits and chastised those that were slow.
The effort is so intense in the oil- and gas-rich Rockies that some Bureau of Land Management employees there have taken to calling the region "the OPEC states."
<...>
Outlined during the 2000 campaign, the administration's course was set the following year with a national energy plan developed by a Cabinet-level group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Citing executive privilege, the vice president has kept confidential the records of people who met with the group.
The evolving policy is being carried out by senior officials at the Department of Interior, a number of whom have past ties to the energy industry.
<...>
Yet environmentalists and some current and former BLM officials contend that the administration is sacrificing some of the most spectacular natural spaces in the West for a short-term bump in supplies. Despite all the drilling, they say, foreign imports of oil and gas have not declined. They also say Bush's and Cheney's failure to emphasize energy conservation and alternative sources is leading to irreversible damage to federal lands, water, air and wildlife.
And this amazing graphic:
When will this national nightmare end?
Stumble It!
|
And what has Bush Inc. done to at least attempt to alleviate this growing, serious problem? Click here, and here for a story out just three weeks ago.
Oh, and the LA Times has a front-page story about how Bush Inc. is pushing hard to drill for oil and gas in Rocky Mountain states.
Just get a load of this:
The administration has pressed for approval of new drilling permits across the Rocky Mountains and lifted protections on hundreds of thousands of acres with gas and oil reserves in Utah and Colorado. In the process, it has targeted a number of places prized for their scenery, abundant wildlife and clean water, natural assets increasingly valuable to the region's changing economy.
Soon after taking office in 2001, the Bush White House set up a little-known task force that acts as a complaint desk for industry, passing energy company concerns directly to federal land management employees in the field. Although the creation of White House task forces is commonplace, experts on the executive branch say it is unusual to have one primarily serving the interests of a single industry.
In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has been pushed to issue drilling permits at a record pace for three of the last four years, an increase of 70% since the Clinton administration.
Internal memos and interviews show senior administration officials have directed federal employees to be responsive to industry, commended offices that approved large numbers of drilling permits and chastised those that were slow.
The effort is so intense in the oil- and gas-rich Rockies that some Bureau of Land Management employees there have taken to calling the region "the OPEC states."
<...>
Outlined during the 2000 campaign, the administration's course was set the following year with a national energy plan developed by a Cabinet-level group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Citing executive privilege, the vice president has kept confidential the records of people who met with the group.
The evolving policy is being carried out by senior officials at the Department of Interior, a number of whom have past ties to the energy industry.
<...>
Yet environmentalists and some current and former BLM officials contend that the administration is sacrificing some of the most spectacular natural spaces in the West for a short-term bump in supplies. Despite all the drilling, they say, foreign imports of oil and gas have not declined. They also say Bush's and Cheney's failure to emphasize energy conservation and alternative sources is leading to irreversible damage to federal lands, water, air and wildlife.
And this amazing graphic:
When will this national nightmare end?
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
This about sums it up (from today's LA Times editorial):
The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.
Stumble It!
|
The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.
The following from the August 23rd New Yorker may be at least one reason for Bush's latest decision to focus more on his base (and less on swing voters):
Boyd’s assessment is echoed by Tony Fabrizio, of the Republican polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, who issued a gloomy memorandum last month on Bush’s prospects among swing voters. “Our analysis of ‘undecided’ voters in our most recent Battleground State Survey reveals that they are currently poised to break away from President Bush and to John Kerry based on the following findings,” he wrote. “They are more than twice as likely to see things headed down the wrong track as compared to voters overall. They give President Bush a net negative image rating. They give President Bush a net negative job-approval rating. A solid majority sees the country as being worse off than they were four years ago. They are significantly more pessimistic about the current state of the nation’s economy. They are significantly more pessimistic about their own current financial condition. They are twice as likely to see the number of jobs in their area as decreasing instead of increasing. They are significantly more likely to favor the federal government doing more as opposed to doing less. They are more likely to be pro-choice on the issue of abortion. They are more likely to have seen or heard advertising critical of President Bush than of John Kerry in the past year. John Kerry holds a slight net positive image rating.” In conclusion, Fabrizio wrote, “Clearly if these undecided voters were leaning any harder against the door of the Kerry camp, they would crash right through it . . . which would hand Kerry a lion’s share of these states.”
Virtually all the indicators that Fabrizio catalogued tipped further in Kerry’s favor after the Democratic Convention in Boston.
And note this assessment is from a Republican polling firm!
Stumble It!
|
Boyd’s assessment is echoed by Tony Fabrizio, of the Republican polling firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, who issued a gloomy memorandum last month on Bush’s prospects among swing voters. “Our analysis of ‘undecided’ voters in our most recent Battleground State Survey reveals that they are currently poised to break away from President Bush and to John Kerry based on the following findings,” he wrote. “They are more than twice as likely to see things headed down the wrong track as compared to voters overall. They give President Bush a net negative image rating. They give President Bush a net negative job-approval rating. A solid majority sees the country as being worse off than they were four years ago. They are significantly more pessimistic about the current state of the nation’s economy. They are significantly more pessimistic about their own current financial condition. They are twice as likely to see the number of jobs in their area as decreasing instead of increasing. They are significantly more likely to favor the federal government doing more as opposed to doing less. They are more likely to be pro-choice on the issue of abortion. They are more likely to have seen or heard advertising critical of President Bush than of John Kerry in the past year. John Kerry holds a slight net positive image rating.” In conclusion, Fabrizio wrote, “Clearly if these undecided voters were leaning any harder against the door of the Kerry camp, they would crash right through it . . . which would hand Kerry a lion’s share of these states.”
Virtually all the indicators that Fabrizio catalogued tipped further in Kerry’s favor after the Democratic Convention in Boston.
And note this assessment is from a Republican polling firm!
And my email dialogue with a Naderite friend continues.... My most recent response to her:
That press release uses goofy math: you can't compare 4% in current funding in $ terms with actual % votes in 2000. [Assuming I understand it correctly] He's comparing a % of total dollars in funds to a % of actual voters in 2000, i.e. he is equivocating that each vote in 2000 is comparable to $1 (one dollar) in today's 4% funding -- what a laugh! You've got to be kidding me! I thought Ralph was above this kind of chicanery.
Also, if 25% of his votes came from registered Republicans in 2000, why doesn't he list what % of his votes came from registered Democrats (thus, hurting Gore)?? If that figure were say 50%, or twice the Repub. 25% figure, than duh, that would be net-net bad for Gore by a 2-1 ratio! Again though, he chooses not to disclose this.... Thanks for sending me that press release as I now see that Ralph has learned many tricks of the trade! (I'm always getting educated).
It's not fair for you to simply state that ABB voters are "voting out of fear." That's not necessarily true for MANY people and you have no proof of that.
As I said, I agree with many of your (Ralph's) points but I explained my position on all of this. You choose to vote out of principal, and then live with the consequences -- I don't. If you truly feel it won't matter who's in office the next 4 years, that Kerry will up-and-down on every issue be as bad as Bush, then go ahead and vote for Ralph. I categorically disagree with that notion, and I do feel that much of what has occurred in the last 4 years and may occur in the next four years under more GW will be irreparable, or will at least take several future administrations to undo the harm and damage. You apparently disagree, feeling the country deserves what they get and also is resilient enough to recover.
Yes, voting in this country is a sham re Ralph & Maryland. I absolutely agree with his demand for a uniform, EZ federal standard for candidates to get on ballots in all 50 states. Next topic....
You are naive to say that Nader people will support Kerry if "they adopt some of his platforms!" Oh hooey. Since 2000, Naderites have been force-fed Ralph's mantra that both parties are in the sewer. There's little if any chance at this point, based on this inflammatory language, that any Nader person will ever embrace the Democratic PARTY ever again. The only chance for that to happen is for Ralph himself to decree forcefully that it's OK for his flock to return to the once-evil Dem. Party -- fat chance of that happening!
As for Supreme Court concerns, you simply dismiss it saying the Dems will be too spineless and will just sit by and let Bush stack the court with right-wing ideologues. With such resignation, how does one even debate this topic with you? It's pointless.
Finally, you ask "WHY ARE WE NOT DEMANDING MORE FOR OUR FUTURE, NOT JUST THE NEXT FOUR YEARS?!" Fair enough. You state it's naive to think that the next four years will mean much more than that, that in fact four years "is not even a blip." I simply disagree. Example: the Nixon administration (believe it or not) was in power when the EPA was established. The Clean Air Act (1970) is largely credited (by scientists!) for having improved air quality in the country, tremendously, for decades following its passage. Of course, this current administration has attempted to dismantle much of this Act, but are you going to argue against the significant benefits gained over the last 30+ years by just this one piece of legislation, all thanks to passage via a president's signature?!
Please don't be seduced into cynically dismissing even a single day with these guys in power.
Stumble It!
|
That press release uses goofy math: you can't compare 4% in current funding in $ terms with actual % votes in 2000. [Assuming I understand it correctly] He's comparing a % of total dollars in funds to a % of actual voters in 2000, i.e. he is equivocating that each vote in 2000 is comparable to $1 (one dollar) in today's 4% funding -- what a laugh! You've got to be kidding me! I thought Ralph was above this kind of chicanery.
Also, if 25% of his votes came from registered Republicans in 2000, why doesn't he list what % of his votes came from registered Democrats (thus, hurting Gore)?? If that figure were say 50%, or twice the Repub. 25% figure, than duh, that would be net-net bad for Gore by a 2-1 ratio! Again though, he chooses not to disclose this.... Thanks for sending me that press release as I now see that Ralph has learned many tricks of the trade! (I'm always getting educated).
It's not fair for you to simply state that ABB voters are "voting out of fear." That's not necessarily true for MANY people and you have no proof of that.
As I said, I agree with many of your (Ralph's) points but I explained my position on all of this. You choose to vote out of principal, and then live with the consequences -- I don't. If you truly feel it won't matter who's in office the next 4 years, that Kerry will up-and-down on every issue be as bad as Bush, then go ahead and vote for Ralph. I categorically disagree with that notion, and I do feel that much of what has occurred in the last 4 years and may occur in the next four years under more GW will be irreparable, or will at least take several future administrations to undo the harm and damage. You apparently disagree, feeling the country deserves what they get and also is resilient enough to recover.
Yes, voting in this country is a sham re Ralph & Maryland. I absolutely agree with his demand for a uniform, EZ federal standard for candidates to get on ballots in all 50 states. Next topic....
You are naive to say that Nader people will support Kerry if "they adopt some of his platforms!" Oh hooey. Since 2000, Naderites have been force-fed Ralph's mantra that both parties are in the sewer. There's little if any chance at this point, based on this inflammatory language, that any Nader person will ever embrace the Democratic PARTY ever again. The only chance for that to happen is for Ralph himself to decree forcefully that it's OK for his flock to return to the once-evil Dem. Party -- fat chance of that happening!
As for Supreme Court concerns, you simply dismiss it saying the Dems will be too spineless and will just sit by and let Bush stack the court with right-wing ideologues. With such resignation, how does one even debate this topic with you? It's pointless.
Finally, you ask "WHY ARE WE NOT DEMANDING MORE FOR OUR FUTURE, NOT JUST THE NEXT FOUR YEARS?!" Fair enough. You state it's naive to think that the next four years will mean much more than that, that in fact four years "is not even a blip." I simply disagree. Example: the Nixon administration (believe it or not) was in power when the EPA was established. The Clean Air Act (1970) is largely credited (by scientists!) for having improved air quality in the country, tremendously, for decades following its passage. Of course, this current administration has attempted to dismantle much of this Act, but are you going to argue against the significant benefits gained over the last 30+ years by just this one piece of legislation, all thanks to passage via a president's signature?!
Please don't be seduced into cynically dismissing even a single day with these guys in power.
My best friend happens to be very right-wing. (Shows you how I can look beyond politics and ideology to see the goodness in people!). He recently emailed to me something along the lines of “I’m not a GW guy, I’m a Reagan guy” when the topic of the election came up. I replied that it didn’t matter if you were a Reagan guy; all that mattered was that come November 2nd, his 60%-meant vote for GW was going to 100% cancel out my Kerry vote.
I hear this fairly frequently when discussing past elections. Someone will attempt to downplay who they voted for because they were really an XXX-guy, implying their vote for that particular election year was only half-meant. Of course, I fully understand the relative basis rational when voting, that you may not be 100% in love with a particular candidate and have to pick between two less-than-stellar candidates. But nonetheless, voting is an all-or-nothing game, i.e. there’s no such thing as a lukewarm vote. Once in the booth and the curtain is drawn, the so-so, moderately-decided GW voter will 100% negate the absolutely-committed Kerry voter every time, and vice-versa.
I told my friend that I’m actually a Thomas Jefferson guy, but I don’t trot that out to people before I state I’m going to vote for Kerry. And I hate to put it so bluntly, but Reagan is now as dead as Jefferson, so the analogy holds. I said to him if he truly was a “Reagan-guy” then he should enter the voting booth on November, write-in “Ronald Reagan,” and pull the lever. This way he can honestly tell people he voted for HIS guy, and he then won’t cancel out my 100% full-meant vote for Kerry.
Of course, much of the time, this sort of waffling when it comes to explaining one’s past voting behavior is simply used as a hedging device. If the voted upon candidate turns out to be a debacle, one can always then say “Yeah, I voted for him/her, but I’m really an XXX-guy,” attempting to deflect and save some face. However, if that person turns out to be a terrific choice, one can then gleefully proclaim, “Yeah, I voted for him/her!” and leave it at that.
All I ask is that for all those potential, yet reluctant, Bush/Cheney voters out there who are actually diehard Reagan people, or Eisenhower people, or even Nixon people, please do us devoted Kerry people a favor: either stay home on November 2nd or show up to vote & write in the name of “your guy (gal).” Stay true to yourself!
Stumble It!
|
I hear this fairly frequently when discussing past elections. Someone will attempt to downplay who they voted for because they were really an XXX-guy, implying their vote for that particular election year was only half-meant. Of course, I fully understand the relative basis rational when voting, that you may not be 100% in love with a particular candidate and have to pick between two less-than-stellar candidates. But nonetheless, voting is an all-or-nothing game, i.e. there’s no such thing as a lukewarm vote. Once in the booth and the curtain is drawn, the so-so, moderately-decided GW voter will 100% negate the absolutely-committed Kerry voter every time, and vice-versa.
I told my friend that I’m actually a Thomas Jefferson guy, but I don’t trot that out to people before I state I’m going to vote for Kerry. And I hate to put it so bluntly, but Reagan is now as dead as Jefferson, so the analogy holds. I said to him if he truly was a “Reagan-guy” then he should enter the voting booth on November, write-in “Ronald Reagan,” and pull the lever. This way he can honestly tell people he voted for HIS guy, and he then won’t cancel out my 100% full-meant vote for Kerry.
Of course, much of the time, this sort of waffling when it comes to explaining one’s past voting behavior is simply used as a hedging device. If the voted upon candidate turns out to be a debacle, one can always then say “Yeah, I voted for him/her, but I’m really an XXX-guy,” attempting to deflect and save some face. However, if that person turns out to be a terrific choice, one can then gleefully proclaim, “Yeah, I voted for him/her!” and leave it at that.
All I ask is that for all those potential, yet reluctant, Bush/Cheney voters out there who are actually diehard Reagan people, or Eisenhower people, or even Nixon people, please do us devoted Kerry people a favor: either stay home on November 2nd or show up to vote & write in the name of “your guy (gal).” Stay true to yourself!
Monday, August 23, 2004
GW FLIP FLOP WATCH:
"We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin. My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." (in Michigan last week)
"Bush said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping [Great Lakes] water to parched states in the west and southwest." -- AP, July 2001
(Thanks Misleader.org)
Stumble It!
|
"We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin. My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." (in Michigan last week)
"Bush said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping [Great Lakes] water to parched states in the west and southwest." -- AP, July 2001
(Thanks Misleader.org)
Another well-deserved plug for Josh Marshall (hands down, the best blog out there):
Today Bob Dole suggested that one or more of John Kerry's Purple Hearts may have been fraudulent in some way because they were for "superficial wounds."
Dole knows better.
In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."
Priceless.
Stumble It!
|
Today Bob Dole suggested that one or more of John Kerry's Purple Hearts may have been fraudulent in some way because they were for "superficial wounds."
Dole knows better.
In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."
Priceless.
Just a reminder: keep in mind when reading stories in the paper just how many are directly related to 9/11, versus those that are not.
Example: here are several Iraq-related stories today (as we know, NOT directly 9/11-related), as compared to one I found that is, concerning potential terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay. And then back to non-9/11-related.
Imagine the content of news today without Iraq.
Stumble It!
|
Example: here are several Iraq-related stories today (as we know, NOT directly 9/11-related), as compared to one I found that is, concerning potential terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay. And then back to non-9/11-related.
Imagine the content of news today without Iraq.
Is it REALLY unfair to at least postulate that Iraq could turn into a Vietnam? Just read this piece in today's USA Today. "Attacks against U.S. and allied forces have averaged 49 a day since the hand-over of sovereignty June 28, compared with 52 a day in the four weeks leading up to the transfer," and "violence is common in almost every part of the country."
I've asked for anyone to send stories of the good news in Iraq that the "liberal media" is submerging -- have not received one. Also, as I've written, Kerry stands to adopt this growing mess, which could ultimately do to his administration what Vietnam contributed in doing to LBJ's. Assuming GW loses, the "Bush Effect" could go well-beyond resolving his deficit problem and correcting his environmental havoc, but also could more immediately work to sink the next administration.
Ahh, what compassion.
Stumble It!
|
I've asked for anyone to send stories of the good news in Iraq that the "liberal media" is submerging -- have not received one. Also, as I've written, Kerry stands to adopt this growing mess, which could ultimately do to his administration what Vietnam contributed in doing to LBJ's. Assuming GW loses, the "Bush Effect" could go well-beyond resolving his deficit problem and correcting his environmental havoc, but also could more immediately work to sink the next administration.
Ahh, what compassion.
As usual, wise words from Josh Marshall concerning the Washington Post article on the SBVT controversy:
If you wade through the article, it's easy to lose track of this. But what does the article itself say? Kerry says one thing, he's critics say another. But are Kerry and O'Neil really equal in this?
The military records all back up Kerry. Back in the old days -- i.e., last month --official military records use to be considered at least presumptively accurate. Now, everyone knows or should know that every after-action report or medal citation isn't necessarily the product of an exhaustive investigation. Yet, they're not meaningless. At a minimum one would assume that the burden of proof would lie with those who dispute their veracity.
So, as I say, all the Navy records support Kerry's account. On top of that, all the people who were in Kerry's boat support his version of events.
Think about that for a minute. All the people in Kerry's boat means all the people closest to the action in question support Kerry's account. Others who were tens or hundreds of yards away, or not even present, contradict his account. Is it really so hard to distinguish between the quality of evidence and testimony that both sides are bringing to the table?
He makes a wonderful point. The supposed liberal Post is bending over backwards to make this out to be a real tough-to-decipher issue. It's not, at least if you consider the evidence on both sides and then utilize the kind of thinking journalists were once encouraged to exercise. As Josh says, "If this were a civil suit, and this was accusers' evidence, it wouldn't even pass the laugh test."
Stumble It!
|
If you wade through the article, it's easy to lose track of this. But what does the article itself say? Kerry says one thing, he's critics say another. But are Kerry and O'Neil really equal in this?
The military records all back up Kerry. Back in the old days -- i.e., last month --official military records use to be considered at least presumptively accurate. Now, everyone knows or should know that every after-action report or medal citation isn't necessarily the product of an exhaustive investigation. Yet, they're not meaningless. At a minimum one would assume that the burden of proof would lie with those who dispute their veracity.
So, as I say, all the Navy records support Kerry's account. On top of that, all the people who were in Kerry's boat support his version of events.
Think about that for a minute. All the people in Kerry's boat means all the people closest to the action in question support Kerry's account. Others who were tens or hundreds of yards away, or not even present, contradict his account. Is it really so hard to distinguish between the quality of evidence and testimony that both sides are bringing to the table?
He makes a wonderful point. The supposed liberal Post is bending over backwards to make this out to be a real tough-to-decipher issue. It's not, at least if you consider the evidence on both sides and then utilize the kind of thinking journalists were once encouraged to exercise. As Josh says, "If this were a civil suit, and this was accusers' evidence, it wouldn't even pass the laugh test."
Sunday, August 22, 2004
From a terrific Ellen Goodman column:
As bioethicist George Annas puts it, "The antiabortionist will say that the embryo has the same status as a child and taking an embryo apart for harvesting the stem cells is the equivalent of taking a child apart for its organs. That's the most antiscience argument I've ever heard." Imagine instead, he adds, if an IVF clinic were on fire. Is there anyone who would save the fertilized eggs in the freezer instead of a child?
Also:
An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed more than 70 percent of voters -- and 58 percent of Bush supporters -- approve of using embryonic stem cells for research.
Stumble It!
|
As bioethicist George Annas puts it, "The antiabortionist will say that the embryo has the same status as a child and taking an embryo apart for harvesting the stem cells is the equivalent of taking a child apart for its organs. That's the most antiscience argument I've ever heard." Imagine instead, he adds, if an IVF clinic were on fire. Is there anyone who would save the fertilized eggs in the freezer instead of a child?
Also:
An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed more than 70 percent of voters -- and 58 percent of Bush supporters -- approve of using embryonic stem cells for research.
"Imagine if supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart...."
Stumble It!
|
The well-respected Jane's Defence Weekly has reported that North Korea is developing ballistic missiles that can 1) carry nuclear warheads, and 2) will reach California.
Will GW preemptively attack this known-to-have-WMD, "Axis of Evil" nation? Of course not. Why? Because North Korea 1) has no oil, and 2) has weapons of mass destruction!
Stumble It!
|
Will GW preemptively attack this known-to-have-WMD, "Axis of Evil" nation? Of course not. Why? Because North Korea 1) has no oil, and 2) has weapons of mass destruction!
Interesting article in LA Times about how Bush has apparently decided to focus on locking-down his already seemingly locked-down base (?) as opposed to trying to woo fence-sitting voters. Many may see this as a white-flag sign concerning swing voters, but that doesn't necessarily mean a net-net win for Kerry if Bush is somehow able to uncover and incite lurking base voters who were simply going to stay at home come November 2nd.
However, the more convincing explanation is Rove has figured out this is their only recourse at this point. Bush/Cheney are so far to the right that they have little hope in appealing to more reasonable, willing-to-ponder swing voters. Instead, they have to operate as only they know how: stir up unfounded fears (using innuendo, distortion, etc.) to win over voters. And the reason Rove goes back to this time & time again: because it generally works (at least with "their kind").
(Note how this resigned choice to give-up on broadening the base works completely against GW's already laughable 2000 campaign slogan, "I'm a uniter, not a divider").
From the article:
The Bush campaign strategy fits with a presidency that often has appeared more intent on deepening than broadening support.
On most major issues — from tax cuts and environmental protection to the decision to invade Iraq without explicit U.N. authorization — Bush has embraced policies that draw much better marks from his base than swing voters.
Democratic operatives assert that the president's efforts are driven not so much by his strength among Republicans as his weakness among undecided voters.
"Bush isn't going to get many of them, no matter what," said John Sasso, general election manager at the Democratic National Committee, citing widespread pessimism about the economy and the country's overall direction, as evident in polling answers from persuadable voters. "He has only two choices: He can either tear Kerry down and try to make him entirely unacceptable [to those voters], or he can try to jack up his base vote. And that's what you are seeing."
However, this very key statement:
Some Bush supporters worry that focusing on Republican areas, the approach that worked in 2002, may be less applicable in 2004 because so many more people — including swing voters — cast ballots in a presidential election than a mid-term election.
"I admire their ruthless execution," said the veteran Republican independent of the campaign, "but it's a scary way to win an election."
Is any way a Republican typically wins an election NOT scary?
Stumble It!
|
However, the more convincing explanation is Rove has figured out this is their only recourse at this point. Bush/Cheney are so far to the right that they have little hope in appealing to more reasonable, willing-to-ponder swing voters. Instead, they have to operate as only they know how: stir up unfounded fears (using innuendo, distortion, etc.) to win over voters. And the reason Rove goes back to this time & time again: because it generally works (at least with "their kind").
(Note how this resigned choice to give-up on broadening the base works completely against GW's already laughable 2000 campaign slogan, "I'm a uniter, not a divider").
From the article:
The Bush campaign strategy fits with a presidency that often has appeared more intent on deepening than broadening support.
On most major issues — from tax cuts and environmental protection to the decision to invade Iraq without explicit U.N. authorization — Bush has embraced policies that draw much better marks from his base than swing voters.
Democratic operatives assert that the president's efforts are driven not so much by his strength among Republicans as his weakness among undecided voters.
"Bush isn't going to get many of them, no matter what," said John Sasso, general election manager at the Democratic National Committee, citing widespread pessimism about the economy and the country's overall direction, as evident in polling answers from persuadable voters. "He has only two choices: He can either tear Kerry down and try to make him entirely unacceptable [to those voters], or he can try to jack up his base vote. And that's what you are seeing."
However, this very key statement:
Some Bush supporters worry that focusing on Republican areas, the approach that worked in 2002, may be less applicable in 2004 because so many more people — including swing voters — cast ballots in a presidential election than a mid-term election.
"I admire their ruthless execution," said the veteran Republican independent of the campaign, "but it's a scary way to win an election."
Is any way a Republican typically wins an election NOT scary?
Karl Rove must be smiling this morning. With Kerry's sudden outspoken defense against the SBVT ad, the major papers today have several articles on the subject. So the attention on this ludicrous subject remains, if not grows, just as Rove would like for it to happen. Yet, what is Kerry to do? It's like a playground fight where the other guy is fighting dirty (scratching, kicking, aiming for the scrotum, etc.) and yet there's no judge or referee at the playground; one either must walk away and risk looking bad ("losing"), or roll up one's sleeves and fight dirty also.
William Rood, a Vietnam veteran who served with Senator John Kerry, supports Kerry's version of events from one of their operations together.
It's just like they did with Clinton: keep the focus on scandals -- even if not true. Pound, pound away, eventually the public will soak it in as truth ("Repeat a lie long enough....").
P.S. notice Obama has a 41-pt. (!) lead over Keyes.
Stumble It!
|
William Rood, a Vietnam veteran who served with Senator John Kerry, supports Kerry's version of events from one of their operations together.
It's just like they did with Clinton: keep the focus on scandals -- even if not true. Pound, pound away, eventually the public will soak it in as truth ("Repeat a lie long enough....").
P.S. notice Obama has a 41-pt. (!) lead over Keyes.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
A great op/ed by Sam Harris. He urges us to strongly reconsider the direction in which Bush is going with regards to fusing religion with government.
Some segments:
"...ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy in the 21st century. The Bible was written at a time when people thought the Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now face as a global civilization?
Consider the subject of stem-cell research. Many religious people, drawing from what they've heard from the pulpit, believe that 3-day-old embryos — which are microscopic collections of 150 cells the size of a pinhead — are fully endowed with human souls and, therefore, must be protected as people. But if we know anything at all about the neurology of sensory perception, we know that there is no reason to believe that embryos at this stage of development have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer or to experience death in any way at all. (There are, for comparison's sake, 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.)"
People can debate religion; what can't be debated is that people die. Stem cell research could save lives in the future. Therefore, to be against it, one is choosing something debatable over that which cannot be debated.
More:
Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. A social policy based on the Koran poses even greater dangers. Koran 9:123 tells us it is the duty of every Muslim man to "make war on the infidels who dwell around you." Osama bin Laden may be despicable, but it is hard to argue that he isn't acting in accord with at least some of the teachings of the Koran. It is true that most Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran's solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that some are not so inclined and that some of them murder innocent people for religious reasons.
<...>
Why did 19 well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed, on the authority of the Koran, that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so easily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.
So, will the future simply be "our" religion against "theirs"....? Shouldn't we at least attempt to stop the madness now?
And this:
There are now more people in our country who believe that the universe was created in six solar days than there were in Europe in the 14th century. In the eyes of most of the civilized world, the United States is now a rogue power — imperialist, inarticulate and retrograde in its religiosity. Our erstwhile allies are right not to trust our judgment. We elect leaders who squander time and money on issues like gay marriage, Janet Jackson's anatomy, Howard Stern's obscenities, marijuana use and a dozen other trifles lying at the heart of the Christian social agenda, while potentially catastrophic problems like nuclear proliferation and climate change go unresolved.
Bravo! (though I would've added "presidential intern BJs" to the list).
Stumble It!
|
Some segments:
"...ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy in the 21st century. The Bible was written at a time when people thought the Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now face as a global civilization?
Consider the subject of stem-cell research. Many religious people, drawing from what they've heard from the pulpit, believe that 3-day-old embryos — which are microscopic collections of 150 cells the size of a pinhead — are fully endowed with human souls and, therefore, must be protected as people. But if we know anything at all about the neurology of sensory perception, we know that there is no reason to believe that embryos at this stage of development have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer or to experience death in any way at all. (There are, for comparison's sake, 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.)"
People can debate religion; what can't be debated is that people die. Stem cell research could save lives in the future. Therefore, to be against it, one is choosing something debatable over that which cannot be debated.
More:
Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. A social policy based on the Koran poses even greater dangers. Koran 9:123 tells us it is the duty of every Muslim man to "make war on the infidels who dwell around you." Osama bin Laden may be despicable, but it is hard to argue that he isn't acting in accord with at least some of the teachings of the Koran. It is true that most Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran's solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that some are not so inclined and that some of them murder innocent people for religious reasons.
<...>
Why did 19 well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed, on the authority of the Koran, that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so easily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.
So, will the future simply be "our" religion against "theirs"....? Shouldn't we at least attempt to stop the madness now?
And this:
There are now more people in our country who believe that the universe was created in six solar days than there were in Europe in the 14th century. In the eyes of most of the civilized world, the United States is now a rogue power — imperialist, inarticulate and retrograde in its religiosity. Our erstwhile allies are right not to trust our judgment. We elect leaders who squander time and money on issues like gay marriage, Janet Jackson's anatomy, Howard Stern's obscenities, marijuana use and a dozen other trifles lying at the heart of the Christian social agenda, while potentially catastrophic problems like nuclear proliferation and climate change go unresolved.
Bravo! (though I would've added "presidential intern BJs" to the list).
Proportional electoral votes.
Great idea, long time coming. Let's hope this movement spreads beyond Colorado. A telling sign: against the idea are Colorado Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby.
Stumble It!
|
Great idea, long time coming. Let's hope this movement spreads beyond Colorado. A telling sign: against the idea are Colorado Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby.
"I am not qualified."
By the way, if you haven't seen the video yet where Porter Goss, Bush's newly-nominated guy to head the CIA, declares "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," than click here.
Here's a transcript of his statement:
It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC
Oh yeah, I feel MUCH more secure now as an American! This guy is certainly up for fixing the many things wrong in the agency -- hah! Note he said this not 10 years ago, but this year! And for a supposed MBA-run White House, would any business hire someone who uttered this pablum in the job interview?
And best yet, what is the administration's response to this caught-on-VIDEO-TAPE statement: it's "ridiculous hearsay". Dictionary definition of "hearsay": Unverified information heard or received from another. Um, see GW, you need "another," in this case it's the person himself.... Oh, forget it.
Stumble It!
|
By the way, if you haven't seen the video yet where Porter Goss, Bush's newly-nominated guy to head the CIA, declares "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," than click here.
Here's a transcript of his statement:
It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC
Oh yeah, I feel MUCH more secure now as an American! This guy is certainly up for fixing the many things wrong in the agency -- hah! Note he said this not 10 years ago, but this year! And for a supposed MBA-run White House, would any business hire someone who uttered this pablum in the job interview?
And best yet, what is the administration's response to this caught-on-VIDEO-TAPE statement: it's "ridiculous hearsay". Dictionary definition of "hearsay": Unverified information heard or received from another. Um, see GW, you need "another," in this case it's the person himself.... Oh, forget it.
Not to go against my own advice, but here's even MORE evidence shooting holes in the SBVT story(s).
Stumble It!
|
I think the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is to divert attention away from Bush's lack of proper military service, whereas Eleanor Clift in Newsweek believes SBVT is a diversion for Iraq.
You say tomato, I say....
Stumble It!
|
You say tomato, I say....
In an editorial today, the NY Times simply cannot understand why GW & Co. continue to fight so hard for snowmobiling in Yellowstone Park. The conclusion:
The reason the Bush administration keeps backing snowmobiles in Yellowstone is to protect a vision of wild lands that is fundamentally invasive and ultimately extractive. The very idea that a natural landscape could be off limits seems to be anathema to this administration.
Stumble It!
|
The reason the Bush administration keeps backing snowmobiles in Yellowstone is to protect a vision of wild lands that is fundamentally invasive and ultimately extractive. The very idea that a natural landscape could be off limits seems to be anathema to this administration.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Don't you just love the way we have all been distracted thanks to the far right's "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" nonsense, diverting our attention away from Bush's HIGHLY questionable service record. Notice all demands have come to a halt with regards to GW's unreleased records, his five months of AWOL without explanation, his failure to show up for a military medical exam (which many have said had to do with his fear of the urine results), and while at least the Swift Boat officers all remember Kerry serving, where is at least one officer or serviceman to state they remember Bush at all??
Yup, another victory for Rove. He has sent us on a fox chase while the hen house gets raided. We're dopes; he laughs.
Go here to remind yourself of all of the outrageous, still-unanswered questions concerning chickenhawk GW's so-called military past.
From now to November, let's make sure to focus the outrage where it should be aimed and not allow it to veer of course.
Stumble It!
|
Yup, another victory for Rove. He has sent us on a fox chase while the hen house gets raided. We're dopes; he laughs.
Go here to remind yourself of all of the outrageous, still-unanswered questions concerning chickenhawk GW's so-called military past.
From now to November, let's make sure to focus the outrage where it should be aimed and not allow it to veer of course.
Could the following parallel a Bush loss in November? (replace "Chavez" with "Kerry" and "opposition" with "Bush"):
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Venezuela's opposition threatened on Friday to boycott regional elections following President Hugo Chavez's referendum win, which they say was fraudulent but which international observers say appeared legitimate.
In other words, will they relinquish power gracefully?
Stumble It!
|
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Venezuela's opposition threatened on Friday to boycott regional elections following President Hugo Chavez's referendum win, which they say was fraudulent but which international observers say appeared legitimate.
In other words, will they relinquish power gracefully?
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Exhibit A: VP Dick Cheney
1959: Dick Cheney became eligible for the draft.
February 1962: Cheney was 1-A (available for service), but he was at Yale.
1963: Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College, he sought his first student deferment. Transferred to University of Wyoming at Laramie, sought his second student deferment.
1964: Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought his third student deferment.
1965: Mr. Cheney graduated from college, his draft status changed to 1-A. Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming.
Oct. 6, 1965: the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born.
Jan. 19, 1966: his wife about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, it was granted.
1967: Mr. Cheney turned 26, no longer draft eligible.
"Five deferments seems incredible to me," said David Curry, a professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis who has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, "Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender."
"That's a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K.," Mr. Curry said.
Of course, Republicans will attempt to use Clinton as a diversion (when don't they?), but duh, Clinton does not qualify as a "chickenhawk" (the whole point here). Clinton did not endorse nor was he "enthusiastic" about war.
(Thanks to the NY Times for the above dates and info).
Stumble It!
|
Exhibit A: VP Dick Cheney
1959: Dick Cheney became eligible for the draft.
February 1962: Cheney was 1-A (available for service), but he was at Yale.
1963: Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College, he sought his first student deferment. Transferred to University of Wyoming at Laramie, sought his second student deferment.
1964: Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought his third student deferment.
1965: Mr. Cheney graduated from college, his draft status changed to 1-A. Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming.
Oct. 6, 1965: the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born.
Jan. 19, 1966: his wife about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, it was granted.
1967: Mr. Cheney turned 26, no longer draft eligible.
"Five deferments seems incredible to me," said David Curry, a professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis who has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, "Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender."
"That's a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K.," Mr. Curry said.
Of course, Republicans will attempt to use Clinton as a diversion (when don't they?), but duh, Clinton does not qualify as a "chickenhawk" (the whole point here). Clinton did not endorse nor was he "enthusiastic" about war.
(Thanks to the NY Times for the above dates and info).
Must read: Kinsley on Bush's distortion of Kerry's voting record (in this case, taxes).
My favorite part:
The best way to see the absurdity of saying that John Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called "Effect of Proposals on Receipts." It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenues for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenues, obviously. But in the four fiscal years 2002-2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual "revenue enhancers," as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any "supply-side" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.
At Bush's current rate of 16 "tax increases" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years [equaling Kerry's 20 years in the Senate]. Depending on how you figure—but without wandering beyond Bush himself into the jungles of absurd logic—this is as many as eight times the number that Bush has managed to pin on Kerry [the GOP web site lists 67, not 350]. But isn't it unfair to call, for example, more efficient administration at the IRS a tax increase? And isn't it simply ridiculous to suggest that George W. Bush is more complacent about higher taxes than John Kerry? Yes, it's unfair. It's ridiculous. That's the point.
Stumble It!
|
My favorite part:
The best way to see the absurdity of saying that John Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called "Effect of Proposals on Receipts." It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenues for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenues, obviously. But in the four fiscal years 2002-2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual "revenue enhancers," as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any "supply-side" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.
At Bush's current rate of 16 "tax increases" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years [equaling Kerry's 20 years in the Senate]. Depending on how you figure—but without wandering beyond Bush himself into the jungles of absurd logic—this is as many as eight times the number that Bush has managed to pin on Kerry [the GOP web site lists 67, not 350]. But isn't it unfair to call, for example, more efficient administration at the IRS a tax increase? And isn't it simply ridiculous to suggest that George W. Bush is more complacent about higher taxes than John Kerry? Yes, it's unfair. It's ridiculous. That's the point.
John Edwards, M.I.A.?
Is it just my imagination or has VP candidate Edwards fallen off the face of the planet? We see and hear Cheney out there performing the obligatory attack-dog role of the VP, but where is Edwards doing the same? If anything, it appears as if Kerry himself is attempting to single-handily throw the punches, which may be by design to bolster his tough-guy image (he can protect us from terrorists, has swagger, yadda yadda). But still, it would be effective to hear both candidates fighting back, esp. if Edwards is going to face king-of-all-bullies Cheney in a debate. Are we to believe Edwards made a terrific lawyer via sweet talk and nice-guy courtroom behavior? Assuming a big "no," can we then see and hear some of his more bristling, punch-to-the-belly, shark-toothed -- yet fact-based -- side? If we don't, then notch an edge to Bush/Cheney.
Either Edwards is in hibernation or this so-called liberal press is once again dropping the ball.
Stumble It!
|
Is it just my imagination or has VP candidate Edwards fallen off the face of the planet? We see and hear Cheney out there performing the obligatory attack-dog role of the VP, but where is Edwards doing the same? If anything, it appears as if Kerry himself is attempting to single-handily throw the punches, which may be by design to bolster his tough-guy image (he can protect us from terrorists, has swagger, yadda yadda). But still, it would be effective to hear both candidates fighting back, esp. if Edwards is going to face king-of-all-bullies Cheney in a debate. Are we to believe Edwards made a terrific lawyer via sweet talk and nice-guy courtroom behavior? Assuming a big "no," can we then see and hear some of his more bristling, punch-to-the-belly, shark-toothed -- yet fact-based -- side? If we don't, then notch an edge to Bush/Cheney.
Either Edwards is in hibernation or this so-called liberal press is once again dropping the ball.
It appears as if Iran has learned a thing or two from our mighty, fearless, "Bring It On!" leader:
"Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites."
Way to go GW & neocon loonies! If we can do it, why can't they?
Stumble It!
|
"Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites."
Way to go GW & neocon loonies! If we can do it, why can't they?
YOU GO JOHN!
Kerry is finally fighting back. Ahh, what a breath of fresh air. For Kerry to beat this group of a-holes, he must shed any likeness to Sen. Tom Daschle (sorry Tom), meaning there's no room or time for cool-headed, polite, take-the-high-road stuff. If most Americans responded to reason, logic, and intelligent discourse then reality TV shows, fascination with Scott Peterson, and stem cell research resistance would just not exist. But it does, so Kerry campaign take note.
Bush/Cheney have of course denied connections to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the NY Times reports today:
A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.
Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.
The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.
Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.
Look, because they have nothing to run on (tax breaks for the super wealthy? Medicare bill for big pharma companies? dismantling environmental regulations? lies about Iraq?), they have to use this pathetic spaghetti-against-the-wall tactic to hopefully gain traction anywhere they can.
Recall Drudge threw some pasta ala Kerry's supposed affair....? Nope, that didn't stick -- move on. It's what they did to McCain and Dukakis. Throw slime and keep throwing it until it sticks. For McCain, insinuations of his adopted child and his mental stability -- score!, and for Dukakis, the Willie Horton smear -- score!
Note above they were determined to cast Kerry as a "baby killer," obviously catering that smear specifically to their most strident and easily-fooled base: the Christian right. They know the relative IQ of their voters and they know just how to take advantage in an insidious, evil way (oh, I know, here I go being all elitist and all....).
Stumble It!
|
Kerry is finally fighting back. Ahh, what a breath of fresh air. For Kerry to beat this group of a-holes, he must shed any likeness to Sen. Tom Daschle (sorry Tom), meaning there's no room or time for cool-headed, polite, take-the-high-road stuff. If most Americans responded to reason, logic, and intelligent discourse then reality TV shows, fascination with Scott Peterson, and stem cell research resistance would just not exist. But it does, so Kerry campaign take note.
Bush/Cheney have of course denied connections to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the NY Times reports today:
A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.
Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.
The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.
Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.
Look, because they have nothing to run on (tax breaks for the super wealthy? Medicare bill for big pharma companies? dismantling environmental regulations? lies about Iraq?), they have to use this pathetic spaghetti-against-the-wall tactic to hopefully gain traction anywhere they can.
Recall Drudge threw some pasta ala Kerry's supposed affair....? Nope, that didn't stick -- move on. It's what they did to McCain and Dukakis. Throw slime and keep throwing it until it sticks. For McCain, insinuations of his adopted child and his mental stability -- score!, and for Dukakis, the Willie Horton smear -- score!
Note above they were determined to cast Kerry as a "baby killer," obviously catering that smear specifically to their most strident and easily-fooled base: the Christian right. They know the relative IQ of their voters and they know just how to take advantage in an insidious, evil way (oh, I know, here I go being all elitist and all....).
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
In today's Washington Post:
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.
In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.
Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."
Of course, chickenhawks Bush/Cheney/Rove can't directly attack Kerry's military service, so they must get some disgruntled, right-wing, less-than-scrupulous servicemen to do the dirty work.
Stumble It!
|
In today's Washington Post:
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.
In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.
Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."
Of course, chickenhawks Bush/Cheney/Rove can't directly attack Kerry's military service, so they must get some disgruntled, right-wing, less-than-scrupulous servicemen to do the dirty work.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Some proof that Mr. Greenspan is showing favoritism towards Bush (versus Clinton).
Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, wrote the following:
Its (The Fed's) August 10 policy statement contained a very explicit forecast of better times ahead. Despite recent energy-related weakness, the FOMC maintained that "(t)he economy nevertheless appears poised to resume a stronger pace of expansion going forward." It is very rare for America's normally reticent monetary authorities to make such an explicit forecast of the future. Just out of curiosity, we combed the archives back to 1994 (when the Fed first began to release such policy statements) and came up with only one earlier instance when the FOMC was equally explicit in articulating a forecast. It was in June 2002, when Americas post-bubble recovery was flagging once again. The Fed's press release after the June 26 meeting stated very clearly that "(t)he Committee expects the rate of increase of final demand to pick up over coming quarters." Unfortunately, that was not one of the Fed's better calls. Final demand growth averaged an anemic 1.3% (annualized) in the second half of 2002, and a year later the federal funds rate had been lowered from 1.75% to 1.0%. Oops.
I've noticed and written about this trend before -- it's disturbing. The Fed is supposed to be a politically-neutral body and yet indications point otherwise. Don't forget, Greenspan is a longtime Republican.
Stumble It!
|
Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, wrote the following:
Its (The Fed's) August 10 policy statement contained a very explicit forecast of better times ahead. Despite recent energy-related weakness, the FOMC maintained that "(t)he economy nevertheless appears poised to resume a stronger pace of expansion going forward." It is very rare for America's normally reticent monetary authorities to make such an explicit forecast of the future. Just out of curiosity, we combed the archives back to 1994 (when the Fed first began to release such policy statements) and came up with only one earlier instance when the FOMC was equally explicit in articulating a forecast. It was in June 2002, when Americas post-bubble recovery was flagging once again. The Fed's press release after the June 26 meeting stated very clearly that "(t)he Committee expects the rate of increase of final demand to pick up over coming quarters." Unfortunately, that was not one of the Fed's better calls. Final demand growth averaged an anemic 1.3% (annualized) in the second half of 2002, and a year later the federal funds rate had been lowered from 1.75% to 1.0%. Oops.
I've noticed and written about this trend before -- it's disturbing. The Fed is supposed to be a politically-neutral body and yet indications point otherwise. Don't forget, Greenspan is a longtime Republican.
Great article by Gregg Easterbrook at TNR. He discusses one of my favorite pet-peeves: SUV ownership. The issue symbolizes America's lack of willingness to sacrifice a bit for the sake of the country. By adamantly proclaiming one has the right to buy an SUV, one therefore guzzles gas, wastes energy, and increases our dependence on foreign oil.
Gregg writes:
The idea that there's a right to own a monstrous personal conveyance that wastes gasoline, causes road rage, and, most significantly from the public-good standpoint, increases traffic fatalities, is nonsense. (Studies show that SUVs not only raise total highway deaths, but that even those inside SUVs are more likely to die than those inside regular cars.) There's no doubt government has the power to regulate motor vehicles for public safety, pollution reduction, national energy policy, and for other issues appropriate to the general good. That government has largely failed to do so in the case of SUVs and the misnamed "light" pickup trucks is the fault of government, especially the Congress. The failure to regulate does not mean there is any inherent right to own unsafe mega-vehicles; it only means government has not regulated such machines properly. There was a time when government did not regulate private commerce in machine guns; this did not confer any protected right to own machine guns.
Great points.
Stumble It!
|
Gregg writes:
The idea that there's a right to own a monstrous personal conveyance that wastes gasoline, causes road rage, and, most significantly from the public-good standpoint, increases traffic fatalities, is nonsense. (Studies show that SUVs not only raise total highway deaths, but that even those inside SUVs are more likely to die than those inside regular cars.) There's no doubt government has the power to regulate motor vehicles for public safety, pollution reduction, national energy policy, and for other issues appropriate to the general good. That government has largely failed to do so in the case of SUVs and the misnamed "light" pickup trucks is the fault of government, especially the Congress. The failure to regulate does not mean there is any inherent right to own unsafe mega-vehicles; it only means government has not regulated such machines properly. There was a time when government did not regulate private commerce in machine guns; this did not confer any protected right to own machine guns.
Great points.
MUST READ.
Catching up with old reading: I came across Jonathan Chait's "Power from the People" in TNR and it is hands down one of the best written anti-Bush articles I've read all year. If you read this piece and remain unconvinced as to why we need regime change, then there's nothing more that can be done for you. I began to pluck out key sentences to copy here but realized I was basically plucking most of the article.
I'll at least list one, regarding the now infamous Medicare bill passage:
To ensure that it received proper credit for the new law, the Bush administration employed similarly unconventional means, hiring a pharmaceutical lobbyist to help sell it to distrustful voters. The advertising campaign included $9.5 million in TV advertising--which, astoundingly enough, was financed not by Bush's campaign, but by taxpayer dollars. Promotion of the law also involved the production of "video news releases," in which a "reporter"--actually, a p.r. agent--touted the virtues of the new Medicare law. The General Accounting Office (GAO) later concluded that the videos amounted to an illegal use of government money to produce propaganda, but not before 40 TV stations had already aired them.
Circulate this article to all of your Republican friends, ASAP.
Stumble It!
|
Catching up with old reading: I came across Jonathan Chait's "Power from the People" in TNR and it is hands down one of the best written anti-Bush articles I've read all year. If you read this piece and remain unconvinced as to why we need regime change, then there's nothing more that can be done for you. I began to pluck out key sentences to copy here but realized I was basically plucking most of the article.
I'll at least list one, regarding the now infamous Medicare bill passage:
To ensure that it received proper credit for the new law, the Bush administration employed similarly unconventional means, hiring a pharmaceutical lobbyist to help sell it to distrustful voters. The advertising campaign included $9.5 million in TV advertising--which, astoundingly enough, was financed not by Bush's campaign, but by taxpayer dollars. Promotion of the law also involved the production of "video news releases," in which a "reporter"--actually, a p.r. agent--touted the virtues of the new Medicare law. The General Accounting Office (GAO) later concluded that the videos amounted to an illegal use of government money to produce propaganda, but not before 40 TV stations had already aired them.
Circulate this article to all of your Republican friends, ASAP.
I recently traded emails with a friend who is a big-time Nader supporter. She made the well-worn case for Nader (much of it we heard in 2000) and I thought I’d print my reply to her:
You make great points and like I said I'm sympathetic to your cause, but we apparently just differ on our opinion of what 4 more years of Bush & Co. will mean for this country. I can't stand to fathom what these crooks will do with 4 years & no re-election pressures to serve as some kind of restraint. By definition, you feel that if the country has to hit rock bottom before it can get cured that the assumption is the country will still at least be more or less the country we once knew. That may not be the case. You may describe yourself as a "radical liberal," well these lunatics running the country are ultra-ultra radical right-wing nutjobs and that said, the damage they may inflict on the country over the next 4 years may be irreversible. It's a bit too trite to use the "things need to get worse before they get better" axiom because to a point such a stance does not offer a sense of caring about the country. Again, I realize Ralph's intention, but I find it hard to believe he can't in some way wield significant influence WITHIN the Dem party, where he'd then be able to initiate change AND get it to have some real influence. As an example, think about the Supreme Court: what is Ralph's answer to at least 2 if not 3 justices on the Court who are just waiting for Bush to win so they can retire, and Bush would then install radical right-wing judges, who would serve for life. This majority radical right wing Supreme Court would in time change this country for generations to come.... And how much more do you think our environment can withstand if Bush were allowed to continue his backhanded dismantling of ALL environmental laws and regulations.....? Again, once the environment is harmed, or forests cleared, or regulations banished, it will be VERY difficult to have it bounce back -- THAT'S naive thinking.....
But hey, you stick with your boy Ralph.... I at least know that I did something credible to stop this madness.....
Stumble It!
|
You make great points and like I said I'm sympathetic to your cause, but we apparently just differ on our opinion of what 4 more years of Bush & Co. will mean for this country. I can't stand to fathom what these crooks will do with 4 years & no re-election pressures to serve as some kind of restraint. By definition, you feel that if the country has to hit rock bottom before it can get cured that the assumption is the country will still at least be more or less the country we once knew. That may not be the case. You may describe yourself as a "radical liberal," well these lunatics running the country are ultra-ultra radical right-wing nutjobs and that said, the damage they may inflict on the country over the next 4 years may be irreversible. It's a bit too trite to use the "things need to get worse before they get better" axiom because to a point such a stance does not offer a sense of caring about the country. Again, I realize Ralph's intention, but I find it hard to believe he can't in some way wield significant influence WITHIN the Dem party, where he'd then be able to initiate change AND get it to have some real influence. As an example, think about the Supreme Court: what is Ralph's answer to at least 2 if not 3 justices on the Court who are just waiting for Bush to win so they can retire, and Bush would then install radical right-wing judges, who would serve for life. This majority radical right wing Supreme Court would in time change this country for generations to come.... And how much more do you think our environment can withstand if Bush were allowed to continue his backhanded dismantling of ALL environmental laws and regulations.....? Again, once the environment is harmed, or forests cleared, or regulations banished, it will be VERY difficult to have it bounce back -- THAT'S naive thinking.....
But hey, you stick with your boy Ralph.... I at least know that I did something credible to stop this madness.....
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
OK, so let me understand, we send 130,000 troops over to Iraq to occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has yet to produce any WMD, and yet Bush announces yesterday that we will move troops away from a region of the world that is home to an "Axis of Evil" country (North Korea) that we know possesses WMD, big time. Is it any wonder our allies have such a low opinion of our current leadership?
I’ve pointed out here before studies that support the contention that Rumsfeld miscalculated all along when it came to the number of troops needed to be sent to Iraq. Most estimates had the necessary troop number at 400K+. Bush & Rumsfeld attempted to conduct the operation “on the cheap,” ultimately jeopardizing the lives of the undermanned soldiers sent.
The Washington Post gets it right with today's editorial:
Once again Mr. Bush seeks to convince Americans that they can fight a global war on terrorism without the sacrifices that war normally entails. Already he has refused to shoulder fiscal responsibility for the military decisions he has made, sentencing the nation to growing deficits and punishing interest costs. As the war in Iraq turned nastier and lasted longer than he predicted, Mr. Bush refused to support a needed increase in the size of the Army, ensuring that the pain of his miscalculations would increasingly fall on active-duty, National Guard and reserve soldiers sent into combat for more and longer stretches than expected. Now, even as he warns of an unending battle against terrorists, he promises that "our service members will have more time on the home front."
The Post eventually concludes the right answer should be a dedication to recruiting more soldiers. I agree and would ask why the Pentagon does not refocus resources away from Star Wars-like missile defense systems and direct such largess to recruiting efforts. It’s obvious that if the future holds a constant state of alert (will we ever see the terror alert system drop to green or blue for a sustained duration? get real) than logic dictates to combat such threats will require more troop presence around the globe – not less. Note: “more troop presence” does not necessarily mean more wars. In fact, it’s supposed to translate into less chance for war (recall that the mere presence of a policeman is often enough to halt crime from ever occurring).
Stumble It!
|
I’ve pointed out here before studies that support the contention that Rumsfeld miscalculated all along when it came to the number of troops needed to be sent to Iraq. Most estimates had the necessary troop number at 400K+. Bush & Rumsfeld attempted to conduct the operation “on the cheap,” ultimately jeopardizing the lives of the undermanned soldiers sent.
The Washington Post gets it right with today's editorial:
Once again Mr. Bush seeks to convince Americans that they can fight a global war on terrorism without the sacrifices that war normally entails. Already he has refused to shoulder fiscal responsibility for the military decisions he has made, sentencing the nation to growing deficits and punishing interest costs. As the war in Iraq turned nastier and lasted longer than he predicted, Mr. Bush refused to support a needed increase in the size of the Army, ensuring that the pain of his miscalculations would increasingly fall on active-duty, National Guard and reserve soldiers sent into combat for more and longer stretches than expected. Now, even as he warns of an unending battle against terrorists, he promises that "our service members will have more time on the home front."
The Post eventually concludes the right answer should be a dedication to recruiting more soldiers. I agree and would ask why the Pentagon does not refocus resources away from Star Wars-like missile defense systems and direct such largess to recruiting efforts. It’s obvious that if the future holds a constant state of alert (will we ever see the terror alert system drop to green or blue for a sustained duration? get real) than logic dictates to combat such threats will require more troop presence around the globe – not less. Note: “more troop presence” does not necessarily mean more wars. In fact, it’s supposed to translate into less chance for war (recall that the mere presence of a policeman is often enough to halt crime from ever occurring).
The first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools shows charter school students often doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools.
The findings, buried in mountains of data the Education Department released without public announcement, dealt a blow to supporters of the charter school movement, including the Bush administration.
How will Republicans respond....? My guess: when they don't like the news item itself, they attack the messenger (in this case, the "pinko" NY Times). I pity these people.
Stumble It!
|
The findings, buried in mountains of data the Education Department released without public announcement, dealt a blow to supporters of the charter school movement, including the Bush administration.
How will Republicans respond....? My guess: when they don't like the news item itself, they attack the messenger (in this case, the "pinko" NY Times). I pity these people.
From Col. David H. Hackworth's web site:
The stalwart Brown Water Navy warriors who fought at Kerry’s side say he was A-OK, which is good enough for me. The muckrakers such as John O’Neill and his Swiftboat snipers – who didn’t sail on his boat but served anywhere from 100 meters to 300 miles away – are now coming off like eyewitnesses when in fact not one of their testimonies would hold up in a court of law. A judge would call these men liars and disallow their biased statements.
I’ve been in a fair number of battles in my lifetime, first fighting for my country in several hot wars, then covering a dozen conflicts as a correspondent. And I’ve learned that if you can’t see the fight right up close, smell it, hear it and touch it, you can’t possibly bear witness.
Stumble It!
|
The stalwart Brown Water Navy warriors who fought at Kerry’s side say he was A-OK, which is good enough for me. The muckrakers such as John O’Neill and his Swiftboat snipers – who didn’t sail on his boat but served anywhere from 100 meters to 300 miles away – are now coming off like eyewitnesses when in fact not one of their testimonies would hold up in a court of law. A judge would call these men liars and disallow their biased statements.
I’ve been in a fair number of battles in my lifetime, first fighting for my country in several hot wars, then covering a dozen conflicts as a correspondent. And I’ve learned that if you can’t see the fight right up close, smell it, hear it and touch it, you can’t possibly bear witness.
Republicans very often like to point to a state’s right to govern over that of federal mandate (e.g. gay marriage, environmental laws, etc.). It will be interesting to see what they have to say, or do, about news that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will help his residents obtain drugs from abroad.
My guess is they will not take kindly to this move (and note it’s a growing movement among states). We all know what happened with the disastrous passed-at-3AM-in-the-morning Medicare bill. The GOP is riddled with big pharma lobby $$$. Get ready to hear more and more groundless hysterics about unsafe drugs from outside the U.S.
This issue classically frames just how much special interest money controls our government and worse yet, how our elected representatives frequently operate against our better interest.
Stumble It!
|
My guess is they will not take kindly to this move (and note it’s a growing movement among states). We all know what happened with the disastrous passed-at-3AM-in-the-morning Medicare bill. The GOP is riddled with big pharma lobby $$$. Get ready to hear more and more groundless hysterics about unsafe drugs from outside the U.S.
This issue classically frames just how much special interest money controls our government and worse yet, how our elected representatives frequently operate against our better interest.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Venezuela President Hugo Chavez -- arch-nemesis and thorn in the side of GW -- apparently survived a popular referendum to oust him, winning the popular vote by nearly a 60/40 margin. With more than 8.5 million votes cast, it smashed the previous record for turnout. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, monitoring the election, said it was the largest turnout he'd ever seen.
I'm not exhaustively apprised of everything having to do with the Chavez/Bush conflict, however my initial reaction is it's a no-brainer that GW & Co. would despise this guy given what he stands for. Chavez is a champion of the poor and he has spent millions of dollars to teach adults to read (compare to GW's bogus No Child Left Behind), brought Cuban doctors to the slums, and granted loans to small farm and business owners. He has banned the cultivation of genetically modified crops, directly knocking out humongo-corporation Monsanto (would GW ever do anything like this??).
On top of this, it at least appears efforts were made to insure this election was a fair one (unlike say in our country in 2000). An electronic thumbprint ID system was used, which due to the sheer number of voters caused the closing of polls to be postponed (you think GW & Co. would've held polls open to insure all voters could vote?). Even Chavez himself initially experienced problems when attempting to vote for himself, having to move to another thumbprint machine.
Again, I haven't done a good deal of reading on Chavez, but if Bush is against him, he can't be all bad.
Stumble It!
|
I'm not exhaustively apprised of everything having to do with the Chavez/Bush conflict, however my initial reaction is it's a no-brainer that GW & Co. would despise this guy given what he stands for. Chavez is a champion of the poor and he has spent millions of dollars to teach adults to read (compare to GW's bogus No Child Left Behind), brought Cuban doctors to the slums, and granted loans to small farm and business owners. He has banned the cultivation of genetically modified crops, directly knocking out humongo-corporation Monsanto (would GW ever do anything like this??).
On top of this, it at least appears efforts were made to insure this election was a fair one (unlike say in our country in 2000). An electronic thumbprint ID system was used, which due to the sheer number of voters caused the closing of polls to be postponed (you think GW & Co. would've held polls open to insure all voters could vote?). Even Chavez himself initially experienced problems when attempting to vote for himself, having to move to another thumbprint machine.
Again, I haven't done a good deal of reading on Chavez, but if Bush is against him, he can't be all bad.
One source familiar with the investigation said Washington had stepped up pressure on Pakistani authorities to turn their latest leads into the capture of more high-level targets before the U.S. presidential election in November.
Stumble It!
|
While soldiers continue to serve their tour of duty in Iraq, the contrast is striking when we look at our president's current "tour of duty," that of his "Ask President Bush" forums. It should be called the "Christian Suck-Up To George" love-in.
Get a load of this bracing "question":
"I'm 60 years old and I've voted Republican from the very first time I could vote. And I also want to say this is the very first time that I have felt that God was in the White House.''
"Thank you,'' Mr. Bush replied, to applause.
This sounds more like a forum that would've occurred for Napoleon!
A nice snippet of truth:
The result is often a love-in with heavily Christian crowds. Mr. Bush relaxes, shows off his humor and appears more human than in his sometimes tongue-tied and tense encounters with the press. He clearly relishes the sessions: As of this coming Wednesday in Wisconsin, Mr. Bush will have had 12 such campaign forums, which is one less than the number of solo news conferences he has had in three and a half years in the White House.
Stumble It!
|
Get a load of this bracing "question":
"I'm 60 years old and I've voted Republican from the very first time I could vote. And I also want to say this is the very first time that I have felt that God was in the White House.''
"Thank you,'' Mr. Bush replied, to applause.
This sounds more like a forum that would've occurred for Napoleon!
A nice snippet of truth:
The result is often a love-in with heavily Christian crowds. Mr. Bush relaxes, shows off his humor and appears more human than in his sometimes tongue-tied and tense encounters with the press. He clearly relishes the sessions: As of this coming Wednesday in Wisconsin, Mr. Bush will have had 12 such campaign forums, which is one less than the number of solo news conferences he has had in three and a half years in the White House.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Today's LA Times has a story about one of the oddest of groups, Log Cabin Republicans, and how they plan to challenge family issues on the party platform.
I realize you can be both gay and for lower taxes (duh); however, what I fail to understand is that when one prioritizes those issues deemed most important, it would seem that the GOP hostile stance on gay issues would by far trump any attraction to a tax break. It's almost as if the GOP is literally buying their loyalty.
Get a load of this naive, pipe-dream statement:
"We are giving President Bush an opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment," said Christopher Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans. "This is an opportunity for the president to make clear that the GOP is a big tent. If there's room in the party for free-traders and protectionists, they've got to make room for us."
The truth:
Political observers say Bush is unlikely to accept the overture from gay Republicans for a unity plank.
By advocating a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, they say Bush has calculated that he would rather risk the votes of the estimated 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for him in 2000 than anger evangelicals who feel passionately about the issue.
Finally:
"There's a growing anger among the 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for the president in 2000 that his campaign is using us as a wedge issue," Barron said.
DUH! What a revelation!
Stumble It!
|
I realize you can be both gay and for lower taxes (duh); however, what I fail to understand is that when one prioritizes those issues deemed most important, it would seem that the GOP hostile stance on gay issues would by far trump any attraction to a tax break. It's almost as if the GOP is literally buying their loyalty.
Get a load of this naive, pipe-dream statement:
"We are giving President Bush an opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment," said Christopher Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans. "This is an opportunity for the president to make clear that the GOP is a big tent. If there's room in the party for free-traders and protectionists, they've got to make room for us."
The truth:
Political observers say Bush is unlikely to accept the overture from gay Republicans for a unity plank.
By advocating a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, they say Bush has calculated that he would rather risk the votes of the estimated 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for him in 2000 than anger evangelicals who feel passionately about the issue.
Finally:
"There's a growing anger among the 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for the president in 2000 that his campaign is using us as a wedge issue," Barron said.
DUH! What a revelation!
Saturday, August 14, 2004
More wise words from the always-wise Robert Reich. His topic this time: Bush's infatuation with blurring the Constitutional line between church & state. I laugh when I hear a Republican invoke the name of a Founding Father, holding them up in such high regard, and yet their man in the White House regularly pisses all over the intent of these gents.
Some nuggets from Reich:
The Bush campaign wants religious groups to enter the political fray -- with costs offset by the federal government.
<...>
The Constitution of the United States prohibits the federal government from enacting laws that promote or establish any religion. That's because the Framers understood the importance of keeping a strict separation between church and state.
<...>
In its eagerness to promote the teaching of creationism in public schools, encourage school prayer, support anti-sodomy statutes, ban abortions, bar gay marriage, limit the use of stem cells, reduce access to contraceptives, and advance the idea of America as a "Christian nation," the Bush administration has done more to politicize religion than any administration in recent American history.
<...>
The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic.
Stumble It!
|
Some nuggets from Reich:
The Bush campaign wants religious groups to enter the political fray -- with costs offset by the federal government.
<...>
The Constitution of the United States prohibits the federal government from enacting laws that promote or establish any religion. That's because the Framers understood the importance of keeping a strict separation between church and state.
<...>
In its eagerness to promote the teaching of creationism in public schools, encourage school prayer, support anti-sodomy statutes, ban abortions, bar gay marriage, limit the use of stem cells, reduce access to contraceptives, and advance the idea of America as a "Christian nation," the Bush administration has done more to politicize religion than any administration in recent American history.
<...>
The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic.
On top of everything else he's doing to make me scratch my head in befuddlement, Ralph is now making anti-Semitic comments?? It's time to seriously question his sanity.
I hate to draw this parallel (yet it's come to that), but this morning I was listening to Air America's "Ring of Fire" show and they were discussing the growing chatter in Washington about Bush's irregular behavior. Many feel he might be "cracking up" or perhaps reverting to non-AA-like behavior. We've all heard about the pretzel incident and his latest fall of the bike, yet I didn't hear this one which was especially baffling:
June 2003: Bush took a spill while testing the Segway at the summerhouse of George Bush Sr. in Maine. A scooter type device, Segway had been introduced as an extremely stable vehicle that was impossible to fall off of. Bush escaped unscathed from the accident. It is still wondered how he managed to tumble from a vehicle which is billed as being impossible to fall from.
November 2nd can't come soon enough.
Stumble It!
|
I hate to draw this parallel (yet it's come to that), but this morning I was listening to Air America's "Ring of Fire" show and they were discussing the growing chatter in Washington about Bush's irregular behavior. Many feel he might be "cracking up" or perhaps reverting to non-AA-like behavior. We've all heard about the pretzel incident and his latest fall of the bike, yet I didn't hear this one which was especially baffling:
June 2003: Bush took a spill while testing the Segway at the summerhouse of George Bush Sr. in Maine. A scooter type device, Segway had been introduced as an extremely stable vehicle that was impossible to fall off of. Bush escaped unscathed from the accident. It is still wondered how he managed to tumble from a vehicle which is billed as being impossible to fall from.
November 2nd can't come soon enough.
Hype over substance.
Sign of the times, at Republican Convention the big networks have chosen to take a pass on McCain and Giuliani in favor of broadcasting Schwarzenegger.
Of course, Republican operatives are fuming, yet no mention by them of the networks enforcing equal time as doled out to the Dem Convention (i.e. they had to make a choice). They scream and carry on as if the networks should cover the entire show, all days, despite not doing the same for Democrats.
Of course, push comes to shove, network honchos are going to select more ratings-friendly Arnold over Rudy or John. I would rather see the latter, but I understand the decision. The Republicans should simply realize & accept that this can happen when you have movie stars run for office.
Stumble It!
|
Sign of the times, at Republican Convention the big networks have chosen to take a pass on McCain and Giuliani in favor of broadcasting Schwarzenegger.
Of course, Republican operatives are fuming, yet no mention by them of the networks enforcing equal time as doled out to the Dem Convention (i.e. they had to make a choice). They scream and carry on as if the networks should cover the entire show, all days, despite not doing the same for Democrats.
Of course, push comes to shove, network honchos are going to select more ratings-friendly Arnold over Rudy or John. I would rather see the latter, but I understand the decision. The Republicans should simply realize & accept that this can happen when you have movie stars run for office.
Congrats to the NY Times -- it's on the improve! Today's paper has an absolute must-read story, as it highlights one of the top-3 reasons Bush/Cheney must be tossed out. It discusses how this administration has insidiously modified and gutted regulations in favor of special interests (read: against you and I), and even more reprehensibly, using the cover of terrorism concern to conduct such changes.
As we have become so obsessed with homeland security, Bush & Co. have worked to maintain and fuel this fear, while they then conduct extensive back-handed revisions to regulations, knowing we're completely preoccupied with anything remotely terrorist related and therefore don't notice. It's like the criminals who blow up a car a few blocks from a bank to create a diversion so they can then slip in and steal every dollar.
Simply revolting.
Just look at this sample:
On the same day, deep within the turgid pages of the Federal Register, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a regulation that would forbid the public release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles, saying that publicizing the information would cause "substantial competitive harm" to manufacturers.
As soon as the rule was published, consumer groups yelped in complaint, while the government responded that it was trying to balance the interests of consumers with the competitive needs of business.
Censoring safety info that is to benefit the public for the sake of "competitive needs of business." Yes, that about sums up what this administration stands for. As I said, simply revolting.
Stumble It!
|
As we have become so obsessed with homeland security, Bush & Co. have worked to maintain and fuel this fear, while they then conduct extensive back-handed revisions to regulations, knowing we're completely preoccupied with anything remotely terrorist related and therefore don't notice. It's like the criminals who blow up a car a few blocks from a bank to create a diversion so they can then slip in and steal every dollar.
Simply revolting.
Just look at this sample:
On the same day, deep within the turgid pages of the Federal Register, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a regulation that would forbid the public release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles, saying that publicizing the information would cause "substantial competitive harm" to manufacturers.
As soon as the rule was published, consumer groups yelped in complaint, while the government responded that it was trying to balance the interests of consumers with the competitive needs of business.
Censoring safety info that is to benefit the public for the sake of "competitive needs of business." Yes, that about sums up what this administration stands for. As I said, simply revolting.
Friday, August 13, 2004
I plan to write much more about this topic (stem cell research) in the near future, but in the meantime here's an excellent op-ed piece by Cheri Gunvalson, a registered nurse, appearing in the Duluth News Tribune.
Stumble It!
|
The Overburdened Middle.
Today's Washington Post:
Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found....
<...>
The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."
Okay Republicans, start your spinning....
Stumble It!
|
Today's Washington Post:
Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found....
<...>
The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."
Okay Republicans, start your spinning....
MichaelMoore.com offers line-by-line factual support for Fahrenheit 9/11 -- six sections worth! Impressive.
Stumble It!
|
Thursday, August 12, 2004
It's one thing for Bush to privately believe this, but for him to say it aloud at a campaign appearance as the sitting president is simply outrageous and astonishing (although not so astonishing given it's GW):
high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."
Stumble It!
|
high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."
The Saudis offer to help in the election (wink, wink). Recall from 60 Minutes:
Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election....
Stumble It!
|
Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election....
With the tons of lies and distortions that have come out of this administration, literally starting with GW campaigning in 2000, it's no wonder Karl Rove is frantically trying to point out any such "lie" he can hang on Kerry. With Bush/Cheney's credibility on anything at ever-declining levels, Rove must feel he has to paint the other guys as bad as us when it comes to deceiving the public.
Whelp, good luck with that Karl, but I have a feeling the American public will realize that in the end, lies and deception will define Bush/Cheney much more so than Kerry/Edwards. You simply can't fight the tons of evidence.
That said, look what we have here. Laura Bush has decided to get in on the act. Her recent pathetic attempt at making the case for her husband concerning stem cell research is something to behold. LiberalOasis has done a great job documenting her dance with the truth.
Stumble It!
|
Whelp, good luck with that Karl, but I have a feeling the American public will realize that in the end, lies and deception will define Bush/Cheney much more so than Kerry/Edwards. You simply can't fight the tons of evidence.
That said, look what we have here. Laura Bush has decided to get in on the act. Her recent pathetic attempt at making the case for her husband concerning stem cell research is something to behold. LiberalOasis has done a great job documenting her dance with the truth.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Kenneth Baer, former speechwriter for Al Gore, is up on The New Republic Online urging Kerry to sue the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT). He makes an excellent point when he states,
That is why if Bush should lose this November, there won't be any honeymoon for Kerry His first few months in office will look like the last years of the Clinton presidency: congressional inquiries, constant talk radio trash-talking, and book deals for anyone with a charge to make. Simply, Kerry can't afford to let the SBVT charges go unanswered if he wants to govern effectively.
That is so true. If Kerry is fortunate enough to withstand the Bush/Cheney/Rove scum attack and win in November, he won't be allowed time to catch his breath before he will be forced to fend off more attacks from the lunatic right.
I don't believe the way in which Republicans mistreated and hated Clinton was so much due to specifically to their hatred towards the Clintons themselves as much as it was a fundamental change in the Republican Party itself. Gingrich, DeLay, and the rest of that regime introduced a new kind of power-hungry, win-at-all-cost type of Republican where moderation was regarded as a sign of weakness. Until a thorough overhauling of the party occurs, the GOP will continue to be a despicable group.
They will work night & day to make a Kerry presidency a living hell -- perhaps even more so than they did to Clinton. As I've mentioned before, it's easy to imagine them doing everything in their power to have the Iraq situation erode and get much worse on Kerry's watch, therefore helping to clear Bush/Cheney from blame and have the public simply persecute Kerry for the sins of the prior administration.
For these reasons and many more, Kerry may understand that being president for the next four years will require as much courage, determination, and sheer willpower as that which he displayed while serving in Vietnam.
Stumble It!
|
That is why if Bush should lose this November, there won't be any honeymoon for Kerry His first few months in office will look like the last years of the Clinton presidency: congressional inquiries, constant talk radio trash-talking, and book deals for anyone with a charge to make. Simply, Kerry can't afford to let the SBVT charges go unanswered if he wants to govern effectively.
That is so true. If Kerry is fortunate enough to withstand the Bush/Cheney/Rove scum attack and win in November, he won't be allowed time to catch his breath before he will be forced to fend off more attacks from the lunatic right.
I don't believe the way in which Republicans mistreated and hated Clinton was so much due to specifically to their hatred towards the Clintons themselves as much as it was a fundamental change in the Republican Party itself. Gingrich, DeLay, and the rest of that regime introduced a new kind of power-hungry, win-at-all-cost type of Republican where moderation was regarded as a sign of weakness. Until a thorough overhauling of the party occurs, the GOP will continue to be a despicable group.
They will work night & day to make a Kerry presidency a living hell -- perhaps even more so than they did to Clinton. As I've mentioned before, it's easy to imagine them doing everything in their power to have the Iraq situation erode and get much worse on Kerry's watch, therefore helping to clear Bush/Cheney from blame and have the public simply persecute Kerry for the sins of the prior administration.
For these reasons and many more, Kerry may understand that being president for the next four years will require as much courage, determination, and sheer willpower as that which he displayed while serving in Vietnam.
Gallup reports that 84% of Republicans approve of Bush's performance versus just 16% for Democrats -- the widest gap in this category in 56 years of tracking it. It helps to point out 1) just how polarized the country is, it's unprecedented (recall, GW The Uniter), and 2) assuming 84% of Dems (inverse of 16%) disapprove of Bush's performance, we have 84% vs. 84% potentially meaning -- as mentioned here before -- that Bush & Kerry are fighting over about 16% of available votes.
It's another reason why a Howard Stern or Ralph Nader influence, for example, truly matters this time around.
Stumble It!
|
It's another reason why a Howard Stern or Ralph Nader influence, for example, truly matters this time around.
Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard repeated a quote attributed to Richard Clarke, where Clarke stated in an email "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," with Hayes attempting to link Clarke’s quote to reasons supporting an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection (despite the 9-11 commission report contending the contrary) and that the Iraq occupation potentially thwarted an escape route for Osama.
I don’t think the correct implication here is that Clarke would have endorsed an Iraqi preemptive invasion – far from it! In fact, Clarke is on record denying as much. Rather, he’d probably recommend other means to insure Osama did not slip away.
And by bombing one country, what stops Osama from simply fleeing to another, such as Iran (which the 9-11 commission report states – unlike Iraq – there was an existing Al Qaeda relationship) or Pakistan, which apparently is the country he’s likely already slipped away to for cover. Do we bomb Pakistan next?
Stumble It!
|
I don’t think the correct implication here is that Clarke would have endorsed an Iraqi preemptive invasion – far from it! In fact, Clarke is on record denying as much. Rather, he’d probably recommend other means to insure Osama did not slip away.
And by bombing one country, what stops Osama from simply fleeing to another, such as Iran (which the 9-11 commission report states – unlike Iraq – there was an existing Al Qaeda relationship) or Pakistan, which apparently is the country he’s likely already slipped away to for cover. Do we bomb Pakistan next?
Shannen Coffin of National Review Online recently asked the question, "Is it unconstitutional for Americans to say 'Shut Up and Sing'?" when it comes to celebrities speaking out politically.
I argue that it's not the threat of boycott by fans that is the problem, but rather it's Slimfast firing Whoopi and the Alladin casino physically escorting Ronstadt out of the building, informing her that she won't be invited back. In other words, the marketplace is not at work in these instances, as Coffin would like to believe, as fans (or consumers) are not doing the firing and escorting. Corporations are making these decisions -- often times at the behest of one person (the CEO) -- not the fans. And as we know, much of this is being driven by corporate cronyism and special interest considerations, and also just simply fear and cowardice.
All evidence points to Howard Stern being fired from six Clear Channel radio stations due to Stern suddenly becoming very anti-Bush and passionately voicing this stance. The top fellas at Clear Channel are well-know Bush buddies. Where do the fans or marketplace fit into this equation? As another example, it's one thing for fans to decide not to buy Dixie Chicks CDs, but it's quite another matter for Clear Channel radio stations (which are many!) to categorically ban their music from the air waves.
Here we have a question of allowing the public to exercise their right of choice as consumers versus just flat-out censorship. Needless to say, they're not one and the same!
P.S. View one more time the prescient film "Network," as it shows Ned Beatty as a CEO of a huge media conglomerate and despite declining ratings for crazy-man Howard Beal, Beatty orders that they keep Beal on the air simply because head-honcho Beatty agrees with the message that Beal is conveying to the public. In other words, the marketplace (nosediving ratings) is voting "no" and yet because the CEO happens to agree with the ideology behind the message, it's "marketplace be damned!" But once Beal goes off course, or off message (ala Howard Stern), the plug is pulled.
Of course, the far right has very little problem with this fact since in general, corporate top brass is by far dominated by Republicans.
Stumble It!
|
I argue that it's not the threat of boycott by fans that is the problem, but rather it's Slimfast firing Whoopi and the Alladin casino physically escorting Ronstadt out of the building, informing her that she won't be invited back. In other words, the marketplace is not at work in these instances, as Coffin would like to believe, as fans (or consumers) are not doing the firing and escorting. Corporations are making these decisions -- often times at the behest of one person (the CEO) -- not the fans. And as we know, much of this is being driven by corporate cronyism and special interest considerations, and also just simply fear and cowardice.
All evidence points to Howard Stern being fired from six Clear Channel radio stations due to Stern suddenly becoming very anti-Bush and passionately voicing this stance. The top fellas at Clear Channel are well-know Bush buddies. Where do the fans or marketplace fit into this equation? As another example, it's one thing for fans to decide not to buy Dixie Chicks CDs, but it's quite another matter for Clear Channel radio stations (which are many!) to categorically ban their music from the air waves.
Here we have a question of allowing the public to exercise their right of choice as consumers versus just flat-out censorship. Needless to say, they're not one and the same!
P.S. View one more time the prescient film "Network," as it shows Ned Beatty as a CEO of a huge media conglomerate and despite declining ratings for crazy-man Howard Beal, Beatty orders that they keep Beal on the air simply because head-honcho Beatty agrees with the message that Beal is conveying to the public. In other words, the marketplace (nosediving ratings) is voting "no" and yet because the CEO happens to agree with the ideology behind the message, it's "marketplace be damned!" But once Beal goes off course, or off message (ala Howard Stern), the plug is pulled.
Of course, the far right has very little problem with this fact since in general, corporate top brass is by far dominated by Republicans.
In an article written a few weeks ago, David Brooks makes some good points about how we will need to shift gears from what we’re normally accustomed to doing diplomatically given the challenges in Iraq. He rightly emphasizes our focus should see them as “primarily an intellectual movement, not a terrorist army” and what is needed is a “new training method to understand people who are uninterested in national self-interest, traditionally defined.”
Yet, his brief comparison to the success of Cold War tactics, as if they might work here, is a bit misleading. He often mentions “ideological” but I would argue “theological” is the operative word in this case. Communism was not religious-based and therefore was much more purely ideological, allowing for a higher success rate for reason & logic (vs. faith & beliefs) to take root and spread. Also, we did not invade and enforce our system on Cold War nations (as compared to Iraq). Communism imploded on its own without firing a missile. To some extent, MTV, the internet, etc., were responsible. Access to images and information can be very powerful.
To grant access to these same things in this case may not work because of the theology element involved. One can figure that where religion, faith, and strong beliefs are involved, resistance to change will be stronger. Western appeal may have to come from other avenues or sources.
Stumble It!
|
Yet, his brief comparison to the success of Cold War tactics, as if they might work here, is a bit misleading. He often mentions “ideological” but I would argue “theological” is the operative word in this case. Communism was not religious-based and therefore was much more purely ideological, allowing for a higher success rate for reason & logic (vs. faith & beliefs) to take root and spread. Also, we did not invade and enforce our system on Cold War nations (as compared to Iraq). Communism imploded on its own without firing a missile. To some extent, MTV, the internet, etc., were responsible. Access to images and information can be very powerful.
To grant access to these same things in this case may not work because of the theology element involved. One can figure that where religion, faith, and strong beliefs are involved, resistance to change will be stronger. Western appeal may have to come from other avenues or sources.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Great op-ed by Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life:
"When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire.
<...>
Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans.
<...>
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.
<...>
This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency....
<...>
....the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam."
Stumble It!
|
"When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire.
<...>
Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans.
<...>
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam.
<...>
This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency....
<...>
....the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam."
If this were a stock, would you buy it?
Current contract on odds of Bush winning in November. Source: tradesports.com
Stumble It!
|
Current contract on odds of Bush winning in November. Source: tradesports.com
Vet retracts criticism of Kerry.
"I'm the one in trouble here.... I knew it was wrong.... In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
Stumble It!
|
"I'm the one in trouble here.... I knew it was wrong.... In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
Catholics can vote for Kerry.
Apparently, the few bishops who threaten to exclude Catholics from Communion if they vote for Kerry don't know much traditional moral theology, which shows what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.
<...>
Moreover, in response to the question "whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand," the bishops did not endorse the policy of the small group of their members who wanted such denial.
Hallelujah.
Stumble It!
|
Apparently, the few bishops who threaten to exclude Catholics from Communion if they vote for Kerry don't know much traditional moral theology, which shows what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.
<...>
Moreover, in response to the question "whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand," the bishops did not endorse the policy of the small group of their members who wanted such denial.
Hallelujah.
How did this guy ever get through Yale, much less accepted into....? (catch the laughter)
Stumble It!
|
Our president:
Do you think Clinton would've ever been elected if the RNC dug up & circulated a photo like this?
Stumble It!
|
Do you think Clinton would've ever been elected if the RNC dug up & circulated a photo like this?
Monday, August 09, 2004
Interesting profile of Sen. Bill Frist. The most revealing part: his critics point out that his major failing is his lack of willingness to compromise (surprise!). He will adamantly focus in on minor issues, despite what many deem as a larger good.
It's educational to learn of an example where Frist did this. The article cites:
Some senators and lobbyists say Frist appears too unwilling to risk setbacks on measures he opposes in order to clear the path for bigger priorities. For example, one of the amendments pushed on the class-action bill would have required many U.S. companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The "climate change" measure's chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said he did not know whether he had enough votes to pass it, but there was only one way to find out. "Someday we've got to learn that you've got to allow votes on things," McCain recently told reporters. "Otherwise we might as well be the House of Representatives."
So, we learn that 1) Frist will remain stubbornly firm on something anti-environmental, 2) despite the fact that a fellow Republican sponsored the legislation! It shows you just how far to the right Frist is and yet how sane & moderate McCain remains, regardless of how far his party has moved to the right.
In addition,
Some advocacy groups complain Frist is too eager to please his party's conservative base. Among the angriest are backers of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, a multinational agreement that seemed within reach of Senate ratification last spring after decades of debates and setbacks. Despite the Foreign Relations Committee's unanimous endorsement, Frist kept the measure from reaching a Senate vote after conservative writers -- most notably Phyllis Schlafly -- attacked it and the White House visibly softened its support.
"This is a complete cave-in to the right wing," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
All the more reason we need a change that goes beyond just the #1 & #2 office holders.
Stumble It!
|
It's educational to learn of an example where Frist did this. The article cites:
Some senators and lobbyists say Frist appears too unwilling to risk setbacks on measures he opposes in order to clear the path for bigger priorities. For example, one of the amendments pushed on the class-action bill would have required many U.S. companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The "climate change" measure's chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said he did not know whether he had enough votes to pass it, but there was only one way to find out. "Someday we've got to learn that you've got to allow votes on things," McCain recently told reporters. "Otherwise we might as well be the House of Representatives."
So, we learn that 1) Frist will remain stubbornly firm on something anti-environmental, 2) despite the fact that a fellow Republican sponsored the legislation! It shows you just how far to the right Frist is and yet how sane & moderate McCain remains, regardless of how far his party has moved to the right.
In addition,
Some advocacy groups complain Frist is too eager to please his party's conservative base. Among the angriest are backers of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, a multinational agreement that seemed within reach of Senate ratification last spring after decades of debates and setbacks. Despite the Foreign Relations Committee's unanimous endorsement, Frist kept the measure from reaching a Senate vote after conservative writers -- most notably Phyllis Schlafly -- attacked it and the White House visibly softened its support.
"This is a complete cave-in to the right wing," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.
All the more reason we need a change that goes beyond just the #1 & #2 office holders.
In catching up with some old reading material, the May 24th The New Republic chastised the NY Times about "exaggerating Bush's bad environmental policies while downplaying the good."
Oh, give me a break. I'm a long-time reader of TNR and I've come to realize that they like to every now and again take a whack at the more liberal establishment to help build "cred," or to help substantiate that they don't blindly align with the left. I get their intention (though I don't completely agree with it; anyone who reads the publication knows that they're one of the most intellectually honest publications out there and they should not have to take deliberate actions to point it out), yet I think the ire directed at the Times is just laughable.
OK, so here we have a president which by all accounts has been THE worst (#1) environmental president in U.S. history, bar none, and yet when he apparently does something pro-environment, he is to be applauded and cheered. Sorry, no. To begin to erase such a horrible record will require many more such mandates. Many.
(And I was surprised to see that the normally-shrewd TNR didn't even at least allude to the fact that perhaps Bush has become recently pro-environmental due to the impending election. To a point, judging a president on election-year legislation is ludicrous).
P.S. case and point: today's NY Times story.
Stumble It!
|
Oh, give me a break. I'm a long-time reader of TNR and I've come to realize that they like to every now and again take a whack at the more liberal establishment to help build "cred," or to help substantiate that they don't blindly align with the left. I get their intention (though I don't completely agree with it; anyone who reads the publication knows that they're one of the most intellectually honest publications out there and they should not have to take deliberate actions to point it out), yet I think the ire directed at the Times is just laughable.
OK, so here we have a president which by all accounts has been THE worst (#1) environmental president in U.S. history, bar none, and yet when he apparently does something pro-environment, he is to be applauded and cheered. Sorry, no. To begin to erase such a horrible record will require many more such mandates. Many.
(And I was surprised to see that the normally-shrewd TNR didn't even at least allude to the fact that perhaps Bush has become recently pro-environmental due to the impending election. To a point, judging a president on election-year legislation is ludicrous).
P.S. case and point: today's NY Times story.
I've talked before about given the degree to which Bush/Cheney lack credibility, and therefore how can anyone honestly embrace their campaign promises as if they'll deliver, here is a partial listing of broken promises.
Stumble It!
|
This whole fiasco in Illinois just has to make any intellectually honest Republican (granted, speaking to few) cringe. Now Mr. Keyes decides to throw his hat in the ring. This after Denny Hastert has stated, "I got down into last week interviewing a 70-year-old guy who was a great farm broadcaster in Illinois.... He decided because of his health problems he couldn't do it." Wow, just pathetic.
So they needed to go outside the state to find someone (Keyes is resident of Maryland). It might just be me but doesn't this say that Illinois is pretty much wrapped up for Kerry?!
As cited at TalkingPointsMemo, Keyes was a very vocal critic of Hillary Clinton running in NY despite not being a resident. He stated then, "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there."
What a joke. These Republicans love to throw around the "flip flopper" term, as if they're immune to it. Here we have exhibit #8,986,566, your honor! Will we hear anything about Keyes flip-flopping? Hah!
As the Washington Post reports, Keyes acknowledged that he "gave no remote thought of coming to Illinois until six days ago" and said he told state party officials last week that when it comes to switching states to run for office, "as a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea."
Illinois newspaper Rockford Register Star has it right when they state, "The whole thing is an embarrassment.... The choice of an out-of-stater makes the Illinois GOP hierarchy a national laughingstock. It sends the message that this scandal-ridden state party organization is in such bad shape that it can't even find a decent candidate from its own ranks."
Stumble It!
|
So they needed to go outside the state to find someone (Keyes is resident of Maryland). It might just be me but doesn't this say that Illinois is pretty much wrapped up for Kerry?!
As cited at TalkingPointsMemo, Keyes was a very vocal critic of Hillary Clinton running in NY despite not being a resident. He stated then, "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there."
What a joke. These Republicans love to throw around the "flip flopper" term, as if they're immune to it. Here we have exhibit #8,986,566, your honor! Will we hear anything about Keyes flip-flopping? Hah!
As the Washington Post reports, Keyes acknowledged that he "gave no remote thought of coming to Illinois until six days ago" and said he told state party officials last week that when it comes to switching states to run for office, "as a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea."
Illinois newspaper Rockford Register Star has it right when they state, "The whole thing is an embarrassment.... The choice of an out-of-stater makes the Illinois GOP hierarchy a national laughingstock. It sends the message that this scandal-ridden state party organization is in such bad shape that it can't even find a decent candidate from its own ranks."
The Bush administration is taking credit for disrupting an Al-Qaeda plot aimed at the November 2nd elections. Great, good to hear. Yet Sen. Biden has stated based on what he has seen (and he is privy to some damn good info!), "I have not seen any hard evidence that there was an active moment that was contemplated in the very near term.... If there was a smoking gun that said we know for certain that was going to occur, I didn't see it."
Look, as I have stated, every American is all for news like this concerning the foiling of potential terrorist attacks (duh!). However, Bush/Cheney have only themselves to blame if when such news is released that many Americans now will hear it with a hugely skeptical ear.
The incompetence and deception now clearly evident when it came to the Iraq war properly places this administration in a highly questionable light. Like the boy who cried wolf, when we are told so many lies and distortions about things even beyond anything having to do with Iraq, who can blame us for not believing everything going forward? GW & Co. did not just squander international goodwill post-9/11, but they also managed to squander any goodwill when it came to the public taking at face value what this administration had to say or report on.
They cannot indignantly respond to such justified skepticism with enraged annoyance ("how dare you think we're playing politics or that we're not telling the truth!"), for they made their bed....
That said, for the record I agree with Richard Clarke when he states, "This has been the best week in counterterrorism since perhaps December 1999 -- the best series of leads, leads going to other plots, leads going to other people, international cooperation." And the reason I agree with it is because Mr. Clarke said it -- not someone within the administration. Until proven otherwise, I can still take on its face whatever Clarke says as truthful, no questions asked.
Stumble It!
|
Look, as I have stated, every American is all for news like this concerning the foiling of potential terrorist attacks (duh!). However, Bush/Cheney have only themselves to blame if when such news is released that many Americans now will hear it with a hugely skeptical ear.
The incompetence and deception now clearly evident when it came to the Iraq war properly places this administration in a highly questionable light. Like the boy who cried wolf, when we are told so many lies and distortions about things even beyond anything having to do with Iraq, who can blame us for not believing everything going forward? GW & Co. did not just squander international goodwill post-9/11, but they also managed to squander any goodwill when it came to the public taking at face value what this administration had to say or report on.
They cannot indignantly respond to such justified skepticism with enraged annoyance ("how dare you think we're playing politics or that we're not telling the truth!"), for they made their bed....
That said, for the record I agree with Richard Clarke when he states, "This has been the best week in counterterrorism since perhaps December 1999 -- the best series of leads, leads going to other plots, leads going to other people, international cooperation." And the reason I agree with it is because Mr. Clarke said it -- not someone within the administration. Until proven otherwise, I can still take on its face whatever Clarke says as truthful, no questions asked.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Reverend GW.
Chris Suellentrop at Slate.com writes about how Bush has been performing a Sunday-morning preacher show of late.
Soon we'll see GW decked out in a white robe, wielding the Bible in one hand and gesturing for the crowd to rise with the other.... I wonder if he passes around baskets, accepting donations?
Stumble It!
|
Chris Suellentrop at Slate.com writes about how Bush has been performing a Sunday-morning preacher show of late.
Soon we'll see GW decked out in a white robe, wielding the Bible in one hand and gesturing for the crowd to rise with the other.... I wonder if he passes around baskets, accepting donations?
You think Florida 2000 can't happen again? Read.
We're the greatest democracy ever on the face of the planet, and yet we just can't seem to get this tricky thing about insuring all votes are counted worked out.
Stumble It!
|
We're the greatest democracy ever on the face of the planet, and yet we just can't seem to get this tricky thing about insuring all votes are counted worked out.
When reading the papers, there's this competition of good & bad cousins going on. For every good story I read about anti-Al Qaeda arrests, investigations, etc. (i.e. the real bad guys), there's at least one, if not more, Iraq-related story (truce over, more U.S. soldiers dead, etc.) that manages to crowd-out what should've been the sole-focus stories if not for the occupation-of-Iraq debacle.
Republicans will insist they're all related (one big, fat war on terror), but they're not. One set refers to that group of terrorists (Al Qaeda) actually responsible for 9-11, and the other set of stories refers to the fallout of a preemptive invasion on false pretense. Remember this distinction when perusing through the daily papers....
Stumble It!
|
Republicans will insist they're all related (one big, fat war on terror), but they're not. One set refers to that group of terrorists (Al Qaeda) actually responsible for 9-11, and the other set of stories refers to the fallout of a preemptive invasion on false pretense. Remember this distinction when perusing through the daily papers....
Thursday, August 05, 2004
I have to give GW this much when it comes to his "official" endorsement of a new national intelligence chief -- yet one without teeth: would have no control over budget, no White House office, no power over personnel and no authority over intelligence operations.
In 2000, Bush made promises only to go back on many of them. He had no problem doing that. Now he faces a second -- and final -- term. Why doesn't he just go along with the 9-11 commission recommendation and state that he will grant this national intelligence czar maximum power (budget control, White House office, etc.)? Then if he wins, he can just negate much of what he promised -- again, like he's done before. Despite what he wants Americans to believe, the last thing this guy does is stand by his promises (although he did promise tax breaks for the rich, and delivered).
And this time around, when he goes back on his promises, what are people going to do? He can't run again (which just further brings up an extremely frightening scenario: a second, and final, term of a president that's been willing to go to extremes and now will have no restraint in the form of voters -- buckle up!).
Stumble It!
|
In 2000, Bush made promises only to go back on many of them. He had no problem doing that. Now he faces a second -- and final -- term. Why doesn't he just go along with the 9-11 commission recommendation and state that he will grant this national intelligence czar maximum power (budget control, White House office, etc.)? Then if he wins, he can just negate much of what he promised -- again, like he's done before. Despite what he wants Americans to believe, the last thing this guy does is stand by his promises (although he did promise tax breaks for the rich, and delivered).
And this time around, when he goes back on his promises, what are people going to do? He can't run again (which just further brings up an extremely frightening scenario: a second, and final, term of a president that's been willing to go to extremes and now will have no restraint in the form of voters -- buckle up!).
@UNITY 2004 convention:
Referring to the moment, now immortalized in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," when Bush refused to leave a group of schoolchildren in Florida for seven minutes after being notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry told the minority journalists: "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to."
Kerry drew a warm response for his speech, with about three out of four standing in applause at one point.
Stumble It!
|
Referring to the moment, now immortalized in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," when Bush refused to leave a group of schoolchildren in Florida for seven minutes after being notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry told the minority journalists: "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to."
Kerry drew a warm response for his speech, with about three out of four standing in applause at one point.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me"
John McCain condemns anti-Kerry attack ad.
It would've been nice to have McCain speak at the Dem convention, given Zell Miller doing so for the Republicans.
Stumble It!
|
John McCain condemns anti-Kerry attack ad.
It would've been nice to have McCain speak at the Dem convention, given Zell Miller doing so for the Republicans.
More evidence that the NY Times has dropped in quality....?
Former Republican Sec. of State in the '80s, George Shultz, attempted to make an economic case for GW in yesterday's NY Times, using the following graph to illustrate his point.
The chart shows GDP growth based on percent change (quarter-over-quarter) and not levels of GDP growth.
I will assume Shultz's expertise is not economics -- and I can understand why. A few flaws exist with his analysis and the way in which he's trying to make his case.
For one, via the rules of mathematics, when you start at a lower level or base, you are going to arrive at higher percent increases. For instance, 10 growing to 15, or a 5 pt. increase, equals a 50% gain. However, the same 5 pt. increase from 50 to 55 equals just a 10% gain. Thus, for the purposes of this graph, recessions, or lower-level points, help both Bush I & II look good.
Beyond that, the truly astonishing feature of the chart -- which Schultz does not point out for obvious reasons -- is that Clinton was able to maintain an extraordinary consecutive years of quarter-over-quarter percent gains. Even I did not realize this fact -- wow, thanks Mr. Shultz! It makes me want to go back in time to look at other presidents to see if this has ever been accomplished before.
In other words, during those eight years, the level of GDP could have been growing, and a line graph would've displayed an upward-slanting line, however the percent change through the years could have diminished (i.e. growth in the growth, so to speak, could have been slowing or decelerating). Again, this gets back to (as I already mentioned) as the economy, or GDP, grows, the subsequent base or level is bigger and thus a larger percent increase becomes that much more difficult in future quarters. However, as you see in Shultz's chart, the GDP line for the Clinton years is not sloping down (which would have been OK as long as the line did not dip below the zero threshold), but rather maintains a steady line in the +2% to +4% range. Clinton was able to grow an ever-increasing-in-size GDP / economy at a near-constant percent-change clip. Again, wow!
I find it a bit depressing that the NY Times would give the "OK" to such an obviously less-than-rigorous presentation of the facts. And yet, I would say that it's likely even more depressing for Republicans that this may be the best that can be done in terms of making the economic case for GW.
But a big "thank you" to Shultz for offering just one more item of evidence showing how superior a president Clinton was! (perhaps this was the "liberal" Times' intention all along?)
Stumble It!
|
Former Republican Sec. of State in the '80s, George Shultz, attempted to make an economic case for GW in yesterday's NY Times, using the following graph to illustrate his point.
The chart shows GDP growth based on percent change (quarter-over-quarter) and not levels of GDP growth.
I will assume Shultz's expertise is not economics -- and I can understand why. A few flaws exist with his analysis and the way in which he's trying to make his case.
For one, via the rules of mathematics, when you start at a lower level or base, you are going to arrive at higher percent increases. For instance, 10 growing to 15, or a 5 pt. increase, equals a 50% gain. However, the same 5 pt. increase from 50 to 55 equals just a 10% gain. Thus, for the purposes of this graph, recessions, or lower-level points, help both Bush I & II look good.
Beyond that, the truly astonishing feature of the chart -- which Schultz does not point out for obvious reasons -- is that Clinton was able to maintain an extraordinary consecutive years of quarter-over-quarter percent gains. Even I did not realize this fact -- wow, thanks Mr. Shultz! It makes me want to go back in time to look at other presidents to see if this has ever been accomplished before.
In other words, during those eight years, the level of GDP could have been growing, and a line graph would've displayed an upward-slanting line, however the percent change through the years could have diminished (i.e. growth in the growth, so to speak, could have been slowing or decelerating). Again, this gets back to (as I already mentioned) as the economy, or GDP, grows, the subsequent base or level is bigger and thus a larger percent increase becomes that much more difficult in future quarters. However, as you see in Shultz's chart, the GDP line for the Clinton years is not sloping down (which would have been OK as long as the line did not dip below the zero threshold), but rather maintains a steady line in the +2% to +4% range. Clinton was able to grow an ever-increasing-in-size GDP / economy at a near-constant percent-change clip. Again, wow!
I find it a bit depressing that the NY Times would give the "OK" to such an obviously less-than-rigorous presentation of the facts. And yet, I would say that it's likely even more depressing for Republicans that this may be the best that can be done in terms of making the economic case for GW.
But a big "thank you" to Shultz for offering just one more item of evidence showing how superior a president Clinton was! (perhaps this was the "liberal" Times' intention all along?)
"If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up." -- from Hannah & Her Sisters (Woody Allen)
Thanks to a caller into the Mike Malloy show for reminding me of this excellent reference. Though the movie came out in 1986, as is often the case with many Woody Allen creations, this line is more timely than ever.
Stumble It!
|
Thanks to a caller into the Mike Malloy show for reminding me of this excellent reference. Though the movie came out in 1986, as is often the case with many Woody Allen creations, this line is more timely than ever.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Bruce Springsteen writes in today's NY Times:
Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."
It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values.
Stumble It!
|
Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."
It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values.
Polls: INDC Journal chooses to show this one (Bush leading 51/47) , but why not this one?
Stumble It!
|
On the environment: bad news, good news.
A key line in Kerry's convention speech: "I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws." Yet, to my shock and dismay, I believe this was the only line in the speech referring to Bush's horrible record on the environment.
As I've written here before, this issue is a low-hanging-fruit, no-brainer winner for Kerry/Edwards to exploit at will. I realize by definition that the Kerry campaign figures they need to take it to Bush/Cheney on those issues where they're similar, not far apart, to better define for voters a choice between the two candidates. By far, the key issue in this regard is Kerry's ability to protect America (war on terror, etc.); thus, he's addressing this matter big time.
However, over the years, the time-tested most important issue to Americans during election time has always been their wallet, i.e. the economy. It's what is closest to them, what is closest to home. But I would venture to say that Americans should care second-most about the environment. I think many do, but I just don't think they realize, consciously, how much they actually do. More and more evidence shows that dirty air is related to an increasing number of deaths -- and unlike say obesity, where we can at least choose not to eat at McDonalds -- it's very difficult to have a choice in breathing (or not).
Ironically, most of the Republicans I know confess to being very-much pro-environment. There's this huge disconnect, which I continue to feel is very exploitable -- for the good of our planet! In this sense, GW is extremely divisive, pitting his corporate polluter buddies against basically the rest of America, but attempting to do so as unnoticed as possible.
Since 9-11, the constant threat of terrorist attack(s) will now very likely be a fact of life. We'll have to do what we can to stop any threat, but the threat will always remain. In the meantime, things that can be done to insure a clean environment are not at the mercy of such uncertainties. We have much more control over how we can act in a pro-environment manner than we do over how we can prevent terrorist attacks. Stopping corporate polluters is an easier task than stopping terrorists, and yet to this end the war on terror is often used as a distracting point to hide such behind-the-scenes, anti-environmental chicanery.
Get angry! Make demands!
Stumble It!
|
A key line in Kerry's convention speech: "I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws." Yet, to my shock and dismay, I believe this was the only line in the speech referring to Bush's horrible record on the environment.
As I've written here before, this issue is a low-hanging-fruit, no-brainer winner for Kerry/Edwards to exploit at will. I realize by definition that the Kerry campaign figures they need to take it to Bush/Cheney on those issues where they're similar, not far apart, to better define for voters a choice between the two candidates. By far, the key issue in this regard is Kerry's ability to protect America (war on terror, etc.); thus, he's addressing this matter big time.
However, over the years, the time-tested most important issue to Americans during election time has always been their wallet, i.e. the economy. It's what is closest to them, what is closest to home. But I would venture to say that Americans should care second-most about the environment. I think many do, but I just don't think they realize, consciously, how much they actually do. More and more evidence shows that dirty air is related to an increasing number of deaths -- and unlike say obesity, where we can at least choose not to eat at McDonalds -- it's very difficult to have a choice in breathing (or not).
Ironically, most of the Republicans I know confess to being very-much pro-environment. There's this huge disconnect, which I continue to feel is very exploitable -- for the good of our planet! In this sense, GW is extremely divisive, pitting his corporate polluter buddies against basically the rest of America, but attempting to do so as unnoticed as possible.
Since 9-11, the constant threat of terrorist attack(s) will now very likely be a fact of life. We'll have to do what we can to stop any threat, but the threat will always remain. In the meantime, things that can be done to insure a clean environment are not at the mercy of such uncertainties. We have much more control over how we can act in a pro-environment manner than we do over how we can prevent terrorist attacks. Stopping corporate polluters is an easier task than stopping terrorists, and yet to this end the war on terror is often used as a distracting point to hide such behind-the-scenes, anti-environmental chicanery.
Get angry! Make demands!
Corporate leaders flocking to Kerry:
Among the Kerry converts is David Bonderman, founder and managing partner of the Fort Worth, Texas, investment firm Texas Pacific Group, who supported Mr. Bush for president in 2000 and earlier for Texas governor.
In an interview from a chartered boat off Italy where he is vacationing, Mr. Bonderman said: "George is a really good guy personally. But his policies are really terrible. And he had an opportunity to bring the country together -- which was his MO in Texas. But for reasons only his psychiatrist would know, he's chosen to do just the opposite as president. He's turning out to be the worst president since Millard Fillmore -- and that's probably an insult to Millard Fillmore."
Ouch! From a fellow good-old-boy Texan no less!
And this from a corporate chairman:
"I think to have big tax cuts when a war is going on is wrong economically," he said, adding, "I've benefited tremendously from the Bush tax cuts. But I don't think it's right."
Stumble It!
|
Among the Kerry converts is David Bonderman, founder and managing partner of the Fort Worth, Texas, investment firm Texas Pacific Group, who supported Mr. Bush for president in 2000 and earlier for Texas governor.
In an interview from a chartered boat off Italy where he is vacationing, Mr. Bonderman said: "George is a really good guy personally. But his policies are really terrible. And he had an opportunity to bring the country together -- which was his MO in Texas. But for reasons only his psychiatrist would know, he's chosen to do just the opposite as president. He's turning out to be the worst president since Millard Fillmore -- and that's probably an insult to Millard Fillmore."
Ouch! From a fellow good-old-boy Texan no less!
And this from a corporate chairman:
"I think to have big tax cuts when a war is going on is wrong economically," he said, adding, "I've benefited tremendously from the Bush tax cuts. But I don't think it's right."
Bush & Co. quickly responded to news reports that the terror alert info was many years old. Yet, the source is "unnamed officials" -- doesn't anyone want to go on record (fear?)?
Of course, nothing has really been cleared up on this topic -- just muddled confusion remains. Example, from Washington Post:
But authorities did not publicly make it clear until yesterday that the information compiled during that surveillance, contained on computer disks and documents seized during raids in Pakistan, was created in 2000 and 2001 or, in some cases, undated. Much of the information was also obtained from the Internet or other public sources, officials said. Authorities issued somewhat conflicting signals yesterday about the timing of the surveillance.
And then this in USA Today:
Although U.S. authorities continue to analyze information, the material does not point to an existing plan of attack, said the law enforcement officials. But the same officials and U.S. intelligence authorities cautioned that the surveillance activity -- although much of it was done three to four years ago -- should not be discounted because al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance.
OK, let me understand. Now we are being lectured about how "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance" and therefore we should embrace such warnings based on seemingly old intel.
Fine. But then how does this square with the now infamous PDB and Dr. Rice's explanation of such? Recall that on August 6th, 2001, Bush (who at the time was set to enjoy the longest presidential vacation in 32 years) was informed of the PDB intel alert titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States," and proceeded to spend 27 days vacationing on the ranch. (Note: this briefing was only one of 40 on the threat of bin Laden that the president received between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, '01).
As recent as May of this year, our National Security Advisor, Condi Rice, is on record stating this Aug. 6th PDB contained "historical information based on old reporting," adding that "there was no new threat information."
OK, now wait a minute. On the one hand, the administration is using as a supporting reason for the recent high-alert status, "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance," and yet just a few months ago, we were to accept from our top national security official quite the opposite (a sort of "chill out, the info was old, relax, no imminent threat was perceived," etc.)....? Which is it? Rice makes the case that "historical" intel is of little urgency or relevance, yet today we learn from officials that such dated info is very relevant and pertinent.
Squirm left, squirm right. Is it any wonder this administration has very little credibility left? Where is Mr. Rove to check the consistency of this stuff?
Stumble It!
|
Of course, nothing has really been cleared up on this topic -- just muddled confusion remains. Example, from Washington Post:
But authorities did not publicly make it clear until yesterday that the information compiled during that surveillance, contained on computer disks and documents seized during raids in Pakistan, was created in 2000 and 2001 or, in some cases, undated. Much of the information was also obtained from the Internet or other public sources, officials said. Authorities issued somewhat conflicting signals yesterday about the timing of the surveillance.
And then this in USA Today:
Although U.S. authorities continue to analyze information, the material does not point to an existing plan of attack, said the law enforcement officials. But the same officials and U.S. intelligence authorities cautioned that the surveillance activity -- although much of it was done three to four years ago -- should not be discounted because al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance.
OK, let me understand. Now we are being lectured about how "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance" and therefore we should embrace such warnings based on seemingly old intel.
Fine. But then how does this square with the now infamous PDB and Dr. Rice's explanation of such? Recall that on August 6th, 2001, Bush (who at the time was set to enjoy the longest presidential vacation in 32 years) was informed of the PDB intel alert titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States," and proceeded to spend 27 days vacationing on the ranch. (Note: this briefing was only one of 40 on the threat of bin Laden that the president received between Jan. 20 and Sept. 11, '01).
As recent as May of this year, our National Security Advisor, Condi Rice, is on record stating this Aug. 6th PDB contained "historical information based on old reporting," adding that "there was no new threat information."
OK, now wait a minute. On the one hand, the administration is using as a supporting reason for the recent high-alert status, "al-Qaeda plans its attacks well in advance," and yet just a few months ago, we were to accept from our top national security official quite the opposite (a sort of "chill out, the info was old, relax, no imminent threat was perceived," etc.)....? Which is it? Rice makes the case that "historical" intel is of little urgency or relevance, yet today we learn from officials that such dated info is very relevant and pertinent.
Squirm left, squirm right. Is it any wonder this administration has very little credibility left? Where is Mr. Rove to check the consistency of this stuff?
Last night, I caught a repeat showing of Bill Maher's show on HBO. Interesting stuff. The guests were Michael Moore (received a standing ovation), and Rep. David Dreir (Republican) and former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell (she's wonderful). In addition, Ralph Nader shows up!
No one needs to remind me at how smug at times Mr. Moore can get (example: "You never saw the seven minutes (of film, GW in classroom) because they don't want our leader to look like a deer in the headlights... Which is actually being unkind to deer"), though he's improving on that front. Yet I feel for him in that regard because often times a snappy reply to a semi-dumb statement or question is staring him straight in the eyes (what is even a semi-bright person to do?). When you watch Dreir aimlessly flapping his lips in a panicked, exasperated attempt to defend Bush/Cheney any way he can, you truly get a sense at how difficult the job is to defend this president and with a straight face no less. The audience is obviously majority-Dem, and Maher has to vocally keep them in line at times (jeers & cheers), yet even he can't help "his good friend" Dreir make even a marginally strong case for GW. Maher looks on at him with this feeling of resigned sorrow ("I did my best buddy!"). Several times, Dreir appears befuddled, often leaning way back in his seat for a bout of relief.
At one point, Dreir goes on the attack and attempts to corner Moore by stating "Fahren. 9-11" contains lies. After Moore asks if Dreir saw the film (he admits "no," audience jeers and laughs), Dreir then begins to describe the scene with a supposed lie, only to quickly be corrected that he has the description of the scene all wrong (uh, perhaps because he didn't see the movie!). Of course, what little credibility Dreir had left up to this point in the show is now lost.
Meanwhile, Kim Campbell offers several very cogent, lucid points, well-reasoned and beautifully delivered. Why can't we get politicians like her?! She all the more makes Dreir look like a true lightweight in our country's political circles.
Throughout the show, Moore ends up repeating an effective refrain. Maher makes the case that "flip-flopping" as directed as a criticism towards Kerry implies that if one were to ever change their mind based on experience, then that's bad (obviously absurd). "The big knock against Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper; because sometime between the ages of 18 and 60, he's changed his mind," Maher says. He goes on, "He went to Vietnam because as a young man, he thought that was the right thing to do. He saw what was going on in Vietnam, came back, threw his medals away, changed his mind. Is it wrong that a guy goes to the slaughterhouse and comes back a vegetarian? Isn't that what thinking people do?"
Maher is indirectly trying to show that what the Republicans excel at are labeling. Better to just tag a one-word label ("flip-flopper," "liberal") then to present a complex, reasoned explanation. They simply want to quickly program their voters, like one would do their Tivo. Kerry volunteers to go to war, goes, is a hero, comes back with a new view. Republicans pronounce this "flip-flopper," or at least Mr. Dreir did a very poor job at making the case otherwise (!).
Anyway, Moore peppers the latter part of the show with rhetorical questions aimed at Dreir: "if I were to become a Republican, would that be a flip-flop, i.e. a bad thing?" In fact, you never hear a peep about Sen. Zell Miller in this regard. I can't recall the last time I witnessed an opposing party office holder speaking at the other party's convention (Democrat Miller will have a prime speaking spot come the Repub. convention). Yet, not one utterance of "flip-flopper" directed at Miller -- obviously because flip-flopping is A-OK as long as you flop to their side. Recall GW ran in 2000 on a no-nation-building pledge as well as his Kyoto agreement flip-flop, to name just a few.
And then Ralph shows up! I urge a viewing of this show.
Stumble It!
|
No one needs to remind me at how smug at times Mr. Moore can get (example: "You never saw the seven minutes (of film, GW in classroom) because they don't want our leader to look like a deer in the headlights... Which is actually being unkind to deer"), though he's improving on that front. Yet I feel for him in that regard because often times a snappy reply to a semi-dumb statement or question is staring him straight in the eyes (what is even a semi-bright person to do?). When you watch Dreir aimlessly flapping his lips in a panicked, exasperated attempt to defend Bush/Cheney any way he can, you truly get a sense at how difficult the job is to defend this president and with a straight face no less. The audience is obviously majority-Dem, and Maher has to vocally keep them in line at times (jeers & cheers), yet even he can't help "his good friend" Dreir make even a marginally strong case for GW. Maher looks on at him with this feeling of resigned sorrow ("I did my best buddy!"). Several times, Dreir appears befuddled, often leaning way back in his seat for a bout of relief.
At one point, Dreir goes on the attack and attempts to corner Moore by stating "Fahren. 9-11" contains lies. After Moore asks if Dreir saw the film (he admits "no," audience jeers and laughs), Dreir then begins to describe the scene with a supposed lie, only to quickly be corrected that he has the description of the scene all wrong (uh, perhaps because he didn't see the movie!). Of course, what little credibility Dreir had left up to this point in the show is now lost.
Meanwhile, Kim Campbell offers several very cogent, lucid points, well-reasoned and beautifully delivered. Why can't we get politicians like her?! She all the more makes Dreir look like a true lightweight in our country's political circles.
Throughout the show, Moore ends up repeating an effective refrain. Maher makes the case that "flip-flopping" as directed as a criticism towards Kerry implies that if one were to ever change their mind based on experience, then that's bad (obviously absurd). "The big knock against Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper; because sometime between the ages of 18 and 60, he's changed his mind," Maher says. He goes on, "He went to Vietnam because as a young man, he thought that was the right thing to do. He saw what was going on in Vietnam, came back, threw his medals away, changed his mind. Is it wrong that a guy goes to the slaughterhouse and comes back a vegetarian? Isn't that what thinking people do?"
Maher is indirectly trying to show that what the Republicans excel at are labeling. Better to just tag a one-word label ("flip-flopper," "liberal") then to present a complex, reasoned explanation. They simply want to quickly program their voters, like one would do their Tivo. Kerry volunteers to go to war, goes, is a hero, comes back with a new view. Republicans pronounce this "flip-flopper," or at least Mr. Dreir did a very poor job at making the case otherwise (!).
Anyway, Moore peppers the latter part of the show with rhetorical questions aimed at Dreir: "if I were to become a Republican, would that be a flip-flop, i.e. a bad thing?" In fact, you never hear a peep about Sen. Zell Miller in this regard. I can't recall the last time I witnessed an opposing party office holder speaking at the other party's convention (Democrat Miller will have a prime speaking spot come the Repub. convention). Yet, not one utterance of "flip-flopper" directed at Miller -- obviously because flip-flopping is A-OK as long as you flop to their side. Recall GW ran in 2000 on a no-nation-building pledge as well as his Kyoto agreement flip-flop, to name just a few.
And then Ralph shows up! I urge a viewing of this show.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Washington Post:
Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.... most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.... "There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
Stumble It!
|
Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.... most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.... "There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
Why is it GW's Homeland Security Dept. can publicly warn that they're considering postponing the November election, and yet we don't hear such similar dire warnings about possibly postponing the Republican convention....? By all accounts, the upcoming convention in NYC should be garnering much more attention in this regard than Election Day. For one, the Republican convention is 2+ months closer to occurring than the November election. But even more so, based on the "credible" threats received over the last few days, where NYC, DC, and Newark, NJ were the suspected targets, and now we're hearing that Al Qaeda is targeting all corporations based in NYC (!), I must ask: where are the sensible calls for possibly postponing the Republican convention -- by Homeland Security, or any other responsible group that is supposed to offer informed, prudent advice in order to protect us?
Could it be that given the political importance of such an event, and all of the planning that has gone into it, the Republicans are willing to risk life & limb to hold it ("Dems had theirs, we must have ours no matter what!")? Or could it be that the terrorist threats all along, while credible, actually had a very remote chance of occurring, and therefore makes one justifiably question the need for the Homeland Security Dept. to even mention any possibility of postponing the November election at all?? (Yet, by doing so conveniently keeps the country in that frozen state of moderate fear -- always favoring the incumbent, i.e. "don't change course now").
I'm sorry but as I see it, if this administration is going to float the idea of possibly postponing the election, than given all of the evidence as we know it, they must also float the idea of possibly postponing the Republican convention. Not doing so just further makes the intent of the former warning look that much more nakedly political.
Stumble It!
|
Could it be that given the political importance of such an event, and all of the planning that has gone into it, the Republicans are willing to risk life & limb to hold it ("Dems had theirs, we must have ours no matter what!")? Or could it be that the terrorist threats all along, while credible, actually had a very remote chance of occurring, and therefore makes one justifiably question the need for the Homeland Security Dept. to even mention any possibility of postponing the November election at all?? (Yet, by doing so conveniently keeps the country in that frozen state of moderate fear -- always favoring the incumbent, i.e. "don't change course now").
I'm sorry but as I see it, if this administration is going to float the idea of possibly postponing the election, than given all of the evidence as we know it, they must also float the idea of possibly postponing the Republican convention. Not doing so just further makes the intent of the former warning look that much more nakedly political.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Here we go again with the flat tax being floated as a viable alternative to the current Byzantine system. Then Steve Forbes, now Denny Hastert.
While there are actually a few things I do like about the flat tax, in the end I must conclude that it has an absolute zero shot of ever getting passed and that said, it then simply becomes an empty symbol used to win over less-realistic (and less-informed) voters.
Look, the fact is before the flat tax has even a smidgen of a chance of ever seeing the light of day in Congress, the first thing that must be overhauled is the degree to which money buys influence in our political system. The special interests & lobbyists have so much power in DC, and so much at stake in the current loophole-heavy tax system, that they will pull out all the stops to keep things as they are. One of many examples for why they will resist change: more than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the GAO recently reported.
And make no mistake, Hastert is absolutely aware of this fact. He realizes this is a no-brainer issue to lob at the Republican base -- and the best kind too. On the one hand, they can trot out examples of high-earning liberal millionaires who pay near zero in taxes under the current system, thus throwing red meat to their ravenous devotees. At the same time, they can divert attention away from their ultra-rich-favoring tax breaks and the resulting deficit, and they can cast a knowing "wink-wink" to their special interest backers, with both assured that the status quo will remain.
C'mon people, we have to wake up & see through this stuff. It's once again their favorite tactic: they want to divert your attention to the left hand, while the right hand does something very different.
Stumble It!
|
While there are actually a few things I do like about the flat tax, in the end I must conclude that it has an absolute zero shot of ever getting passed and that said, it then simply becomes an empty symbol used to win over less-realistic (and less-informed) voters.
Look, the fact is before the flat tax has even a smidgen of a chance of ever seeing the light of day in Congress, the first thing that must be overhauled is the degree to which money buys influence in our political system. The special interests & lobbyists have so much power in DC, and so much at stake in the current loophole-heavy tax system, that they will pull out all the stops to keep things as they are. One of many examples for why they will resist change: more than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the GAO recently reported.
And make no mistake, Hastert is absolutely aware of this fact. He realizes this is a no-brainer issue to lob at the Republican base -- and the best kind too. On the one hand, they can trot out examples of high-earning liberal millionaires who pay near zero in taxes under the current system, thus throwing red meat to their ravenous devotees. At the same time, they can divert attention away from their ultra-rich-favoring tax breaks and the resulting deficit, and they can cast a knowing "wink-wink" to their special interest backers, with both assured that the status quo will remain.
C'mon people, we have to wake up & see through this stuff. It's once again their favorite tactic: they want to divert your attention to the left hand, while the right hand does something very different.
Last week, a caller phoned in to Bill Bennett's radio show (can you believe it? "One Armed Bandit" Bill has a radio show. I believe any right-winger with even remote notoriety has a shot at getting his/her own show), asking how Kerry expected to pay for all he promised Thursday night. Of course, Bennett simply uttered, "excellent question."
Hmm, let's look at this issue. I believe they said the exact same thing when Clinton laid down a national agenda hen he was running for office -- "how is he going to pay for it?" I could be wrong but if memory serves he left office with a near-trillion dollar surplus.
Cut to GW, where he quickly squandered this surplus and now sits atop a near-half-trillion dollar deficit. When GW undoubtedly lays out his goodies for all Americans at the Republican convention, do you think Mr. Bennett will again ask this same question? Me thinks not. And don't forget, many right-wingers have been irked for some time at how Bush has become a tax-cut-&-spend president. It shows the irresponsibility and the degree to which Bush/Cheney will try to win at all cost (deficits? who cares...throw tax breaks at the rich, subsidies at the farmers, tariffs at the steel unions, weaken environmental laws for polluters, etc.).
Stumble It!
|
Hmm, let's look at this issue. I believe they said the exact same thing when Clinton laid down a national agenda hen he was running for office -- "how is he going to pay for it?" I could be wrong but if memory serves he left office with a near-trillion dollar surplus.
Cut to GW, where he quickly squandered this surplus and now sits atop a near-half-trillion dollar deficit. When GW undoubtedly lays out his goodies for all Americans at the Republican convention, do you think Mr. Bennett will again ask this same question? Me thinks not. And don't forget, many right-wingers have been irked for some time at how Bush has become a tax-cut-&-spend president. It shows the irresponsibility and the degree to which Bush/Cheney will try to win at all cost (deficits? who cares...throw tax breaks at the rich, subsidies at the farmers, tariffs at the steel unions, weaken environmental laws for polluters, etc.).
Here's an example of just how "non-crazy" and purposeful these terrorists think. Based on this item, given the entire massive global oil market, Al Qaeda has managed to identify the weakest link in which they can penetrate and potentially wreak havoc.
Stumble It!
|
By the way, I've had the discussion on more than one occasion that NYC (and DC) will continue to be a favorite target for terrorist attacks. I've had some people debate this notion. For whatever reason, they conclude that such attacks are like a lightening strike: once a hit occurs, it's rare to occur at that location again.
Huh? These are cold-calculating people, not non-thinking forces of nature. Recall they attacked the WTC years before the 9-11 attack. Now, we get word that they're targeting -- you guessed it -- buildings in NYC & DC (and Newark, NJ -- which is basically NYC).
While this may appear to be a very minor point, I only feel it portrays how some Americans may think when it comes to terrorists. As far as I can tell, much of the thinking is far removed from how Osama & Co. actually think. It does not take a big leap to guess that terrorists are here to stay and if that's the case, I would urge Americans to at least try to get to know how these "crazies" actually reason. It's too easy (lazy thinking) to just assume that they operate in some loopy, half-assed-planned, evil manner. In fact, our best intel experts are on record stating that what we're dealing with are shrewd, and obviously very dangerous, operatives.
Stumble It!
|
Huh? These are cold-calculating people, not non-thinking forces of nature. Recall they attacked the WTC years before the 9-11 attack. Now, we get word that they're targeting -- you guessed it -- buildings in NYC & DC (and Newark, NJ -- which is basically NYC).
While this may appear to be a very minor point, I only feel it portrays how some Americans may think when it comes to terrorists. As far as I can tell, much of the thinking is far removed from how Osama & Co. actually think. It does not take a big leap to guess that terrorists are here to stay and if that's the case, I would urge Americans to at least try to get to know how these "crazies" actually reason. It's too easy (lazy thinking) to just assume that they operate in some loopy, half-assed-planned, evil manner. In fact, our best intel experts are on record stating that what we're dealing with are shrewd, and obviously very dangerous, operatives.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Inspired by a Chepooka.com post (notice a source for the chart is ultra-conservative Forbes):
Also, this (note the blue donkeys vs. the red elephants):
Wow.
Stumble It!
|
Also, this (note the blue donkeys vs. the red elephants):
Wow.
One thing I notice repeatedly about the far right that I find very disturbing is there is no gray to them, just black & white. There's either right or wrong, up or down, hot or cold -- nothing in between. Everything is framed in stark, strident terms contrasting one thing versus another with hardly any blending or attempts to find a middle ground. In fact, I almost named my blog, "Embrace The Gray."
There are two reasons I believe this to be the case. The first is it's too difficult to ponder the many nuances in the middle; it's much easier (lazy thinking) to quickly lay down the two opposite views and simply pick one. It could also be the case they lack the intellectual capacity to actually surmise what could be in the middle, which most of the time is where the real complexities of an issue dwell (of course, now I'm sounding like an "elite").
The other reason, and more likely, is the gray or "muddled" middle is simply not polarizing enough, i.e. it's boring. The priority of the far right is to excite their base and keep them in a state of anger, with fangs showing, claws slashing. They can't have them consider the many sides of an issue and then choose the most reasonable, i.e. they can't have them consider a topic carefully and afford it the time for introspective thought it deserves. If they allowed for this to happen, they'd likely lose voters and even more so, given the many right-wing TV and radio hosts, they'd lose viewers/listeners. After all, the last thing the far right seems to do is encourage their base to think for themselves.
Here's an example of the above: after Kerry's speech on Thursday, a right-wing radio guy proclaimed that the delegates cannot rightfully cheer for the Band of Brothers on stage supporting Kerry and at the same time be against the Vietnam War. Again, on the surface, this would seem to be a black-and-white logical constant, however that's simply not the case (if you at least think about it for a minute).
It is a completely A-OK stance to support our soldiers that go to war while at the same time not support the war they're fighting. As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight. They had nothing to do with the politics leading up to the decision to go to war; therefore, it's logically consistent that one can support the efforts of our fellow human beings who must do what they're told (or face court martial / jail) while at the same time not support the war itself (due to faulty reasons for being there, political lies & distortions, etc.).
Is this "grayness" to complex for the far right to handle? Likely not. Instead, it simply doesn't fire-up their ravenous base and therefore is of no use to them.
Stumble It!
|
There are two reasons I believe this to be the case. The first is it's too difficult to ponder the many nuances in the middle; it's much easier (lazy thinking) to quickly lay down the two opposite views and simply pick one. It could also be the case they lack the intellectual capacity to actually surmise what could be in the middle, which most of the time is where the real complexities of an issue dwell (of course, now I'm sounding like an "elite").
The other reason, and more likely, is the gray or "muddled" middle is simply not polarizing enough, i.e. it's boring. The priority of the far right is to excite their base and keep them in a state of anger, with fangs showing, claws slashing. They can't have them consider the many sides of an issue and then choose the most reasonable, i.e. they can't have them consider a topic carefully and afford it the time for introspective thought it deserves. If they allowed for this to happen, they'd likely lose voters and even more so, given the many right-wing TV and radio hosts, they'd lose viewers/listeners. After all, the last thing the far right seems to do is encourage their base to think for themselves.
Here's an example of the above: after Kerry's speech on Thursday, a right-wing radio guy proclaimed that the delegates cannot rightfully cheer for the Band of Brothers on stage supporting Kerry and at the same time be against the Vietnam War. Again, on the surface, this would seem to be a black-and-white logical constant, however that's simply not the case (if you at least think about it for a minute).
It is a completely A-OK stance to support our soldiers that go to war while at the same time not support the war they're fighting. As Americans, we will always support our brave soldiers no matter where they go to fight. They had nothing to do with the politics leading up to the decision to go to war; therefore, it's logically consistent that one can support the efforts of our fellow human beings who must do what they're told (or face court martial / jail) while at the same time not support the war itself (due to faulty reasons for being there, political lies & distortions, etc.).
Is this "grayness" to complex for the far right to handle? Likely not. Instead, it simply doesn't fire-up their ravenous base and therefore is of no use to them.
By the way, after a commercial break, this Levin character takes a call from a listener that's critical of his Ben Cohen ice cream indictment/segment and Levin simply says the caller just doesn't get the show, as if there was humor to all of it. Take a look at Levin's oh-so-impressive bio -- does any of it mention anything of comedy? Is there a hint of non-serious credentials? Nope, it comes across 100% serious and high-brow, which would tend to encourage a listener to regard Levin as a serious commentator. They want it both ways: to be taken seriously, but then to also have an easy-out escape hatch.
I've heard Limbaugh do the same thing: when pressed on an idiotic point that appeared on the surface to be serious, presto, he simply proclaims that he's first and foremost an "entertainer," as if this absolves him from any culpability to the many lies and absurd distortions regularly trotted out on his show. Once again, it's the three-card-monte used on the listeners, or sleight-of-hand trickery, but the listeners don't really care whether it's truth or not. They just want hate-filled, "red meat" thrown on the table for them to devour.
Stumble It!
|
I've heard Limbaugh do the same thing: when pressed on an idiotic point that appeared on the surface to be serious, presto, he simply proclaims that he's first and foremost an "entertainer," as if this absolves him from any culpability to the many lies and absurd distortions regularly trotted out on his show. Once again, it's the three-card-monte used on the listeners, or sleight-of-hand trickery, but the listeners don't really care whether it's truth or not. They just want hate-filled, "red meat" thrown on the table for them to devour.
